Seagulls love it though...
Interesting boats
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
West
Senior Member
That is one of only three Grand Banks 66s every made. By the accounts I've read and been told the GB66 is one of the worst production boats ever made. One of them was commissioned in our harbor when it was new and a good friend who was the commissioning shipwright said the boat was so unstable he wanted to turn on the stabilizers when it was tied to the dock. The model was a complete failure and production was halted after the first three.
I've seen two of the three. The other one I've seen tore a stabilizer off the hull on a reef in SE Alaska and was in the local yard for repairs for quite awhile. Neither boat was named Fish & Chicks when I saw them but I suspect they may have been through several owners by now.
A big part of the problem stemmed from the buyer of hull #1 insisting on a fully enclosed flying bridge. This put a huge amount of weight very high on the boat. I'm sure it meets whatever stability requirements there may be for production boats but it makes the boats very top-heavy and they need stabilizers on all the time they are underway, even in smooth water. The buyers of hulls #2 and #3 wanted the same enclosed flying bridge as the owner of hull #1. So GB put them on.
I've seen two of the three. The other one I've seen tore a stabilizer off the hull on a reef in SE Alaska and was in the local yard for repairs for quite awhile. Neither boat was named Fish & Chicks when I saw them but I suspect they may have been through several owners by now.
A big part of the problem stemmed from the buyer of hull #1 insisting on a fully enclosed flying bridge. This put a huge amount of weight very high on the boat. I'm sure it meets whatever stability requirements there may be for production boats but it makes the boats very top-heavy and they need stabilizers on all the time they are underway, even in smooth water. The buyers of hulls #2 and #3 wanted the same enclosed flying bridge as the owner of hull #1. So GB put them on.
Last edited:
Marin - What years were those three GB66 built? Wood or glass?
West
Senior Member
Didn't think the extra weight would have been a problem as the length compensates for that, my concern would be the ever present wind and the enclosed bridge acting as a sail.
Pretty sure it'a a glass hull.
Pretty sure it'a a glass hull.
They are fiberglass. I don't know the exact year but the first new one appeared in our harbor for commissioning sometime during the 2000s. Mid-2000s as I recall. Our shipwright friend who was doing the commissioning work said that simply walking from one side of the flying bridge to the other set the boat to rolling rather alarmingly at the dock. He said the boat was originally intended to have an open flying bridge but the buyer insisted on a fully enclosed one.
The boat is in essence a lengthened GB52. In my opinion the GB design does not hold up aesthetically past 46 feet or so. Seen in person the GB66 is pretty ugly and awkward in my and most of the other people who were around at the time the boats were here's opinions. Most people felt the boat was a case of "mine's bigger than yours."
The boat is in essence a lengthened GB52. In my opinion the GB design does not hold up aesthetically past 46 feet or so. Seen in person the GB66 is pretty ugly and awkward in my and most of the other people who were around at the time the boats were here's opinions. Most people felt the boat was a case of "mine's bigger than yours."
Last edited:
5 feet of extra beam or a torpedo is what would/might compensate for that. I'm surprised GB went along with the requests.
There was a builder here years ago who produced a near perfect under 30' BC cruiser that was capable of the Alaska run. It was extremely popular among sport fishers and family cruisers. The guy was an excellent builder but lousy money manager. A big part of his failure was allowing partial builds to go out the back door.
I cruised a fair amount in the PNW on a friend's GB57 woodie. It had a more raised pilothouse and was stabilized - a fabulous boat but pretty darned expensive to maintain. I remember sitting in the saloon one evening and a compressor pump came on. I asked him what that was and it was one of 8 on the boat - he wasn't sure which.
But if was very stable at rest. I have a picture from SeaFair where there are at least 25 people on the boat deck and flying bridge and don't recall any tenderness as they moved around.
But if was very stable at rest. I have a picture from SeaFair where there are at least 25 people on the boat deck and flying bridge and don't recall any tenderness as they moved around.
American Marine built the GB57 in both wood and glass. I don't know how many wood ones were built but only three were built in glass in the mid-1980s. First shot is a wood one, second shot is a glass one that was built in 1984. Note that in both cases, the boat has an open flying bridge. Far different than the massive, heavy flying bridge on the GB66.
I was looking at that boat as perhaps being top heavy and any extra length not doing much to compensate for that.
