Dinghy Identification - Help
Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: Dinghy classes
Forum Name: Dinghy development
Forum Discription: The latest moves in the dinghy market
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3015
Printed Date: 18 Aug 25 at 10:25pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Dinghy Identification - Help
Posted By: osprey
Subject: Dinghy Identification - Help
Date Posted: 26 May 07 at 8:52am
|
Hi everyone, I am looking for your assistance in identifying a boat that it has been suggested is an Osprey. A French student has posted on the Osprey Class web site requesting help and I said I would see what I could do on a wider basis. Having looked at the photographs supplied several of the Osprey Class have doubts that it is an Osprey. So over the to a larger population for detective work  Information known at this time. Stored upside down on racking in a building in France Apparantly sailed from England to France by previous owner from Dover to Dunkirk Approximately 5m long +- some 4-panel each side 'clinker' construction Deck stepped mast Sorry the photo is upside down I am using the link I was sent, I will try to ammend later today.  an another photo  I look forward to your thoughts. Kind regards, Huw |
Replies:
Posted By: Villan
Date Posted: 26 May 07 at 5:15pm
|
Enterprise?
------------- Vareo - 149 "Secrets" http://www.TandyUKServers.co.uk" rel="nofollow - TandyUK Servers |
Posted By: Contender443
Date Posted: 26 May 07 at 5:41pm
|
Looks like an Osprey to me and with those dimensions. It is definitely not an Enterprise. ------------- Bonnie Lass Contender 1764 |
Posted By: laser4000
Date Posted: 26 May 07 at 6:03pm
| I thought ent originally then I thought too long.. whay about a wayfarerrrrr, but that doesn't have the right number of chines..so I think it is an osprey. They have very distinctive chines at the bow, so I suggest a 'full frontal' photo to compare with the photoes on this site.. http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/photos/?s=64&PID=8272 - for example |
Posted By: osprey
Date Posted: 26 May 07 at 6:43pm
|
Hi All, Reasons thought not too be an Osprey are:-  The boat in the pictures appears to have a deck stepped mast The stern deck looks not large enough and does not form an enclosed rear bouyancy tank The side decks do not form an enclosed side bouyancy chamberTo the best of the class knowledge no Osprey has had any of these attributes. But we are willing to be educated and learn of a long lost form of Osprey. My current own thought is a National 18. Kind regards, Huw Webmaster Osprey Class Website http://www.ospreysailing.org.uk/ - www.ospreysailing.org |
Posted By: saintade64
Date Posted: 27 May 07 at 4:53pm
|
Jack Holt did design a boat that was meant to be a larger version of the Enterprise. It was called the Lazy E. 15 foot long, double chine etc. I've got a book that does a bit of a write up about it, but the photo is pretty unhelpful in determining whether it's the same boat. Ade |
Posted By: olly_love
Date Posted: 27 May 07 at 5:25pm
|
it looks alot like an old gp14 but again with those sizes it cant be ------------- TWO FRANK-Hunter Impala |
Posted By: redback
Date Posted: 27 May 07 at 11:03pm
| Not an Ent since it only has one thwart. Not a GP14 since it has more than one chine. Not an Osprey since it has a deck stepped mast. I's say its about 15 ft long and has many of the characteristics of an Ent so is probably a Holt design. |
Posted By: blaze720
Date Posted: 27 May 07 at 11:36pm
|
Lazy E ? Blaze720 |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 28 May 07 at 12:02am
|
The Holt Lazy E (still sailing in Australia in small numbers under the boring
and misleading name "National E") has only two chines while this seems to have three. Stem profile, thwart design and number and presence of a quarterdeck also seem to be pointers against it being an E. I'd say it was a Caneton (hard chine French development class 5.05m long, the class that adopted the 505 as its OD version) but for the fact that it's allegedly a British boat. And a French student may have known about Canetons. |
Posted By: redback
Date Posted: 28 May 07 at 10:17am
| Not a Lazy E as those lve seen have a keel stepped mast |
Posted By: osprey
Date Posted: 28 May 07 at 11:08am
|
Hi All, Been in touch with National 18 Class and it is not a National 18. So the hunt goes on. Kind regards, Huw |
Posted By: Medway Maniac
Date Posted: 28 May 07 at 11:36am
|
