Totally Trawler

60 tons, 58', 200lb Forfjord anchor, 1" chain for 20' then 3/4", 191hp Cat (3.2 hp per ton) Niad Stabilizers, 2" Douglas Fir planking, built in 1970 and wraped in the magic only Bill Garden has to offer. Thorne Bay was honored with her presence this week. It's been fun this summer to meet the boaters comming through and see thier boats and this one I felt the need to share.

Eric Henning
Willard 30
Thorne Bay Alaska

Eric,
Now that is a nice boat.
I'm not a big fan of the canoe stern , incredibly hard to plank, probably a little bit easier in Fir than in hardwood.
Did you get to have a perv all over, a boat like that would have to be owned by nice people.

Wooden boats , you gotta love em.

Benn

"wraped in the magic only Bill Garden has to offer. "

If she were only done in Airex!!

FF

Fred,
My dad had a lobster yacht in Ariex. For those that aren't famillar w Airex its a foam for sandwich construction. You can tie a long strip of it in knots and untie it and it will be almost straight** ..* fantastic memory. Also has super adhesion to FRP. I wonder if anyone has ever built a boat out of Kevlar and Airex?

Eric Henning

Certainly a boat I would stop and look at. **The marine engineers Bill Gardener, Defever, Monk, Franklin, JonesGdell, Philbrooks, MacQueen, Tolly and others at that time had some great designs that where stable and fuel efficient.* The hull design was long, narrow and tend to be deep, for cutting through the water.* I prefer the fantail over the Canoe stern but the principle is the same, so wave will pass around/under rather than push/bang the stern.* Most long range boats have a rounded stern of some kind.


*
Many long range boats tend to have the pilot house pull back/ squatty protected by a high bow and Portuguese bridge.* I am surprised it has Niad stabilizers being its a full displacement, rounded hull and slow speed?* The Niad might reduce the roll a bit but for the bucks?* The Forjord is the anchor of choice* in the PWN for big pleasure and commercial boats *Not many boaters are willing to take the time, have the know how and funds to maintain operate an old classic trawler as they take constant loving care.* **If you want to talk classic trawlers let me know? ******

EricWe saw "Griffin" at the dock on Sucia Island (San Juans), and again in British Columbia. A gem from stem to stern.
Carey

No, no, no..... that Griffin thing is a sissy boat.* It's in the category known as "limp wristed" trawlers. Or in the UK as a "wanker-craft."

If you want a REAL ocean-going, aft-pilothouse trawler that is hell-built for stout and actually holds up under open-ocean condtions, then you want something like the boat pictured below.

Note that the dhow has one of the latest-generation, grabs-anything-and-holds-on-like-stink anchors instead of the Griffin's archaic Forfjord which is a throwback to the Middle Ages.* Research has shown that Forfjord acquired its name from the Vikings who thought it was such a dumb-ass design that they began calling it a*"fore fjord" because if you used one the winds that swept from the mountains down into the fjords*would inevitably*cause you to drag to the "fore" or mouth, of the fjord you were trying to anchor in.

Marin: Dhos*dha dhow dho dhwell dhwith*dha, dhumb dhrocna dhancur?

No, because the anchor the dhows use has a double purpose that cannot be equaled by any of the archaic old-generation anchors (CQR, Bruce, Danforth, etc) or the new generation anchors (SuperMax, Rocna, etc.) used by western infidels. The dhow's anchor can also be used as a grappling hook to facilitate boardings onto container ships and oil tankers owned by morally bankrupt non-believers. This clever dual-purpose design is considered by most experts to be yet another example of Allah's superiority over the declining values of the west.

"I wonder if anyone has ever built a boat out of Kevlar and Airex?"

When we were building boats , (70's) kevlar was far too expensive , and would offer no advantages in the thin layers used on a modest sized boat in terms of bullet resistance .

As all our boats were either sail or motor sail, light weight was desirable , but not worth the far higher cost cost.

