Moonraker 36 Moulds for sale.

[PCUK]

While you're collecting. I think the Seamaster 30 is worth preserving. Not in the same league as the 'Raker but a brilliant 30 footer mainly due to the huge 11ft beam (for her length)! Last I heard, Viking Mouldings had the moulds but probably skipped by now.

 

[Lesdyxic]

moulds

Yep, they were literally in a garden, apparently. The photgraphs I saw didn't tell me enough to know which model it was.

I'm based in London at the moment, (also production is an issue, as I have a faciltity for fitting out available in Norfolk, but not to mould, so I am still finalisisng such things.) but I reside on Merseyside, when I get back there

 

[Lesdyxic]

----->PCUK

Space is probably my issue PC?

If anyone knows of a sympathetic farmer prepared to let me park up Moulds, let me know....

 

[moonraker 36]

I don't is the simple answer. I know what I've picked up from talking to various parties, all of whom see things only from their own perspective, like most of us.

Going through the drawings (lovely old things, a piece of art in themselves) I've not looked to see if there is any evidence that the mould tools were revised in line with the drawings, vice versa, or whether adaptations were made during construction of the mould tools (or indeed the boats) without reference to the original design.

This revision has a keel, (I'm told 'D' was without a keel?) and speaking to people with first hand knowledge of boats made from this mould tool, there don't appear to specific issues relating to chine riding, (any more or less than any other chine boat), and also people who have had them out in all conditions and don't report particular problems in a following sea. I think ability at the helm would certainly make a big difference to perception on that one. Any boat handles badly under a given combination of circumstances? But that's a throwaway observation, really. I'd bet good money that 90% of the contributers to this thread know more than I will ever know about boats in general, and Moonrakers in particular.

the 'd' had an extended forward cabin i think.
i think the keel was just an option you could have.most were built with a keel.

Bell Buxton earliest boats are later known as A-type , with wooden forward spray rail and aft ski rail bolted to the hull. At the end of 1970 / beginning of 1971 was the Series II developed, hereafter known as B-type , with spray rail integral with the hull, which incidentally had been standard for some time on the Police Patrol Boat variant and other similar applications.
The early version of Chapman's model from 1972 is named C-type. With an extension of the forward cabin is the D-type introduced. 1974 is the E-type launched, with external exhaust boxes, sliding patio door to the wheelhouse and changed radar mast. On the F-type from 1976 the wheel is moved from port to starboard which gives room for a settee, stainless steel is widely replaced with aluminium. The following years minor cosmetic changes are made, i.e. 1977 F-model and 1979 F-model. Super36-type from 1987 is in the main the F-type, and has a new radar mast and once again stainless steel. Super de Luxe-type from 1991 has a lowered flybridge, and is the last vessel built.

though i once read somewhere that the mould's were stored with a finished hull in them..?
i know it's early day's but what engines option's would you be looking at?
220-270hp would be good.
good luck with the project..they are a very good boat.

 

[moonraker 36]

if you find any info on hull number 100.
fit out number 122.
would you let us no.
lesdyxic.

 

[oldgit]

The benefits of a decent Keel.

Heard all sorts of tales of M36 about being a bit lively in a following sea,however all 3third/fourth hand accounts and nothing but puzzlement on the critics comments from actual owners.
My Princess 33 on out drives was a nightmare in this respect and it was blimming hard work keeping it in a straight line and needing constant correction.
My "new to me" boat which has a Broom hull and therefore decent keel is definately better but you still need to pay attention as I found out off Margate this summer in a long swell.

 

[Lesdyxic]

Moonraker proposed mods draft #1

Have just finished sketching out my first planned modifications, welcome any feedback. (Please excuse the quality of the hand-drawn additions, CAD version still a work in progress.)

I need to make a module to add onto the rear to provide stepped access. This will add around 6 feet to the length of the boat, but in the centre between the steps I intend using the void created to house the master en-suite, creating more space in the master cabin. (a 'walk around' bed) There will be a bathing platform to the back, and a holding tank below. This will also add around 30% usable area to the aft deck.

