Search for Cheeki Rafike called off

B

Boo2

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Messages
8,603
Visit site
See here on the BBC's website : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27465639
Contact with the men was lost on Friday after they reported running into difficulties about 1,000 miles (1,600km) off Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

They were returning from a Caribbean sailing event when their boat, the Cheeky Rafiki, began taking on water.

The US Coastguard-organised air and sea search has been called off.
Click to expand...

Am I right in thinking this is the same Cheeki Rafiki as I used to see around Shoreham-by-Sea ? The last pic in the first post of this thread would seem to refer : http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?372773-Some-more-SIBS-pictures (see below).

Anyone from the club know anything about this ?

Boo2

phoca_thumb_l_1024-imgp8805.jpg
 
kristifercolumnbus said:
I have been listening to the News reports but there was no information about why it started to take onboard water anyone know?
Click to expand...

All the BBC say is the water ingress was from an unknown source. They didn't say how quickly.

Fingers crossed they all got into the liferaft and are safe and sound, but the weather did not sound at all good.
 
I hope they can be found.
I wonder if the overturned hull found by the Maersk ship still had it's keel.
The Benetaux 40.7 are built with a structural liner glued to the hull.In my opinion that can be a weakness ,maybe they're not entirely suitable for large offshore passages?
 
30boat said:
I hope they can be found.
I wonder if the overturned hull found by the Maersk ship still had it's keel.
The Benetaux 40.7 are built with a structural liner glued to the hull.In my opinion that can be a weakness ,maybe they're not entirely suitable for large offshore passages?
Click to expand...

They are light weight racers - not necessarily the best option for a difficult ocean crossing. The picture seems to indicate a missing keel.
 
maby said:
They are light weight racers - not necessarily the best option for a difficult ocean crossing. The picture seems to indicate a missing keel.
Click to expand...

The keel is clearly visible standing up from the bottom of that pic of the inverted hull ? See here : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27486648

Google images show the F40.7 to be fitted with a wing keel which seems rather unlikely to lose the "bulb" so I guess the keel is likely to be intact. According to sailboatdata.com the type has a ballast ratio of 39% too, which is fairly high for a modern boat, but if water ingress was the cause of the sinking that may have outweighed normal stability considerations.

Boo2
 
Boo2 said:
The keel is clearly visible standing up from the bottom of that pic of the inverted hull ? See here : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27486648

Google images show the F40.7 to be fitted with a wing keel which seems rather unlikely to lose the "bulb" so I guess the keel is likely to be intact. According to sailboatdata.com the type has a ballast ratio of 39% too, which is fairly high for a modern boat, but if water ingress was the cause of the sinking that may have outweighed normal stability considerations.


Boo2
Click to expand...

I think that's the rudder.
 
Boo2 said:
The keel is clearly visible standing up from the bottom of that pic of the inverted hull ? See here : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27486648

Google images show the F40.7 to be fitted with a wing keel which seems rather unlikely to lose the "bulb" so I guess the keel is likely to be intact. According to sailboatdata.com the type has a ballast ratio of 39% too, which is fairly high for a modern boat, but if water ingress was the cause of the sinking that may have outweighed normal stability considerations.

Boo2
Click to expand...

That looks far more like the rudder - the boat should have two things sticking out of the bottom (or three including the saildrive) - that picture only shows one and it seems to be at one end. Current concensus seems to be that the initial water ingress was down to the failure of one or more keel bolts followed by capsize as the remainder went.
 
willfinch36 said:
I am pretty sure that's the rudder.
Click to expand...
maby said:
That looks far more like the rudder - the boat should have two things sticking out of the bottom (or three including the saildrive) - that picture only shows one and it seems to be at one end. Current concensus seems to be that the initial water ingress was down to the failure of one or more keel bolts followed by capsize as the remainder went.
Click to expand...

Good point, I'd just assumed that the rudder was too small to see in the pic. If the keel did come off then that might explain the water ingress, as you say.

Boo2
 
Boo2 said:
Good point, I'd just assumed that the rudder was too small to see in the pic. If the keel did come off then that might explain the water ingress, as you say.

Boo2
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of Beneteau's engineering solutions for the keel attachment.I once saw a Beneteau 38 5 ,I think , on which the keelbolts went through the inner moulding.There were only smallish round washers and it was obvious that the liner was deeply crushed by the keel nuts.
 
TonyBuckley said:
I read saying they had two epirbs but both ran out of charge. I don't know how long they last.
Click to expand...

They were PLBs, not EPIRBS, so the battery life would have been shorter. However, the reports would seem to indicate that the signals lasted quite a lot less than one would expect from a PLB.
 
30boat said:
I'm not a fan of Beneteau's engineering solutions for the keel attachment.I once saw a Beneteau 38 5 ,I think , on which the keelbolts went through the inner moulding.There were only smallish round washers and it was obvious that the liner was deeply crushed by the keel nuts.
Click to expand...

Through the INNER MOULDING ? Tell me you are joking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top