The hull outside AND inside were 3/4ox mat 24 oz woven roving with 3 layers of matt and 2 of woven roving per skin.

The unusual step of having a layer of 3/4 mat on the inside gave a smooth painted surface interior finish , at little weight cost.

The topsides came out at 3lbs per sq ft , insulated with 3/4 Airex , and had the stiffness of about 4 inches of molded ply, yet weighed what 1 inch of mahogany would , WITHOUT internal framing and ribs.

Light enough for a cruiser , and we passed the USCG sub chapter T for 16 pax, so the hull stiffness without deck or the water tight bulkheads was good.

The coasties figure hull stiffness in tea cup condition , empty hull.

Sub T is very hard to pass as the strength and burn resistance is done in a CG lab.

FF

Marin,
So your'e calling the Bruce, Danforth, CQR and Forfjord anchors "archaic" and* "old generation?" What generation are you Marin. And all this comming from a guy that has an old generation 35 yr old boat and an archaic British Jeep? All those anchors are extreemly well represented in numbers today. They are popular. Wer'e not talking 1949 Hudson Hornet. The biggest reason all those anchors are still popular is because of their performance. Just because you've found something a bit better (and you probably have) dosn't mean the rest of us are stupid for not jumping on the band wagon and getting the latest miricle hook.

Fred,
Gotta tell you about another one of Dad's boats. He had built a very custom 50' Kevlar jet sled (twin 8V71s w big Hamilton pumps) that had a cabin a bit like a jet liner. The seats of the Stikine Princes were all angled tward the windows for the best view of that river. The boat had a number of interesting owners and one of them drove her at full speed (about 50 knots) over a rather large log jam. All survived including the Kevlar hull.
Whats new with your container trawler?

Eric Henning

Whats new with your container trawler?


Searching for a yard .

Will go to Holland (they wont be cheap!) and Poland in Sept.

Have a couple of leads in NZ , but will probably wait till winter to go there.

FF

FF
Have you had a look at Oz.
the dollar may be a bit too strong now thou.
A few VG yards around this country.
84 cents to the US $ may not help.
If you come this way give me a holler.

Benn

Absolutely stunningly beautiful boat!!! I love it. ANd as far as Airex goes, I am pretty sure that is the now common foam portion of composite boats now. AM I wrong here?

Hi John,
Unfortunately most builders need to use cheap materials to be competitive. I'm not in the loop now regarding new construction so I could be wrong and would be delighted to find I am. I think Airex is quite expensive and therefore not for the average builder. If I were to build a new FG boat I would want Airex* but I think a plywood boat built reasonably well would outlast me so it may not be cost effective.
Glad you liked the Griffon. I spent about an hour aboard and saw much more of Garden's magic. The width of a stairway was tapered and the edge of the wall was a beautiful curve that matched the rest of the stairwell. Most other boats would be straight lines w a mobile home look. Hull speed is a hair under 10 knots and she cruises at 8 knots burning 3.5 gph. She has been in PMM brobably in a Bill Garden article. The next time a boat that interesting comes to Thorne Bay may be well into the future.

Eric Henning

ANd as far as Airex goes, I am pretty sure that is the now common foam portion of composite boats now. AM I wrong here?

Airex is the top of the line , only for deep pockets , gov , lifeboat folks and custom builders.

Figure about $20 a sq ft just for the Airex.

There are loads cheaper cores , but as some wag mentioned,,

You get what you pay for.

FF

nomadwilly wrote:

Marin,
So your'e calling the Bruce, Danforth, CQR and Forfjord anchors "archaic" and* "old generation?"

Click to expand...

Yes, because that's what*they are.* The DC-3 was a great plane.* Solid, dependable, rugged, etc.* But in comparison to where we are today with airplanes, the DC-3 is "archaic" and "old generation."* Doesn't mean it's a lousy plane, just that it's fallen way out of date.* Science (aerodynamics, metallurgy, computers, you name it) has rendered it totally obsolete.

