Power Cat vs. Trawler

[refugio]

Yeah, I agree with your opinion on the Aquila.

Plenty of cats and trio's made from balsa and foam cored fibreglass. Currently looking at a power tri with apparent new world technology balsa sandwiched in glass. Professionally manufactured.

I can’t see balsa ever. My hull is Corecell 550 below, 500 above. Laminated with Kevlar and eglass and vacuum-bagged. I love it. Zero concern about water intrusion. why the heck would anyone use balsa?

 

[jbinbi]

OP here. So if a Powercat isn't the answer, and I want to achieve speeds up to 15-18kts, a full displacement trawler isn't the answer either. I would probably cruise at 8, but want the ability to go 2x that.

Looking for something in the 37-45' range. Want this to be able to be lived on for a few weeks at a time, so I want separate areas for sleeping and living. So people have privacy from each other if they want it, but in comfort.

What are some recommended brands. What I come up with the Beneteau Swift 43. But there must be others.

 

[rslifkin]

If you want that speed range, don't be afraid to look at planing hull cruisers if you find one that meets your needs. They'll typically have bigger engines and run faster than the SD trawlers, yet their fuel economy at low speeds tends to be similar as they're lighter in weight.

 

[healhustler]

Somehow, I gained the impression you wanted something in the 150k range. I read your original post again and see this was not a listed restriction at all. Sorry ‘bout that, but since the desired features have remained pretty much the same over the length of this thread, I’d choose the PDQ 41’ hands down. Blue water capable, peaks out at 25 knots, mid-teen cruise easy AND economical, trawler speeds VERY economical, 2 separated quarters with master on main deck, buoyant sponsons with probably the best bridge deck height in its class, BMW based Yanmar 260’s, good looks, huge storage, good tankage, superb quality, good value and resale. If I could afford one, I’d buy it myself.

 

[Simi 60]

If money is not really the issue why limit yourself to smaller cats that don't tick the boxes?
Get something a bit bigger that does tick the boxes and be done with it.

 

[mcarthur]

Somehow, I gained the impression you wanted something in the 150k range. I read your original post again and see this was not a listed restriction at all. Sorry ‘bout that, but since the desired features have remained pretty much the same over the length of this thread, I’d choose the PDQ 41’ hands down. Blue water capable, peaks out at 25 knots, mid-teen cruise easy AND economical, trawler speeds VERY economical, 2 separated quarters with master on main deck, buoyant sponsons with probably the best bridge deck height in its class, BMW based Yanmar 260’s, good looks, huge storage, good tankage, superb quality, good value and resale. If I could afford one, I’d buy it myself.

I agree, a good choice! We looked through one before buying a custom boat. If we could have afforded the PDQ we would have bought it.

There are still a good range of production cats that may meet your needs, from Leopards, FP's which are by far the most number made, Lagoon 43, Sunreef, Aquilla, Africat, Aspen. Then there's a whole lots of bespoke, often one-off that can be had for fantastic prices for a whole lotta boat.

 

[ranger58sb]

OP here. So if a Powercat isn't the answer, and I want to achieve speeds up to 15-18kts, a full displacement trawler isn't the answer either. I would probably cruise at 8, but want the ability to go 2x that.

Looking for something in the 37-45' range. Want this to be able to be lived on for a few weeks at a time, so I want separate areas for sleeping and living. So people have privacy from each other if they want it, but in comfort.

If you want that speed range, don't be afraid to look at planing hull cruisers if you find one that meets your needs. They'll typically have bigger engines and run faster than the SD trawlers, yet their fuel economy at low speeds tends to be similar as they're lighter in weight.

Yep. "Motor yachts," or "aft cabin motor yachts," or "cockpit motor yachts" from almost any of the production builders will have models that meet those requirements. We know several liveaboards on various motor yacht models from our brand, and they all seem happy with their layout and features. Even some "sportfish," "convertible," or "sedan bridge" models could satisfy, depending on internal layout versus that privacy requirement.

Our fuel economy isn't bad overall, and it's pretty good (near 2 NMPG) at displacement speeds, considering. We putter along most of the time... and in our mind, "trawler" is a concept, not a brand or model.

And in any case, fuel isn't our largest expense anyway.

-Chris

 

[Blissboat]

. . . since the desired features have remained pretty much the same over the length of this thread, I’d choose the PDQ 41’ hands down. Blue water capable, peaks out at 25 knots, mid-teen cruise easy AND economical, trawler speeds VERY economical, 2 separated quarters with master on main deck, buoyant sponsons with probably the best bridge deck height in its class, BMW based Yanmar 260’s, good looks, huge storage, good tankage, superb quality, good value and resale. If I could afford one, I’d buy it myself.

Me too. All of what healhustler said, plus the PDQ draws less than 3', meaning you can comfortably get in and out of lots of skinny places. That means wider cruising, docking and anchoring options.

 

[Ralsy]

Wondering if the maintenance costs on those large engines is the same as what you would have on an engine of smaller house used for displacement speeds. Agree, fuel isn't the major expense but one of the factors to consider if doing alot of cruising in open waters. It all adds up. For many without bottomless pockets it can make the difference between buying a boat or not. Just imo.

 

[Ralsy]

Sorry. Supposed to be "smaller size"

 

[jbinbi]

Looked on yachtworld, not a single pdq 41. When did they stop making these?

Also, just looked at Endeavour website. Outboards, not inboard diesels? Bed is not an island walk around which is a deal breaker as well.

Going to FLL boatshow on Fri. Will see FP, Sunreef, Beneteau, Aspen. Not alot of boats there, but worth a day trip.

 

[OldDan1943]

The only disadvantage of a cat trawler is finding a slip wide enough, at a reasonable price.

 

[healhustler]

Dick Tuschick at Rumb Line Yachts in Stuart, FL is kind of PDQ central. If someone is thinking about selling a 41, he’ll know it. I think there were only 11 built.

Re: Endeavour. Both versions of the 40 have walk-around centerline queens as do the 44 and 48. Only the 38 and 36 lack the walk-arounds. All also have inboard diesels and only the most recent show builds were equipped with O/Bs. I’m in love with the live-ability of the 40 and 48, both being true examples of a condo on keels, but they are coastal vessels. On the other hand, owner Bob Vincent could probably build you anything you want.

If you’re going to go to the FLL Show, check for the FP MY40 as well. Nice boat but a bit to contemporary for my taste.

 

[mcarthur]

Wondering if the maintenance costs on those large engines is the same as what you would have on an engine of smaller house used for displacement speeds. Agree, fuel isn't the major expense but one of the factors to consider if doing alot of cruising in open waters. It all adds up. For many without bottomless pockets it can make the difference between buying a boat or not. Just imo.

I think the general view is that hp is hp is hp - so generating 10hp from a 20hp engine, 80hp engine, and a 150hp engine will use about the same fuel (ignoring out of gear). So consumption is pretty much the same in a powercat with little adherence to S/L of 1.34 whether you go 8kn because you have a smaller engine, or whether you go 8kn with a huge engine to give the option of going faster.

Maintenance though will be different - naturally aspirated vs turbo vs aftercooled, electronic vs non-elect, common rail vs not, 6cyl vs 4 vs 3, manufacturer. All will mean different things even for engines with the same maximum power - look at the oil change interval between an older NA 6cyl and new common rail, T+A 6cyl. One may be 300hours and the other 500hours. That's going to effect your maintenance cost a lot over time if you look at the other maintenance items as well.

Personally, for a powercat (or any non-sailing vessel), the fuel costs depend upon how you use the vessel. We spec'ed out a nice little delivery run from UK to Oz and the fuel use at displacement speed was half the cost of the boat! Change the use to pottering around the French coastline for a month doing 1000nm in all and the marina fees outweigh the fuel costs. Totally depends on your use pattern. I'd definitely say that if the fuel cost is going to stop you buying the boat, don't buy a trawler but instead a sailing boat with no motor ...and lots of patience

 

[ranger58sb]

Wondering if the maintenance costs on those large engines is the same as what you would have on an engine of smaller house used for displacement speeds. Agree, fuel isn't the major expense but one of the factors to consider if doing alot of cruising in open waters. It all adds up. For many without bottomless pockets it can make the difference between buying a boat or not. Just imo.

Sorry. Supposed to be "smaller size"

Probably a yes and no (it depends) answer. Basic maintenance -- oil, filter, coolant, belt changes -- probably all the same labor cost ($$ or your own time, whichever). Incremental differences based on ease (or not) of access.
But also incremental differences based on consumable quantities. For us, maybe not a huge difference; e.g., 17 qts of engine oil each versus maybe 10 each or some such?

Then there could be differences associated with higher horsepower or newer engines (aftercoolers, turbos, as when comparing against older Lehmans and so forth).

Not dissimilar to the comparison of maintenance costs for one engine or two.

Anyway, in our case, we appreciate having the larger range of available speeds... and realize that comes with some additional costs.

-Chris

 

[Boatcrazy]

Following....our monohull sailboat is very good, but our 74 years young is lookibng for alternatives!

 

[Mako]

I think the general view is that hp is hp is hp - so generating 10hp from a 20hp engine, 80hp engine, and a 150hp engine will use about the same fuel (ignoring out of gear). So consumption is pretty much the same in a powercat with little adherence to S/L of 1.34 whether you go 8kn because you have a smaller engine, or whether you go 8kn with a huge engine to give the option of going faster.

That's not quite accurate. Each engine has a point of maximum efficiency, lowest specific fuel consumption. On many engines that is near 80%-90% and the fuel efficiency below 50% drops significantly. Burning perhaps 20% more fuel per hp.

Best to pull up the power fuel curves for your proposed engine and map it against the prop power curve.

 

[rslifkin]

That's not quite accurate. Each engine has a point of maximum efficiency, lowest specific fuel consumption. On many engines that is near 80%-90% and the fuel efficiency below 50% drops significantly. Burning perhaps 20% more fuel per hp.

Best to pull up the power fuel curves for your proposed engine and map it against the prop power curve.

That's mostly true, although diesels don't suffer nearly as much efficiency loss at light load as gas engines and the drop isn't significant until you get down to fairly low loads. Turbodiesels have an even flatter efficiency curve in most cases.

For the most part, engine power rating doesn't drive efficiency at a fraction of that rating. But if you make the same fairly low power out of a 3 liter engine and a 9 liter engine, the big one will burn somewhat more fuel due to more pumping losses, internal friction, etc.

Now along those lines, a higher rated version of the same engine might actually be more efficient, as correct propping based on full power would have it producing that fairly low output at a lower rpm. Depending on how the engine's efficiency curve interacts with pumping and friction losses, that could possibly lead to slightly better efficiency (although it may not).

 

[mcarthur]

That's not quite accurate. Each engine has a point of maximum efficiency, lowest specific fuel consumption. On many engines that is near 80%-90% and the fuel efficiency below 50% drops significantly. Burning perhaps 20% more fuel per hp.

Best to pull up the power fuel curves for your proposed engine and map it against the prop power curve.

I agree with your 20% - the consumption per hour per hp is pretty standard for diesels (in the anomalous pounds per HP, which is slightly easier to deal with than roman avoirdupois grain - not to be confused with the Trone or Jersey pound. I'm all for bringing in the beard-second and donkeypower…).

So 20% difference between diesel engines across situations is easy to see. But I think the OP isn't worried about differences of 20%, more 100-1000%! ie. the difference in 1000 gallons (that's wet gallons, not imperial gallons or dry gallons...OMG) to 1200 gallons (20%) doesn't seem like the issue...

For the OP, I'd say that if fuel is the issue, then best consumption choice is...
- if you go less than 5kn, a sailing cat with outboard or small diesel
- if you go between 5-7kn, a medium trawler, mono or cat
- if you go between 7-9kn, a light sailing cat or larger trawler cat
- if you go more than 9kn, a larger trawler cat

This is ignoring money. If you put a limit on that, these will change!
This is ignoring cruising style. That would change the choices.
This is ignoring your personal preferences/biases. That would change the choices.

Jinbi, if you want to go 15-18kn you really only have a couple of choices - fuel costly but cheaper to buy (lots of choice of planning monohulls although range would be low), or fuel cheaper but more expensive to buy (power cats).

 

[FF]

"What are some recommended brands."

Not brands, To go fast with comfort , a boat built to go modestly fast is best choice.

Take a look at sport fish in the price range you prefer.

 

[Taras]

My buddy, who is a Captain, owned a cat for 5 years and cruised the Caribbean.
His advise is to be sure to buy a cat with a “high bridge deck” to avoid the slamming which occurs with low bridge deck boat. The bridge deck is the height above the waterline between the 2 hulls. I can see how his advice makes a lot of sense. He says the slamming of a low bridge deck boat in rough water gets old real quick.

 

[Blissboat]

My buddy, who is a Captain, owned a cat for 5 years and cruised the Caribbean.
His advise is to be sure to buy a cat with a “high bridge deck” to avoid the slamming which occurs with low bridge deck boat. The bridge deck is the height above the waterline between the 2 hulls. I can see how his advice makes a lot of sense. He says the slamming of a low bridge deck boat in rough water gets old real quick.

That's true, and the bridge deck (no matter its height) should be contoured instead of flat. A flat bridge deck absorbs and tries to reflect 100% of the wave impact across its surface. A shaped deck (e.g., with a centerline sponson molded in) not only has greater rigidity, but reduces and deflects the wave energy. Over time, any flat bridge deck between catamaran hulls will begin to weaken, while making the crew and passengers uncomfortable in any kind of sea or chop.

 

[C5F]

Darkside:
Our boat was originally called Cacique. See URL for details:
2010 Maine Cat P-47 used boat for sale - boatersresources.com