Discussion in 'General Yachting Discussion' started by Fish Catcher Jim, Apr 12, 2016.
They still do commercial.
This might be a rather interesting vessel to power across the ocean in,...and might handle some...
Concerns would include whether or not there is sufficient onboard storage for all the spare w/s wiper motors/blades required for long term visibility.
Steel, Alu, Glass. Boats. ? No. They are for wimps.
If you want to do it like a real man. Cross the ocean in a car. Get yourself one of these.
I think the Bestevaer range is almost a sailing version of the Dashew http://www.northseamaritime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Bestevaer-53ST-Series-Leaflet.pdf I have seen several in Falmouth and they seriously look like the could go absolutely anywhere, whilst down below they are very homely. A true explorer yacht.
I already have the best I can afford.
However with an unlimited budget - it would be a 20m welded 8086 aluminum - ketch or catamaran. Two diesel electric engines - 4bt or 6bt with 30kw electric motors on Brian Eiland design. With 500-800 gal of fuel and wind power 3000-5000nm is possible.
The Hatteras 65 LRC, it was designed to be the world's best full displacement production motor yacht for extended cruising up to 3000 miles, only 8 GPH.
Yes, but you have to be careful when hauling them out, I've heard that they have a very strange stringer system in the hull.
Sold two Hatteras 65lrc's, never heard of the problem.
It might have been on the 58' LRCs. It never was an issue, it was just that they had to be lifted a certain way or they would flex A LOT when hauled out. It's been a very long time since I've come across one and cannot remember totally. But I think they have longitudal stringers but very few cross stringers or bulkheads or something along those lines and need to be supported more when hauling them than normal yachts.
My boat is a 65 LRC "Terranova", (Ex Drummer).
I owned this boat for more than 10 years without any problems. Terranova , even sailed from the USA to the Chilean Patagonia without problems.
Capt J - first you said that you need to be careful on haulout and you heard about their stringer system. Then after I responded, you changed it to maybe it was the 58s. I didn't bother commenting that I have also attended surveys on 58s and never heard of this as being an issue. So out of the 4 Hatt LRCS that I know of, neither I, the yard, nor the owners exercised particular caution. Now you've heard from a 65 owner.
So perhaps there is something in your memory banks that made you compelled to respond, but it would be great if you could next time provide specifics or details. We have a new o.p. who on his 3rd post comments on the 65 Hatt being a great long range cruiser and you chimed in with an unsupported perhaps maybe of what you heard how many years ago.
The Hatteras LRCs are great yachts, voluminous in interior volume, with good seakeeping capabilities and oh, Hatteras pedigree.
C'mon, let's be a bit more responsible.
I have to imagine the hull laminate below the water lines 0n those LRC's was at least 2" thick solid glass, do you recall?
I never said anything negative about the Hatteras LRC, nor are there any negatives I know of. The boat is structurally sound which has been proven over what 4 decades now. I simply stated it needed to be hauled a certain way.
I simply stated that they need to be supported better when being hauled out due to their stringer system. It cannot be hauled with single straps on the slings. I ran another Hatteras of that vintage whose size escapes me as it's been about 10 years and 1000 boats ago, but it had an aft engine room and was around a 63' MY built in the late 70's early 80's that they also made few of, and it too had to be supported with double straps on each, and blocks at the rear lower rub rail, otherwise the hull would flex a lot near the lower rub rail and crack the paint. I believe it was AMT who used to haul a lot of Hatteras were the ones that told me they had to do this with I'm thinking it was the 58' LRC as well. The 63' or 64' or somewhere around there was because the aft engine room had no bulkheads or side support of the stringers from the stern to the front of the engine room. Lifting it without blocks did not cause any structural damage, it would just crack all the paint around those lower rear sponsons/rub rails in the stern. Just because you never heard of it, does not mean it does not exist.
I managed a 63' Ocean, it was the first yacht I ever took care of, and for the same owner who owned it from 1988 to around 2009. This boat also needed a 6x6" block put under the rub rail at the front straps when hauling it, or it would crack the varnish down the entire toe rail in that area for many feet as the hull side would flex inward around 8" without them, ask me how I know.......This particular boat did the entire Carribbean and Central America down to Roatan and all over, and never had a structural issue it's entire life and had been in lots of sloppy seas, and ended up down in Honduras with it's latest owner. It just needed to be hauled a certain way.
In the late 70's was the gas crunch and resin prices through the roof, Hatteras wasn't laying up the hulls anywhere near that thick in that time period, plenty thick but no way 2". I can tell you that without a doubt on a 1979 58' Hatteras YF that the hull bottom directly in front of the engines is around a 1/2" thick as I accidentally drilled through it to install a different style float switch and measured it to be right around 1/2" thick. I highly doubt anyone laid up a hull in this size that was 2" thick solid glass. An inch yeah, 2" I've never seen it.
J , give me a break, will you? You haven't seen it all and it is getting tiresome as you profess to have. We are talking the LRC line , heavy displacement in need of weight, not the YF line. The YF has a different engineering requirement for hull structure. So unless you have specific knowledge to that question, please do not feel like you have to provide an off-topic response.
BTW, the Delta Marine 70 Zopolite had bottom laminates exceeding 2" in bottom sections, with overlap areas even thicker.
With the price of resin during that time period, I said I doubted any hull was 2" thick, I stated I've never seen it, I did not state that it's impossible that it isn't 2" thick. I stated what I did see with a Hatteras during that time period the LRC's were built on a different type of Hatteras. Take it for what it's worth.
Ah, no. It may be a displacement, but not quite a full one - at least not at 1.85m
This is a full displacement hull
And real ships have keel coolers
In the 70's, Charley Morgan built his OutIsland sailboats with hand layup glass up to 2" thick on the keel. Seen them being repaired at the Clearwater build shop - they were easily that thick and maybe a scant more.
Yes, it is certainly not in the upper reaches of a hefty Full Displacement vessel like the Delta Marine Trawler, which, as you know, the design started life out as a working commercial fish boat for PNW waters. They had to pour plenty of concrete in those boats in order to reach a more constant waterline for the yacht versions, and laminate weights be damned, as you couldn't realistically build her thick enough in FRP to eliminate the dedicated ballast anyways.
So it depends on what you consider as a definition of Full Displacement for a Yacht. Certainly they are traveling at Displacement Speeds. Using a traditional Displacement to Length Ratio, you get some who would say that a number in the range of 260 - 310 puts you in a full displacement class that can start to cross oceans. Others may push for a higher number to distinguish them from the competition. Either way both of them have crossed oceans. So if the LRC 65 displaces about 125,000 lbs. on an approximate waterline length of 57', you get a DLR of 277. In the ocean going category but on the light side of an Full Displacement Trawler. The Delta Marine 70' with a displacement at 290,000 lbs. and a waterline of 65' comes in at a crushing ratio of 471, emphasizing her heft at the upper echelon for a workboat design converted into a yacht.