Passagemakers under 46'

[Art]

4 miles per gallon = 875 gallons for 3,500 miles. With 10% reserve = 962.5 gallons X 7 lbs (diesel) = 6,737'5 lbs.

Seems to me that many types of good construction very seaworthy boats could be outfitted for long distances. If better than 4 mpg could be averaged... then all the easier.

 

[AusCan]

If your taking green water on board, and worried about your ports, one should also be concerned with how the house is connected. I would be wary of some of the older boats with plywood cabins and houses. They may be more or less tabbed on.

Water is heavy.

I agree NS. If anyone surfs, they certainly learn to respect the force and weight of water in motion.

Many of the balsa cored cabins which have leaked around the windows and transformed the core into porridge would only take one good wave to decapitate the the boat. (and possibly the crew)

 

[Wxx3]

Which is exactly why it's so critical to have a boat that was designed not to have green water come over the rails.

 

[C lectric]

That's about 400 US gallons...our boat came with two 50 gallon tanks and had another 40 gallon tank added by a previous owner, so we have about 450 liters of usable fuel. The previous owner also installed a larger engine, so consumption went up.

If you run it as my BIL repowered it to do at ~ 8 K then yes the fuel consumption rose from the original power.

The original engine was the 50HP Pathfinder which would run the boat comfortable at ~ 6K which the BIL found was too slow.

At 8K we could travel together, at 6 K no way could he keep up. Even though I have slowed over the last few years I would still leave the boat behind with out the extra power.

However, if the boat were now run at 6K, the new engine [100hp] should not increase the fuel use noticeably over the old engine. It's not the engine but the boat speed that determines the HP required to move the boat.

So if you run at an honest 6K your fuel use should be quite similar to the older 50HP engine, a hair more sure , but very similar.

That would increase your range quite a bit. Just are you willing to run at 6K much of the time.

Unfortunately it is too long for me to remember what he actually did burn, new at 8K vs old engine at 6K. Partly because after our one trip with the BIL and wife and the new engine he sold the boat to our surprise.

I hope you still enjoy that boat. He did fuss over it but he also is glad to be out of boating. Too bad for us as we spent a lot of years travelling together.

 

[MurrayM]

If you run it as my BIL repowered it to do at ~ 8 K then yes the fuel consumption rose from the original power.

The original engine was the 50HP Pathfinder which would run the boat comfortable at ~ 6K which the BIL found was too slow.

At 8K we could travel together, at 6 K no way could he keep up. Even though I have slowed over the last few years I would still leave the boat behind with out the extra power.

However, if the boat were now run at 6K, the new engine [100hp] should not increase the fuel use noticeably over the old engine. It's not the engine but the boat speed that determines the HP required to move the boat.

So if you run at an honest 6K your fuel use should be quite similar to the older 50HP engine, a hair more sure , but very similar.

That would increase your range quite a bit. Just are you willing to run at 6K much of the time.

Unfortunately it is too long for me to remember what he actually did burn, new at 8K vs old engine at 6K. Partly because after our one trip with the BIL and wife and the new engine he sold the boat to our surprise.

I hope you still enjoy that boat. He did fuss over it but he also is glad to be out of boating. Too bad for us as we spent a lot of years travelling together.

Weird...for some reason I thought the last owner had the larger engine put in.

We run it at 2700rpm for 7 knots because it sounds happiest there (turbo has got a nice whine to it) and throttling up results in Badger's arse squatting down lower and the bow pushing a bigger wake without really gaining much speed.

I crunched the fuel purchased / fuel used / engine time numbers after our first year and it averaged out to be 1.3 gallons per hour, so I've just rounded it up to 1.5 for estimating purposes. That puts our range at about 550 nautical miles...how does that stack up against other slow boats our size?

Seven knots for us is fast because it's a bit more than twice what we used to average while sea kayaking, and it's warm, and there's a bathroom

We still love the boat and have big plans for when I retire in a few years!

 

[AusCan]

Which is exactly why it's so critical to have a boat that was designed not to have green water come over the rails.

Richard,
Not that I consider my boat to be a passagemaker, but I think any boat would get hit hard with a wave when the wave is taller than the boat, and the wave unexpectedly breaks just upwind of the boat. Technically that may not be green water - I'm not sure, but it certainly was a lot more than a heavy spray.

 

[Henning]

(...)
I crunched the fuel purchased / fuel used / engine time numbers after our first year and it averaged out to be 1.3 gallons per hour, so I've just rounded it up to 1.5 for estimating purposes. That puts our range at about 550 nautical miles...how does that stack up against other slow boats our size?
(...)

