Interesting Full Disp Trawler

Fugio-Eric- You have me confused which is not a hard challenge. I have reviewed several times the photos and can not locate any draft markings. Which photo is involved?

XsBank- Define "Noodle" please.

As to the social graces of Big Bad Bayliners wakes there are none!

Al

Larry I meant the compliments .. Not the Susan. But I'll see what I can find.

Yea it looks like they were maximizing the blade area. Usually that's for absorbing power where there's not swinging room for more diameter. But here it looks like there is room for a bigger prop. My Willy is the same but not re the blade area. Perhaps the prop on Susan Gael now is not her regular or original prop.

I'll take a picture of the type of prop that I'd think is more appropriate for the Susan Gael and post tonight.

Larry if someone was to steal Willy's rudder I'd want a replacement just like the existing one. Not too much rudder at all IMO. I have Willy's rudder rigged to swing 45 degrees both ways so if I was to change rudder size I'd want slightly bigger. On a 6 knot boat I don't know if there is such a thing as a rudder too big. Being 3/8" thick it's very heavy so a composite rudder may be a good idea. But smaller I'd not want. So no I don't think Willy's over endowed in that regard.

Al said:

Fugio-Eric- You have me confused which is not a hard challenge. I have reviewed several times the photos and can not locate any draft markings. Which photo is involved?

Click to expand...

Well, this kind of reminds me of when I have to explain my jokes multiple times and my wife says if I have to explain it then...both of the stern bottom images show the marks. Let me isolate and increase the contrast for you:


So, what's curious about these marks is that they don't appear to accurate scale, and - more on my point - they go UP from XVI to XX, which would indicate that the draft INCREASED as the boat settled. Hence my comment about a possible AIR draft.

Honestly, though, I think they're simply whimsical - and the welder either didn't know or was playing a joke on the owner.

Edit: <forehead slap> Of course the draft increases as the boat settles. Never mind my air draft comment. Still, the markings do not seem true to scale.

manyboats said:

WOW ... Can we do this again?

Click to expand...

Sure, how about this one:
1967 West Winds / Bill Garden Steel Trawler Power Boat For Sale



Kibitz quickly before it sells and the images vanish!

rufugio,
Nice flowing lines for an old steel boat. I'm going to take a wild guess and commit that that must be in Seattle.

Here's a prop on another boat in our yard .. a clipper bowed motor sailor. This prop is also a 4 blade but the blades are long and slender. The blade tips are very small and even smaller due to the profile shape at the tip. Skinny and pointy tips are much more efficient than wide tips. The wide tips provides large blade areas but there is many times more opportunity for water near the blade tips to tumble radially off the end of the blades loosing large amounts of thrust.

Airplane wings suffer or gain from the same proportions of their wings. Long and narrow like the wings of sailplanes gives great efficiency.

The lower the gear ratio and the bigger prop produces the greatest thrust .. BUT only at maximum output. The efficiency/rpm curve is rather steep for bigger and slower props and flattish for smaller higher speed props like outboards .. especially small ones. So at cruise speed (many trawlers at 25 to 30% load) a smaller faster prop would most likely be more efficient. But for maximum static thrust larger dia and slower speed is king. This paragraph is open to debate of course.

refugio said:

Sure, how about this one:
1967 West Winds / Bill Garden Steel Trawler Power Boat For Sale

Kibitz quickly before it sells and the images vanish!

Click to expand...

Notice that the operator is using the flybridge!.. of course with those crappy little windows I would stay outside the boat too!
HOLLYWOOD

424 Hp from a 6-71 natural? Not a chance.

Sailor of Fortune said:

424 Hp from a 6-71 natural? Not a chance.

Click to expand...

I agree another oddity to me is how does a vessel of this size only have a 20 gallon holding tank? Considering the sizes of the various fuel and water tanks I would think a much larger holding tank would be in order for when the boat is in marinas or protected waters.
The lower helm windows? Well they really make the vessel an ugly duckling and appear to really limit visibility but hey, that's just my opinion......
Bill

Bill111- Three way valve!

SoF- 424 hp claimed divided by 3 gives close to what an older block 671 was rated: 125 hp to 150 hp as I recall.

Refugio-Thanks!! had not thought to magnify the image.

As to this fine "Portholy" craft- It needs slanted forward portholes, and a review of the dinky anchor. Have to love the mid chain sheve. One would wonder if the stabilizers are part of the missing Keystone Pipeline!!:lol:

Al

"SoF- 424 hp claimed divided by 3 gives close to what an older block 671 was rated: 125 hp to 150 hp as I recall."

They give 424 hp for the 6-71 and 72hp for each of the silly wing engine arrangement.

Hadn't read the specifics detail on the site. It well would be that 400 plus hp to drive this rig. It is not as you state, in a single 671. I really believe the stats are confused not correct. What is depicted as the main is a 671. As far as I recall, even juiced to the hilt for a 671 400 hp would be a stretch and expect the engine to operate for the normal many house in marine duty.
However, as Eric is very good about using the lest hp for the max of hull performance, perhaps he will expound on your observation. It is inconceivable that the two dinky Perkins are allocated the responsibility of supporting the general cruising of this size vessel. nor is it conceivable that idling or stopping the main and driving the vessel under the power capacity of two dinky Perkins.

Al

The ad claims 7.5 knots at 1500RPM on the 6-71, burning 4.5 gph. That's about right and indicates a 6-71N, which is rated at about 240 HP at 2200 RPM. With a bit of creativity you can add the 144HP wing engines to the 240 of the main and get 425......

The single 6-71 running at 1500 is just fine for this big heavy boat. 4.5 gph is about 90HP......

Look under specs on the sale sheet. The 6-71 is listed at 424, then the wing engines are listed as 72hp each. Now look at the line that says Engines: total hp 568.

I would like that boat with the 6-71 by itself.

The brokers just were casual w their numbers. Screwing up the numbers a bit just attracts a little attention and brokers don't think that's a bad thing.

Al you make me sound like a hybrid type guy and I'm not. Too much weight, power and just about anything else is a stupid waste. I just don't like excess Al. Thanks for pay'in attention though.

This tri-motor steelie has 5hp per ton w only the DD. That's exactly what Willy has and I consider her to be very slightly overpowered. I suspect the Perky's were not part of the original design and in most ways not a positive addition to this vessel. Perhaps if the main were to be a 4-71 .....

No Eric, you are not considered hybrid until you install those funny sunny things connected to your batteries and running a electric egg beater!

What do you know about "sunny" Al?

I was born in Juneau and probably didn't see the sun till I was 2 or 3 months old. As a result my eyes are sensitive to bright sunlight. My favorite weather is cloudy and not raining. Most of the time that means not breezy either. Like

Thread drift!!! Eric-"Not Breezy" in your case is an oxymoron.

Al--Ketchikan June rainfall 13 inches

manyboats said:

The fore section is not very unusual except for her obvious heft. But the aft section is short by comparison and has a very steep buttock line.

Click to expand...

Nice steelwork, smooth round bottom. Seems to have the U/W shape of a lightship.

makobuilders wrote,
"Seems to have the U/W shape of a lightship."

What's "UV shape"?
I see what your'e thinking or seeing but the rockered banana shape is missing. I've not seen a Lightship showing her hull so I really don't know but basically I'd say no different shape. I think the Lightships had a wider hull at the WL like old sailing ships. Not sure so maybe your comparison is good.

Here's the only lightship I'm familiar with (sailed around it several times in the 1960s while it was anchored off the entrance to San Francisco Bay). Don't you just love the mushroom anchor? Presumably, its crews became accustomed to its continual intermittent fog horn.

Check-out this seriously equipped (if not a bit over-powered) 30 ft. trawler.

1983 Wetmore Pilothouse Trawler Power Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

healhustler said:

Check-out this seriously equipped (if not a bit over-powered) 30 ft. trawler.

1983 Wetmore Pilothouse Trawler Power Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Click to expand...

I don't believe the broker. No one is stupid enough to dump a half million dollars into rebuilding a 30ft boat with 2/3 of its hull plating rusted away. Statements like that will prevent it from selling!

makobuilders said:

I don't believe the broker. No one is stupid enough to dump a half million dollars into rebuilding a 30ft boat with 2/3 of its hull plating rusted away.

Click to expand...

I do believe the broker - and I think you misread the hull plating.

Odd that there are no pictures of the engine space, and the one helm photo not well cropped.

Interesting boat for sure. I want to like it, but all I see is me on my hands and knees with a needlegun all day for quite a while.

Hmmm... I have the exact same "Antique" brass helm wheel from Scotland. The radar appears to be of similar antiquity.

Those are some boogery looking welds on the aft starboard corner of the pilothouse, above the shore power.

refugio said:

I do believe the broker - and I think you misread the hull plating.

Odd that there are no pictures of the engine space, and the one helm photo not well cropped.

Click to expand...

"Every inch of the hull has been tested and approximately two-thirds of the hull plates have been replaced."

Wow, a half mil gets you this level of interior finish? I don't think even Feadship would charge that much to rebuild a boat this size! Don't boat brokers have some sort of professional obligation to state accurate facts about a boat and not just take a seller's outlandish remarks for granted???

Let's see, my time @ $120 an hour, lots and lots - and lot of hours later. Travel to and from the marine supply store "Boat Depot" as it were. Return trips to buy what you forgot the first time. A third trip to get what you really needed to fix the problem. Another return trip the next day to get what you need to fix the problems uncovered while fixing the problem you could see. Yeah. Half mil of work on the boat. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I say we all start prank calling him. Make some offers. start a bidding war. something.
Ask to see the receipts that total half a million?

Greetings,
Mr. b. I'd leave him well enough alone. I'm sure he doesn't need any "prank calls". IF he indeed was foolish enough to have spent $.5M refurbishing a $300K vessel, he has more problems than he can deal with at the moment. If that $.5M is the brokers addition, I'd suggest the broker be very careful. MJ is NOT legal in NC yet.

Many boats,
U/W ?
Under water ?

Just because I had some time, I called the broker who listed this boat. It's a donation, and even though the hull had substantial plating replaced there is currently an issue with the bilge where...wait for it...the current owner poured something to add weight to the boat to reduce the rolling because...can you imagine...the boat was "a bit top-heavy".

The broker does not have the $.5mm receipts in hand but has talked to the yard where the majority of the work was performed and believes that it was indeed spent.

I wasn't able to get a solid story on exactly why the hull was substantially re-plated, except that it might have been because the plate that was originally used was under-sized. I had originally read the ad to mean that the re-plating might have been done for any number of reasons other than rust (easier to remove the engine, replacing / enlarging tanks, changing the hull form) but now I truly have no idea why it was done.

Also, did anyone else notice that the price dropped THIS MORNING from $103K(ish) to $95K? Not related to this discussion, just because "it was time for a price drop".