Thoughts on this Willard 40 Pilothouse

Been watching this Willard 40 Pilothouse since June (I think). Been to busy with running my charter boat to do much else let alone go to Washington to look at this boat. Season is winding down; time to get back to boat hunting.

Willard 40 Pilothouse on Yachtworld

Everything looks pretty dated inside;
Mostly old electronics
Old appliances
Old AC units
Old washer & dryer
Old Carpet, cushions, etc.
28 year old engine with 3K hours

Otherwise it seems like a pretty good boat. What's your opinion of this boat? What am I missing? What do you think is a realistic price?

Ted

With a good survey I'd say it's a good buy. I'd buy it in a heartbeat if I wanted a boat that big and had the 150K. I think it's by far the best model. If the engine is well looked after and the hull has only minimal blisters it's a good buy. Go on Yahoo Groups to Willard Boat Owners and learn all you want about Willards. Of course most there think there's no other boat worth owning but there is as I recall about 15000 posts on Willards.
The W40 is a popular boat as it's a genuine passagemaker and one of the least expensive. This one looks like it's got flopper stoppers too. Forget it or go quickly.

Thats a nice Willard. Owned by a very nice older gentleman.

Rob, (lady Anne) here on TF knows the boat, and has more photos that he took while he was on the boat.

It was listed FSBO last year but the owner wasn't in a big hurry to sell her then.

FYI the second stateroom was converted to a storage,washer,dryer,freezer room.

We seriously considered that boat before settling on our 4788.

If it had been on the market during my search, I'd have seriously considered it.

Is 2000 NM range on 490 gallons realistic? I legitimately ask because I do not know. Seems a tad ambitious to me.

If the ad copy is true it's had a fair amount of somewhat recent maintenance updates. Tanks, glass, canvas and such. Nice little ship if you ask me.

CPseudonym said:

Is 2000 NM range on 490 gallons realistic? I legitimately ask because I do not know. Seems a tad ambitious to me.

If the ad copy is true it's had a fair amount of somewhat recent maintenance updates. Tanks, glass, canvas and such. Nice little ship if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Very realistic...I'm planning on around 4.0 NMPG for my boat at 6 or so knots. That hull is probably a tad more slippery than mine so 4.XX NMPG time 490 is definitely very close to 2000 NM range.

psneeld said:

Very realistic...I'm planning on around 4.0 NMPG for my boat at 6 or so knots. That hull is probably a tad more slippery than mine so 4.XX NMPG time 490 is definitely very close to 2000 NM range.

Click to expand...

Thanks, good to know.

You'll probably need to go a knot or two below hull speed, and it also depends on how much reserve fuel you feel comfortable with. The manufacturer of my 14-ton Coot claims a 1500-mile range on its 300+gallon capacity, but I'd only rely on 1000 miles on a first attempt setting out.

I imagine generator run time and current/conditions would make a difference too. I'd never really gave it much consideration before looking at this ad.

"That hull is probably a tad more slippery than mine"

Actually I think it's quite a bit more "slippery" as in 50 to 100% more slippery than the Albin.

"You'll probably need to go a knot or two below hull speed"

If you're driving a FD boat sensibly(comparable to a Willard 40) that's a given. Going "hull speed" is a semi displacement activity and hull speed means very little re non FD boats.

manyboats said:

"That hull is probably a tad more slippery than mine"

Actually I think it's quite a bit more "slippery" as in 50 to 100% more slippery than the Albin.

"You'll probably need to go a knot or two below hull speed"

If you're driving a FD boat sensibly(comparable to a Willard 40) that's a given. Going "hull speed" is a semi displacement activity and hull speed means very little re non FD boats.

Click to expand...

Yes but "slippery" becomes less important as you drop below where the power required for speed curve geometrically increases (hull speed as some call it).

And you can argue your understanding and theory all you want...but actual numbers from trawlers of all shapes and sizes that I have been recording are quite close if they are similar water lengths and you stay well below that magic moment when power starts to rapidly rise on the less efficient shapes.

Have any actual numbers from 40 Willard owners that approach 8 NMPG in the 6-7 knot range? 42 KKs don't and they are pretty well considered full displacement.

Plus the featured boat has the same hp engine as mine with the same cruising speed and max speed.....can't be all that much more slippery...

psneeld said:

... Have any actual numbers from 40 Willard owners that approach 8 NMPG in the 6-7 knot range? 42 KKs don't and they are pretty well considered full displacement....

Click to expand...

The 8 NMPG is a typo right?

Our boat carries 400 gallons of fuel. We burn 6 gph to go 8 knots. So that gives us a range of 533 miles in a no-current, no-wind condition. That's with an inefficient hull with two sets of props, struts, rudders and shafts hanging down.

So I have no problem believing that a boat like that 40' Willard with its one small engine and very efficient hull can go four times as far on almost 100 gallons of fuel more than we carry.

Marin said:

Our boat carries 400 gallons of fuel. We burn 6 gph to go 8 knots. So that gives us a range of 533 miles in a no-current, no-wind condition. That's with an inefficient hull with two sets of props, struts, rudders and shafts hanging down.

So I have no problem believing that a boat like that 40' Willard with its one small engine and very efficient hull can go four times as far on almost 100 gallons of fuel more than we carry.

Click to expand...

But that is because you are trying to go faster than it's theoretical hull speed which I bet is only around six knots. If you slowed to 5-6 knots, you might only burn half or a third as much.

As I pointed out...the Willard 40 ain't that much more slippery than mine if the current owner claims the exact same cruising speeds as my boat with the same power...certainly not as much as 50-100 percent more slippery.

And as Larry M pointed out...8 NMPG would have to be a typo even for a Willard...I doubt any KK is approaching that at their normal cruise speeds. And I'll bet that most 40 something trawlers...not matter what make get around 3-4 NMPG if they stay in the 6-7 knot range burning 1.5-2 gaL PER HR. Like my boat has a 36 foot waterline so it's hull speed if you go with what many consider the rule of slightly over the square root of the waterline length...then 6 knots is gonna give me a combo of good speed and good power..slower is more economical and the Willard may be able to go a little faster burning less fuel than me...but that wasn't my point.

Marin....I think you pointed out that all boats are displacement boats at displacement speed...which is my point...they all start to climb that bow wave...but only planing vessels truly get over it.

A Willard 40 burns 1gph at 7 knots. That's at least 100% better than you can do w the Albin psneeld. A lot of people here seem to think if they slow down to disp speeds they will have the range and fuel burn of a disp hulled boat. Not true. There is a big penalty for dragging that big wide flat stern through the water. If you were to modify the bottom of a typical trawler so the bottom just aft of amidships rose smoothly to the surface leaving the transom out or nearly out of the water THEN the typical trawler would be almost as efficient as a disp hull. If Columbus tried to cross the Atlantic w an Albin 43 the same size as the Mayflower and w a keel they would'nt have made it w the propulsion system of the Mayflower. Even then they knew enough about hull design to realize the stern of the vessel needs to be shaped much like the bow.
psneeld if you cut two Albins in half and joined the 2 bows together you could almost match the W40 for fuel efficiency.

psneeld,
Yes. All W40s that I know of are overpowered. A good little turbo engine of half the size and slowing down to 6 knots the W40 would burn only 1/2 gph or very close.
psneeld wrote:
"But that is because you are trying to go faster than it's theoretical hull speed which I bet is only around six knots. If you slowed to 5-6 knots, you might only burn half or a third as much."
No. 8 knots IS Marin's hull speed. But your right slowing to 7 would save fuel but underload his engines. If I was Marin and could afford the fuel I'd do just as he does. And if the W40 has nearly 500 gallons fuel it could go well over 3000 NMPG .... much more than 2000. If you want efficiency below hull speed full disp is where it's at. 8 NMPG? not really far from it. At 5.5 knots a W40 would do 8 NMPG. Ever seen a freighter, container ship or similar w a big flat submerged stern?

manyboats said:

A Willard 40 burns 1gph at 7 knots. That's at least 100% better than you can do w the Albin psneeld. A lot of people here seem to think if they slow down to disp speeds they will have the range and fuel burn of a disp hulled boat. Not true. There is a big penalty for dragging that big wide flat stern through the water. If you were to modify the bottom of a typical trawler so the bottom just aft of amidships rose smoothly to the surface leaving the transom out or nearly out of the water THEN the typical trawler would be almost as efficient as a disp hull. If Columbus tried to cross the Atlantic w an Albin 43 the same size as the Mayflower and w a keel they would'nt have made it w the propulsion system of the Mayflower. Even then they knew enough about hull design to realize the stern of the vessel needs to be shaped much like the bow.
psneeld if you cut two Albins in half and joined the 2 bows together you could almost match the W40 for fuel efficiency.

psneeld,
Yes. All W40s that I know of are overpowered. A good little turbo engine of half the size and slowing down to 6 knots the W40 would burn only 1/2 gph or very close. psneeld wrote:
"But that is because you are trying to go faster than it's theoretical hull speed which I bet is only around six knots. If you slowed to 5-6 knots, you might only burn half or a third as much."
No. 8 knots IS Marin's hull speed. But your right slowing to 7 would save fuel but underload his engines. If I was Marin and could afford the fuel I'd do just as he does. And if the W40 has nearly 500 gallons fuel it could go well over 3000 NMPG .... much more than 2000. If you want efficiency below hull speed full disp is where it's at. Ever seen a freighter, container ship or similar w a big flat submerged stern?

