fireball
Well-Known Member
Snooks - these powerboats are dangerous things ... I'd stick to photographing the ones with pointy sticky bits in future!! 
Snooks - these powerboats are dangerous things ... I'd stick to photographing the ones with pointy sticky bits in future!!![]()
I'll write more tomorrow, a bit tired now.
A few points, the photoboat was stationary, Monte Carlo 42 was flat out. Top speed is 35 knots.
I wasn't running the shoot, someone on the flybridge was, I just went out to get some shots of a different boat.
Damage on MC42 runs about 35 feet along the port side. The only place this damage could have come from is the flybridge of the photo boat.
There are marks on the transom that would seem to tie up with a stern drive.
I won't comment on the driver of the powerboat. But the quick thinking of the photoboat driver got the boat into a marina within 5 mins. Probably saving the boat which was sinking at the time.
After seeing the damage of the MC42, it would appear the MC42 went over the top of me!
I, and everyone else on board was very lucky. I could easily be a red mess on two boats, and when the everything went black I thought I was
I'll write more tomorrow, a bit tired now.
A few points, the photoboat was stationary, Monte Carlo 42 was flat out. Top speed is 35 knots.
I wasn't running the shoot, someone on the flybridge was, I just went out to get some shots of a different boat.
Damage on MC42 runs about 35 feet along the port side. The only place this damage could have come from is the flybridge of the photo boat.
There are marks on the transom that would seem to tie up with a stern drive.
I won't comment on the driver of the powerboat. But the quick thinking of the photoboat driver got the boat into a marina within 5 mins. Probably saving the boat which was sinking at the time.
After seeing the damage of the MC42, it would appear the MC42 went over the top of me!
I, and everyone else on board was very lucky. I could easily be a red mess on two boats, and when the everything went black I thought I was
You have spoiled it now...
Just because you were the one there, on the boat, doing the test, knowing what speed each vessel was doing, seeing the crash, being in the crash, nearly dying and have the pix to prove it.....Does not mean you know all the facts...
Leave that to the good folk of the forum....
Glad you are ok, I am assuming you have your little blue card with you now...
Blimey, that is really chilling, seeing the bigger photo. Looks like the 42 went down the stbd side of the photoboat, and that's the side you were on. Sheesh. The two dings in the bathing platform look like outdrives of the 42 made them? I think you should buy your guardian angel some flowers Graham. Glad you're ok (if a little shaken)
What now skipper?
What now skipper?
From how it looks and discussing the incident with other journalists the impact to starboard looks as if is the V from the hull, the gouge on the left it is thought came from the port stern drive.
The hull of the MC42 was punctured on the starboard side, which caused a bit of confusion, when all of its damaged was on the port side.
This is purely speculation by a group of journos, but it's thought the course of the MC 42 was around 30º off to starboard than that of the photo boat and that the hole in the MC42's hull came from the starboard bulwark on the Antares. The transom of the 9.8 slides back and forward (well it used to anyway) to make the cockpit bigger or the bathing platform bigger. That was taken out by the bow of the MC 42 with ease. The MC42 then appears to have continued going forward hitting the bulwark on the way, passing over the cockpit on the bulwarks or what was left of them, passing the flybridge which left the damage down the MC42s port side, the port stern drives could have caused the damage to port on it's way past as the wood on the deck looks torn.
Whatever happened it wasn't pretty