starting over - basic question

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Peter, full displacement hulls are extremely efficient when moving through the water at something less than hull speed. Delfin weighs 65 tons, draws almost 8 ft and at a little over 7 knots burns a little over 3 gph. You can get fuel efficiency with a very light boat as well, but heavy displacement does not necessarily mean fuel inefficiency.

Of course everything is relative: what you consider fuel efficient at 3gph is a big drinker compared to Idlewild at 1.3 gph which is what I consider as fuel efficient but you are right it is not necessarly the weight but rather the hull shape which makes a boat more or less fuel efficient.
Saying so I love the real sturdy look of Delfin, she is very nice.
 
Of course everything is relative: what you consider fuel efficient at 3gph is a big drinker compared to Idlewild at 1.3 gph which is what I consider as fuel efficient but you are right it is not necessarly the weight but rather the hull shape which makes a boat more or less fuel efficient.
Saying so I love the real sturdy look of Delfin, she is very nice.
Idlewild is a very cool boat, and I really like that design - especially the 'garage' for the tender in the stern. I expect they will show some decrease in boat speed or slight increase in fuel consumption now that they have fitted paravanes on her, but at least she won't be rolling 40 degrees. Those Albertans are tough customers! Not to push the point too hard, but if I slow Delfin down to the 6.4 knots they crossed from Africa to Australia, we would burn around 2.3 gph. Still more, but not too inefficient especially considering we outweigh Idlewild by 100,000 pounds, although I would have to burn more fuel to blow out the slobber after running at 1100 rpm using 40 hp for days at a time.....
 
What I wanna know is why this, obviously likes the term "salty" and sea worthy, Lady is going "solo"??:socool:
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Delfin
Peter, full displacement hulls are extremely efficient when moving through the water at something less than hull speed. Delfin weighs 65 tons, draws almost 8 ft and at a little over 7 knots burns a little over 3 gph. You can get fuel efficiency with a very light boat as well, but heavy displacement does not necessarily mean fuel inefficiency.

Of course everything is relative: what you consider fuel efficient at 3gph is a big drinker compared to Idlewild at 1.3 gph which is what I consider as fuel efficient but you are right it is not necessarily the weight but rather the hull shape which makes a boat more or less fuel efficient.
Saying so I love the real sturdy look of Delfin, she is very nice.

Gents: What you both portray is quite true... That said, it is not only the hull shape or weight of a craft comprised of a particular hull design moving through the water that enables higher fuel-efficiencies, but also the speed traveled in direct coordination with properly matched propulsion method/device (engine(s) used) and water-moving-apparatus (props/jets... etc). There appears to be a substantial (pre planing) nmpg fuel-efficiency increase regarding nearly any hull design or propulsion-device when as Delfin mentions above “...moving through the water at something less than hull speed.” In regard to weight of water pushed and somewhat the friction/suction of hull surface to contacted water... less than hull speed.” Is the operative term, with less being the root word. Even our planing hull, 21K wet lbs, twin screw gasser, 34 LWA / 32 LWL Tollycraft can approach 3 nmpg by cruising 6 to 6.5 knots (7.58 is calced hull speed) on one screw at a time. Although I’ve never tried it I bet at 4.5 to 5 knots I may be able to increase her nmpg fuel efficiency even a bit more.

Sooo... to my point: Water-weight moved, in correlation to friction/suction increase, incorrelation to propulsion method/device employed, and in correlation to water-moving-apparatus used are the four symbiotically primary concerns regarding diminished or increased fuel efficiency of nearly any well designed motor driven water object; at their respective designed speed capabilities. Although my little Tollycraft has ample power to easily cruise on plane at 16 to 17 knots (1 nmpg at best) or to push her at some 22 knots WOT (OMG nmpg usage!), I believe that if her hull was powered by the correct propulsion method/device and water-moving-apparatus that at some 6 to 6.5 knots it could approach fuel efficiency of 1 gph (i.e. 6 to 6.5 nmpg), and, at planing speeds her current nmpg stats could also be notably increased.