Lots of suggestions here about chined boats, but remember, it' clinker built. Actually looks very much like an early Merlin (or Rocket?!), but if that figure of 5m loa is correct then it's too long. ------------- http://www.wilsoniansc.org.uk" rel="nofollow - Wilsonian SC http://www.3000class.org.uk" rel="nofollow - 3000 Class |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 28 May 07 at 11:56am
And since from the start of the Osprey class having lots of buoyancy was seen as a major plus for the design, it would seem unlikely that anyone built an Osprey without the buoyancy. Then again, stranger things..... And Huw, while you're here; 1) The Osprey's own designer denied, in print, that the trapeze was developed for the Osprey which your site claims it may have been. Apart from that, it was well known in 14s and Singapore beforehand. 2) The Osprey did NOT beat the FD in the IYRU trials. In fact it didn't even come close to the FD which was an overwhelming victor in the first trials. Why not take these false claims down from your site? |
Posted By: Merlinboy
Date Posted: 28 May 07 at 5:15pm
|
i Read in an older Y&Y (the one demoing the new hartley ospry) that the Osprey did beat the FD in the first trials, hence why the FD came back with a trap! It didnt win overall though ------------- |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 29 May 07 at 12:11am
|
Don't say Y & Y are repeating that line of complete cobblers!
In the first trials ('52) the FD scored 4,5,2,7*,3,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1. The 7th place came when the boat was sailed by another crew. The Osprey scored 5,6,7,1,8,3,4,9,2,5,3,3,6,4. Clear victory on both placings and elapsed time to the FD.Osprey wasn't even in the top 3 on total elapsed time. Osprey beat FD just once, when the FD was sailed by a new crew. Even when the FD had a small jib and no trap, it beat Osprey comfortably in the trials. In many ways, of course, this is not important. The Osprey had, and still has, many advantages over the FD. But false claims in advertising and promotion are annoying. And on a wider note, it seems bad for the sport for classes to imply for years that the governing body's exhaustive trials got it wrong. We should know that proper trials get the correct result (FD WAS faster than the Osprey in the trials, which years of yardsticks confirm) and therefore we should be able to protest when we see things like the cruddy pseudo- trials ISAF foisted on us with the problem-ridden RS-X. I can see ISAF's point of view, though. Even when they ran two exhaustive sets of trials, the Osprey and 505 class continue to spin BS in their promo material years later, implying ISAF was wrong in their selection. If ISAF get no credit for doing the right thing in the trials format, they may as well do the wrong thing. The true reason to raise it, of course, is that I'm a petty-minded, pedantic time-wasting anorak who wants other people to suffer too! |
Posted By: TheDuke
Date Posted: 29 May 07 at 8:43am
|
It isn't a Merlin - already a lot of discussion - not enough planks, and is too long. They did try a prototype 4 plank version of the Merlin in the 70's, but only 1-2 were built and were not liked by the class at the time.
cheers
Rich |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 29 May 07 at 10:49am
As someone who has spent a day trawling through Y&Ys archives and failed to get all the data he was looking for I can sympathise if they are tempted to repeat what is widely stated rather than going back to the primary source if its just a sideline rather than part of the focus of the article. If you're genuinely doing a historic piece of course there's no excuse, you have to do the research. However I can't even find the Torbole report from the 49er trials, and there are plenty of myths building up around that... |
Posted By: Ch505
Date Posted: 29 May 07 at 1:28pm
|
Chris 249 Pls show me the BS by the 505 Spin machine and I'll sort it out. I wasn't there - or even born for about 20 yrs afterwards. The FD is a great boat. The 505 is a great boat. The Osprey is a great boat. All 3 designs have lasted longer than any of the current crop will. ....and back to the subject. The foredeck does look like an Osprey to me. Chas ------------- Charlie |
Posted By: osprey
Date Posted: 29 May 07 at 5:01pm
|
The Osprey web site has been updated to reflect information provide in this thread. Kind regards, Huw |
Posted By: vscott
Date Posted: 29 May 07 at 5:29pm
|
How did the Jolly Boat do in '52? or where can I get to that information?
(My parents had one and I have fond memories of it)  ------------- Mk IV Osprey 1314 Think Again 
Kielder Water Sailing Club |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 30 May 07 at 8:21pm
|
There is a similar thread to this running on the cvrda site about this boat. There are more pics there, and in one of them it can be seen that the mast isn't deck stepped. The construction techniques suggest that if it isn't an Osprey it is a smaller version, the existence of which I was unaware. There is, however a giant Osprey called a Peregrine, so anything is possible! ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 31 May 07 at 10:16am
Quick work, Huw! 
Now we pedants can rest in peace. BTW, the Osprey DID play a part in the re-emergence of the trap, it just wasn;t invented for the class. Ch, totally agree about the excellence of these true classics. Wonderful boats all. However, there have been quite a few claims (not all by active 5-0that the 5-0 proto was utterly dominant in speed at the '53 trials. I must admit that the stuff on the web these days seems to be more circumspect. Coronet was a brilliant boat, the 505 is still listed by many skiff/etc designers as one of the world's best boats, but Westell himself said that Coronet's speed alone was not enough to justify a second International class. Despite that, the IYRU went ahead and made the 505 a second International class, yet they often just cop the blame for making the FD Olympic (which was initially the choice of the host city, Rome, anyway). Re the Jollyboat; it raced only in the second trials and finished =7th, it seems, with the Hornet. The Jollyboat was sailed two up with trap but seemed to suffer in that mode upwind in a blow and did best on fast reaches. The Hornet (like the Osprey comparatively cheap and simple) didn't do as well in the second trials because by then, just about all the other boats had followed the inspiration of the Hornet and Osprey and also adopted traps or planks. Back on topic; the mystery boat is unlikely to be a Peregrine as that had a lifting keel with a 270lg bulb on an 80lb steel plate fin. It was also 18'6" overall and had "capacious watertight lockers fore and aft, and buuoyancy tanks built under the sidedecks. The thwarts, traveller, outboard bracket, hatch, etc is all wrong. There's details of the beam on CVRDA; like the length, it tallies with the beam of a Caneton as do the other details of the boat apart from the British heritage. Puzzling. |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 31 May 07 at 11:58am
|
Certainly not a Peregrine - what I was wondering was whether Proctor had done a prototype small version of the Osprey. Nothing in the Dinghy Yearbooks about one, so unlikely. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 31 May 07 at 12:20pm
|
Yes, my info (Yachting World May '52) says that Osprey was "originally
designed as tangible expression of a clear mental picture of the kind of boat Ian Proctor hoped would be chosen, but the shape proved so intriguing to various helmsmen who saw the lines, that a syndicate was quickly formed to builder her and send her to Holland." So it looks like the full-scale boat came from that conception rather than a baby Osprey. One thing I only noticed recently was that the boat drew comment because she relied on hiking power more than form stability.....no wonder she benefited so much from the trap when it was fitted in those final races of the 1st round at Peter Scott's recommendation. |
Posted By: mopuk2000
Date Posted: 01 Jun 07 at 12:50am
|
The Following is taken from an article about the 65 trials by one of the
committee. I guess that the boats described below have all disappeared now as the Tempest won but perhaps it is one of these classes? "All boats entered were built up to the limits of 22 ft. overall length and sail area of 247 ft. plus spinnaker. All had keels weighing 495 lb. Actually most of the boats when measured proved to have exceeded the sail area limit. We made note of this but let them sail anyway. Tempest’s area was exactly as specified. Hull weight of the ten new designs entered varied considerably from under 300 lb. for Jack Knights’ home-built sharpie type Cobra to 797 lb. for Starlet, designed by H. E. Glacer. Tempest’s bare hull was second lightest at 440 lb. Other entrants were H. E. Glacer’s Champion, winner of the 1963 design competition of the IYRU; John Westell’s CVP43, looking very much like an overgrown 5-0-5; Flying Senior, a lovely looking boat by U. Van Essen, designer of the Flying Dutchman; Rapikee, designed by E. G. vander Stadt, and second in the design competition; J. M. Hannay’s Satellite, a variation on the hard chine Cobra; C. & B. Silvant’s Telstar which was more of a day-sailing than racing type, and P. Budde’s Flying Fish. Most of them were fine looking boats." The full article is at http://www.tempestclass.com/Info/sandbag/ appendA.html |