What has happened to all the motorsailers?

[Baggywrinkle]

We've had our Finnsailer 5 years now.

This is our fifth year owning her & several thousand miles of comfy warm sailing.

Wow ... my Dad used to have one, kept in the Clyde (Tarbert) and called Karlen. He had it for years and sold it a few years ago. Perfect West Coast boat and my kids had great fun on her.

 

[Cptsideways]

Looks a great boat, I've got a Mascot 28 on the Clyde just now, but it's a bit small. I know of a Finnsailer 36 for sale do you know anything about them?

Equally well built, though a more traditional sailboat design, with a more open pilothouse latterly became the Nauticatt of which there are many more. Just beware of the teak decks on them needing work or replacing.

 

[Cptsideways]

Wow ... my Dad used to have one, kept in the Clyde (Tarbert) and called Karlen. He had it for years and sold it a few years ago. Perfect West Coast boat and my kids had great fun on her.

View attachment 182884

I remember seeing her in Tarbert, all very original and tidy. Same blue hull scheme as ours. Actually found a picture I took of her for you!

Ours was ordered new by a hotel owner in Dunoon.

 

[Baggywrinkle]

I remember seeing her in Tarbert, all very original and tidy. Same blue hull scheme as ours. Actually found a picture I took of her for you!

Ours was ordered new by a hotel owner in Dunoon.

Thanks! We had it in the family for over 30 years and my dad absolutely loved it.

 

[dancrane]

...Fisher 34 that had a 50' tall mast on her...would never do more than 5kts...In 25kt on the beam she did appear to sail at rather startling angles of heel, but would still only do 5 kt. My conclusion is that the Fisher hull with large amounts of immersed volume does not have enough initial stability to carry that kind of rig.

That's very surprising and disappointing.
Is it likely - or inevitable - that that Fisher (and possibly all that share the hull form) top-out at five knots and can go no faster, even when driven by the engine?

Or does the over-canvassed rig cause heeling without also delivering increased forward thrust to the hull?

That sounds impossible - the heeling must be a direct effect of thrust on the sails, so unless the sails are trimmed cluelessly, they should drive the hull at least to its theoretical maximum speed, in conditions that suffice to drive her over to a crazy degree of heel.

Glad I didn't find out by buying one.
.

 

[Cptsideways]

Our Finnsailer 35 will do almost 10knots under engine alone but the amount of bow wave & wake is comical, you could easily surf behind lol. We do see over 7 sailing but very not often. Notably her wake is much less heeled over sailing at that speed then just motoring upright.

 

[Laminar Flow]

That's very surprising and disappointing.
Is it likely - or inevitable - that that Fisher (and possibly all that share the hull form) top-out at five knots and can go no faster, even when driven by the engine?

Or does the over-canvassed rig cause heeling without also delivering increased forward thrust to the hull?

That sounds impossible - the heeling must be a direct effect of thrust on the sails, so unless the sails are trimmed cluelessly, they should drive the hull at least to its theoretical maximum speed, in conditions that suffice to drive her over to a crazy degree of heel.

Glad I didn't find out by buying one.
.

Sailing boats rarely run out of power, but they do run out of stability. This particular Fisher not only had a very tall rig, it also had a furling genoa and a in-mast furling main. Both would add to the heeling moment, together with a much higher centre of effort. Ironically, the owner told me that this rig had been sanctioned by the Fisher yard.
From talking to another Fisher 34 owner with a ketch rig, I know that they are at least capable of reaching their theoretical hull speed, which is around 7 kts.

The Fisher hull has a fairly soft bilge without pronounced shoulders and a great deal of immersed volume. There are plenty of other hulls you cannot just add more sail on, including Colin Archer lifeboats. I would not recommend increasing sail area without beforehand investigating the boat's stability, which is precisely what I did when we increased the SA on our CW.