Click to expand...

Why is 8 knots Marins hull speed? Do you know his exact waterline length? Do you know his speed to length ratio? I don't...would love to see those numbers...

40 Willards normally cruise at around 1000 rpm and make seven knots??? I have a hard time believing that..as do the KK owners out there...would love to see some documentation.

As you slow down...the immersed transom doesn't have as much drag as you would like to make it out to...thus my point...the more you slow down the less hull shape and drag are overwhelmingly important....yes there is some difference but I'm pretty sure its way less than you are making it.

Any KK owners out there getting between 7 and 12 miles to the gallon????
I have a friend buying one this week if the survey goes well and hope I can make his day!! Or ruin it by telling him he shoulda bought a Willard...

Marin's Hull speed is roughly 8 knots. it's a 36' boat w a plum stem. 36' WLL. 1.34 X 6 = 8.04 My Willard 30 has a WLL of 27.5'. Square root of 5.25. 1.35 X 5.25 = 7.035. So 7 knot hull speed. Of course the W30 is very short compared to the 40. But the W40 probably has about the same WLL as Marin's GB 36. GB has a plumb stem and the Willard is quite raked as is the W30. I wish both Willards had a plumb stem.

I don't know anybody that cruises at 1000 rpm.

Krogen's are almost the same as the W40 Willard hull wise and their numbers will be just about the same. Something I should admit though is that the W40 getting 1 gph at 7 knots is powered by a 135 hp Turbo John Deer. Electronic controls and all so dosn't compare directly w old Lehman's.

Even Battleships and AC Carriers have full disp hulls. NOT semi disp.

psneeld said:

But that is because you are trying to go faster than it's theoretical hull speed which I bet is only around six knots. If you slowed to 5-6 knots, you might only burn half or a third as much.

Click to expand...

Never, ever gonna happen. As it is now we get passed by glaciers at eight knots. No way in hell are we going to go any slower no matter how "efficient" it might be.

Eight knots is not our boat's hull speed. It's faster than its hull speed, which it can do of course because of its semi-planing hull configuration. Hell, if it had real engines in it instead of the two old geezers it's got now it could do 15 knots and be quite happy doing it.

I'm not sure what our boat's actual hull speed is--- I've been told by the people at Grand Banks, Llc. but I don't remember. As I recall it's in the low 7 knot range. But it's not eight.

I did not say, or mean to imply, that all boats are displacement boats when they are at displacement speeds. I was referring to a hull's design, and I said (actually naval architect Tom Fexas said) that a hull is either a displacement hull or it's not. A displacement hull is capable of ONLY displacement speeds. Any additional power simply makes it dig a deeper hole in the water. It might go a bit faster but it is so ineffient when it does that it makes no sense to try to do so.

Any hull design that can be driven faster than hull speed with a degree or a lot of efficiency is, according to Fexas, a semi-planing hull. Because the moment the hull starts to be lifted (on purpose) by the hydrodynamic force being generated by the hull's movement through the water, it is entering the planing envelope.

manyboats said:

Marin's Hull speed is roughly 8 knots. it's a 36' boat w a plum stem. 36' WLL. 1.34 X 6 = 8.04 My Willard 30 has a WLL of 27.5'. Square root of 5.25. 1.35 X 5.25 = 7.035. So 7 knot hull speed. Of course the W30 is very short compared to the 40. But the W40 probably has about the same WLL as Marin's GB 36. GB has a plumb stem and the Willard is quite raked as is the W30. I wish both Willards had a plumb stem.

I don't know anybody that cruises at 1000 rpm.

Krogen's are almost the same as the W40 Willard hull wise and their numbers will be just about the same. Something I should admit though is that the W40 getting 1 gph at 7 knots is powered by a 135 hp Turbo John Deer. Electronic controls and all so dosn't compare directly w old Lehman's.

Even Battleships and AC Carriers have full disp hulls. NOT semi disp.

Click to expand...

