Fisher owners!! Please be honest...

I have a Catfisher and I unashamedly motor sail all the time . Plenty of room comfort and a nice big deck to lie on and sun . Use sails to keep sun off decks as too hot to walk on also handy when wind in right direction to gain that extra bit of speed and reduce engine revs and perhaps with 25 knots on the beam comfortly achieve over 7 knots with little effort and balance gin and tonics on large deep cockpit seats spitting cherry pips into swirling wake . Engine also keeps fridge going in conjunction with solar panels

Cant be bothered with tacking around the bay . We go straight there

Cheers

Hic Hic Hic
 
Francis Rutter.

The real problem with the Fisher 25 going to windward is not so much that one uses the motor to help sail to windward as the problem of the head seas hitting the rather large and blunt bow which tends to knock all the speed off. I can be doing 5 knots one minute and then a larger wave comes and I am reduced to 2 knots at once. It slowly builds up again of course, but then the process is repeated.
 
Thank you Mr Rutter, that's a helpful answer. Presumably the bluff bow is equally slowed when driven by the engine alone? Thinking down the same lines, at a guess, how far off the wind do you need to steer, before the waves don't slam so obstructively?
 
Twister_Ken said:
Dan - a souped-down Flying Dutchman cruising dinghy last week. A souped up Fisher this. What next
Click to expand...

And I thought a schooner rigged Osprey for singlehanded channel cruising - with a high powered electric auxilliary was on the cards. I was going to sell tickets to view!

Seriously Dan, admire your imagination but a Fisher is what a Fisher is and if you know anything about yacht design (which of course you do, judging from your various ultimate yacht proposals) you will know exactly what it is capable of - and why the moulds are rotting away in Northshore's yard!

BTW there was a series of articles, probably in PBO a few years ago that explained how to make them sail (sort of) - involved long bowsprits and vast additional red material - and that was just to make it tack unaided. Thank goodness you can buy nice big chunky diesels to take all the hard work out of sailing.
 
Welcome Tranona, I always enjoy your input. :eek::)

Yours is a fair comment; in the absence of a well-fed wallet, my dreamy speculation knows few boundaries. (I'm considering junk-rigging the Osprey...) :rolleyes:

But (and I'm assuming your dismissal of the Fishers' long and successful production-run doesn't make you one of their admirers, on account of their comparability to a fat man running?), while I always appreciated that the Colin Archer-inspired hull-form isn't very easily driven, I'm keen to learn just how lousy the upwind performance is!

I'm sufficiently keen to spend weeks under sail alone, not to worry much if the boat doesn't proceed a thousand miles in that time. If the Fishers are reluctant but determined, I still want one; but if they're mule-headed and unpleasant when pushed closer than a close reach, I'll think again.

Of course, I want more than any design can accomplish in the real world. But for an enthusiastic sailor, I'm surprisingly content with an indifferently-performing yacht. Just here, I'm only hoping to establish exactly where and how badly the smaller Fisher designs fall short.

Re your last paragraph...any idea just where that Fisher rig-additions article was? I'd value reading their conclusions. The rather dull pygmy-rig aboard some of Northshore's boats, is amongst the things I'd set about changing soonest...and as you know, I'd much sooner have a bowsprit and running backstays, than an iron tops'l. :D
 
dancrane said:
Welcome Tranona, I always enjoy your input. :eek::)

Yours is a fair comment; in the absence of a well-fed wallet, my dreamy speculation knows few boundaries. (I'm considering junk-rigging the Osprey...) :rolleyes:

But (and I'm assuming your dismissal of the Fishers' long and successful production-run doesn't make you one of their admirers, on account of their comparability to a fat man running?), while I always appreciated that the Colin Archer-inspired hull-form isn't very easily driven, I'm keen to learn just how lousy the upwind performance is!

I'm sufficiently keen to spend weeks under sail alone, not to worry much if the boat doesn't proceed a thousand miles in that time. If the Fishers are reluctant but determined, I still want one; but if they're mule-headed and unpleasant when pushed closer than a close reach, I'll think again.

