Great value 44ft bluewater cruising ketch

[Tradewinds]

Just been browsing Apollo Duck and came across this.

https://www.apolloduck.com/feature.phtml?id=503552

£25k fully equipped pro-built ferro by Windboats.

Seems fantastic value if you want a go anywhere boat that's ready to sail away.

 

[Wandering Star]

That appears to be a genuinely good buy. I once owned a Windboats 40, terrific boat fitted out by the same yard that fitted out Oysters - Landamores I think. There was a forumite who owned a Hedoniste designed steel version by the same designer. If i was looking for a good long distance liveaboard, i'd certainly consider this beast, unfortunately my wife says i'm definitely not looking.

 

[Tin Tin]

Just been browsing Apollo Duck and came across this.

https://www.apolloduck.com/feature.phtml?id=503552

£25k fully equipped pro-built ferro by Windboats.

Seems fantastic value if you want a go anywhere boat that's ready to sail away.

It certainly looks a lot of boat for the money.

However...

1. The age would put me off. Cement absorbs water. It's virtually impossible to conduct non-destructive tests to verify the condition the internal steel/chicken wire.
2. The quoted displacement of 22 tons. You're going to need a stiff breeze to get moving. A GRP boat of similar vintage and size would displace only just a little more than half that. A newer boat even less.

The right boat for the right buyer. But I suspect/fear there will be very few of those.

 

[jeanne]

I think you are confusing the sort of cement used to make lamp posts with the sort of cement used to make boats. Given a sand/ cement ratio of I.5 to one, and a 28 day wet cure of the hull, the finished product is impermeable. The one I built is 35 years old, and there are no signs of problems. The real drawback to ferro cement is the variable standard of amateur contruction. This is not an issue with a boat made by Windboats, who have a good name for sound practice.
And the idea that a heavy boat is bound to be slow is wrong, you just put a big rig on it.
There are advantages to a bit of weight in a cruising boat. A comfortable motion, the fact that no-one has felt the need to skimp on important parts like the rigging and rudder to 'save weight', and the ability to carry stores without affecting the boats performance are some.

 

[drydog]

This may be the yacht that 'ferroboat' was recently asking advice about. If it is then she's a beauty and not a bad price either.

 

[alant]

Just been browsing Apollo Duck and came across this.

https://www.apolloduck.com/feature.phtml?id=503552

£25k fully equipped pro-built ferro by Windboats.

Seems fantastic value if you want a go anywhere boat that's ready to sail away.

Is it insurable?

 

[vyv_cox]

I think you are confusing the sort of cement used to make lamp posts with the sort of cement used to make boats. Given a sand/ cement ratio of I.5 to one, and a 28 day wet cure of the hull, the finished product is impermeable. The one I built is 35 years old, and there are no signs of problems.

Many years ago a colleague of mine was investigating the long-term reliability of offshore concrete platforms. The oldest examples he could find were the WWII defences in the Thames estuary. He went out to one and took core samples from below the water line. The concrete was in superb condition, as good as new, with negligible water content. It was at least 50 years old.

 

[alant]

Many years ago a colleague of mine was investigating the long-term reliability of offshore concrete platforms. The oldest examples he could find were the WWII defences in the Thames estuary. He went out to one and took core samples from below the water line. The concrete was in superb condition, as good as new, with negligible water content. It was at least 50 years old.

IIRC, in the 60/70's they were marketing ferro as the go anywhere material, which gets stronger with age, able to run onto a reef without a problem, easy to repair if holed, etc. Seemed like magic material, so why the reticence if built professionally?

 

[BrianH]

1. The age would put me off. Cement absorbs water. It's virtually impossible to conduct non-destructive tests to verify the condition the internal steel/chicken wire.

I think you are confusing the sort of cement used to make lamp posts with the sort of cement used to make boats. Given a sand/ cement ratio of I.5 to one, and a 28 day wet cure of the hull, the finished product is impermeable. The one I built is 35 years old, and there are no signs of problems. The real drawback to ferro cement is the variable standard of amateur contruction. This is not an issue with a boat made by Windboats, who have a good name for sound practice.

I am impressed that you have yourself have built a ferro-cement boat, something I nearly did in my impecunious youth, but Tin Tin does have a point about the difficulty of verifying the quality of construction.

No doubt after many years if she has clearly survived normal usage, has a fair, smooth hull form with no rust streaks, the integrity is likely to be satisfactory. But, I dunno, a survey is still problematical.

