humber 5.5m assult cruising speeds - Page 3

Pablo · 12 November 2008, 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceB

Pablo, do me a favour and post a pic of you transom and the bow section of your hull, Assaults and Attaques look different and a pic will confirm what type you have..............

Will do. When did your Assault date from ? Maybe there have been design changes to it ? The Alpha is a very shallow hull. It wasn't an Alpha you had was it ? Did you buy it second hand ? I've got the original purchase papers from Humber that say mine is an Assault.

BruceB · 12 November 2008, 22:47

I bought my 5.3m Assault new in 2003 so I know it was an Assault for sure.
I don't know of the Alpha so have no info on them.
The pic of the Assault transom shows the flat planing pad and on the website they claim it as a design feature.......

seafreak · 13 November 2008, 08:27

i,m sure my hull is different at the rear to your picture i will take a pic over the weekend and post it on (if i can master the technology)

Pablo · 13 November 2008, 09:18

Looks like the same hull as mine.

You call that 10cm wide flat bit at the bottom a planing pad ? I've obviously got my terminology all mixed up. I thought a planing pad was where the hull flatens off. What do you think of the one in the photo ?

9D280 · 13 November 2008, 12:54

I think Humber have had a few "renaming ceremonies" over the years. I believe there may have been 2 hull forms have used the "Assault" or "Attaque/ Attack" name(s) - My "seasafe" eventually evolved to what is now the O-Pro 2m beam, and I'm 90% sure it also had an "A" name inbetween..... If I can find the link to the potted history of Humber that I found it on I'll post it.

Remember also that even if the hull shape hasn't changed, the construuction will have - my boat will take 110Kg / 60Hp max - you can hang a 4- stroke 90 on the O-pro, the bare hull of which isn't too far of the rigged weight of my floating museum.....

BruceB · 13 November 2008, 16:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

Looks like the same hull as mine.

No luck then, you have an Assault!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

You call that 10cm wide flat bit at the bottom a planing pad ? I've obviously got my terminology all mixed up. I thought a planing pad was where the hull flatens off. What do you think of the one in the photo ?

Humber call it a "unique tapered keel planing surface" so planing pad seems reasonable? It is a flat section of the hull tapering down in width to where it joins the keel further forward.
The boats I used called Attaques had no flattened keel surface and a deeper V. They were considerably softer riding.
Humber themselves on a visit told me the original hull mould for the original 80-90's Attaque was the basis for the small 2m beam Ocean pro and was developed into the basis for the larger versions of the same hull. I have no reason to doubt what they told me at the factory............

BruceB · 13 November 2008, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

What do you think of the one in the photo ?

You do realise that the pic you have shown is of a Destroyer and not an Assault?

CJL · 13 November 2008, 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jono Garton

It's well over powered for an Assault, 75hp Would be ample.

Nah it's probably underpowered really!!

This was my old Humber with a 150 Optimax running on a longshaft!!

Nice cruising speed and pretty good top end at 55knots!

Downhilldai · 13 November 2008, 23:14

What flavour Humber was that?
.............and who's the Nazi in the jack boots, goose-stepping along the prom?

BruceB · 13 November 2008, 23:20

Looks very like the old Attaque to me. Right bow shape, transom shape and safety line attachment points.
The Ocean Pro is very similiar but has a higher bow and different safety line attachments, unless its a very early one?

CJL · 13 November 2008, 23:49

Its an Attaque with new tubes!

Needless to say the transom was substantially reinforced.

The Nazi in the jack boots, goose-stepping along the prom is my old man!

Downhilldai · 14 November 2008, 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJL

The Nazi in the jack boots, goose-stepping along the prom is my old man!

Warn him, next time you take a photo

What's going on with the deck on the Humber? Was it always that low in the hull, or had it been re-laid?

Did it have transom knees, before the stainless strut tubes were fitted?

seafreak · 14 November 2008, 08:22

cool

Slomofo · 14 November 2008, 08:54

This is a shot of the backside of my 5.0m Assault, wasn't so much the depth of the vee but the proportionate size of the tubes on a 2.0m beam that made the difference.

Assault was great fun, but twitchy at speed - cruising at 25kts was enough for my ability/experience...squeezed 33kts 1up on Southampton water and it was doing a good impersonation of a tap dancer.....

Pablo · 14 November 2008, 09:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceB

You do realise that the pic you have shown is of a Destroyer and not an Assault?

And did you realise that a Destroyer has the same flat bit at the back ?

9D280 · 14 November 2008, 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceB

Humber themselves on a visit told me the original hull mould for the original 80-90's Attaque was the basis for the small 2m beam Ocean pro and was developed into the basis for the larger versions of the same hull. I have no reason to doubt what they told me at the factory............

Bruce, thanks for reminding me which of the "A" names it was! That agrees with what I found out. What I haven't figured out yet is was the "Seasafe" the predecessor to the Attaque or a "D.O.T. spec" version of same? (i.e footstraps, extra handholds down the toobs, triple rubbing strake, double (in some places triple) reinforced toobs etc?

And I'll second the fact it's a well comfy ride through the lumpy stuff.

alystra · 14 November 2008, 17:31

I'm confused.

The label on mine says it's a Destroyer, and it looks like the blue one pictured outside the Humber office. The 'planing pad' is only about 100mm wide and quickly tapers to nothing. The orange boats pictured seem to have a much wider 'planing pad' and the bottom of the transom looks different to me.

I don't suppose that helps at all and I'm still confused.

BruceB · 14 November 2008, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

And did you realise that a Destroyer has the same flat bit at the back ?

Yes I do but don't understand the relevance of your quote?
I haven't said that this is a good or a bad thing just as an identifying feature between hulls.
The deck height is the issue I identified as an Attaque feature earlier in this thread, they were all like that an it was a bit of a pain having the sloping deck at the sides!

For a small boat the Attaque hull form is excellent and its a pity they replaced it with the Assault.
I am not sure of the seasafe model details but with the things you list it does sound like a commercial model, safety boat or similiar.

CJL · 16 November 2008, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downhilldai

Warn him, next time you take a photo

What's going on with the deck on the Humber? Was it always that low in the hull, or had it been re-laid?

Did it have transom knees, before the stainless strut tubes were fitted?

The deck was like that when I purchased it. Is it unusual? ....well bar the engine!

seafreak · 17 November 2008, 16:57

i have had some changes done with the setup of my assault; the main thing was the engine position, the engine has been moved so that the cav. plate is in line with the bottom of the hull ,plus the engine is now offset by 1.25" to starboard.last saturday 15/11 i had 4up with 50lts of fuel on board, we tried a few fast accelerating to 38kts with no sign of chine walking, i was chuffed! we continued to cruise around 30knts, at 38knts the revs were at 5150, but i,m not sure what this motor is rated to safely, on return trip from bembridge we had wind over tide f4 so it was indeed a 20knt trip to keep from banging around too much, but well pleased with the tweaks , and will for sure go for a destroyer/ ocean pro mabey next winter, or when funds allow,thankyou for all your input