Of course, I want more than any design can accomplish in the real world. But for an enthusiastic sailor, I'm surprisingly content with an indifferently-performing yacht. Just here, I'm only hoping to establish exactly where and how badly the smaller Fisher designs fall short.

Re your last paragraph...any idea just where that Fisher rig-additions article was? I'd value reading their conclusions. The rather dull pygmy-rig aboard some of Northshore's boats, is amongst the things I'd set about changing soonest...and as you know, I'd much sooner have a bowsprit and running backstays, than an iron tops'l. :D
Click to expand...

Don't think Colin Archer or any of his imitators had anything to do with it. Purpose designed with a nod toward North Sea fishing boats. Like many successful designs it was right for its time. People were still clinging onto the old types (of which there were many in a similar style) but wanted GRP instead of wood. Fishers hit the spot. However times move on and the market is very limited, so once you have mopped up the few people who could afford to indulge, demand dries up.

Several attempts to revitalise it failed as each one became more expensive so limiting the market even further, until eventually the kind thing is to put it to rest. Those who still hanker after them are well served by the used market.

As to how they sail - if you have not worked out yet that they were never intended to sail, but to motor with sails for show or when you are not in a hurry, then maybe you need to spend a bit of time reading up on the basics of yacht design!

Of course many owners will speak kindly of them and some may even persevere with trying to sail them - but your dream of being able to dift around under sail will not be satisfied with one - unless your dream is getting nowhere and wallowing around. Then - of course you remember that nice big Perkins, Sabre or Yanmar just waiting at your beck and call.

Go on press the button - you know it makes sense.
 
Oh dear! I was hoping for hordes of defiant Fisher-owners to be firing salvos of opposing accounts of their boats' surprising abilities. The silence is saddening. :(

No...I'm really not so wilfully blind to aero/hydrodynamics that I'll ever buy a Fisher out of pure self-deluding enthusiasm. I can see why the hefty, long-keeled double-ender is no racer, but I'd hoped they weren't quite so rotten on the wind as you say. I really want a boat that'll sail anywhere; I don't actually care if at times she's slow and hard work, but she must be able to profit a few degrees, by each and every tack. Although that said, I'm equally as keen about old gaff schooners - not the highest pointers.

Interesting, what you say about the Fisher style's appearance and prime of poularity, and gradual expiry from vogue. I hadn't thought of all that, but it makes sound sense. Very sad.
 
Last edited:
Also very true...but, I guess the point is, the reason for my foolish, wishful nostalgia in respect of the Fisher, is that no designer in the twenty-first century, has yet used the advantages of experience and computer-aided design, with the old, unpopular goal of creating a heavier-than-average wheelhouse cruiser. Even though the result could be much less compromised in sailing performance, than existing hulls.

Isn't it likely that a vessel designed today which delivers the same sort of build-integrity and crew-comfort as the Fishers, wouldn't necessarily have to be rated realistically as 80/20 in favour of the engine?

The claim that the Fisher 34's hull form is said to make her a better sailer than her bigger and smaller sisters, suggests that careful tweaking of the design might make it perform a lot better, without altering seaworthiness or solidity.

The Northshore design is as like a big bathtub as any popular yacht afloat...but as soon as designers ever investigate how they may improve weatherliness and lessen drag, the result seems to go far past what was wished for, until sailing ability is fine, but at cost of the pleasant sense of being indoors during gales, frosts and rainstorms.

In the 'nineties, before folding tin-tops were available to prestige convertibles, the costliest rag-top Mercedes Benz came with a 'bolt-on hardtop', which wasn't as hideous as it sounded, and certainly made the vehicle more secure. Granted, such an option aboard any serious sailboat, would require intelligent forethought from the drawing-board up, to avoid being a laughable carbuncle.

I accept 90% of what you say, Tranona, but I absolutely refuse to believe that a genuinely able sailboat, not largely reliant on her diesel, must necessarily be woefully uncomfortable for eight or nine months of each year in UK waters.

We just haven't seen the 'breakthrough' design, yet; it must appeal to the market in the same way the Fisher does, or did - solid and safe and evocatively styled...but not such a slug.

Now: cue dozens of constructors' names: those who've built just what I seek...and could find no market for them... :( :D
 
Last edited:
You're looking at the wrong Northshore models. Their Vancouver 34 and 38 pilot house yots deliver sailing performance, speed, comfort and shelter. No need to try and hot-rod a Fisher, buy Vancouver instead.

0090.-38-Vancouver-38-Pilot.jpg
 
Thanks, good thought. Are they Chuck Paine designs? I always loved 'em, even the little ocean-crossing 27'. I haven't kept up with the larger, later boats. Are they real pilot houses, or just a case of autohelm-on-the-chart-table, and visibility forward limited by slightly-larger-than-letterbox windows, shaped with aerodynamics as top priority?

Very pretty, I concede. And I remember the reassuringly-long-fin keels. I'll look into them.

Anybody know just how much better than Fishers, or how comparable, Nauticat's big wheelhouse ketches are? Sheerest speculation - but SWMBO is playing the lottery this weekend...:)
 
Just pop across to Scandinavia and your prayers will be answered - at a price. Nauticats, Reginas, Nordships, Derego. Just a few off the top of my head that do exactly what you want. There have also been many attempts by UK bulders to build sailing orientated wheelhouse cruisers. Ken has already mention Vancouvers (Robert Harris) Victoria (Chuck Paine), Trident/Voyager (Angus Primrose), various Moodys (Angus Primrose) and Moody Eclipse (Bill Dixon). One could go on - but few have really enjoyed much success because the compromises on an under 40ft hull are just too great.

The best replacement for a Fisher is a Nauticat 331 which sails better, has more accommodation, is better finished and arguably better looking. Available from about £120k for an old well used one to £250k for a new one (not too heavily specced). So lottery ticket required as well as dreams.
 
Oh, my lord...I just took a long look at the Vancouver 34 & 38 on the net. Nice photos. Hard to believe the difference decent pictures make to a yacht's appeal - I can never understand shoddy web-pages for such photogenic products.

The 38 is my new dream-yacht. If that clever-fiddled table sums up the design initiative aboard, I want the whole boat. The layout is cleverly economical but looks luxurious. I don't think the 34 works nearly as well; everything looks uncomfortably slender, to fit in the limited space.

True, I'd prefer a wheel inside; I have trouble seeing push-buttons as a helm. But, thanks Ken, my faith is three-quarters restored.

Cheers Tranona; I appreciate that for all their charm, the Fishers are a bit of a throw-back, and better answers to the questions they solved, are out there already. I'll check the Scandinavians next. :)
 
Nauticat's best kept secret is the Pilot House Range. Worth considering, well built and fitted out but I am biased with a 1994 Nc39! With winds above 10 Knots they sail very well but in light winds tend to use the big engine.

New ones are up in the big lucky 6 number range but there are older ones around.
 
Fisher owners...speak up now, or risk being forgotten!

Good grief, now my head is spinning. That lovely Vancouver 38 wasn't long at the top! I just had a scan through the pics of the Nauticat 39 at Boatshed Hamble. An actual wheel at the inside helm (God, I'm easily pleased) and a table that doesn't need folding at all...and they haven't tried to squeeze accommodation for six into a hull too small. And they've been around long enough to come nearer to affordability...

Any idea how many they've built so far, Schuss39?
 
Not sure of the exact number built between 1993 and 2004/5. The 39 was replaced with the 385. Have a look at www.nauticat.com for the full history.

There were a couple for sale on yachtworld.com when I last had a search. I did look at a 35 before getting my 39 but it was rather tied needing a fair amount of work to get it back up to the mark.
 
The Vancouver 36 - stretched to 38 were Tony Taylor designs - ex-Camper & Nics boss/employee ;) - the 36 was almost equal to the internal size to a Bowman 40!

The 38 Pilot packs in a lot of boat for the size - 3 double cabins and two heads plus decent tankage etc
 
Last edited:
No mistake. And I like how sheltered the cockpit is. And, miracle of miracles - both heads are a decent size, on a sub 40 footer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top