No problem! With so many old Feathercrafts getting new 4-stroke engines on them, somebody needs to take a hard line approach. We'll be those guys 😂 Thanks for the comment - is this the Alumacraft Enthusiast and Group Leader Harrison Smith I assume? -Brock
Thanks! It's definitely the most unmolested Feathecraft I've come across which is the reason I purchased it. It's currently not for sale - the title was more a play on Andrew's making fun of "nobody needing one" and a bit misleading, so I changed it up a bit. -Brock
@@retro_grade I have a '55 Feathercraft. I sure as hell don't need one. It isn't practical. As Andrew pointed out, it doesn't ride well. It would make more sense to own an Alumacraft. I'd love to have a '55 Thunderbird. Nobody needs one. They don't ride well and they are wildly impractical. I'd be better off with an SUV. I'd still be thrilled to own one.
I guess that's just how stuff was made back then, lol. It is pretty wild. The dark hard grey stuff is typically original. Especially if it's in between the seams (as in very hard to apply after assembly). There was some sealer towards the back on this boat that wasn't original (I don't think that was shown in the video). That's typically white (3m), or the light grey roofing stuff that is sold at Lowe's.
The appeal of Feathercrafts is entirely in their appearance. The reason to own one is because they are beautiful. There is nothing beautiful about an alumacraft. The fact that I can easily pull one behind a Honda Accord is what it possible for me to have one.
I would agree with the first statement, but not necessarily with the second. While Alumacrafts don't have the racey barrel back look to them, or big fins, there's something about the simple, rugged, utiltarian look that appeals to me (and hopefully others as well). Anymore, I'm as likely to be impressed by a nicely restored or original preserved 1950's Model R with a period correct motor than I am a Feathercraft. Some of the Alumacraft runabouts that still exist as originally configured (such as with the soft top and windshield), like a Queen Merrie for instance, are I think equally as cool. Now the first statement about Feathercrafts, that is correct - the appeal of Feathercraft is ENTIRELY in its appearance. That has been my biggest disapointment in them, is that they don't ride nearly as fast as they look. This is, however, based on the '53 DR and '53 Vagabond that I've owned. I still would like to try a Rocket II or Firefly/Flash as I've heard those are faster hulls to ride in. I pulled my '53 DR with a 2007 Honda Civic SI 2 door :) -Brock
@@retro_grade My characterization of Alumacraft's was too harsh. There is nothing wrong with them. For me, they just don't have the same appeal as Feathercrafts. The Turquoise Starcraft is a beautiful boat. So are Jet Streaks. It is all about the style for me. The fifties were a golden age for cars and boats. They reflect the spirit of the times. I don't care about performance. I'd love to have a fifties car to tow my '55 Vag. but they cost a lot more to buy and maintain. I'm surprised at how cheaply these boats can be bought for. I'm surprised more people don't want one.
Actually, Feathercrafts aren't nearly as fast as they look - at least the ones that I've owned so far. I can only get 40 mph TOPS out of my 15' Vagabond with a Mercury 60HP Six Cylinder on it (twice the HP of what the hull is rated for). And that's with only me in the boat, trim adjusted so the front is very light (not a comfortable ride or ideal setting). In any other case, it's a 35 mph ride. I got about 28 to 30 mph out of my 12' Deluxe Runabout with a 35 HP Evinrude on it (rated for like 18 HP) when I owned that one. They are very light boats, but they aren't really suited for high speed I guess. The 56 Rocket model only weighs 265 lbs according to the brochure, which is about what I'd expect. While the single cockpit looks racier, I believe the '57 Rocket models with the split front seats and rear seat is supposed to be the faster one. This is apparently due to it having a more rigid structure. I also think the Flyer models are supposed to be pretty quick as well. An 85 year old guy who I talked with on the phone some years ago (originally to ask him about re-hubbing direct drive props) claimed that he had a Rocket II model with a KG9 (or KG9H maybe) mounted to it that he could get into the 50's....which now thinking about it, I'm pretty skeptical about lol.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for your preservationist ideas and plan. Looking forward to seeing it get a Merc.
No problem! With so many old Feathercrafts getting new 4-stroke engines on them, somebody needs to take a hard line approach. We'll be those guys 😂
Thanks for the comment - is this the Alumacraft Enthusiast and Group Leader Harrison Smith I assume?
-Brock
If i were rich, I'd have this feathercraft parked next to a matching P-51 Mustang 🔥🔥 they give the same vibes
They certainly do! And Feathercrafts were actually manufactured from leftover aircraft grade aluminum as well :)
Nice boat. I would definitely be very interested in the hull alone.
Thanks! It's definitely the most unmolested Feathecraft I've come across which is the reason I purchased it. It's currently not for sale - the title was more a play on Andrew's making fun of "nobody needing one" and a bit misleading, so I changed it up a bit.
-Brock
@retro_grade oh, I can't be havin 2 feathercrafts lol. Saul good, I was kinda joking, kinda not. 😂
@@retro_grade I have a '55 Feathercraft. I sure as hell don't need one. It isn't practical. As Andrew pointed out, it doesn't ride well. It would make more sense to own an Alumacraft. I'd love to have a '55 Thunderbird. Nobody needs one. They don't ride well and they are wildly impractical. I'd be better off with an SUV. I'd still be thrilled to own one.
@@dba12123 and this is why I still have my 1953 Vagabond and refuse to get rid of it (regardless of Andrew's criticisms of me keeping it lol).
-Brock
How does the seem sealer last so long. You are right. I always thought the gray fillets on mine were a patch job not factory. Very cool.
I guess that's just how stuff was made back then, lol. It is pretty wild.
The dark hard grey stuff is typically original. Especially if it's in between the seams (as in very hard to apply after assembly).
There was some sealer towards the back on this boat that wasn't original (I don't think that was shown in the video). That's typically white (3m), or the light grey roofing stuff that is sold at Lowe's.
The appeal of Feathercrafts is entirely in their appearance. The reason to own one is because they are beautiful. There is nothing beautiful about an alumacraft. The fact that I can easily pull one behind a Honda Accord is what it possible for me to have one.
I would agree with the first statement, but not necessarily with the second. While Alumacrafts don't have the racey barrel back look to them, or big fins, there's something about the simple, rugged, utiltarian look that appeals to me (and hopefully others as well). Anymore, I'm as likely to be impressed by a nicely restored or original preserved 1950's Model R with a period correct motor than I am a Feathercraft. Some of the Alumacraft runabouts that still exist as originally configured (such as with the soft top and windshield), like a Queen Merrie for instance, are I think equally as cool.
Now the first statement about Feathercrafts, that is correct - the appeal of Feathercraft is ENTIRELY in its appearance. That has been my biggest disapointment in them, is that they don't ride nearly as fast as they look. This is, however, based on the '53 DR and '53 Vagabond that I've owned. I still would like to try a Rocket II or Firefly/Flash as I've heard those are faster hulls to ride in.
I pulled my '53 DR with a 2007 Honda Civic SI 2 door :)
-Brock
@@retro_grade My characterization of Alumacraft's was too harsh. There is nothing wrong with them. For me, they just don't have the same appeal as Feathercrafts. The Turquoise Starcraft is a beautiful boat. So are Jet Streaks. It is all about the style for me. The fifties were a golden age for cars and boats. They reflect the spirit of the times. I don't care about performance. I'd love to have a fifties car to tow my '55 Vag. but they cost a lot more to buy and maintain. I'm surprised at how cheaply these boats can be bought for. I'm surprised more people don't want one.
I bet that thing is fassssssttttt. How much does it weigh?
Actually, Feathercrafts aren't nearly as fast as they look - at least the ones that I've owned so far. I can only get 40 mph TOPS out of my 15' Vagabond with a Mercury 60HP Six Cylinder on it (twice the HP of what the hull is rated for). And that's with only me in the boat, trim adjusted so the front is very light (not a comfortable ride or ideal setting). In any other case, it's a 35 mph ride. I got about 28 to 30 mph out of my 12' Deluxe Runabout with a 35 HP Evinrude on it (rated for like 18 HP) when I owned that one.
They are very light boats, but they aren't really suited for high speed I guess. The 56 Rocket model only weighs 265 lbs according to the brochure, which is about what I'd expect. While the single cockpit looks racier, I believe the '57 Rocket models with the split front seats and rear seat is supposed to be the faster one. This is apparently due to it having a more rigid structure. I also think the Flyer models are supposed to be pretty quick as well.
An 85 year old guy who I talked with on the phone some years ago (originally to ask him about re-hubbing direct drive props) claimed that he had a Rocket II model with a KG9 (or KG9H maybe) mounted to it that he could get into the 50's....which now thinking about it, I'm pretty skeptical about lol.