Destroyer/Ocean Pro differences

Mr Flibble · 27 April 2009, 09:41

OK day off work and decided to spec the new RIB.
I'm looking at the 5.5m Humber Destroyer 2.28m Beam at the moment but the Ocean Pro is also catching my eye. Looking at the specs they appear almost identical, same beam, same length/weight etc. The OP is just under £600 more expensive. Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the 2 (other than price)? I'm assuming hull form is different. What would be the better sea boat in the rough?
Expect lots of 'What's the best' type questions over the next couple of days. :-)

Cheers

J S · 27 April 2009, 10:03

Hi

Having regularly been out in both i would say that if you want a boat around the 5.5m mark the destroyer would be the way to go and it will handle the chop well and goes really well with a 75-90hp on the back. If going for the ocean pro i would step up in length and go for the 6.3 with a 135 or 150 as this length or bigger suits the different hull design and this will give you much more seakeeping ability. The main differences between the two is that the ocean pro is much wider and the hull has chines whereas the destroyer does not.

James

wavelength · 27 April 2009, 10:36

we have both running here. A 5.5m pro and a 6m destroyer with 90s. Although the pro is a more expensive hull due to the spray rails making it a more skilled and time consuming lay up job we prefer the destroyer. The pro is quick up on the plane and a tad faster at the top end it is also more "twitchy" than the destroyer as it rides on its rails. It is very much a driver's boat in that the trim needs to be adjusted "just so" to get the best from it. The destroyer is a softer ride and feels more planted in the sea and I would, and have, trust it in anything. Go for the 90 litre tank in the consol and steer clear of the underfloor tank option. We also had a 7.8m pro with twin 115s here for such a short while that we never managed to get it wet. It is sat on its mother ship on a job somewhere off Chile at the moment

Mr Flibble · 27 April 2009, 16:55

Cheers guys,
Looks like the Destroyer is the way to go then. Just need to decide on the colour :-) Will defo have a black hull, perhaps orange tubes with black trim :-).
As or engines, was looking at either a 100hp 4 stroke or a 115hp DI 2 stroke, do you think this would be overkill? I'll be running either me and her indoors and a couple of pals when cruising and a max of 4 divers and kit plus one other when diving. Would a 90hp be spritely enough? Had a 90 2 stroke off the back of a 5.5m Narwhal a few years back and it wasn't the most eager of setups (not like the SR 5.4 with 115hp Yam, that was a tad insane) .

Colin F · 27 April 2009, 17:04

90 will be fine, i have a 115 mariner opti which i love on my 5.5 destroyer. I went for the extra for skiing as we all get older and a bit porkier

Always nice to have the extra power on tap if needed. I still get 1 mile per litre at 38 knots plus, so its a frugal engine and a 5 yr warranty

mikesyam · 27 April 2009, 18:21

Got a 6.5 Destroyer with a 150 Opti, cruising at 25mph she uses around 16 litres a hour,

Sprayblond · 27 April 2009, 18:50

Why "steer clear of the underfloor tank"?

Colin F · 27 April 2009, 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sprayblond

Why "steer clear of the underfloor tank"?

A massive pain in the bottom if things go wrong under the floor

Ian Sharlot · 27 April 2009, 19:52

We find the destroyer is the best seller but both are excellent boats, Based on the 5.5, 2.28 beam the destroyer has an open bow locker as standard, where as the op has an upgrade to close bow locker standard but on the 2.28 beam, the hatch needs to be bigger to get a good size anchor in. You will need to watch the destroyer if going 4 stroke as it has a max transom weight of 170kg where as the op is 200kg max transom weight. My personal favourite in that size is the destroyer but you will be very happy with either.
90 hp is generally enough on these but I'd go 115 if the budget will stretch to it. Probably a bit far to travel but we have one here available with a 90 or 115 opti

jyasaki · 27 April 2009, 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sprayblond

Why "steer clear of the underfloor tank"?

Was the post this referred to edited to remove the comment?

Confusing...

jky

Ian Sharlot · 27 April 2009, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavelength

and steer clear of the underfloor tank option.

