Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 27 April 2009, 04:41   #1
Member
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Town: West Scotland
Boat name: Orca
Make: Humber Ocean Pro 5.5
Length: 5m +
Engine: Tohatsu 115 TLDI
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 170
Destroyer/Ocean Pro differences

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
__________________

__________________
Mr Flibble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 April 2009, 05:03   #2
J S
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: N.Wales/Southampton
Make: Zodiac
Length: 3m +
Engine: Honda 15hp
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 449
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
__________________

__________________
J S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 April 2009, 05:36   #3
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: NW& wherever the boat is!
Boat name: depends on m'mood!
Make: Humbers/15-24m cats
Length: 6m +
Engine: etec130/big volvos
MMSI: many and various
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,816
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
__________________
Dave M
www.wavelengthtraining.co.uk
wavelength is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 April 2009, 11:55   #4
Member
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Town: West Scotland
Boat name: Orca
Make: Humber Ocean Pro 5.5
Length: 5m +
Engine: Tohatsu 115 TLDI
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 170
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) .
__________________
Mr Flibble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 April 2009, 12:04   #5
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Torbay
Boat name: Marlin
Make: PBS humber 5.5
Length: 5m +
Engine: 115 optimax!!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 351
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
__________________
Colin F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 April 2009, 13:21   #6
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Make: Ballistic 7.8
Length: 7m +
Engine: 250hp E-Tec
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 52
Got a 6.5 Destroyer with a 150 Opti, cruising at 25mph she uses around 16 litres a hour,
__________________
mikesyam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 April 2009, 13:50   #7
Member
 
Country: Other
Length: 6m +
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14
Why "steer clear of the underfloor tank"?
__________________
Sprayblond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 April 2009, 14:26   #8
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Torbay
Boat name: Marlin
Make: PBS humber 5.5
Length: 5m +
Engine: 115 optimax!!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprayblond View Post
Why "steer clear of the underfloor tank"?
A massive pain in the bottom if things go wrong under the floor
__________________
Colin F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 April 2009, 14:52   #9
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Warwickshire
Boat name: True Blue
Make: Humber ocean pro 6.3
Length: 6m +
Engine: Mercury 150 opti
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 456
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
__________________
Ian Sharlot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 April 2009, 15:15   #10
Member
 
Country: USA
Town: Oakland CA
Length: 3m +
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprayblond View Post
Why "steer clear of the underfloor tank"?
Was the post this referred to edited to remove the comment?

Confusing...

jky
__________________
jyasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 April 2009, 15:21   #11
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Warwickshire
Boat name: True Blue
Make: Humber ocean pro 6.3
Length: 6m +
Engine: Mercury 150 opti
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavelength View Post
and steer clear of the underfloor tank option.
It refers to this one
__________________
Ian Sharlot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 April 2009, 11:48   #12
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Truro-Cornwall & Brazil
Boat name: Bananas in Blue
Make: Humber Destroyer 5.5
Length: 5m +
Engine: E-Tec 115
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 386
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!
__________________
Markyboyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 April 2009, 14:34   #13
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: NW& wherever the boat is!
Boat name: depends on m'mood!
Make: Humbers/15-24m cats
Length: 6m +
Engine: etec130/big volvos
MMSI: many and various
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,816
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.
__________________
Dave M
www.wavelengthtraining.co.uk
wavelength is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 April 2009, 16:45   #14
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Margate / Ramsgate
Boat name: Bumbl
Make: Scorpion
Length: 8m +
Engine: Yanmar diesel
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,837
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??
__________________
Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 April 2009, 17:03   #15
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: West Wales
Make: Vipermax 5.8, SR4.7
Length: 5m +
Engine: 150 Opti, F50EFi
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
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.
__________________
Downhilldai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01 May 2009, 05:42   #16
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Blackpool
Boat name: Magic II
Make: Tohatsu 6.1
Length: 6m +
Engine: Evinrude 115 E-tec
MMSI: 235050189
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 152
Send a message via Skype™ to kwil
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
__________________
kwil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01 May 2009, 11:14   #17
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: NW& wherever the boat is!
Boat name: depends on m'mood!
Make: Humbers/15-24m cats
Length: 6m +
Engine: etec130/big volvos
MMSI: many and various
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,816
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!
__________________
Dave M
www.wavelengthtraining.co.uk
wavelength is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01 May 2009, 15:15   #18
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Margate / Ramsgate
Boat name: Bumbl
Make: Scorpion
Length: 8m +
Engine: Yanmar diesel
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavelength View Post
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...
__________________
Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01 May 2009, 15:33   #19
Member
 
Bigmuz7's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Town: Glasgow
Boat name: stramash
Make: Tornado
Length: 5m +
Engine: Etec 90
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwil View Post
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 View Post
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
__________________
Bigmuz7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02 May 2009, 04:26   #20
RIBnet supporter
 
tonymac's Avatar
 
Country: Ireland
Town: Belfast
Boat name: Cait
Make: Humber
Length: 5m +
Engine: 90hp Opti
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 909
RIBase
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
__________________
tonymac is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.