Golden Hind 31

[oldmanofthehills]

I re-engined both our last two boats. The Navigator was very pleased with reliability power and quietness and I spent less time in the bilges dismantling them while she steered, sometimes happy sometimes her fretting that we would not be able to push the tide up to our mooring or counteract the cross current at harbour. Recent Beta 25 was £5000 just for engine but a bit of a so and so to fit due to hull being moulded for something horrid - a Bukh 20. Previous 3YM30 was £5000 fitted 4 years ago. A Beta 30 would be a bit more

There is pleasure in getting something to good order, and happily I have few other expenses except to prop up grown children and buy beer.

 

[Laminar Flow]

The displacement is not far out. Mine came in at just over 6 tons on the crane without the mast compared with 5.26 tons on the design. As I have explained almost all boats had the standard rig, A few of the last Erskine built boats had the 4' taller mast, one very early Hartwells boat has been retrofitted with the Urry 36' rig that came the boats he built to RDC Cat A but I think only the last one he built for himself (which he has just sold ) had the very tall rig.

Your observations about actual sail areas are correct. I shall know actual sail area when Kemps have deigned my main, but the genoa has some overlap - I shall have it measured. Pretty sure it will sail OK by the time I have got it sorted!

Interestingly, and courtesy of Wing Mark, Mr Urri's GH weighs in at 7.2 t with taller rig, extra ballast and high end fit-out. I should not be surprised if she were to weigh in at 8.5 t loaded to go somewhere.
SA/D should be around 16 (unfortunately no SA available in the add, but could be around 600, all considered).

 

[Tranona]

Interestingly, and courtesy of Wing Mark, Mr Urri's GH weighs in at 7.2 t with taller rig, extra ballast and high end fit-out. I should not be surprised if she were to weigh in at 8.5 t loaded to go somewhere.
SA/D should be around 16 (unfortunately no SA available in the add, but could be around 600, all considered).

Yes, Mark put tons of teak in the boat - watched him do it. To my mind OTT for the boat. He built 3 for himself. The first was in the 1970s from a n Erskine wooden hull and deck which he fitted out himself to a higher standard than Terry was doing at the time, a GRP one when he first bought the moulds. This was also more modern in fitout then the last all bells and whistles one. I sailed with him in the first one first cross channel trip the same year 1980 as I bought my poor man's version, Tranona.

Erskine yachts were considered really up market at the time, but in reality they were very basic and in many ways even crude as I am discovering - even though it had an individual Lloyds certificate at build! They ran their course in the early 80s when much better boats like the Moody 33 and Westerly 33/36 came on the market appealing to budding world girdlers. Less money, more accommodation better finished and just more attractive. Build was labour intensive as Mark found out and the "kit" market fell away as people realised that there were no real savings and 3-4 years' hard graft was needed to complete a boat that size. unlike the 70s decent boats became available ready to go at relatively modest cost.

What you can't forget is the huge reputation the boat gained in the 70s and 80s for ocean cruising, particularly Americans arriving in Devon to pick up their boat and after a few lessons from Terry sailing off into the sunset. OK so there were only a few that met that stereotype - I met a couple at the time, but i have a list of about 50 or so boats that did sail of with couples or family crew, and there are a few still doing it.

 

[Tranona]

You have to want a GH with a nice engine.
You will struggle to buy one with a nice engine.

If you sell it in say 5 years, it should attract a premium, if there is a buyer out there who also wants a GH with a nice engine.
Meanwhile , you've had 5 years of yacht ownership with no grief from old engines, and the assurance of having more power.

I think the worst thing to do is buy a boat with a poor engine, make do with it for a few years, be forced to replace it at big cost and then sell the boat shortly after.
All of the cost and little of the benefit.

But predicting the future value of any boat is dubious, more so with a boat which (trying to be polite here...) isn't going to appeal to all that many people.

So long as a buyer understands what it's going to cost and isn't relying on getting too much back, where's the problem?

There are two on Apolloduck for £20k (each!!!)

I wonder what this one went for?:
SOLD - 31ft. GOLDEN HIND, BERMUDIAN MASTHEAD CUTTER - the last example built, as new condition - Lying: France - Classic Yacht Brokerage

Actually most of them do have good engines now - I have looked at about 10 for sale in the last year and the only decent one with a doubtful engine was the one I bought!. I bought it in preference to one of those on Apolloduck which did have a very good Beta 30. The GRP hull and price were major factors and I think for the budget I have in mind it will end up the better boat.