It refers to this one

Markyboyo · 28 April 2009, 16:48

I have a 5.5 destroyer with a 115 Etec. The performance is excellent and it goes like stink. The economy running at about 3250 rpm is better my 19ft Orkney with a carbed 50HP hatsu.
I do feel that it is a little stern heavier/bow light though, the E-tec comes in at 173kg which is 3 KGs over the Max weight.I'd like to see what it would be like with an E-tec 90 which is around 45 kgs lighter. If you are thinking of an Opti then go for the 115 as it is the same weight as the 90!

What-ever you choose I'd go for the XL transom as I have heard the standard transom tends to ship a little water when in reverse/at rest in the rough. I have the XL transom with a cutdown on one side for an aux engine. I haven't shipped any water yet!

wavelength · 29 April 2009, 19:34

in addition to the underseat 90 litre tank we carry a second 30litre tank between the front consol and the anchor locker of the destroyer to provide a little extra weight in the bow. Improves the balance into a head sea.

Daniel · 30 April 2009, 21:45

always gone for an under deck tank when i've had a choice and never any problems (except a leeky gauge easily fixed) seams strange advice, particulary to someone buying brand new??

my opinion is they are bigger (bigger the better), and the CoG is lower.

I could understand prehaps steering clear of 20yr old under deck tanks...but spanking new??

Downhilldai · 30 April 2009, 22:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel

always gone for an under deck tank when i've had a choice and never any problems (except a leeky gauge easily fixed) seams strange advice, particulary to someone buying brand new??

my opinion is they are bigger (bigger the better), and the CoG is lower.

I could understand prehaps steering clear of 20yr old under deck tanks...but spanking new??

And they allow you more space on the deck and/or inside the console.

kwil · 01 May 2009, 10:42

I think what Dave was getting at, and we have had discussions on this, is not all the advantages that are mentioned above but the lack of thought that goes into the design of most under deck tanks. Such as, no baffles, no inspection hatch, badly positioned breathers and fillers making filling a slow and messy job, tanks with large surface areas and so shallow that guages are useless and you cannot dip them or fit a sight glass because they are sealed int the hull at build time. I am not saying do not get a RIB with a built in tank, I have one and even though it has some of the above problems, I think the advantages make it worthwhile but it would be so much better if builders designed the tanks into the boat and did not offer them as an after thought. Before I get complaints about slagging builders I am not saying all are bad I have puposely not mentioned any makes just that you will find some of thes design flaws in most.

If I have not put this very well I am sure Dave will be along shortly to correct me.

Keith

wavelength · 01 May 2009, 16:14

thats about right Keith. The filling of underfloor tanks fitted by a certain manufacturer do require rather a lot of patience to say the least!

Daniel · 01 May 2009, 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavelength

thats about right Keith. The filling of underfloor tanks fitted by a certain manufacturer do require rather a lot of patience to say the least!

Agreed. But when it's only needed every 300 miles...

Bigmuz7 · 01 May 2009, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwil

badly positioned breathers and fillers making filling a slow and messy job,

My Valiant seems to have this sussed

.. easy fill job, but you do have to get used to sound of when its full

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwil

tanks with large surface areas and so shallow that guages are useless and you cannot dip them or fit a sight glass because they are sealed int the hull at build time.

Totally copy that

When you're not used to your new craft if this is the way its rigged .. I do some dummy cruising and run out of fuel whilst carrying some ballast fuel so I can work out the engine consumtion in lph and an 'average total range' regardless of what the fuel guage tells me, so I only use it as a guide, and always know just on my cruising log,. how far I can get

TBH I think most peeps should do this, regardless of tank design as I've had some very innacurate guages in the past (including mercury calibrated ones

) and ones where the lift pipe has floated on the fuel in the tank

when it wasnt even near empty

tonymac · 02 May 2009, 09:26

I have a 5.5m Destroyer with a 90 Opti on the back. I am totally happy with it. Yes you can have all the gizmos on others but this does what it says on the tin! Goes like the wind, holds all seas and is stable for fishing and great fun towing. Yes get the consul tank it is soooo easy to fill. Good luck