ideal ocean crossing trawler yacht

[Fish Catcher Jim]

What choice would you make if you were going to simply go wherever you wanted to go.

Would you pick steel or glass ?

Under 50 feet or larger ?

Fin stablizers or gyro type stablizers.

Talking long range and power
Looking forward to the replies
Jim

 

[CPseudonym]

Watson 72

 

[HopCar]

Trawler Forum member Richard on MV Dauntless has done an Atlantic crossing in a Krogan 42. Probably not the best vessel for ocean crossing but he did it. The fact that he is a trained meteorologist may have helped.

Before leaving Richard installed paravane stabilizers. He was pleased with how well they worked.

 

[Art]

Watson 72

That will do it!

 

[Hawgwash]

Watson 72

We can close this thread now. But really, if that is any example of what is to follow, bring them on.

 

[Hawgwash]

Trawler Forum member Richard on MV Dauntless has done an Atlantic crossing in a Krogan 42. Probably not the best vessel for ocean crossing but he did it.

14 year old Laura Dekker did trans Atlantic, Pacific and Indian in a 38 foot sailboat. 519 days. Solo.

 

[sbu22]

Speaking of good taste - spectacular choice CP!

 

[Britannia]

If money and crew were no object then the list would be long!

I do plan to cross oceans in my Krogen 54. Not necessarily "ideal" - except for the fact I already own her! Active fin stabilizers are nice. She has the range and a good sea kindly hull. If I don't cross an ocean in her one day it'll be my fault and not hers!

Richard

 

[Art]

14 year old Laura Dekker did trans Atlantic, Pacific and Indian in a 38 foot sailboat. 519 days. Solo.

1967 (age 15/16); I tried like hell to convince my dad to partner with me in setting the following up: Calculated I could cross the Atlantic in my fully canvased 13'3" Boston Whaler with 40 hp Johnson.


I had the extra gas tankage and food/water storage worked out; also the minimal sleep times. Including cruising speed and at what points while crossing I needed to met "mother ships" to refuel, provision. Boston Whaler Co. was back then really getting underway. Figured Dad and I could become their leading spokes/promo father son duo. He'd have none of it! - Dam it all!! What a kick in the assss that would have been. Lucrative too!

 

[CPseudonym]

If money and crew were no object then the list would be long!

I do plan to cross oceans in my Krogen 54. Not necessarily "ideal" - except for the fact I already own her! Active fin stabilizers are nice. She has the range and a good sea kindly hull. If I don't cross an ocean in her one day it'll be my fault and not hers!

Richard

Oh crap Richard, please say they don't have to be obtainable by us mere mortals.

I agree that your boat is ready weather you are or not. You notice that Watson has a crows nest too

 

[Britannia]

Oh crap Richard, please say they don't have to be obtainable by us mere mortals.

I agree that your boat is ready weather you are or not. You notice that Watson has a crows nest too

Yes - drooling at the page on the Watson 72 made me feel inadequate. Just like my boat, except better in every way!

I've always liked the Nordhavn 62.

Richard

 

[Mako]

Watson 72

Interested that she's powered at about 2.6 hp per long ton, as opposed to most smaller recreational trawlers which are powered between 4 to 5 hp per LT.

It seems that the larger vessels become the lower this ratio is.

 

[THD]

Art-your Dad was a wise man!

 

[Pau Hana]

48' Selene will fit the bill!

Home - www.furthuradventures.com

 

[sunchaser]

A year or so ago when the same question came up and I respond Watson, some riticism was leveled. So to avoid that repeat I'd vote for a Dashew FPB.

 

[Art]

Art-your Dad was a wise man!

Of course!

But.... if we'd pulled it off!!!!


And... with ample "mother ships" for fuel/provisions - it was [is] possible.

 

[LRC58Fan]

A year or so ago when the same question came up and I respond Watson, some riticism was leveled. So to avoid that repeat I'd vote for a Dashew FPB.

I'll second that vote on the Dashew FPB even though its not the prettiest of boats, I also like the Watson.

 

[gaston]

There's something very tempting and reassuring about a big volume motor sailor for ocean crossings ?

 

[FF]

"Interested that she's powered at about 2.6 hp per long ton, as opposed to most smaller recreational trawlers which are powered between 4 to 5 hp per LT.

