Interesting boats

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
CharlieO. said:
Hopefully someone will get it and turn it into serviceable condition. Be a shame to see it go to anchor or mooring to die a slower death.
Click to expand...

Might be o Cardiac Arrest already.:nonono:
 
He will own that boat for YEARS... very thin market for those at any price. There was 1 in the Fl panhandle with minimal use that was priced at 14k......for months. Nice rugged boats ,but limited use for them. Good inland cruisers if you don't mind the double cabin setup.
 
Sababa said:
Yes, it’s got a Gardner.

Cammenga North Sea Trawler https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/1967-cammenga-north-sea-trawler-61-8905726/
Click to expand...

Owner Comments:
"A very rare feeling when you are on board, you feel an absolute secure and love with her after 50 NM of Navigation. She becomes your body, embracing your soul, needs attention like a teenage love. When you are at helm you become her."

That's quite a vessel, florid prose aside! I wonder if she'll fetch near her asking price - clearly the money's been spent, but probably a thin market?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2023-06-22 at 8.17.44 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2023-06-22 at 8.17.44 AM.jpg
    68 KB · Views: 40
  • Screen Shot 2023-06-22 at 8.18.06 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2023-06-22 at 8.18.06 AM.jpg
    126.7 KB · Views: 44

Attachments

  • 101_0042.jpg
    101_0042.jpg
    166.5 KB · Views: 45
Last edited:
When I read "Mekong Delta"

I fill (not for a long time ::blush:) 50 year younger .
I was in this area 50 year ago .
All trees, grass everything was removed from the side of the riverside from the delta to Saigon. Only some small military place...
But in another place of the river the vegetation remain and it was more "uncomfortable" ...
Sorry for the poor "quality of the photo but taken with a small "instamatic" and a "polaroide" exactly 50 years ago
 

Attachments

  • 20230622_161848.jpg
    20230622_161848.jpg
    50.3 KB · Views: 55
  • 20230622_162157.jpg
    20230622_162157.jpg
    58.4 KB · Views: 50
  • 20230622_162218.jpg
    20230622_162218.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 50
Now this looks very interesting to me. Not usually a fan of cats, but this one is appealing in many ways:

https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/2005-cs-powercat-8917065/


The only thing I personally don't like about it (and it is completely a matter of personal choice) is that despite all that beam, they couldn't resist putting in a full-width salon instead of proper walk-around side decks. That would be a deal-breaker for me, but otherwise there's a lot to like about the boat.

I don't see much of a wave piercer between the hulls. Might slap in seas that reach the bridge deck?
 
Art said:
Had a 1974 31'/32' [Uniflite used both LOA #'s per promotion needs] Uni sedan w/ FB... I called her our SF Bay Go-Cart!! Twin screw, fast, responsive. :speed boat: :dance: :thumb:

Same basic hull as Vietnam Mekong River Delta patrol boats.
Click to expand...

My father provided the jet drives to Uniflite for the PBR’s. I am to this day still friends with one of Uniflite’s production managers. I was pretty young in those days but I spent a lot of time on the test mules.

By pleasure boat standards those things were unbelievably rugged. I suspect that by war standards they were very fragile.

I never meet a PBR crew, always wondered what they thought.

I went into the helicopter business. Helicopters take you to a whole new definition of fragile.
 
Nick14 said:
Now this looks very interesting to me. Not usually a fan of cats, but this one is appealing in many ways:

https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/2005-cs-powercat-8917065/


The only thing I personally don't like about it (and it is completely a matter of personal choice) is that despite all that beam, they couldn't resist putting in a full-width salon instead of proper walk-around side decks. That would be a deal-breaker for me, but otherwise there's a lot to like about the boat.

I don't see much of a wave piercer between the hulls. Might slap in seas that reach the bridge deck?
Click to expand...

14 ft for a 42 fter is bugger all beam
A Schionning 41 would be 21 ft

The argument with a wave breaker between hulls is they most definately will hit the water.

Without one, proper design and bridgedeck clearance, they aren't needed.
 
14 foot beam for a 42 foot cat is pretty narrow in my book. My 38 foot mono has a 14 foot beam, although unlike the cat, it's not that wide everywhere.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art View Post
Had a 1974 31'/32' [Uniflite used both LOA #'s per promotion needs] Uni sedan w/ FB... I called her our SF Bay Go-Cart!! Twin screw, fast, responsive.

Same basic hull as Vietnam Mekong River Delta patrol boats.

tiltrider1 said:
My father provided the jet drives to Uniflite for the PBR’s. I am to this day still friends with one of Uniflite’s production managers. I was pretty young in those days but I spent a lot of time on the test mules.

By pleasure boat standards those things were unbelievably rugged. I suspect that by war standards they were very fragile.

I never meet a PBR crew, always wondered what they thought.

I went into the helicopter business. Helicopters take you to a whole new definition of fragile.
Click to expand...

I've been keeping my eye on an older, little Uni [I'd say early 1970's - before the blister problem broke Uniflite Co's financial back]. That Uni looks to be 26 or 28 foot, with flybridge. Think she's got twins?? I see her each time I pass by a boat-haul yard. No for sale sign noticeable. But... ya just never know!

