# 51 Formosa



## ISLANDCHIEF60 (Aug 4, 2003)

Dose anyone know where I can find information on the build specs for a 51 Formosa. I`m looking for information on the quality of construction, any problems the boat was prone too and if anyone that has one if they could tell more of there expierences with the boat. there are two boats that I have in mind a 1974 and a 1979. Any information would be helpful.
Thanks, Chuck


----------



## GordMay (Dec 19, 2002)

The Formosa(s) are generally poorly built ‘pigs’. The builder did''nt adhere to the design specifications, so they may not be of much use (if available). 
IMHO
Gord


----------



## ISLANDCHIEF60 (Aug 4, 2003)

Can you be more specific? Where did you get this information?
Thanks,
Chuck


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

The Formosa 51''s are a pretty well known quantity. The design is a loose interpretation of a William Garden design built to a very loose standard (although there appears to be some variation in the build quality). They are grossly overweight, undercanvassed, and grossly underballasted. You might want to do a search. There has been a lot of discussion of these boats in the past with owners and people experienced describing the good (roomy and cheap), the okay (you can find some of these boats lovingly restored, updated and upgraded), and the bad (worse than poor sailing ability, miserable motion [at least to some]and extremely shoddy original build quality).

Jeff


----------



## ISLANDCHIEF60 (Aug 4, 2003)

Thanks Jeff. Do the CT 54`s also fall in this relm or are they a better boat?

Chuck


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

CT''s are something of a mixed bag. They made some really dismal boats that were pretty poorly built and some pretty neat boats that seemed to have been built to a reasonable standard. I don''t have any first hand knowledge of the CT-54. I think that the CT54''s started life as a Bob Perry design and, as such, probably would have been a bit more moderate than the Formosa 51 and probably better thought through. Like the Formosa 51 the CT54''s are also wildly heavy boats but they do have a better ballast to weight ratio than the Formosa. 

I would suggest that you post your question on the Cruising World General Forum website.
http://phpbb.worldpub.net/index.php

Bob Perry frequents that website and might give you a better appraisal. You might perhaps try a subject title like ''CT 54 question for Bob Perry'' to catch his attention. Bob also has an extremely reasonably priced consulting service that he provides.

Frankly, I am probably the wrong guy to ask about boats of this genre. I just do not understadn their reasons for being. It is not that I do not like traditional water craft. I have been a student of small craft history since a small child and have sailed on traditional small boats when ever I can get a chance. IOW, I truly love traditional working craft and yachts that accurately reflect the virtues of traditional boats. And I also really enjoy the better sailing capabilities, ease of handling, and enhansed seaworthiness of the better contemporary designs. I am not a fan of the ''character boat'' genre that, for the most part, neither have the virtues of historic sailing craft nor of modern design. 

Just out of curiousity, and I may be mistaken on this, weren''t you the fellow who was in the process of buying a Beneteau 473 last year to go distance cruising. What happened with that?

Good Luck,
Jeff


----------



## ISLANDCHIEF60 (Aug 4, 2003)

Yes I was looking at the 473 but decided against it. I guess I must have been an old salt in a past life. Even though I currently own a 2004 41 Hunter, I still think that the fin keel flat bottom boats have there special place of coastal cruising, sounds and rivers. My wife and I really like the old classic boat such as the CT`s and the Formosa`s. With the heavy wieght deep full keel makes the boat far more confortable and in follow seas a little more forgiving. Coming from a 4000 sq ft house my wife love the extra room. I like the ability of having a bit of a work shop on the boat. As a marine technician of main engines and generator it makes it use for earning while you cruise. So having room to carry spares for some of the more popular equipment that in other boat makes it nice for fellow cruiser that may need an impeller or belt. I love the old craftsmanship that you just don`t see anymore. By the way what is your thought on wooden spares? Each of the boats that I am looking at hvae them. they are in excellent shape and are keel stepped. I know it will require more maintenance but what the hell, what else are you going to do out there when all the beer and wine is gone. Well thanks for you thoughts.
Chuck


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Here''s the deal as I see it, first off you have been sold the old myth that "full keel makes the boat far more confortable and in follow seas a little more forgiving". Sorry Dude there really is no truth to that. Its an old wive''s tale pretty much debunked in testing and in practical reality. While radical fin keels don''t do a great job of tracking on their own, moderate length fins coupled with skeg hung rudders and a properly shaped hull form are actually better in a following sea situation where. Full length keels tend to lock in on whichever direction the waves have thrown them and their relatively inefficient rudders generally do not have the ability to steer them out of the broach. Been there, done that......Boats with a cut away forefoot and a skeg rudder have a better chance of being steered out of the broach. 

There are a whole range of factors that affect how well a boat steers in a following sea. Finer hulled designs with finer entries tend to track reasonably well regardless of their keel type. Blunt ended boats even when they have long keels (like the Formosa) tend to be a bear to steer in a large following seas as they will skew.

Long keels are not any more inherently stable than fin keels. Stability is a product of weight distribution, displacement distribution (both static and heeled), and the forces that come into play that try to roll the boat. Generally fin keels have more stability and generate lower rolling forces than full keels. Full keels have enormous side areas and in a broaching situation, (which is the most common case where a roll over occurs) tend to generate disproportionately high roll moments compared to fin keels. 

Boats like the Formosa have extremely small ballast to weight ratios, and extremely high vertical center of gravity that comes from a combination of their high and heavby deck structures, heavy interior appointments, heavy spars, and comparatively low balalst ratios and low density ballast (typically scrap iron set in concrete on these older Taiwanese boats). 

As to the wooden spars, I have owned a number of boats that have had wooden spars. In the topics these really need a lot of maintenance. In Florida, we were averaging one or two coats of varnish ever two months (the sails abrade spots on the spar so you end up vanishing spars more frequently than you do other varnish work.) The oriental spars have a pretty poor reputation. The wood used was not as rot resistant as the Sitka spruce that was typically used in the States (not that sitka spruce was all that rot resistant). And the glues were not that great either. Wooden box spars, as used on these boats, rot from the inside out and so can look perfect but be shot inside, and the glue is thought to have a 25 to 30 year practical lifespan. In other words these spars are near the end of their reliable lifespan. Its fine for coastal cruising but not something that I would ever take offshore. 

As to the ''old craftmanship'', these boats were beautifully finished, but they were not what I would call an example of good craftsmanship. 

In any event, the last time we discussed your plans, you were talking about doing a circumnavigation. If these were comparatively new boats, I''d say, go knock yourself out, just bring lots of spares and plan to spend a lot of time and money on maintenance. But you are discussing nearly 30 year old boats which were built in a manner that they will need major rebuilding to be able to stand up to the rigors of what you were proposing. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## ISLANDCHIEF60 (Aug 4, 2003)

So what boat should I buy for under 200k? What kind of boat do you have?
Thanks Chuck


----------



## tomcostin (May 15, 2001)

Jeff talks a little about his own boat and general boats like his here:
http://tinyurl.com/c9pum

Some searching on yachtworld.com turns up some interesting hits with the parameters of 160-200k, 40-55 feet. These are fin keeled boats with no teak deks mostly built by yards with decent reputations. Of course, as has been said many times, when talking about boats that are 20 year old or more it''s all about the maintenance and the care that was taken with it. 


http://tinyurl.com/b5d7u
http://tinyurl.com/8xewc
http://tinyurl.com/apkwb
http://tinyurl.com/8bd2x
http://tinyurl.com/8snpe
http://tinyurl.com/9hjun
http://tinyurl.com/cbk3k


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I just got back and saw your question. I am afraid that I do not have the time to give you a detailed answer during my lunch break but in a general sense there are several general points that I think are relevant to your question and boat search. 

To begin with, when you talk about a 50-60 footer, you are talking about a very big boat and then you are looking at boats like the Formosa 51 and Ct54 that are boats that cram an especially huge amount of displacement and accomodations into a their sailing length and whose actual length in terms of renting a slip, or needing room to manuever or tie up will be closer to 60-62 feet with their bowprits and davits. 