I want to look into playing with the superstructure tools, to pull the flybridge forward 4-5 feet. The saloon roof would also be pulled forward to attain full headroom almost to front of the living area. Both helm positions would move forward the same 4-5 feet. This should create a much larger usable space for each room, along with a lower floor level at the lower helm positon to be gained by using much smaller (physicaly) engines. (220+). The main saloon would have an offest fixed double ('a la Bayliner', storage below) and the seating/drop table could provide a second double, as required. A cassette 'screen' would pull across for privacy between the two. The existing bench seat opposite the lower helm position would potentially provide another folding double (bit of engineering required there) if required, so potentially 8 berth, but a snug 8 berth. The division of the space would suit two families with kids, sharing. More intended to be a comfortable 4 berth, with 'occasional' 4 berth options.

The windows would be recessed into the moulding to make them flush. The edges of all windows would be shaped to cut the angular line created by the existing design. The more advanced position of the lower and upper screens, and a shallower angle should help with air-draught and create a more contempory silhouette.(whilst hopefully retaining some of the original character.) The redesign of the radar arch should also help that too.

The entrance door will be modified by use of a footwell either side (if required inside), to create a full height door (possibly bi-fold)

The flybridge would also have space for sink/fridge if required, and/or additional seating. The more advance flybridge position would also allow the space to 'scallop' the full height entry door slightly futher back as required.

These are my first thoughts, what does everyone think? (provided the scans have uploaded) First being old design, second is my ponderings....
View attachment 14370

View attachment 14371

 

[moonraker 36]

hmm.
i quite like the new look..
the original moon was big internally for a 36footer.
but i can see your going to make it into a tar-dis of a boat..
very impressed at the mo...

will the screen on the fly be removable to allow better air draft if required?.

with the extra weight your going to need 220+hp and a larger diesel tank.

 

[Lesdyxic]

The screen for the fly will probably end up much lower, I think I got carried away with the black pen there....

Plan is for a second diesel tank, (More than one owner has told me that a failing of the original design is the single diesel tank, contamination etc.), have to look at lower spaces available to see what capacity, as well as size/weight of engines before settling on a position, but don't anticipate a problem. Engines, how big do you think it's wise to go to? 275?

All thse changes can be done without alteration to the existing tooling, (Just need to make two additionals to cover extension of foredeck screen and step,platform 'pod') apart from the fly which is a seperate straight sided tool anyway, so shouldn't take too much to alter. I think it's important to retain 6 foot plus headroom below.

(What capacity do you think a holding tank has to be for good usefulness.)

Also pondering doing an option of a smaller engined version designed specifically for river/broads use. (partly because I've been offerred a pair of barnd new engines at a good price.) Do you think that's a go-er, or not?

 

[moonraker 36]

as before their's one in Malta with a pair of 330hp iveco's.
also one in sweden with 280's.
and one on the dutch moonraker site being converted to 285hp.if it was me, i would try to get in touch with the owners to found out how it handles the power.the one with 330's recon's 24knts cruising.!but if he has'nt added a bigger fuel tank it aint going to get very far.
i have 175 shp perk's in mine and i cruise around the 14knt mark..so the original tank is fine (around 190gls),as modern diesel's are supposed to be more fuel efficient 220-250 gal tank would be the kind of size i would look at.
river/broads i would be looking at none turbo engine's.
they offered moonraker's originally with smaller engine's but nearly everyone went for the larger option..maybe their is a lesson already learnt their..
but i'm no expert...!

 

[Lesdyxic]

Later mods

Quick amendment here to lower the fly screen and also have altered access to flybridge (Steps) creating a little headroom below to shift access to aft cabin to below that. Allows for large screen TV opposite bed, if required.

I'll try to contact those owners, nothing like first hand experience.

My 'working title' name for the boat is the 'Moonraker Phoenix 42'. (Seeing as it will now be around 42 foot in length of course.) Always a bit phony, as only about a metre will be usable extra space for the ensuite, but it will be quite a useful space as I can put the washbasin in the well under the stair one side, and a shower caddy etc on the other, and will put some windows in it.

Capacity for the holding tank quite easily achievable in my add-on ensuite pod below floor level, and should leave room for a second 'long range' diesel tank there too.

I'm still rersearching engines. Some of them (appear to) offer vast saving if they can run at lower revs, don't they? Welcome thoughts on that score?

 

[moonraker 36]

http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1973/Moonraker-36-Flybridge-2345823/Ta'-Xbiex/Malta

http://www.moonraker.dk/english/eng_service/eng_ser_frame.htm

the second link doesn't work.but it's on the dutch moonraker site.in the moonraker data section replacing engine's.boats called amanda.

theirs one in Sweden but i can't find it at the mo. it caught fire at some point and they are rebuilding it.if i remender right with 280's

just to add just seen on the dutch site...the bloke who run's it as sadly passed away.

hope all his hard work on his website doesn't go the same way..

http://www.bostream.nu/skraken/moon/ the Swedish boat id on this site.

 

[jfm]

Very interesting stuff lesdyxic, and thanks for sharing.

The curved transom will not work at 20kts sort of speeds. It has to be square like all other boats. Laws of physics I'm afraid. You'd be better making a dummy hull, extending (extrapolating) it 5 feet or so, fairing it, and making a new tool. That is skilled work and a firm like Broom could do it but not many others. Budget £125k for that work. You can't really cut any corners here because mould imperfections will kill your project - no-one will buy a boat with ripples in the hull

Thing is, when you do that you'll want to move the engines shafts and rudders back a bit, and maybe put slight tunnels in, so you'll surely need to do a full re-make of the tools?

As I think you suggested, a switch to all bonded glass makes good sense and the tool changes for this can be done while you're re-doing the supertructure tools

Remember to design in a passerelle for med market. It could just bolt on, or it could swing out a la Pearl

Good luck with the project

 

[Lesdyxic]

---->JFM

JFM,
The plan is that extension will sit above the water line, or 95% of the time it will be, (Not clear from the sketch, I see upon re-examination) It's essentially an extended bathing platform with steps up each side. I have found two people who have grafted aft sections onto hull moulds, and having looked at boats they have done it to, it's invisible on both recent and longer standing hulls, except for one which was 20 years old, and had a hairline crack about 70mm long. (I could see it when it was pointed out, did not see it before even though I was looking for it)

I do wonder if/how it will affect handling. Once my CAD details are input, I'll try 3D modelling it hydrodynamically, see what that says.

I also need to look at weights too, as with a change in materials, I should be able to build a stronger, but lighter hull. I'll gain weight on the engine and windows, but I haven't calc'ed it yet.

Having said that, I do accept what you say, and I intend the graft only on the first, the demonstrator, which if needs be would be refinished over and over until invisible, until perfect. I'm confident that a couple of guys can do that for me, if needs be. I would not retool the hull until I had at least one firm order. I'd be prepared to lavish time and effort onto the demonstrator which would not be viable for a production model. Have to remember as well that this is draft #1, may go through many changes before the first barrel of resin is cracked open. This sketch will be amended many times, I'm sure, what looks good on an initial sketch may well not pan out when measurements are applied.

One of these guys in particular, whom I've met, could amend my mould tools, less than you suggest, (If he'd take it on) but still expensive, not a million miles away from what you suggest. A lot of work and a lot of GRP, but tolerable if there is an order or two in the book and a deposit? Or more tolerable, maybe....anyhow, early days...

 

[jfm]

Lesdyxic, I don't beieive you can do that. The pod, with passerelle, bathroom, grp and glazing, will be 1000kg++ more with a COG 3 feet aft of the transom. With a tender it could be 1300kg++ more. You just cannot do that on 30feet w/line length. The thing will ride bow high and drag the pod thru the water. Imagine taking an F moonraker and putting 18, yes 18, stocky fat guys on the aft coachroof deck, then seeing how she rides. It's a total total non starter and a sure fire way to waste £200k in build cost

You need to extend the hull aft underwater and move the engines and rudders aft, then the phoenix Raker could be quite a machine

 

[Lesdyxic]

Mods

You may well be correct, JFM, as I say, I haven't CADed this yet. I had thought of the issues you raise (although not in great detail, i'll admit, only started giving it some thought today. The musings that you see are the result of an idle hour) but the pod 'is' the bathroom, it will merely be a GRP shell, shower tray moulded into floor, basin into wall well, etc., the only significant weighty object is the toilet itself. It won't add up to anything approaching 1300kg, but it may well end weighing more than I'm guessing. (for the small area that it us, there are some super-light options that I can look at without compromising strength.) Once I've calc'ed the weight, I will put it up for general opinion. There are few forums where I could ask for free advice of so many people with so much experience?
I worked out that a similar weight of extra grp would be going forward of the centre point on the two superstructure addition to the saloon and fly extensions. I had guesstimated that they would compensate for each other, but you may well be proven to be correct when I start to computer model it. As I say, prior to that, these are ideas I'm throwing out for feedback, and I'm grateful for you passing on your knowledge, genuinely.

I make my living finding solutions. I'll find a (relatively) cheap solution to these challenges, I'm sure, but it may not end up being 'draft #1' solution. But I thank you for your input, you may we be proven to be correct.

Some or all of the additional weight I had hoped to get back via losing the heavy windows and getting lighter modern diesels. I will of course, seek expert opinion on them too, but I admit to not wanting to start moving the engines unless I have to. Again, the computer modelling should tell
me that.

 

[jfm]

OK good stuff. But the pod has to be strong enough to hang a passerelle off (which with its hydraulic pack weighs 5x++ a toilet) and the passerelle needs to be a spec that will lift a 250kg tender. Also I fear that putting the bathroom on the cantilevered section exposes the whole master cabin to wave slap noise at anchor, which could cost you sales if the boat got a reputation for it. Normally living accom would not be in the cantilevered section. People are generally happy with wave slap noise so long as it is only the swim platform that is cantilevered

I take your point that the extra weight up front will partly compensate but I am a bit worried that the waterline is going to rise 2 inches which will start to look a bit bad

You should also think hard about tender storage and lash down/ease of use. The curved stern is not helpful in this respect. A good target would be to make the boat capable of carrying a williams 285

 

[Lesdyxic]

pods et al..

I had hoped to mount the passerelle or davits into the main superstructure, but I'll admit that's not something I've not looked at in any detail yet.

Lengthening that structure will add greatly to the stress on the transom area generally, (If it's to have a decent lifting capacity anyway) so I had in mind to try to introduce something clever in the pod 'fixing' to add strength to the area, but not got any further with addressing that, I'll be honest.

You think 250kg is a good yardstick to look at?

I had originally thought of making the space in between the new steps as a storage area for the tender, but the en-suite space it afforded seemed to gain me more overall, so I need to address the problem.

The wave 'slap', yeah.....thought about that, be keen to know whether you think my solution would help enough. I was going to make the underside of platform/area at or near the waterline, 'not smooth' (ie nonslip finish built into the grp, to a greater or lesser degree) but not at all sure how much difference that would make. I did a little experiment with a piece of GRP last year, and used a piece of old battered driftwood next to it. The smooth surface gets 'slapped', but the more irregular surface of the wood, whilst it's not silent, it did largely just wash across it. The downside of the pod I believe though, is that it's shape will amplify this noise like a sound chamber. I need to do some more work on that to make sure I'm not building a problem into it. I need to make sure that my 'solution' for that does not create a problem elsewhere, of course.

 

[Latestarter1]

Huge amount of effort going into this.

My memory getting a little foggy now, used to see a Moonraker ashore at Harleyford and if I remember, amount of deadrise aft was pretty flat.

Engine choice will require careful attention particularly as you are changing vessels COG.

We take modern hull forms for granted, these old ladies may not respond well to too much power. Remember that Perkins 6.354 175 was never anything lke 175 Hp which is why when the the Ford Sabre 180 came out it made Perkins appear such a lemon.

Do you think there is still a market for this concept?

 

[Lesdyxic]

----> Latestarter

I don't know if there is a demand, is the honest answer.

I like to think that some things mature better than others.

There's the E-type Jag, and the Austin Allegro. Both have decotees, but the E-type has more, of course.

I'm guessing I have a Triumph TR6 on my hands here? Undoubted qualities, lots of committed fans, but not perfect and not everyone's cup of tea. But they still sell, whenever they are available, secondhand. Would a new one sell? Who can say.....

Speaking to people who've seen the latest design powered with twin 225, they report no 'overpowering' problem, indeed, that is being touted to me as the 'dream ticket', (by more than one source) with a recommendation to uppower to compensate for any extra weight added during my tinkerings.