 

[Supertramp]

That's very surprising and disappointing.
Is it likely - or inevitable - that that Fisher (and possibly all that share the hull form) top-out at five knots and can go no faster, even when driven by the engine?

Or does the over-canvassed rig cause heeling without also delivering increased forward thrust to the hull?

That sounds impossible - the heeling must be a direct effect of thrust on the sails, so unless the sails are trimmed cluelessly, they should drive the hull at least to its theoretical maximum speed, in conditions that suffice to drive her over to a crazy degree of heel.

Glad I didn't find out by buying one.
.

I'm not sure that's a fair judgement of the Fisher 34. My experience with a Cromarty 36 (same designers as the Fisher 34, 1ft beamier, 3 tonnes lighter and ketch rigged) is that you can get to 5-6 knts, stay there all day on passage without having to be overcanvassed or heeling. My stove stays fixed! If i am heeling 15 degrees its time to reef. If you carry too much sail then you get to hull speed, but no more, and start to get a lot more weather helm. I can't comment directly on the Fisher but I can imagine it would be similar.

Interestingly when cruising a motorsailer that can sail ok, it performs much like a cruising yacht of similar size and weight, turning in largely similar passage times. I used my engine for 400 miles of 1000 miles this summer - probably not so different to a cruising yacht.

Much discussion elsewhere about sail area, rudder design and hull shape. Like all yachts you learn how to sail it to best effect and make your own adjustments and modifications.

 

[Laminar Flow]

I'm not sure that's a fair judgement of the Fisher 34. My experience with a Cromarty 36 (same designers as the Fisher 34, 1ft beamier, 3 tonnes lighter and ketch rigged) is that you can get to 5-6 knts, stay there all day on passage without having to be overcanvassed or heeling. My stove stays fixed! If i am heeling 15 degrees its time to reef. If you carry too much sail then you get to hull speed, but no more, and start to get a lot more weather helm. I can't comment directly on the Fisher but I can imagine it would be similar.

Interestingly when cruising a motorsailer that can sail ok, it performs much like a cruising yacht of similar size and weight, turning in largely similar passage times. I used my engine for 400 miles of 1000 miles this summer - probably not so different to a cruising yacht.

Much discussion elsewhere about sail area, rudder design and hull shape. Like all yachts you learn how to sail it to best effect and make your own adjustments and modifications.

I entirely agree that a well canvassed motorsailer will have a similar performance to other cruising yachts.

However, just because two hulls were designed by the same office does not mean they are similar. 3 tonnes lighter is already a significant difference, especially on a similar waterline length and, as stability increases to the third power to the beam , a 1 foot increase in beam has a considerable effect on stability.
The difference in overall resistance between 5-6kts and a nominal hull speed, of say 7kt, is exponentially greater and particularly so in a heavy boat, as resistance is directly linked to displacement. A good rule of thumb is that on a reach in a F5 you need 25 sqft per 500 lbs to reach hullspeed.

So what is over canvassed? Most sailing boats are designed to reach their nominal "hull speed" somewhere between the end of a F4 and in a F5. The SA/D ratios required for this are well documented and are in the SA/D 16 (ocean voyager) to 19 ( cruiser/racer) category (according to Brewer and others). Accordingly, a motorsailer should have a SA/D of between 13 and 14. The only ones I know that get anywhere near the 14, are the Nauticat 33 (the deep keel version) and the Banjer 37, Oceanis. Many others are well below 10, such as the Watsons (exception is the 28, which has a SA/D of just over 11), and the Fisher with the highest, the 37, has one in the high 12s. If a boat cannot stand up to her rig to reach her hull speed, she is clearly over-canvassed and lacks (initial) stability. If she is overwhelmed by weatherhelm before she reaches that speed, she is either imbalanced in hull or rig, or both, or has an ineffective and inefficient rudder (such as the Colvic Watsons)

But, whether you reach hull speed in a F4 or F5 is one thing, a boat that fails to make decent progress in conditions that are still pleasurable (F3) is frankly a dud, motorsailer or not.

I speak from experience; we own a CW 32 motorsailer and we have fixed both her rudder problem and increased her sail area. We now have an SA/D in the mid cruiser/racer category. We also go places in her: this year we effectively circumnavigated the UK via Holland, Denmark, Sweden Norway, Shetland, Scotland and Ireland some 3000 miles in total and in spite of the absolutely atrocious and wet weather. On longer offshore passages we frequently average 6.4 kts, sail well in light conditions and can carry our full 72 sqm SA up to 20 kts when close hauled.

Considering that practically all sailing boats nowadays can reach hull speed under power, the only difference between what one calls a motorsailer and a pure sailing cruiser, should be that the former has a proper roof over your head.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I entirely agree that a well canvassed motorsailer will have a similar performance to other cruising yachts.

However, just because two hulls were designed by the same office does not mean they are similar. 3 tonnes lighter is already a significant difference, especially on a similar waterline length and, as stability increases to the third power to the beam , a 1 foot increase in beam has a considerable effect on stability.
The difference in overall resistance between 5-6kts and a nominal hull speed, of say 7kt, is exponentially greater and particularly so in a heavy boat, as resistance is directly linked to displacement. A good rule of thumb is that on a reach in a F5 you need 25 sqft per 500 lbs to reach hullspeed.

So what is over canvassed? Most sailing boats are designed to reach their nominal "hull speed" somewhere between the end of a F4 and in a F5. The SA/D ratios required for this are well documented and are in the SA/D 16 (ocean voyager) to 19 ( cruiser/racer) category (according to Brewer and others). Accordingly, a motorsailer should have a SA/D of between 13 and 14. The only ones I know that get anywhere near the 14, are the Nauticat 33 (the deep keel version) and the Banjer 37, Oceanis. Many others are well below 10, such as the Watsons (exception is the 28, which has a SA/D of just over 11), and the Fisher with the highest, the 37, has one in the high 12s. If a boat cannot stand up to her rig to reach her hull speed, she is clearly over-canvassed and lacks (initial) stability. If she is overwhelmed by weatherhelm before she reaches that speed, she is either imbalanced in hull or rig, or both, or has an ineffective and inefficient rudder (such as the Colvic Watsons)

But, whether you reach hull speed in a F4 or F5 is one thing, a boat that fails to make decent progress in conditions that are still pleasurable (F3) is frankly a dud, motorsailer or not.

I speak from experience; we own a CW 32 motorsailer and we have fixed both her rudder problem and increased her sail area. We now have an SA/D in the mid cruiser/racer category. We also go places in her: this year we effectively circumnavigated the UK via Holland, Denmark, Sweden Norway, Shetland, Scotland and Ireland some 3000 miles in total and in spite of the absolutely atrocious and wet weather. On longer offshore passages we frequently average 6.4 kts, sail well in light conditions and can carry our full 72 sqm SA up to 20 kts when close hauled.

Considering that practically all sailing boats nowadays can reach hull speed under power, the only difference between what one calls a motorsailer and a pure sailing cruiser, should be that the former has a proper roof over your head.

It's also well known that Fishers' performance varies widely between models, despite them all having similar looks.

 

[dancrane]

Fascinating stuff. I've nothing to contribute, except to say that I haven't anything against the Fisher 34 - it's always been among my favourite designs.

But I very much value Laminar Flow's acute analysis of what to me (and I suspect to most people) are subtle differences which may nevertheless cause seemingly similar heavyweight hulls to turn in very different or unpredictable levels of performance.

...the only difference between what one calls a motorsailer and a pure sailing cruiser, should be that the former has a proper roof over your head.

After a lousy British summer it's a pleasantly ironic reflection during sunny mid-September (and it's due to be warm this week), but whether she sails well or badly, or just badly until corrected by a determined owner, a motorsailer still offers the nearest thing to rational boat ownership in the UK.
.

