Sometimes big engines are an advantage

[Baker]

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.

 

[AKDoug]

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.

 

[Baker]

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!!!!

 

[Marin]

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.

 

[Baker]

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....

 

[Nomad Willy]

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.

 

[AKDoug]

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]

Second try

 

[Wxx3]

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.

 

[DavidM]

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

 

[ksanders]

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.

You should look us up Doug! We were in Hogg Bay!

 

[psneeld]

Look up some naval architecture on naval vessel hulls.....from my understanding the roadrunners of the bunch DO NOT follow displacement hull numbers exactly....or they do and the horsepower is off the chart so continuing up the speed scale isn't unusual.


When you throw in pure power to a flat bottom vessel....differences can occur.


Also I believe the 5 to 1 rule comes in where if the lwl is 5 times the waterline beam..hull speed varies significantly...like a hobie cat.

 

[kulas44]

My sons friend was an airframe mechanic? on one of the biggest aircraft carriers for 4 years. He said anything over 35 knots the bridge was closed. IDK, never been on one. My take on trawlers is that everyone wants to be one, and then tries to make excuses for why and how there choice of boat is better. It apparently is better for what they do, so why all the hoopla about trawlers ?

 

[ksanders]

My take on trawlers is that everyone wants to be one, and then tries to make excuses for why and how there choice of boat is better. It apparently is better for what they do, so why all the hoopla about trawlers ?

Did you really say that???

My friend you need to look around TF for a while. Look at some of the boats here.

Read some of what people said in this thread.

Not everybody wants to go slow
Not everybody wants to cross oceans.
Don't think for a minute its financial, I won't even go there.

You got it all wrong. We all have our particular boats because we like them, not because they are a stepping stone, or a fill in towards eventual trawler life.

This thread was started to point out that sometimes large engines and the ability to go faster than displacement speeds have an advantage. No more No less.

 

[Marin]

I saw an amazing pod of Humpback whales feeding on silver salmon over in Johnstone Bay on the way to PWS from Seward.

Good post but humpbacks are baleen whales and so are not fish eaters. They eat primarily krill and sometimes very small fish. While there may have been silvers in the area, the whales were most likely feeding on krill. Humpbacks will work together to "bubble feed" which is corralling huge schools of krill by making almost a curtanin of bubbles around them and then the whales come up vertically underneath them with their mouths open to take in the krill. That appears to be what's going on in your photo.

 

[Marin]

We all have our particular boats because we like them, not because they are a stepping stone, or a fill in towards eventual trawler life.

.

Absolutely 100 percent correct in my opinion. Which is why I think the marketing use of the world "trawler" to describe, these days, damn near anything that floats is so idiotic. As Kevin points out, "We all have our particular boats because we like them...."

To imply by using the same descriptive word that Kevin's boat is the same sort of boat as our PNW boat is ridiculous. Other than the fact they both have hulls and engines and houses that keep the rain off us, the boats are totally different. To say they are both "trawlers" is as worthless a descriptive comparison as saying they are both "boats."

To me, the most accurate term for all our boats collectively is cabin cruiser, as dorky as that term sounds. They all have cabins and they all cruise. After that you have to get into specifics--- pilothouse, sundeck, express cruiser, sedan, Europa, tri-cabin, planing, semi-planing, displacement, fantail, and so on.

Kevin started out by describing his use of power to avoid getting caught in bad weather which, while his boat would have been able to take it, would have resulted in a long, uncomfortable ride. It was a smart use of the attributes of his boat, in my book. If the Bounty had been able to do this, it might still be around today.

The fact a low-powered displacement boat couldn't have done what Kevin did doesn't in some way make what Kevin did seem wrong or imply that he has a lesser boat than the folks with efficient, low-power displacement boats. It simply means that the fellow with the low-powered displacement (or semi-planing) boat had better not count on doing what Kevin did in his cruise planning. He either has to be willing to plod along and let the waves beat him up for hours or make sure he's not caught out in that situation in the first place.

 

[dannc]

Actually though the examples you gave don't provide much support at all to your point. Most were sailboats. Problems were rudders and shafts. Very few instances of power boats sinking because of hull problems. Some Bertrams with delamination. Now clearly most people don't put their boats to a real test to see what it will survive as that wouldn't be smart to intentionally do. But the vast majority of time the boat will handle more than those operating it.

Yes, my examples do support the point. A failed rudder is a structural issue that can cause further hull failures, and you can see it is a major cause of boat losses. One problem with my list is that it only is for boats that sink and does not cover boats that have structural failures but make it to port. You don't really hear about those boats.

I read of a sail boat going from Latin American to one of the Caribbean islands at the wrong time of year and wrong direction. The hull of the boat developed a crack 1-2 feet long and at least the forward bulkhead was knocked loose. The crew did an amazing job of damage control with 5200, wood screws and plywood to "fix" the crack which allowed them to make port. The people who repaired the boat said it was common to see boats loose bulkheads sailing the same course. You don't hear about those boats but in a passing sentence...

Most "trawlers" do not have have structural issues because they are never stressed with ocean crossings.

I do think most boats are tougher then today's crews but that does not deny that boats do suffer structural failure. They do. We just don't hear about most of them and people don't pay attention to why boats sink.

Flip side is that who cares? Most "trawlers" are never going to be stressed to the point of structure failure even if they were designed and built like poo. I care because we want to cross oceans and studying failures modes matters to me.

Nor do I care what the boats are called, trawler, passage maker, troller, long range cruiser, tug, or expensive hole in the water. I think we are smart enough to figure out that a Nordic Tug is not going to be pushing the Nimitz around.

Boats are simply things that people create to solve particular design points, what works for one person won't work for another which is just fine. Too much HP for us is a problem, not a solution, but that surely does not mean too much HP is a problem for others.

Later,
Dan

 

[Art]

Being on a GOOD boat anywhere in the water is what interests me.

I love water's unlimited inclinations... its feel, its smell, its brain. I love every boat's nearly unlimited individualized nuances… its reactions, its attitude, its soul. And, oh yes, water is pretty darn smart and every boat is individually unique.

Takes a good Captain and crew to keep up with water's smarts and a boat’s doings!

 

[kulas44]

dannc, I totally agree. Most trawlers, or the boats we (I) call that, will never see open ocean cruising. And the few that do will probably do just fine. Its that PROBABLY that I cant handle. Just because you've crossed the tracks a bunch of times and made it, in know way garrantees you will never be hit by a train.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Very excellent post Marin (106) but I think you over stated what happens to the seagoing round bilge FD vessel. Take a KK w stabilizers as a good example. Most of the time they are quite comfortable or better even in quite nasty going. In my much smaller W30 the nastiness of the seas required to "beat me up" will be far less but still huge difference between boats. Other times your boat would be more comfortable than a Willard. Going from our much lighter Albin FD trawler to our present Willard it was practically night and day. Weight and righting moment have much to do w comfort.
Probably the only time I get sorta "beat up" is when I haven't the time to alter course and that's very seldom.
Speed? Really don't need it. The biggest limitation is the distance between anchorages. Here in WA that may not be as limiting.

 

[BandB]

Yes, my examples do support the point. A failed rudder is a structural issue that can cause further hull failures, and you can see it is a major cause of boat losses. One problem with my list is that it only is for boats that sink and does not cover boats that have structural failures but make it to port. You don't really hear about those boats.

I read of a sail boat going from Latin American to one of the Caribbean islands at the wrong time of year and wrong direction. The hull of the boat developed a crack 1-2 feet long and at least the forward bulkhead was knocked loose. The crew did an amazing job of damage control with 5200, wood screws and plywood to "fix" the crack which allowed them to make port. The people who repaired the boat said it was common to see boats loose bulkheads sailing the same course. You don't hear about those boats but in a passing sentence...

Most "trawlers" do not have have structural issues because they are never stressed with ocean crossings.

I do think most boats are tougher then today's crews but that does not deny that boats do suffer structural failure. They do. We just don't hear about most of them and people don't pay attention to why boats sink.

Flip side is that who cares? Most "trawlers" are never going to be stressed to the point of structure failure even if they were designed and built like poo. I care because we want to cross oceans and studying failures modes matters to me.

Nor do I care what the boats are called, trawler, passage maker, troller, long range cruiser, tug, or expensive hole in the water. I think we are smart enough to figure out that a Nordic Tug is not going to be pushing the Nimitz around.

Boats are simply things that people create to solve particular design points, what works for one person won't work for another which is just fine. Too much HP for us is a problem, not a solution, but that surely does not mean too much HP is a problem for others.

Later,
Dan

But we're talking power boats and the rudder failure is a routine issue on sailboats. Again, very few power boats lost due to structural failures. Partly because of limited number at sea, partly because people limit what they'll take to sea, and partly just the general quality of build.

 

[Codger2]

Then slow down to near trawler speeds for sometimes a couple of weeks at a time. We love towing the dinghy, anchoring, and exploring.

Sorry, Don but I had to set the record straight!

 

[O C Diver]

To me, the most accurate term for all our boats collectively is cabin cruiser, as dorky as that term sounds. They all have cabins and they all cruise.

Marin, you may own a cabin cruiser, I most certainly do not. Wikipedia for lack of a better source describes them as 25 to 45', some being trailered, and having the basic necessities for limited cruising. IMO, it conjures up the weekend econo cruiser for the family of four on a limited budget. I've put far too much money and sweat equity in my boat to refer to it as a cabin cruiser. Classifying a Nordhavn or any of the other $1, 000, 000+ boats on this forum, as a cabin cruiser is just down right insulting.

Ted

 

[AKDoug]

Good post but humpbacks are baleen whales and so are not fish eaters. They eat primarily krill and sometimes very small fish. While there may have been silvers in the area, the whales were most likely feeding on krill. Humpbacks will work together to "bubble feed" which is corralling huge schools of krill by making almost a curtanin of bubbles around them and then the whales come up vertically underneath them with their mouths open to take in the krill. That appears to be what's going on in your photo.

I made a down rigger drop into the mass they were feeding on and caught silvers. I find humpbacks feeding around salmon all of the time, it will be hard to convince me they were not eating salmon. I know what they are "supposed" to eat, but there I am and there they are. The methodology I saw was the whales rounding up the salmon into a ball, and then feeding on the ball after they compressed it.

They went around the school packing it, disappeared for a few moments, and then appeared vertically with their mouths wide open.

From the net... NOAA Fisheries post

"What do humpback whales eat?

Humpbacks are baleen whales which means they filter their food through baleen plates. They consume krill, anchovies, cod, sardines, mackerel, capelin, And Other Sorts Of Schooling Fish.

Some humpbacks have a very unusual way of catching their food. They make nets to catch their prey called "bubble nets" with the air that they release from their blow holes. The whales dive deep then swim up in a spiral pattern, all the while releasing a steady stream of bubbles. As the bubbles rise they form a bubble cage which traps the fish or plankton that the whales are pursuing. Then the whales swim up through the center of the bubble cage with their jaws open and capture a great gulp of food."

 

[BandB]

Marin, you may own a cabin cruiser, I most certainly do not. Wikipedia for lack of a better source describes them as 25 to 45', some being trailered, and having the basic necessities for limited cruising. IMO, it conjures up the weekend econo cruiser for the family of four on a limited budget. I've put far too much money and sweat equity in my boat to refer to it as a cabin cruiser. Classifying a Nordhavn or any of the other $1, 000, 000+ boats on this forum, as a cabin cruiser is just down right insulting.

Ted

We own boats. Specific boats. No labels used. We could not care less what anyone else calls them.

Don't understand all the arguing over insignificant terminology. Ours do have cabins and we do cruise so if someone wants to call them cabin cruisers fine with me.

 

[kulas44]

The commonly held consensus amongst marine biologists, for years, was that whale sharks were filter feeders only. Until someone showed a video of one dropping straight down until all the little fisheys swimming with it were at its nose. Lots of fish, a good sized school. It sank some more and with a big swish of its tail it opened its big ol mouth and swallowed the whole mess. The biologists all said "well, I'll be dang, they do eat fish sometimes". Just goes to show, we sometimes dont know as much as we think (know?) we do.

 

[Art]

Unless being used for some sort of commercial enterprise... no matter their fittings or design... our boats are all "Recreational Pleasure Boats". Pure and simple.

 

[Marin]

The methodology I saw was the whales rounding up the salmon into a ball, and then feeding on the ball after they compressed it.

Salmon sometimes cause their prey to mass together for protection or to escape, sometimes referred to as bait balls. Great things to fish for salmon in when one comes across them. While never say never, I would not be surprised if what was happening is the salmon had caused a lot of smaller fish--- herring perhaps--- to form a mass and the humpbacks were taking advantage of this.

At Telegraph Cove a few years ago I asked the whale biologist who works for the whale watch company there if the true whales in the area--- humpbacks and grays--- ever ate king and silver salmon like the Orcas do. She said not deliberately, but they do often gather up smaller fish along with the krill.

 

[kulas44]

I have a trawler yacht. James S. Krogen named it that. When the USCG hailed me on the VHF leaving Sabine Pass they specifically said "trawler". Anybody on the water with any kind of experience has called it a trawler. I also have a Sportfisher. Everyone calls it a sportfisher, or sportfish, or sportfisherman. I call it a sporty, easier to spell. No one mistakes it for a pleasure cruiser, although thats mostly what it does if not fishing. Its never been called a cabin cruiser. Anyone knows a sportfisher when they see one, just like they know a trawler when they see it. Some sportfishers kinda blur the lines but what most folks identify as a sportfisher has that classic look, big bow flare, large cockpit, etc. A real trawler also just has that look, all its own, that sets it apart from the other types.

 

[Marin]

Classifying a Nordhavn or any of the other $1, 000, 000+ boats on this forum, as a cabin cruiser is just down right insulting.

Your boat cruises, it has a cabin. It's a cabin cruiser. You can certainly call it something more accurate if you like but it does NOT have trawl gear on board. So it's definitely NOT a trawler.

You can dick around with the language all you want but that doesn't make using a commercial fishing term to describe a recreational boat correct. It just makes it ignorant. It doesn't matter one iota what the cabin cruiser cost, it's not a fishing boat by any stretch of the imagination.

It's amazing to me how many apparently otherwise intelligent boaters get suckered in by this marketing BS. I guess it just goes to prove that you can always fool some of the people all of the time.