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.