Hotchkiss Cones - 'For every craft of every draft'

[koukouvagia]

5 hours ago, davidwheeler said:

 I would sponsor it. 

I'd chip in too.   It looks as though Chance II is powered by an Enfield stationary diesel engine like this one 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48twGAKazgE

 

[IanM]

1 hour ago, koukouvagia said:

I'd chip in too.   It looks as though Chance II is powered by an Enfield stationary diesel engine like this one 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48twGAKazgE

 

 

I rather like that.

[billh]

IME the Enfield horizontal twins were hard to start by hand  and not much better if they had a starter motor. Most of the marine ones are ex RN and could be had fully overhauled  for £250  around 20 years ago. They have an ether starter cartridge fitting on them ( like a sparklets soda syphon gas cartridge), that says something  about starting them. Once running they are pretty good- I think 16HP  at 1500 rpm? There is no provision for driving an alternator but some have a flywheel generator  that will do about 10amps on a good day. I believe the starting difficulty is caused by wear of the pistons in the bottom half of the bores , being horizontal.

[Mike Nicoll]

3 minutes ago, billh said:

IME the Enfield horizontal twins were hard to start by hand  and not much better if they had a starter motor. Most of the marine ones are ex RN and could be had fully overhauled  for £250  around 20 years ago. They have an ether starter cartridge fitting on them ( like a sparklets soda syphon gas cartridge), that says something  about starting them. Once running they are pretty good- I think 16HP  at 1500 rpm? There is no provision for driving an alternator but some have a flywheel generator  that will do about 10amps on a good day. I believe the starting difficulty is caused by wear of the pistons in the bottom half of the bores , being horizontal.

Your right about starting difficulty when I steered Chance 2 I had to squirt a little easy start in to the air in take then she would start first time and run all day.

[spud]

this old boat with hodgkinsons tubes is for sale for £195

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/326123926326?itmmeta=01HZ7YGZWPJYH3VG4AN94GMMMW&hash=item4bee803336:g:AqcAAOSws6NmQE~f&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwDP2wTaGqCv5gnGisfI0S4tK68zgU2hYEuwHraQLgkXSi5k5U66%2FVN%2BB6yatyHHhX0PLCBZohXERd22fnY9BzAzB4oxVuasUcGwEGsznWKst2PVM6DB7d2Gx3790FVbHCUnAZ8M9bqZ7bR3ZLtrutnkFxBSkMNAfzsMoJB8RO4Z1WrK6FT0gxAsRxB93v37SAqDUpWmAGETOKRNu88JC6%2Bw1WvC0SPvubGwyceWV27TNGITSvkObi1mXN7gr2095Lg%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR7j-w_75Yw

[MtB]

57 minutes ago, spud said:

this old boat with hodgkinsons tubes is for sale for £195

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/326123926326?itmmeta=01HZ7YGZWPJYH3VG4AN94GMMMW&hash=item4bee803336:g:AqcAAOSws6NmQE~f&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwDP2wTaGqCv5gnGisfI0S4tK68zgU2hYEuwHraQLgkXSi5k5U66%2FVN%2BB6yatyHHhX0PLCBZohXERd22fnY9BzAzB4oxVuasUcGwEGsznWKst2PVM6DB7d2Gx3790FVbHCUnAZ8M9bqZ7bR3ZLtrutnkFxBSkMNAfzsMoJB8RO4Z1WrK6FT0gxAsRxB93v37SAqDUpWmAGETOKRNu88JC6%2Bw1WvC0SPvubGwyceWV27TNGITSvkObi1mXN7gr2095Lg%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR7j-w_75Yw

 

Thanks, but much of the thread has been discussing this boat. 

 

The problem with it is while we like the idea of getting the cone drive, what does one do with the 15 tonnes of rotting and structurally unsound oak that comes with it?!

 

 

[Derek R.]

Use a team of chainsaws. Sad, but true. £195 for a chance to save a complete engine and Hotchkiss cones. Is the engine and cone configuration worth £195? And then add the cost of transporting away the debris.

[magnetman]

The Boat and contents look like the kind of thing you pay someone to dispose of rather than expecting to lose the headache and get money. 

 

 

It seems likely the front will fall off.

The front is not supposed to fall off. 

 

It needs to be towed beyond the environment then set on fire. 

[davidwheeler]

When I spoke to Mr E E Hunt of Warwickshire Flyboats in 1997 about Cones he told me, amongst other experiences with them, this: 

"I fitted a second hand set in Chance 11. I remember there were three boats rescued, one broke its back but the other two were salvable. One could just see the word Chance on its cabin. They assumed it was either Chance 1 or 11. I fitted a flat twin Enfield, and cut trapezoid holes in the bottom to fit the Cones. We used flat belts, loose reversing belts for the reverse gear. This was at the suggestion of a Mr Melville. It was a common commercial method used in factories and it worked."

