Interesting Willard 30

look at this link while it is up

1979 Willard 30 8-Ton Cutter Pilothouse

bshanafelt said:

look at this link while it is up 1979 Willard 30 8-Ton Cutter Pilothouse

Click to expand...

Interesting, was put together in 1999 after sitting. Wonder who put it together.

A gentleman in Rio Vista, CA had one for sale a year ago that looked identical to this one. Maybe he took it up the coast?

I think Willard copied rather heavily from Fisher's playbook. The Fisher 34. I'm a huge fan of Willards but I really think Fisher does this better then anyone.

Even better is the Fisher 37

Daddyo says "Fisher does this better" ... I wonder what "this" is?

I like the looks of a Fisher a bit better (tiny bit). The Fisher's stem shape/curve is actually a bit ugly. And I think they may be a tad bit more seaworthy but I really don't know. I think the Fisher is a bit more "salty" looking.

The real difference is that the Fisher is basically a sailboat and the Willard is a trawler. The Willard sailboat (called the "8-ton") is to a great extent a trawler converted into a sailboat. Iv'e never seen any real deck space on a Fisher and like a sailboat cabin space is down inside w limited visibility out.

Looking at the Fisher as in Daddyo's photo it looks like the Fisher is full aft. She is not. The Fisher is a "fish form" hull that has more hull volume fwd and less aft. Willard 30s have more volume aft and are more traditional in this regard. I'm not sure what advantage the fish form hull has but it probably is better in following seas. You can see clearly in my pics that the Fisher is more pointy and w less volume aft (skinny) while the Willard is much more full or "fat". Despite the cobbyness or chunckyness of her aft stem the Fisher probably has less (a bit) resistance or drag at speeds lower than a knot below hull speed while the Willard may have less drag going a bit faster.

In the north sea tradition the F has less windage w her wheelhouse well aft w the usual poor visibility and the W WH is fwd w much better visibility. Again the F is a sailboat and the W a trawler.

I don't know how fast the F goes but I've never seen a F w over 30hp and I've never seen a W w OVER 30hp. I saw a Fisher 26' w only 10hp. A big reason probably is that the F is a sailboat and the engine is viewed as a 2nd power source whereas the Willard's engine is primary.

And Daddyo if Rod Swift did any copying while designing the Willard's I'm sure it was to the benefit of Willard owners. I don't know if the Fishers historically preceded Willards or not and the biggest reason they are similar is probably because I think Rod Swift probably mostly designed sailboats. I saw that only because I see a lot of "sailboat" in my Willard.

Here's a few numbers from an online database comparing sail boats.
Sail Calculator Pro v3.53 - 2500+ boats

Actually - the Willard seems like a better sailer, mainly due to a bigger sail area. (although there are a variety of possible sail configurations on both boats)

I like them both.


Performance Comparison

LOA
Willard 8-ton Cutter 30
Fisher 30 30
LWL
Willard 8-ton Cutter 27.5
Fisher 30 25
Beam
Willard 8-ton Cutter 10.5
Fisher 30 9.5
Displacement
Willard 8-ton Cutter 17000
Fisher 30 14500
Sail Area
Willard 8-ton Cutter 650
Fisher 30 365
Capsize Ratio
Willard 8-ton Cutter 1.63
Fisher 30 1.56
Hull Speed
Willard 8-ton Cutter 7.03
Fisher 30 6.7
Sail Area to Displacement
Willard 8-ton Cutter 15.73
Fisher 30 9.82
Displacement to LWL
Willard 8-ton Cutter 365
Fisher 30 414
LWL to Beam
Willard 8-ton Cutter 2.62
Fisher 30 2.63
Motion Comfort
Willard 8-ton Cutter 40.27
Fisher 30 41.84
Pounds/Inch
Willard 8-ton Cutter 1032
Fisher 30 849

Thanks AusCan.
That explains a lot about the power difference besides the sail over power.
One foot less beam. That's a biggie. And less displacement.
That Fisher in my pics had a 3 cyl 27hp Yanmar. Noisy little bugger .. lot of clattering. She probably did fine w 27hp and I think my Willard would too but my high speed cruise (6.5 knots) may be limited to 6.4 knots. Other than that I wouldn't notice the difference. That would be 3.4hp per ton and there would be no running around at hull speed but I've never done that anyway. The Yanmar 27hp (30GM) is the favorite engine for the Albin 25 fleet in western Canada. But w the Albin I'm actually in favor of more power like in the high 30s.

AusCan what is the comparison of "motion comfort"?

I love the Willards, but adore the Fishers. I've thought that upon completing our loop cruising, a Catfisher or Endeavour 30 Cat might be a neat change.

Saw that Willard PH sailboat at Mystery Bay State Park a few months ago. Went aboard with the owner. Needs quite a bit if work but was a pretty cool boat.

Eric
Motion Comfort ranges from 5 to 60+ . This figure of merit was developed by Ted Brewer and is meant as a simple comparison of motion comfort of boats of similar size and types. It predicts the speed of upward and downward motion as the boat encounters waves and swells.

MCR = Disp / (2/3*((7/10 * LWL)+(1/3 *LOA))*Beam4/3 )

AusCan said:

MCR = Disp / (2/3*((7/10 * LWL)+(1/3 *LOA))*Beam4/3 )

Click to expand...

You've got to be joking!?

Eric
Here's the waterplane of a Fisher 46. Perhaps the smaller ones are similar. Not really 'fish-shaped', close to symmetrical.

I came close to buying this. But the 6'6" draft was a killer for tropical waters. And like a lot of old boats, refit costs would have accumulated rapidly.

Dang...she sure is good lookin.

Yup,
A bristol Fisher is eye candy for those that like the type.
Insequent,
Could be but that drawing is more just a sketch to show the layout. A lines drawing of the hull would show fish form or not and I was reacting mostly on the difference of the aft end compared to the Willard that is very full. And the 46 may be different in that regard.

RickB said:

You've got to be joking!?

Click to expand...

No, I'm not a joker,
Ted Brewer knows boat pretty well. He knows that you can't predict a boats motion in a storm. A boat has hundred of variables which affect the motion. Mother nature has even more. No calculation can say which boat will weather a storm best.
Ted's calculation is very simple. It uses a few of the most important factors contributing to boat motion and makes a comparison, with all other things being equal.
All other things are not equal. But using a more complex formula would not necessarily improve the accuracy, due to the many variables of the sea.

Like the Capsize Screening Formula the Cruising Club of America has adopted, it uses the most important basic variables, to give a means of comparison between many boats.


RickB, if you have a better formula for comparing sea motion of two internet boats, feel free to add it to the conversation.

I'm thinking Rick B meant holy moly that's over our pay grade

RickB said:

You've got to be joking!?

Click to expand...

Absolutely! The Coot rates 114 on the scale. Nonsense!

AusCan said:

RickB, if you have a better formula for comparing sea motion of two internet boats, feel free to add it to the conversation.

Click to expand...

I'm waiting for the dancing angels on the pin head elbow room formula ... it would make about as much sense.

Someone has way too much time on their hands.