Beneteau, Swift Trawlers

In my Webster's, a trawler should be a rugged, seaworthy craft. I fear the Big Loop would become a Big Roll in a Beneteau! Not a well-built boat.

Click to expand...

I agree. I ran a Swift 44' trawler from the Miami show up to Stuart, I think 2 years ago. We we're in a 3-5' beam to aft quarter sea. That thing was very very wet. But it had a horrible ride. It would roll over some, then snap back to center REALLY fast almost like you were going to get whiplash. We named it the "swifter wetjet" LOL

Click to expand...

This subject came up over on this other forum,.... the second quote coming from an experienced captain.
YachtForums.Com - View Single Post - Trawler selection
Trawler selection - YachtForums.Com


I am trying to solicit a more definitive response from him as to why this 'poor' ride might have occurred ??

Has anyone else had some personal experience aboard these vessels??
Swift Trawler 44 / Swift Trawler / Motorboats - BENETEAU

Swift Trawler

I've owned a ST 34 for 2 + years. The 34 is a well built, sea worthy boat. My wife and I have traveled the New Jersey coast, NY Harbor and extensively on the Chesapeake.
Our first trip in the ocean was from Long Island via Fire Island Inlet to near Atlantic City Inlet - in head, beam and following 4'+ seas - all in 1 day - arrived at our dock and said -"wow" - what a boat.
We have experienced 4' to 6' head/beam seas in the Atlantic and 4' "standing" head seas on the Delaware river. Following seas require more attention - but never have we been in a compromised position.
So far over 200 hrs and no issues for a 17,000 lb trawler.

As we all know, opinions on and suitability of different boats depends entirely on the owner and the kind of use they make of it. There are many people who are thrilled and totally happy with top-heavy Nike-sneaker party barges, because they are perfect for partying at the dock, but would be a poor choice for blue water passage making (and vice versa, I would bet most people who want a floating condominium would not be happy with a Nordhavn).

We owned a Beneteau 42 Swift Trawler, but only for a year. It was the least satisfying boat I've ever had out of the 13 I've owned. It was absolutely beautifully styled, it looked great. But, our experiences with its sea keeping abilities were similar to the poster you mentioned.

It's not a surprise, the hull design is really a modified V planing hull, with a very small and shallow keel for tracking. It looks like a "trawler", but below the waterline is pretty much a planing hull. It had a great turn of speed for its power a and was economical, but it was a hard, wet, and not particularly stable ride in anything over a 2 ft chop (but then, we're spoiled, the comparator for us was an American Tug). After only one year with that boat, we sold it and went back to another American Tug.

IMHO, the ST42 would be a good boat for someone wanting traditional styling, 18-25 kt speeds, good fuel economy, beautiful design, and use on mostly calm protected waters.

We went on the 42 in the boat show every step I took the floor moved under me and squeaked. Didn't like the boat, but that's just my opinion.

Oliver, I was more disappointed with the construction quality than the seakeeping abilities. Every boat is designed for a purpose, and every boater's perception of "seaworthiness" is highly subjective (what one person thinks is a smooth great ride another will find intolerable, and vice versa). That's all personal preference.

Our ST42 was drop-dead gorgeous. The interior styling details were reminiscent of a 1950's French ocean liner. But, to me, it seemed built to a price point (as just about everything is...). We also found that the floor panels moved and squeaked under our feet, and actually popped out underway in rougher water.

The fiberglass work was not impressive. Every time we used the boat, I would find a few more air voids in the fiberglass, and was constantly filling them. More than that, the electrical system drove me insane, with multiple sub-panels, both positive and negative circuit breakers, and wing nuts on every single electrical connection, from small to large (even on the batteries). It was very inexpensive for a 42 ft twin-engine boat, but usually you get what you pay for.

An absolutely beautiful boat, IMHO one of the best looking on the water, and a lot of boat for the money, just not for us and our priorities in a boat.

Endurance said:

...

We owned a Beneteau 42 Swift Trawler, but only for a year. It was the least satisfying boat I've ever had out of the 13 I've owned. It was absolutely beautifully styled, it looked great. But, our experiences with its sea keeping abilities were similar to the poster you mentioned. ...

It's not a surprise, the hull design is really a modified V planing hull, with a very small and shallow keel for tracking. It looks like a "trawler", but below the waterline is pretty much a planing hull. It had a great turn of speed for its power a and was economical, but it was a hard, wet, and not particularly stable ride in anything over a 2 ft chop (but then, we're spoiled, the comparator for us was an American Tug). ...

Click to expand...

But how can that be? The manufacturer's brochure states: "It is at home on all waters ..."

Endurance said:

Oliver, I was more disappointed with the construction quality than the seakeeping abilities. Every boat is designed for a purpose, and every boater's perception of "seaworthiness" is highly subjective (what one person thinks is a smooth great ride another will find intolerable, and vice versa). That's all personal preference. Our ST42 was drop-dead gorgeous. The interior styling details were reminiscent of a 1950's French ocean liner. But, to me, it seemed built to a price point (as just about everything is...). We also found that the floor panels moved and squeaked under our feet, and actually popped out underway in rougher water. The fiberglass work was not impressive. Every time we used the boat, I would find a few more air voids in the fiberglass, and was constantly filling them. More than that, the electrical system drove me insane, with multiple sub-panels, both positive and negative circuit breakers, and wing nuts on every single electrical connection, from small to large (even on the batteries). It was very inexpensive for a 42 ft twin-engine boat, but usually you get what you pay for. An absolutely beautiful boat, IMHO one of the best looking on the water, and a lot of boat for the money, just not for us and our priorities in a boat.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you on the inside looking beautiful, but like you said the build quality is just not there. Also when we toured it (if memory serves correct) there was a piece of regular homedeopt plywood attached to the lazzerette bulkhead, it wasn't laminated or anything. I wasn't impressed.

Interesting. Every new Beneteau (mostly sailboats) I have been on at the boat shows have had squeaky flexible soles as well. I couldn't own a boat like that as it would bug the heck out if me.

A builder describing its boat as a "swift trawler" raises a red flag, leastwise for me.

It was indeed a very swift boat (in calm water). It would top out at 24+ kts, and could cruise at 18 kts - as would be expected of a full planing hull. It was fun to see the reactions of people who didn't know the boat and expected it to do 7-8 kts, and then be shocked to see it keeping up with 'express cruisers'.

Endurance said:

It was indeed a very swift boat (in calm water). It would top out at 24+ kts, and could cruise at 18 kts - as would be expected of a full planing hull. It was fun to see the reactions of people who didn't know the boat and expected it to do 7-8 kts, and then be shocked to see it keeping up with 'express cruisers'.

Click to expand...

So how do you like your American. She looks beautiful in your avatar.

I absolutely love mine. I am envious of your Nordy though.

jukesy said:

I absolutely love mine. I am envious of your Nordy though.

Click to expand...

Thanks

It was fun to see the reactions of people who didn't know the boat and expected it to do 7-8 kts, and then be shocked to see it keeping up with 'express cruisers'.

Fast trawler is an oxymoron.

The hull IS an express cruiser with a saltier deck house stuck on for cosmetic purposes.

In most cases the real express cruiser lives better aboard than the faux trawler.

YRMV

Thanks Oliver. We absolutely love our American Tug, it's our second one. For our use, it's the perfect boat (at least at this time). I especially love the rugged, commercial-spec construction and solid glass hull. I know 'fast trawler' may be an oxymoron, so I'll call this a 'fast pilothouse cruiser' (or something like that).

For us, the hull design and performance are perfect for our use. It has a full keel and deep forefoot, and slices through nasty conditions with no pounding. My wife routinely sleeps in the forward cabin while going through 4-6 ft chop. But it is a 'semi-displacement' (or 'semi-planing') hull, and with the 480 hp engine, it will top out at 20 kts and cruise at 16 kts (but will get 4 nmpg at 8 kts). Like any semi-displacement hull, the ride is a little wet, but I'm more than happy to make that trade-off for a smooth stable ride through unpleasant conditions. It's not a boat to cross oceans with, but for coastal cruising, it will handle more than we can.

I'm with jukesy, and also am envious of your beautiful Nordhavn 47 - now that's a real boat!

Endurance said:

Thanks Oliver. We absolutely love our American Tug, it's our second one. For our use, it's the perfect boat (at least at this time). I especially love the rugged, commercial-spec construction and solid glass hull. I know 'fast trawler' may be an oxymoron, so I'll call this a 'fast pilothouse cruiser' (or something like that). For us, the hull design and performance are perfect for our use. It has a full keel and deep forefoot, and slices through nasty conditions with no pounding. My wife routinely sleeps in the forward cabin while going through 4-6 ft chop. But it is a 'semi-displacement' (or 'semi-planing') hull, and with the 480 hp engine, it will top out at 20 kts and cruise at 16 kts (but will get 4 nmpg at 8 kts). Like any semi-displacement hull, the ride is a little wet, but I'm more than happy to make that trade-off for a smooth stable ride through unpleasant conditions. It's not a boat to cross oceans with, but for coastal cruising, it will handle more than we can. I'm with jukesy, and also am envious of your beautiful Nordhavn 47 - now that's a real boat!

Click to expand...

Thanks, we still own a camano 31 and is a semi displacement man that baby is a wet boat. What's your range doing 16 knts?

American Tug vs Nordic Tug

Thanks to all so far, for your very considerate / informative replies.

Since several of you have chosen American Tugs, I wondered why verses Nordic Tugs?

Oliver, like the old hot-rodders saying goes, "speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?". At 16 kts we burn about 14.5-15 gal/hr, about 1.1 nmpg. With 400 gal of fuel, it's about a 400 nm range.

Cutting the speed by half, to 8 kts, results in a 2 gal/hr fuel burn, or 4 nmpg. Halving the speed quadruples the range (but doubling the speed also doubles how far we can go in a day, or cuts a journey's time in half, which my wife likes because it gives her more time for exploring on land).

Endurance said:

Oliver, like the old hot-rodders saying goes, "speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?". At 16 kts we burn about 14.5-15 gal/hr, about 1.1 nmpg. With 400 gal of fuel, it's about a 400 nm range. Cutting the speed by half, to 8 kts, results in a 2 gal/hr fuel burn, or 4 nmpg. Halving the speed quadruples the range (but doubling the speed also doubles how far we can go in a day, or cuts a journey's time in half, which my wife likes because it gives her more time for exploring on land).

Click to expand...

Oh ok thanks.

Brian, you might be interested in checking out the following thread -

http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s17/experience-american-tugs-10785.html

Thanks Nick for that reference summation.

I visited a few of their vessels at this year's Annapolis powerboat show and was suitable impressed. I was looking for alternative vessels or ideas for my Pilgrim 40 redesign efforts.

http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s3/redesigning-pilgrim-40-trawler-canal-boat-11212.html

I've a good friend who walked from a Beneteau deal a few months ago. The dealer demanded a 90% escrow payment before a seatrial could occur.

I too have noted the MV and SV have weak and flexible floors. With so many good proven competing boats out there, the Beneteau ad blitz seems their desired approach.

I looked at a Beneteau Swift Trawler at the 2012 Sydney Boat Show. It seemed lightly built, the saloon living area small for size of boat, emphasis seemed to be on sleeping cabins. An assessment is inevitably personal, but it did little to interest me.

Swift trawlers have robust decks. They are light due to balsa core but very intelligently applied. Viage Group are an awesome dealer that would give you a sea trial happily

sunchaser said:

I've a good friend who walked from a Beneteau deal a few months ago. The dealer demanded a 90% escrow payment before a seatrial could occur.

I too have noted the MV and SV have weak and flexible floors. With so many good proven competing boats out there, the Beneteau ad blitz seems their desired approach.

Click to expand...

I toured one and noticed flexing and creaking floors.

Floating floors are in the swifts. Under those removable panels is a stiff structure. Those type floors are good and tons of dry, glass lined storage under them.