Same thing with anchors.* People have had great luck with the old Bruce, Danforth, CQR, etc anchors, and they still*do, just like a DC-3 still does exactly what it was designed and expected*to do in the 1930s.* Anchors aren't*very sophisticated things compared to airplanes or even toasters, that's true, but there*are still design, metallurgy,and manufacturing*factors that can be improved*upon.* The new-generation anchors have done just*that, at least the new generation anchors*that actually work.** There area some "new" anchors out there that you have to wonder how much the designer had to drink before he sat down at his CATIA screen.

Is someone stupid for hanging onto an old-technology anchor like a CQR?* Of course not.* If it works for them and they feel secure with it, then that's what they should be using.* Does this mean that the CQR (or Bruce, Forfjord*or Danforth) is where the industry should stop, saying "That's it, can't be improved on, they're the perfect anchors?"* Of course not.

In our experience, the Bruce's drawbacks far outweighed its advantages.* So we went looking for something more dependable.* I hadn't even heard of the Rocna when we started looking.** We*just wanted to see what more reliable options were out there for the kind of waters we boat in.* But articles and reviews and testimonials introduced us to the Rocna and after reading everything I could about it and watching their video and talking to the company in New Zealand, it seemed*to us*that the Rocna is to anchors what the 777 is to airplanes.** It's got design advances that make it perform better and more reliably*overall than the old "DC-3" anchors.

Can the Rocna be improved upon with another design?* Probably.* Maybe there are already*new or newer designs out there*that perform better*overall than the Rocna.* In fact, if one follows the technology trail, the ultimate answer could be to do away with the anchor altogether.**The objective is to keep the vessel in place, not tie it to the bottom.***So why tie it to the bottom at all?* Eliminate the heavy anchor,*chain,*windlass, etc. and do what the exploratory oil drilling platforms do, or our own (Boeing's)*Sea Launch rocket platform does and use GPS guided thrusters to hold the vessel in place?

Sound farfetched?* Sure.* But who would have thought just a few years ago that the complicated, complex, incredibly expensive*computer-controlled, podded,*directed thrust systems used on big tugs, cruise ships, etc. would today be available on a 40-something foot Grand Banks?

As to what generation I am, age has squat-all to do with what you think is modern and what you think is archaic.* I still own*my 1973 Land Rover (NOT a "British jeep" thank you ) for the same reason that some of our flight test people get a kick out of flying the restored 1930s Boeing 247 that's up here, or the restored 307*Stratoliner that eventually went to the Smithsonian.* I regard our Grand Banks as an archaic, old-generation boat.* It's fun to fix up and*run old stuff.**But I don't for a second think that the Land Rover, the 247, *the Stratoliner* or our old GB are anything other than what they are---- archaic, old-generation antiques that have been improved upon many, many times over since they were first created.

In my opinon, old stuff is fun when it's not something you have to depend on.**A DC-3 is a fun airplane to fly but you'd be a fool to try and operate*one on the kind of schedule that's demanded of airliners today, where the airplane has*to be depended on to operate*day*in and day out, year after year with almost no down time.* The anchor on my boat is something that has to work the first time, every time, all the time as far as I'm concerned.* Anchoring has enough variables as it is, so it seems pointless to me not to take advantage of the latest intelligent design in anchoring technology.* So when my research tells me that the old standbys--- the Danforth, CQR, Bruce, etc.---- have been improved upon in terms of setting and holding*with a new design, guess which one I'm going to buy for our boat?


-- Edited by Marin on Tuesday 11th of August 2009 12:51:11 PM

Ultra Anchors Check this out! I witnessed a demonstration of these anchors at the San Diego Boat Show a few weeks ago. They were competing with Danforth, Bruce, Force, Rocna, etc. and in every case, when pulled at the same speed and force, came out the winner. They are incredibly expensive but are quite superior (my opinion) to anything else that's out there. And I mean anything!