Marin
Having viewed (but not been aboard) many fairly large boats set up in similar "top-heavy" fashion it seems to me they were relatively stable regarding roll; while at dock, at anchor, or on the go. From that observation it makes me wonder if GB simply added the length while keeping same beam (producing a rather skinny round bottom boat) and in so doing created an even more round bottom added-area that would be conducive to increased ease of rolling. If that is so... a design mistake to be sure!
Our Tolly is pretty heavy up-top compared to some other boats. And, I/we (sometimes more than four persons) spend nearly all time on the bridge while cruising; as well as, spending much time while anchored on sundeck and bridge. Our boat is very stable under most (even in nearly all conditions, if I may say). This brings up another question about the GB66: Was its (like ours is) heavy equipment (engines, gen set, fuel/water/holding-tanks) set low in CofG in bilge? One other advantage our Tolly does have that helps eliminate roll is hard chines on wide beam with considerably flat area-bottom aft of amidships... 11 degree dead rise.
I'd like to see photos of CG66 bottom while on the hard; marine engineered drawings would be good too.
I tried to locate the GB66 picts of bottom but was unable. Have you a link or photo of this?
Last edited:
I've seen one of the GB66s in the yard and as I recall the hull looked just like every other GB hull--- semi-planing, hard-chine, simply an enlargement of the 1964 Kenneth Smith-designed hull that's on every GB starting with the first 1966 GB woodies until the current models which use a very different underbody configuration.
Last edited:
AKFish
Veteran Member
Sailor of Fortune
Guru
As a long time tugboater and yacht enthusiast, I know the realities of tug conversions to yachts. What makes a good "Tug" is mutually exclusive of what makes a good yacht.
Tugs are deep draft, all engine room, ROUND bottom (or multi chine) and carry lots of fuel. They look like all "business", and they are but that doesn't translate to being seaworthy. Most tugs are designed for protected waterways and not to make passages. Some of the conversions that I see are accidents waiting to happen. Adding quarters up top to these boats is dangerous. A 6:1 gear with huge prop (good for towing but not for yachting) is a drain on anyones purse.
A common alteration is to minimize fuel tank and ballast capacity, again not what the naval architect had in mind.
The boat I currently work on is one of a few that is designed to go anywhere in the world, in pretty much any type of weather. It hold 242,000 gallons of fuel, 50,000 gallons of ballast water 15000 gallons of freshwater. She also draws 22'. What yacht port do you think they will let you in? I cry like a baby if our fuel gets down to 140,000 gallons and they send me to sea. We usually run around NY, local with 180-190,000 gallons. I have crossed the Atlantic 2 times with a tandem tow and never felt unsafe ( I have many times questioned my choice of careers however)
This is an extreme example but the numbers translate.
A good yacht is a fuel efficient, comfortable, and seaworthy vsl within its designed parameters.
Don't get me wrong, I love tugs, just not as yachts.
I
Tad Roberts
Guru
Tuna troller
Tad Roberts
Guru
Don't think so, those are US vessels......
hollywood8118
Guru
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 2,379
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- " OTTER "
- Vessel Make
- Ocean Alexander Europa 40
I have seen this one in Desolation Sound before.. it looked better in person than the perspective in this pic.. it looked very customized.
HOLLYWOOD
Tad Roberts
Guru
That's the Boyer Towing base in Ketchikan. The long low boat is Air Snipe (odd name) a submarine chaser from WWII. Odd choice for a towboat as well.....
O C Diver
Guru
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 12,868
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Slow Hand
- Vessel Make
- Cherubini Independence 45
Thanks, I often wondered about the wisdom or lack of, in converting a real tug to a cruiser. Knew it couldn't be fuel efficient. Didn't have a clue about the stability issue.
Ted
stubones99
Guru
Dawdler
Senior Member
more on GB 66
"When the tooling was built for the Grand Banks 58, it was designed to extend in order to accommodate the extended cockpit, thus creating a 66 footer."
LOA 66'2"
LWL 61'8"
Beam 17'6"
Draft 5'9"
Disp 110,000 lbs
Water 423 gals
Fuel 2,070 gals
"When the tooling was built for the Grand Banks 58, it was designed to extend in order to accommodate the extended cockpit, thus creating a 66 footer."
LOA 66'2"
LWL 61'8"
Beam 17'6"
Draft 5'9"
Disp 110,000 lbs
Water 423 gals
Fuel 2,070 gals
