Gypsy Moth IV Around Again

[Aja]

Re: No illusions

Can I suggets that the boat was not spectacular or special, but the man who sailed her was?

I'm sure that there were other, better boats around at the time.

Donald

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

Re: No illusions

Well, two points, really. Maybe three.

Oddly enough, "Victory" was an exceptional ship. She should have been scrapped before Trafalgar (she was already old) but she was rebuilt and refitted at vast expense because, unlike other First Rates, she actually sailed rather well. But I admit that is hair splitting!

She was preserved because she was Nelson's flagship at our greatest victory, but that is no longer the only reason we are glad to have her - she offers all of us an insight into the world of the wooden wall Navy which otherwise we would have lost.

It might not have been possible to restore "Warrior", "Trincomalee" and "Unicorn" without the knowledge gained from "Victory".

"Mary Rose" is interesting as an archaelogical site; she has told us some things that we did not know about the Tudors, and the preservation of the remains is really a side effect of the archaeology.

I am desperately worried about the state of the "Cutty Sark"; I think we may well lose her. That would indeed be dreadful. The "Great Britain" has awful problems with chloride contamination of the wrought iron plates.

Beyond these, and perhaps "Belfast" and "Robin" (which is also in a grim state) I think old ships and boats have to earn their livings, either as a commercial operation like "Waverley" and "Shieldhall" (and good luck to both of them!) or as yachts. "Lively Lady" was rescued from being an exhibit in good time and has reverted to being a yacht, so she may go on for ever. Hiscock's Wanderer III has far more claim to fame than Gypsy Moth IV, and again she is OK as a yacht.

Gypsy Moth is no use as a yacht and was not built to be durable. Let her go.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Once upon a time when I raced other people\'s boats

One particular owner/skipper was always ready to lend the boat to one or more of the crew when it wasn't racing. His philosophy was that unused boats go bad. He would rather she was sailed, cleaned and maintained than left as a target for seagulls, rust and barnacles. If GM is restored then she should be kept sailing, rather than do one circumnav in a blaze of publicity, before being 'museumed' again.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[Aja]

Re: Once upon a time when I raced other people\'s boats

Ken
Totally agree. If this boat is to be targetted, and resureccted, for a 'spectacular' then do it properly where she can be sold on as a proper yacht.

Rip out the accomodation. It will be better to have the yacht as modern as possible to allow her to keep on sailing. Give her a proper up to date sail plan and fittings. Get rid of the handling problem.

If they want to spend the money it must be done with one eye on the future, beyond getting copy for future magazine articles.

Donald

Anyway should this not be discussed on the Classic Yachts Forum?




Donald

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jamesjermain]

Re: Once upon a time when I raced other people\'s boats

There can be absolutely no justification for this project if GM is merely to revert to her present state. The object must be to get her into a seaworthy state so that she can continue sailing after YMs birthday bash and Chichester's anniversary. Once she has completed her circumnavigation we hope and believe she will find a private, or maybe sympathetic corporate owner. Oned way or another she must remain in salt water.

<hr width=100% size=1>JJ

 

[Jacket]

Re: No illusions

Victory was a good ship, but not revelotionary. (And wasn't she 4 guns short of being a First rate?)

You say it yourself. The real reason for preserving her is what she did, and the person who sailed her. Isn't that exactly the reason for preserving GMIV?

Yes, it wouldn't have been possible to restore the other ships you mentioned without her (debatable, but lets leave that for another argument at another time!) but at the time people first started preserving her she was fairly rumn of the mill. GMIV is nothing special now in terms of construction, but in a couple of hundred years she will be.

I agree "Cutty Sark" et al need preserving, but the sort of money that YM is likely to be able to raise is unlikely to be large enough to even make a dent on these large projects.

<Gypsy Moth is no use as a yacht>

I'd have thought she'd make an ideal youth training vessel. Lots of sails to keep them interested, and an open interior into which lots of pipe cots can be fitted.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

Commendable.

I only wish someone would do just that with the "Cutty Sark"! She could so easily have been kept in service as a sail training ship rather than left to rot and disintegrate, as she is doing. The "Waverley" people have the right approach; right now they are calmly building a new hull to transfer all the fittings into!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

Second Rate!

I stand corrected!



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

Re: Once upon a time when I raced other people\'s boats

Thats rather my feeling - though I might not throw in the race sails!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jeremy_W]

Re: Skipper\'s lot

>>>Since the proposed voyage is by the downwind, Trade Wind Route, and Chichester's passage was predominantly to windward through the worse conditions on the planet, some additional down wind and light wind canvas would be desirable.

Surely the Clipper ship route to Australia then back via Cape Horn was predominantly downwind? Wasn't that the reason why Chichester deserted Robert Clark, at that time the finest designer of racing yachts for windward performance, for Illingworth & Primrose? He wanted downwind performance.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Badger]

This seems to have gone very quiet, do you think they have abandoned the idea ?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kimhollamby]

No, definitely not. Irons in the fire so I understand, hopefully some follow-up soon.

<hr width=100% size=1>