Moonrakers

[hlb]

Brendan darling, I'm in no hole. I cant remember what was said, years ago. I mealy pointed out, years ago, that you certainly was not water Born. T25, if no others, had the impression that you were.

No matter. Please dont snip, about a boat, that I have talked to the owner about, only 30 yds away. Owned a P33 along with a P35..

I believe your experience, is little more than a canoo. Yep, I remember mending it. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[BrendanS]

If you cannot get on without snide comments, please don't bother. Your efforts are wasted.

 

[Kawasaki]

Hia
Fire.
With some Semi Dispacement craft, this sea up yer bum situation can be a bit aggravating.
I haven't driven a Moonraker but lots of similar boats.
Aquaster 27 ,New Haven Sea Warrioir , Channel Island 22 and 32 (There is A forumite, pretty close) who has one of these I believe!.
Even My own Nimbus is this type.

All the above behave in a different manner in the following Sea mode.
Of the 5 mentioned the worst was the Channel 22.
Mine was a single engine version (140 turbo) and was a little begger with the Oggin up the chuffer.
A twin engine one I had the use of was much better.
The New haven was much more relaxing to use than the Aquastar.
My Nimbus doesn't give a monkies, when the Sea is up Her Chuffer, but aint as comfy as the others mentioned when plowing into a Head Sea.
Generally the sea on the stern quarter is the achillies heel of semi displacement craft.
Some worse than others as I have pointed out.
Reasons for this would take another thread and which make and model etc etc would take another Year to sort out.
My only "hands on" experience of a Moony was in flat calm conditions so no point in trying to comment on the Seaworthyness.

The owner of that particular one did comment.
"She's a bit lively with a following Sea"
Mind you He went everywhere in Her.
Was a bit Mad too!
So Christ knows what weather He went out in!

I do reccomend you do a good Sea Trial before purchasing.
I did in My Nimbus.
The first time I evver had before purchasing.
Previous purchases were done with just No1 eyeball as judgement.
Having sampled vessels with this quirky aft sea handling I did not want another boat that would keep me so busy on the helm in that fashion.
It was worth the effort.
Study the hull design aft.
If whatever boat of this nature you are looking at has some keel or sticky down bit towards the stern it will be better when the water is chasing you.
The Nimbus has this feature and it seems to work. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
The proof of the pudding is SEA TRIAL! sorry to shout but that's it mate.
One Moonraker might not handle like the rest.
Engine type , twin or single etc.
weight distribution
age
condition
de blah de blah.
Sorry this is not a definitive answer.
Semi Displacement boats are best imho but try the beggers first! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[MaltaBob]

There is a guy , Bill Van Bommel who used to be at RYB Windsor, who was the delivery Skipper for Moonraker.
Doubtless he will be a mind of information for you.

 

[Kawasaki]

Dreamtime, that's a good tip for Fire 99.
Also Fire.
There is a Moonraker Owner's Club.
Google it or summat.
I tried, I eventually got on.
Can,t give the www. thinghy though.
I,m hopeless at this pute stuff.
Kept getting a Java script thing!
Too many port holes or summat
Cripes I didn't know Moonraker's had port holes!
I am interested in these boats too.
Although I found the Owner's Club all the piccies etc etc were not displayed.
Could be the sight, more likely Me and Me pute! though.

 

[pheran]

[ QUOTE ]
is it bad to the extent where the helm can be a bit of a handful and cause the boat to 'sail' uncomfortably or is it genuinely dangerous...


[/ QUOTE ] The only off-shore trip I ever made in a Moonraker 35 was in a following sea. Not a particularly big one, but the handling was terrifying bordering on downright dangerous. Continual fear of broaching which only athletic and extremely tiring helming managed to avoid. For me, with that experience, the boat would be a total non-starter if I was ever going to encounter those conditions again.

 

[Chris_d]

Have a look here: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/david.beet/default.htm

Loads of bollox talked about Moonrakers by people who have never had one, thats me included, but they were very successfull and there is even a plan to remake them from the original moulds (MBM last month).

Its either loads of boat for your money, or loads of trouble, depends on your point of view I guess. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[SP2]

My father's last boat was a Moonraker 36 without flybridge and with the twin 175 Perkins engines. I took it out many times and on the tidal rivers (Medway, Crouch and Orwell) it was a fine boat. Comfortable and easy to handle singlehanded or with a couple and reasonably fast for its day.

It pushed along nicely at sea on the various trips I went on but I would endorse the following sea comments. We were always a little cautious about conditions but then most boaters are in my experience. Would try and trim the stern down in a following sea and ease back on speed but probably only had this 2 or 3 times in 5 years.

Obviously they are getting on a bit now so mechanicals can be an issue.

Saw a flybridge one in Chatham on the weekend just up from us - looked good.

Regarding price, these are interesting times. Having just sold Spectrum Too (10 metres with twin 180 Sabres) I was discussing this with a pal at the weekend who thinks we "got out" at the right time since he thinks the increasing running costs of an older boat will make them less saleable. May be he is right - people on the Forum say an extra £1,000 plus fuel cost will not put them off but when the capital cost is in the region of £20-£40K that is not an immaterial sum for many.

Could be that boats like the Moonraker will see a price fall as a result.

Good luck with your search.

(sorry to stay on topic /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif)

 

[Fire99]

Thats very handy, i may see if i can have a quick natter with the chap...

 

[Fire99]

many thanks for your replies on this one.
It is a bit of a minefield on initial enquiries but you guys seem to have a wealth of experience so before taking up peoples time visiting boats etc i thought i'd take up yours on here instead.. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Seriously though i'm not gonna have vast amounts of disposable income so unfortunately some more recent (and perhaps advanced) boats may be out of scope but from a casual observer the Moonrakers atleast structually look very impressive.

Also i guess if you are gonna live on her you are gonna be a little careful on what conditions you want to take your 'house' for a trip in.

regards,

Nick

 

[Fire99]

Hi Mike,

thats very interesting.. cheers..
Regarding older boats, maintenance and diesel prices etc its definitely an 'interesting' time.
I guess at some point you need to take the plunge and risk buying at the wrong time.

As i just mentioned, my disposable money is fairly tight, hence looking at older vessels.

I think the following sea issue needs a bit of investigating, purely so whatever i go into i have my eyes open to the capabilities of the vessel.
I got caught out in a very lumpy 7 with North Easterlies on the East coast in a 23ft Shetland not too long ago so i know what scary feels like.. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif But me and boat survived to learn a lesson on that one.

Oh and thanks for keeping to the subject a little. Its too sunny to argue today /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

cheers,

Nick

 

[miket]

I owned an early non-flybridge Moonraker built by Bell Boats which was pre Colin Chapman.
It was an honest boat that with total refurb inside, curtains, carpets and upholstery, was transformed from a very period boat to a very comfortable one.
She had 2 x 145 (non horizontal) Perkins that were fine engines apart from quite an appetite for oil, which I could live with.
The comparison with a P33 seems odd to me. Most Moonraker 36 are aft cabin and so far as I know all P33 are aft cockpit. The spaciousness of the Moonraker is, in my mind, infinitely superior to the Princess.
As for the "following sea" thing, I think it is very much exagerated. The problem, if it existed at all, was due to her big bum (transom) and very fine entry up front. I cruised several times to Holland in ours and not always in the best of sea conditions and never experienced any difficulty. I think if you are a normal, sensible boater then the handling will be fine. If you want to go out in F7 then best of British and d on't ask me to come with you. If you listen to the forecasts there is little excuse for being "caught out" in a fast boat around the Channel ports.
Final point; They were built to a price. You will find plenty of chip board and the veneer is pretty thin, but they are strong, spacious boats. I would happily have another, in suitably excellent condition.

 

[Fire99]

Hi Mike,
Thats good info. thanks.. On the comparison with the Princess 33, that 'll be my doing. My initial enquiries on a boat to live on for a little while were with old Princess 33's and 37's. Then, as per the norm, it opens a few doors and Moonrakers appeared on the horizon.

Regarding the 'following sea scandall' /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Once again good advice. But its always good to have a good idea what your boat can and cannot handle in the event of being caught out or making a bad judgement call..

regards,

Nick

 

[volvopaul]

I personally would rather have a princess 37 than a moonraker for all sorts of reasons.

 

[pheran]

To say that a load of bollox is talked about Moonrakers when you have no experience of them yourself is, well.................................a load of bollox!

 

[Fire99]

yup... but that is also reflected in the asking price.. or so it seems.

 

[Chris_d]

Yes your quite right, sorry I wasn't refering to your post with direct experience which I read after posting.

I was however remembering previous threads about Moonrakers, with such gems about Colin Chapmens involvement, i.e he was always building things very ligthweight and flimsy, so intimating that a moonraker was just as bad as a Lotus car of the same era etc.... now that is bollox

 

[Fire99]

Also, to palm off Colin Chapman's expertise at Lotus as building things 'flimsy' is near a crime.
He was responsible for some serious engineering innovation during the 70's.

Oops i'm going off topic on my own topic. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Back on topic, whatever i buy for say £40k is gonna be a compromise. I guess the key is to find out whether it ticks enough boxes to be viable..

 

[BG1]

Hi
Interesting thread! I like reading what people say about Moonrakers even though they have never owned one!
I have owned Golden Sands, a '74 Flybridge series D for over 20years and love her. It's true the accomodation is smallish for a 36 footer but I have added settees in the wheelhouse and this gets used more than the saloon for general sitting. I do all the driving from up top even it is raining. The engines, 175 perkins are noisy at speed but reliable. I have done as much sea cruising in her as some of the other salty dogs on this forum with modern high speed cruisers, and been from Holland to Falmouth to Nth Brittany and Ch.Islands, but not all at the same time you understand. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif It just takes a bit longer. I find the seakeeping fine, but do acknowledge its an old boat so choose my sea conditions carefully. Having said that, I have been caught out when it blows up (as we all have), and she's always got me home.

I was talking to Bill van Bommel, the delivery skipper the other day, and he is still at RCYB.

The web site mentioned (dave beet) is no longer current because the uk moonraker club is now defunct, but there is an excellent web site in Denmark run by a true enthusiast! www.moonraker.dk It's in english as well as danish. If you would like any info on models etc, please pm me.
Barry

 

[NEB]

Looks like there may be a few more Moonrakers to come!!

http://www.moonrakerboats.net/index.html