Hurley 22 new engine

[Nick Vass]

How easy would it be to fit an inboard engine in a Hurley 22?

Going back to the original question, which was,"how easy is it to fit an inboard engine in a Hurley 22?"

The answer is not too difficult, no more so than many other small yachts and worth doing if you like the boat and want to keep it.
The Hurley 22 is a great little yacht. Good looking and has stood the test of time. In my opinion, it could be called a classic.

Worth spending money on if you like it. If you don't then don't buy one.

 

[Seajet]

Yes I agree. It would be better value and a lot easier to buy a Hurley 22 with a decent inboard engine rather than to source and fit one yourself.
The engine new would cost around £3k plus the cost of an engine panel, electrics, extra battery, engine mounts, bearers, propeller shaft, stern tube, stern gland, 'P'-bracket, propeller, sacraficial anodes etc. Even if you fit it yourself you are still looking at least £4,000.00 in all.

The problem is that you can buy a nice Hurley 22 for that. Ones with inboards are rarer so perhaps budget £6,000.00 plus for a decent one with a decent inboard such as a Yanmar 1GM10.

This makes fitting a new diesel to a Hurley 22 un-economical.

Another option would be to buy a Hurley 22 with a worn out inboard. Perhaps one with a Stuart Turner, Vire or Dolphin petrol or a worn out Petter etc. Then fit a re-conditioned Yanmar 1GM10

Fin keel 22s are easier to fit inboards to and they don't need 'P'-brackets.

Thinking outside of the box. Electric drive. Electric motors can be cheap if you buy the correct type and know where to get them. Marine electric motors such as Mastervolt or Vetus can be expensive but there are cheaper ways if you are or know a boffin (I'm not but I know several).
The motors are the cheap bit but batteries can be very expensive and you will need a power source to replace the power that you have used.

Electric power is ideal if you have a pontoon mooring with power to recharge the batteries and only use the motor to get in and out of the river/harbour.

Regards
Nick Vass

I test sailed a Hunter Ranger 23 for someone recently, the well is so far offset that it becomes a bit of a calm water only job; but Graham seems not to have any trouble fitting a 4 stroke outboard.

I hadn't realised the well on the Hurley is so bad, but you're forgetting another important factor when comparing the boats; sailing performance in the rough stuff.

An inboard in a Hurley is nowhere near amidships - that sort of thing is the preserve of some 1970's half tonners etc - just 'closer to the middle than an outboard on the end'...

I once sailed back from Bucklers Hard to Chichester into a stiff real F6+ at a conservative estimate, we beat a new Rival 34 so after that the owner forever greeted me with " I hate that boat ! "

Ken had previously owned a Hurley 22 and was amazed by the Anderson, he said a Hurley would have been stopped dead in its' tracks.

He was no slouch of a sailor, he took the Rival all over the Channel and had been National Champion on the Enterprise dinghy.

Electric propulsion...

A while ago the ex-M.D. of Andersons ( who still has the production moulds ) and I seriously thought about making new boats.

I was very keen to have electric propulsion, and had some serious chats with the man from Torqeedo.

To cut a long story short it proved not to be viable; to carry sufficient battery capacity one would have to incorporate it into the ballast, which might well suit a traditional long keel design but not an Anderson or Hurley 22.

 

[Nick Vass]

I test sailed a Hunter Ranger 23 for someone recently, the well is so far offset that it becomes a bit of a calm water only job; but Graham seems not to have any trouble fitting a 4 stroke outboard.

I hadn't realised the well on the Hurley is so bad, but you're forgetting another important factor when comparing the boats; sailing performance in the rough stuff.

An inboard in a Hurley is nowhere near amidships - that sort of thing is the preserve of some 1970's half tonners etc - just 'closer to the middle than an outboard on the end'...

I once sailed back from Bucklers Hard to Chichester into a stiff real F6+ at a conservative estimate, we beat a new Rival 34 so after that the owner forever greeted me with " I hate that boat ! "

Ken had previously owned a Hurley 22 and was amazed by the Anderson, he said a Hurley would have been stopped dead in its' tracks.

He was no slouch of a sailor, he took the Rival all over the Channel and had been National Champion on the Enterprise dinghy.

Electric propulsion...

A while ago the ex-M.D. of Andersons ( who still has the production moulds ) and I seriously thought about making new boats.

