Cap Horn 55

[long-cours.62]

Someone have the right info concening the main caracteristic of this trawler ?
Because I found different thing for example draft 1.80m or 2.13 m ? Displacement full loaded from 64 T to more than...80T ? Steel plating from only 4,76 MM to lot of mord.
Same for cuisine speed (but in all case very low)
Thank

 

[KnotYet]

Someone have the right info concening the main caracteristic of this trawler ?
Because I found different thing for example draft 1.80m or 2.13 m ? Displacement full loaded from 64 T to more than...80T ? Steel plating from only 4,76 MM to lot of mord.
Same for cuisine speed (but in all case very low)
Thank

Hopefully Judy at JWY will see this and reply. She has sold them.
To my limited knowledge, each Cape Horn was a semi-custom
build and so had various engine and interior arrangements.

 

[PierreR]

Hopefully Judy at JWY will see this and reply. She has sold them.
To my limited knowledge, each Cape Horn was a semi-custom
build and so had various engine and interior arrangements.

Judy is very authentic. She is the person to reach out too.

 

[Judy at JWY]

Thanks, guys!

Problem is that the boat pictured isn't a Cape Horn. She looks a bit familiar but I can't place her. So time for the other experts to chime in with a manufacturer.

But, that might explain some of the discrepancies encountered, although Cape Horn was very consistent on things like plating and construction.

 

[KnotYet]

I wasn't aware of any specific boat being referred to. Please elaborate.

 

[Judy at JWY]

Ohhhh. Silly me: I was looking at the boat in his avatar. Maybe that's why it looked familiar. What was I thinking? Or not...

As to Cape Horn 55s: There were 3 of them built at the Kanter Yard in Ontario. Cruise speed is 7/8 knots with a maximum speed of 9kn. 3" thick solid steel keel bottom; keel sides 1/2"; steel bottom plating 5/16"; hull side plate 1/4"; double bottomed in water-tight compartments.

Since I blew my opening post so badly, let me try to regain a little credibility: I have concluded just under 25 Cape Horn sales and attended sea trial and survey on almost all of them.

 

[long-cours.62]

Thanks for the answer, of course the avatar is not à Cap Horn 55 because it is our Pacific 72 in alloy
O the actually I saw 3 Cap Horn 55 for sale one 'abandoned on hard stand for year, one at à moori g since 2019, and the last owned only 2 year buy his actual owner For each of them some différence o size, weight etc...said by broker, but broker ...

 

[socalrider]

Interesting boats! Looks like there are two on YW right now, one in rough shape in New Caledonia and another in AK that looks nicer for 2x. No secondary propulsion system, and appears to float stern heavy.

Interesting to see a vessel of this size without active stabilization. Wonder how the ride is with the twin bilge keels and heavy steel keel shoe. They appear stout and fairly simple/no frills for such a large vessel, which is appealing. Looks like a great PNW boat.

 

[Judy at JWY]

There were 3 CH63s with wing engines; one 63 pulled his and another is preparing to have his removed. None of the wing engines have ever been needed and owners decided it was a waste of space and maintenance. Two of the 3 55s have get-homes. The 3 63s were the only CHs (sized under 75) with active fins; one 63 pulled his. The CHs are inherently stable by hull form; the bilge keels provide passive stabilization and are particularly helpful at anchor; they also allow for the boat to sit on her own bottom.

Yes, good boats for PNW; we currently have 3 in Alaska (one owner is a Deadliest Catch star) but there have been 3 that have made transPacific crossings and numerous have crossed the Atlantic.

 

[Mako]

"There were 3 CH63s with wing engines; one 63 pulled his and another is preparing to have his removed. None of the wing engines have ever been needed and owners decided it was a waste of space and maintenance."

Now THAT is an interesting statement.

Edit: Upon quick Google it appears the 55 is equipped with a Volvo sail drive. Sounds like a nightmare, no wonder they pulled it out.

 

[long-cours.62]

Mau be the third one, seam to be in worst condition
They présent à 56/52 feet named "Voyager 1"for sale by "statère island yacht" Beaufort north carolina.

 

[Delfin]

Became friends with Peter Sever, who built these boats. I can't remember the name of the naval architect, but Peter insisted they were self-righting. Visited the yard in Meteghan, Nova Scotia where the Therriault yard was building them. At that time, Peter favored a Z drive, which was an interesting concept but a bit overkill. Excellent cabinetry in white ash as I recall. The saildrive as a get home was a complete failure, moving the boat at less than two knots. Steel work was ok, but coatings IMHO were a weak point.

Peter was a dedicated and honest man who wanted to build the best and safest boat possible, and most of the shortcomings I've seen in them were a result of "customization" or cost cutting requests from owners.

 

[long-cours.62]

Aie self correction from small smart Phone...
Statère Island !
http://https://www.siyachts.com/used-yachts-for-sale/1999-cape-horn-model-55_2768630

 

[Delfin]

Sand blast and re-coat and you'd have yourself a good boat. The biggest problem I saw with the early CHs was a lack of bulwarks. Peter corrected that later. T'were me, I'd add bulwarks as part of re-coating, otherwise these are very wet boats.

 

[Adopo]

Plus 10000, Judy is the one who seems to know most. Correct me, but I think she was involved with them from the beginning?

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

Became friends with Peter Sever, who built these boats. I can't remember the name of the naval architect, but Peter insisted they were self-righting. Visited the yard in Meteghan, Nova Scotia where the Therriault yard was building them. At that time, Peter favored a Z drive, which was an interesting concept but a bit overkill. Excellent cabinetry in white ash as I recall. The saildrive as a get home was a complete failure, moving the boat at less than two knots. Steel work was ok, but coatings IMHO were a weak point.

Peter was a dedicated and honest man who wanted to build the best and safest boat possible, and most of the shortcomings I've seen in them were a result of "customization" or cost cutting requests from owners.

I think Bob Johnston was the designer

 

[Delfin]

I think Bob Johnston was the designer

Yes, that sounds right.

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

Yes, that sounds right.

it maybe Johnson... can't quite remember....some CRS here,lol

 

[Judy at JWY]

Bob Johnston designed the early boats (52-63'). Then Chuck Neville designed the 75/81s but there were design flaws that cost Peter a lot $$ to correct. Then Peter hit the jackpot with Marius Lengkeek from Lengkeek Vessel Engineering designing the 65s. We had a Marius designed CH 68 on the drawing boards that I thought was as close to perfect as possible, but alas it didn't happen. Peter hired Sparkman & Stephens to design the CH82 (the new and improved Chuck Neville 75/81.) I sold the new build CH 82 to a client who ended up buying the CHTC and in the end killed it. Such a pity.

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

so what were the design flaws in the 55', since thats the subject of the OP?

 

[Judy at JWY]

I don't think I have ever written about my personal history with CH, so here goes. I wasn't there from the beginning, but almost. I got a call from Peter through an odd connection and Peter told me he had a yacht for sale in Ft. Lauderdale and he was looking for a new broker. I asked a few questions and when Peter told me he's on his 4th broker, I told him I wouldn't bat an eye at him having a broker problem. Maybe I can even say no problem with 2 problem brokers. But 3? And 4? There's either something wrong with the owner or the boat. Peter gave me the address to the boat and said for me to call him after I saw it. I had never seen what I came to later call expedition yachts (for the normal boater). Then I looked at the print ads: "custom built," and "private design".... I said the broker doesn't get it. I was blown away. I had never seen a boat with the safety features and redundancies that Eden Bound, Peter's personal boat that launched the company, had. I sold Eden Bound 3 weeks after getting the listing. The buyer was an engineer from Germany and he took her from Florida to Far East and was in Phuket during the tsunami and was the only boat to survive in the harbor. That 2nd owner cruised her until poor health forced him to sell about 3 years ago. Many CHs have that kind of longevity of ownership.

So that's the story of CH hull # 1.

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

I remember Edin Bound... Still want to know what the design flaws in this design are? I think they are more with ownership than the boats themselves, But I only have knowledge from afar. There was one in St Augustine, Fl at Comachee cove for several years... I admired it from the dock, never saw anyone aboard to chat... Dock neighbors knew nothing about it. .Blue (faded) hull paint if I remember correctly.

 

[Judy at JWY]

This is the one that was in St. Augustine for many years. I don't know of any specific design flaws in the 55s. This particular CH55 does not have a wing engine because the owner didn't order the upgrade option. One of the sistership owners recently added Magnus rotor stabilizers. The 55s have all had longevity of ownership and have proven their capabilities (one in New Caledonia; one that went from Florida to Alaska, cruised BC and Alaska for many years and now cruises Mexico - WA; and this one now in Alaska for a few years.

 

[IRENE]

 

[long-cours.62]

The "problem" with the Cap Horn 55 is (for me !) :

the weight, they wrotte 150000 livres light condition ...
It means around 68t + diesel 12.56 T + fresh water 1.4T= all thing we bring in live a board/navigation said 2T = total 83.96 Tonnes
The L/D ratio is .... somewhere around 600 !!!
Heavy L/D began at 270 to 360
Very heavy began at 360...


Also engine power 300 hp it means full load a ratio of 3.57 hp per T at ...full throttle...
I understand why they remove 50 hp with 2 foldable blade no way .


Due to weight and concept (keel + twin keel ) lot of wet surface.


At last I read some very tick plating (not bad) but the problem if you have very tick welded with "normal" one in case of chock it could be a problem ... For example if you have 6 mm welded on 8 mm in case of chock both will will get the deformation and probably the weelding will resist.
But if you have 8 mm welded on 25 or even more, it will be different the 8 mm will move and far less the 25 mm and probably the welding will not resist.
And finally cross at 6/7 kts why not IF you use far less diesel but if at 6 kts you use 4 time more fuel than (for example) our former boat at the same speed where is the interest ?
After said all this point I must also say : if our actual boat was already sold we could make an offer on a Cap Horn 55 for 2 reason : it could be a good opportunity and we have time .

 

[Judy at JWY]

The reasons I would buy a CH: safest long-range yacht; built in North America; proven survivability (hurricanes, tsunamis, groundings..); 100% owner satisfaction with every owner (save a few that I couldn't query because they weren't my clients) saying they would buy another CH again.

Almost all original and subsequent owners are ex-Navy/AF, pilots, engineers, or commercial mariners. Examples: nuclear submarine engineer (later became Director of Siemens nuclear division); nuclear submarine captain; Boeing chief engineer (later Presidential appointment to NTSB); President of Wackenhut's Nuclear Division (providing security services for US nuclear sites). One owner owns a very popular marine magazine and runs a maritime training academy. And then there are the doctors (an ER doc who was previously AF fighter pilot; a EM doc who provides emergency medical services to Alaskan commercial mariners).

These aren't just owners: these are clients who have become friends, owners who tell me where they are cruising, problems they have, improvements they have made. I have remained a solid CH fan since 1998 based on attending +/- 20 surveys and my relationships with owners and hearing their stories.

I really would like to see a builder duplicate what CH created - they are truly one of a kind. I need more and newer!

 

[Mako]

@long-cours.62, I understand what you are saying above, but you represent a different philosophy - the lighter more efficient type. Personally I am into extreme displacement. The heavier the better, for many reasons. Yes fuel economy will suffer and those costs will go up, but to me the benefits far outweigh.

@Judy, I was intrigued by the "no get-home" approach. I'm a person of higher risk threshold, but I would personally only go that way with a mechanical engine and plenty of training. I don't think I would feel comfortable heading across the ocean with a single modern tier-3 electronically controlled engine. When I spoke to sales at Agco Sisu, they had no issue with selling me a full set of sensors, wires, a pre-programmed ECU and the diagnostic computer. Wow, that was over $10k right there. But still I'm not full comfortable with the dependability of electricity in extreme circumstances.

Am wondering how many of those single engine (no get-home) CH's have digital engines.

 

[long-cours.62]

When I was younger I worked on very heavy ship the heaviest at this moment ...tanker ship
But if you are too heavy for example in heading sea, you can't have enought volume aboie water compared to your weight and you pass more frequently ...under the wave than on ( ok on some vidéo we saw the 64 Dashew who also pass under wave in very moderate sea, but it is du, I think in the design choice.
.But sure the moment will be more confortable on the heavier than the too Light one.
With the 15000lt tankage of the 55 , at moderate speed you could fill up at some 'strategiques point : Algérie ( ok I don't said Libye ) Vénézuela,

 

[Judy at JWY]

Mako -- without checking records, I can't tell you about the electronic engines, but I hear you (I tend to be a bit EMP paranoid). But there are other factors inherent in a crossing. For example, CHs have fuel filtration to <1 micron. And not to mention the possibility of hitting submerged containers.

 

[Judy at JWY]

CORRECTION! I was trying to think of design flaws and there is one that is inherent to many of the CHs, the 55s included. That's the chain locker. The locker was built with a discharge pump at the bottom, but debris would clog the drain, the pump would fail, and accumulated water would sit in the bottom of the locker. There have been several ways owners have made the repair (rubberized lining, stainless steel liner, etc.) I think that's the only design or construction flaw of significance. Like the CH 63s don't have great access to the outboard side of the engine. There's not much that one needs to access there, but it's still pretty cramped. I'm sure convenience could be improved, but is it a design "flaw?" As to improvement, that was one reason the subsequent 63s became a 65. To each his own I suppose, but one 63 owner lived with it for 20 years, another as full time liveaboard in the Caribbean for 12 years.