 

[Supertramp]

I entirely agree that a well canvassed motorsailer will have a similar performance to other cruising yachts.

However, just because two hulls were designed by the same office does not mean they are similar. 3 tonnes lighter is already a significant difference, especially on a similar waterline length and, as stability increases to the third power to the beam , a 1 foot increase in beam has a considerable effect on stability.
The difference in overall resistance between 5-6kts and a nominal hull speed, of say 7kt, is exponentially greater and particularly so in a heavy boat, as resistance is directly linked to displacement. A good rule of thumb is that on a reach in a F5 you need 25 sqft per 500 lbs to reach hullspeed.

So what is over canvassed? Most sailing boats are designed to reach their nominal "hull speed" somewhere between the end of a F4 and in a F5. The SA/D ratios required for this are well documented and are in the SA/D 16 (ocean voyager) to 19 ( cruiser/racer) category (according to Brewer and others). Accordingly, a motorsailer should have a SA/D of between 13 and 14. The only ones I know that get anywhere near the 14, are the Nauticat 33 (the deep keel version) and the Banjer 37, Oceanis. Many others are well below 10, such as the Watsons (exception is the 28, which has a SA/D of just over 11), and the Fisher with the highest, the 37, has one in the high 12s. If a boat cannot stand up to her rig to reach her hull speed, she is clearly over-canvassed and lacks (initial) stability. If she is overwhelmed by weatherhelm before she reaches that speed, she is either imbalanced in hull or rig, or both, or has an ineffective and inefficient rudder (such as the Colvic Watsons)

But, whether you reach hull speed in a F4 or F5 is one thing, a boat that fails to make decent progress in conditions that are still pleasurable (F3) is frankly a dud, motorsailer or not.

I speak from experience; we own a CW 32 motorsailer and we have fixed both her rudder problem and increased her sail area. We now have an SA/D in the mid cruiser/racer category. We also go places in her: this year we effectively circumnavigated the UK via Holland, Denmark, Sweden Norway, Shetland, Scotland and Ireland some 3000 miles in total and in spite of the absolutely atrocious and wet weather. On longer offshore passages we frequently average 6.4 kts, sail well in light conditions and can carry our full 72 sqm SA up to 20 kts when close hauled.

Considering that practically all sailing boats nowadays can reach hull speed under power, the only difference between what one calls a motorsailer and a pure sailing cruiser, should be that the former has a proper roof over your head.

The Cromarty has an SA/D of 18.6 and as you say more beam and less weight. And a yacht shaped hull. I feel the designers got it right, although the design is at least 10 years more modern than a Fisher and more similar to a Barbary or Atlantic 40.

I have not sailed a Fisher but by all accounts I have read the Fisher 34 is the best under sail. I would choose a modest ketch rig rather than a tall sloop because the ketch rig gives more choices to balance sails, especially if combined with a mini bowsprit (as I believe you added to your Colvic). I suspect they can be set up to sail satisfyingly although I agree that too much extra weight in the rig causing, heeling excessively and having to reef early remove two big motorsailer benefits.

 

[E39mad]

Huge props are one thing that slows them down, but most MS have abysmal SA/D ratios (sail area/ displacement), by comparison with "real" sailboats., which is the real culprit.

Some hull shapes could not stand to carry more sail, the Fisher is one of them (for all of those who dream of putting a large rig on one of them).
I saw a Fisher 34 that had a 50' tall mast on her and had a chat with her owner. I had seen her sales documentation and had noted that she did appear to sail at rather startling angles of heel. The owner told me that she would never do more than 5kts. In 20kt on the beam she would top out at 5kt, in 25 kt she would still only do 5 kt. I was rather astonished by this as our "pimped" CW 32 will be doing well over 7kt in 20kt and 8 kts or more in 25kts of wind. My conclusion is that the Fisher hull with large amounts of immersed volume does not have enough initial stability to carry that kind of rig.

