Review of Westerly Centaur form 1969 says 9.5 hp outboard is an option

dylanwinter

dylanwinter

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 Mar 2005
Messages
12,954
Location
Buckingham
www.keepturningleft.co.uk
Review of Westerly Centaur from 1969 says 9.5 hp outboard is an option

James was clearing out his loft and found this little curiosity

review-3.jpg


rest of the review is here

http://www.keepturningleft.co.uk/blogs/centaur-review-from-1969-says-9hp-outboard-is-an-option/
 
Last edited:
Doubt that anyone was mad enough to actually specify that option - but strange things happened in the 60s!
 
Tranona said:
Doubt that anyone was mad enough to actually specify that option - but strange things happened in the 60s!
Click to expand...

Maybe not for someone who prefers to sail as much as they can (and isn't in a hurry). Also nice to be able to take your engine home for an overhaul and storage.
 
The Westerly Windrush, in many ways the precursor of the Centaur, was generally offered with an inboard, but also with an outboard in an early type of well.

This is the same kind of well that the Westerly 25s have, with a carriage for the outboard in a locker from which the outboard can be lowered onto the transom.

The Windrush is quite a big boat for an outboard, the same hull as the 25, but a bigger superstructure. It would be interesting to know whether the outboard was a success.

Anyway, here's one for sale on Apollo Duck if you want to see the well:

http://westerly.apolloduck.co.uk/feature.phtml?id=454347
 
Presumably it was cheaper without an inboard engine. I think of the engines offered, I would have gone for the VP MD11.
I really think you should try fitting an outboard in a well, Dylan. You know you'll never be satisfied until you do. I can think of several reasons why it will be worse than the conventional set up though: weight further after, weight higher up, petrol storage problems, propeller shallower in water and offset, not as reliable as diesel and less economical. There are some benefits: cheaper, easy to take out and repair.
 
ghostlymoron said:
Presumably it was cheaper without an inboard engine. I think of the engines offered, I would have gone for the VP MD11.
I really think you should try fitting an outboard in a well, Dylan. You know you'll never be satisfied until you do. I can think of several reasons why it will be worse than the conventional set up though: weight further after, weight higher up, petrol storage problems, propeller shallower in water and offset, not as reliable as diesel and less economical. There are some benefits: cheaper, easy to take out and repair.
Click to expand...

of course we do not know where they planned on putting the outboard.

At the time Westerly were experimenting with wells and Hunter were also experimenting with them I believe.

As an outboard user for many years storage has never been a problem - just put it into high quality 12 litre containers and put it in a locker. Never had one leak yet.

At the time Evinrude were making their excellent twin cylinder two strokes - which had external tanks and really rather bijou cowls which would fit under the Centaur rudder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ-6HC-SsMQ

http://www.leeroysramblings.com/OMC_9.5.htm
 
parsifal said:
Maybe not for someone who prefers to sail as much as they can (and isn't in a hurry). Also nice to be able to take your engine home for an overhaul and storage.
Click to expand...

If the objective for buying the boat was primarily for sailing without an engine, then doubt a Centaur would be first choice.

The availability of a strong reliable inboard was one of the main things about the Centaur that helped the revolution in family cruising.
 
In the first video you link to I can destinctly hear the camera man panting as he films the engine. I know you love outboards.........
dylanwinter said:
of course we do not know where they planned on putting the outboard.

At the time Westerly were experimenting with wells and Hunter were also experimenting with them I believe.

As an outboard user for many years storage has never been a problem - just put it into high quality 12 litre containers and put it in a locker. Never had one leak yet.

At the time Evinrude were making their excellent twin cylinder two strokes - which had external tanks and really rather bijou cowls which would fit under the Centaur rudder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ-6HC-SsMQ

http://www.leeroysramblings.com/OMC_9.5.htm
Click to expand...
 
ghostlymoron said:
In the first video you link to I can destinctly hear the camera man panting as he films the engine. I know you love outboards.........
Click to expand...

surely everyone finds a two cylinder two stroke an exciting thing to contemplate

I have a Johnson long shaft two cylinder two stroke in my shed (hypocrit I know)

it has hardly been used, is tiny and is the smoothest running small outboard thing I have ever heard

D
 
Tranona said:
If the objective for buying the boat was primarily for sailing without an engine, then doubt a Centaur would be first choice.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I meant. But if your objective is to buy a Centaur, then there are advantages to buying one with an outboard.

If you want a boat primarily for sailing you should buy a Twister.
 
dylanwinter said:
I have a Johnson long shaft two cylinder two stroke in my shed (hypocrit I know)

it has hardly been used, is tiny and is the smoothest running small outboard thing I have ever heard
Click to expand...

I've got one of those (short shaft version) too.

For the power it's tiny and light, and beautifully smooth from those two diminutive cylinders. Easy to start too.

Under the cowling though it's unnecessarily complicated and fiddly to work on, and mine's an unreliable bugger that will sometimes cut out for no reason and then refuse to work :(

Pete
 
parsifal said:
That isn't what I meant. But if your objective is to buy a Centaur, then there are advantages to buying one with an outboard.

If you want a boat primarily for sailing you should buy a Twister.
Click to expand...

Can't think of any advantages of an outboard over an inboard on a Centaur unless the inboard is knackered and you can't afford to replace it. the Centaur outsold the Twister by about 10:1 so they must have had something that appealed to buyers!
 
The inboard cost £550. See review on Dylan's site.

The outboard £165 (we bought one in '68).

Difference would have been the price of a small new car in those days wouldn't it?
 
JumbleDuck said:
I think I saw somewhere that Centaurs without inboards were quite (or relatively, or a bit) popular in the US.
Click to expand...

Seems many were shipped to the USA minus an engine and owners then went the outboard route. We used to have a forumite here who had one of these and reckoned it was worth it for the extra storage space under the cockpit when doing circumnavigations . His boat actually did three!!!! counting those done also by other owners.

Michael also built neat lockers behind the cabin bulkhead to the outline of the cabin side roof and cockpit sides . They were very neat and gave slight protection to the main hatch similar to the Storm and Tempest.
 
Re: Review of Westerly Centaur from 1969 says 9.5 hp outboard is an option

The o/b version was the cheapest, and I've seen one back in the days when a Centaur was a biggish boat for most sailors. People who had big boats like Centaurs or very big boats like Nic 32s used to have all these luxuries like electric lights and an echosounder. Some even had a VHF radio and an electronic log.

I've also sailed on a Centaur with the 32 hp engine, and at full throttle it produces a substantial wash, though doesn't actually go much faster than with the smaller inboards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top