With sub-plane speeds, kept well below hull speed, the friction of water contact to hull is relatively negligible. As speed is increased toward reaching hull speed, above and beyond slightly increased friction, it is the weight of additional water moved (pushed) that demands energy increase. Until a displacement hull virtually refuses faster movement due to ever increasing water weight being pushed by inability to climb over its bow wave. When a planning hull climbs over its bow wave and rides atop the water the need of energy for pushing water is considerably transferred for energy needs to overcome the then considerably increasing hull surface to water friction and suction. The less water contact that a planning hull design enables at higher speeds results in the better fuel efficiency, so long as the propulsion method/device and water-moving-apparatus used is correctly correlated to the hull’s designed speeds. Stepped bottoms became the rage in speed boats due to their less bottom-surface to water contact. High pressure through hull emitted water bubbles are now helping to further reduce surface contact and stippling bottom textures (with certain distances between each and contours per stipple) also offer hull-to-water contact reductions for efficiency increase. The high pressure under hull bubbles incorporated into stippling and coordinated with stepps further reduce friction and suction which can therefore increase efficiency of planing hulls. I believe that eventually high speed hull bottoms will be designed to actually float upon a cloud of air some 1/32" to 1/16” above the water’s surface for greatly reduced friction and suction occurrences.
 
Last edited:
Good points, Art. I recognize that flat bottomed vessels capable of planing, but powered at low speed can be very, very efficient. Wind Horse is very efficient, about the same as Delfin, but not as good as Idelwild. Wind Horse, however, can get about the same fuel economy as Delfin at a much faster speed and is much longer if not that much more voluminous, so I suspect she would mimic Idlewild's performance if the speeds were the same. My experience is mostly with heavy displacement sail and power. My preference for heavy, full displacement is based on sea keeping capability. Wind Horse probably equals Delfin's comfort at sea, but only at higher speeds of 11+ knots, and at those speeds I really have to wonder about pounding. They say it is not a problem, and it probably isn't most of the time, but what about when the seas get to 20 ft or so? Don't know, but I wonder. As efficient as Idlewild is, I have a hard time believing that she would be that comfortable in the deep blue, given her very light weight. I think from the owner's website, they were only able to cook about 1/3rd of the time on their crossing to Aus, but that was probably why they decided to add stabilization.

Bottom line, a full displacement boat at slow speeds can be very slippery, and is only slightly less efficient, IMHO, than a skimmer even if it might take an extra day to get where you're going.
 
Good points, Art. I recognize that flat bottomed vessels capable of planing, but powered at low speed can be very, very efficient. Wind Horse is very efficient, about the same as Delfin, but not as good as Idelwild. Wind Horse, however, can get about the same fuel economy as Delfin at a much faster speed and is much longer if not that much more voluminous, so I suspect she would mimic Idlewild's performance if the speeds were the same. My experience is mostly with heavy displacement sail and power. My preference for heavy, full displacement is based on sea keeping capability. Wind Horse probably equals Delfin's comfort at sea, but only at higher speeds of 11+ knots, and at those speeds I really have to wonder about pounding. They say it is not a problem, and it probably isn't most of the time, but what about when the seas get to 20 ft or so? Don't know, but I wonder. As efficient as Idlewild is, I have a hard time believing that she would be that comfortable in the deep blue, given her very light weight. I think from the owner's website, they were only able to cook about 1/3rd of the time on their crossing to Aus, but that was probably why they decided to add stabilization.

Bottom line, a full displacement boat at slow speeds can be very slippery, and is only slightly less efficient, IMHO, than a skimmer even if it might take an extra day to get where you're going.

I much agree with you, Delfin. And, I feel there is little to nothing (I know of) that can substitute for good sea keeping hull design, sheer bulk, and slower speeds with plenty of back-up power when necessary if BIG-Waves/High-winds are encountered. If I were to choose my boat for open ocean, cross continent power boat cruising yours is the one I'd want to pilot or simply be aboard. Water and air in their movements and needs for interaction with solid objects have uncanny and vast similarities. I design utility scale apparatus that works with extreme solar heated air temps utilizing the airflow buoyancy that is created. Also, I really do love boats! :thumb:
 
Lois

Around 40' and blue water capable limits the search to only a few newer design vessels, namely Krogen and Nordhavn. Both are proven economical passagemakers with many out there and good resale. On this Forum the Krogen Hobo is the go to guy and vessel for current live aboard and world cruising. Both the Nordhavn and Krogen sites can provide much information and would allow you to have some good chats with active world cruisers.

A well kept DeFever, GB, American Tug or Nordic Tug could come into the choices too. Check out Rene Hemingway's/Don Douglas's cruising guides - they went with a Nordic Tug and then moved up to a 40' Nordhavn for their travels.

First and foremost though are your skills, not just your dreams. Marinas around the world are filled with very nice lightly used vessels where the owner's ambitions fell flat once the magnitude of ability, time, costs, distances and waves increased.
 
I much agree with you, Delfin. And, I feel there is little to nothing (I know of) that can substitute for good sea keeping hull design, sheer bulk, and slower speeds with plenty of back-up power when necessary if BIG-Waves/High-winds are encountered. If I were to choose my boat for open ocean, cross continent power boat cruising yours is the one I'd want to pilot or simply be aboard. Water and air in their movements and needs for interaction with solid objects have uncanny and vast similarities. I design utility scale apparatus that works with extreme solar heated air temps utilizing the airflow buoyancy that is created. Also, I really do love boats! :thumb:
I'm re-reading Hal Roth's "Chasing the Long Rainbow" about an early BOC single handed circumnavigation race. I think 4 of the 18 boats hit "something" during the race that caused damage and one fatality. Suspects included submerged shipping containers, submarines and whales. Having hit a sleeping whale in pitch black darkness myself in the Pacific, I appreciate the desirability of a very stout hull that can hit something with much reduced chances of holing, which is why I like steel and bilge tankage. I often wonder what would happen to Wind Horse's aluminum hull if it hit a lost cargo container in the middle of the night at 11 knots. I read that 10,000 such containers are lost annually.
 
Gosh, have I ever lucked out with all of your responses....a rich and diverse range of opinions and information...topped off with a very cerebral last set of posts....not just food for thought, but a feast...and very courteously expressed. Wow what a forum...slippers and all.
Lois
 
Gosh, have I ever lucked out with all of your responses....a rich and diverse range of opinions and information...topped off with a very cerebral last set of posts....not just food for thought, but a feast...and very courteously expressed. Wow what a forum...slippers and all.
Lois

Again - - > WELCOME Lois! U B Cool... slippers and all!! Art :popcorn: :D
 
I'm re-reading Hal Roth's "Chasing the Long Rainbow" about an early BOC single handed circumnavigation race. I think 4 of the 18 boats hit "something" during the race that caused damage and one fatality. Suspects included submerged shipping containers, submarines and whales. Having hit a sleeping whale in pitch black darkness myself in the Pacific, I appreciate the desirability of a very stout hull that can hit something with much reduced chances of holing, which is why I like steel and bilge tankage. I often wonder what would happen to Wind Horse's aluminum hull if it hit a lost cargo container in the middle of the night at 11 knots. I read that 10,000 such containers are lost annually.

Delfin

In a much narrower range of use than your ocean worthy craft, one of the most inviting/significant build-out parameters that attract me to Tollycraft boats (for use conditions we currently require) is their superior lay-up, resins, and thickness used in hull construction sequences. Bottom of our 1977 34’ Tolly tri cabin is from .75” at stern to a full 1.5” thick at bow area, virtually indestructible regarding a large scale holing or collapse. Days of yore, in the 60’s... I plied NY waters and spent many times avoiding flotsam collisions in Hells Gate. Also, having hit what we believed was a huge great white at dusk off Boston Harbor, we were very glad the 38’ raised deck sport fisher was constructed like a tank, having been custom built in early 50’s at Freeport Point Shipbuilders for the lead carpenter/shipwright of Brooklyn Navy Yard. Soooo... I truly appreciate your understanding of “might makes right” regarding unexpected collisions of a sturdy-constructed hull to semi submerged objects/items. Power On! :thumb:

Art
 
Delfin

In a much narrower range of use than your ocean worthy craft, one of the most inviting/significant build-out parameters that attract me to Tollycraft boats (for use conditions we currently require) is their superior lay-up, resins, and thickness used in hull construction sequences. Bottom of our 1977 34’ Tolly tri cabin is from .75” at stern to a full 1.5” thick at bow area, virtually indestructible regarding a large scale holing or collapse. Days of yore, in the 60’s... I plied NY waters and spent many times avoiding flotsam collisions in Hells Gate. Also, having hit what we believed was a huge great white at dusk off Boston Harbor, we were very glad the 38’ raised deck sport fisher was constructed like a tank, having been custom built in early 50’s at Freeport Point Shipbuilders for the lead carpenter/shipwright of Brooklyn Navy Yard. Soooo... I truly appreciate your understanding of “might makes right” regarding unexpected collisions of a sturdy-constructed hull to semi submerged objects/items. Power On! :thumb:

Art
I certainly agree on the Tollycraft boats. Yours was built before they really knew how long fiberglass would last, or how strong it should be, so they are built like the proverbial brick outhouse. Uniflite's of that era are similar, and are much desired here in the NW by people looking for a really strong fishing boat to re-power and take offshore for salmon/tuna/halibut fishing. For 99.9% of the usage that most all pleasure boats encounter, fiberglass is really, really hard to beat, especially when overbuilt like a Tolly. For long range cruising :hide: I would suggest maybe not so much. Zopilote was about as skookum a fiberglass hull as you are likely to find, but sank after hitting a reef in the South Pacific. My understanding is that she wasn't holed initially, but the reef ground through the fiberglass as she worked in the waves. Now re-built, she's a wonderful vessel, and as long as she doesn't try to make any more trips overland is probably strong enough.
 
I certainly agree on the Tollycraft boats. Yours was built before they really knew how long fiberglass would last, or how strong it should be, so they are built like the proverbial brick outhouse. Uniflite's of that era are similar, and are much desired here in the NW by people looking for a really strong fishing boat to re-power and take offshore for salmon/tuna/halibut fishing. For 99.9% of the usage that most all pleasure boats encounter, fiberglass is really, really hard to beat, especially when overbuilt like a Tolly. For long range cruising :hide: I would suggest maybe not so much. Zopilote was about as skookum a fiberglass hull as you are likely to find, but sank after hitting a reef in the South Pacific. My understanding is that she wasn't holed initially, but the reef ground through the fiberglass as she worked in the waves. Now re-built, she's a wonderful vessel, and as long as she doesn't try to make any more trips overland is probably strong enough.

I do tend to hang with the bullet proof private-fun-boat builders... owned a Uni too - 1973, twin screw, 31' sportfisher sedan with FB, that year was before the FG blister prob that eventually broke Uni Co's bank! I called it my water borne Go-Cart... cause it had real strong Chris Craft 350 cid/235 hp engines with only a few hundred hours, was well propped and very maneuverable. She was fun in SF Bay and outside the GG Bridge. WOT some 32 mph! Cruise at 25 no sweat! I used to take film crews out for movie trailers. :thumb:
 
What is the difference between a motor yacht and a trawler?

Lois--- In answer to your original question there is one manufacturer that uses the term motoryacht to describe a very specific boat configuration. That is Grand Banks. They made versions of all their boats from the GB36 up through at least the GB46 that are tri-cabins but the aft cabin is the full width of the boat. So the side decks stop at the end of the main cabin. Most of the ones I've seen carry the full-width aft cabin all the way to the transom but there may be some versions that include a small aft deck or cockpit.

This configuration of Grand Banks is called a Motoryacht. So FWIW, GB's configuration names were Classic for the tri-cabin, Motoryacht for the tri-cabin with the full-width aft cabin, Sedan for the configuration with a forecabin and main cabin only, and Europa for what in essence is a Sedan but with the side and aft decks covered by the the boat deck/flying bridge deck.

A GB Motoryacht could also be called a "sundeck" although GB's aft cabin is lower than the typical sundeck configuration used by makers like Carver, etc.

The advantage of a GB Motoryacht is that there is quite a bit more space in the aft cabin than in the Classic. The disadvantage is that the Motoryacht does not have a full-walkaround main deck and the freeboard for the aft third or so of the boat is quite high. This may present challenges when docking depending on the configurations of the dock.
 
Lois--- In answer to your original question there is one manufacturer that uses the term motoryacht to describe a very specific boat configuration. That is Grand Banks. They made versions of all their boats from the GB36 up through at least the GB46 that are tri-cabins but the aft cabin is the full width of the boat. So the side decks stop at the end of the main cabin. Most of the ones I've seen carry the full-width aft cabin all the way to the transom but there may be some versions that include a small aft deck or cockpit.

This configuration of Grand Banks is called a Motoryacht. So FWIW, GB's configuration names were Classic for the tri-cabin, Motoryacht for the tri-cabin with the full-width aft cabin, Sedan for the configuration with a forecabin and main cabin only, and Europa for what in essence is a Sedan but with the side and aft decks covered by the the boat deck/flying bridge deck.