Another person I spoke to at this time, when I was researching Hotchkiss, had this experience with them: " We bought a flat bowed personnel carrier at a Royal Marine Surplus Sale. ..It was powered by a Chrysler V8 7.1 litre 454. The drive was by belt to a set of Cones...In about 8 inches of water it sucked itself down onto the sand. It was at Seaford Dock. We opened the throttle wide. We were standing on board. It went straight down, the water came in and it sank. It lay there for two tides. We suggested to the local fire brigade that they'd like to pump it out. 'We can only come if there is a fire' they said. 'Righto' I said 'there's a fire'. The fire brigade came out and up it came....we cut it up. I think someone wanted to use the Cones...

I might have understood at the time how the belt drive worked with Cones, but I do not now. Can anyone explain?

[BEngo]

There are two flat (not V or other modern drive) usually leather or canvas  belts.  One is a plain loop, the other is a crossed ( single twist)  loop.

 

There are striking levers which can slide either of the belts onto the driving (fast) pulley. The out of use belt rests on a loose pulley.

 

  Engage  the plain loop for ahead and the crossed loop for astern,  or vice versa depending on the set up.

 

N

[davidwheeler]

Have we had enough of Cones? I don't know. I will try again and see.

It might just be worth bearing in mind, before spending effort and money on the Chance 11 Cones, that even after careful planning, Cones did not always live up to expectations. They were not always predictable. They did not always do as you expect.

Two Cone Cautionary Tales:

The 'Exonia'. There is or was a regular passenger ferry service across the Exe estuary between Exmouth and Starcross pier and the GWR London - Plymouth railway line. At low water springs the ferries could not reach the pier and passengers had to be transferred to a smaller launch to get alongside. So a shallow draft vessel drawing a maximum of 18" was designed by Mr Donald V Hotchkiss of Parkstone, Dorset. Two diesel engines , each driving a set of his Cones. "When we took her out on trials, we put the forward cones astern and the aft cones ahead - she was supposed to go sideways. She didn't - she went round in a circle. She had hardly any keel and a flat bottom. With the four Cones she was like a snake going along, we couldn't do anything with her. We fitted two long steel plates about 12" deep and 6' long astern of the Cones and on either side of her keel. That stopped her snaking along. We got over the steering problems with a 5' long rudder, right after." (Ron Lavis, apprentice shipwright)

But after this the ferry gave fair service for many years, although one skipper told me that manouevring was a nightmare. She was slow and heavy. She was one of the last boats to enter the Ship Canal via the Topsham estuary lock. (Capt Peter Hocking, skipper).

You can gauge the size of the rudder from the model.

The 'Pandora'. This was a crabber designed to operate from a sloping shingle beach, where a screw propeller would be vulnerable. A set of Cones was chosen. " Fred can you mind anything about they paddle wheel things in my father's boat Pandora?"  "...It sucked up pebbles. Sometimes they made a hell of a row and could even stop the engine..he didn't have the engine changed, mind. It was the same engine. It was just the Hotchkiss gear. When you were alongside the landing stage in forward gear ( to keep station) it sucked up pebbles. If you left it there long it would suck a gert hole in the pebbles in under the boat. It went alright mind, there wasn't anything wrong with going along. It was alright in reverse too, but it was the pebbles, you see, it sucked them up." ( Fred Newton,fisherman, talking to Mike Green). The Cones also had a tendency to suck up lobster pot lines. At the end of the season the Cones were removed, and a propeller installed.

Not much, if anything, to do with canals, these two, but examples of what Cones did or did not do.

Overall, the Cone had little advantage over a conventional propeller except in very specific circumstances - shallow water, weedy but without hidden obstructions such as submerged sticks, small loose stones, and lobster pot lines. Not that the latter would affect canal users much but any loose rope could be drawn in and round the blades. In really clean, really shallow water Cones could give long term satisfaction. On one particular South Coast river, they did very well in several passenger-carrying launches for many years. Better than a prop. If these criteria fit your needs, Chance 11's Cones might be worth a go. I hope someone tries it.

 

[davidwheeler]

A short voyage of the Queen Mary

 

This is a story told to me twenty five years ago by the teller remembering a journey made forty and more years before that, which he felt was remarkable. 

It relates to a voyage made by Mr H A Carter with Mr Donald V. Hotchkiss on the latter's motor boat, the Queen Mary, from Parkstone Yacht Club, in Poole, Dorset to the Bakers Arms at Lytchett Minster . The story is told exactly as given by Mr Carter to me:

'It all started with a telephone call from Donald one evening: "Would you like to join me for a trip in the Queen Mary to the Bakers Arms for a pint tomorrow?"

"Don't be silly Hotch, there is no water near the Baker's Arms. You can't go there by boat."

" Oh, but you can , dear boy. I've done it."

'And so I joined him at the Club on the following day and we boarded the Q.M. and set off up the harbour. The Q.M. was not what you might call an express cruiser and I suppose her maximum speed did not exceed more than about four knots, but we had a strong spring flood to help us on our way. Up past Poole Quay and into the Wareham Channel, past Hamworthy and Lake Shore, and then a turn to starboard, in towards Rockley railway bridge, under the bridge and into Lytchett Bay. This is a shallow lake that dries out at low water, and here among the reed covered mud banks we discovered the entrance to the Sherford River, a little known and very small stream that I have never known to have been used by a  boat of any sort. But the lower reaches of this stream are tidal, and on this spring flood there was water enough for the Q.M. just about. We proceeded up this stream for about half a mile, with the banks brushing us on either side, through woods  and fields to a point a few yards from where the main Poole Wareham road crosses the stream. Here we cast an anchor onto the grass and walked a short distance across the field to the Baker's Arms to claim a triumphant pint and a chat with the landlord who I don't suppose had ever before served a customer who had come to his hostelry by boat. When we reckoned that high water had passed we returned to the Q.M. I can hardly believe that we would be able to turn the boat round in the stream but I do not remember going back down to Lytchett Bay stern first. But I do remember  that when we approached the narrows under Rockley Bridge the young ebb took charge and swept us through there stern first. Our voyage was concluded successfully in  a more dignified manner. Whatever the shortcomings of the Q.M. may have been, I am quite sure that the voyage could not have been carried out with a motor cruiser with conventional propulsion. With regard to the efficiency of the cone propeller, Donald always maintained that the bigger the unit the greater the efficiency and he was always hoping for the day when Cunard should approach him and ask for details of cones for a transatlantic liner.'

 

I have not found a photo of the Hotchkiss Q.M. but Mr Ken Latham, a Parkstone boatbuilder who knew the boat very well, drew a sketch of her and that is attached. Mr Latham did not think much of the Q.M. 'It was Donald Hotchkiss' show piece but it used to go more sideways than ahead. ' He didn't think much of Cones either. 

The unit installed in Q.M. would have been the smallest, as illustrated below in the arms of Mr Hotchkiss himself.. 

[davidwheeler]

Have you had enough of Hotchkiss Cones? If so, a little bit more, just to give an idea of the breadth of sales in the 1930s. All that follow are sales abroad. Just a few examples of many.  And there were many more in the early 1940s which I have not included. 

Bear in mind that Donald Hotchkiss, after the failure of his partnership and limited company in the 1920s, worked entirely on his own, albeit in later years, helped by his son. Some of these sales, to British Colonies or Protectorates, were through the Crown Agency. But not all. Given that he was a man, by all accounts given to me by people who knew him, of very uncertain temperament, I do not know how he achieved such world-wide sales. There must have been, in the 1930s, something about the Cones and their systems which attracted individuals, commercial concerns and governments. As one of the few people, I would guess,  now surviving with first hand experience of Cones in various conditions, I loved them. They were a nice shape, comfortable to sit on and they made a nice noise. Granted I was not responsible for the cost if anything went wrong. But the main cause was usually a bent blade, and as a very young teenager I could change a blade in a few minutes and liked doing it.

So there we are. Enough perhaps. But Hotchkiss did design a smart shallow draft river launch in the 1920s and I may add that later.

All the articles reproduced here come from the Motor Boat magazine. Donald Hotchkiss had been a sub-editor.

[Derek R.]

Wonderful collection of drawings. Thank you for posting these, they describe the machinery very well.

I can only think that the comparative complexity of integrating the cone structure to the hull, and the concerns over fouling through water born debris has been two of the factors preventing a more widespread adoptation of the system. That, and of course, the dogged obstinacy of 'keeping to what is known' as another. Propellors on shafts present their own issues, but are in the main, simpler devices with clearing them done with a boat hook.

[David Mack]

On 09/07/2024 at 10:27, davidwheeler said:

But the main cause was usually a bent blade, and as a very young teenager I could change a blade in a few minutes and liked doing it.

How do you access a blade to change it?

[davidwheeler]

To change a Cone blade

Identify, by sound, which Cone is affected. 

Unscrew the four nuts of the  curved inspection hatch cover on the upper part of the relevant Cone. Remove the cover and set aside with the nuts. Ensure the rubber gasket is undamaged. 

