Advice on weird looking trawler.

Tony B wrote:
That boat is much prettier in person than in that picture. On a "cool" scale of 1 to 10 - this is a 9.5. Not to mention the great fuel economy.

I have lived aboard a much smaller boat.

Here is your opportunity. From your $50K you have for a boat, you will have about $23K change back. That could finance a nice river trip.

I vote 'go for it'.



-- Edited by Tony B on Wednesday 27th of July 2011 09:14:33 PM



-- Edited by Tony B on Wednesday 27th of July 2011 09:21:52 PM

Click to expand...

*Understood.. Thanks for that -- will process your advice... Think I've transitioned, through learniing process* to -* smaller and fiberglass --- but, will re-evalutate..*

FF wrote:
Just look at the windows of any dream boat.

1/4 glass ??? or 1 inch with reinforced mounts?

Our 33 ft ,90/90 uses heavy bronze WWII liberty ship ports , 12inch diameter with 3/4 glass , AND aluminum dead lights , just in case.

A smaller boat has it easier staying on top, and with a modest depth keel yeilding to the blows , but green water crashing aboard is a given , even with higher free board.

Click to expand...

*Cool! I like that concept, as I mentioned, based on all your input (even the reluctant/sarcastic ones) I"ve scaled back my ship specs to something that is functional and practical lke that.

I"ve scaled back my ship specs to something that is functional and practical lke that.

Great , but if you wish to go blue water it will still take near a $100K boat to do it in style ,

although $25K will get you round the world , but no ice in your drinks and only a sleeping bag rather than central heat..

waterhawk wrote:
I'm just leary of fiberglass;* ....Anyway,, my impression, from PURE reading (no experience with Sea/Ocean crossing performance), was that the thought was fiberglass is cool as long as you are close enough to get help,....

Click to expand...

*Steel can be far more of a hassle than fiberglass.* Steel boats rust, not so much from the outside in but from the inside out.* I have good friends who had a steel boat and they spent a hell of a lot of time making sure the bilges--- which were not all that easy to get at--- were bone dry all the time.

The best (arguably) production powerboat for world cruising is the Nordhavn.* They have been taken around the world, across the Atlantic to the Med, into the western Pacific from the US west coast, etc., etc., etc.* Nordhavn's are fiberglass.* It's my opinon that working boats and many commercial fish boats are steel (or aluminum) because these materials will take more*of a beating from the work being done with them, not because metal hulls are automatically*more seaworthy or long-lived.

As to circumnavigating (or even just crossing an ocean one way) with a powerboat, one of the determining factors is fuel capacity and fuel usage. Nordhavns are displacement hull, single engine boats.* And the engines tend toward Eric Henning's formula as being not much more powerful than is needed to move the hull at or near displacement speed plus a reasonable reserve.* This enables them to cruise very long distances on the fuel that can be carried in the tanks.* Also many Nordhavn's have get-home engines, a separate small diesel that powers it's own shaft and small prop.

A production "trawler" of the type most of us have, be it a GB, Carver, CHB, Island Gypsy, Calfornian, etc. is a coastal design, be it a single or twin engine boat.* They may be fine for shorter, open ocean runs to Catalina or out to the Florida Keys or even the Bahamas if the weather is really cooperative.* But they are not suited for long-distance open ocean work.* They don't have anywhere near the range, their hulls are not as stable as one would like, they have big windows that will shatter under the impact of green water if the weather and waves kick up, etc.

If one's true goal is long-distance, open-ocean cruising and if one cannot afford the purchase, care* and*feeding cost of a Nordhavn (or the equivelant) the only realistic choice is a sailboat, although it, too, needs to be designed for this kind of sailing.

And as an earlier poster said, ocean-crossing or circumnavitation is not as much about the boat (although you still need one capable of surviving the conditions likely to be encountered and reliable enough to keep running for the duration), but is more about the boat's driver.

"the only realistic choice is a sailboat, although it, too, needs to be designed for this kind of sailing.the only realistic choice is a sailboat, although it, too, needs to be designed for this kind of sailing."

However because it need not carry 2000 -4000G of fuel for the longer stretches it can be far smaller.

My sailboat, an Allied 39' Ketch rig is an ocean crossing vessel. Allieds have circumnavigated and have a great reputation for quality. If you motor at 5.5 knots, you will get around 7.5 miles/gal. It has a 4 cylinder diesel - Westerbeke - usually burns 3/4 gal or less at 5.5 knots. ...............
And it's for sale.
So........quit talkin' and start buying**

Tony,

Underloading a 40hp engine seems unusual but you seem to have done it. Is the base engine a Perkins or a Mitsubishi? If it's a Perkins I wonder if it's a 107 or 108. Can you post a picture of the Allied? I've never heard of it.

nomadwilly wrote:
Tony,

Underloading a 40hp engine seems unusual but you seem to have done it. Is the base engine a Perkins or a Mitsubishi? If it's a Perkins I wonder if it's a 107 or 108. Can you post a picture of the Allied? I've never heard of it.

Click to expand...

*I am aware of underloading an engine. When on a long motoring passage, I run the rpm's up for a period of time and then back down again. It is a Perkins base engine and I believe it is a 107, but not sure.

*

Here is the link**** http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1976/Allied-Mistress-2377262/Kemah/TX/United-States


-- Edited by Tony B on Thursday 4th of August 2011 11:11:21 AM

I looked Tony,

I like the interior. Less cave like than most sail boats. If the engine has wet sleeves it's a 107 otherwise ot's a 108. That's what I had in Willy when I bought her. Can you easily make 6.25 knots on a gallon an hour? Some Willard's have that same engine.

nomadwilly wrote:
I looked Tony,

I like the interior. Less cave like than most sail boats. If the engine has wet sleeves it's a 107 otherwise ot's a 108. That's what I had in Willy when I bought her. Can you easily make 6.25 knots on a gallon an hour? Some Willard's have that same engine.

Click to expand...

*I don't know anything about engines, not even what a wet sleeve is. I don't know for fact, but I'm sure I could make 6.25 on 1 gal/hour. It's right about that 6.25 where I seem to pushing the RPM's up and not gaining significantly more speed. Other than in and out of the marina area and channels,*I only use the engine when out there wallowing in no wind. The boat is not a slug. It sails in fairly light air. Most blue water sailboats are like tanks and sail like tanks.

"Underloading a 40hp engine seems unusual but you seem to have done it."

That would be true IF the engine was actually built to produce 40 hp on a cont basis.

The 107 -108 is like the Ford tractor marinizations , the "rated " hp is more an auto than an industrial hp rating.

The 107 would live a short life at b2,2 -2.5 gph consumption.

Most sail builders thought of it as a 25 hp engine so taking 13 -17 hp out is just fine.

Same with the Ford , no boat assembler would use one with a 130hp cont. load 7gph just isn't where they shine.

An engine built as a medium duty engine has less of the loading constraints of an industrial engine .

"The 107 would live a short life at b2,2 -2.5 gph consumption."

Indeed. I think the WOT consumption is 2gph. Consider that the FL 120 is almost 4 times as big as the little Perkins. Actually I think the Perkins 107 WOT consumption is probably under 2gph. And yes FF the 107 has some strange ratings up to 50hp. With the same hp per cu in the FL120 would probably be close to 200hp. I'm anxious to hear if Tony's sail boat can do 6.25 knots at 1gph.