Marin:
Good reply, I also like working on old machines and keeping them running, its fun. In fact, about 20 years ago my brother gave me his 1979 Ariens riding mower because he thought it was worn out. 3 engines and a few drive train parts and its still mows just fine. A brand new one would be nice though.
Mike
Baton Rouge

Hi Marin,
Your'e back. I lookecd up your Rocna. Went to their web site** ..* Very interesting. The XYZ was at the top of the heap in the Practical Sailor tests and made a rediculously pitiful showing in the West Marine effort. I still have the same broblem w it** .. frequently it fails to set or drags alot before setting but once it sets it seems bolted to the bottom. I rode out a 50 knot gale w it last summer. Last time I used it was in Rocky Pass (not on a rocky bottom) and it just bounced along the bottom. It was on a river delta. I threw out one of my Danforths and it hooked right up. Practical Sailor gave the XYZ excellent marks for it's setting performance. If these tests are actually ligitimate the best anchor may be the one that does well in all the tests. The most interesting thing about the Rocna web site was that they think chain is almost unessessary. They say when the load is max the cantenary becomes so small it's ineffective in keeping the angle of pull on the anchor low enough to do any good. They even talk about no chain at all. They say don't even bother w BBB*** ..* just use high strength** ..* and put the weight savings into the anchor. So if you take that advice Marin you'll have a 90% rope rode and a 300 lb anchor! For me I see a system of 350' of Brait (already have it) and 100' of the smallest high strength chain. This way I will always lift the anchor w the chain and gypsy (when I get same) and maybe I can lift the end of the chain up to the bow and winch. Then I can have a heavy anchor.
The photo is of another Willard boat here on POW Is w a really neat anchor chock and hawse hole in the bow.

Glad your'e back
Eric Henning

nomadwilly wrote:

hain is almost unessessary. They say when the load is max the cantenary becomes so small it's ineffective in keeping the angle of pull on the anchor low enough to do any good.

Click to expand...

That's interesting as the instructions that came with our Rocna as well as the advice I got in person from the Rocna company in New Zealand and the licensed Rocna manufacturer in Vancouver, BC all strongly recommended using all-chain rode.

Perhaps they talk about a nylon rode in conjunction with cruising in the southwestern Pacific where the anchor was developed.* As I understand it, and according to many of the testimonials I read from people who use Rocnas in that part of the world, riding out storms or very strong winds (50+ mph) for long periods of time in exposed anchorages is not uncommon.* Under these conditions, a mostly nylon rode would obviously be the way to go as there would certainy be a risk of pulling all the catenary out of all-chain.* Also lot of the testimonials from that part of the world were from sailboaters, and they tend to be more concerned about weight in the bow that trawler operators.* So maybe Rocna is trying to make the point that even if conditions and/or your boat configuration dictate a lightweight rode in your bow, the Rocna will still perform as advertised.

But in this part of the world we rarely have anchoring conditions like that.* I forget the exact wording of the Rocna instruction sheet--- it's up on the boat--- but it said something along the lines of "...we strongly recommend the use of all-chain rode with the Rocna...." and so on.* And when I first spoke with the owner of Suncoast Marine in Vancouver where we got our Rocna and he asked me what kind of anchor rode we currently had on the boat, when I said 3/8" all chain he said "Perfect. That's what we recommend up here."

So I can only go on the recommendations Rocna gave me at the time.

But regardless of whether one uses all-chain or a combination rode, the design and construction of the Rocna brings the same advantages in terms of setting and holding.

*

Danforth . the inventor of the lightweight anchoring system (used in WWII for landing craft) did not reccommend ANY chain till the mid 60's.

Many adverts in boating mags simply shoe a line with thimble shakeled to the anchor.

Gees Guys,
I must admit the number of people I have met who have come unstuck with nylon/silver rope rode is far above the numbers who have all chain.
I have just upgraded my chain and gypsy to 1/2 " to ensure that I have the protection my boat & I deserve when the wind gets up and I am anchored in the reef and no where to go.
Better chain in the the water than rope being streched and chaffed.
But horses for courses and if rope floats your boat then so be it,but me I will always go for 100% chain for normal anchoring.

Whenh I am in deeper water 50 to 100 mts the I will use a star anchor with 15 mts chain and rope rode.

Benn

Of the two boats that sailed backwards past us in Garden Bay a few nights ago, neither had all chain rode, both were combination. Of the 5 trawler style boats I could see, all had chain coming onto the deck. I can't say they were all chain rode, but we were in 40+ feet of water so I presume at least the first 150' were all chain.

My low tech, 40# SeaHook held my 40' trawler just fine even in the muddy bottom. The gusts were just over 30 MPH with only 20 or so sustained. Not a real hurricane test by any means but very very normal for this part of the world.

Ken

Ken,Ben,FF and Marin,
I have always thought the catenary w all chain would be assured. But they do make a point** ..* when the wind screams and you need the catenary the most it's the least. I had no idea it would disappear. After all I've said about all chain rode being too heavy w little or no gain I may deserve to be beat up a bit but this isn't my stuff I'm talking about** ..* it's all on the Ronca web site.* Go take a look.

Eric Henning

There is a photograph in Earl Hinz's book "The Complete Book of Anchoring and Mooring" of a USCG cutter in a heavy storm.* They put out two anchors on all-chain rode.* The pressure of the wind and waves took all the catenary out of the chain until both chains were bar-tight.* One chain broke and the photo was taken from a helicopter shortly before the second chain broke.* The chain is an absolutely straight line from the bow to the anchor.*

When you get to this point, you might as well be connected to the anchor by a steel rod.* Whether the chain breaks first or the deck fittings rip out is determined only by the strength of the deck fittings--- once the catenary is out of the chain it has no shock absorbing quality left.

And here is a direct lift from the Rocna user's guide on their website*for their anchor.* They have not changed their recommendation since I talked to them.* Note that they insert the word "preferable" with the use of chain for all the rode.
<font size="1"></font>what to use for rode
*
We strongly encourage the use of chain, either for all your rode (preferable) or as a leader of a length at least equal to that of the boat. It is important not to subject any rope portion of the rode to abrasion on rock or coral. It also helps prevent the boat sailing around the anchor. The use of high tensile (G70) chain can save a considerable amount of weight.

Well duh! If your chain gets straight, you don't have enough chain out! You need to let out more, tie on some nylon rode if you have it, put out a sentinel, etc.

Keith wrote:

Well duh! If your chain gets straight, you don't have enough chain out! You need to let out more, tie on some nylon rode if you have it, put out a sentinel, etc.

Click to expand...

Well, duh!* If your ship uses chain for rode--- and I'm not aware of any military ships of any size that do otherwise--- and you've got it all out and it's still bar tight, guess what's gonna happen?

There's theory and there's reality.* Best not to confuse them when things go all to sh*t.

*

"They say when the load is max the cantenary becomes so small it's ineffective in keeping the angle of pull on the anchor low enough to do any good."

That's a true statement. Here's some more::

If you're out in 100 knot winds you're likely to take all the catenary out of ANY rode. The key for me is being a smart enough mariner to watch the weather and be protected from the winds or other conditions that would overtax my equipment. I think most everyone on the list does this, I'm sure Willy and Marin and the others in the PNW/Alaska don't go when the weather is too bad. You hurricane boaters are on your own.

If you use all chain rode in AVERAGE conditions, which seems to be the case for me and my boat 99.xx % of the time, there is catenary all the time. And, with my 15 foot nylon snubber with rubber mooring snubber inline, I got zero, none, no jerking or noise from my anchor chain when others were breaking loose from the bottom. You can't build an anchor system that someone can't come up with a hypothetical storm to defeat it.

ken

What Ken said.