I suppose some indications can be given by chipping away the inner plaster in random sections to expose the mesh and inspect the layup by x-ray, but there can be a lot of inaccessible, lurking problems.

I do not share your sanguine belief in professionally-made craft, corners can be cut by them too and control is just as difficult. There's nothing wrong with a properly constructed ferro-cement boat, for as they say, it's really a steel boat with cement to keep the water out. But how to know if it was properly constructed?

 

[Tranona]

Windboats (who built the hull in question) were at the time considered the top dog in ferro construction and hulls were built to Lloyds standards under supervision. So arguably this boat stands a better chance of being sound compared with a home built hull.

 

[ferroboat]

Is it insurable?

Yachtmaster insurance Services Ltd of Woodbridge Suffolk specialise in insuring ferrocement boats.

 

[BrianH]

Windboats (who built the hull in question) were at the time considered the top dog in ferro construction and hulls were built to Lloyds standards under supervision. So arguably this boat stands a better chance of being sound compared with a home built hull.

I do not know what "Lloyds standards under supervision" means for ferro-cement, I can only assume that it does not specify how the mix is applied. That is because, in 1971, I stood at low tide on the rock scar that runs out east of Whitby harbour and held a specimen of the hull of a Windboats Endurance 35, tested to destruction when she was pounded to rubble on a rising tide two days previously. The section I held was a complete fragment of the topsides above the turn of the bilge, torn away in its entirety from between the steel ribs, both external to internal skins - they flapped open and closed, hinged on their attached mesh; there being no bonding between them, the hardened cement surface could be seen on both inner sides with a distinct gap between them indicating they had been separately applied both from inside and out.

Now perhaps that is of no structural consequence for a Lloyd's classification and it certainly had no relevance to the wrecking. However, in the textbooks I consulted when contemplating a self-build for myself, the need was stressed to pour the mix internally and to vibrate through to the outer skin for fairing off in one application, thus allowing no voids and thereby ensuring full hull integrity.

That advice was, of course, for amateur builders, perhaps the professionals had found such a demanding technique unnecessary .... ???

 

[alant]

I do not know what "Lloyds standards under supervision" means for ferro-cement, I can only assume that it does not specify how the mix is applied. That is because, in 1971, I stood at low tide on the rock scar that runs out east of Whitby harbour and held a specimen of the hull of a Windboats Endurance 35, tested to destruction when she was pounded to rubble on a rising tide two days previously. The section I held was a complete fragment of the topsides above the turn of the bilge, torn away in its entirety from between the steel ribs, both external to internal skins - they flapped open and closed, hinged on their attached mesh; there being no bonding between them, the hardened cement surface could be seen on both inner sides with a distinct gap between them indicating they had been separately applied both from inside and out.

Now perhaps that is of no structural consequence for a Lloyd's classification and it certainly had no relevance to the wrecking. However, in the textbooks I consulted when contemplating a self-build for myself, the need was stressed to pour the mix internally and to vibrate through to the outer skin for fairing off in one application, thus allowing no voids and thereby ensuring full hull integrity.

That advice was, of course, for amateur builders, perhaps the professionals had found such a demanding technique unnecessary .... ???

That Endurance 35, was the star boat at Earls Court & I remember seeing it outside.
From memory, ran aground, but just left boat to keel over when tide dropped, with no protection for the Hull. Photographs at the time, showed a beach filled with large round topped stones, which presumably made the pounding when the tide returned, particularly concentrated point loading. The article I read, suggested that some filled sail bags, or inflated liferaft would have prevented this damage.

 

[BrianH]

That Endurance 35, was the star boat at Earls Court & I remember seeing it outside.
From memory, ran aground, but just left boat to keel over when tide dropped, with no protection for the Hull. Photographs at the time, showed a beach filled with large round topped stones, which presumably made the pounding when the tide returned, particularly concentrated point loading. The article I read, suggested that some filled sail bags, or inflated liferaft would have prevented this damage.

I strongly doubt that anything could have buffered the pounding as she began to float.

The owner, a new Whitby yacht club member, bought that actual boat show model and took delivery as soon as it could be launched from the east coast and sailed north for Whitby. He arrived to the east of the entrance at night on a falling tide and, being new to the area and without local knowledge, put her aground on the shallow, flat rocks that run far out on that side. The tide also runs at up to 5 knots over those shallows, which can be confusing, especially at night - remember, all this was long before GPS.