The 1.34 is an average...it varies from below 1 t0 1.5 or so...if you don't know the GB 36 speed length ratio you are only guessing and while it's nealy a plumb bow...what is the actual WWL at /near hull speed?

I know what I'm talking about and so do you...I just make way fewer assumptions.

Marin said:

Never, ever gonna happen. As it is now we get passed by glaciers at eight knots. No way in hell are we going to go any slower no matter how "efficient" it might be.

Eight knots is not our boat's hull speed. It's faster than its hull speed, which it can do of course because of its semi-planing hull configuration. Hell, if it had real engines in it instead of the two old geezers it's got now it could do 15 knots and be quite happy doing it.

I'm not sure what our boat's actual hull speed is--- I've been told by the people at Grand Banks, Llc. but I don't remember. As I recall it's in the low 7 knot range. But it's not eight.

I did not say, or mean to imply, that all boats are displacement boats when they are at displacement speeds. I was referring to a hull's design, and I said (actually naval architect Tom Fexas said) that a hull is either a displacement hull or it's not. A displacement hull is capable of ONLY displacement speeds. Any additional power simply makes it dig a deeper hole in the water. It might go a bit faster but it is so ineffient when it does that it makes no sense to try to do so.

Any hull design that can be driven faster than hull speed with a degree or a lot of efficiency is, according to Fexas, a semi-planing hull. Because the moment the hull starts to be lifted (on purpose) by the hydrodynamic force being generated by the hull's movement through the water, it is entering the planing envelope.

Click to expand...

I agree that your hull speed isn't 8...no matter what other may try to calculate without REAL numbers to plug in.

If the displacement statement is correct than an aircraft carrier as manyboats describes one as a displacement vessel...it would never be able to do 60 knots. There's a big question on why warships with enough power do what they do.

There are many exceptions to these general rules and no matter what he says..at less than hull speed no Willard is 2x more efficient than most of our trawlers...just ain't so.

Isn't the reason something like a carrier can go so fast is its hull length? If the formula for hull speed is based on, among other things, length, I would think that a WLL approaching 1,000 feet would have some influence on the hull speed. Yes, no, maybe so?

Marin said:

Isn't the reason something like a carrier can go so fast is its hull length? If the formula for hull speed is based on, among other things, length, I would think that a WLL approaching 1,000 feet would have some influence on the hull speed. Yes, no, maybe so?

Click to expand...

Yeah..I know big warships with unlimited power are all over the map as far as speeds go...but there is speculation that some of the big warship hulls are actually semi-displacement because they are flat enough on the bottom and some meet the supertanker rule (same as catamarans) where if the hull is 5 times longer than the beam....the 1.34 (or whatever) times the square root of the waterline length kinda goes out the window.

So....I just doubt that the Willard is THAT much better...better...but within reason based on what I have seen with other hulls such as the KK. Owners aren't always as honest as you are...

Hull speed IS 1.34 X (the square root of the WLL) That's all there is to it. So if Marin's boat was 34'3" on the WL then the square root of 34'3" is 5.85. So 5.85 X 1.34 = 7.839. Marin's hull speed is (w that WLL) 7.839 knots. But GB may include the swim grid in the 36' measurement. At any rate his hull speed is very close to 8 knots.

Most ships have a much greater beam to length ratio that 5-1. That's more like a fat trawler.

Don't know what your'e talk'in about (1.34 out the window).

"flat on the bottom" length wise or cross ways???

At any rate if you want real efficiency flat submerged sterns don't cut it.

Yes the Krogens are about the best trawlers out there. Put flopper stoppers on them and go just about anywhere if you need to do that sort of thing. That's passage making and this is trawlering.

According to the previous owner and under perfect conditions Voyager, at 1800 rpm, uses 1.8 gph at a speed of about 8 knots. That's 4.4 nmpg. This is a little better than the KK42 performance chart I have. I haven't taken delivery of the boat yet so I can't confirm the numbers. I'm looking forward to checking it out though.

Found this in an article by Dolph McCranie called "Choosing a Passagemaker." Don't know who he is, don't know what the article appeared in, but he seemed to me to be knowledgeable about the subject.


"For a boat with a LWL [loaded waterline length] of 36 feet the square root is 6. Her speed at a hull speed ratio of 1.0 would be six knots. At a ratio of 1.2 it would be 1.2 * 6 or 7.2 knots. Her maximum theoretical hull speed would be 1.34 * 6 or 8.04 knots. She would be most economical between 6 and 7.2 knots (a ratio of 1.0 to 1.2). The boat could probably be driven to a hull speed ratio of 1.4 or about 8.5 knots but with a significant increase in fuel consumption."

