Additional Tankage (Fuel)

Hi,

While I look at the field of available models for my and my wife's Pacific (probably) cruise, I note that most models I would be interested in don't have sufficient tankage to make the passage from CA to HI, or HI to Tahiti, so add'l fuel will be needed.

Are there any opinions or advice on bringing add'l fuel capacity onboard. I see fuel bladders available, for example. Would they be a good choice, and best placed on-deck or in engine room.

One of the boats that I've seriously looked at is the Hatteras 42 LRC Mk II, most seem to have 4-53 DDs.

Home

Brian Calvert made the puddle jump (MX to French Polynesia) with a bladder in the cockpit.

How big a bladder(s) would you need for those crossings and fuel weight?

A 42 LRC doesn’t have a cockpit. A bladder would have to be pretty high and the CG may be effected.

Not to disparage Hatteras, since I own one, but the LRC with twin Detroit's may not be the best boat for the long ocean passages you mention. You might want to check out Beebe and Leischman's book, 'Voyaging Under Power' which discusses aspects of long ocean trips in a power boat. Leischman was one of the founders of Nordhavn.

Pacific Ocean crossings to Hawaii & Tahiti & Marqueses - big jump for a S/D twin

My first question is have you ever crossed an open ocean on a small 42 foot power boat ? -- It is not something you just jump out there & go do it on a whim, as many safety concerns for long range open ocean passage making trips with a small power boat that are weeks long & so many things can go wrong running 16 days or more in a row -- all done running 24/7 or more, at a minimum of 2 weeks or possibly 3 weeks or longer non-stop on that type of trip. -- More to it than just fuel range in still water !

Pacific Ocean crossings to Hawaii & Tahiti & maybe even the Marquises - Those are a big jump for a typical twin engine Semi-Displacement Coastal Trawler designs like the Hatteras 42 LRC Mk II or similar boats in the 42 footer size. -- personally I would want a ballasted full displacement boat under my sea boots for any of those trips.

We have a few guys here on TF that have done these type long open ocean trips & I am sure they will pipe in, (I hope). I went to Hawaii & back in my 42 footer single engine Kadey Krogen 42 & the trip there was relatively easy, however, the trip back was a longer one & not so easy.
-- However, I have Never made it to Tahiti ! -- so something for me to yet shoot for.

BTW - it also may be questionable if many of those typical twin engine Semi-Displacement coastal trawler boats designs that are typically in this 42 footer size have the seakeeping & strength qualities for that long of an open ocean crossing. -
Not saying you can't do it, Delivery Captains do take boats to Hawaii relatively regularly, but, timing would be critical & weather is super critical. Maybe run on one engine & take the other prop off to reduce drag.

Any Fuel bladders needed to give you the fuel capacity to do this trip should be stored as "LOW" in the boat as possible for center of gravity & safety reasons. A center of gravity to high can be death to you & crew, so take that very seriously when working out the details of that, Fuel is very heavy.

But of the ones I know about personally, who have done this type of trip, It seems the single engine boats seem more suited in fuel consumption & range capability considering the standard fuel carried aboard in the typical 42 foot sized trawlers that are Semi-Displacement or even full displacement designs that you might be considering to use for attempting this type of long range open ocean crossing passage making type trips.

So for me - IMHO, As to sea keeping abilities for a trip like that, where there is no where to hide if the weather gets bad, I would insist on a ballasted full displacement hull design boat.

There are a few good Full Displacement Single Engine Diesel Trawlers in the size range your discussing that would do it without to much problem, like for example: Kadey Krogen 42's & such boats like that have made similar crossings & of course Nordhavn's, Saline's, Diesel Ducks, etc. - But, all I know of had single engines & all I mentioned above are ballasted full displacement hull design boats.

So be sure & do more research before taking on this challenge. And Please, Don't forget your trip back home & what that entails, as it's not a two lane freeway out there.

I am asking the other TF captains out there that have done this type of Pacific ocean long range passage making type trip, to please pipe in with what they think as well.

Please, READ Beebe and Leischman's book, 'Voyaging Under Power' which discusses many aspects of long ocean trips in a power boat.

Good Luck.