Turn the axle by pulling on a blade until the tip of the damaged blade is upright , clear of the water and immediately beneath the inspection hatch. Each of the four blades is secured to its flange on the axle by two bolts. Reach into the water, and find the fixing. With appropriate box spanners unscrew the nuts and  withdraw the bolts and retain. Lift out the blade. The usual cause of damage  is some obstruction passing the external grilles and forcing the blade curvature back so that it comes into contact with the inside of the Cone. Replace the damaged blade with a spare. Alternatively place the blade on a firm surface and hammer until the curvature is reformed. Reinstall. Ensure all nuts are tight and the hatch gasket watertight. If necessary replace the gasket. 

N.B. If on a river navigation or a commercial waterway, it is strongly advised  to have appropriate spanners immediately to hand and to have spare blades and securing nuts and bolts readily available. With practice it should take no more than four minutes to replace a blade. Enough time to effect repairs before the next tanker, barge or tug approaches.  If you do not you are in very real danger. 

This procedure is for the simplest case. If the axle cannot be turned because one or more of the blades has jammed against the Cone or through some other cause, further investigation will be required. In which case, on a commercial waterway, sound one long blast followed by two short blasts on the claxon. Repeat if you have time.  Use your VHF to warn other shipping. The chances are that the approaching vessel will not see you or will not be able to stop.....

The subject of Cones has gone on longer than I anticipated. There is now quite a lot about them and the boats in which they were installed. So that as much information is assembled in one place, in case that is of interest in the future, I will continue to add bits and pieces, including other Hotchkiss inventions. Unless a moderator tells me that enough is enough. 

 

 

[David Mack]

Thanks. I was curious as to the height of any opening in the cone in relation to the water line. I guess the warning about approaching barges, tankers or tugs answers that one! And presumably any damage that couldn't be addressed in something like that 4 minute timescale would require the boat to be docked for repair.

[davidwheeler]

"From what I can remember it did not work very well..."

"...consigned to history and that's the best place for it.."

Not every user seems to have shared negative opinions of Hotchkiss Cones in use. Some undoubtedly did, and at least two changed from Cones to prop. Another scrapped the system and the boat as well. It seems to have depended on intended usage.

Below I have extracted from the contemporary editions of Motor Boat reports of, it would appear, entirely satisfied customers of boats with Cones. All from the 1930s.

How objective and impartial those reports are cannot be assessed against peer reviews. They are all from the same magazine and some have a distinct touch of Hotchkiss about them. It is a shame that we cannot take up Mr Mens' offer, to judge for ourselves. Because you really have to experience them.

Next, later and finally, I will just add one or two overseas examples, the last I believe of the bigger vessels fitted with the system. To keep it all here in the same place.

[davidwheeler]

'The Only Internal Propeller Which has Stood the Test of Time'

'Sold to 23 different countries..'

The onset of the Second World War brought Mr Hotchkiss' business to a complete and sudden halt. It was only in 1944, when he obtained the order for the 'Exonia' that he returned to his one-man business. He then pursued his aim to provide designs and systems for bigger and bigger vessels. His Cones got larger. He was successful in gaining orders, through the Crown Agency and others, for ferries for lakes and rivers in Africa. Some of these carried vehicles. Some of them may still be in existence, although all my efforts to trace them have failed.

But his ultimate aim, the order for a really big commercial vessel, eluded him. He believed, and those that knew him, accepted that he believed, that the bigger the vessel, the better the performance of his Cones. No such order ever came to him.

Towards the very end of his life he still went on experimenting. One such was his outboard adaptation. It was not a success. After his death in 1960, his son continued the business for a while and produced some experimental models but none were successful and the business ceased and all its documents were destroyed.

The illustrations and specifications for the ferries come from reprints used by Mr Hotchkiss for publicity. 

That completes my contribution to the subject. 

If there is interest I may go back to the 1920s and his smart designs for shallow draft river launches. 

[magnetman]

Its interesting that it appeared to be such a revolutionary product yet virtually all low speed Boats are currently screw driven. 

 

Might it have been because Mr Hotchkiss was very plausible the product was in fact no good? 

 

Too many parts and a big hole in the Boat maybe. 

 

One of those things which in theory is amazing and does work. Cuts the weed but not the mustard. 

 

 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Its interesting that it appeared to be such a revolutionary product yet virtually all low speed Boats are currently screw driven. 

 

Might it have been because Mr Hotchkiss was very plausible the product was in fact no good? 

 

Too many parts and a big hole in the Boat maybe. 

 

One of those things which in theory is amazing and does work. Cuts the weed but not the mustard. 

 

 

And almost certainly a lot less efficient than a screw propeller, just like a paddlewheel...