Mirabella V on the move

rickp

rickp

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Nov 2002
Messages
5,913
Location
New Zealand
Visit site
I guess Mirabella V is being moved (to Portsmouth for fitout?). Passed it on my way over to Northney this morning - with her mast stepped, she's even more impressive. I got a couple of pictures, but I'm not sure they do it justice:

Image-2B27DE0C3E1D11D8.jpg


Image-2B2883013E1D11D8.jpg


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Does anyone *other* tham me think it is kinda... well... ugly? Now with the mast stepped, well... I think a National Grid pylon would be more attractive....

Alan

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Uhmm! Yep. Thought that all along. Impressive, but somewhere along the way, the design just didn't fall into place. Can't put my finger on it, but it just doesnt' look quite right

<hr width=100% size=1> I asked an economist for her phone number....and she gave me an estimate
 
Couldn't agree more. I put a post up questioning her dubious aesthetics when she was launched and was generally told to wait for the rig to go up before drawing conclusions... Can't say she looks much prettier here... Looks like a boat that should be doing the Caribbean Cruise circuit, dispensing hordes of shell-suited lobster-red tourists to pillage every stop off point...

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Well, the owner has got what he has paid for and therefore, presumably, what he wants.

She looks a bit like a very large Oyster, to me.

I am always disappointed when the super-rich commission rather plain new boats, but the fact is that most very big boats are rather un-inspired, aesthetically. Consider, for example, Laurent Giles's much-hyped "Blue Leopard" - downright ugly, and far worse than "Mirabella".

A few years ago we were on a hammer head at Woolverstone and on the next one was an Oyster 80; the harbourmaster told me that he had asked everyone whom he had taken off in the launch that day "If money were no object, Which boat would you rather own?" and without exception everyone had pointed not at the multi-million pound Oyster but at our 37ft 30's gaff cutter, whose only conceivable advantage was that she was (and is) very pretty.

Anyway, it seems a pity that she is not prettier.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Mirelle on 04/01/2004 10:49 (server time).</FONT></P>
 
It's a shame, really... I thought the drawings of her looked quite promising. The rig certainly doesn't help her aesthetics - it does rather look like a pylon. But she is still impressive - I guess you can't really get the impression of her size from the pictures.

Were YM accurate in saying that she is too big to go through the Panama Canal? And, therefore, does that make her beamier than the QE2?

Of course, if money were no object, I'd rather have Mirelle as well - I would just have to make sure I had some money left over to get rid of that strange stick at the top of the sail.

/<



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.krishansen.co.uk/cryspics>Crystal II in Pictures</A>
 
From memory (I have not looked these up recently) the restrictions on the Panama Canal are something like

Length- preferably not over 230 metres - a little longer is just possible, if you talk nicely to the Canal Commission

Beam - absolute limit, 32.2 metres, no messing about.

Draft - about 10.8 metres (most of the time, depends on rainfall)



<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
 
She's far too big for the canal - the issue isn't the hull -it's the rig, which is way, way too high to pass under the Bridge of the Americas. This was well understood at the design stage (even a ketch of her dimensions would be pushed to make it). The feeling was that there was more than enough charter business to keep her busy in the Med and Carribean.

Some of the marginal yachts only make it under the bridge by either inclining, removing antenna or waiting for high pressure.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
At least Leopard was a ground breaking yacht in her day. The worst spin off was that she looked stunted (rather like the Thames Flat Iron's did), with such a small rig - but at least she was easy to manage - and she was always considered as something of a motor sailor.

I dont think Mirabella looks much worse than (say) one of the big Perini's - it's simply a function of having so much freeboard to give the required load carring and accomodation. At least she should sail better than the Perini's are reputed to do.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: accuracy of YM report

She certainly isn't the longest ship VT have ever launched! It should probably read the longest composite craft..) and as for her beam being greater than a destroyer, it's a meaningless statement unless you specify what sort of destroyer, and hardly surprising as up until the fifties, destroyer philosophy was to build them long and narrow in pursuit of speed. Modern destroyers, even the RN's ageing type42's start at 15metres as opposed to M's 14.8. Wonder how she compares with the likes of HMS Bristol and the 1960's Counties and of course the American Arliegh Burkes! BTW, One of the answers given for the November quiz is inaccurate as well. Unsurprisingly the blue ensign one (why do people get so confused over such a simple thing)? (and who cares anyway- but if your going to run a competition at least get it right) Tom - I'm surprised at you!!!!! signed Irate of Ipswich!!!!!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Thanks for the pictures, if you have any more please email directly to pictures@mirabellav.com.

I am sorry to see that there are some on this board who feel she is unattractive. Perhaps YBW should sponsor a competition to see if someone can come up with a better design. I think that once you take into consideration the owner's mandate, the technological requirements and real world issues, the final design would look remarkably similar to her current form, which we continue to believe is breathtaking. Well done Ron!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top