Alfa Mike

I did read an article about a guy single handing a Grand Banks 42 from Hawaii to Seattle. He ran on one engine and removed the other prop. Halfway back he reinstalled the prop and removed the other one to even out the engine hours. I think he was crazy but he made it so I guess it can be done...

Changing prop mid ocean

Boy - single handing it for all that way & then changing the prop under water mid ocean with only you on the boat is not for the faint of heart.

Not the way I would do it, but that just shows it can be done.

If you slip or miss handle the prop or securing nuts, & you drop it -- or if you drop a tool or anything else -- it is gone forever.

Must have been some trip.

Alfa Mike

Years ago as a albacore fisherman I made the trip from the West Coast to Hawaii and then to Midway. Early in the season, albacore could be met about 1500 miles NW of Midway Island when sometimes there was a buy boat. Albacore could be fished all the way to the US over a couple months and several trips.

Most people had bladders, some had plastic 55 gallon drums. Usually stored in their fish holds until empty. The bladders are better because they can be rolled up and stored out of the way, like on cabin tops. Unless you have a heavy boat, the temporary fuel needs to be kept low for stability. Long distance fishing boats might have several thousand gallons of fuel and water in permanent tanks and can flood their hold for stability. So on deck tanks are ok. But most yachts are somewhat top heavy with limited in hull tankage.

On Detroit 53 series 2 cycle engines. They are reliable. Much more than the typical yacht engine. They are 100% mechanical and have no electronics and no injector pump. I made my crossings with Detroits and must have thousands of hours on the ocean with them. They can be economical at the right speed in the right hull. Especially natural engines. I have a pair now. While I prefer twins, for economy in ocean crossings, a single is better.
Weather is another story.

alfamike said:

My first question is have you ever crossed an open ocean on a small 42 foot power boat ? -- It is not something you just jump out there & go do it on a whim, as many safety concerns for long range open ocean passage making trips with a small power boat that are weeks long & so many things can go wrong running 16 days or more in a row -- all done running 24/7 or more, at a minimum of 2 weeks or possibly 3 weeks or longer non-stop on that type of trip. -- More to it than just fuel range in still water !

Pacific Ocean crossings to Hawaii & Tahiti & maybe even the Marquises - Those are a big jump for a typical twin engine Semi-Displacement Coastal Trawler designs like the Hatteras 42 LRC Mk II or similar boats in the 42 footer size. -- personally I would want a ballasted full displacement boat under my sea boots for any of those trips.

We have a few guys here on TF that have done these type long open ocean trips & I am sure they will pipe in, (I hope). I went to Hawaii & back in my 42 footer single engine Kadey Krogen 42 & the trip there was relatively easy, however, the trip back was a longer one & not so easy.
-- However, I have Never made it to Tahiti ! -- so something for me to yet shoot for.

BTW - it also may be questionable if many of those typical twin engine Semi-Displacement coastal trawler boats designs that are typically in this 42 footer size have the seakeeping & strength qualities for that long of an open ocean crossing. -
Not saying you can't do it, Delivery Captains do take boats to Hawaii relatively regularly, but, timing would be critical & weather is super critical. Maybe run on one engine & take the other prop off to reduce drag.

Any Fuel bladders needed to give you the fuel capacity to do this trip should be stored as "LOW" in the boat as possible for center of gravity & safety reasons. A center of gravity to high can be death to you & crew, so take that very seriously when working out the details of that, Fuel is very heavy.

But of the ones I know about personally, who have done this type of trip, It seems the single engine boats seem more suited in fuel consumption & range capability considering the standard fuel carried aboard in the typical 42 foot sized trawlers that are Semi-Displacement or even full displacement designs that you might be considering to use for attempting this type of long range open ocean crossing passage making type trips.

So for me - IMHO, As to sea keeping abilities for a trip like that, where there is no where to hide if the weather gets bad, I would insist on a ballasted full displacement hull design boat.

There are a few good Full Displacement Single Engine Diesel Trawlers in the size range your discussing that would do it without to much problem, like for example: Kadey Krogen 42's & such boats like that have made similar crossings & of course Nordhavn's, Saline's, Diesel Ducks, etc. - But, all I know of had single engines & all I mentioned above are ballasted full displacement hull design boats.

