Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is getting interesting. I thought there were three different PTs: Higgins, Huckins, and Elco? Someone wrote a long article about in in Woodenboat 20 years ago or something.

 

As far as old Nat and torpedo boats, in my opinion he never would have been the great America's Cup deisgner, had he not screwed down the safetly valve one fateful day out on a sea trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 15.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I've been working on the S Boat painting from the photo I posted a few days ago, and I thought y'all might like to see how it's coming along. It's 12" X 24". I liked the composition of the photo,

Adagio just started the Port Huron to Mackinaw race In her 52'nd year of racing. First large wood-epoxy boat boat built without fasteners. She rates faster than the Santa Cruz 70's.

Does it come with a codpiece?  And I can easily singlehand or cruise with the wife and no crew. I say that a lot when I see an exotic, beautiful car, or a mansion that is just too f'n big

Posted Images

 

From Wikipedia: The Plywood Derby

PT_boat_New_Guinea_1943.jpgmagnify-clip.png

The Board of Inspection and Survey decided to conduct comparative service tests. The following boats were tested off New London, 21 to 24 July 1941:

  • PT-6: 81 ft (25 m) Higgins; 3 Packard 1,200-hp engines.

PT-8: 81 ft (25 m) Philadelphia Navy Yard; aluminum hull; 2 Allison 2,000-hp engines, 1 Hall-Scott 550-hp engine.

PT-20: 77 ft (23 m) Elco; 3 Packard 1,200-hp engines; equipped with special propellers; special strengthening added to hull framing and deck.

PT-26, -30, -31, -33: Same as PT-20, except with standard propellers and without special strengthening.

PT-69: 72 ft (22 m) Huckins; 4 Packard 1,200-hp engines.

PT-70: 76 ft (23 m) Higgins; 3 Packard 1,200-hp engines.

One 70 ft (21 m) boat built for Britain by Higgins; 3 Hall-Scott 900-hp engines.

The test included an open-sea run of 190 miles (310 km) at full throttle, forever after referred to by PT personnel as the "Plywood Derby." The course started around New York Harbor, at Sarah Ledge, then led around the eastern end of Block Island, then around Fire Island Lightship, finishing at Montauk Point Whistling Buoy.

This was a shakedown to see which company would be contracted to build the Navy PT boats. At the completion of the trials, the Navy considered all three designs. The Elco 77-footer (23 m) (PT-20) came in first with an average speed of 39.72 kn (45.71 mph), followed by the Huckins 72-foot (22 m) boat (PT-69) and the Higgins 76-footer (23 m) (PT-70).[3] The Navy saw the merits of the other two boats and decided to offer all three companies contracts. Elco received the largest share of the contract with contracts for 350 boats, Higgins was awarded contracts for 199 boats, and Huckins was awarded a contract for 18 boats.

If you are interested, the aluminium PT Boat mentioned above, PT-8, apparently the only aluminium PT Boat built (all the others are mahogany planked), is for sale on Yachtworld: http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1938/United-States-Navy-PT-8-2114061/Franklin/LA/United-States#.UtJ1A9JdXvg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty cool construction - all those lightening holes in the framing look like the aircraft construction of the time.

 

I doubt 2 X 16-71's are going to be the equal of the old Av-gas engines. An NGO might be able to afford (or even GET) the fuel for them though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty cool construction - all those lightening holes in the framing look like the aircraft construction of the time.

 

I doubt 2 X 16-71's are going to be the equal of the old Av-gas engines. An NGO might be able to afford (or even GET) the fuel for them though.

 

Nowhere close. The listing says 800 hp. What's the fun of a PT boat if it isn't fast?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pretty cool construction - all those lightening holes in the framing look like the aircraft construction of the time.

 

I doubt 2 X 16-71's are going to be the equal of the old Av-gas engines. An NGO might be able to afford (or even GET) the fuel for them though.

 

Nowhere close. The listing says 800 hp. What's the fun of a PT boat if it isn't fast?

