Historic Boats for sale online

[magnetman]

2 hours ago, Ogwr said:

From the position of total ignorance on the matter, the pod motor appears a bit like an eg whisk for moving a motor sterned narrow boat. To my mind a shaft from a motor to a proper sized blade would make better use of the torque from an electric motor.

 

This is a good point and yes the pods do have quite small propellers. 

 

I am suggesting options which do not involve cutting the original metalwork on historically important butty boats. 

 

Of course you can motorise with an inboard and a shaft but you do irreversibly alter the boat by doing that.

 

I don't know what the hydraulic drive pod specification was in the Hampton butty conversion. That would be interesting to know as well as propeller size. 

 

Another one was Capella which I think had a BMC 1.8 power unit. 

 

 

 

 

Another fun game would be to mount a large brushless inrunner (smaller diameter than an outrunner) inside the top of a custom made elum with a belt drive to a custom made prop shaft then you could choose your prop and reduction ratios.

 

Not as quiet but more flexibility perhaps.

 

 

[koukouvagia]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

I don't know what the hydraulic drive pod specification was in the Hampton butty conversion. That would be interesting to know as well as propeller size. 

 

It has a Fixed Displacement motor/pump supplied by Anglian Diesels. (An F12-060-MF-IV-K Motor to be precise) and it drives a 17"x12" prop.  Power supplied by a BMC 1.8.

It goes like the clappers, but I do admit that the egg whisk blade means that stopping takes requires a bit of thinking ahead .  The picture shows the bottom of the ellum with the protective cover removed from the motor.

 

[magnetman]

Thats interesting as I bought my Aquamot outboard from ARS Anglian Diesels/BSP Hydraulics a few yars ago. They also sent me a price for an Aquamot pod motor but have since then stopped being a UK distributor for Aquamot. 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, koukouvagia said:

It has a Fixed Displacement motor/pump supplied by Anglian Diesels. (An F12-060-MF-IV-K Motor to be precise) and it drives a 17"x12" prop.  Power supplied by a BMC 1.8.

It goes like the clappers, but I do admit that the egg whisk blade means that stopping takes requires a bit of thinking ahead .  The picture shows the bottom of the ellum with the protective cover removed from the motor.

 

Horrible water flow into the prop around that motor and mounting plate though -- even with a cover over the motor...

[koukouvagia]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Horrible water flow into the prop around that motor and mounting plate though -- even with a cover over the motor...

Doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, koukouvagia said:

Doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

Define "problem" -- it certainly goes against all the marine engineering recommendations on how to get good water flow into a propeller (narrow deadwood with good clearance to the prop) to get efficient propulsion.

 

Like many other things, ignoring "best practice" doesn't mean something doesn't work, just that it doesn't work as well as it would if the advice was followed... 😉

Edited September 5, 2023 by IanD

[David Mack]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

Define "problem" -- it certainly goes against all the marine engineering recommendations on how to get good water flow into a propeller (narrow deadwood with good clearance to the prop) to get efficient propulsion.

 

Like many other things, ignoring "best practice" doesn't mean something doesn't work, just that it doesn't work as well as it would if the advice was followed... 😉

But in this case the only alternative would have been to have the prop further back and a longer length of unsupported shaft beyond the motor bearing. Which also wouldn't be "best practice".

[IanD]

I agree, it's probably the least bad solution if you don't want to touch the hull.

[MtB]

23 minutes ago, IanD said:

Define "problem" -- it certainly goes against all the marine engineering recommendations on how to get good water flow into a propeller (narrow deadwood with good clearance to the prop) to get efficient propulsion.

 

Like many other things, ignoring "best practice" doesn't mean something doesn't work, just that it doesn't work as well as it would if the advice was followed... 😉

 

 

"Perfect is the enemy of good" is an aphorism which means insistence on perfection often prevents implementation of good improvements. The Pareto principle or 80–20 rule explains this numerically. For example, it commonly takes 20% of the full time to complete 80% of a task while to complete the last 20% of a task takes 80% of the effort.[1] Achieving absolute perfection may be impossible and so, as increasing effort results in diminishing returns, further activity becomes increasingly inefficient.

 

Sometimes, getting it done roughly right today, is better than done next week exactly right, for five times the price. 

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good

 

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

"Perfect is the enemy of good" is an aphorism which means insistence on perfection often prevents implementation of good improvements. The Pareto principle or 80–20 rule explains this numerically. For example, it commonly takes 20% of the full time to complete 80% of a task while to complete the last 20% of a task takes 80% of the effort.[1] Achieving absolute perfection may be impossible and so, as increasing effort results in diminishing returns, further activity becomes increasingly inefficient.

 

Sometimes, getting it done roughly right today, is better than done next week exactly right, for five times the price. 

 

 

It wouldn't have been that difficult to move the prop a bit further back and get a tapered swim in front of it, and possible get the motor a bit further forward. This would have needed an extra prop shaft bearing to support it, but that's something that many seagoing boats seem to manage without any problem. But then the prop might have been more prone to damage...