So be sure & do more research before taking on this challenge. And Please, Don't forget your trip back home & what that entails, as it's not a two lane freeway out there.

I am asking the other TF captains out there that have done this type of Pacific ocean long range passage making type trip, to please pipe in with what they think as well.

Please, READ Beebe and Leischman's book, 'Voyaging Under Power' which discusses many aspects of long ocean trips in a power boat.

Good Luck.

Alfa Mike

Click to expand...

Thank you for your informative reply. I have given the one vs two engine issue much thought, and my loose affiliation with aviation tells me that two engines are better, much better, than one. In a twin, if one engine goes, you stay up, in a single, if one dies, you go down, often fatally.

I was working on a construction crew once, running dozers and loaders, when a loose piece of metal jammed the oil pump, and the turbo died from oil starvation. Luckily, the engine was stopped before it seized up, but it wasn't going anywhere for a while. If that engine had been in a single-engine boat, big problems.

Open-d said:

Thank you for your informative reply. I have given the one vs two engine issue much thought, and my loose affiliation with aviation tells me that two engines are better, much better, than one. In a twin, if one engine goes, you stay up, in a single, if one dies, you go down, often fatally.

I was working on a construction crew once, running dozers and loaders, when a loose piece of metal jammed the oil pump, and the turbo died from oil starvation. Luckily, the engine was stopped before it seized up, but it wasn't going anywhere for a while. If that engine had been in a single-engine boat, big problems.

Click to expand...

You also have very different parameters between aviation and maritime travel- biggest one is that you have access to the engine while underway to investigate and maintain/repair as necessary. Many transoceanic ships have but a single engine that loaf along at a fraction of total rated HP and work FORTRAN it thousands of hours without incident.

With twins, you have double the maintenance, and must carry double the spares. Fuel burn on twins can be negligible compared to a single, or can be vastly different. The redundancy is indeed there, but, for what you envision, are twins really necessary?

I don’t think so...

The drug smugglers in the Caribbean prefer bladder tanks made by ATL. I sold a bunch of them for cash. Talk to ATL about your intended use.
http://atlinc.com/

Pau Hana said:

You also have very different parameters between aviation and maritime travel- biggest one is that you have access to the engine while underway to investigate and maintain/repair as necessary. Many transoceanic ships have but a single engine that loaf along at a fraction of total rated HP and work FORTRAN it thousands of hours without incident.

With twins, you have double the maintenance, and must carry double the spares. Fuel burn on twins can be negligible compared to a single, or can be vastly different. The redundancy is indeed there, but, for what you envision, are twins really necessary?

I don’t think so...

Click to expand...

Those large diesels can, and do, have power units (Cylinder, piston and con rod), replaced underway with engine running and a full complement of staff on board. There are videos of just that happening, so it isn't quite the same. I am not a mechanic and a bit fumbled-fingered, so having a "spare" makes sense to me, and seemingly almost all others, as the number of twins vastly outnumbers those with a single engine. We aren't talking about some ultra-low rpm engine built like a tank like the old fishing vessels engines pre-WWII. Also, AC get more hours of maintenance per hour of operation than any vessel engine, and run only for short periods, relatively, between servicing, and often in-flight monitoring and comms back to the manufacturer who monitor each and every engine they make while it is operating, and over dozens of parameters. They notice problems in engines before even the pilot does or could. Bearing running a few degrees too hot, Rolls knows about it in virtually-real-time. Slight vibration, too minor to be felt, ditto. Spare dispatched and on-site before the AC even lands in some cases.

I do appreciate your input, and perhaps I would consider a single-engine at some point, but I have hashed and re-hashed this question in my mind, and so far, for me, Redundancy wins.

The only FORTRAN I am aware of is an ancient number-crunching program running on big-iron.

Open-d said:

Those large diesels can, and do, have power units (Cylinder, piston and con rod), replaced underway with engine running and a full complement of staff on board. There are videos of just that happening, so it isn't quite the same. I am not a mechanic and a bit fumbled-fingered, so having a "spare" makes sense to me, and seemingly almost all others, as the number of twins vastly outnumbers those with a single engine. We aren't talking about some ultra-low rpm engine built like a tank like the old fishing vessels engines pre-WWII. Also, AC get more hours of maintenance per hour of operation than any vessel engine, and run only for short periods, relatively, between servicing, and often in-flight monitoring and comms back to the manufacturer who monitor each and every engine they make while it is operating, and over dozens of parameters. They notice problems in engines before even the pilot does or could. Bearing running a few degrees too hot, Rolls knows about it in virtually-real-time. Slight vibration, too minor to be felt, ditto. Spare dispatched and on-site before the AC even lands in some cases.

I do appreciate your input, and perhaps I would consider a single-engine at some point, but I have hashed and re-hashed this question in my mind, and so far, for me, Redundancy wins.

The only FORTRAN I am aware of is an ancient number-crunching program running on big-iron.

Click to expand...

FORTRAN= fat fingers on my part.

A majority of the engines in service in “trawler” style vessels are of the pure mechanical variety, and don’t have a multitude of sensor systems or ECM interfaces to monitor anything other than pressures and temps. I just completed installing a digital engine monitoring system- essentially, it replaces the failing and long gauges with a NMEA interface.

Still, what is being monitored are the same parameters- oil and trans pressure, engine temp, voltage, and RPM. The “magic” is in knowing what the running parameters are.

Feed a diesel clean fuel, clean oil and coolant, and it will outlast the hull material without question.

As recommended earlier, Voyaging Under Power should be a must read for you.

Pau Hana said:

FORTRAN= fat fingers on my part.

A majority of the engines in service in “trawler” style vessels are of the pure mechanical variety, and don’t have a multitude of sensor systems or ECM interfaces to monitor anything other than pressures and temps. I just completed installing a digital engine monitoring system- essentially, it replaces the failing and long gauges with a NMEA interface.

Still, what is being monitored are the same parameters- oil and trans pressure, engine temp, voltage, and RPM. The “magic” is in knowing what the running parameters are.

Feed a diesel clean fuel, clean oil and coolant, and it will outlast the hull material without question.

As recommended earlier, Voyaging Under Power should be a must read for you.

Click to expand...

So they never have a casualty. Never, say, get the oil-pump jammed by a stray hunk of metal (perhaps a nut) and loose the turbo and have to be shut down for repairs to prevent destruction from be run without oil?.

It sounds like you are telling me that they never "break" in operation. Never fail to start, never, ever? My experience with a previously-mentioned CAT engine in a D7 is different - potentially fatally-different.

I was looking at a Hatteras 48' LRC that had 2 FL 120s, one with significantly less hours. Turns out it ingested a plastic bag and cooked #6. Had to go back to port and have engine repaired. BTW, they got back to port on the other engine, a luxury a single-engined boat doesn't have. The vessel is for sale in Isleton CA at this time.

Stuff happens, IMO.

I'll get the book if I can find it. So far, no luck.

Open-d said:

So they never have a casualty. Never, say, get the oil-pump jammed by a stray hunk of metal (perhaps a nut) and loose the turbo and have to be shut down for repairs to prevent destruction from be run without oil?.

It sounds like you are telling me that they never "break" in operation. Never fail to start, never, ever? My experience with a previously-mentioned CAT engine in a D7 is different - potentially fatally-different.

I was looking at a Hatteras 48' LRC that had 2 FL 120s, one with significantly less hours. Turns out it ingested a plastic bag and cooked #6. Had to go back to port and have engine repaired. BTW, they got back to port on the other engine, a luxury a single-engined boat doesn't have. The vessel is for sale in Isleton CA at this time.

Stuff happens, IMO.

I'll get the book if I can find it. So far, no luck.

Click to expand...

Absolutely stuff can break. I see plenty of claims for stuff that fails (I work in marine insurance) and a fair handful are for mechanical issues- but the reliability of the marine diesel in this class of vessel is well established. Actuarial tables don’t indicate any trend in diesel breakdown to be alarmed about.

Love to hear the rest of the story on how an inboard FL 120 ingested a bag...

Open-d said:

So they never have a casualty. Never, say, get the oil-pump jammed by a stray hunk of metal (perhaps a nut) and loose the turbo and have to be shut down for repairs to prevent destruction from be run without oil?.

It sounds like you are telling me that they never "break" in operation. Never fail to start, never, ever? My experience with a previously-mentioned CAT engine in a D7 is different - potentially fatally-different.

I was looking at a Hatteras 48' LRC that had 2 FL 120s, one with significantly less hours. Turns out it ingested a plastic bag and cooked #6. Had to go back to port and have engine repaired. BTW, they got back to port on the other engine, a luxury a single-engined boat doesn't have. The vessel is for sale in Isleton CA at this time.

Stuff happens, IMO.

I'll get the book if I can find it. So far, no luck.

Click to expand...

first off.. here you go..


https://www.amazon.com/Voyaging-Und...g+under+power&qid=1556028505&s=gateway&sr=8-1



Second,


It appears you have totally made up your mind on single vs twin.. why try to persuade others to your side of the argument?


The reality is this, **** happens no matter if you have one or two.



The reality is that your probably more likely to succumb to any number of other things than failure of a single diesel to get you home.. eventually. heart attack, storms, fatigue,swamping, sinking due to twice as many hoses to the outside of the boat, fire, run down by a freighter, running aground.. the list goes on and on.



Has anybody ever heard of a single engine passagemaker (designed and equipped to cross oceans solo, unsupported ) that has quit due to the diesel stopping and not being able to be repaired at sea? .. I have not.


The mindset changes when you have only 1 and you do EVERYTHING to make sure it will keep running.. and you have ALL the spares and ability needed to fix anything short of the block splitting in half.



A local builder of a number of steel passagemakers used a specific CAT engine that if necessary could have a piston removed in the super unlikely event of a massive rotating failure ( I cannot imagine doing it at sea .. in the middle of nowhere but he thought it was possible.. Delfin is a CAT guy and may be able to shed light on this one ) .


I'm comfortable with the right single setup, I feel the accessibility in the ER to easier checks may help to divert disaster to the loss of a power plant. But I really like the wing engine idea as a backup, they are typically out of the way of the main and have other possibilities.


HOLLYWOOD

The books available on Kindle.

Open-d said:

I'll get the book if I can find it. So far, no luck.

Click to expand...

I just got this book from amazon, quite a few used ones available. Mine was quite cheap ($15 including shipping IIRC) and in as new condition, no sign that it had even been previously read.

Ebay has over 30 copies of the book. Third edition (not the latest) starts at four bucks.

The fourth edition is the most recent and costs just over $30

hollywood8118 said:

first off.. here you go..


https://www.amazon.com/Voyaging-Und...g+under+power&qid=1556028505&s=gateway&sr=8-1



Second,


It appears you have totally made up your mind on single vs twin.. why try to persuade others to your side of the argument?


The reality is this, **** happens no matter if you have one or two.



The reality is that your probably more likely to succumb to any number of other things than failure of a single diesel to get you home.. eventually. heart attack, storms, fatigue,swamping, sinking due to twice as many hoses to the outside of the boat, fire, run down by a freighter, running aground.. the list goes on and on.



Has anybody ever heard of a single engine passagemaker (designed and equipped to cross oceans solo, unsupported ) that has quit due to the diesel stopping and not being able to be repaired at sea? .. I have not.


The mindset changes when you have only 1 and you do EVERYTHING to make sure it will keep running.. and you have ALL the spares and ability needed to fix anything short of the block splitting in half.



A local builder of a number of steel passagemakers used a specific CAT engine that if necessary could have a piston removed in the super unlikely event of a massive rotating failure ( I cannot imagine doing it at sea .. in the middle of nowhere but he thought it was possible.. Delfin is a CAT guy and may be able to shed light on this one ) .


I'm comfortable with the right single setup, I feel the accessibility in the ER to easier checks may help to divert disaster to the loss of a power plant. But I really like the wing engine idea as a backup, they are typically out of the way of the main and have other possibilities.


HOLLYWOOD

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you've misunderstood my "motivations". I am NOT trying to convince you or anyone else that two are better than one. Rather, I am just explaining the rationale behind my current position. It makes no difference to me that you go with a single, or believe a single engine is better than two, and I am sure your reasons go deeper than just "purism". It is entirely possible that a single IS better in the right cases.

I do see one significant advantage to a single engine over twins, and that is the protection afforded by the keel to the screw. That, not any minor difference in fuel burn, is the principle reason I have NOT ruled out singles (although, admittedly, leaning strongly toward twins).

BTW, I have purchased a Kindle copy of the book $25.99 or so. Thanks for the "push".

I agree that "poop" happens, but if you have but one main-propulsion plant, you are poop-out-of-luck for all intents and purposes, IMHO.

Your point on engine-access caught my attention, however.

Finally, I do sincerely appreciate your input and advocacy of your viewpoint. I am still hashing this out to a degree, but as one more oriented towards Operations rather than Engineering, I would probably err on the side of having redundancy, rather than relying on my being able to rectify a serious issue. Sure filter changes, no problem, temp and pressure checks, no problem, fluid-level checks, no problem. hose replacement, no problem. Heavy wrench work, not my cup of java!!! In other words, I have more faith in a second engine, than my ability to make a serious repair to a broken single. I don't want to even pretend to be an engineer or mechanic. I hope you understand my rationale, even though you don't agree with it, or feel it is appropriate for you and your skillset.

Mahalo

Difference between a plane and a boat is that in a plane if the engine quits (SE) it won't keep flying. If the engine quits in your boat, it'll still float.

ssobol said:

Difference between a plane and a boat is that in a plane if the engine quits (SE) it won't keep flying. If the engine quits in your boat, it'll still float.

Click to expand...

True, for a while, anyway.

Perhaps motorsailer is a good choice.

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1984/cheoy-lee-pilothouse-3230216/

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1980/nauticat-nc-44-3172585/

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1995/nauticat--42-pilothouse-motor-sailer-3179555/

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1976/fisher-pilothouse-motorsailer-3470405/

I had an ATL fuel bladder for the previous boat. The Sport Fish crowd love these, and stack them in the aft cockpit. They also make strap kits for other areas, but I wouldn’t do that for longer distances/weather.

I don’t have any desire to cross oceans in a boat or take on big weather, but I admire those that do. Personally, if I was going to do a crossing I wouldn’t want to rely on bladders.

BTW, that story about running one engine, and then swapping a Prop is classic.

Bladders can be used and work well. Many delivery captains occasionally use drums. However, I'm going to point one thing out, even with a Hatteras.

Most builders have matched fuel capacity to uses they see as appropriate. I see the 42 LRC and just have to think that Hatteras didn't picture it crossing to Hawaii and perhaps it's not really a good boat to make that attempt in.

The most off shore I have ever done is from California to Catalina. (A half a dozen trips) One trip in a 27' express cruiser it got a lil exciting. Which in the scheme of things - ain't nothing!!!!


Then I read something like this - Diesel Ducks Home Page

Which in part reads ….. "there were only two boats out there; David, and an 80 tugboat which was swamped and sunk."

As a "wanna be" trawler, show me the marina. May be an over reaction and my tolerance for risk isn't high for the unknown.

Here is a good article from someone who installed bladders for that exact passage in a trawler (a Nordhavn).

https://mvdirona.com/2012/12/fuel-for-the-crossing/

The single/twin debts will rage on forever but keep in mind most ocean going recreational singles have a smaller ‘get home’ engine (just in case). Generally better fuel burn, easier maintenance, less machinery space = more fuel, etc.

Still, some of the larger Hatteras LRCs and Fleming’s have made some pretty long passages with twins. To each his own.

BandB said:

Bladders can be used and work well. Many delivery captains occasionally use drums. However, I'm going to point one thing out, even with a Hatteras.

Most builders have matched fuel capacity to uses they see as appropriate. I see the 42 LRC and just have to think that Hatteras didn't picture it crossing to Hawaii and perhaps it's not really a good boat to make that attempt in.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking the same thing. Perhaps, one of the two larger models of the LRC. My thinking is very fluid on most of these issues, including # of engines.

IronZebra said:

Perhaps motorsailer is a good choice.

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1984/cheoy-lee-pilothouse-3230216/

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1980/nauticat-nc-44-3172585/

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1995/nauticat--42-pilothouse-motor-sailer-3179555/

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1976/fisher-pilothouse-motorsailer-3470405/

Click to expand...

Thanks, but I really want a flybridge with a bit of a "back patio".