The UK should have stopped Eric Hiscock and Wanderer III

[Tranona]

End of old man rant.

Exactly what it is. Just because you learnt your sailing one particular way does not make it any better or more admirable than any other way. That is just the way it was commonly done in those days, just the same as the Hiscocks sailing without modern aids - simply because they werre not available, but they were at the forefront of what was available at the time.

I am old enough to have learned much the same way as you and safely got myself around the Channel with a compass and an echo sounder - but much prefer doing it with a chartplotter and all the other goodies I can afford and use competently.

 

[Robin]

Exactly what it is. Just because you learnt your sailing one particular way does not make it any better or more admirable than any other way. That is just the way it was commonly done in those days, just the same as the Hiscocks sailing without modern aids - simply because they werre not available, but they were at the forefront of what was available at the time.

I am old enough to have learned much the same way as you and safely got myself around the Channel with a compass and an echo sounder - but much prefer doing it with a chartplotter and all the other goodies I can afford and use competently.

Yes but don't spoil our fun, It is nice to be one up on the smartphone androids, occasionally.

 

[westernman]

Wing props were not uncommon as you say. They often result from either not wanting to cut an aperture out of the rudder, or because the sternpost is not big enough to take a stern gland without it effectively being cut in half.

For Moitessier I think he probably found it easier to drill a hole than take a gas axe to the rudder.

You still see the occasional wing prop on rebuilds. Most notable I think is probably Lulworth.

The brand new but traditional build pilot cutter Edit Gray has a wing prop. According to the builder's web site it is because an aperture in the rudder would make the boat appreciably slower. Anyway, his new pilot cutter has been winning all the races so it looks like he is right.

It probably makes backing into a tight mediterranean style berth quite interesting.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Could not have put it better myself!!!

You didnt put it half as well yourself!

 

[prv]

The brand new but traditional build pilot cutter Edit Gray has a wing prop. According to the builder's web site it is because an aperture in the rudder would make the boat appreciably slower.

The owner of Bertie has one too, again fitted from new rather than as a conversion. He too reckons the boat would be slower with a conventional arrangement.

Pete

 

[Bosun Higgs]

I appoint myself to edit the post.

Some people have done long passages without using all mod cons (these are the capable people, the Cans).
Some think themselves incapable of such feats. They are the Cannots.
The trouble is the Cannots think they can lecture the Cans!

End of edit..

Thank you for your translation of the troll.

 

[Woodlouse]

The brand new but traditional build pilot cutter Edit Gray has a wing prop. According to the builder's web site it is because an aperture in the rudder would make the boat appreciably slower. Anyway, his new pilot cutter has been winning all the races so it looks like he is right.

It probably makes backing into a tight mediterranean style berth quite interesting.

I doubt it would make that much difference to the speed. You would get some disturbance around the rudder aperture but not enough to create a noticeable amount of drag. Edith Gray has been winning all the races because she has a big ballast keel and an even bigger rig. Compare the ballast ratio and sail area to the original pilot cutters and you will see she is a much more powerful boat. She was also sailed well when racing, especially on the starts, and I think the biggest lesson she was teaching was not so much that of all out speed, but of the benefits of clean air.

Also, wing prop or no, going backwards in any gaffer is interesting.

 

[prv]

Also, wing prop or no, going backwards in any gaffer is interesting.

I'll second that

Pete

 

[Seven Spades]

Nobody would stop you doing the same thing now - least of all the UK "government".

They (and a few others) did what they did with what they had - because that is what they had! But if you follow their whole careers you will find that they were not averse to taking on new ideas, and you can be sure that if they were doing the same thing now, they would take advantage of many of the things on your list.

By all means admire them, but there are people now who still push the boundaries - just that the boundaries are different.

But today as soon as you land in NZ or Australia they will force you to meet their safety requirement before they allow you to go back out to sea.

 

[mikeinkwazi]

You didnt put it half as well yourself!

Too true!http://1.2.3.12/bmi/www.ybw.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[macd]

But today as soon as you land in NZ or Australia they will force you to meet their safety requirement before they allow you to go back out to sea.

Is that true? It may be, but I'd heard -- on these forums if I remember correctly -- that NZ tried to impose that but got a flea in its ear since it breached treaty obligations in some way.

 

[Tranona]

But today as soon as you land in NZ or Australia they will force you to meet their safety requirement before they allow you to go back out to sea.

Are you sure about that? NZ tried that a few years ago and the authorities lost their case in their own courts.

Anyway, this thread does not seem to about compulsory equipment, but triggered off by admiration of pioneering yachtsmen who undertook challenging voyages without many of the aids used today - not through choice as there was no choice.

Some people think that puts them in a different league from others - but try saying that about people such as Ellen McArthur, or RKJ, particularly has he spans the whole spectrum from basics to all the latest gizmos in his exploits.

 

[Nostrodamus]

Wing props were not uncommon as you say. They often result from either not wanting to cut an aperture out of the rudder, or because the sternpost is not big enough to take a stern gland without it effectively being cut in half.

For Moitessier I think he probably found it easier to drill a hole than take a gas axe to the rudder.

You still see the occasional wing prop on rebuilds. Most notable I think is probably Lulworth.

I will take a photo of her as she is now (out the water) so others can see. I imagine it is a pain trying to manouver under engine alone.

 

[Conachair]

I will take a photo of her as she is now (out the water) so others can see. I imagine it is a pain trying to manouver under engine alone.

Installed while afloat!

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 43.

 

[Seven Spades]

Is that true? It may be, but I'd heard -- on these forums if I remember correctly -- that NZ tried to impose that but got a flea in its ear since it breached treaty obligations in some way.

Maybe that is the case now but when I was there they inspected every visiting yacht and would impound any that did not meet their safety requirements on the basis that when the boats got into trouble NZ tax payers were picking us the cost of the rescue.

 

[Woodlouse]

I will take a photo of her as she is now (out the water) so others can see. I imagine it is a pain trying to manouver under engine alone.

A wing prop doesn't actually have too much effect on steering under power. There may be a few little quirks that will be quickly learnt, and prop wash will be a useful ally if used correctly but in all the boat won't behave much differently to any deep long keeler.

 

[Blueboatman]

I have sailed three wooden boats over the years with quarter props. Going backwards ( and stopping) is a bit of a black art but that apart, the only difference was compromising the need for a bit of clearance from the prop tip to the hull, and the desire to fit as big a unit as you wanted.

And it is an absolute bugger getting a buoy line round the prop. One learns to always turn the one way if running over a lobster pot inadvertedly , like at night

 

[Tippex]

[QUOTE

Was the waves and weather different in the 1950ies??

[/QUOTE]

Well, that is a point you could argue. RKJ and Moitessier reported surprisingly benign conditions around Cape Horn in 1968 - not that they didn't experience storms in the Southern Ocean - but it does seem that the GGR fleet found themselves in heavy weather a lot more regularly. Also, apparently, the Typhoon season in the northwest Pacific now lasts all year round. There seems no doubt that the weather is changing.

 

[Zing]

Zombie alert!

 

[AntarcticPilot]

...and Queen Isabella of Spain should never have financed Columbus' expedtition too! They had even less equipment than the Hiscocks and weren't even 100% sure the earth was even round! She was leaving herself wide open to a compensation claim...

Tch...

Actually, they did know the earth was round - anyone able to read and write (i.e. educated by the standards of the day) knew that; they even knew roughly (better than 10% error) what its circumference was (Eratosthenes calculated a pretty good value in about 200BC!). Unfortunately, Washington Irving's fictionalized version of Columbus' voyages that were popular in "history" lessons in the USA made the false claim that he did it to prove that the Earth was round. Columbus did have his own estimate of the circumference of the Earth that was far less than the well-established figure, and assumed that China wasn't too far away; other navigators using the accurate figure knew that China would be too far away to be within the range of a ship of the day. Columbus was a) wrong in his estimate of the circumference of the Earth and b) lucky that America existed where he thought China would be! To the end of his life, Columbus still thought he'd reached part of China. It's worth remembering that Columbus never reached the mainland of America; he reached various Caribbean Islands.