1 engine or 2?

Xraycharlie wrote:
I am planning to purchase a used trawler in the 40-45 foot range in the next few years. One of the things I am not sure about is going with one engine or two. *

*Can I get some input from my experienced friends on this site?*

*Charlie,

There are quite a few new folks on TF that have just purchased boats.

Perhaps they can give you some insight as to what influenced their decision.*** KJ

Click to expand...

*


-- Edited by KJ on Sunday 27th of March 2011 12:10:02 AM

Who started this again?!

Keith - in the single engine camp.

We're in the twin engine camp....*


-- Edited by Delia Rosa on Sunday 27th of March 2011 04:28:16 PM

Xraycharlie wrote:
I am planning to purchase a used trawler in the 40-45 foot range in the next few years. One of the things I am not sure about is going with one engine or two.*

Click to expand...

*A true trawler in the 40-45 ft range is easily powered by a single normally aspirated engine many with a track record of excellent service. With proper service the likely hood*of a surprise engine failure is very small and in my opinion well worth the risk, even in the Bahamas. The extra cost and maintenance of another engine just makes the negative aspects (more work) of boating more apparent. Regardless I would carry an EPIRB or other reliable communication device when boating in isolated areas, regardless of one or 2 engines. If for nothing else, medical emergencies.*

But I think there are more issues to consider. When searching for a boat for me and my wife, I could not fine a trawler in our price range that my wife liked. Most where all beat to h*ll and I could hardly get her to look at them, ever though I felt there was potential. We finally settled on a go fast twin and I have no regrets. She loves going on the boat and that means more to me than anything else.*

I know this discussion is not about going fast or not, and having come from many years as a sailor I really thought a trawler would suit my needs. However now with the capability of going 15-20 knots our cruising area has expanded*exponentially. Our favorite anchorage is about 30 miles and just was not do able on a weekend when sailing. However now that and many other areas are easily cruised to on weekends with plenty of time at the anchorage. If you have all the time in the world, the go fast aspect is not as important of course, but just the capability of getting somewhere before sun set that you might not otherwise be able to do is comforting.*

Choice of engines is another important factor one that is not normally discussed. A normally aspirated Perkins or Ford Lehman even if somewhat abused is still pretty reliable. Not so with a high*performance*turbo charged diesel with raw water-cooling. I have two of these high*performance*diesels and though I can go like h*ll they can be*temperamental. They are reliable if properly maintained, but I don't think I would get a single engine boat with one of these engines.*

If you get a twin you do have the option of using just one engine. This has been discussed before on this forum:*http://www.trawlerforum.com/forum.spark?aBID=115492&topicID=38913265&p=3

My experience shows significant fuel savings though if you read the above thread not all agree. Some will argue why buy a twin if you cruise on one. My reply: Options; to save fuel if desired or get there fast if necessary.* Blocking of the shaft on the unused engine is necessary and probably more work that its worth, but to each his own.

Good luck on your search and let us know what you get.*

*

*

*

*

Mike, I think it is interesting how the twin engine hull appears to be ready for conversion to a single???!!!!! Just an observation.

nomadwilly wrote:
Our life style robs men of huge amounts of masculinity and many feel the need to fill that hole.*

Click to expand...

*

*Willy, speak for yourself!!! *No empty holes here!!! *I'm so comfortable in my manliness I sport my baldness with pride and my disproportionately hot wife is about 3 inches taller than I am.......AND...I have a single engine WITH a bow thruster!!!!!! *There are lifestyles that provide plenty of ego enhancement!!!...

*


-- Edited by Baker on Sunday 27th of March 2011 10:24:35 AM

AND............................

FWIW....B747 aircraft(4 engine) have more diversions during extended range operations than B777s(2 engine) do!!! That is fact....deduct whatever you want out of that!!!!

Baker wrote:*Willy, speak for yourself!!! *No empty holes here!!! ________________________________________________________________

Click to expand...

******* LMAO!* I love it!! I concur. None here either.....all boat decisions are mine as well as** the household budget. (Now, Jennifer, don't get bent out of shape. It's strictly a guy thing!)

Baker wrote:...I have a single engine WITH a bow thruster!!!!!!**...

Click to expand...

*Ditto!*
<table class="genmed" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="100">*</td><td width="40"></td></tr></tbody></table>
*

Baker wrote:
AND............................

FWIW....B747 aircraft(4 engine) have more diversions during extended range operations than B777s(2 engine) do!!! That is fact....deduct whatever you want out of that!!!!

Click to expand...

*Hey guys, we need to cut Baker a lot of slack.* He is working under great pressure.


*


-- Edited by Moonstruck on Sunday 27th of March 2011 04:06:39 PM

And as far as the bow thruster goes....it could be considered an "extension" of sorts. I go to many waterside establishments by boat. I will say that most people do not get to see bow thrusters at work. Many don't even know what one is and wonder what the hell is going on up near the bow!!! And when I am using mine, the "peanut gallery" is quite enthralled with watching it work!!!...jus sayin'! IOW, you can show off with it to the not so informed. Obviously the informed will think you are cheating!!!

*

Re: inflight diverts...

*

More 747s flying than 777s?



more 747 hours flown than 777s?


-- Edited by xfedex on Sunday 27th of March 2011 03:33:51 PM

Baker wrote:...I have a single engine WITH a bow thruster!!!!!!**...

Click to expand...

*
We have twin engines with both bow and stern thrusters.... no manliness issues on our boat - we just want to make it into our dock as easily as possible!

Delia Rosa wrote:Baker wrote:...I have a single engine WITH a bow thruster!!!!!!**...

Click to expand...

*
We have twin engines with both bow and stern thrusters.... no manliness issues on our boat - we just want to make it into our dock as easily as possible!
*Double your pleasure.* Double your fun.

*


-- Edited by Moonstruck on Sunday 27th of March 2011 04:52:35 PM

Baker,

I'm not speak'in for myself or you either. I would'nt be making statements that intimate about anyone here**** ....I was speaking of people (guys) in general in our country. I'll bet a marketing expert would know all about it. And yes I prefer tall women too. I seem to marry the short ones though. The perfect woman is 5'8" and 160lbs. John, add a stern thruster and you'll be able to back up straight too. And if you had a twin you'd be better able to back up fairly straight in a cross wind. And if you're engine quits in a bad spot you've got options beyond the anchor. Just tooooo many advantages w twins.

Walt says:** "all boat decisions are mine as well as** the household budget" Sounds very traditional * * .....as in 1940.

I prefer single engines setup for all the usual reasons previously mentioned. I certainly would not let a good deal on a twin slip by just because it was a twin. Just my preference- no need to defend.

Baker wrote:
And as far as the bow thruster goes....it could be considered an "extension" of sorts. I go to many waterside establishments by boat. I will say that most people do not get to see bow thrusters at work. Many don't even know what one is and wonder what the hell is going on up near the bow!!! And when I am using mine, the "peanut gallery" is quite enthralled with watching it work!!!...jus sayin'! IOW, you can show off with it to the not so informed. Obviously the informed will think you are cheating!!!

Click to expand...

*BTW, did you hear Judge's closed up? All boarded up with a note "closed for winter". Now who's gonna believe that? Another note saying the dishwasher belongs to XXX and to call xxx-xxx-xxxx.

*

nomadwilly wrote:
And yes I prefer tall women too. I seem to marry the short ones though. The perfect woman is 5'8" and 160lbs

Click to expand...

*My first wife was*two inches taller than me.* But believe, a five-foot-two female*is much better for us 68-incher-types, leastwhiles for me!

*

Just curious - do 767's have more flight diversions than 747's, on long haul flights? Or DC-10's? Perhaps the 777 have newer engine technology, so more reliable.
(I've always been a fan of 747's - my Dad worked for 36 years in VARIG, the Brazilian carrier).

And - as an aside - what's your thoughts on Aerobus and fly by wire?


-- Edited by 7tiger7 on Sunday 27th of March 2011 09:19:01 PM

7tiger7 wrote:

And - as an aside - what's your thoughts on Aerobus and fly by wire?

Click to expand...

*

*Oh please don't go there.*

Fly by wire was designed for folks who don't know how to fly. Or perhaps big brother watching over you so you can't hurt yourself.*

Xfedx, that was based on an average....on a per flight hour basis....not just a gross comparison.

Tiger...not sure about 767s...although that is what I fly. I had just read it in a particular article in AW&ST. It really wasn't an issue of engine technology...just about the reliability of flight ops as it relates to the number of engines.

Not a fan of Airbus either. There have been a couple of accidents that are not directly related to FBW but they are related to the philosophy of Airbus. But strangely, nobody brings it to light. My pure speculation ref the Air France flight out of Rio(147???) was an issue of "garbage in....garbage out". I do believe the pilots got themselves in a bad situation(flew into thunderstorms) and then the pitot tubes froze up....giving bad data to the "envelop protection"" computers and ultimately did not allow the pilots to fly out of the situations. And let's not mention that the entire crew had less total time than me....in total!!!! That is a RickB arguement. But ultimately, it was the pilot's fault(my speculation) and the "envelop protection" provided with bad data sealed their fate....again....total speculation on my part.

It took me a while to figure out what that symbol on the hull meant.*

*

markpierce wrote:
It took me a while to figure out what that symbol on the hull meant.*

*

Click to expand...

*

**********I think it shows where your bow thruster is?** Right?** JohnP

"Nuclear reactor here."

I've always called boats like this a "penis extender."

Never thought about questioning my own masculinity, only other people's

"Must......... get.......... to............. fish....................FAST!!!! Fish, Fish, Fish, Fish, Fish, Fish, Fish."

Egregious wrote:
I've always called boats like this a "penis extender."

Never thought about questioning my own masculinity, only other people's

Click to expand...

*

*Woody, that is not really a penis extender. *That boat actually has a purpose. *It is the go fast boats that I call penis extenders. *Every time one flies by us...my wife holds up her hand with index finger and thumb out.....about an inch apart....haha


-- Edited by Baker on Monday 28th of March 2011 09:26:43 AM

Baker wrote:Egregious wrote:
I've always called boats like this a "penis extender."

Never thought about questioning my own masculinity, only other people's

Click to expand...

*

*Woody, that is not really a penis extender. *That boat actually has a purpose. *It is the go fast boats that I call penis extenders. *Every time one flies by us...my wife holds up her hand with index finger and thumb out.....about an inch apart....haha



-- Edited by Baker on Monday 28th of March 2011 09:26:43 AM

*

My wife does the same thing!

I assume you're joking, right?* 4 X 300 HP and that is not a "go fast" boat?* Used to be a fishing boat meant it was comfortable in heavy seas and went fast enough to get you there.* I'm sorry, you can't drive 60MPH in even moderate seas and still be safe.* But my definition of fishing is a surf rig and some blood worms...

I guess all I am saying is that I don't think he hung those engines just for the sole purpose of going fast....for going fast's sake. He did it to get to the fishing grounds faster. It is common around here because the deeper water starts about 60 miles from Galveston(Red Snapper....Tuna and Billfish you have to go 100 miles). There is a BIG difference between going 20 knots and going 50 kts when you have to cover 60+ miles going both ways. And it isn't always about going fast in "moderate seas". Most people don't enjoy fishing in "moderate seas" and don't even attempt it. But if you can cruise at 50-60kts you can sure get a lot of fishing done around these parts!!!!....and still make it back in the same day! THis isn't an issue if there is a drop off near where you fish....like in the Pacific...or even the canyons near New Orleans. Those guys just stick their nose out and they are in 6000ft of water. We live on a friggin sandbar up here!!!!

Xraycharlie wrote:If you get a twin you do have the option of using just one engine. This has been discussed before on this forum:*http://www.trawlerforum.com/forum.spark?aBID=115492&topicID=38913265&p=3

Click to expand...

Howdy again, to*all...

Being late to this # of engines - VS - fuel-economy*topic/party, I can see by reading every entry on*Xraycharlie's link (see above), that the 1 or 2 engine quandary has been considerably*hashed over previously in detail!* Basic*harmony to many of the entries...*"What's good for the goose ain't necessarily good for the gander!" Or, "Different strokes for different folks!" Or, in finality...*"Each to their own!"

With that said - and without getting into geometric*formulas: Simply by hours run in accordance with miles traveled between identical locations using exact same travel course - as per gallons used between fill ups...*I KNOW that my 34'*Tollycraft tri cabin planing hull*gets considerably better GPNM running on either*single screw at just below hull speed; rather than single screw at hull speed, or twin screw at either speed, or twin at*any a planing speed. Cheers! Art

PS: BTW, just for interest sake Our Tolly runs on her very clean bottom with low hour, well tuned, 1977 Mercruiser 350 cid 255 HP, carbureted gas engines... 71C BW transmission w/ 1.51 reduction... 17 x 16 props on 1.25" shafts.* I alter the use of single engine per each hour running*while cruising on one screw at below hull speed (around 6.5 knts)... keeps all the drive line juices flowing and similar hours per engine.* At full hull speed or on planing speeds I use twin screw so that no one engine can be over taxed.* The single screw below hull speed cruise is utilized in SF Bay Area Deltas fresh water canals where there are often 5 MPH speed limits while passing mariners/towns and for common courtesy applied for wake reductions when passing island docks and/or shore berthed boats.* So... aint no need to go fast therein anyway!* And, after all, in a comfortable cruising boat its the enjoyment of the journey that is equally as important as the destination reached! ***