Boat selection opinions

[Nomad Willy]

Marin,There's more to it than just the configuration of the stern above the WL. For example if the stern has high deadrise or (V) below the WL. That can be, for all practical purposes, almost as effective as a pointy end boat or AS effective as a full rounded stern like my Willard. The opposite is, of course true that a really flat stern has stern sea troubles and if the boat isn't full at the chines fwd (as is the case w the old Mainship 34) the stern quartering seas push the stern up from windward and fwd (downwind) while there's little stability fwd to stop or dampen the induced roll. Several M34 owners have confirmed the obvious w me but the flipside is that the M34 is probably a dream come true bucking head seas and it's also probably very efficient at 12 to 20 knots.


Eric Henning

 

[Tom.B]

We own a 35' Senator Futura with a stern thruster and a single Perkin 135. At this point, there is very little in the same class or price range that I have seen that I would be remotely interested in trading it for. It's the perfect boat for two. Interestingly enough, Senator isn't a custom yacht, but I've never seen any two that are alike. Ours is a rare galley-down. The V-berth is really just for people from Munchkin Land. There is no forward stateroom per se and just the single aft stateroom head. It REALLY feels like more boat than 35' because with the galley down, the salon is nothing but living space. Also, with just the single head and single Perkins, maintenance and repair costs are quite low. Plus there is a good amount of room around the engine to work.

Eleven months ago, we paid $75,000 for it, it was on the higher end of the scale, but the previous owner was very good at keeping her up and it was worth it based on the work he had done.

As for the stern thruster... I like it a lot. Boats drive from the stern anyway. All stern thrusters do is enhance that maneuverability you already expect. I have as much, if not more, maneuverability as a single-screw with a bow thruster. I also don't consider it as much of a crutch as a bow thruster. Still, if I fell into a pile of money, I would consider getting a bow thruster as well. Just to show off at the marina

Look out for spongy decks (PO has replaced them all). The hull will have blisters (we have loads of them), but as long as they are cosmetic, there shouldn't be a problem. Your surveyor will be able to confirm that for you. We aren't afraid of them, but will monitor for years to come. We also have a teak sundeck floor. Pretty sure we'll have issues with this in the future. We'll deal with that when the time comes.

Please, let me know if you have any questions. I'm glad to tell you what I know. It's a lot of boat without alot of the problems of bigger boats in it's class. I, of course, highly recommend one.


-- Edited by GonzoF1 on Friday 11th of June 2010 10:57:31 AM

 

[Egregious]

re: following seas in GB Europa, it was pretty big the one day I had the most trouble.* We actually rang the ship's bell at one point during our trip, so it was quite rough.


re: what to watch out for, everyone I've spoken to says that sooner or later you will need new fuel tanks.* A really old boat that hasn't had them replaced will need to have this done sooner or later.

 

[Baker]

nomadwilly wrote:

Marin,
There's more to it than just the configuration of the stern above the WL. For example if the stern has high deadrise or (V) below the WL. That can be, for all practical purposes, almost as effective as a pointy end boat or AS effective as a full rounded stern like my Willard. The opposite is, of course true that a really flat stern has stern sea troubles and if the boat isn't full at the chines fwd (as is the case w the old Mainship 34) the stern quartering seas push the stern up from windward and fwd (downwind) while there's little stability fwd to stop or dampen the induced roll. Several M34 owners have confirmed the obvious w me but the flipside is that the M34 is probably a dream come true bucking head seas and it's also probably very efficient at 12 to 20 knots.


Eric Henning

*

I will echo this. *The KK42 is a good example. *It has a square transom....BUT below the water line she is very curvy. *To put it another way...if you "continued the lines" out into a 48ish foot boat, it would be a rounded stern boat. *They just cut it off a little "early"/shortat 42ft.

 

[FF]

The shape of the stern may or may not ne a continuation of the lines from below.

A genuine round stern would be a huge blessing as it would allow the stern to be used , as a tug does, in close manuvering against walls and pilings .

A transom has the advantage that it could fold down (like a pickup truck).

This would allow easy access to a dink , and make a deep after deck far more fun to enjoy closer to the water.

With some planning the dink could simply be driven in board to transport it in inshore waters , as well as serve as a "Get Home" power source.

The worst style "Colin Archer" , the lines do continue from the under body which nlimits the hull speed to SL 1.25 instead of the more common SL 1.34, no extra fuel use at slow speeds , but big waves and fuel burn at hull speed.


There is also an argument that the slower speeds and extra energy passed to the following seas may CAUSE them to break.

 

[Keith]

Here's my stern shape on the Krogen 42.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Hey Keith,Thats what a trawler stern should look like. I'm surprised you have that much transom below the WL but if most of the trawlers (Nordic, CHB, GB and many more) were to have sterns like this I would be like a kid in a candy store. Marin would be needing only one of his cherished Lehmans, most others would need half as much power as well and all would behave much better in following seas. At least there's a few trawlers w proper sterns or I'd need to build another ULD boat for cruising Alaska. Here's my Willard stern, a rather extreme deep displacement stern that I wish was more like Keith's Krogen. Any more respectable ass ends out there?


Eric Henning


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Friday 18th of June 2010 09:58:02 AM

 

[Tom.B]

nomadwilly wrote:Any more respectable ass ends out there?

Beyonce and Jennifer Lopez come to mind.

 

[Gulf Comanche]

Here's a couple, don't know if it's respectable or not.
Mike

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:


Marin would be needing only one of his cherished Lehmans...

I'd only need one engine but it sure as hell wouldn't be a POS Lehman......

*

 

[RicF]

Marin wrote:

*
nomadwilly wrote:I'd only need one engine but it sure as hell wouldn't be a POS Lehman......

*

What's wrong with a single Lehman? ...or twins?



*

 

[Marin]

We've had this discussion here before a few time so I'm going to repeat myself (again). But basically it was a great engine in the 1950s when it was designed, but it's not the 1950s anymore. The FL120 is too heavy, too underpowered, too inefficient,*too polluting,*and too noisy. Compared to what's available today, they're crap, in my opinion, despite the fact that we (sadly) have two of them in our boat.

They're relatively dependable and reasonably long-lived, but in my book that does not make up for all their other deficiencies.

The same people that jumped all over me when I first voiced this opinion will probably do so again, and that's fine--- everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But nothing anyone can say is going to make me change my mind about these engines. If we could afford it we'd have them out of our boat in a heartbeat but our boat is not worth the cost of repowering as long as its original engines are running correctly, to say nothing of the cost itself. So we'll continue to treat them well (which means you have to have a 1950s mindset), but it doesn't mean we have to like them.

-- Edited by Marin on Friday 18th of June 2010 02:55:19 PM

 

[Keith]

Everybody's entitled to their opinion, even if it's wrong.

 

[Gulf Comanche]

Is the ass end of my boat respectable or not? Eric? You asked, inquiring mind wants to know.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Michael,A very fine ass indeed. The rudder is a bit more tug boat than yacht * *..even has an extra flange. For strength I assume. The silhouette of same forms a very pleasing line.*The flange on the shaft is an excellent feature for slow speed craft (wish mine was flanged). The keel trailing edge has a handsome scalloped trailing edge silhouette and appears to have a rather fine water exit.*The bottom of your hull is rather flat in the center and that gives you a taller rudder without added draft. A plus. The rather hard turn of the bilge at the transom may give you a tiny bit of extra stability that you can probably use as I remember from past pics that your mid-section has very slack bilges. Your hull may be driven at full hull speed (1.34XSRootWLL( a speed/length ratio of 1)) more easily than most FD hulls that shine best at a speed/length ratio of .85 to .9. because you have a narrower beam and softer chines but your quarter beam buttock line (how fast the bottom ramps up near the stern) may make me wrong about the speed prediction as this is probably the most important part of a design that makes one FD. The partly submerged transom makes your hull 98 or 99% FD (in my opinion) but this helps reduce the QBBL angle that gives a bit more speed. This is the feature I wish more trawlers had. Your quarter beam buttock line is of a higher angle (steeper) than Keith's Krogen. Without the steep QBBL you would likely pay the price of less than stellar performance in quartering seas. But w your (fairly) steep QBBL and large rudder I'm sure she's a graceful lady in following seas. A very fine ass indeed.


Eric Henning




-- Edited by nomadwilly on Saturday 19th of June 2010 09:52:51 AM

 

[Nomad Willy]

Marin,You and Miss Lehman arent headed for the divorce court are you??? Youv'e spoken more adoring words about how sweet Miss Lehman is than most of us have spoken words. Too heavy??? All chain rode didn't even phase the GB. What's the matter w more engine weight? Noisy? I remember when I suggested you put 55hp Yanmars in GB you said you liked an engine to roar and make a thunderous experience of it.Then you showed me pics of PT boats. How can an engine be "underpowered"? You already said it was heavy. I don't recall you ever making an eco post but now the lady Lehman smokes?? You must have had a bad day. POS Lehmans? Go get a repower estimate and you'll probably love them again.
Take lady Lehman some flowers and tell her your'e sorry.


Eric

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:Youv'e spoken more adoring words about how sweet Miss Lehman is than most of us have spoken words.

You must be thinking of someone else.* I have never liked Ford Lehman engines---- we had to think long and hard about buying the boat we have mainly because I had sworn years before we started contemplating the acquisition of this type of boat to never own one with Lehman diesels in it.* Even before we knew much of anything about "trawlers" I knew about Lehmans.* But the boat itself and the deal were too good to pass up for what we wanted to do with a boat, so I very reluctantly agreed to acquire a boat with Lehmans.* And we take good care of them and run the properly because, as you say, the cost of a repower is prohibitive (for us, anyway).

But I'd love to have a hundred grand or thereabouts to have a bunch of cosmetic stuff done to the boat's exterior, a good paint job, and to get rid of the Lehmans and put in something better.* It's sort of a Bruce-Rocna thing for me.* The Bruce works, more or less, but why mess with it when there are other anchors that are so much better to use.* Same thing with the Lehman in my opinion.* Good engines in their day, their day has long, long since past.

I do like an engine to roar, but it had better put out the power to go with the roar.* All you get with a Lehman is the racket.* No power to go with it.

When I said the Lehman is underpowered, it's ridiculously underpowered for its weight.* For the size and weight of an FL120 you can get 400 horsepower these days, not a pathetic 120.

And actually, our Lehmans dont' smoke at all except for a few minutes after startup when they're cold.* They do, on the other hand, put a lot of unburned fuel into the water when they're cold, a characteristic of most or all diesels of that era.* New ones don't do this.* A friend in the marine diesel manufacturing business told me years ago that the unburned-fuel-out-the-exhaust issue was, in his and his company's experience, the single most difficult thing to cure in diesel design with regard to environmental issues.



-- Edited by Marin on Saturday 19th of June 2010 11:56:53 AM

 

[FF]

One simple thought is to look at the width of the immersed transom in feet.

The number of feet wide is a rough guide to the designed cruising speed in K.

Look around at the marina , it sorta works at the lower speed ranges.

The guy with the 40ft 100 GPH fish killer that does 35K-50K to get out is the glaring exception.

 

[RT Firefly]

Mr. FF,
** So are you suggesting a boat with 11' of submerged transom should be able to do 11 knots?

 

[Nomad Willy]

Fred,But the fish killer has the widest transom and the highest speed.


Eric

 

[Nomad Willy]

RicF,Welcome to our forum.
Twins are better except that their propellers are more vulnerable and the cost is greater.
Look in the archives * * ..we've discussed/argued that issue to death several times ago.
As for Ford Lehman engines they are as good as the've ever been (actually a bit better) and judging by the number of them out there they are obviously durable enough. As Marin says/implies * * .. take care of them and they will take care of you. Tell us a little about you and your twin engined boat.


Eric Henning
Willard 30
Thorne Bay, Alaska.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Marin,If I was to repower your boat I'd be looking at Ivecos or Deers and dreamin about 3-53 Detroits. I just saw Toms (sunchaser) Sabre/Perkins and they really look good but so does every thing else on his boat. His 49 DeFever looks like it belongs in the boats afloat show.
Tom and Jan are probably about ready to head for Kake and southern Chatham Strait. in the Indian village of Kake his Defever will really stand out. If Old Salt drops in this year I'll at least will probably be here. Going to Ketchikan for about a week soon though.
RT,
I think he said that one goes 50 knots but then he also said it was an exception.
The pic is of the old floats in the Kake harbor.


Eric

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:

Marin,
If I was to repower your boat I'd be looking at Ivecos or Deers

*

If we were to repower we woud use what a number of GB owners have used with excellent results, and that is the 150 hp, non-turbo Lugger engine.* I can't remember if this engine is based on a Deere block or a Japanese block, but whichever it is, from the accounts I've heard from the GB owners who have it, it's an outstanding engine.* Very efficient, very smooth, good power-to-weight ratio, etc.* It makes the FL120 look like a very noisy, very heavy, wound up rubber band

*

 

[Codger2]

Marin wrote:If we were to repower we woud use what a number of GB owners have used with excellent results, and that is the 150 hp, non-turbo Lugger engine.*

I could not agree more! So many Nordhavns, Offshores, etc have proved the Luggers to be outstanding.

*

 

[Gulf Comanche]

Thanks Eric, great explanation.
Mike

 

[FF]

So are you suggesting a boat with 11' of submerged transom should be able to do 11 knots?


On a slower boat of "normal" proportions its a good guide.

Our Navy Utility is about 10 ft at the transom., and the expected operation is 10-12k , depending on load. 150 men aren't light.
Light the boat is about 20,000lbs loaded double that.