Project for you troller lovers...

Opportunity for you troller lovers...

Early Spring 38' – Traditional West Coast 1941 Wooden Troller | powerboats, motorboats | North Shore | Kijiji

Love this style!

Love the boat. Engine WAY too big.

Very long and narrow. Deep draft (2' more than my Willy)
And amazingly double the weight of my Willard. Long, narrow and deep.
These would be considered extremes by almost anyone.
Would like to see her hauled. But I know just about exactly what she'll look like .... I'd just like to gawk at her hull and lines.

manyboats said:

Love the boat. Engine WAY too big.

Click to expand...

A 3-71 (rated about 60 hp continuous) is way too big for a 17 ton boat?

At least you didn't argue with her choice of anchors.

manyboats said:

Love the boat. Engine WAY too big.

Click to expand...

Not really, my troller is 36', 13 tons and 50 HP seems right altho use only about 15 at cruise.

Here you go Eric:





In the water profile:



And last but not least:

manyboats said:

Love the boat. Engine WAY too big.

Very long and narrow. Deep draft (2' more than my Willy)
And amazingly double the weight of my Willard. Long, narrow and deep.
These would be considered extremes by almost anyone.
Would like to see her hauled. But I know just about exactly what she'll look like .... I'd just like to gawk at her hull and lines.

Click to expand...

Eric, please, you really need to get over this obsession with motor size. That boat weighs twice mine, and is 4 ft longer, yet 120hp is not - repeat not - too powerful for mine, so how can a 60hp be way too big, even if the rating is not comparable directly..? Just because yours has a tiddley wee engine…

1941, those immortal words, "A day that will live in infamy" instantly come to mind as the US is dragged into WW2. Germany attacks Russia in 41 and the war goes global. The boat would have cost about 5K to build and all Canadian boats built were registered with the Queen and held on title for duty in her Majesty's service. 10 cents would buy a gallon of gas or a pack of cigarettes and if you made 40 -50 cents an hour you were doing well.

Delighted to see some of these old small ships still afloat. The thought of 17 tons of wood however is what nightmares are made of.

Well at first I thought I'd stepped in it this time.

Let's look at some of the numbers though. Numbers aren't my strong side but many of you relate well.

1. 17 tons displacement. I'm going to assume that's fully loaded and loaded would probably be 8 thousand lbs of fish, several thousand lbs of ice or a refrigeration system and probably more weight to make her a fully equipped fish boat. So that 17 tons disp would get whittled down to about 10 tons as a pleasure boat cruiser.

2. Sixty hp continuous is probably about 80hp maximum. So applying the hp per ton method of calculating power needed w 4hp per ton dictates a 40hp engine. The rule of thumb says about 4.5 hp per ton is about right for a FD hull. My Willy is at 5hp per ton (40hp) w a small excess of power. Never even come close to actually using all my power. And I'm sure the hp per ton calculation uses max power .. not continuous. Five hp per ton (the same power loading as my Willard) would give this troller 50hp.

3. Hull resistance wise the wetted surface is considerably more than my Willy but the wave making resistance is far less. Could be about the same resistance.

4. So I'm going to say the trollers maximum hp requirement (based on the above) is about 55. Probably a 3-53 would be much more appropriate that a 3-71.

So she's over powered. "Way over powered"? Maybe not so much but for a cruising vessel 55hp max should be enough. But this is based on the assumption that 17 tons disp is full of fish. If the displacement number of 17 tons is as she is now (a cruiser) she would definitely need more power ..Perhaps 70hp. But by the numbers if she was powered the same as Willy (hp per ton) she would need 85hp. But that's at 5hp per ton and that's a bit high for a good FD hull. And the troller obviously has a very fine FD hull.

So it depends on the trollers actual displacement. For its size though the hull of the troller is clearly very easily driven. Don't forget her beam is not even 10'. She's a canoe.

Greetings,
"...has a very fine FD hull." Indeed, as evidenced by her shapely buttocks.

Here is the Duwam.

A very similar boat however not a double ender w canoe stern she is larger .. probably w more beam, more draft and more disp. She's a Hanson design.

And the Duwam has a 3-71. A fully loaded Duwam probably requires considerably more power than the troller in this thread.

By the way Early Spring hasen't been much "converted". She even has the fishing cockpit aft still in place. That aft cabin is where the fish hold was. I had a 27' troller in the 70s very much like Early Spring. Took the GMC gas truck engine out of the cabin and put a 25hp gas Palmer flat head 4 cyl in the fish hold. Had plenty of power. At full throttle the stern would squat and the bow rose several inches.

Peter B said:

Eric, please, you really need to get over this obsession with motor size. That boat weighs twice mine, and is 4 ft longer, yet 120hp is not - repeat not - too powerful for mine, so how can a 60hp be way too big, even if the rating is not comparable directly..? Just because yours has a tiddley wee engine…

Click to expand...

Not only is this "on the mark", the last sentence is very funny!

Under the chair is where you need to be Walter.

And I don't like being called obsessed either.

She was powered as a troller. Includes hydraulics for gurdies and windlass. In addition, she probably carried 3-5 tons of ice and up to 3 tons or more of fish. 6-71's are traditional power plants for smaller fishing vessels in BC. In my opinion, not overpowered. Probably had an East Hope originally.


Jim
Sent from my iPad using Trawler Forum

manyboats said:

A very similar boat however not a double ender w canoe stern she is larger .. probably w more beam, more draft and more disp. She's a Hanson design. And the Duwam has a 3-71. A fully loaded Duwam probably requires considerably more power than the troller in this thread.

Click to expand...

Eric, there's no need to guess about these things. Duwam is USCG documented as 33.3 ft LOA and 10 tons, quite a bit smaller than Early Spring.

One of my slip mates (a self taught shipwright) has a boat of similar vintage but with a square stern. I believe it was formerly a gillnetter. He put trolling poles on her because they were surplus in the yard and he wanted stabilizers. He is now going through the process of replacing a whole lot of ribs and planks on the starboard side and the stern. The planks are yellow cedar but the ribs look like oak to me. The ribs were completely rotten, btw. He's been at it almost steadily for 2 months now and I recon he will be at it for 2 more months before he relaunches. Just a guess.

Quite frankly, re powering this vessel would be just silly, IMNHO. The more pressing project would be maintenance of the hull. Recorking is just part of it. A boat that is 75 YO, is a major, major project. I wouldn't touch a wood boat unless you are either a very good carpenter, or have very deep pockets! It's not sufficient to have a surveyor prior to finalizing purchase. I would have a qualified shipwright go over the vessel as well.

Lots of wood boats to look at on this site:

http://www.pacificboatbrokers.com/f...gory=2&hull_material=&length_from=&length_to=


Jim
Sent from my iPad using Trawler Forum

I was wonder'in if somebody'd look it up.

Sure it's not another by that name? Hard to believe Duwam's only 33' and 10 tons.
That's only 3' longer than my Willy and Willy is 8 tons. ???

Does it say where the owner resides? This one's in Petersburg Alaska. I spent some time (an hour or so) visiting w the owner and seeing the boat. To me it was huge. Most of that could be depth .. she was very deep. The cabin seemed a long way down from the wheelhouse. She was built in about 48 or 50. I probably shouldn't say with my questionable memory. HAHA Duwam actually looks short in my pic.

QB I looked it up. There was a fishing vessel by that name .. 10 tons, 33' ect but not really much information. What's (GRT) tonnage? No home port or even state information. The CG reg Duwam could be anywhere. But the name is unusual so it's probably the one. Another thing to add perspective to this is Brooksie's Willard 36. The W36 is definitely much bigger than Early Spring. Brooksie what is your W36 beam and displacement? You have the smaller Perkins right?

manyboats said:

I was wonder'in if somebody'd look it up.

Click to expand...

I was just wondering why you didn't!

Sure it's not another by that name?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Hard to believe Duwam's only 33' and 10 tons. That's only 3' longer than my Willy and Willy is 8 tons. ???

Click to expand...

Eric, displacement goes like length cubed. (33/30)^3 * 8 = 10.6 tons.

Does it say where the owner resides? This one's in Petersburg

Click to expand...

Do a search on USCG Vessel Search by Name. The owner also posts on salmontrolling.com from time to time.

Thanks QB!
That's the first time I've been on a CG site.
The Duwam's owner was a charming old fisherman that could be easily dubed into the star role of a movie "The Old Man and the Sea". A smallish and wirey man and I immediately liked him. I was amazed at how deep the boat was. It was about 5 years ago. We went to Wrangell and then to Bradfield Canal. An interesting trip and the old man of the Duwam was one of the highlights. Being fairly much a talker w strangers gets me to special places I'd otherwise miss. Chris was on Willy and I was out walking the docks .. floats actually. Petersburg is a great place to do that and there is few activities better than "walking the docks".

Running the numbers through HP requirement formula's from Bebee, Skeene and Gerr says the boat needs X HP to go to 1.34 hull speed.

Skeene is 44.5
Bebee says 55 HP.
Gerr is 67 or 72 HP.

There are two numbers from Gerr because there are three formulas that I know about....



Gerr has tweeked his formulas over the years and two of them are pretty much identical. In this case, two of the formulas popped out 72 HP and one was 67 HP.

I kinda discount Gerr's numbers since they are high and look at Bebee and Skeene. Skeene is always lower than Bebees so it seems any HP number between the two is in the ball park. Anything over Beebe's and approaching Gerr seem overpowered FOR FD HULL SPEED HP requirements. But one needs to consider other loads like alternator(s), hydraulics, etc.

50 HP seems is in the ball park for that boat.

Later,
Dan

Yes,
50hp sounds reasonable. 50 maximum hp. But I'd like to know the actual weight of Early Spring. Just those big trolling poles require additional power. I see they have been removed from Early Spring. Subtracting all these fishboat extra power requirements opens the door to more reasonable power needs. With 50 horsepower that boat should make her way into a lot of wind and waves. She's 10" narrower than my 30' boat and over 7' longer.

But nobody on TF is contemplating buying Early Spring .. are they?
She's got yew ribs and I don't know how durable Yew wood is but if this boat is actually good (unlikely) she'd be a real buy at $14K. But the house and deck is probably the issue.

When I bought my Celica GT4, I knew I didn't need 155kw (about 200hp) and a top speed of 240kph, (=~150mph), but I felt that was it was designed as a rally car, with all that implies, then if I just drove it sensibly, it would not even be breathing hard in normal use, and should be bullet-proof. This philosophy has been proven correct. I still love it and it's still going strong 25 years later, in near perfect condition at 270,000 km, (=~, oh bugger it, you do the damn US math).

Anyway, I sort of feel that boats are not that different. As I have on occasion been darned glad of the extra power to get me out of trouble, (and on occasion, as it is 4WD), tow someone else out of trouble, so also am I glad that my boat at hull speed is not really breathing that hard, has reserve, and on occasion I have actually used this to tow other grounded boats off. As I see it, as long as it's up to operating temp, further load is largely irrelevant, and it is so frugal I don't mind buying the bit extra fuel for that reserve. The fact it is still effective purring, and 'using no oil', (I know - they'll use a bit - gotta, right), at some 5000 hrs plus, I think I'm not far wrong - just saying'.

Hope everyone in the discussion understands the difference between displacement weight and documented gross tonnage....they can be quite a bit different.


http://www.uscg.mil/hq/msc/docs/CG-5397.pdf


http://www.qualitymaritime.info/Press/Guide_Tonnage_Simplified_0.pdf


Definitions from Wiki....but the above shows the diff....


Tonnage is a measure of the cargo-carrying capacity of a ship. The term derives from the taxation paid on tuns or casks of wine, and was later used in reference to the weight of a ship's cargo; however, in modern maritime usage, "tonnage" specifically refers to a calculation of the volume or cargo volume of a ship. Tonnage should not be confused with displacement, which refers to the actual weight of the vessel.
Measurement of tonnage can be complicated, not least because it is used to assess fees on commercial shipping.

Thank you Scott,
I suspected as much.

We're up early for a road trip to get a new trans oil cooler so not much time.
So for our purposes tonnage numbers have no value. Would be nice to know what Early Spring weighs but I don't think it will come to pass. In this case guessing is probably about as close as we'll come.

I tried to find some comparable boats w displacement numbers but didn't do well at all.

For me I'd do well to study QB and dannc's previous posts and see if I can learn more. Anyway when I said "WAY" over powered I a bit off or more and I WAS WAY off re Duwam's size. However I do think Early Spring would be better served w a 3-53.

QB wrote "Eric, displacement goes like length cubed. (33/30)^3 * 8 = 10.6 tons." My guess for Early Spring's weight was 10 tons. Maybe I was not far off. My estimate for Willy's power requirement is 30 to 33hp. I put 40 in her and it seems very close to ideal. That's 5hp per ton. Skeene says 44hp. Dan's conclusion of 50hp seems extremely correct but w my own experience I finally decided I could actually do w 6 to 8 hp less. But if I repowered again would I have the guts to go to 4lbs per hp (33 for Willy) ..... probably not.

psneeld said:

Hope everyone in the discussion understands the difference between displacement weight and documented gross tonnage....they can be quite a bit different.

Click to expand...

This is true. Also USCG and Transport Canada rules for measuring gross and net tonnage are somewhat different, and here we are comparing a US and a Canadian boat.

QB said:

This is true. Also USCG and Transport Canada rules for measuring gross and net tonnage are somewhat different, and here we are comparing a US and a Canadian boat.

Click to expand...

fair enough...just a reminder for those that didn't know that for US vessels...

Do you have a link for Canadian Vessel measurement so I can compare the calculations?


One quick glance at one source showed the measuring to be similar as it is about volume vesus weight....


http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/wwwdocs/Forms/85-0405E_1408-10_E_X.pdf

psneeld said:

Hope everyone in the discussion understands the difference between displacement weight and documented gross tonnage....they can be quite a bit different...

Click to expand...

Hobo has a design displacement at 1/2 load of 17.63 tons and her gross tonnage is 36 tons and her net tonnage is 29. When we were overseas on our last boat, sometimes port fees were calculated on the net tonnage and in our case it wasn't very much.

psneeld said:

One quick glance at one source showed the measuring to be similar as it is about volume vesus weight....http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/wwwdocs/Forms/85-0405E_1408-10_E_X.pdf

Click to expand...

Yes and the corresponding simplified US method is here: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/msc/tonnage/docs/TG-1_Current.pdf. They use different shape factor coefficients, account for above-deck structures differently, etc.

Then there are various non-simplified formal tonnage measurement schemes that have been used in the past. These days the US and Canada are supposed to be following the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships and large commercial vessels' measurements should be updated to that by now, but not necessarily for smaller boats.

You are right that all these tonnage measurements are volume based and don't actually involve weighing the vessel. Since a floating boat's displaced volume of water equals its weight, one might hope that they should be comparable, but that is not often the case.