The earlier GB36s like ours have an LWL of 34.'

I don't do math so have no idea what the theoretical hull speed would be. Nor do I really care. But GB says the hull speed of our boat is seven-something knots. Maybe they mean the true hull speed as opposed to the theoretical hull speed. I don't know. All I know that they and other people in the business have all said that for our boat, 8 knots is a wee bit over hull speed.

But it sounds to me like splitting gnat's eyebrows and so is more an armchair excersise than anything that's actually meaningful to how we run the boat.

So we will continue to run at 1650 and bust through the hull speed sound barrier to a whopping 8 knots and wish we were doing 30.

Anyway, the Williard 40 is a great design. It was on our short list of monohulls along with the Hatt 42 LRC and Krogen Manatee when we were searching. My wife and I are gunk-hole crazy and do a lot of punching around in the shallows of Biscayne Bay and the Keys. We chose the KK Manatee cuz it's only 3'2" draft, but if there had been a nice W40 on the East Coast at the time, we'd have looked hard at it. It's hard to imagine a better combo than the W40 offers in that length of vessel.

Marin writes "Maybe they mean the true hull speed as opposed to the theoretical hull speed." No such thing as theoretical or true hull speed. Just hull speed. Did you read my last post? This is really simple stuff. Hull speed = 1.34 X the square root of the water line length. 5.84 is the square root of 34. 5.84 X 1.34 = 7.8256. Your hull speed is 7.8256 knots. 8 knots for all practcal purposes.

John,
Most peoples fuel burn numbers are "optimistic" because they just use their hour meter for time but of course a lot of that time is'nt at cruising speed.

manyboats said:

" No such thing as theoretical or true hull speed. Just hull speed. ...Your hull speed is 7.8256 knots. 8 knots for all practcal purposes.

Click to expand...

I dunno.... All these guys I've been reading since this topic came up talk about theoretical and true hull speeds. So who knows....?

Anyway, our boat will go (and has gone once) considerably faster than hull speed--- whatever it actually is--- even with the old Fords. Put a couple of 420 hp 6-cylinder Cats like what Carey has one of in his lobsterboat and the old GB would really get up and go. Now THAT would be cool.

Maybe someday........

OK guys, so how about we look at some actual willard 40 data from when the boat was in production?

This will once and for all settle the range, and the NMPG issues.

Here's a link to a review of the Willard 40 from 1978. I think the fuel data is probably directly from the manufacturer.

http://pacificmotorboat.com/willardboats/docs/willard40review.pdf

It shows that at:

1000 RPM 4.8 knots 6.8 nmpg
1200 RPM 5.6 knots 6.0 nmpg
1400 rpm 6.3 knots 4.8 nmpg
1600 RPM 6.8 knots 3.8 nmpg
1800 RPM 7.4 knots 2.9 nmpg
2000 RPM 7.8 knots 2.4 nmpg

Thats not bad fuel economy, but I have to point out that my fuel inefficient 47' twin engine semi displacement boat gets only 25% worse fuel economy at the upper end of the scale.

ksanders said:

OK guys, so how about we look at some actual willard 40 data from when the boat was in production?

This will once and for all settle the range, and the NMPG issues.

Here's a link to a review of the Willard 40 from 1978. I think the fuel data is probably directly from the manufacturer.

http://pacificmotorboat.com/willardboats/docs/willard40review.pdf

It shows that at:

1000 RPM 4.8 knots 6.8 nmpg
1200 RPM 5.6 knots 6.0 nmpg
1400 rpm 6.3 knots 4.8 nmpg
1600 RPM 6.8 knots 3.8 nmpg
1800 RPM 7.4 knots 2.9 nmpg
2000 RPM 7.8 knots 2.4 nmpg

Thats not bad fuel economy, but I have to point out that my fuel inefficient 47' twin engine semi displacement boat gets only 25% worse fuel economy at the upper end of the scale.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point...at the slower end, the "slipery" goes out the window and anyone that thinks that 1.34 is the only speed to length ratio definitely doesn't have a lot of hull design background and the 5:1 rule for length/beam ratio is why catamaran hulls like hobie cats (definitely not planing hulls) can scream.

25% for the Bayliner, and around 10% down in the 6 knot range for the Albin...no where's near 50-100% more efficient. Just cause Willards look slicker...looks don't mean that much at really slow speeds.

John H...those numbers are right in where I expected them to be.