When you look for a boat of this general length, no less sheer size size of these these two, that are priced within your budget there are bound to be compromises. Even older and mediocre condition reasonable quality boats in your size range would tend to cost considerably more than your budget. 

Something like a Whitby Brewer 55, Pearson 530, or Tayana 52 or 55, which all would be good posibilities in many ways, in decent shape will still be well over your price range, and given the size of these boats, one at a price any where near you price range would require a large amount to refit for the kind of passage making that you have had in mind. 

Because of that, you are effectively looking for a boat that for one reason or another is priced below its general worth for reasons other than poor design, or build quality, or dismal condition. An example of that may be something like this Aeromarine (I don''t know enough about the boat to know why it is priced as it is): http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/pl_boat_full_detail.jsp?slim=quick&boat_id=1405822&units=Feet¤cy=USD&access=Public&listing_id=37868&url=

Or this Custom Swedish boat (again I don''t know why it is priced as it is but suspect that its deep draft is a major reason). 

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/pl_boat_full_detail.jsp?slim=quick&boat_id=1346294&units=Feet¤cy=USD&access=Public&listing_id=3584&url=

There are boats like the Gulfstar 55''s that are pretty inexpensive and readily available but would probably require a major refit to do the kind of voyaging in you have in mind. 

Last time that we talked about a distance cruiser, I had strongly recommended that you try to find a well found Peterson 46 without teak decks or a Brewer 12.8 in good sound shape. These are way smaller than the boats that you have been considering of late but probably better suited.

I think that the boat that I own is pretty much irrelevant to your search. For what it si worth, I own a Farr 11.6 (Farr 39). Doing a cut and paste of an earlier post I descrived her as: 

" The Farr 11.6 (Farr 38) were built as cruiser/racers and in their day they were extremely fast compared to other 38 footers that could be cruised. Compared to cruiser/racers of that era, they were very light. With a design weight of only 10,600 lbs., they were 2/3 of the weight of a normal 38 foot coastal cruiser of that era. In some ways these were boats with a split personality. Sisterships of my boat are distance cruising all over the world. My boat, for example, was single-handed in from South Africa on her own bottom. Yet, when these were new boats, Farr 11.6’s were also winning races in a wide range of venues. 

My boat was designed at an interesting point in Bruce Farr''s and yacht design history. Farr, like many top designers, had been designing race boats to compete under the IOR racing rule and had done so quite successfully. But in the early 1980''s designers and racers were becoming disillusioned with boats optimized for the IOR rule. These early 80’s IOR boats were comparably slow, tender and difficult to sail especially in heavy conditions or with short crews. Designers began designing large one-design, offshore capable, keel-boats that were designed to be more well rounded designs and which were not specifically optimized to any racing rule. For example this is the era that saw the introduction of boats like J-36/35, Express 37 and Santana 36. Into that climate, Bruce Farr designed the Farr 11.6. The boat was a big hit in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa with well over a 125 of these boats built worldwide. 

In a lot of ways she was also a typical family cruiser built for use in New Zealand. The New Zealanders have a culture of cruising carefully engineered, very light weight boats. During this era Bruce Farr designed a whole range of very fast cruising boats similar in concept to the 11.6 but ranging from 21 feet up to 60 footers. Even in the early 1980''s, these fast cruisers offered a lot of carrying capacity for their dry weight, had surprisingly comfortable motions and were quite stabile as compared to the light boats that we knew at that time in the northern hemisphere. 

The engineering on my boat is amazing. The 11.6 has a comparatively thin skin supported on closely spaced framing. The boat has a series of closely spaced, hand glassed longitudinal stringers that run the length of the boat and terminate at a squash block at the bow knuckle. Depending on where you are in the boat, there are transverse framing or a structural bulkhead every 20” to 30”, The framing around the keel area consists of massive glassed in transverse frames. These are incredible stiff and sturdy boats that really seem to stand up to a lot of abuse. 

Today she is pretty slow when compared to modern race boats. But she was the last of the last generation of boats that could be raced or cruised in a wide range of conditions. She is remarkably easy to handle single-handed and in a breeze. She points well for a cruising boat and is very fast in a wide range of conditions. Although light in weight, her hull form and weight distribution makes the Farr 11.6 surprising comfortable in rough going."

In any event, sandwich done and work beckoning....Good luck,
Jeff


----------



## truenomads333 (7 mo ago)

Worst part about being a formosa owner is every time I Google anything about my boat I get a forum thread from one of several different communities with Jeff H bashing my boat. Heavy long keel ketches aren't everyone's bag but... If you hit my boat with your boat I might wake up. If I hit a coral head/shipping container i won't **** my pants I have jumping headroom in a 36'er My rudder won't need replacement every Caribbean season My prop is amply protected The difference in ballast distribution produces a more comfortable movement both at sea and on the hook I can sail jib and jigger I can blow 1 halyard in the night to go from zephyr mode to 25+ knot wind mode without altering course or loosing speed - or completely waking up. Being dismasted doesn't preclude me from sailing. Either jib n jigger or shloop style depending. I don't need my kids to crew, everything is manageable (split rig, smaller sails, less effort) I forgot where I set my coffee and later found it unspoilt and unspilled. 9' swells, blowing 20s. My butt never gets wet unless I want it to. Or it rained. Jeff. You're obviously not an idiot, and I respect your opinion as much as I disagree with it. I do feel these boats have a niche they're meant for and they fill it excellently. Sorry for thread necro but if it comes up by googling "formosa ketch" it's obv still relevant. Best wishes to all.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Absolutely nothing good to say about the Formosas' I've surveyed.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

truenomads333 said:


> Worst part about being a formosa owner is every time I Google anything about my boat I get a forum thread from one of several different communities with Jeff H bashing my boat. Heavy long keel ketches aren't everyone's bag but... If you hit my boat with your boat I might wake up. If I hit a coral head/shipping container i won't **** my pants I have jumping headroom in a 36'er My rudder won't need replacement every Caribbean season My prop is amply protected The difference in ballast distribution produces a more comfortable movement both at sea and on the hook I can sail jib and jigger I can blow 1 halyard in the night to go from zephyr mode to 25+ knot wind mode without altering course or loosing speed - or completely waking up. Being dismasted doesn't preclude me from sailing. Either jib n jigger or shloop style depending. I don't need my kids to crew, everything is manageable (split rig, smaller sails, less effort) I forgot where I set my coffee and later found it unspoilt and unspilled. 9' swells, blowing 20s. My butt never gets wet unless I want it to. Or it rained. Jeff. You're obviously not an idiot, and I respect your opinion as much as I disagree with it. I do feel these boats have a niche they're meant for and they fill it excellently. Sorry for thread necro but if it comes up by googling "formosa ketch" it's obv still relevant. Best wishes to all.


We were hit by a container in a gale between Bermuda and St.T. 77,000 # sent flying 100 feet on her topsides. No damage other than a square block of the boot top was gone. I suspect this meant we were hit by a corner, but I have no way of knowing that.
Given that we are both fairly strong, I'd still sail circles around you and l can keep her sailing at 7 to 10 knots to weather in 35 knots of wind. Even with your monster engine (compared to other boats of a equal water line length) I doubt you'll ever see a 200 mile day. Speed certainly not a primary need for me, but it is really nice to make a windward anchorage before dark, under sail without using the engine if necessary. There is no way you can convince those of us who were sailing when your boat was new to America that she isn't a motorsailer. But she is an incredible boat to live on and certainly an eye catcher. 
I can't say I've seen that many actually out cruising, so I can't comment on her comfort in an anchorage when a swell is running. I'd suspect she hobby horses pretty badly, in some conditrions
My wife sailed our boat north and intentionally rode the tail of Claudette because the winds were favorable, if not a tiny bit strong. I'm not sure a lot of people would be comfortable doing that on your boat. The point being you may like your boat a great deal, but she's very old fashioned and there are plenty of other boats out there that are "brick sh*t houses" with much better underwater lines and sailing ability.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Thread locked. 
Replying to a post from 2005.
Sorry guys, the whole boating industry has changed, Dang, so has the internet.


----------