 

As usual there's no perfect solution, and this is probably the least bad one that can be done relatively easily. Doesn't change the fact that the water flow into the prop is terrible which will make for more noise and turbulence and power loss. All of which are acceptable if the alternative is no motor at all, but doesn't make it a *good* solution... 😉

Edited September 5, 2023 by IanD

[alan_fincher]

Has this one been noted?

 

Otter

 

The description doesn't fit my memory of  Otter that well, so i think it may have been subject to quite a  lot of changes.

EDIT:

 

It appears to have acquired steelwork for an undercloth conversion, but both the pictutes of this appear to have horizontal cuts through it, and part way into the lightweight bracing.  What's that all about then, or am I misreading it/

Edited September 11, 2023 by alan_fincher

[IanM]

21 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Has this one been noted?

 

Otter

 

The description doesn't fit my memory of  Otter that well, so i think it may have been subject to quite a  lot of changes.

EDIT:

 

It appears to have acquired steelwork for an undercloth conversion, but both the pictutes of this appear to have horizontal cuts through it, and part way into the lightweight bracing.  What's that all about then, or am I misreading it/

 

I think you're looking at the horizontal angle bracing and interpreting them as cut lines.

[alan_fincher]

2 hours ago, IanM said:

 

I think you're looking at the horizontal angle bracing and interpreting them as cut lines.

 

Yes, you are quite correct of course....

 

I can see it now.

 

I can see it now.

 

EDITED TO ADD:

The description is a bit odd, describing it as a "Working Boat", but of course you couldn't work it with the hold covered in by a steel cabin.

 

This more of a "sailaway" - not even a lined sailaway.

 

It needs huge amounts of work to turn it into a residential boat, or a boat for extensive cruising.

A "JP" in a Josher is in my experience a rare occurrence, and a Josher with a three cylinder throb would not seem right to me.  A JP2 would seem a better fit than a JP3 in my view.

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by alan_fincher
Whole post mangled by Forum software, (it seems)

[MtB]

From the "OTTER" listing:

 

"Otter is a 71ft long x 6ft 10in wide, narrowboat built by Yarwoods FMC Joshua in 1928."

 

6ft 10in doesn't seem very likely. Or does it? 

 

 

[alan_fincher]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

From the "OTTER" listing:

 

"Otter is a 71ft long x 6ft 10in wide, narrowboat built by Yarwoods FMC Joshua in 1928."

 

6ft 10in doesn't seem very likely. Or does it?

 

It's possible, particularly if a whole new bottom has been put on, as it suggests.
 

I'd be rather surprised if it is no wider than that at any point, but Joshers have a lesser design width than the "Grand Unions" which are typically 7 feet or more.

[magnetman]

When this boat was in the Chess basin it had a full length cabin on it. I guess it must have been wood although it seemed like a steel cabin.  Then I think Malcom Burge bargeeboy got it around 2005. 

 

I think it might have been one of his boats which was shipped to Poland for works or was that another one?

 

[David Mack]

The back cabin is fitted out in pine according to the listing, but needs work to complete although it has an Epping stove. No photos of the cabin, but the picture of the Epping would suggest there is much more to do around it. And the boat has no berths, so is there even a basic cross bed and side bed fitted?

This is little more than a sailaway shell, albeit one that is nicely painted externally rather than just in primer.

[Derek R.]

As regards to width, I cannot imagine an FMC motor in original condition being 6' 10" overall. The place to check would be the forward engine room bulkhead and the external overall dimension at that point.

 

 

[furnessvale]

Within the last 3 years OTTER was subjected to a considerable amount of work.  A couple of years ago OTLEY won the prize for the best boat at Braunston.  I remember confusion at the time as to whether the winner was actually OTTER, which in its own small way, is a measure of OTTER's turnout at that time.

[magnetman]

Was OTLEY still owned by Pete Harrison or did it change hands again? 

 

I remember when it was for sale near Reading on the Thames. Interesting boat. 

 

 

[David Mack]

27 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Was OTLEY still owned by Pete Harrison or did it change hands again? 

Still owned by Pete.

[ditchcrawler]

On 03/09/2023 at 10:19, koukouvagia said:

  Any one wishing to return Hampton to a horse-drawn boat has simply to lift off the steel ellum and replace it with a wooden one. (I know where the original ellum is!). The shape of the hull has not been altered or cut into and the undercloth steel conversion could be removed without too much trouble.

We know that Hampton is a bit of an oddity and that the purists may decry what we have done.  However, the 112 year old boat is at least preserved for the next generation to enjoy and do with it whatever they like.

For the full story see www.buttyhampton.com

 

 

Isn't that what happened to Ipswich, the hydraulic elm was replaced with a standard one 

[Tim Lewis]

[zenataomm]

That's just the weather to go and look at a wooden boat.  No fear of rose tinted glasses or hazy lazy days of summer to befuddle you.

Come to think of it,  just the weather to go and look at any boat!

[alan_fincher]

Here is the URL for the actual ad for that ex Thomas Clayton wooden boat....

 

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/746277510599431/