I have been through the re-engine bit before with my Eventide and many of the issues we solved then are relevant to this one. The problem has been keeping me busy for the last week looking at the options. My dilemma is that the engine (a "bitza" Perkins/Volvo) is not the ideal engine, being a bit too big both physically and power wise plus it is not well installed and looks a mess. I was hoping to replace it with a newer secondhand Volvo but unlike when I first started looking 6 months ago are now rare as hens teeth. Flirted with new, but cost just gets too high for the value added (in all senses). So current plan is to take it out, have look inside and if OK refurbish it and put it back in properly. Spend the money saved on things that will add value for me. I am in the fortunate position that money is not an issue - I will spend what I think will be good for me. However does not mean I shall not look closely at every item of expenditure where I have choices!

 

[Wing Mark]

...

What you can't forget is the huge reputation the boat gained in the 70s and 80s for ocean cruising, particularly Americans arriving in Devon to pick up their boat and after a few lessons from Terry sailing off into the sunset. OK so there were only a few that met that stereotype - I met a couple at the time, but i have a list of about 50 or so boats that did sail of with couples or family crew, and there are a few still doing it.

Actually that's 40+ years ago now and sliding into the mush of history along with Chay Blyth's first boat. The number of people wanting to buy a boat for those reasons drops every year.

 

[Tranona]

Actually that's 40+ years ago now and sliding into the mush of history along with Chay Blyth's first boat. The number of people wanting to buy a boat for those reasons drops every year.

Agreed. The decline in this for this purpose started in the 1980s as we became richer and bigger and better boats became more affordable. However as we see regularly here there are till people looking to go off long distance with modest budgets and the GH is still worthy of going on the list. Many of the ones I looked at could be prepared for serious cruising on a budget of £30k or so and a bit of hard graft.

 

[Laminar Flow]

The reasons for choosing an older design can be manifold, quite aside from any romantic attachment someone may have to a particular style or time.

The first argument could be availability: there are simply not that many choices available for contemporary new builds in and around the 30' and sub 30' range, and very few that that incorporate the qualities necessary for long distance cruising. Some types of boat and with certain features may not be currently available, at least not at a price.

Secondly, there is the economic argument. No matter the cost of of upgrading an old boat, especially if the owner has some skills and irrespective whether it involves a new engine, sails or interior upgrades & renovations, the result will be considerably cheaper than any new build and quite possibly, considering the financial outlay, of better quality and with an option for bespoke, individualized solutions.

The much vaunted argument for the supposedly always and infinitely superior (overall) performance of new designs doesn't really hold much water either, certainly not in the 30' and under category and definitively not when it comes to any pretense at serious cruising.
With new and better sails, improved rigs, lighter & more powerful engines and sophisticated materials for a refurb, these old boats can have performances that the owner of the original model, and quite possibly their designer, could only have dreamed of. One might well find that the real world difference is marginal at best.

There are folk who, on this and other fora, spend much time wringing their hands and decrying that there are no good boats anymore. Well really, there are quite literally thousands, if that is where your mind is. A bit of imagination, elbow grease and, compared to a new build, little investment and you can have any which one you like.
If not for downright practical reasons, or the soulless constraints of finance, it could even be something you dreamed of as a youngster.

The nearest new build to our current boat would cost, IMRC, 450,000.- (Sterling). We haven't even approached a tenth of that (over regular maintenance, of course) and we have, over time, renovated her, re-engined, re-rigged & new sails, added numerous mod-coms and made significant modifications to improve performance.
We could sail circles around the original model and, quite probably, around the new 450,000.- replacement option as well.
At just over 30', she has met our needs perfectly in regards to comfort, maintenance, seaworthiness, load carrying capacity and performance; In every way she continues to exceeded our expectations.

 

[whaup]

The reasons for choosing an older design can be many fold...
The much vaunted argument for the supposedly always and infinitely superior (overall) performance of new designs doesn't really hold much water either, certainly not in the 30' and under category and definitively not when it comes to any pretense at serious cruising.
...

What does this ("modern boats have better performance") actually mean?
When people say modern boats perform better... do they mean that they regularly exceed hull speed? If so, is that a good thing in a cruising boat?
..or do modern boats achieve hull speed more often? In less wind? More comfortably? All of the above?

Thanks,
W.

 

[Laminar Flow]

What does this ("modern boats have better performance") actually mean?
When people say modern boats perform better... do they mean that they regularly exceed hull speed? If so, is that a good thing in a cruising boat?
..or do modern boats achieve hull speed more often? In less wind? More comfortably? All of the above?

Thanks,
W.

There is absolutely no doubt that boats have gotten lighter over time and initially the weight saving was put into increasing ballast ratios. This made a boat stiffer and, conversely, this allowed an increase in SA and consequently the boat would be faster. Alas, a high ballast ratio on it's own has comparatively little effect on initial stability, which is, as far as sail power is concerned, where it is at. So then boats were made wider. First in the middle until it became apparent that dynamic stability was not equal to hydrostatic, when the displacement wave trough in the centre made that belly kinda ineffective. So then we made the sterns wider, which increased dynamic stability (well, the hydrostatic as well). This allowed the designers to increase SA (further) while decreasing the ballast ratio to a minimum and the boats became faster again. The clientele liked the increased volume. This progress came with a few down sides as well, such as a significant shift in the centres of flotation when heeled, creating an imbalanced hull that required quite some technical trickery to make it go where it was pointing.

Hull speed is not the fixed point many imagine it to be. The lighter the boat, the more likely it will exceed this "hull speed" and if light enough with sufficient power, surf of even plane, providing the buttock lines are suitably flat.

The two things that dominate speed/performance potential are: Displacement/length ratio and Sail area/Displacement.
The first pretty much determines the maximum speed that can be expected from a boat, the second whether a boat has sufficient power to reach said speed.
The easiest way to reduce D/L, is to make a boat longer on the DWL while maintaining weight and contemporary boats are longer on the DWL for any given length overall and beyond, are also simply getting bigger.
The second ratio simply describes the amount of power the sails can generate to overcome resistance. (Form or wave making) resistance is of course directly related to displacement. The ability to carry sail depends on stability and this is where the cat starts to chase it's own tail. More displacement requires more sail to drive it, but more displacement doesn't necessarily increase stability. Modern boats have been optimized for maximum (initial) stability and, at times, at the cost of everything else.

Are heavy boats slow? A cruising boat is essentially a freighter, required to transport crew, supplies and gear, to provide a lesser or greater degree of autonomy for a given period of time. In my neck of the woods, all,attempts at building a light displacement freighter, including fast catamaran car ferries, have been fraught with failure. The smaller the boat, the more difficult it will be to achieve a low D/L. A light boat may simply not be able to carry the required/desired amount of load, not without significantly impacting performance or overloading it's structure and rig.
In this context it is best to view a heavy cruiser, and in terms of speed, as a closed system. It is common to design a boat to reach "classic" hull speed in the back part of a F4. Whether a boat be heavy or light, they will both reach this speed at the same time given the same SA/D ratio.
At this point the lighter boat with a shallower resistance curve may, under ideal conditions, exceed this speed for short periods of time and have a higher top speed. The heavier boat, all things being equal, will actually be faster in light winds. This assumes of course that both hulls have sufficient stability to carry their sail.
There are ways to reduce resistance at "higher" speeds for heavy displacement boats by increasing CP (prismatic coefficient). This, however, comes with a slight speed penalty at the lower speed end and increasing the fullness of the ends, in this case the bow, will have an impact on windward performance.

In practical terms: our boat displaces, nominally, 8.17 t on a DWL of 28.25'. This gives us a whopping D/L of 350, at full load of 8.5t one of 360.
We carry 770 sqft of sail for a SA/D ratio of about 18. Our official "hull speed" is 7.12 kts. CP is 0.60 which denotes an "optimum" speed of 6.64 kts (normal would be 0.54 to 0.58).

In real terms, we reach hull speed at 16 kts on a beam reach in flat water, 18 kts if its lumpy. We have often sustained 7.5 kts, 7.8 kts for short periods,
8 kts when catching a wave. This is as good as it gets at the top end.
In light going we perform nicely and have passed much lighter and supposedly faster boats, its just not going to happen to windward. We start sailing at the mid to bottom end of a F2.
Speed, as a cruiser, is important and I happily invest a lot of time to make our tub perform as well as possible. We have averaged 6 kts over a couple of hundred miles and 6.8 over half that distance.

Hope this helps.

 

[whaup]

Thanks, Laminar, that's very interesting... FWIW my "new" boat is at the heavier end (D/L ~315, light)... So, if I understand (and perhaps oversimplify), a modern design with a much lower D/L would be "quicker", in that it should accelerate more quickly (if there's enough sail up and RM to counter it) and also go a bit faster up to the point where both a light and heavy boat start to hit hull speed...(at which point it's more likely to be able to surf or even plane).
The downside being a hull that's more affected by wave action and wind changes- hence needing more active engagement to keep making progress and potentially being less relaxing to spend time on, as the motion will be quicker.

I wonder if a motoring comparison could be drawn between a Sports Car- nippy, entertaining, quick and a GT car- powerful but more directional and with a more supple ride. Both are capable of covering ground quickly but the sports car will be more fun on a shorter, more challenging road; whereas the GT would be less tiring after a long, fast drive...?

Are "light modern" boats better suited to marina-marina daysails or overnights, where the sharper performance is more exciting and the crew can rest up easliy between jaunts, perhaps, with more "heavy traditional" designs being more comfortable during longer passages and/or more exposed waters, putting lower demands on the crew?

Thanks,
W.

 

[Blueboatman]

Sailed on this one a few times
And jolly nice it is/was too
The owner replaced a lister with a beta.
The boats helm could be left untouched and she would sail a perfectly straight line !

Golden Hind 31 | Brighton Boat Sales

 

[Laminar Flow]

The two major types of resistance that govern performance are form or wave making resistance and frictional resistance. Wave making resistance is directly proportional to displacement, frictional resistance to the wetted area and the smoothness of the hull.
Plotted on the same graph, you will see that at lower speeds up to a relative speed of 0.7 both types rise gently and near parallel to one another. At a relative speed of around 1, form resistance shoots up exponentially, though for the lighter boat this latter part of the curve will be shallower. Frictional resistance continues to rise as well but it is comparatively linear.
The result is that the heavier boat needs more power or SA to reach "hull speed" with an ever diminishing return, but at the lower part of the curve this same boat has, compared to the lighter one, an "excess" of power and therefore will be faster in low wind conditions.

The generally accepted average (relative) speed for sailing craft is 0.9. In this context there will be little difference between a heavy and a lighter boat, all else being equal. As you said, the lighter one might accelerate a little quicker in the gusts, but overall the real difference will be insignificant.

The question of comfort is a matter of water plane loading and a heavier boat will have greater inertia and, correspondingly, slower accelerations in a sea way.
A crew may find this ride to be more comfortable. To use your car analogy: it would be the difference between a harder sprung vehicle and a softer, more comfortable ride.
However, in this context weight in itself is not the only factor, but also the shape of the underwater part of the hull where flatter sections can promote slamming. A heavy hull may also suffer from lack of dampening volume in the ends, particularly when of very fine form, which has a detrimental effect on speed and comfort as well. Additionally, many older shapes with pinched ends and slack bilges can be susceptible to pronounced rolling when sailing down wind.

The matter is a little more complex than simply heavy = comfortable or heavy = slow, there are many different factors to consider. As always, it is best to avoid extremes.


Resistance curve for a heavy boat, followed by one for a lighter vessel.

 

[Laminar Flow]

The boats helm could be left untouched and she would sail a perfectly straight line !

As is one of the benefits of a narrower, more easily balanced hull.

 

[Blueboatman]

As is one of the benefits of a narrower, more easily balanced hull.

Aye to that .
When I had a fife design ( 40 feet of knackered pine ) I could make it run dead downwind , jib poled out, with just a bungee on the helm each way .
Corribee would sail itself to windward better than I ( and that was with factory junk sail )
Pearson fin and spade design would fly round in circles as soon as you let go of the helm until I shifted the rake of the spade rudder and fitted exotic headsails with decent luff tension . Then it almost looked after itself ugh most of the time ?
Most every boat can be persuaded to behave … eventually ?

 

[Tranona]

Sailed on this one a few times
And jolly nice it is/was too
The owner replaced a lister with a beta.
The boats helm could be left untouched and she would sail a perfectly straight line !

Golden Hind 31 | Brighton Boat Sales

That is much the same as mine except it has a dinette and V berths forward whereas mine has a single wider berth forward and lockers on the port side - same original upholstery soon to be replaced by 9hopefully) tasteful denim fabric. Good example of how Terry developed the interiors. Most 78/9 boats like mine used formica "teak" panelling as also used in Moodys at the time whereas this boat has the nicer sapele veneered ply. Galley and chart table the same except mine does not have a coolbox. White painted bulkheads and panels were used on some boats and thinking of doing some on mine. Engine is a rather odd Perkins which seems to run well and still weighing whether it is worth changing to a more appropriate engine. Biggest change in propulsion will be a Featherstream prop and a modified rudder with greater area and some balance as used in the last couple made in the early 2000s.

The directional stability is one of the things I am looking forward to after 20 years of fin and spade rudder, although my current Bavaria 33 is much better than average in this respect, one of th e reasons I chose it.

 

[WoodyP]

Actually that's 40+ years ago now and sliding into the mush of history along with Chay Blyth's first boat. The number of people wanting to buy a boat for those reasons drops every year.

That would be a Kingfisher 30 I think. Mine is as solid as ever thanks, certainly not mushy.

 

[Lucy52]

As has been mentioned above, 20 HP is too small for the boat. I saw Francis Fletcher when she was for sale in Brighton, as I recall she had been re-engined with a Beta 25. I had no money at the time, but later bought Katy Louise which is powered by a Nanni 29.