Seeing as I'm very busy these days... would be nice to have a little, fast Uni "get-a-bout" for occasional day cruises on SF Bay. She could probably be trailered. One of my 1 ton, 4WD, standard shift, posi-trac trucks would do the trick. Also, have a nice place to park it! Hope the beam is not too wide and the bridge when on a trailer is not too tall??? We shall see... I'm keeping an eye on her and may stop by the yard; she's been sitting alone for a few months! :dance:
 
Last edited:
Beam on that cat may be narrow, but a bigger problem is that it has no engines. 54 photos and none of the propulsion system. I’m sorta suspicious that if engines do actually exist, that they are located underneath those raised beds.

Maybe that’s why the broker is intentionally ignoring the subject.
 
Mako said:
Beam on that cat may be narrow, but a bigger problem is that it has no engines. 54 photos and none of the propulsion system. I’m sorta suspicious that if engines do actually exist, that they are located underneath those raised beds.

Maybe that’s why the broker is intentionally ignoring the subject.
Click to expand...

Agree, the beam is narrow for a cat of that length.

I’d suspect engine access might not be a big problem. The listing says it has V-drives. I see two hatches at the aft end of the cockpit. I’d bet the engines are beneath them.

It does have the design characteristic of cats with the bunk on the centerline. Since the bunk is on the connecting bridge deck it’s high off the hull bottoms, necessitating a long set of steps to climb up into it.

That might be fine for a younger person. At my curmudgeonly old age, with a bladder now the size of a raison, climbing up and down those steps several times a night would certainly result in a painful accident in a very short time.
 
Not a blue water boat imho. Engine access is a key issue in cats. Know of a Gunboat that got into trouble as the access was through a deck hatch. Once in a seaway that meant no access without down flooding. Likely the same here even with v drives.
To my understanding for open ocean multis under ~45’ are very difficult to design and have the necessary physics to prevent inversion and/or pitchpoling. Being dependent totally on form stability hard to develop a sufficient righting arm. Conflict between reserve buoyancy and need to have thin hulls. Efforts to increase beam to counteract this conflict lead to an unmanageable vessel. Wave strikes will hit the hulls at different times and increase risk of digging the lee hull.
Necessary bridge deck clearance isn’t a simple calculation. In part depends on how rapidly the bows rise to a wave. Must be extremely high if the bridge deck is brought forward. Common way to get around this for ocean going multis is to not have any bridge deck forward beyond a gangway to get to ground tackle (or headsails) and just netting elsewhere. This boat has the combination of both low clearance and hull structure all the way forward. Likely would burp and stall. Likely would be unsafe when snotty imho.
 
Last edited:
Hippocampus said:
Not a blue water boat imho. Engine access is a key issue in cats. Know of a Gunboat that got into trouble as the access was through a deck hatch. Once in a seaway that meant no access without down flooding. Likely the same here even with v drives.
To my understanding for open ocean multis under ~45’ are very difficult to design and have the necessary physics to prevent inversion and/or pitchpoling. Being dependent totally on form stability hard to develop a sufficient righting arm. Conflict between reserve buoyancy and need to have thin hulls. Efforts to increase beam to counteract this conflict lead to an unmanageable vessel. Wave strikes will hit the hulls at different times and increase risk of digging the lee hull.
Necessary bridge deck clearance isn’t a simple calculation. In part depends on how rapidly the bows rise to a wave. Must be extremely high if the bridge deck is brought forward. Common way to get around this for ocean going multis is to not have any bridge deck forward beyond a gangway to get to ground tackle (or headsails) and just netting elsewhere. This boat has the combination of both low clearance and hull structure all the way forward. Likely would burp and stall. Likely would be unsafe when snotty imho.
Click to expand...

Very informative and educational observations! Thanks!
 
Hippocampus said:
Not a blue water boat imho. Engine access is a key issue in cats. Know of a Gunboat that got into trouble as the access was through a deck hatch. Once in a seaway that meant no access without down flooding. Likely the same here even with v drives.
To my understanding for open ocean multis under ~45’ are very difficult to design and have the necessary physics to prevent inversion and/or pitchpoling. Being dependent totally on form stability hard to develop a sufficient righting arm. Conflict between reserve buoyancy and need to have thin hulls. Efforts to increase beam to counteract this conflict lead to an unmanageable vessel. Wave strikes will hit the hulls at different times and increase risk of digging the lee hull.
Necessary bridge deck clearance isn’t a simple calculation. In part depends on how rapidly the bows rise to a wave. Must be extremely high if the bridge deck is brought forward. Common way to get around this for ocean going multis is to not have any bridge deck forward beyond a gangway to get to ground tackle (or headsails) and just netting elsewhere. This boat has the combination of both low clearance and hull structure all the way forward. Likely would burp and stall. Likely would be unsafe when snotty imho.
Click to expand...

Well put!

Anyone here have first hand experience on effects of tall/snotty or conflicting wave/current choppy heavy-sea conditions with multi hull boat? Also, can't help to wonder what the effects of a tall/snotty following sea would be like?
 