A GB Motoryacht could also be called a "sundeck" although GB's aft cabin is lower than the typical sundeck configuration used by makers like Carver, etc.

The advantage of a GB Motoryacht is that there is quite a bit more space in the aft cabin than in the Classic. The disadvantage is that the Motoryacht does not have a full-walkaround main deck and the freeboard for the aft third or so of the boat is quite high. This may present challenges when docking depending on the configurations of the dock.
Marin, is there any rationale for this naming protocol other than product differentiation for marketing? Doesn't seem like it, but you would know...
 
Carl--- The first GBs were tri-cabins so when other configurations began appearing perhaps "Classic" seemed as good a sales brochure name as any other for the tri-cabin configuration. The "classic original."

I don't know if American Marine cooked up the name Europa on their own or if it was an existing configuration name that they simply capitalized and turned into a model name. I assume it comes from the streamlined supports for the side deck overheads as this was a not-uncommon feature of European vessels. Plus it sounds exotic and worldly.

Why they chose Motoryacht for the name of their full width aft cabin model I have no idea. Probably thought it sounded upmarket.

Other than the Classic I expect the rest of their names were strictly marketing concoctions based on an image they wanted to create in potential buyers' minds. Like the fast planing boat they came out with in the seventies, the Laguna.

Or "trawler," although American Marine never used that term to describe their boats.:)

Product names can be fascinating things to learn the origins of. I had a role in coming up with the name MAX for our new 737 model, and the way we arrived at that name is pretty interesting.
 
Last edited:
Carl--- The first GBs were tri-cabins so when other configurations began appearing perhaps "Classic" seemed as good a sales brochure name as any other for the tri-cabin configuration. The "classic original."

I don't know if American Marine cooked up the name Europa on their own or if it was an existing configuration name that they simply capitalized and turned into a model name. I assume it comes from the streamlined supports for the side deck overheads as this was a not-uncommon feature of European vessels. Plus it sounds exotic and worldly.

Why they chose Motoryacht for the name of their full width aft cabin model I have no idea. Probably thought it sounded upmarket.

Other than the Classic I expect the rest of their names were strictly marketing concoctions based on an image they wanted to create in potential buyers' minds. Like the fast planing boat they came out with in the seventies, the Laguna.

Or "trawler," although American Marine never used that term to describe their boats.:)

Product names can be fascinating things to learn the origins of. I had a role in coming up with the name MAX for our new 737 model, and the way we arrived at that name is pretty interesting.
I think Marin pretty much settles the question, Lois. None of us have the slightest clue what the difference is between a trawler and a motor yacht. I'm going to start referring to Delfin as a boat. I suggest you go buy one.
 
While there is no absolute answer/definition...there doesn't need to be...and besides...who really cares???? :rolleyes:
 
The builder of the Coot describes it as a "trawler yacht," as a "pocket cruiser" and as a "coastal cruiser."

Naval architect George Buehler describes it as a trawler: "She is designed and built along real workboat ideas. This is how any boat calling itself a trawler ..."
 
Last edited:
I generally think of a trawler as a full displacement hull with a single engine of relatively low HP and travelling at or just below hull speed. I also think of the cabin as looking like an old fishing trawler.
I think of a motor yacht as a semi-displacement hull with high HP dual engines capable of planing. Some look like an old fishing trawler but most look like a more modern version of one.
Many trawlers I have looked at have interiors with lots of woodwork and built-in furniture. Most motor yachts I have seen have a more modern look inside with bigger windows and furnushed by Sams Club of Ikea. In other words - 'less salty'. Anyway, that is just my experience.
 
This semantic issue about motoryachts and trawlers only becomes important in the search for a boat...as Yachtworld.com has a category called Trawler and one called Cruiser, I thought it would be helpful to understand what these categories actually mean and what one might expect to find within them. Once a purchase decision has been made then who cares?

A month ago, I didn't know that 'category Trawler' even existed and what this actually meant. Now I know much more about exactly what I am looking for. This forum has provided much more focus and some real intelligence. I don't want to get hung up with semantics..essentially the most important thing is that the boat ticks all the right boxes for me, I don't really care if it's called a trawler, motoryacht or skiff...I am particularly appreciative of the info on the GB marque....thanks.
Lois
 
This semantic issue about motoryachts and trawlers only becomes important in the search for a boat...as Yachtworld.com has a category called Trawler and one called Cruiser, I thought it would be helpful to understand what these categories actually mean and what one might expect to find within them. Once a purchase decision has been made then who cares?