 

One of the neat things about those old Jimmies is you can boost their output simply by putting in bigger injectors. You do get a corresponding reduction in engine life of course. At 400 HP (1/3 horse per cube) those 16-71's will outlive your children.

 

I don't think you can boost them to 2000 horses though - you'd want 3 or 4 of them in a PT I think. ;)

 

Anybody know what goes in their contemporary counterparts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to burst his bubble, but there was an aluminum Higgins-style PT boat stationed at the Washington (DC) Navy Yard through the 80's.

Haven't been around there a lot since then - couldn't say if it is still there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The German S-boats seem like they were considerably better designs than the PT boats.

 

The lines and arrangements were a development of some fast yachts from the prewar era. Most S-boats were around 115 ft. long, had a beam of 17 feet, (L/B of nearly 7:1) displaced 120 tons, and were fitted with triple super-charged 12 or 16 cylinder Daimler-Benz or M.A.N. diesels that could deliver a total of 7500 hp. Top speeds were over 45 knots. They were round bilged, comfortable in a seaway, and could maintain 25 knots even in really bad weather.WW2-Chronology-164-px800.jpg

 

There were quite a few plans published after the war for PT boat conversions. Can't imagine with those engines that they made for sensible family yachts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 70's I read an account of a broker discussing a PT "yacht".

 

"Just another freak PT conversion - roll you sick on a wet lawn and you couldn't shoot gas out of a firehose as fast as she'd suck".

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Pretty cool construction - all those lightening holes in the framing look like the aircraft construction of the time.

 

I doubt 2 X 16-71's are going to be the equal of the old Av-gas engines. An NGO might be able to afford (or even GET) the fuel for them though.

 

Nowhere close. The listing says 800 hp. What's the fun of a PT boat if it isn't fast?

 

One of the neat things about those old Jimmies is you can boost their output simply by putting in bigger injectors. You do get a corresponding reduction in engine life of course. At 400 HP (1/3 horse per cube) those 16-71's will outlive your children.

 

I don't think you can boost them to 2000 horses though - you'd want 3 or 4 of them in a PT I think. ;)

 

Anybody know what goes in their contemporary counterparts?

 

 

I'm not a Navy guy, but as a boater it seems to me that the hydrofoils I have seen down in Key West have similar capabilities. Those have turbine engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 70's I read an account of a broker discussing a PT "yacht".

 

"Just another freak PT conversion - roll you sick on a wet lawn and you couldn't shoot gas out of a firehose as fast as she'd suck".

"The boat that died of shame" by Nicholas Monsarrat. A good read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall there was a Sea Scout group in the PNW that had an old PT boat with two of the four engines left. The times I saw it out it was always smoking like crazy and doing about ten knots. I'd love to see the hull lines of that German PT boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall there was a Sea Scout group in the PNW that had an old PT boat with two of the four engines left. The times I saw it out it was always smoking like crazy and doing about ten knots. I'd love to see the hull lines of that German PT boat.

 

go here:

http://www.amazon.com/Fast-fighting-boats-1870-1945-construction/dp/0870218204

 

and see this:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Pretty cool construction - all those lightening holes in the framing look like the aircraft construction of the time.

 

I doubt 2 X 16-71's are going to be the equal of the old Av-gas engines. An NGO might be able to afford (or even GET) the fuel for them though.

 

Nowhere close. The listing says 800 hp. What's the fun of a PT boat if it isn't fast?

 

One of the neat things about those old Jimmies is you can boost their output simply by putting in bigger injectors. You do get a corresponding reduction in engine life of course. At 400 HP (1/3 horse per cube) those 16-71's will outlive your children.

 

I don't think you can boost them to 2000 horses though - you'd want 3 or 4 of them in a PT I think. ;)

 

Anybody know what goes in their contemporary counterparts?

 

What they call a "gas turbine" (I guess to differentiate from a steam turbine)... which is really a turbojet with it's shaft coupled to either a prop of huge water pump.

 

The Pegasus class patrol boats dunno why thy were taken out of service, seemed extremely effective to me. The published speed is also a joke, seeing that they have been decommissioned for a long time I feel safe telling everybody that they did *well* over that 48kt figure especially when running light.

 

Here's the Russki variant which has a "radial diesel" with plenty of horsepower... no foils though

 

FB- Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

USS Cushing, a 116-ton torpedo boat, was built in Bristol, Rhode Island. When commissioned in April 1890, she was the Navy's only modern torpedo boat, and spent most of her career assisting in torpedo development efforts. In 1898, Cushing operated out of Key West and off Cuba in support of Spanish-American War naval efforts. She was generally in reserve status after that conflict and was finally expended as a target in September 1920.

 

Sic transit gloria mundi

expended as a target is such a nice way to put it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Pretty cool construction - all those lightening holes in the framing look like the aircraft construction of the time.

 

I doubt 2 X 16-71's are going to be the equal of the old Av-gas engines. An NGO might be able to afford (or even GET) the fuel for them though.

 

Nowhere close. The listing says 800 hp. What's the fun of a PT boat if it isn't fast?

 

One of the neat things about those old Jimmies is you can boost their output simply by putting in bigger injectors. You do get a corresponding reduction in engine life of course. At 400 HP (1/3 horse per cube) those 16-71's will outlive your children.

 

I don't think you can boost them to 2000 horses though - you'd want 3 or 4 of them in a PT I think. ;)

 

Anybody know what goes in their contemporary counterparts?

 

What they call a "gas turbine" (I guess to differentiate from a steam turbine)... which is really a turbojet with it's shaft coupled to either a prop of huge water pump.

 

The Pegasus class patrol boats dunno why thy were taken out of service, seemed extremely effective to me. The published speed is also a joke, seeing that they have been decommissioned for a long time I feel safe telling everybody that they did *well* over that 48kt figure especially when running light.

 

Here's the Russki variant which has a "radial diesel" with plenty of horsepower... no foils though

 

FB- Doug

 

Wow. Taken out of service in 1993. It really has been a while since I spent any time in Key West.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those PT boats are pretty cool and get a lot of press because of their war time mission but I really like the 85 ft Army Air Force crash boats from the war. They were faster and looked a hell of a lot better than the PTs IMO. They were designed by Dair N. Long from California. The hulls are hard chine warped bottom with deadrise rising from about 12 degees aft. Here are pics I took in 2005 of the last remaining 85 ft crash boat in full military outfit. I have a set of lines but no electronic version. I have inquired about getting a scanned set of lines to post.

 

post-25831-0-76238500-1389632954_thumb.jpg

 

post-25831-0-46130700-1389632981_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for posting that Fast. It looks like there is a hint of hook to the run.

 

You know, I think you are right--now I want to get that book!

 

Just for fun, compare to William Strawbridge's ESCORT, built 1940 designed by S&S:

 

http://sparkmanstephens.blogspot.com/2010/11/looking-for-escort-design-334.html

ESCORT was one very good looking boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 100% authentically fully operational PT boat.

 

800px-PT658_stbd_view_closeup.JPG

 

  • PT-658

Perhaps the best example of a surviving Higgins 78-foot (24 m) boat is PT-658, which was completely restored to her original 1945 configuration from 1995 to 2005. PT-658 is now fully functional and afloat, using the three original Packard V12 5M-2500 gas engines. It is the only 100% authentically restored U.S. Navy PT boat actually operational today. PT-658 is located in Portland, Oregon, at Navy Operational Support Center Portland's Swan Island Pier. The group wishes to maintain the boat as a living, breathing artifact dedicated to the history of the PT force of the Second World War.[24]PT-658 was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2012.[25]

http://www.gofundme.com/2yyza4

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

USS Cushing, a 116-ton torpedo boat, was built in Bristol, Rhode Island. When commissioned in April 1890, she was the Navy's only modern torpedo boat, and spent most of her career assisting in torpedo development efforts. In 1898, Cushing operated out of Key West and off Cuba in support of Spanish-American War naval efforts. She was generally in reserve status after that conflict and was finally expended as a target in September 1920.

 

Sic transit gloria mundi

expended as a target is such a nice way to put it.

 

Terminated with extreme prejudice. :D

 

Do they hire advertising hacks to think up expressions like those?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 100% authentically fully operational PT boat.

 

800px-PT658_stbd_view_closeup.JPG

 

  • PT-658

Perhaps the best example of a surviving Higgins 78-foot (24 m) boat is PT-658, which was completely restored to her original 1945 configuration from 1995 to 2005. PT-658 is now fully functional and afloat, using the three original Packard V12 5M-2500 gas engines. It is the only 100% authentically restored U.S. Navy PT boat actually operational today. PT-658 is located in Portland, Oregon, at Navy Operational Support Center Portland's Swan Island Pier. The group wishes to maintain the boat as a living, breathing artifact dedicated to the history of the PT force of the Second World War.[24]PT-658 was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2012.[25]

http://www.gofundme.com/2yyza4

 

What's with the jungle camo? Weren't they all painted Navy grey? That green & brown would stand out a bit on the ocean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of cool boats to admire, just spent the weekend sailing around Waikiki in a Nordic 44 - "Whistling Swan". Thanks Robert for designing such a great boat. Boat was so balanced it sailed it self upwind without anyone at the helm. Well done. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall there was a Sea Scout group in the PNW that had an old PT boat with two of the four engines left. The times I saw it out it was always smoking like crazy and doing about ten knots. I'd love to see the hull lines of that German PT boat.

E boats are Schnell boats in WW11 Kriegsmarine.

Lurssen is still the primo builder of Mega yachts.

Sources: Uffa's book

 

.post-32003-0-90843400-1389709310_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a few accounts of the MTBs and MGBs use by the Royal Navy in the North Sea and English Channel during WW2. It sounded pretty horrific sitting in your dodgy wooden boat waiting for the much better speccd German E Boats to show up. By all accounts the weapons on the British boats were pretty useless and the engines unreliable at best.

 

That would be a particularly shitty way to spend an unpleasant bit of history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have about 1500 photos from the Thornycroft archive here in my office, and this is one of my favourite - I'm afraid I can't tell you anything about it, except that I just love the casual demeanour of the crew. It might be a dodgy wooden boat, but it still looked quite cool.

 


post-38-0-18118800-1389718431_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the guy in the suit with his hands on his hips. Must be the designer.

 

Maui:

Many thanks for that. Sometimes I get it right. I was always struck by just how gentle the N-44 was on the helm. I designed that boat when I was learning to forget about IOR rig proportions and to move the mast forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The American PT's were a lot cooler and better looking IMO. They were like ocean going P51's

 

Cool is in the eye of the beholder.

 

PTs maxed out at approximately 35 kts. with 10,000 hp. S-boats were 10 knots faster on 3/4 the hp.

 

The S-boats were based on the Lürssen built Oheka II. She was 74 ft LOA, 22.5 tonnes displacement. Her 3 Maybach VL2 V12s producing 500 hp each drove her to a top speed of 34 kts. To reduce weight she was built with wood planking over alloy frames.

 

0W70Jrb.jpg

KLMwSek.jpg

vPSHG57.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea Scouts in NJ had an Air sea Rescue ~74' circa 1974. I went up the Hudson and Erie canal lock to lock following thier convoy in my little 21 foot tug. They had a pair of 6-71s or 6-92s (?). claimed about 14kts WO but they were in convoy with a SeaScout Elco 40 (ish) and a 65' Army Tug also SeaScout, so the open water speed stayed at ~7 kts. They had coed program and most interior spaces dedicated to berths. I was 16 at the time so got to tour three pretty cool (to me) boats. The older scouts enjoyed our company because my younger brother and I voyaging alone somehow managed to have a beer supply!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was struck by how far fwd. the engines are and also, if I an reading the drawing correctly, the tanks.

 

Looks like 1300 (liters?) midships and 1200 right aft. I would think those aft tanks are going to affect trim in a big way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, the forward placement of the engines coupled with the flat run aft was supposed to prevent squatting.

 

Oheka II must have been a successful boat to be used as the basis for the S-Boats. But it's interesting to note that the engines in the S-Boats are further aft, near midships.

 

WzTeIdS.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are interested in naval small craft, you might look up a book titled The Boats of Cherbourg. It is about a batch missle boats built in France for Israel, and includes accounts of their combat experience.

 

More local (for me), Luders built some purpose-designed bomb targets. I think they were about 40ft and had reinforced decks, meant to withstand direct hits from practice bombs. Not anyone's favorite duty assignment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a few accounts of the MTBs and MGBs use by the Royal Navy in the North Sea and English Channel during WW2. It sounded pretty horrific sitting in your dodgy wooden boat waiting for the much better speccd German E Boats to show up. By all accounts the weapons on the British boats were pretty useless and the engines unreliable at best.

 

That would be a particularly shitty way to spend an unpleasant bit of history.

 

Sounds like the story of much of the British military. Don't forget the upper class twits that held the senior ranks as well.

 

They had some really good aircraft but most of the rest of their kit was pretty crappy. Check out their tanks. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen and all that bull shit and I think I'll go walk my dogs. The two people in the world who understand me,

 

They don't understand you Bob - they just don't care because you love them and feed them. ;)

 

Now your WIFE... SHE understands you. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oheka II must have been a successful boat

 

Otto Kahn's boat. With all of the talk of a 2nd gilded age it's curious if any of the current benefactors will be so influential in so many circles as a Kahn, Vanderbilt or Carnegie in 100 years. He was willing to back a Gershwin Opera.

 

Our local home grown billionaire - Jim Pattison does "rich" pretty well. He's right up there with Allen et. al - on the list of the worlds richest people. He made every nickel himself and he owns it ALL - private companies. He didn't make most of it by selling shares, he made it by making & selling STUFF.

 

He has a very nice 140' yacht, not a fleet of 300 and 400 footers. He has a very nice jet - Canadair Challenger, a trans-oceanic corporate jet, not a 757 or 767. Both are registered and taxed in Canada, not the Caymans or Liberia.

 

He spends the difference building hospitals and so forth. My wife is currently in intensive care in a 14 story ICU building he bought for the city.

 

Those pimps like Allen and Abramovich would just buy another, bigger yacht or maybe an A380 so they could have a bowling alley and swimming pool in the sky.

 

They're disgusting and contemptible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you are interested in naval small craft, you might look up a book titled The Boats of Cherbourg. It is about a batch missle boats built in France for Israel, and includes accounts of their combat experience.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When comparing E-boats to MTBs or PTs, one needs to keep cost in the equation. Boat for boat, your right, the E-boat would win. But then, its a significantly bigger, more complex and more expensive boat. Its more a small corvette, as opposed to a patrol boat. Quantity has a quality all its own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's much more comparable to a WWII Corvette than an MTB or PT.

 

Pretty zoomie nonetheless. Why is it that military vessels usually look so racy? Even old battlewagons looked like some sort of racing boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, lately warships have gone for a rather boxy look

 

800px-US_Navy_030903-N-5024R-003_USS_Por

 

(Ticonderoga class cruiser)

 

However there is a lot of whup-ass packed into that box.

BTW this ship is also powered by gas turbines. Not sure what the Tico's can do, speed wise, but the slightly older destroyers with almost the same hull and power plant could kick into the upper 30s.

 

FB- Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, lately warships have gone for a rather boxy look

 

800px-US_Navy_030903-N-5024R-003_USS_Por

 

(Ticonderoga class cruiser)

 

However there is a lot of whup-ass packed into that box.

BTW this ship is also powered by gas turbines. Not sure what the Tico's can do, speed wise, but the slightly older destroyers with almost the same hull and power plant could kick into the upper 30s.

 

FB- Doug

A number of years ago I was at Pearl Harbor. My ex brother-in-law was a sailor on a Perry class frigate, the USS Reuben James. While I was waiting for him to come off of the ship I started to talk to some sailors that were from the Tico class cruiser, the USS Chosin that was moored adjacent to the Reuben James. I looked at the stern on the Chosin and noticed the hawsehole in the center of the stern, used to deploy a sonar array cable. I suggested to the sailors that it would be interesting if somebody managed to stencil in official Navy block letters "Insert Enema Here". They liked the idea.

 

450x299_q75.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

No disagreement from me on the technical superiority of German iron. But they lost the war. For a myriad of reasons. Biggest one was for as good as their stuff was, they couldn't produce enough trained folks to operate it as attrition began to take out their pre-war trained cadre. And they took on too many "enemies" at once. As good as their stuff was, they couldn't overcome lots of not quite as good stuff (be it PTs or Sherman Tanks) operated by guys with generally better training (by 44) and better logistics...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No disagreement from me on the technical superiority of German iron. But they lost the war. For a myriad of reasons. Biggest one was for as good as their stuff was, they couldn't produce enough trained folks to operate it as attrition began to take out their pre-war trained cadre. And they took on too many "enemies" at once. As good as their stuff was, they couldn't overcome lots of not quite as good stuff (be it PTs or Sherman Tanks) operated by guys with generally better training (by 44) and better logistics...

 

All good points.

 

From the most "high level" standpoint, political science has demonstrated a very strong correlation between industrial strength and military superiority. It's very rare for a country to win a war against an enemy with greater industrial strength. Superior military strategy and equipment tend to make for brief periods of military success, but not for eventual victory. The industrial power of the USSR and the USA dwarfed Germany's, even with the annexation or political control of most of Western Europe.

 

Once the United States entered the war, victory for the allies was almost a foregone conclusion, it was more a matter of when and at what cost. It's interesting to note that Roosevelt set up a committee for planning a reconstruction of Europe after the war only days after Germany declared war on the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just a quick note on those Dorade videos.

 

I'd never noticed that Dorade's companionway hatch is offset!

 

The horror, the horror!

I just trolled through the S&S website and it appears that many of Olin Stephens and staff designed offset hatches into many if not the majority of boats of that era.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Just a quick note on those Dorade videos.

 

I'd never noticed that Dorade's companionway hatch is offset!

 

The horror, the horror!

I just trolled through the S&S website and it appears that many of Olin Stephens and staff designed offset hatches into many if not the majority of boats of that era.

You did mean 'trawled', Tricky…right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Just a quick note on those Dorade videos.

 

I'd never noticed that Dorade's companionway hatch is offset!

 

The horror, the horror!

I just trolled through the S&S website and it appears that many of Olin Stephens and staff designed offset hatches into many if not the majority of boats of that era.

You did mean 'trawled', Tricky…right?

`Trolling' on the S&S website… stone him!!

 

Yes I meant trawling… ooops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was struck by how far fwd. the engines are and also, if I an reading the drawing correctly, the tanks.

 

The big box forward of the engines is "crew". The box with the oval on its side behind the engines and the one at the extreme rear are fuel tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

We went to the Seattle Boat Show this last weekend. We aren't motorboat folks but, when we walked aboard Pisces, Kerry asked, "if we won the lottery, would you want her?"

 

My answer was, "Hell, yes!"

 

This thing looked like it would cruise right through an iceberg without taking a scratch while also being a floating work of art.

 

pisces-starboard.jpg

 

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/pl_boat_detail.jsp?slim=broker&boat_id=2620265&checked_boats=2620265&hosturl=seamarine&&ywo=seamarine&&ybw=&units=Feet&access=Public&listing_id=64229&url=

 

http://www.seamarineco.com/brokerage/56ft-custom-built-trawler-for-sale-or-charter/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites