Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-07-2015, 09:27 AM   #81
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by kulas44 View Post
I agree, most boats are "good enough" to float around in the ocean,,, for lots of years even. And most trawlers are not built that much better. As an example, the venerable KK42. Sure they have crossed oceans, but in stock form I,personally, would not do it. I would replace every window and exterior door with the "real stuff", sure they're good enough and proven so, just not good enough for me. I'd have to make lots of modifications/improvements befor crossing the big pond. YMMV
Back a couple years there was a fellow on this forum that spent quite some time with me calculating just how we might be able to outfit a duplicate classic boat to mine for primarily solar powered electric motor propulsion to Hawaii from SF Bay. We nationally and internationally contacted many electric engine, battery-type, solar energy receiver apparatus, diesel generator and other pertinent-item manufacturers/distributers for help in assembly of products required. I had low cost availability to the boat which would be gutted/stripped and outfitted. He and I worked on every scenario imaginable to pull off this ocean crossing in a relatively small, self-contained pleasure cruiser… i.e., a 1977 Tollycraft tri cabin.

Our “business” reasoning: If an inexpensive Classic Cruiser could affordably be outfitted for non-stop 2082 nm trip… then there was opportunity for electric pleasure boating in general to become a fad. He knew a San Diego news caster who could spotlight our journey and from phone discussions with equipment suppliers we felt there could/would be numerous marine equipment manufacturers/distributers who would place advertising banners on our boat as well as use our (when successful) journey in their ads. Heck – Upon landing in Hawaii… we might even have been asked onto GMA or even late night Lettermen for that matter!

Suffice it to say… no matter how we and several marine electric power manufacturers planned out the boat’s electric power opportunities for this landmark ocean trip… there simply was no feasible way to pull it off economically/assuredly.

SO - - > 2084 nm, at best averaging 4 knots ph, equals 521 hrs – 21.7 days! The reason I bring this all up in this thread is that a strong portion of our planning was for the classic Tollycraft to be correctly outfitted for withstanding any unexpected sea condition that may arise during this three week ocean journey . In addition to all the mechanical and power and creature comfort and nutrition/fluid source considerations it was the boat’s windows and its flying bridge fastenings I focused heavily upon. I know from ownership of a duplicate Tollycraft that the boat hull and general superstructure can take pretty much take what comes along. But, leave it to say… Decades ago along New England’s coast I’ve seen what happens to a pleasure boat’s windows and the bridge in really rough sea conditions… it simply tain’t pretty; it is life jeopardizing.

Happy Ocean-Travel Daze! - Art
__________________
Advertisement

Art is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 10:01 AM   #82
Guru
 
City: gulf coast
Country: pinellas
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,199
My 44' 38,000# ACMY with 900 HP would cruise 20+ Kts or poke along happily sipping 2-3 NMPG with the bow down. I always had the option and truly never saw the benefit of small engines. Big engines can use less fuel too. It is not how much HP you have that determines fuel use but how much hP you use.
__________________

bayview is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 10:20 AM   #83
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayview View Post
My 44' 38,000# ACMY with 900 HP would cruise 20+ Kts or poke along happily sipping 2-3 NMPG with the bow down. I always had the option and truly never saw the benefit of small engines. Big engines can use less fuel too. It is not how much HP you have that determines fuel use but how much hP you use.
Bingo! Winner-Winner!! Give the man a Chicken Dinner!
Art is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 10:55 AM   #84
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
And even more importantly how much power your hull can gracefully use.

Five hundred hp on a Nordic Tyg 32 or even a 37. Not gracefully. Most trawlers are too heavy to benifit from increases in power approaching double or more. Many cruisers are .. largely because of less weight but mostly a straight run aft.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 01:21 PM   #85
Senior Member
 
djones44's Avatar
 
City: Salt Spring Island
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Twilight
Vessel Model: Permaglass Sedan
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Five hundred hp on a Nordic Tyg 32 or even a 37. Not gracefully. Most trawlers are too heavy to benefit from increases in power approaching double or more. Many cruisers are .. largely because of less weight but mostly a straight run aft.
One paradigm I don't see examined here much is one I had in a custom pilothouse 32' (with a 300hp Cummins) and previously in a 34' Farrell (6V-53 DD). Like the 32 Nordic Tug, both capable of planing well on a single engine, especially the Farrell. With its autopilot I could economically run all day, singlehanding. With the advent of bow thrusters, the docking limitations of singles are banished.

So to take on twin engines, twin transmissions and running gear, maybe a generator, and have to crawl around and maintain them (as I did on my 37' Canoe Cove), with three diesels weighing down a planing boat that abhors weight - makes no sense to me - especially in the older boats that I can afford. The fuel bills are hundreds of dollars a day, every day - the flow meters run like you're flushing a toilet.

Nope - a single 220hp diesel in a 34' Farrell allowed me to slice through most anything, and survive financially until the next outing. But I may revert to a 32' Bayliner and a covered afterdeck, with grandkids coming - and go for the two small diesels, and then not need the bow thruster (as much).

Methinks the designation "trawler" is going to simply be seen for what it is better described as - "displacement" - and why you'd want that in choppy waters in the PNW escapes me. Rocking and rolling is not for me.
djones44 is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 01:50 PM   #86
Guru
 
City: Venice Louisiana
Country: United States
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,097
44 feet and only 38000 lbs, thats kinda light for open ocean stuff. Thats why it gets the fuel milage it does. A KK42 is a lot heavier, but the biggest benifit is its weight carrying ability without sacrificing handling and safety. Different horses/courses.
kulas44 is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 02:01 PM   #87
Senior Member
 
City: CA
Country: USA
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 178
Top speed

is classified. I have heard rumors of 50 Knots. 30 was very, very impressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N4712 View Post
I heard the Enterprise was capable of 70kts as it had two reactors per shaft. But I also heard they rarely did that speed due to bending the keel and running gear.
BigJim is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 02:08 PM   #88
Guru
 
N4712's Avatar
 
City: South FL
Country: U.S.A
Vessel Name: Oliver
Vessel Model: Nordhavn 47 Hull# 12
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJim View Post
is classified. I have heard rumors of 50 Knots. 30 was very, very impressive.

Oh I know, just saying what I heard. Pretty crazy to think a hunk of steel like that can do those kind of speed but I guess with nuke power it's very easily possible.
__________________
Thanks, Oliver
M/V Oliver
Nordhavn 47 Hull #12
N4712 is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 02:11 PM   #89
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,903
I know plenty who have seen the transom of carriers disappear over the horizon in no time despite the 25-30 knots they were doing...but 70 sounds high to me...even 50 would be almost unthinkable in terms of vessels that size and historical warfare.
psneeld is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 02:20 PM   #90
Guru
 
City: gulf coast
Country: pinellas
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,199
What open ocean? Like 99% of boaters my cruising was coastal and usually within 50 miles of shore and rarely more than 120 mile passages.

I think most mid 40s twin diesels would get similar results if people kept the bow down.
bayview is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 04:43 PM   #91
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
I know plenty who have seen the transom of carriers disappear over the horizon in no time despite the 25-30 knots they were doing...but 70 sounds high to me...even 50 would be almost unthinkable in terms of vessels that size and historical warfare.
Some friends of mine just took advantage of a "Tiger Cruise"....where parents of seamen are allowed to go along for a cruise. I do not know the name of the Carrier they were on. But they cruised from Hawaii to the West coast. They had unfettered access to the bridge at all times.....except when they were going over 33 knots!!!! So they go at least 33 knots and anything over that is classified. They definitely move on out.
__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 04:53 PM   #92
Guru
 
AKDoug's Avatar
 
City: Kenai, Alaska
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Melanie Rose
Vessel Model: 1999 Willard PH
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 571
I just made the same run, the weather forecast was for 20 knots and 7 feet Sunday night, woke up in Fox Farm Bay to calm weather morning of the 6th. The forecast changed over night to 15 knots and 7 feet, and I headed out. It took my little 50 hp Yanmar 5 hours to make the crossing at 7 knots but the wind was calm and the 6 foot seas were glassy swells. I dropped a line for halibut amongst the guide boats for a while but caught only flounder. It was a fabulous crossing, I think I burned 4.5 gallons jumping the Gulf. My range at 5.5 knots is over 1500 miles on my 150 gallon tank, with reserve. I do have to plot my windows of opportunity a little more conservatively, but the cost of fuel is a factor for me.
AKDoug is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 05:01 PM   #93
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKDoug View Post
I just made the same run, the weather forecast was for 20 knots and 7 feet Sunday night, woke up in Fox Farm Bay to calm weather morning of the 6th. The forecast changed over night to 15 knots and 7 feet, and I headed out. It took my little 50 hp Yanmar 5 hours to make the crossing at 7 knots but the wind was calm and the 6 foot seas were glassy swells. I dropped a line for halibut amongst the guide boats for a while but caught only flounder. It was a fabulous crossing, I think I burned 4.5 gallons jumping the Gulf. My range at 5.5 knots is over 1500 miles on my 150 gallon tank, with reserve. I do have to plot my windows of opportunity a little more conservatively, but the cost of fuel is a factor for me.
That sounds wonderful!!!!
__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 05:05 PM   #94
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by djones44 View Post
Methinks the designation "trawler" is going to simply be seen for what it is better described as - "displacement" - and why you'd want that in choppy waters in the PNW escapes me. Rocking and rolling is not for me.
I'm not a fan of displacement boats in terms of having one. A displacement recreational boat to me is not defined by the word "trawler," it's defined to me by the word "glacial." As in its progress through the water. Our PNW boat cruises at eight knots and going anywhere in it is like those scenes in old movies where they conveyed the sense of time passing with a shot of pages blowing off a calendar. It's downright painful, right?

But in their defense, they have in some ways a better ride to a lot of people than a semi-planing boat. Our PNW boat has the quintessential semi-planing hull. In rough water other than heading straight into it, the boat has a snap-back roll that a lot of people find extremely disconcerting. We're used to it and it doesn't really bother us, but I can understand why someone might hate it.

And for a boat that has to earn a living on the water, the displacement hull obviously makes all sorts of sense. And as they get bigger and heavier, their ride becomes better and better.

So I think it's an eminently suitable hull shape for the PNW and our often-choppy inside waters. My dislike of boats like Eric's Willard is not because of its ride and certainly not because of its appearance. It's because even though I'm not that old of a guy, I'm not going to live long enough to get anywhere in it.
Marin is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 05:05 PM   #95
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,630
As you can see in my signature, my boats have gotten bigger and faster. For non-retirement coastal cruising, the boat I have right now is pretty hard to beat. It expands my cruising area based on the time I have to spend cruising. Once I retire and have no time restraints, I really do look forward to going slowly again. It is much more peaceful and not as tiresome. Up on plane, you have to pay attention more closely as things are happening a lot quicker....and that will fatigue you more quickly over time. In that Prairie 29, I wouldn't flinch at a 12-14 hour day. In this boat I would do it if I had to but generally don't. Anyways, this boat is serving me well right now and will have to figure out what the retirement boat will be....
__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 05:14 PM   #96
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
43 knots is hull speed for a Vessel about 1000' long.
1.34 X 32 = 42.88. 32 is about exactly the square root of 1024 and as I recall the big carriers are about 1000' long. So their top speed is probably about 36 knots ... as a guess. It is unlikely even w nuclular power that hull speed could be reached. One could calculate how much power that would be though if the displacement were known.


AKDoug,
Full displacement cruising is fine fine fine. You must have the biggest fuel tanks of any W30. I thought they were all 100 gallons like mine. I ordered two 35 gal tanks to replace my 50s but they didn't listen to me so I've still got 100 gal. Takes too long to burn it up.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 05:17 PM   #97
Guru
 
AKDoug's Avatar
 
City: Kenai, Alaska
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Melanie Rose
Vessel Model: 1999 Willard PH
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 571
I appreciate the large and powerful cruisers, for their interior space and ability to run through rough water. My reality is that I have a limited amount of income to have my adventures with, and my vessel is amazingly durable, affordable to operate, and within my reach to be able to purchase. If I had a lot more disposable income, I would have a larger vessel to cruise in. One of the really cool things about Alaskans is that we don't segregate ourselves by income levels. We are all out there doing the same things, in the same places, with more or less success regardless of how much money we have to spend doing it. If you are a lousy shrimper or fisherman, having money won't make you better at it :-)

I saw an amazing pod of Humpback whales feeding on silver salmon over in Johnstone Bay on the way to PWS from Seward. I am hoping the picture travels with this post. I have never seen anything like it. They were bunching the salmon and then feeding on them by coming up vertically from below.
AKDoug is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 05:19 PM   #98
Guru
 
AKDoug's Avatar
 
City: Kenai, Alaska
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Melanie Rose
Vessel Model: 1999 Willard PH
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 571
Second try :-)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_3337.jpg
Views:	103
Size:	125.5 KB
ID:	41823  
AKDoug is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 05:24 PM   #99
Dauntless Award
 
Wxx3's Avatar
 
City: New York, NY
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Dauntless
Vessel Model: Kadey Krogen 42 - 148
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksanders View Post
I would argue that the only time large engines are at a disadvantage is on passagemaker style boats where you are crossing oceans and need all the fuel range you can get.

For coastal cruising which is along any coastline almost anywhere in the world larger engines give you choices.

Choices you do not have with smaller engines.
Exactly.
Well said and I liked the story too.
__________________
M/Y Dauntless, New York
a Kadey Krogen 42 Currently https://share.delorme.com/dauntless
Blog: https://dauntlessatsea.com
Find us: https://share.delorme.com/dauntless
Wxx3 is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 05:39 PM   #100
Guru
 
djmarchand's Avatar
 
City: East Greenwich, RI
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bella
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 34
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,879
This thread has devolved into roughly three parallel subthreads:


1. What is a trawler?


2. What kind of power boat does it take to cruise in blue water?


3. The benefits of additional hp beyond what it takes to get to hull speed


My responses:


1. Who cares? You guys can debate that until the cows come home. Not me.


2. Blue water cruising to me is going offshore for 5+ days, the point where any weather forecast when you left is meaningless. There are very few boats owned by members of this forum that I would do this in: a Nordhavn, a Krogen with some window and systems modifications, a Diesel Duck, maybe a few others.


It is not the longest distance for a US to US journey- about 200 miles someone said. That is a meaningless criterion. I can make that run in 12-15 hours on my boat and do it safely if the forecast is right. But there is no way that I consider my boat to be blue water capable.


3. I do believe in owning a semi-displacement hull with enough power to cruise at 15 kts when I want to. But not for the purpose that KS postulated. Sure there might come a time when powering fast around a storm might make it more comfortable, but I expect it to just be that, more comfortable, not a life or death thing. If I ever get caught in a situation where I have to go fast to save my life, well I screwed up big time.


I use the go fast capability to get somewhere sooner so we can enjoy more time at the destination or to expand the range of places to go in one day from home port. Ten years ago I made the transition from sailor where the journey was the most fun to a power boat owner where the destination was the more interesting part. My wife made that leap when she was born ;-).


David
__________________

djmarchand is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:38 AM.


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