Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-10-2016, 07:25 AM   #41
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,537
I guess the install of the Flow Scans makes a big difference.

If mounted in a panel that needs to be lifted . I guess folks dont bother to tweak them.

Happily our unit is reachable from behind the panel, so an adjustment after fill up is a snap.

After running the loop for a while we could figure the tank refill with in 2-3 gallons.

I always figured the error was weather the fuel in the tank was hot, expanded, at the end of a day , or cool from overnight.

Cool tanks gave the closest readings , after a few weeks of twitching.

At the end we would not reset the totalizer for 3-or 4 refills , to have a far larger fuel burn for more accuracy.
__________________
Advertisement

FF is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2016, 08:12 AM   #42
Guru
 
Codger2's Avatar
 
City: San Diego
Country: US
Vessel Name: "Sandpiper"
Vessel Model: 2006 42' Ocean Alexander Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britannia View Post
I'd like to gradually upgrade my boat to use N2K and the Maretron sensors and software. Fuel, engine gauges, water tanks, etc will all be things I want to add over time.
That's my plan in a nut shell! The DSM -150 or 250 (Larger) will display almost any NMEA 2000 data. Maretron also sells small converters (Gateways) that are attached to any NMEA 183 device that convert the data to NMEA 2000. For gadget guys like me, it's a great way to modernize an older boat. (Albeit expensive!)

Another great feature (there are so many) is that you can label your screens any way you want them!

Another thought that may come up is: "Why would I want to put a system like this in my boat?" "My Tank Watch works great as does my rudder indicator, SOC Monitor, compass, etc." Every device you have on board can be displayed on the bridge in one monitor. You simply scroll to the information you want to see! Saves a ton of panel space when new gadgets are installed.

Click on the link below and go to "screen shots" to see what is possible with this system.

Maretron | DSM150
__________________

__________________
Codger2

My passion for improving my boat(s) exceeds my desire to constantly cruise them.
Codger2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2016, 11:13 AM   #43
Wannabe
 
Britannia's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stillwater
Vessel Model: Kadey-Krogen 54
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 766
Very interesting. In my case, the fuel and water tank sensors are broken - so I should be installing new senders anyway. I like the idea of being able to use the Maretron software to configure multiple screens in the pilothouse. I'll most likely have a Raymarine MFD on the flybridge that can repeat the N2K data (as shown in the link you provided).

I am concerned about the cost though.

Richard
Britannia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2016, 02:59 PM   #44
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
[QUOTE=Al;422665]
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats;Quote [Willy is only of average or slightly less than average for efficiency of a FD boat.
17,000lbs, 30' OA - 27.5' WLL X 10'6" beam X 3.5' draft.

Eric, I am going to have to add more ballast!! I thought 13,000# was a bit heavy with a factory weight of 10,000# out of the box. The bigger engine, usual adding of home bound items, and dedicated 1200# of lead ballast is some short of your 17,000# Good to know information as we are close in all the other measurements.

Al

Al not a good idea. Adding weight to any vessel will increase fuel consumption.
I don't think your boat is quite a FD boat. And as I recall you said she had a 12' beam. But it's the shape .... not the measurements that makes the FD hull. Many sailboats that weigh 10,000lbs more than Willy have better fuel burn numbers. And I'd get more performance from Willy if I removed some or all the ballast. Actually I do plan to remove about 5% of her ballast ..... in the lazerette. Since I replaced lead where ther was concrete it must be heavier. Later on when it's real hot I'll be down there scoop'in it up and out. I'll sell you some at bridge price.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2016, 06:23 PM   #45
Guru
 
jleonard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,740
Not being anal I know only one stat. At my normal cruise at 1750 rpm And 6.5 knots I use about 1.75 gal per hour.
jleonard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2016, 07:50 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Xlantic's Avatar
 
City: Mahůn, Menorca
Country: Spain
Vessel Name: Halcyon
Vessel Model: 1973 Grand Banks 50
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 107
Here are the results of some trials by Bob Lowe from the Grand Banks forum:
http://www.mv-dreamer.com/SpeedTrials.htm

Bob's boat Dreamer is a 45' Alaskan with twin Ammarine JD 404 engines.
__________________
Gilberto
Xlantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2016, 09:42 PM   #47
Al
Guru
 
Al's Avatar
 
City: ketchikan, Alaska
Country: usa
Vessel Name: 'SLO'~BELLE
Vessel Model: 1978 Marben-27' Flybridge Trawler Pilothouse Pocket Cruiser[
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,695
[QUOTE=manyboats;423078]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al View Post


Al not a good idea. Adding weight to any vessel will increase fuel consumption.
I don't think your boat is quite a FD boat. And as I recall you said she had a 12' beam. But it's the shape .... not the measurements that makes the FD hull. Many sailboats that weigh 10,000lbs more than Willy have better fuel burn numbers. And I'd get more performance from Willy if I removed some or all the ballast. Actually I do plan to remove about 5% of her ballast ..... in the lazerette. Since I replaced lead where ther was concrete it must be heavier. Later on when it's real hot I'll be down there scoop'in it up and out. I'll sell you some at bridge price.


Eric, we agreed, I thought, that debating FD/SD was set aside in the need to agree to disagree. Having so stated,
With the 58 HP Perkins running 2400 RPM and obtaining near 7 knots, the fuel burn was 1.5 gallons per hour. With the 85 HP Perkins turning at 1400 RPM the fuel burn is 1.4 gallons per hour.
The ballast added was in place before the engine replacement. So I conclude that were I to add additional ballast, there is an allowable gap of before and after fuel burn to compensate. And most important, I could care less if the fuel burn increased a smidgen. Fuel burn is the least of my expense, if the ride improves. As it is, the boat is at a point of being all that is required for this owner's satisfaction.

Al-Ketchikan 27 Marben Pocket CRUISER
Al is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2016, 10:22 PM   #48
Guru
 
River Cruiser's Avatar
 
City: UMR MM283
Country: US
Vessel Name: Northern Lights II
Vessel Model: Bayliner 3870
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,228
What is your mpg, gallons per hour etc... at various speeds?

5+ years 3.1 GPH including generator time, 1.8 mpg. Twin EH 700 na 175 hp Hinos, 8.0 BTD Westerbeke. I average between 100 to 120 hours a year on the Hinos and 70 to 90 hours on the gen.


Sent from my iPad using Trawler Forum
__________________

__________________
Ron on Northern Lights II
I don't like making plans for the day because the word "premeditated" gets thrown around in the courtroom.
River Cruiser 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 08:03 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