A month ago, I didn't know that 'category Trawler' even existed and what this actually meant. Now I know much more about exactly what I am looking for. This forum has provided much more focus and some real intelligence. I don't want to get hung up with semantics..essentially the most important thing is that the boat ticks all the right boxes for me, I don't really care if it's called a trawler, motoryacht or skiff...I am particularly appreciative of the info on the GB marque....thanks.
Lois

Hi Lois - Great luck in your [boat] search.

In actuality... nomenclature aside! They (boats - or whatever one may call them) are all just this: "A hole in the water into which owners throw money $$$$!!!" :rofl:
 
Last edited:
This semantic issue about motoryachts and trawlers only becomes important in the search for a boat...as Yachtworld.com has a category called Trawler and one called Cruiser, I thought it would be helpful to understand what these categories actually mean and what one might expect to find within them. Once a purchase decision has been made then who cares?

A month ago, I didn't know that 'category Trawler' even existed and what this actually meant. Now I know much more about exactly what I am looking for. This forum has provided much more focus and some real intelligence. I don't want to get hung up with semantics..essentially the most important thing is that the boat ticks all the right boxes for me, I don't really care if it's called a trawler, motoryacht or skiff...I am particularly appreciative of the info on the GB marque....thanks.
Lois


I think on Yachtworld you can check a bunch at once...check all the ones that remotely describe what you want....really changes what you get back! :eek:
 
The most important part of a boat purchase is to decide if the builder and first owner had the same "big picture" as you do concerning the vessels USE!

Dock queen ?, easy enough , outfitted from Home Cheapo.

If the boat is to actually be used to cruise the entire boat must be seen as a single system.

Inshore , Offshore , Marina to Marina, or anchored out mostly ?

Where all the parts compliment each other in performing the owners desired performance.

While a lash up of parts can work , it is seldom the best solution.
 
Last edited:
Now we are presently the ultimate Dock Queen. However, the Eagle is maintained as she was design/mfg for, long range costal cruising. All the major systems the best marine for the application at the time. Most of the 50+ ft long range boats have most of the whistles and bells with back up and the owner has the funds/time to maintain, especially if a live aboard as its our home!

Did not notice she was solo? However, most larger long range boat have most of the bells and whistle, full electronics, auto pilot, bow thruster, stern thruster, and commercial/industrial rate engines/running gear. So they pretty much run them selves once away from the dock, more monitoring than anything else. Also docking maneuvering is mostly done at the helm, but having quick/close dock access does help. :thumb:

So why not a sail boat as the make better passagemaker/long range then power boasts. In most/some areas there are more sail boats than power. Might want to look at motor sailor that tend to have a higher/tall super structure and in enclosed/protected helm area. Most have the same whistles/bells as a power boat. Had a 60 ft motor sail across from us had the same electronics, auto pilot, rudder indicator, DD 671 motor, 10 gen set, webasto heat, but the neat thing was is he could handle/adjust the sail most of the time from the protect/enclose helm, and the salon was high/tall with bigger windows. With the DD 671 he motor the majority of the time. We look at some motor sailors but did not know what we would do with those long sticks? :facepalm:

I would think that in the UK they have boat shows, so the best might be to go on and compare different boats. Usually after going on enough boats, you will gravitate to s certain size/lay out of boat, which limits/narrow down the number of boats. My wife had her list of must haves, and when she walk onto the Eagle, she just knew it was the boat for her. I was in shock and not a happy campers. From the first time I saw the Eagle it’s been the Slow Ugly Boat, and I still call her that to this day. :D
 
Usually after going on enough boats, you will gravitate to s certain size/lay out of boat, which limits/narrow down the number of boats. My wife had her list of must haves, and when she walk onto the Eagle, she just knew it was the boat for her. I was in shock and not a happy campers. From the first time I saw the Eagle it’s been the Slow Ugly Boat, and I still call her that to this day. :D

Au Contraire! Mr. Phil - - > Your Eagle looks to me as bird in flight :thumb: Albeit, landed in water for a bite if seafood!! :dance:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom