Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-12-2013, 12:19 PM   #21
Guru
 
Phil Fill's Avatar
 
City: Everett Wa
Country: US
Vessel Name: Eagle
Vessel Model: Roughwater 58 pilot house
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,919
The problem is that many TF members think "if I just had XXX boat, I could go" The problem is thats not true, its just an excuse for not going. What they should be saying is "if my admrial would let me I'd go" and/or "if I didn't have to work I'd go".

The answer isn't in a more capable boat...The answer is in having more time, and a partner that actually wants to give up her land based life.[/QUOTE]

Yep, that is the reason we/I am tied to the dock. The Eagle is way more capable then we need and beyond my comfort zone.





A comforatble ride the roll period said t be between 4 to 8 seconds. 4 is to snappy and over 8 is a sign of poort stability. So many long range boats tend to roll. The Eagle roll is around 5 to 6 seconds, its not a deep roll is a comforatble roll.
__________________
Advertisement

Phil Fill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 01:40 PM   #22
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,361
Kevin

Not so much for the Gatsby boat but for my cruising locations , I've never had too much cheap clean fuel.

Excluding other continents and focusing on the West Coast, I prefer to leave San Diego and hit the Baja with at the most, one stop in La Paz or better yet the ability to return to San Diego with fuel remaining and no Mexican stops.

Or circumnavigate Vancouver Island on cheap US fuel saving about $1.50 per gallon vs BC fuel. This summer I hope to do a RT from say Anacortes to Kitimat, again with no high priced BC fuel taken on. Each of these BC trips could easily be 700 miles, and I prefer 1/3 remaining.

Or go from the PNW to San Francisco with no requirement to cross a bar. For me and many others, 1000 + miles with a good reserve is not a bad thing. Knowing many who use planing boats run at speed or trailer boats to do the same cruises, I well know anything is possible if you are limited on fuel range.
__________________

sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 01:56 PM   #23
Guru
 
cardude01's Avatar
 
City: Victoria TX
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bijou
Vessel Model: 2008 Island Packet steadysailer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,169
For that price range I would rather go with something like this:

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._id=78861&url=

10 years older and more hours and less room probably, but definately more capable for offshore cruising Not that I'm capable for serious offshore cruising right now, but someday......
cardude01 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 02:28 PM   #24
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Kevin

Not so much for the Gatsby boat but for my cruising locations , I've never had too much cheap clean fuel.

Excluding other continents and focusing on the West Coast, I prefer to leave San Diego and hit the Baja with at the most, one stop in La Paz or better yet the ability to return to San Diego with fuel remaining and no Mexican stops.

Or circumnavigate Vancouver Island on cheap US fuel saving about $1.50 per gallon vs BC fuel. This summer I hope to do a RT from say Anacortes to Kitimat, again with no high priced BC fuel taken on. Each of these BC trips could easily be 700 miles, and I prefer 1/3 remaining.

Or go from the PNW to San Francisco with no requirement to cross a bar. For me and many others, 1000 + miles with a good reserve is not a bad thing. Knowing many who use planing boats run at speed or trailer boats to do the same cruises, I well know anything is possible if you are limited on fuel range.
I completely agree that having more fuel endurance gives you more choices.

The points you brought up while valid fall into the wants versus needs category.

Take your trip down the Pacific Coast as an example. You could as you indicated run offshore the whole way never stopping in Oregon, or even Washington. That's a wonderful concept, except that you're missing everything that Oregon, and Washington has to offer.

Running long distances like you're indicating, are not necessary in North America, and in fact add to the complications of running your boat. Instead of making nice daily sightseeing trips, you're running full on 24 hours a day until you get to your destination. That requires crew, standing watches, all the things that passagemaking entails. That isnt coastal cruising in the traditional sense, its passagemaking

Again, it's a wants versus needs issue. While I respect that you want the capability of running extra long distances, you do not need that capability in North America.
__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 03:04 PM   #25
Guru
 
Codger2's Avatar
 
City: San Diego
Country: US
Vessel Name: "Sandpiper"
Vessel Model: 2006 42' Ocean Alexander Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Excluding other continents and focusing on the West Coast, I prefer to leave San Diego and hit the Baja with at the most, one stop in La Paz....... .
Tom: I'm sure you didn't mean that literally as La Paz is in the Sea of Cortez and a long way from San Diego. I've made that trip several times in the past and was ecstatic to stop in Turtle Bay and Cabo, enroute to La Paz.
__________________
Codger2

My passion for improving my boat(s) exceeds my desire to constantly cruise them.
Codger2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 05:24 PM   #26
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaHorse II View Post
Tom: I'm sure you didn't mean that literally as La Paz is in the Sea of Cortez and a long way from San Diego. I've made that trip several times in the past and was ecstatic to stop in Turtle Bay and Cabo, enroute to La Paz.
Don

You are correct, La Paz for fuel is what I meant. One of my favorite places is Loretto in the Sea of Cortez. So little time, so much to see.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 06:55 PM   #27
Guru
 
Daddyo's Avatar


 
City: Cruising East Coast US
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Grace
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardude01 View Post
For that price range I would rather go with something like this:

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi..._id=78861&url=

10 years older and more hours and less room probably, but definately more capable for offshore cruising Not that I'm capable for serious offshore cruising right now, but someday......
Moored with her in Ft Lauderdale in Jan. She looks a little long in the tooth but don't we all
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	P1080148.jpg
Views:	85
Size:	166.3 KB
ID:	17958  
__________________
Mark Bowerman
Brokerage owner and cruiser
Esse Quam Videri
http://graceyachting.com/
Daddyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 08:49 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
City: USA
Country: USA
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksanders View Post
I completely agree that having more fuel endurance gives you more choices.

The points you brought up while valid fall into the wants versus needs category.

Take your trip down the Pacific Coast as an example. You could as you indicated run offshore the whole way never stopping in Oregon, or even Washington. That's a wonderful concept, except that you're missing everything that Oregon, and Washington has to offer.

Running long distances like you're indicating, are not necessary in North America, and in fact add to the complications of running your boat. Instead of making nice daily sightseeing trips, you're running full on 24 hours a day until you get to your destination. That requires crew, standing watches, all the things that passagemaking entails. That isnt coastal cruising in the traditional sense, its passagemaking

Again, it's a wants versus needs issue. While I respect that you want the capability of running extra long distances, you do not need that capability in North America.
This is a very interesting discussion, mind if I ask a question?
So, I understand what your saying about cruising vs passagemaking and boat capabilities. So...if you can safely get away with a 300 mile range to cruise anywhere in North America, then what would you say would be a safe range to cruise almost anywhere worldwide? Not talking about the ocean-crossing portion, but rather, if you were to ship your boat across the ocean, then once at the destination what would be a safe range for Europe, Asia, Australia, etc to be an international cruiser?
GalaxyGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 10:11 PM   #29
Guru
 
City: Hotel, CA
Country: Fried
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,328
I originally concluded an "assumed" 300 mile range based upon maximum charted distances between North American ports where fuel is available for purchase. It was just a quick search and was in no way an exhaustive survey.

I would examine marine charts and consult a resource such as active captain or cruising guide for the area you are considering cruising in. Personally I would be comfortable with more range. The boat that started this debate is in post #1 that has an advertised 1,000 mile range with a single Cat power plant.
__________________
Craig

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled - Mark Twain
CPseudonym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 11:26 PM   #30
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyGirl View Post
This is a very interesting discussion, mind if I ask a question?
So, I understand what your saying about cruising vs passagemaking and boat capabilities. So...if you can safely get away with a 300 mile range to cruise anywhere in North America, then what would you say would be a safe range to cruise almost anywhere worldwide? Not talking about the ocean-crossing portion, but rather, if you were to ship your boat across the ocean, then once at the destination what would be a safe range for Europe, Asia, Australia, etc to be an international cruiser?
Thats a tough one, and I have no idea what the answer is.

I would guess, and thats only a guess is that the more populated an area is the more fuel opportunities.

My 300NM in North America is based on looking at charts, reading, and my own travels.

The longest documented jaunt I can find is approx 320 NM from Yakutat to Seward, but even that could be shortened down to 235NM by going Yakutat to Cordova.

There is also a leg in Mexico from ensenada to turtle bay at 282NM

The rest of north american is much shorter.

Personally I prefer a ample fuel reserve. My boat for example holds 440 gallons, and we get 1.5NMPG at 9 knots and 1.75NMPG at 8 knots. That gives us a run dry range of between 660 and 770 NM depending on speed, sea state, etc...

Last summer we took the boat Yakutat AK to Seward AK which was 320NM. We had very rough weather part of the trip, and still had enough fuel to run the last 50NM at a 14 KT fast cruise (to make it to port before dark.)

So, based on that I'd be MORE than comfortable taking our boat, weather permitting anywhere in North America. With a little research and fuel planning I would have no issues taking her much further, say through the panama canal into the carribean. Thats a big statement, but I think its probably doable fuel wise.
__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 12:54 AM   #31
Guru
 
AusCan's Avatar
 
City: Adelaide
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Kokanee
Vessel Model: Cuddles 30 Pilot House Motor Sailer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,094
To do any long distance cruising around here we require more range. Heading west across the Australian Bight, requires over 700 NM of cruising against the prevailing wind between fuel stops. (Ceduna to Esperance). Safe achorages are in short supply as well. Some long distance cruisers organise a fuel cache to be brought into a remote semi-accessible beach by 4WD along the way.
The remoteness here has its challenges, but plenty of advantages too.
AusCan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 10:54 AM   #32
Guru
 
refugio's Avatar
 
City: Meydenbauer Bay Yacht Club
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Refugio
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,141
There was one of these 50s kicking around the PNW 5 to 10 years ago at around $200K. I went on it briefly at one of the Lake Union shows, and from memory it wasn't nearly as well finished as the one on YW (might have been owner-finished on the same hull), and I seem to recall a lack of headroom issue (I'm just a hair over 6') though that might have been another boat at that show.

I do think that the manufacturer-assigned name "Voyager" might be a bit of a stretch, and it's not exactly what comes to mind as a "trawler". It's definitely more in the "motoryacht" pattern.
refugio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 12:43 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
randyt's Avatar
 
City: West Linn, OR
Country: US
Vessel Name: Greenstreet
Vessel Model: 1967 Garden
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 33
This boat was also called a Fantail 50. There was(is?)one for sale out of Portland, OR for about $275,000. It is a little used up. This design caused a bit of a stir when it came out because it was designed to be fuel efficient as a criteria. In my memory, it was one of the first to use fuel usage as a marketing tool. You can have one built today if you wish, it just won't be $300,000. BTW, a couple of these that I have been following have added stabilizers.
RandyT
randyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 02:46 PM   #34
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksanders View Post
Thats a tough one, and I have no idea what the answer is.

I would guess, and thats only a guess is that the more populated an area is the more fuel opportunities.

My 300NM in North America is based on looking at charts, reading, and my own travels.

The longest documented jaunt I can find is approx 320 NM from Yakutat to Seward, but even that could be shortened down to 235NM by going Yakutat to Cordova.

There is also a leg in Mexico from ensenada to turtle bay at 282NM

The rest of north american is much shorter.

Personally I prefer a ample fuel reserve. My boat for example holds 440 gallons, and we get 1.5NMPG at 9 knots and 1.75NMPG at 8 knots. That gives us a run dry range of between 660 and 770 NM depending on speed, sea state, etc...

Last summer we took the boat Yakutat AK to Seward AK which was 320NM. We had very rough weather part of the trip, and still had enough fuel to run the last 50NM at a 14 KT fast cruise (to make it to port before dark.)

So, based on that I'd be MORE than comfortable taking our boat, weather permitting anywhere in North America. With a little research and fuel planning I would have no issues taking her much further, say through the panama canal into the carribean. Thats a big statement, but I think its probably doable fuel wise.
Good point! All I want is range enough to do the Yakutat crossing and be able to make it from the Columbia River Bar to Neah Bay WA. Even this short trip would requires a crew. But why. First stop at Grey Harbor, then the next day to Neah Bay......That being said outside the U.S. range has to be a big decision factor.
__________________
1988 M/Y Camargue Yacht Fisher
Alaskan Sea-Duction
MMSI: 338131469
Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/
Alaskan Sea-Duction is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 04:00 PM   #35
Guru
 
City: Hotel, CA
Country: Fried
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,328
When the distance between ports exceeds 60% of your fuel capacity you should consider other options IMO. Although I have heard some discuss less than 20% safety factor, I personally wouldn't.

Cruising locally I do not like having less than a half tank of fuel.
__________________

__________________
Craig

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled - Mark Twain
CPseudonym is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 08:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012