Peter Wiley wrote:

It does seem to be true in practice, from what I've read. You need
better engineering to build a spade rudder properly than for a rudder
supported top & bottom. Therein lies the rub....

Spades are a lot more likely to be damaged from impact but is this a
seaworthiness issue? Most small boats aren't designed for collisions or
groundings and really only steel copes reasonably well with one if it's
rock or coral.

Spade rudders are also a lot better for snagging mooring lines, pot
lines, gill nets etc etc.

I have a few other problems with these sorts of thing but they're all
related to maintenance in places with minimal facilities, not
seaworthiness issues. I've seen, for example, an awful lot of rudders
where the shaft is a solid rod from tiller to rudder bottom. This is
wonderful - until you want to remove the damn thing and oooops -
where's the big hole to drop it into under he boat? Better hope the
tube is brought above the WL if you're going to drop it in the water.
Now, if it's a spade rudder having a flange under the hull & the rudder
blade bolted to it is going to require a bigger flange/stronger bolts
than the same for a keel hung one. Is it worth the hassle? Depends on
where you're going to go.

How about rod rigging? Is this seaworthy? You aren't going to fix a
broken rod easily. An engine buried under a cockpit sole requiring a
contortionist midget to service it, and a chainsaw to get it out if it
breaks? Ditto lack of access to stern glands. Personally such things
interest me far more than whether a vessel has an EPIRB, a SSB or a
liferaft. Those things only help you (at public expense) to be rescued
*after* you have a major problem.

Engineering for long-term maintenance isn't necessary to have a
seaworthy boat, but it saves a lot of pain down the track.

Did Bill Tilman have a seaworthy boat? Would it have passed your NZ
compliance rules?


It sure *looked* like a good seaworthy boat. Don't forget the safety
inspection includes the abilities of the skipper.


Cheers MC