cool trawler I saw

markpierce said:

Eric, here is our favorite trawler yacht again.

Click to expand...

Er, which one of the three blue-hulled trawler yachts in that photo are you talking about Guessing the one center left, which I can't identify.

refugio said:

Er, which one of the three blue-hulled trawler yachts in that photo are you talking about Guessing the one center left, which I can't identify.

Click to expand...

Yes, just compare it to earlier photos Eric and I posted on this thread.

Although there are quit a few nice looking trawlers in that picture.

I love the pictures of the trawlers, trawler/tugs that have been restored but I wouldn't want to own one. They would be a real chore to maintain. Of course you have the money to buy one you can afford to have it maintained.

Still

QB said:

So not a "wholly impractical yacht conversion" after all? And since it would be "woefully unstable" without a load of iced fish, what did they use for ballast?

Click to expand...

Impractical to convert to a personal cruiser? Well, looking at the lines, which seem to be quite mild, it could be built in steel. The heavy weight of the structure would go well towards ballasting it down.

There's actually only three trawlers in Mark's post #50 picture.

He refers to the blue one w the bent stack.

Just came across this thread....

Further on Chinook, she was built from a stock Garden design for a 38' troller. Other boats were built to the same plan. Any and all alterations were done by her builder/first owner, Jim Emmett. He reports no changes were made to the deckhouse except inside and the aft trunk just replaces the hatch.

Emmett also reports installing 3.5 tons of ballast(approximately 7000 lbs), of lead ingots buried in pitch. Which is what I would expect.

Eric & Larry ,
Look at post at Symphony in post # 82 . It looks like he puts that dinghy on top by hand.
Maybe I should forget the crane or davits and start working out so I can get mine on top . I would think that one weighs at least as much as mine .
If ever get out to PNW I don't think I would ever come back .IMHO they have the best looking boats around .

Back to the boat that appears in post # 33, 35, and 90 of this thread. She is the 1965 William Garden design originally called Kingfisher. As far as I know, only one boat was built to this design, at one time she was called Joey, and now appears as H.R.B.

Built in Michigan and intended for heavy plank-on-frame wood construction, she is actually heavy fiberglass over a thick strip-planked mahogany plug, left in place. The deck and house are more or less traditional plywood construction with glass sheathing. She's 42' LOA, 39'6" LWL, 14'6" beam, 5'3" draft, and displacement is 57,000 lbs with 10,000 of ballast.

Designed around another(same as Chinook) of the excellent JN-130 Cummins with 4:1 reduction turning a 36" by 27" wheel. In the engine room layout you can see the front of the engine tight against the forward engine room bulkhead. This would be a no-fun setup, way too much service goes on at the front of the engine, and working on it while kneeling in the galley would not be pleasant.

Funny, when I bought my boat I thought it had to be the ugliest boat on the water, then, while on the sea trial, I saw a couple that almost made me gag, so I felt better. I go from hot to cold on my attitude to this boat but I am regularly accosted in anchorages by dinghy-denizens who tell me how much they like it. So, beauty is definitely in the eye of the beer holder. To judge someone else's boat and dismiss it for some failed aesthetic design feature is not the opposite of appreciating a nice design. Many folks either can't afford, find or maintain an aesthetically-pleasing yacht so they make compromises; the proof of the pudding is the experiences that you can have, the fun that's inherent and the pleasure of running 'your' boat.

Ps I would kill for a 65' tug, with a giant impractical engine, a 6' wheel and bulwarks surrounded by aircraft tires! Oh yum!

Here is a better picture of the boat Mark was referring to "HRB".

On the docks/floats was a better vantage point. We lived nearby then and took the pic while wandering about town.

Yeah, I figured that was the one. She's a looker, and right down your alley, Eric. Got any idea of what the power is?

I love tugs. I worked for Red Stack when I was a teenager. Made more money in three months than most guys made in a year. Traveled up and down the coast from San Francisco to as far as Anchorage.

That's a nice one Eric . We've got to get out that way someday and see some real boats . Good looking boat . I love it .

Power?

3-71 ?

I have no idea.

I think mine looks much better with a mast. It looks kind of naked without the mast IMO. The second pic is my boat on the hard with some masts from the boats behind it. That looks better to me, but probably not worth the trouble/expense to rig up.

Chinook about 1974 in Morehead City, NC.

Chinook looks good . I like the color scheme . Cardude I like the look of the mast. If the one aft was shorter it would look good also. The color of your boat was the color iI was shooting for when we painted our gunwales .

Pack Mule said:

Chinook looks good . I like the color scheme .

Click to expand...

Not much of a scheme there.