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

[JumbleDuck]

Eric and Susan Hiscock had, if I remember correctly, only a 4hp Stuart-Turner in their 30ft Wanderer, yet managed to get around the world in her.

I have a 10hp BUKH in my 28' Twister which is perfectly adequate. Yet when I was thinking of fitting a new Beta engine the manufacturer advised fitting a 20hp. Seemed a pointless waste of money to me.

I think it reflects a change in philosophy. In ye olde days, engines in yachts were strictly auxiliaries, there to help out in calm conditions or in harbour. Nowadays almost all yachts are really motor sailors, the assumption (though not necessarily the truth) being that everyone will turn the engine on the instant they are not making 5kt towards their destination. Of course fitters of auxiliaries were rather sneered at in their day, since a pair of sweeps was clearly all that was needed. The change to modern sized engines probably occurred when Westerly did a deal with Volvo allowing the Centaur to get a remarkably big engine for its day.

I have a 1GM10 for four tons of long keeler. I may replace it at some point, at which point I am planning to fit something a wee bit bigger: the Nanni 10hp and 14hp are front runners at the moment. It'll still be an auxiliary, just a slightly gruntier one.

 

[JumbleDuck]

All very well if you want to live in the past but most people don't.

And yet your new boat has sails, which have been completely outdated as a form of maritime propulsion for the best part of a century ...

 

[Tranona]

You persist in misunderstanding, or deliberately misinterpreting, what other people write. It's annoying and childish.

One of my grandfathers owned a string Jaguars; he never owned an Austin 7 because he was wealthy, and would probably have disliked it if he had been compelled to make do with one

My pointing out what the Hiscocks achieved was intended to do just that, ie show what can be achieved with what many would nowadays regard as inadequate. I would not want a 30-foot cruising yacht with a 4hp engine.

I do not need a 20hp engine in my boat because 10hp is perfectly adequate for my requirements. It is capable of pushing her along at up to 5-1/2 knots. Why spend money on something I don't need?

I don't understand what you are getting at when you say "today's environment". My sailing environment today is the same as it has always been, ie sailing when I can, motoring when I must. Does that differ much from what most yachtsmen want? I'd be surprised if it did.

Not misunderstanding, nor misinterpreting. Just saying that using examples from the past have little relevance to today other than showing how things have changed. At any one point in time people maximise their utility out of what is available, so I started my "big" boat sailing with an Eventide and a Stuart Turner (bit like the Hiscocks) because that was the best available. That combination limited what one was able to do, being unreliable and lacking in power. Fitting a Yanmar diesel transformed it - even though still underpowered, but at least it worked - and the current Nanni 14 is even better.

Of course you can still sail in the same way as 40 years ago if you want to, but there are other benefits about having modern power, not just the ability to maintain speed in adverse conditions, but smoothness, quiet, freshwater cooling, better electrics and potentially longer life.

The same goes for boats in general. Boats like yours (no disrespect) are limited in their appeal because more modern designs simply offer more of what people value. And that was the point when the Centaur came in. It offered families something that was not available with older designs, just as a generation on the French and German builders widened the appeal of boats with their newer designs. Whether you like it (or need it) or not, better and more powerful auxiliaries are an integral part of the appeal.

It is a mistake to assume that everybody enjoys the limitations of boats from the past, nor that they are somehow superior.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I think we tend to over-engine our boats

Centaur 1 had 18hp and would be going at hull speed at about a third revs

not sure what the rest of the power is for

Centaur two has 25 hp - hull speed at about a quarter revs

Do diesels not prefer to be thrashed regularly?

 

[ghostlymoron]

Some authorities recommend an 'Italian tune up' once in a while. Basically a full throttle thrash for half an hour to burn off the carbon and reduce the bore glazing that you get with trundling along at low revs.

Do diesels not prefer to be thrashed regularly?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Some authorities recommend an 'Italian tune up' once in a while. Basically a full throttle thrash for half an hour to burn off the carbon and reduce the bore glazing that you get with trundling along at low revs.

It works very nicely on my 1GM10. I get ten minutes of appalling black smoke (that distant howling noise is Mr Winter) then it goes grey-ish and I throttle back.

 

[rob2]

Interesting that suppliers are constantly recommending engines whose power simply can't be used at the prop. But that brings us to the issue of prop pitch and sailing conditions. In flat water, you can safely calculate the pitch your prop needs to be to achieve hull speed at the most efficient engine revs - be it optimized for speed or frugal consumption when cruising. Over the years there have been a number of design concepts to make the pitch adjustable, allowing fine pitch for acceleration and coarser pitch to cruise economically. In foul conditions the boat is continually being slowed by waves and so it is permanently accelerating to maintain speed. A finer pitch would be ideal and can harness more of the power available from that larger engine. Apart from the Brunton Autoprop I'm not aware of any current production adjustable pitch props - all the feathering types I've looked at are preset for pitch. I would seriously suggest that a variable pitch prop in conjunction to spare power capacity (revs) froma larger engine is the only way to improve performance against prevailing conditions without sacrificing performance and economy in calmer conditions.

Discuss.

Rob.

 

[Binman]

Hi Dylan, I had a Yamaha 9.9hp high thrust prop, electric start with controls, ultra long shaft ,much to heavy for my Pandora700, it sat in a well, well not offset, boat went like a rocket, but you needed three persons to lift it out on the hard, one pushing from underneath, 1998 model, still got it, swoped for Honda 5hp new one, still got engine just been serviced by power products, following a carb problem, it was just dirty, the carb needed three washes in ultra sonic tank, last wash with brick acid. Around the medway 5hp enough, but if I ever go long distant, would properly put it back in.i don't like the idea of, an off set well for a outboard. The Pandora is only a ton. So wouldn't like to quess what it would do for your boat.

 

[aquaplane]

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.

My Parents first boat was a 1968 Windrush bought in 1975.
I wouldn't call the gun carriage thing a well. It was pretty neat though.
It had the advantage of getting the prop/leg out of the water when sailing, and access for clearing ropes and crap, but it was over the stern and behind the rudder.
The Windrush was basically a 22' Nomad with 3' of outboard storage on the back. The fuel (and gas) was all back there which was a good thing but adjusting the throttle was a pain, it was more remote than a transom mounted outboard.
We had a 9.9Hp Johnson 2stroke, it did very well but I can't remember bashing into a headwind or lop and suspect anyone with that set up would be wishing they had a good inboard.

 

[Fantasie 19]

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?

I was prompted to go to one of those sites that gives modern day prices, by RPI* your Centaur would have cost £37K (ish) today.. damn good bargain I'd have said...

*other measures are quoted which would have made it considerably more..

 

[dylanwinter]

I was prompted to go to one of those sites that gives modern day prices, by RPI* your Centaur would have cost £37K (ish) today.. damn good bargain I'd have said...

*other measures are quoted which would have made it considerably more..

You would be hard pressed to find a new 26 footer for £37 K.

we are the luckiest sailors ever to have existed

immortal boats, reliable engines, great communications, no bureacracy, fantastic rescue services, easy navigation.

doesn't stop the moaners though

 

[LONG_KEELER]

we are the luckiest sailors ever to have existed

immortal boats, reliable engines, great communications, no bureacracy, fantastic rescue services, easy navigation.

doesn't stop the moaners though

That post should be a sticky.

 

[ghostlymoron]

Talking if great rescue services, there was a reminder on Facebook yesterday about the loss of the Solomon Browne, Penlee lifeboat and her crew. Which occurred just before Christmas 1981 I think. Very poignant.