The Yard Guys

[neilpride]

Actually the Nauticat 52 born as a Nautor Swan 50 mototrsailer, only 9 are produced and they are designed by Rod Stephens.

The molds are later sold to Siltala Yachts well know as Nauticat, the plans are modified by S&S and marketed as the new Nauticat 52.

Clear enough??

By the way , the design is a complete sucess since they sold a bunch of this boats , S&S Hull design is a 100% warranty that the boat is really well designed and Nauticat put the experience building the boat strong.
Is a hell of a good pilothouse ..

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Actually the Nauticat 52 born as a Nautor Swan 50 mototrsailer, only 9 are produced and they are designed by Rod Stephens.

The molds are later sold to Siltala Yachts well know as Nauticat, the plans are modified by S&S and marketed as the new Nauticat 52.

Clear enough??

...

Now you get me really confused. That's precisely what I have said some posts back, except regarding the Swan: They had back in the day two lines, the Swan line (performance cruisers) and the Nautor line, more conservative slower boats (I would not call them motorsailors). They could have called the second line the Duck line but they prefer to call it only Nautor.

Look at what I said:

Originally Posted by Polux

the 1982 Nauticat 52, this one:

... has the hull not from a Swan but from a Nautor, the 1976 Nautor 50, this boat, a S&S design:



A Nautor is not a Swan. The boats were made by the same company but belonged to different lines, the Nautor line and the Swan line. The first Nautor was the 43 in 1976 and the last the Nautor 39 in 1977. They sold very few boats from that line, discontinued it in 1979 and sold the molds to Nauticat. The Swan line started in 1936 with the Swan 36 and they are still making them today...

[neilpride]

I just found the info in the S&S web site, so i guess you are right to, the 50 DS is a early Nautor, later Swan sell the plans to Nauticat, Nauticat send the plans to S&S , and S&S redesigned the old 50 plans and the 52 is born..

[smackdaddy]

Wait - I thought Polux didn't have a clue what he is talking about?

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by colemj

So was the original Swan design that bad, or did Nauticat really hate a good design?

Mark

I would guess that Nauticat was aiming at a different market segment.

[avb3]

This is the comment on Facebook about the old heavy built Morgan:

Ran aground in the Bahamas, bouncing and grinding on the rocks for 12 hours until help arrived. This is the worst of the damage. Sure am glad we had a good, sturdy Morgan for this adventure.

Wonder how the new production boats would do?



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by avb3

This is the comment on Facebook about the old heavy built Morgan:

Ran aground in the Bahamas, bouncing and grinding on the rocks for 12 hours until help arrived. This is the worst of the damage. Sure am glad we had a good, sturdy Morgan for this adventure.

Wonder how the new production boats would do?



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

If that's really the extent of the damage production boats would fare just as well.

[smj]

Originally Posted by avb3

This is the comment on Facebook about the old heavy built Morgan:

Ran aground in the Bahamas, bouncing and grinding on the rocks for 12 hours until help arrived. This is the worst of the damage. Sure am glad we had a good, sturdy Morgan for this adventure.

Wonder how the new production boats would do?



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Old heavy built Morgan, are you sure about that? My friend has an early 70's OI 41 and found a large area underwater that had 1/4" glass at the best. Not what I would consider heavy construction.
Also it would be a good idea to take into account the progress made in building lighter but stronger hulls than they did in the 70's with the use of coring, glass other than woven roving and chop strand and vacuum bagging.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by smj

Old heavy built Morgan, are you sure about that? My friend has an early 70's OI 41 and found a large area underwater that had 1/4" glass at the best. Not what I would consider heavy construction.
Also it would be a good idea to take into account the progress made in building lighter but stronger hulls than they did in the 70's with the use of coring, glass other than woven roving and chop strand and vacuum bagging.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Exactly. For example, did Morgan use Kevlar in their hulls?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by avb3

This is the comment on Facebook about the old heavy built Morgan:

Ran aground in the Bahamas, bouncing and grinding on the rocks for 12 hours until help arrived. This is the worst of the damage. Sure am glad we had a good, sturdy Morgan for this adventure.

Wonder how the new production boats would do?

Did they run aground because their leeway was so bad, or they couldn't tack fast enough, or the boat doesn't handle well under motor, or they got caught in current and couldn't maneuver with a fat long keel and barn door rudder?

If having a thick fiberglass hull and no-performance design that can take 12hrs grinding on a reef with little damage is your idea of a good boat design and build, then there is no hope for you.

I would take a responsive boat that is easy to keep off reefs with a bit of basic navigation any day.

BTW, those OI's were notorious for poor and inconsistent build quality. It is funny to see them brought forth as a good example - because they never were in their day.

Mark

[smackdaddy]

Oh snap!

[Polux]

Originally Posted by colemj

..
If having a thick fiberglass hull and no-performance design that can take 12hrs grinding on a reef with little damage is your idea of a good boat design and build, then there is no hope for you.
...

Again you made me laugh! Thanks that is good for the health

I wonder what percentage of boats is grounded in rocks. On my 30 000nm I only had been once in a tight situation (entirely by my fault an I managed to go away without damages). On all those miles must of the time I anchored for the night. sure if one goes to sail to badly charted and remote places I am all in favor to have a steel or aluminium boat (even if many do that on mass production boats) but for the kind of crusising most of the sailors do? That makes no sense.

And in what regards those old heavy boats you would have to exchange that for a lousy sailing performance. I posted yesterday what i think is the last post on the ARC thread. The Mason 44 and the Nauticat 43, with a close performance arrived yesterday, 10 days after the 45ft Philocat. The last boat is still at about 2 days sailing, the Island Packet 380, going at 5K.

By the way, the owner Peter, posted on the thread a nice video where we can see that they are not a big racing crew. It seems like Peter, the wife an two friends (Franziska, Stefan, Sven & Peter) certainly all good sailors.. Here is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9IXuy6Bqvk

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I would guess that Nauticat was aiming at a different market segment.

The same that Nautor was targeting without success with the Nautor line, that's why Nauticat bought the two moulds from them when they decided to finish with that line. Nauticat introduced big deck houses on them and gave them more potential as living aboard boats (making them worse sailboats in the process). They are great as live aboard boats and many use them for that in Europe, most of the time not sailing much or using them mostly as motor boats. They can sail on the trade winds (even if slowly) but on the weak and variable winds of most European coasts (on the summer) they are not at ease in what regards sailing.

[robert sailor]

I cross an ocean and it takes me half a day to read some of this stuff, same basic program with limited value. The Google guys taking on the sailors/builders. I see while I was gone Smack beat up the poor Moody's. Imagine this, back in the 70's Moody built one model, the 39 that they decided in their own wisdom could be built with a skeg design that was smaller than the one approved by Lloyds. One of these vessels had the skeg fracture somewhere in the Indian ocean. The owner had deep pockets and sued Moody and Lloyds of London . Moody lost and there after built very strong skegs on their boats. This was one boat that had an issue and it damn near cost them their reputation built over a hundred years. Those were different days, imagine loosing a rudder on a boat today and paying such a deep price that the company might not survive. Hunter would have been gone years ago as well as most production builders. Who could successfully sue a builder today for loosing a rudder? And for the conspiracy theory fools, this story was news from the get go and the original information is there for all to see, getting paid off to shut your mouth!! What a joke. And then Smack talks about a Moody breaking a skeg while being towed off a grounding but when a Jenneau is shown with the floors like pasta and the keel off he suggests its not fair to knock a boat after its been damaged as any boat can be damaged. This is the same BS with the same players.. entertaining for sure as long as you realize you are debating with folks that for all practicle purposes are very junior sailors but are consummate experts when Google is their friend. Nice to be back! R

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Polux

That is seriously impressive.