I was very keen to have electric propulsion, and had some serious chats with the man from Torqeedo.

To cut a long story short it proved not to be viable; to carry sufficient battery capacity one would have to incorporate it into the ballast, which might well suit a traditional long keel design but not an Anderson or Hurley 22.

The engine of the Hurley Tailwind was properly amidships as the yacht had a centre cockpit. The old Dehler 38 and the Feeling 286 also had engines above the keel with a GRP engine cover with saloon table on top. Both had aft cabins. Otherwise yacht design has to be a compromise. In that getting the engine as far foward over the centre of gravity as possible. A Hurley 22 with an inboard is a good step towards that.

A typical 70s 'half-tonner' could be the Elizabethan 30 (9 Metre). They had engines under the companionway steps, in the conventional place, just like a Hurley 22 with inboard.

A bit of friendly banter between Anderson 22s and Hurley 22s is one thing but you can hardly compare either to a Rival 34.
Both the Anderson and the Hurley have design issues and defects/imperfections so lets just leave it there without getting touchy or defacing one or the other.

So, did the owner of the new Rival 34 sell it and buy an Anderson 22?

 

[Seajet]

Nick,

some of the racier boats of the 70's had the engine above the keel and little else down below; I have a feeling the Shamrocks might have been an example but it's a long time since I was on one.

Of course Ken, the owner of the Rival 34, didn't buy an Anderson 22 but he never stopped being amazed, and saying so; sadly he is sailing a cloud now so I can't exactly ask him to come on here !

I'm surprised the Hurley is that much heavier, I used to have figures on most boats to mind but that's all fading...

The 22R I knew didn't seem like a heavy boat, then it had a diabolical Dolphin engine and not much else; the A22 is supposed to be 2,500lbs but will be considerably more with the junk one adds, not that I'm saying that's a good thing !

 

[Nick Vass]

Hurley 22 is 3,900lb

Considerable heavier than an Anderson 22 of 2,500lbs

The ballast of a Hurley 22 is 2,300lb which is almost as much as the displacement of an Anderson 22

The Hurley 22

Principal approximate dimensions* and parameters:

L.O.A. 22’ 6.7m
L.W.L. 17’ 5.18m
Beam 7’5’’ 2.26m
Draft fin 3’9’’ 1.12m
Draft bilge 3'0" 0.91m
Ballast 2,300lb 1,040kg
Displacement 3,900lb 1,770kg
Sail area 240ft2 22.2m2
Year of construction circa 1966 to 1991
Builders Hurley Marine Ltd, South Coast Marine Ltd, Plymouth, Ravensail Marine Ltd Okehampton and finally Hurlwind Yachts Ltd of Crediton
Designed by Ian Anderson
Engine 6 to 8-hp outboard motor or inboard petrol or diesel
Accommodation four berths in one cabin

*All the dimensions listed are approximate and taken from manufacturer’s brochure.

 

[Seajet]

Hurley 22 is 3,900lb

Considerable heavier than an Anderson 22 of 2,500lbs

The ballast of a Hurley 22 is 2,300lb which is almost as much as the displacement of an Anderson 22

The Hurley 22

Principal approximate dimensions* and parameters:

L.O.A. 22’ 6.7m
L.W.L. 17’ 5.18m
Beam 7’5’’ 2.26m
Draft fin 3’9’’ 1.12m
Draft bilge 3'0" 0.91m
Ballast 2,300lb 1,040kg
Displacement 3,900lb 1,770kg
Sail area 240ft2 22.2m2
Year of construction circa 1966 to 1991
Builders Hurley Marine Ltd, South Coast Marine Ltd, Plymouth, Ravensail Marine Ltd Okehampton and finally Hurlwind Yachts Ltd of Crediton
Designed by Ian Anderson
Engine 6 to 8-hp outboard motor or inboard petrol or diesel
Accommodation four berths in one cabin

*All the dimensions listed are approximate and taken from manufacturer’s brochure.

Nick,

any clues as to what made the Hurley 22 so heavy ?

The Anderson 22 is / was quite a heavily laid up boat, especially around the bottom.

Designed by Oliver Lee - of Squib/Tracer and Hunter 19/Europa, 701 fin and lift keel,partly involved with his hands tied on the Anderson 26, various others I can't mention off hand !

Anderson 22

LOA 21'9"

LWL 19'3" ----though I have a deep distrust of the 'waterline length 4 X 1.4 square root of wetted length' theory as I've seen it disproved often, the long overhangs and significantly shorter waterline length of the Hurley - a slightly earlier design - may be indicative.

Beam 7'7" but a lot less at the level waterline, small skeg and a big now since 1978 ( and particularly home built boats like mine where one had the chance to fit 'mega-stuff' ) very strong spade rudder, solid 1 piece iroko raised on a one piece stainless pintle for taking the ground.

Just as a matter of interest, there are 6 Anderson 22's at my club alone, but I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a Hurley 22.

I do intend this to be a discussion not an argument, and I remember Margaret...Rules ? going around the world in a Hurley 22 ?

Have a very Merry Christmas,

Andy

 

[LittleSister]

some of the racier boats of the 70's had the engine above the keel

As it happens, so does the Hurley 22 inboard! (The keel's a long fin, mind.)

 

[Pleiades]

Hurley 22 power

Hi Seajet - my experience of the Hurley 22 comes from 10 years cruising the Western Approaches in one in all weathers and seasons. Simply a wonderful little seaboat. I loved that 60% ballast ratio on many occassions when looking up at big seas. I moved up to it from a Caprice - the Hurley was a far superior vessel in all respects. It was a long fin Ravensail professionally built boat fitted from new with the Yanmar 1GM. I would go as far as to say that if I was downsizing I would like another Hurley but I would not consider one at all unless it had an inboard diesel. (Something like a 1GM - not a Dolphin which I always thought of as a bit of a heap.) As another of our correspondents points out I must be mad - but I would certainly pay more than £6k to get a good one. The Anderson 22 is a fine little ship - but different - faster, lighter and I think an outboard would suit her well. But for the long fin Hurley 22 the inboard was the business.

Robin
Pleiades of Birdham
MXWQ5

 

[Seajet]

Hi Seajet - my experience of the Hurley 22 comes from 10 years cruising the Western Approaches in one in all weathers and seasons. Simply a wonderful little seaboat. I loved that 60% ballast ratio on many occassions when looking up at big seas. I moved up to it from a Caprice - the Hurley was a far superior vessel in all respects. It was a long fin Ravensail professionally built boat fitted from new with the Yanmar 1GM. I would go as far as to say that if I was downsizing I would like another Hurley but I would not consider one at all unless it had an inboard diesel. (Something like a 1GM - not a Dolphin which I always thought of as a bit of a heap.) As another of our correspondents points out I must be mad - but I would certainly pay more than £6k to get a good one. The Anderson 22 is a fine little ship - but different - faster, lighter and I think an outboard would suit her well. But for the long fin Hurley 22 the inboard was the business.

Robin
Pleiades of Birdham
MXWQ5

Robin,

a genuine thanks, info from someone who knows !

A few Anderson 22's had inboards, ranging from the Dolphin 2 stroke ( stop then start the other way to get reverse, should have been sponsored by Youtube ! ) through Yanmar 1GM's to BMW's, though it really defeats the purpose of the boat; good lightweight outboards such as Mariner 5hp 2-strokes are still easy to find, and an A22 owner in the Irish Republic recently bought one brand new; no idea of the import regulations to here...

An inboard also takes up very useful stowage space, on the Anderson 22 ( I say 22 as there's also the 26, though only about 16 were built ) at least it makes the difference between being able to stow an inflatable below under the cockpit, or not.

I'm intrigued by the 60% ballast ratio, I know it works out lower in real life due to the junk we all carry, but on the face of it isn't anything over 50% carrying extra weight ?

The A22 is around 44% before junk, which with form stability and a moderate rig makes her very stiff.

I've never as far as I remember sailed alongside a Hurley 22 in stiff weather, but it would be interesting; if it should happen while I remember this thread I promise I'll take pics and give an unbiased report !

 

[LittleSister]

An inboard also takes up very useful stowage space, on the Anderson 22

It doesn't have the same impact on a Hurley 22. You lose the storage space under the cockpit with an inboard, but you gain a BIG lazarette which is otherwise the outboard well.

 

[Nick Vass]

Robin,

a genuine thanks, info from someone who knows !

A few Anderson 22's had inboards, ranging from the Dolphin 2 stroke ( stop then start the other way to get reverse, should have been sponsored by Youtube ! ) through Yanmar 1GM's to BMW's, though it really defeats the purpose of the boat; good lightweight outboards such as Mariner 5hp 2-strokes are still easy to find, and an A22 owner in the Irish Republic recently bought one brand new; no idea of the import regulations to here...

report !

The Republic of Ireland is part of the EU and so the RCD regulations covering boat engines are the same as ours.

Small two-strokes don't comply with the RCD due to emisions. Some big two-strokes do comply but not small ones as far as I know.

There are several small two-strokes on eBay from China and the builders say that they have CE certs but they would be just made up. All they have to do is to declare that it complies as the mechanism to check is pathetic.

There is little in the way of checks made should you buy a two-stroke as the UK authorities have little understanding of the Recreational Craft Directive RCD. The Department for Business Innovation and Skills told me frankly that they have too few resources and time to investigate issues concerning yachts, boats and the RCD.

I reported on a new 31 Cat A (Ocean going) yacht (built during 2011) that the dealer of was concerned that it was defective. I inspected it and found a lot of faults, some of which were serious and which would have meant that the yacht did not satisfy the requirements of the RCD. I complained that the yacht should not have been signed off by the Notified Body that was given the task of checking its type. The builder told me that the yacht that they presented was “even worse than this one” and that had been signed off. The Notified Body failed to note the serious defects; one was that the gas locker drain hose was missing! My report shamed the builder into modifying the yacht and repairing all of the defects, which took a lot of time and money but my compliant to our UK government about the Notified Body whose name was on the yachts certificate of Declaration of Conformity with the RCD has so far got nowhere.

The Department of Skills, Innovation and Enterprise simply forwarded my email of complaint directly the Notified Body! Who then said that the yacht was a prototype and wrote directly to me threatening me if I complained too much. Another email to our government demanding that all sister ships are recalled for safety checks and modifications was ignored. The Notified Body also forwarded my email of complaint, which was forwarded to them without my consent, to the yacht building company, whose owner personally sent me a threatening email telling me to stop.

The yachts UK dealer worked hard to ensure that he was selling a well made and safe product, he should be commended and has acted correctly but the European Notified Body, the yachts builder and our UK government have acted shamefully as potentially dangerous yachts are still out there unchecked. The yacht was NOT a prototype as it was being sold as a standard production yacht and my client paid good money for it. It is hull number three which means that No 1 and 2 plus later built boats that were sold carry the same potential defects.

The Notified Body, that is based in a central European Country in the first world failed in my opinion to properly supervise and check the essential safety requirements of this yacht type. They don’t have to check and sign off each one but had checked the first sample yacht offered up for inspection (“even worse than this one”) and missed so many defects.
Last year I reported a used boat dealer to Trading Standards as the CE plate in the cockpit looked fraudulent. The boat was an American Sea Ray 27 but the CE plate had Bayliner 255 on it. The dealer refused to show me the builder’s certificate and certificate of declaration to the RCD which confirmed to me that it was a grey import and would not comply with the RCD. It looked as if he had just robbed a CE plate off another boat and stuck it on with double-sides as it was not even level. The complaint to Trading Standards fell on deaf ears and I simply advised my client to not buy the boat. The above has happened to me lots of times BTW.

Boats and engines sold new within the EU must have a certificate of conformity with the Recreational Craft Directive. This certificate must be signed by the builder who declares that it complies with the relevant ISO standards which apply to that engine, boat, yacht or fridge. The certificate must also carry the four digit identity number of the Notified Body, whose task it was to check that it conforms. This number must also be on a small CE plate or sticker that is stuck onto the engine, fridge or in the cockpit of the boat. Without these two items dealers can’t sell the product.
However, it is rumoured that the Chinese use a similar logo to the CE mark that they call the Chinese Export mark. I have not seen one myself but I understand that it was designed to look very similar.

In other words, and to get back to the question. If you are an individual and want to buy a two-stroke outboard for use on your own boat there would be no one to stop you as no one in officialdom would understand the rules and laws and no one would bother you. You can't sell it legally though!

Nick Vass

 

[Nick Vass]

You can buy old stock two-strokes

 

[machurley22]

There's always been confusion on the 'net about the Hurley 22 numbers. This SailboatData page shows a drawing which includes a label describing the ballast as "IRON .714 TONS" which is 1600lbs and would make the rest of the boat 2300lbs, the exact opposite of the data panel on the same page where the ballast is stated to be 2300lbs.

I did bring this up on the Yahoo group some years ago but no-one seemed to be able to resolve the matter. I've always been more inclined to believe the drawing which would make the ballast ratio 41%.

 

[Seajet]

It doesn't have the same impact on a Hurley 22. You lose the storage space under the cockpit with an inboard, but you gain a BIG lazarette which is otherwise the outboard well.

What are your chances of stowing an inflatable in the lazarette then ?

 

[Seajet]

There's always been confusion on the 'net about the Hurley 22 numbers. This SailboatData page shows a drawing which includes a label describing the ballast as "IRON .714 TONS" which is 1600lbs and would make the rest of the boat 2300lbs, the exact opposite of the data panel on the same page where the ballast is stated to be 2300lbs.

I did bring this up on the Yahoo group some years ago but no-one seemed to be able to resolve the matter. I've always been more inclined to believe the drawing which would make the ballast ratio 41%.

machurley,

that sounds much more realistic.

 

[LittleSister]

What are your chances of stowing an inflatable in the lazarette then ?

Excellent, I would have thought. I had the outboard well version, so I don't know exactly what the 'replacement' lazarette arrangement was, but you could certainly fit an inflatable in my outboard well if there wasn't already an engine in it.

 

[LittleSister]

There's always been confusion on the 'net about the Hurley 22 numbers. This SailboatData page shows a drawing which includes a label describing the ballast as "IRON .714 TONS" which is 1600lbs and would make the rest of the boat 2300lbs, the exact opposite of the data panel on the same page where the ballast is stated to be 2300lbs.

I did bring this up on the Yahoo group some years ago but no-one seemed to be able to resolve the matter. I've always been more inclined to believe the drawing which would make the ballast ratio 41%.

It doesn't solve the conundrum, but if you look closely at the drawing it says '0.74 tons', not '0.714'. What may be mistaken for a '1' is part of a pecked vertical line (simlar to ones forward and aft of it). The text about the ballast is in thicker pen than the lines.

 

[Seajet]

I love this forum; now people are discussing the thickness of lines on drawings !

If anyone wants them I have the A22 outfitting drawings on disc, available to owners, but the Hurley drawings sound more like external designer jobs ?

It's great to see a similar sized boat with a good fan-base; I suspect in a relatively short time we're going to see increasing demand for sensible seaworthy boats which can go on affordable half tide moorings !

 

[Nick Vass]

There's always been confusion on the 'net about the Hurley 22 numbers. This SailboatData page shows a drawing which includes a label describing the ballast as "IRON .714 TONS" which is 1600lbs and would make the rest of the boat 2300lbs, the exact opposite of the data panel on the same page where the ballast is stated to be 2300lbs.

I did bring this up on the Yahoo group some years ago but no-one seemed to be able to resolve the matter. I've always been more inclined to believe the drawing which would make the ballast ratio 41%.

The drawing that Sailboat Data.com use is not one that I supplied them with.

They have made a couple of mistakes in the description too. They might possibly have got the drawings off a Hurley 700 brochure.

There are a lot of Hurley 700s in Holland, Baltic countries and in USA and Canada.

Its also worth noting that Hurley were a very big exporter of goods. Most Hurley yachts were exported from the UK making them important for our economy at the time.

The stats that are listed in the Hurley, SCM, Ravensail and Hurlwind brochures are as follows:
Ballast 2,300lb 1,040kg
Displacement 3,900lb 1,770kg

If you are that bothered you should dismantle your boat and weigh the bits.

Have you asked Ian Anderson?

The thing is that Hurley 22 yacht sail nicely and are properly ballasted.

If you don't like em, don't buy one.

If you do like em, then great. I do too

 

[Nick Vass]

I love this forum; now people are discussing the thickness of lines on drawings !

If anyone wants them I have the A22 outfitting drawings on disc, available to owners, but the Hurley drawings sound more like external designer jobs ?

!

Dear Andy
Why do you keep on trying to rubbish Hurley 22s? Now you are saying that the drawings were done by an external designer? What drawings do you mean?
Why do you care about tender storage? So what?
What's the beef Andy? Did a Hurley 22 pinch your boats lunch money?