Whitby, unusually for the north-east coast, faces due north and vessels approaching from the south can be misled to take a direct line towards the east pier extension instead of keeping well out and the outer buoy to port, when the entrance channel will bear due south.

Whatever the conditions this would have all the potential of a major problem on the flood in such an exposed area and on solid rock substrate when inevitably there would be some pounding when beginning to re-float, but worse, the change of tide brought an on-shore wind. Pounding on her bilge with the resulting waves on the shelves of rock she soon pulverised that area, started leaking then breaking up.

Below is a half-tide view, in calm weather conditions, of the grounding location between the east pier and the Saltwick Nab promontory. The wreck lay near where a large boulder is shown in the surf, centre left. The entire area is of flat, boulder-strewn rock shelf.

 

[drydog]

Ref that endurance wreck.
Apart from steel constructed. I expect most boats would have ended up in the same condition irrespective of construction material.

 

[BrianH]

Ref that endurance wreck.
Apart from steel constructed. I expect most boats would have ended up in the same condition irrespective of construction material.

Fully agree, only a well-built steel craft would have had a chance to survive the battering of being lifted and dropped continuously on solid rock ground, which would continue for at least an hour, probably longer. Even then it would be conditional of anchors laid to seaward to haul off at every moment of lift; on that flat rock substrate, difficult to ensure a secure holding. The Endurance had no such preparation and stood no chance, each incoming breaker would drive her further ashore - while still afloat, that is.

When I first started sailing at Whitby in the early 1960s, I did so with a Wayfarer and for the longer races crewed for a friend with a cruising folkboat. Once we were moored up in Scarborough harbour having arrived the evening before the next day's race, against the wall on a falling tide. Repairing to SYC for light refreshment we returned much later when the yacht had settled on the bottom at low tide and turned in. In the early hours I was awakened by an almighty crash, the boat was beginning to lift and drop on the returning tide while at the same time a stiff, southerly was driving small waves through the narrow harbour entrance. The impact of the keel on sand and mud was incredible, the mast shook at every impact - I can imagine that the effect on rock would have been disastrous, and they were only small waves. As it was, my friend removed the log transducer, flooded the boat until she settled again on the bottom until the water was high enough to pump out and float above the impact point.

The Endurance would have stood no chance on the flood tide because the on-shore wind was bringing substantial waves. The photo below shows the effect of a northerly gale to the east of the pier - it was nothing like that then but bad enough on a part of the coast that has been a graveyard of ships since man first put to sea.

 

[ferroboat]

It certainly looks a lot of boat for the money.

However...

1. The age would put me off. Cement absorbs water. It's virtually impossible to conduct non-destructive tests to verify the condition the internal steel/chicken wire.
2. The quoted displacement of 22 tons. You're going to need a stiff breeze to get moving. A GRP boat of similar vintage and size would displace only just a little more than half that. A newer boat even less.

The right boat for the right buyer. But I suspect/fear there will be very few of those.

It never ceases to amaze me how self styled experts on this forum can sound off, with such authority, on a subject they obviously know absolutely nothing about. The boat in question was mine.

1. Ferrocement boats do not absorb water. Non-destructive tests to verify the condition the internal steel/chicken wire, were carried out by Martin evens, yacht surveyor, twice during my ownership.
2. on the trial sail for the new owners we sailed at 5.5 knots in 16 knots of wind.
3. As to your suspicion/fear of there being very few prospective buyers, In the 3 weeks that it was necessary to run the advert, we had 8 serious enquirers, and the first person who flew out to view her, bought her, offering the asking price.

 

[rogerthebodger]

I
Non-destructive tests to verify the condition the internal steel/chicken wire, were carried out by Martin evens, yacht surveyor, twice during my ownership.

Could you give me some info on how and what kind of Non-destructive tests where carried out as I have a ferro boat as well and my steel boat.

My ferro boat had suffered a lot of corrosion of the internal steel in some places which I have chipped out and repaired.

 

[ferroboat]

Could you give me some info on how and what kind of Non-destructive tests where carried out as I have a ferro boat as well and my steel boat.

My ferro boat had suffered a lot of corrosion of the internal steel in some places which I have chipped out and repaired.

Unfortunately No, I have given the Surveys to the new owners so i am unable to look it up. Is your ferrocement boat factory or home built?

 

[Sandyman]

It never ceases to amaze me how self styled experts on this forum can sound off, with such authority, on a subject they obviously know absolutely nothing about.

They knows a lod about anchors & badderies my ansome