Hippocampus said:
Not a blue water boat imho. Engine access is a key issue in cats. Know of a Gunboat that got into trouble as the access was through a deck hatch. Once in a seaway that meant no access without down flooding. Likely the same here even with v drives.
To my understanding for open ocean multis under ~45’ are very difficult to design and have the necessary physics to prevent inversion and/or pitchpoling. Being dependent totally on form stability hard to develop a sufficient righting arm. Conflict between reserve buoyancy and need to have thin hulls. Efforts to increase beam to counteract this conflict lead to an unmanageable vessel. Wave strikes will hit the hulls at different times and increase risk of digging the lee hull.
Necessary bridge deck clearance isn’t a simple calculation. In part depends on how rapidly the bows rise to a wave. Must be extremely high if the bridge deck is brought forward. Common way to get around this for ocean going multis is to not have any bridge deck forward beyond a gangway to get to ground tackle (or headsails) and just netting elsewhere. This boat has the combination of both low clearance and hull structure all the way forward. Likely would burp and stall. Likely would be unsafe when snotty imho.
Click to expand...
Most "blue water" boats never get anywhere near blue water..
 
Sailor of Fortune said:
Most "blue water" boats never get anywhere near blue water..
Click to expand...

Don’t know the numbers but do know I see flags of all nations in my travels. Agree some are flags of convenience such as the C.I. flags you see but most aren’t. A good durable BWB ends up being nearly twice the money of a similar LOA boat. There’s incentive to not purchase a BWB unless you’re going to use it. Believe use profile of use and lack of use is the same as for non BWBs. Know I’ve owned multiple BWBs and they were all used and outfitted for that purpose. Know I’m not alone.

Sometimes life gets in the way. Sometimes age. Sometimes it’s hubris that lead to the purchase. Sometimes it’s fear that keeps people in sight of land. Same as coastal.

In short my impression is %age of BWBsnot seeing blue water is the same as coastal cruisers not cruising. Perhaps more motor is not used to its capabilities than with sail.
 
Last edited:
Mako said:
What in the world does this mean? " ‘As is Where is’ as we were failed by the council’s recent gift to the boating community"
Click to expand...


Be something to do with this at a guess

It follows the closure of the hardstand at The Landing at Ōrākei's Ōkahu Bay in February – the last such council-run facility in the Auckland region - and the loss of a planned hardstand as part of the development of a $300 million-plus apartment precinct on the North Shore’s Bayswater Marina.

“The closing of affordable and fit-for-purpose haul-out areas around Auckland is a contentious issue and potentially a contributing factor to the negative consequences of invasive species and the demise of the Hauraki Gulf,” Abercrombie said.

“There is no doubt that fewer haul-out areas in Tāmaki Makaurau, Auckland or any region for that matter, for hull cleaning and antifouling, increases the risk of marine pests being spread.
Click to expand...


https://www.yachtingnz.org.nz/news/...ed-prevent-biodiversity-disaster-our-backyard
 
Think this is a worldwide problem. In multiple yards you aren’t allowed to sand nor blast. When they do it it’s in an enclosure or other mechanism to confine dust/debris is employed. Similarly you make not be allowed to power wash yourself.
Difficult problem you want something cidal enough to prevent fouling but not kill shellfish nor larva. You want a clean bottom but if you remove hard growth and it runs off into the sea you can spread it.
The picture in the link suggests much of what comes off the boats would go directly into the sea. Have seen power washing stations where the run off goes into a drain. From there I think into a leaching field which also serves rain run off. Believe that would limit toxins and live organisms getting into the water.
Would be interested in knowledge from those knowing more about how yards are dealing with current EPA regulations.
 
Hippocampus said:
Think this is a worldwide problem. In multiple yards you aren’t allowed to sand nor blast. When they do it it’s in an enclosure or other mechanism to confine dust/debris is employed. Similarly you make not be allowed to power wash yourself.
Difficult problem you want something cidal enough to prevent fouling but not kill shellfish nor larva. You want a clean bottom but if you remove hard growth and it runs off into the sea you can spread it.
The picture in the link suggests much of what comes off the boats would go directly into the sea. Have seen power washing stations where the run off goes into a drain. From there I think into a leaching field which also serves rain run off. Believe that would limit toxins and live organisms getting into the water.
Would be interested in knowledge from those knowing more about how yards are dealing with current EPA regulations.
Click to expand...

The marina/yard we're based out of power washes on a concrete pad with a drain. It goes into a catch basin where most of the paint, organisms, etc. gets separated out for later collection. They do allow DIY sanding with the restriction that you have to keep dust off the ground. So vacuum sanding and/or tarps to contain the mess. Basically, the rule is to not make a mess of the ground or surrounding boats and don't get junk in the water. Stick to that and they're happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Would You?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Coastie54
C
S
GB 1976 32’ Sedan Free
Replies
1
Views
933
hmason
hmason
ReelNauti
I told her I didn't want to buy a boat!
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
PierreR
PierreR
docdawg
past or present Camano 34 (Ledford) trawler owners
Replies
0
Views
2K
docdawg
docdawg
Cubancrisis
Help with my Trawler search.
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
Judy at JWY
J

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom