Does anyone know if the Mistrals suffer from the same endemic problems that the Challengers have?
Potential Mistral Problems
- Thread starter rkg19
- Start date
Mistrals
I think it's a fair summing up to say the plus points of these boats far outweigh any negative points, which are almost always because of age, and neglect at some point in their life, rather than design. Bill Merrick gives a glowing report of his Mistral in one of his posts. And an Irish friend seems to sail many 1000's of trouble free miles in one.
And one of the cousin boats - the Challenger "Fleana"(949Oh) - has just completed an 18000 miles Atlantic circuit.
I think the biggest potential issue raised on this forum is the mild steel in-top-hat frame backing plates for the chain plates, but I remain convinced that its the top-hat frame that's doing the work. Has anyone heard of the rig of a Challenger, Zephyr, Mistral or Caravelle going over the side because of a chain plate failure? I doubt it.
I think it's a fair summing up to say the plus points of these boats far outweigh any negative points, which are almost always because of age, and neglect at some point in their life, rather than design. Bill Merrick gives a glowing report of his Mistral in one of his posts. And an Irish friend seems to sail many 1000's of trouble free miles in one.
And one of the cousin boats - the Challenger "Fleana"(949Oh) - has just completed an 18000 miles Atlantic circuit.
I think the biggest potential issue raised on this forum is the mild steel in-top-hat frame backing plates for the chain plates, but I remain convinced that its the top-hat frame that's doing the work. Has anyone heard of the rig of a Challenger, Zephyr, Mistral or Caravelle going over the side because of a chain plate failure? I doubt it.
Mistrals
I agree that the positives out-weigh the negatives -- otherwise I would't even be asking the question. What I meant to ask was more specific. Challengers are notorious, among other things, for chainplate problems, for the leaking of keel bolts into and out of the integral fuel tanks in the bilge, for the poorly designed cockpit structure that tended to lead to cockpits rotting out, et. al. Since I presume that the Mistrals share a lot of design in common with the Challengers, and both have hulls molded by Halmatic, I was wondering whether they also shared the same propensity for difficulties in the same areas, or whether there were changes in design and construction that made them less prone to problems.
I agree that the positives out-weigh the negatives -- otherwise I would't even be asking the question. What I meant to ask was more specific. Challengers are notorious, among other things, for chainplate problems, for the leaking of keel bolts into and out of the integral fuel tanks in the bilge, for the poorly designed cockpit structure that tended to lead to cockpits rotting out, et. al. Since I presume that the Mistrals share a lot of design in common with the Challengers, and both have hulls molded by Halmatic, I was wondering whether they also shared the same propensity for difficulties in the same areas, or whether there were changes in design and construction that made them less prone to problems.
Mistrals
Not sure it’s fair to be so wide sweeping… and use a word like “notorious”.
I replied broadly because I wasn’t sure it you were a Mistral owner or a prospective owner? (If you are an owner can you give me info on her for my listing?)
Regarding chainplates:
Challenger owning members have written in detail on this forum about the mild steel backing plate located inside the “top hat” frame. The stainless steel chainplate is fastened to the outside face (ie facing in to hull centre line) of the top hat frame – therefore condition can be clearly seen for main mast by removing hull lining, or from cockpit locker for mizzen – with studs that go athwartships through the FRP/GRP wall of the top hat frame and screw into the backing plate. I’m not a structures expert, but presume that it’s the FRP/GRP of the top hat frame that’s doing the work and the backing plate doing the locating. As I said, I’m not aware of any rigs lost to chainplate failure on these boats. That said the quality of stainless steel used by Halmatic for fastenings was not good. My Caravelle has extra 316 Stainless studs added to the main mast chainplates. Some board members have accused Halmatic of cutting corners by using mild steel for the backing plate, but from the original Halmatic drawings that came with my boat it is very clear that it was specified. It must have been presumed that mild steel cocooned in FRP/GRP would be alright?
By the way given a 40 year perspective, other than fastenings the quality of stainless steel used elsewhere in my boat (which was completed by Halmatic) ranges from good for chainplates themselves, to excellent for all the Lewmar deck hardware. (Lewmar used to make stainless steel stanchions, pulpits, track etc., as well as winches. Good 2nd hand sources on River Hamble, England for owners wishing to keep their boats to original spec.)
Regarding the method employed by some members to replace the backing plates, I think we need a wording from someone qualified, about the structural implications of opening up the top hat frames to replace the backing plates in stainless steel. Can the top hat frame’s integrity be reinstated?
Regarding keel bolts:
I don’t know if this is a widespread issue with Challengers.
I presume this is not an issue with the Mistral because I presume its deep long keel design uses an encapsulated lead keel, same as with the Caravelle. So there will be no keel bolts.
Regarding cockpits:
I don’t have time to check back just now, but wouldn’t I be correct in saying that Challenger members who have mentioned cockpit problems have Molich finished boats, which is not surprising since most Challengers were finished by Molich. And, before I start a hullabaloo, surely how well or not a boat has been maintained over 40 to almost 50 years has a huge bearing on present day condition rather than just design? Lloyds maximum time classification for wooden boats was (is?) 18 years, so just plain age needs to be taken on board before using words like notorious. I’m the same age as the Caravelle design but still feel 28. When I went to the Doctor recently to complain about my sore chronically flat feet I was shocked to be told there was nothing to be done, it’s just “old age”, and I was bundled off to the local foot doctor to be fitted up with custom insoles for the rest of my life. At least boats or parts of boats can be rebuilt. (The foot doctor was gorgeous: I could have become notorious.)
There are many beautiful examples of Poul Molich’s work in wood and FRP/GRP here in Denmark; of course the older examples are in need of attention like any wooden boat. Poul Molich’s last work before he died in his 88th year last March was to restore for himself a “Nordic Cruiser” class boat that he’d originally built in the 50’s. His GRP masterpiece of design and construction was the Molich 10 Metre, much sought after here. (Don’t be intimidated by the Danish, just click on the links – especially “rufdesign” for photos.)
Only one Mistral was completed by Molich. The rest were finished by Field Aircraft Services (part of the Halmatic holding company’s group). I’ve only been on board one Mistral and was impressed by the robust the quality of woodwork, even compared with my Halmatic finished (albeit FRP deck and cockpit) Caravelle. But this was only a quick glance rather than an in-depth structural examination and I’ve never been aboard a Challenger in order to make a valid comparison.
Regarding changes in design and construction:
I’ve already mentioned that the non-centerboard types (Mistral and Caravelle) have the major difference of not having keelbolts. It would be typical to have differing wood constructions used by different finishing yards, presumably based on their traditions, working methods and general bloody mindedness in their respect or otherwise of the original Alden spec. I’m not sure how detailed that Alden finishing spec was?
I think it’s part of the charm of these boats that they all differ, reflecting the slow change to full-on production boatbuilding. For example I have a full set of Halmatic drawings specifically for my boat titled "42ft Yawl for Mr. Lyne", despite the fact that they built 12 Caravelle hulls. But that’s because they only finished two of them themselves.
The differences between finishing yards and their methods means that it’s not possible to generalise about non-Halmatic issues.
I think these boats offer superb value for money, especially for people that appreciate what they stand for: their heritage and sailing qualities. The sale price generally reflects condition, and condition issues are not only to do with design. Recently Caravelles in good condition have fetched good prices.
Not sure it’s fair to be so wide sweeping… and use a word like “notorious”.
I replied broadly because I wasn’t sure it you were a Mistral owner or a prospective owner? (If you are an owner can you give me info on her for my listing?)
Regarding chainplates:
Challenger owning members have written in detail on this forum about the mild steel backing plate located inside the “top hat” frame. The stainless steel chainplate is fastened to the outside face (ie facing in to hull centre line) of the top hat frame – therefore condition can be clearly seen for main mast by removing hull lining, or from cockpit locker for mizzen – with studs that go athwartships through the FRP/GRP wall of the top hat frame and screw into the backing plate. I’m not a structures expert, but presume that it’s the FRP/GRP of the top hat frame that’s doing the work and the backing plate doing the locating. As I said, I’m not aware of any rigs lost to chainplate failure on these boats. That said the quality of stainless steel used by Halmatic for fastenings was not good. My Caravelle has extra 316 Stainless studs added to the main mast chainplates. Some board members have accused Halmatic of cutting corners by using mild steel for the backing plate, but from the original Halmatic drawings that came with my boat it is very clear that it was specified. It must have been presumed that mild steel cocooned in FRP/GRP would be alright?
By the way given a 40 year perspective, other than fastenings the quality of stainless steel used elsewhere in my boat (which was completed by Halmatic) ranges from good for chainplates themselves, to excellent for all the Lewmar deck hardware. (Lewmar used to make stainless steel stanchions, pulpits, track etc., as well as winches. Good 2nd hand sources on River Hamble, England for owners wishing to keep their boats to original spec.)
Regarding the method employed by some members to replace the backing plates, I think we need a wording from someone qualified, about the structural implications of opening up the top hat frames to replace the backing plates in stainless steel. Can the top hat frame’s integrity be reinstated?
Regarding keel bolts:
I don’t know if this is a widespread issue with Challengers.
I presume this is not an issue with the Mistral because I presume its deep long keel design uses an encapsulated lead keel, same as with the Caravelle. So there will be no keel bolts.
Regarding cockpits:
I don’t have time to check back just now, but wouldn’t I be correct in saying that Challenger members who have mentioned cockpit problems have Molich finished boats, which is not surprising since most Challengers were finished by Molich. And, before I start a hullabaloo, surely how well or not a boat has been maintained over 40 to almost 50 years has a huge bearing on present day condition rather than just design? Lloyds maximum time classification for wooden boats was (is?) 18 years, so just plain age needs to be taken on board before using words like notorious. I’m the same age as the Caravelle design but still feel 28. When I went to the Doctor recently to complain about my sore chronically flat feet I was shocked to be told there was nothing to be done, it’s just “old age”, and I was bundled off to the local foot doctor to be fitted up with custom insoles for the rest of my life. At least boats or parts of boats can be rebuilt. (The foot doctor was gorgeous: I could have become notorious.)
There are many beautiful examples of Poul Molich’s work in wood and FRP/GRP here in Denmark; of course the older examples are in need of attention like any wooden boat. Poul Molich’s last work before he died in his 88th year last March was to restore for himself a “Nordic Cruiser” class boat that he’d originally built in the 50’s. His GRP masterpiece of design and construction was the Molich 10 Metre, much sought after here. (Don’t be intimidated by the Danish, just click on the links – especially “rufdesign” for photos.)
Only one Mistral was completed by Molich. The rest were finished by Field Aircraft Services (part of the Halmatic holding company’s group). I’ve only been on board one Mistral and was impressed by the robust the quality of woodwork, even compared with my Halmatic finished (albeit FRP deck and cockpit) Caravelle. But this was only a quick glance rather than an in-depth structural examination and I’ve never been aboard a Challenger in order to make a valid comparison.
Regarding changes in design and construction:
I’ve already mentioned that the non-centerboard types (Mistral and Caravelle) have the major difference of not having keelbolts. It would be typical to have differing wood constructions used by different finishing yards, presumably based on their traditions, working methods and general bloody mindedness in their respect or otherwise of the original Alden spec. I’m not sure how detailed that Alden finishing spec was?
I think it’s part of the charm of these boats that they all differ, reflecting the slow change to full-on production boatbuilding. For example I have a full set of Halmatic drawings specifically for my boat titled "42ft Yawl for Mr. Lyne", despite the fact that they built 12 Caravelle hulls. But that’s because they only finished two of them themselves.
The differences between finishing yards and their methods means that it’s not possible to generalise about non-Halmatic issues.
I think these boats offer superb value for money, especially for people that appreciate what they stand for: their heritage and sailing qualities. The sale price generally reflects condition, and condition issues are not only to do with design. Recently Caravelles in good condition have fetched good prices.
I agree with your summations on the chainplates Iain
Hallmatic installed. They become cosmetic problems long before anything structural could happen. They would have to disintigrate completely and allow the SS bolts to fall off before the chain plates could move. But I don't know if the Mistrals have the same set up, it will be good to find out.
And haviing replaced one, I think you're probably right about checking on structural issues when cutting out the chainplate. But I'm comfortable in having done the glass work that they are overbuilt and can be kept that way. However, on future removals, I may try surgery from below to allow the backing plate to fall out, this would keep the integrity of the hatframe. What do you think?
The problem all along I believe is that although Alden specified the hull to deck joint to be sealed, bolted and fiberglass taped, it was impossible to tape the hull to deck joint inside of the hatframe(about 3 inches) Consequntly, any water that finds its way into hollow area between the glassed joint and the bedding, and it will from deck fittings, rail, etc.; travels the "pipe" until it hits a hat frame with no glass, and in it goes. It doesn't have to come through the cover plates on deck. Hence the weep holes specified long ago by Alden. These work but should be kept clear. Eventually though, replacement will come.
I'm still original on the fuel tanks and so far no problems. I keep an eye on the water seperator. I have applied a little paint to the steel plates on top.
My cockpit which I have refastened and made some repairs to, appears to be original. It has some rot in aft corners (due to neglect, mine and previous owners). It's a relatively simple cockpit, typical of wooden boat construction of that era. It has it's flaws but it, as well as the cabinhouse, are the things that make a Challenger unique. My family just loves the feel of this beautiful cockpit. It's a joy underway and at anchor.
I believe this uniqueness has also been the boats achilles heel. And this is not so much the designs fault, as the newer owners over the boats life. We're all geared to take a fiberglass approach to boat maintainence and problems these days. Unfortunately, the Challenger requires a wooden boat builders hat in the toolbox as well.
Woodenboat skills need to be sought out(they're not in West Marine stores) and applied to things like the Challenger cabin sructure, cockpit and the like. I've found my answers from these experts in both their words, books and observing wooden boat maintainence at my local yard.
But back to the Mistral, from photos, I'm not sure they have a wooden cabin or cockpit. If so, they will require wooden boat building skills and maintainence if they are to survive. This can and has caused panic.
Once the lonely fiberglass boat experienced owner realizes this need, and begins research of wooden boats, the lights come on. Wooden boats are wonderful and getting preserved every day.
Our Challengers are fairly easy "wooden boats" in comparison. This was their design idea, the woodenboat feel without some of the percieved problems of the day. I think their vision was achieved with this flash in time by Alden. 50 boats by Alden is no insignificant number.
They can be saved and when neglected, they can be rebuilt. All in all, excellent quality in build and materials. 50 years is a long time.
BTW, I'm glad someone asked about the Mistral, thanks. I'm looking forward to learning more about all the Alden boats of this era. I know little about the Caravelle, Zephyr and Mistral, all are of great interest to me.
Hallmatic installed. They become cosmetic problems long before anything structural could happen. They would have to disintigrate completely and allow the SS bolts to fall off before the chain plates could move. But I don't know if the Mistrals have the same set up, it will be good to find out.
And haviing replaced one, I think you're probably right about checking on structural issues when cutting out the chainplate. But I'm comfortable in having done the glass work that they are overbuilt and can be kept that way. However, on future removals, I may try surgery from below to allow the backing plate to fall out, this would keep the integrity of the hatframe. What do you think?
The problem all along I believe is that although Alden specified the hull to deck joint to be sealed, bolted and fiberglass taped, it was impossible to tape the hull to deck joint inside of the hatframe(about 3 inches) Consequntly, any water that finds its way into hollow area between the glassed joint and the bedding, and it will from deck fittings, rail, etc.; travels the "pipe" until it hits a hat frame with no glass, and in it goes. It doesn't have to come through the cover plates on deck. Hence the weep holes specified long ago by Alden. These work but should be kept clear. Eventually though, replacement will come.
I'm still original on the fuel tanks and so far no problems. I keep an eye on the water seperator. I have applied a little paint to the steel plates on top.
My cockpit which I have refastened and made some repairs to, appears to be original. It has some rot in aft corners (due to neglect, mine and previous owners). It's a relatively simple cockpit, typical of wooden boat construction of that era. It has it's flaws but it, as well as the cabinhouse, are the things that make a Challenger unique. My family just loves the feel of this beautiful cockpit. It's a joy underway and at anchor.
I believe this uniqueness has also been the boats achilles heel. And this is not so much the designs fault, as the newer owners over the boats life. We're all geared to take a fiberglass approach to boat maintainence and problems these days. Unfortunately, the Challenger requires a wooden boat builders hat in the toolbox as well.
Woodenboat skills need to be sought out(they're not in West Marine stores) and applied to things like the Challenger cabin sructure, cockpit and the like. I've found my answers from these experts in both their words, books and observing wooden boat maintainence at my local yard.
But back to the Mistral, from photos, I'm not sure they have a wooden cabin or cockpit. If so, they will require wooden boat building skills and maintainence if they are to survive. This can and has caused panic.
Once the lonely fiberglass boat experienced owner realizes this need, and begins research of wooden boats, the lights come on. Wooden boats are wonderful and getting preserved every day.
Our Challengers are fairly easy "wooden boats" in comparison. This was their design idea, the woodenboat feel without some of the percieved problems of the day. I think their vision was achieved with this flash in time by Alden. 50 boats by Alden is no insignificant number.
They can be saved and when neglected, they can be rebuilt. All in all, excellent quality in build and materials. 50 years is a long time.
BTW, I'm glad someone asked about the Mistral, thanks. I'm looking forward to learning more about all the Alden boats of this era. I know little about the Caravelle, Zephyr and Mistral, all are of great interest to me.
Mistral, continued
My interest in the Mistral and any potential problem with them is because I am looking at one to potentially buy it. Iain McAllister's comment that they have encapsulated ballast does not seem to be correct -- at least not on the one I'm looking at. It has externally bolted on lead on the forward end of the keel. The run is fairly short -- I didn't measure it but I don't think it's more than 8 feet long. I have to go back and check it out, but I don't think the tanks are anywhere near where the keel bolt are.
The boat has a FRP cockpit. It does have varnished cabin sides, and varnished comings and toe rail, however. She has the same stepped up coach roof, and big windows that the Challenger has.
I haven't checked the condition of the chainplates yet -- that's why I wanted to know if there was any difference in construction between the Challenger and the Mistral. The boat shows damage on the exterior on the starboard side at the position of the upper shroud chainplate, but at this point I don't know if it is chainplate caused or collision damage. The boat has been very poorly maintained -- at least for the past few years.
I'm really looking for advise as to what else to check for.
My interest in the Mistral and any potential problem with them is because I am looking at one to potentially buy it. Iain McAllister's comment that they have encapsulated ballast does not seem to be correct -- at least not on the one I'm looking at. It has externally bolted on lead on the forward end of the keel. The run is fairly short -- I didn't measure it but I don't think it's more than 8 feet long. I have to go back and check it out, but I don't think the tanks are anywhere near where the keel bolt are.
The boat has a FRP cockpit. It does have varnished cabin sides, and varnished comings and toe rail, however. She has the same stepped up coach roof, and big windows that the Challenger has.
I haven't checked the condition of the chainplates yet -- that's why I wanted to know if there was any difference in construction between the Challenger and the Mistral. The boat shows damage on the exterior on the starboard side at the position of the upper shroud chainplate, but at this point I don't know if it is chainplate caused or collision damage. The boat has been very poorly maintained -- at least for the past few years.
I'm really looking for advise as to what else to check for.
Re: Mistral, continued
I was presuming the Mistrals would have encapsulated keel because they are "Alden Fiberglass Boats" family full-keel boats moulded by Halmatic around the same time as the Caravelles, which do have an encapsulated lead keel. Seems strange to then find one with keelbolts. Interesting...
Read Bill Merrick's description of his Mistral here. He seems to be a bit vague about keel specs, suggesting there were variations, even centerboards, but Alden's list of Mistrals shows them all with full keel and 4'9" draft. Confirmation on Bill's post of FRP cockpit. The FRP cockpit on my Caravelle is very well designed and built, and adds two generously sized bunks in fine weather.
I'm sure Niels Helleberg at Alden Design would help you with more info about the specific boat you are looking at.
Re chainplates: see if seller will allow removal of lining to inspect them from inside boat. I guess they will look no better or worse than the rest of the fleet.
Re cockpit: good photo here among other general arrangement photos found here and here.
Good luck!
I was presuming the Mistrals would have encapsulated keel because they are "Alden Fiberglass Boats" family full-keel boats moulded by Halmatic around the same time as the Caravelles, which do have an encapsulated lead keel. Seems strange to then find one with keelbolts. Interesting...
Read Bill Merrick's description of his Mistral here. He seems to be a bit vague about keel specs, suggesting there were variations, even centerboards, but Alden's list of Mistrals shows them all with full keel and 4'9" draft. Confirmation on Bill's post of FRP cockpit. The FRP cockpit on my Caravelle is very well designed and built, and adds two generously sized bunks in fine weather.
I'm sure Niels Helleberg at Alden Design would help you with more info about the specific boat you are looking at.
Re chainplates: see if seller will allow removal of lining to inspect them from inside boat. I guess they will look no better or worse than the rest of the fleet.
Re cockpit: good photo here among other general arrangement photos found here and here.
Good luck!