It seems that the larger vessels become the lower this ratio is."

That is because a 72 may not be a first boat purchase that was designed by the builders cousin.

 

[Xlantic]

Probably not the "ideal ocean crossing trawler yacht" but a Fleming 55 did it in 2008.

Fleming Yachts - Owner Stories

Beluga is still based in my home port of Mahon, Spain. She is a beauty!

 

[stornoway7]

Add one more vote from me for the Watson 72 or even a 48 if I have to.
Wifey says something made by Boeing or Airbus for her.
Might even knock the Nordhavn 62 of it's perch,being steel and all that.
Tough choice.

 

[menzies]

Nordhavns of all sizes do these crossing frequently.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

What choice would you make if you were going to simply go wherever you wanted to go.

Would you pick steel or glass ?

Under 50 feet or larger ?

Fin stablizers or gyro type stablizers.

Talking long range and power
Looking forward to the replies
Jim

Steel

Larger, much.

Either. As long as the fins were of the active at anchor type at well.

 

[MurrayM]

I'd want something which allowed sneaking into shallow waters like smaller inlets, lagoons, rivers, or canals once having crossed an ocean.

Gerr's 50-foot (15.3 m) aluminum Sea Bright skiff ocean voyaging motorcruiser with 3,500 mile range that's beachable on a Sea Bright skiff box keel, with 4 foot 3 inch (1.3 m) draft would be near the top of my list;

IMPOSSIBLE DREAM

 

[Marlinmike]

Norhavn 60+ would certainly fit the bill (and proven many times) and my personal favorite is the Fleming.

 

[MurrayM]

I'd want something which allowed sneaking into shallow waters like smaller inlets, lagoons, rivers, or canals once having crossed an ocean.

Tad Robert's Passagemaker Lite 46 or 56 (with paravanes) would also be on my list;

"I've drawn Passagemaker Lite in lengths from 38' to 80' (11.6m to 24.4m), but let's focus on the PL 46 and 56. Common features for the boats include a forward pilothouse with an upper outside bridge aft over the main living area, which is low in the boat, with the cabin sole at approximately a foot (304.8mm) below the waterline, minimizing motion\u2014a welcome feature for the cook trying to work at sea. Another feature the boats have in common is the aft engineroom; there is no having to live around, or on top of, engines. The main machinery is completely isolated by a full-height watertight bulkhead. Fire, flood, noise, heat, and vibration all are kept apart from the living quarters. We rely on video equipment and alarm systems to continuously monitor the machinery. Access is down a ladder from the afterdeck, but a watertight door/window could be installed from the main saloon to the engine space.

Interior arrangements for the 46 and 56 include the single head and sleeping cabins forward. These accommodations are intended for a couple to live aboard long-term, with occasional guests or crew on board for passages. During a passage, the off-watch will sleep on the seat in the wheelhouse or in the saloon aft. Coastal cruising or at anchor, the owner\u2019s cabin forward provides privacy from guests sleeping aft.

The deck layout of these two boats is very similar, differing only in the size of particular areas. Boarding is from the stern, via a swim step and up a few stairs to the after well-deck. Here, there is seating on the engineroom trunk, which opens to provide full access to the engine area. You can change out or rebuild an engine or generator without disturbing the liveaboards. From the well-deck, there are stairs starboard up to the boat or bridge deck, and port down into the saloon. The boat deck stretches from rail to rail, with room to store a good-sized hard-bottom inflatable. At the forward end is a mast with boom to handle the dinghy, along with stabilizer poles port and starboard.

The bridge deck is forward of the boat-storage area on both the 46 and 56, and holds the outside controls, seating, and dining area, sheltered from the elements by a windshield and canvas soft top. The enclosing half walls have sliding gates port and starboard; access to the wheelhouse is down a sliding hatch to starboard. What's important about this setup is that the helmsman is only a couple of steps away from line handling when docking the boat. All the way forward is another well deck, this one for safety while handling ground tackle.

Moving the machinery aft shortens shaft runs and minimizes noise and vibration in the living areas of the boat. It also frees up space under the wheelhouse and saloon to place tankage directly over the center of flotation. This means trim changes little as the fuel burns and water gets consumed. Fuel and water loads are the largest single weight aboard these boats, so centralizing and keeping it low, again, reduces pitching and rolling moments.

Why twin engines? Unquestionably, a bigger engine with a single large-diameter propeller would be more efficient. But, a single large prop would mean more draft, even with a propeller pocket. The two here are in pockets behind substantial skegs, which will protect them and hold the ship upright when it takes the ground. In looking at moderately sized, serious offshore yachts, I note two, three, or even four engines aboard. Most owners of single-engine vessels opt for the security of a wing engine, with a generator or two for backup. I suggest that two small engines on Passagemaker Lite could serve as redundant propulsion systems, and be belted or coupled via PTO (power takeoff) to generators. Thus, these two (excluding the dinghy's outboard) would be the sole engines aboard.

The payoff for lighter displacement and a longer waterline is more speed with the same or less power. For example, the Nordhavn 46 crosses oceans at a speed/length ratio of about 1.2, which translates to 7.4 knots. The PL 46 design has a speed/length ratio of 1.2 and travels at 8 knots. And, for the PL 56, it is 8.8 knots. On a long voyage, such as the 2,200 nautical miles from southern California to Hawaii, this can make a difference of days. Two thousand two hundred miles at 7.4 knots is 297 hours, while at 8 knots it is 275 hours, and at 8.8 knots it is 250 hours. The PL 56 would take about two days less than the Nordhavn 46 on the same passage.

To obtain greater speed from the short and fat trawlers, builders are going to ever-larger engines. But, it's expensive to push long, high-displacement hulls fast. It is also true that as displacement/length ratios drop, speed/length can increase. Short heavy boats with a displacement/length of 350 will be limited to a speed/length ratio of about 1.4, maximum. My longer, lighter designs will run up to a speed/length ratio of 1.6 and beyond. This is possible with modest power; the PL 56 will achieve 12 knots with a pair of 105-hp engines; twin 150-hp engines push it up over 14 knots."

PassagemakerLite 56 fast, seaworthy, fuel-efficient long-range ocean cruiser ~ Power Boat Designs by Tad Roberts

 

[Nomad Willy]

When you get through discussing Watson and Dashew read Voyaging Under Power. Some vessels featured in this early "bible" of passagemaking are readily available but most are custom builds. There isa story about a more or less home made one-off FB hull made w/o a mould (Mona Mona). And the N46 is fully featured in this book.
Krogens, Seatons and numerous other passage makers are discussed along w most every other passage making issue.

Drooling over ultra top end stuff has it's lure but when back on earth passage makers range from 20' plywood to Watson like boats. No budget is required for drooling or forum discussion but if you're a doer like Matt in Oz there's much more to passagemaking than Watson and Dashew.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Murray wrote;
"Why twin engines? Unquestionably, a bigger engine with a single large-diameter propeller would be more efficient."

I don't think it's "unquestionable" A case can be made for either but objectivity is scarce on this question. I'm just questioning the "unquestionable" position on this issue and wish no further comment or thread hijacking. There's lots in the archives but most is very slanted. My point is that IMO twin or single is probably not an issue or even close to a must have of either choice.

 

[healhustler]

My point is that IMO twin or single is probably not an issue or even close to a must have of either choice.

Agree. I can think of numerous vessels I'd consider for the purpose but the number of engines are way down the list, perhaps not on the list. ..most likely because a center keel, skeg and protected prop is near the top and easier to find than twin keels and skegs. Exceptions exist, of course.

 

[MurrayM]

Murray wrote;
"Why twin engines? Unquestionably, a bigger engine with a single large-diameter propeller would be more efficient."

I don't think it's "unquestionable" A case can be made for either but objectivity is scarce on this question. I'm just questioning the "unquestionable" position on this issue and wish no further comment or thread hijacking. There's lots in the archives but most is very slanted. My point is that IMO twin or single is probably not an issue or even close to a must have of either choice.

Hey, take it up with Tad...it's his quote

I quoted the text from Tad's article because I thought the points about his boats being half the weight and half the cost of a Nordhavn, using smaller engine(s) can get to Hawaii 2 days faster on much less fuel are worth consideration.