Must have been something wrong there (uncalibrated speed log or dirty hull) as a standard factory sloop rigged Fisher 34 with a clean bottom can easily achieve and maintain 6 to 7 knots in those conditions. Done it plenty of times. Even a Fisher 25 can reach a steady 5 knots in the same conditions.

 

[RAI]

I have found the Coronet Elvstrom 38 to be an ideal motor sailor. It can be sailed from within the wheelhouse and cruises at 6 knots on either motor or sail. They rarely escape the Baltic, where their value is appreciated. One of the few sailing vessels with a bulb bow.
I can even sell you mine.

 

[Laminar Flow]

Must have been something wrong there (uncalibrated speed log or dirty hull) as a standard factory sloop rigged Fisher 34 with a clean bottom can easily achieve and maintain 6 to 7 knots in those conditions. Done it plenty of times. Even a Fisher 25 can reach a steady 5 knots in the same conditions.

With today's possibility to verify log speed via GPS, I find that argument improbable. I have personally seen this boat and the bottom seemed perfectly clean.
Assuredly, the mast on this boat is spectacularly tall ( I have taken pictures) and in her sales documentation it showed her sailing at astonishingly high angles of heel, in spite of what appeared to be modest wind conditions. The boat had been for sale in the Netherlands and is now berthed in Bas Sablons, Brittany. One can well presume that the current owner has had plenty opportunity to verify the boat's performance.

I remain with my well reasoned assumption that the hull, with its steep dead rise and great immersed volume, simply does not have enough initial stability to support this much taller rig. To be certain, initial stability has little to do with ultimate stability, of which the Fisher with her high ballast ratio would have plenty.
The Fisher is a fiberglass interpretation of a fishing vessel. In this context it should be noted that for a Fishing vessel, high initial stability and the accompanying rapid accelerations are not desirable. Traditionally, sailing vessels were generally less burdensome. When engines became the preferred means of propulsion, the vessels structures had to be built much stronger and displacements had to be accordingly increased, to support this and the incredible weight of early motors (2.5 tons for a 60 hp semi diesel, for example). Both traditional sailing and fishing vessels carried little ballast if any. In the Fisher range, the much lighter structure was ballasted down to float on their lines, but ballast has relatively little effect on initial stability, especially in a boat with relatively shallow draft. What does have a significant influence on initial stability, are beam and a hard bilge which both contribute to an increase in GZ (the lever between centre of gravity and the centre of heeled buoyancy). Stability is the product of GZ x the displacement.

 

[E39mad]

With today's possibility to verify log speed via GPS, I find that argument improbable. I have personally seen this boat and the bottom seemed perfectly clean.
Assuredly, the mast on this boat is spectacularly tall ( I have taken pictures) and in her sales documentation it showed her sailing at astonishingly high angles of heel, in spite of what appeared to be modest wind conditions. The boat had been for sale in the Netherlands and is now berthed in Bas Sablons, Brittany. One can well presume that the current owner has had plenty opportunity to verify the boat's performance.

I remain with my well reasoned assumption that the hull, with its steep dead rise and great immersed volume, simply does not have enough initial stability to support this much taller rig. To be certain, initial stability has little to do with ultimate stability, of which the Fisher with her high ballast ratio would have plenty.
The Fisher is a fiberglass interpretation of a fishing vessel. In this context it should be noted that for a Fishing vessel, high initial stability and the accompanying rapid accelerations are not desirable. Traditionally, sailing vessels were generally less burdensome. When engines became the preferred means of propulsion, the vessels structures had to be built much stronger and displacements had to be accordingly increased, to support this and the incredible weight of early motors (2.5 tons for a 60 hp semi diesel, for example). Both traditional sailing and fishing vessels carried little ballast if any. In the Fisher range, the much lighter structure was ballasted down to float on their lines, but ballast has relatively little effect on initial stability, especially in a boat with relatively shallow draft. What does have a significant influence on initial stability, are beam and a hard bilge which both contribute to an increase in GZ (the lever between centre of gravity and the centre of heeled buoyancy). Stability is the product of GZ x the displacement.

I have not disputed the angles you mentioned but am surprised about the low hull speed having experienced many Fishers at first hand.

 

[Laminar Flow]

I have not disputed the angles you mentioned but am surprised about the low hull speed having experienced many Fishers at first hand.

As I had said, I too was surprised by this, but I was not about to question the owner's veracity and to his face. I have seen a number of, even professionally designed, boats that were not able to stand up to their rigs and consequently were not able to reach any notable speed.

The midship section on the Fisher is almost circular, which is the worst possible shape for form stability. By contrast, the midship section on the CW is quite different, with a lot of outboard buoyancy and the length/displacement ratio, at 360, compared to the Fisher 34's 432, is a lot lighter and has less submerged volume.
I investigated our boats stability before increasing our SA, both by roll period and by her lines, just to be sure. Effectively we have doubled her SA over the standard model and have still retained a wind pressure coefficient suitable for ocean sailing. Our main mast is 6' taller, booms are longer and I have added a 6' (mini) bowsprit. All sails are fully battened to maximize roach and SA.
Compared to the Fisher quoted, on a beam reach in 20 kts we are doing well over any nominal hull speed, with something in the high sevens and with 25 kts, we are hitting 8 kts. Bearing off just a little, we have sustained speeds in the high eights. These speeds are for the boat in full cruising trim.

So yes, I was surprised as well.

 

[dancrane]

It occurs to me to wonder why I've never seen a sloop-rigged Fisher 25.

I've seen photos of it and a drawing and it looks terrific, a perfect antidote to the inadequacy of the 25's ketch rig, which they boasted, "doesn't need reefing even in 35 knots". A doubtful basis for boasting.

The sloop would seem ideal then...but they're peculiarly rare. Could it be that the sloop rig is too big and tall and goes too far the other way?

I noticed among pictures of a Fisher 25 for sale, that the mast was stepped on a sliding footing (photo below).

I supposed it must be to allow steering balance to be adjusted, as might be needed for a bowsprit and cutter-headed rig. I don't think that example had that fitted, but why else would one opt to be able to move the mainmast forward or back?

I hadn't previously seen anyone put a better sailplan on the 25.

It's an unhappy thought if the reason the F25 was given that badly underpowered ketch sailplan for several decades, was that she couldn't stand up to something better.
.

 

[E39mad]

It occurs to me to wonder why I've never seen a sloop-rigged Fisher 25.

I've seen photos of it and a drawing and it looks terrific, a perfect antidote to the inadequacy of the 25's ketch rig, which they boasted, "doesn't need reefing even in 35 knots". A doubtful basis for boasting.

The sloop would seem ideal then...but they're peculiarly rare. Could it be that the sloop rig is too big and tall and goes too far the other way?

I noticed among pictures of a Fisher 25 for sale, that the mast was stepped on a sliding footing (photo below).

I supposed it must be to allow steering balance to be adjusted, as might be needed for a bowsprit and cutter-headed rig. I don't think that example had that fitted, but why else would one opt to be able to move the mainmast forward or back?

I hadn't previously seen anyone put a better sailplan on the 25.

It's an unhappy thought if the reason the F25 was given that badly underpowered ketch sailplan for several decades, was that she couldn't stand up to something better.
.

There were a hand full of sloop rigged Fisher 25's built in the early to mid 1990's. Probably about 4 or 5 and the one I sold went to Norway. There were no reports of problems - in the fact the opposite as the owner reported superb handling in F8 in the North Sea on the passage home. From this picture of an early 90's boat the mast foot does not appear to allow adjustment.

 

[Laminar Flow]

Actually, they did and still do offer the F 25 with a sloop rig. In fact, they have even (slightly) increased the SA on the latest incarnation. For the small sum of 100.000 Pounds Sterling you too could own one.