It still sounds to me like you're good for a long while, fuel range wise. I don't know the BC coast, but how far would you need to move between stops? With 550 NM range and ~4 months loitering ability, you should be able to spend every night on a new island in the Stockholm archipelago for like... 3 months.

For reference, here are some consumption / range figures:

My current boat, a Steel Lady 40, grossly over built at 25 tons, with 17 liter 500 HP engine, 2.85:1 reduction and 36" CPP: 0.65 l / NM @ 5.5 kts, 900 rpm. 1.500 liters of fuel for 2300 NM range without reserve. She should be able to cruise much faster, but semi displacement hulls at 166% designed displacement don't like to be pushed.

My previous boat, a 58' coastal patrol vessel from WW2, 35 tons, with a 6-71, 4:1 reduction and a large screw off an old tug (40x35"? idk...): 1.2 l /NM @ 8.5 kts, unknown rpm (never had a tach) but guessing around 1.500. 400 liters of fuel for 330 NM range without reserve. Tankage could easily have been increased by a factor of ten, but I didn't see the need.

@Wxx3: Very true, but you also need strong fixtures and superstructure. If you keep trying, you'll sooner or later butt your bow into something that overwhelms it, no matter how dry the design.

@Northern Spy: That's especially interesting when you consider that even a small wheelhouse shift can sever your controls.

@OP: Sorry about the hijack...

 

[marcoh]

A few small passagemakers that come to mind (some are slightly more than 46 ft. Also comes down to what the definition of a passagemaker is as, as these boats are limited in fuel capacity and thus range, but some have gone long ways!

Nordhavn 40 and 43

Watson 48

George Beuhler has numerous designs. Many are home built but Seahorse yachts (China) and Asboat (Turkey) do build them as well

Seahorse 382 (there is also the 462 but that is 51ft LOA)

And here are various one-offs such as this one build in Sydney and which has circumnavigated the world (actually 48ft long)
http://www.afloat.com.au/afloat-magazine/2012/november-2012/Argos_Odyssey#.WPtAiFOGOCc

The various Tad Roberts options look interesting, I can't find any pictures of any so not sure if any have been built?

The Bruce Roberts boats have many different builders, so the build quality could be excellent or average for the same design. i recall there is blog somewhere about a guy building a 40ish trawler at home which is good read.

 

[Daddyo]

Another 48 to consider is my beloved DeFever 48 LRC. 1100 gallons, low center of gravity, full displacement, built like a tank, and a lot or reserve boyancy forward. I would recommend paravanes and thicker forward glass or storm covers for same windows.

 

[NewbieFromNJ]

Wxx3-excuse my naivety, but what design eliminates green water from coming over the rails

 

[MurrayM]

Hi Henning...I've got no issues with thread drift, as long as it's not politics or religion

The longest we've been out on our boat is three weeks (darn job) so haven't been able to 'test the limits' of our time away.

Try putting "Kitimat map" into your search engine, click on the satellite version, then zoom out so you can see Prince Rupert and Bella Bella. That's our home territory.

Most people stick to the Inside Passage on their way to Alaska, but we want to explore the ends of all the major waterways that cut into the Coast Mountains, as well as the outer Islands which face the Pacific. This means, if we're going to the south, we have to go 120 miles (return) just to turn the corner at the end of Douglas Channel, then there's the run to whichever channel we're heading up, then another 120-ish miles to that channels end and back. So, without considering the distance between channels, meandering around after Humpback Whales, bears, and beautiful beaches or creeks to hike and photograph, we'll be traveling at least 240 miles.

A good friend of mine from high school lives in Oslo and loves Norway. Short story is he fell for a Norwegian lass in the Amazon and had two sons. Me-thinks you'd be happy boating here, as I would be in your waters

 

[sunchaser]

The most traveled passage maker power boat in the 46' category is the Nordhavn 47. By sheer numbers and skippers of great repute the N47 (now morphed into the N52) is IMHO the King of The Hill in this size range.

 

[MurrayM]

The most traveled passage maker power boat in the 46' category is the Nordhavn 47. By sheer numbers and skippers of great repute the N47 (now morphed into the N52) is IMHO the King of The Hill in this size range.

Sorry...this thread goes the other way, both in size and cost

 

[sunchaser]

Sorry...this thread goes the other way, both in size and cost

What is the real difference between a 46 and a 47' boat? A new Tad Roberts lite and a used N47 would be an interesting cost comparison. I love the TR and Sam Devlin designs too. But for pure passage making, overall design and proven cost it seems the N47 has set the current time's bar.

As far as fuel consumption, I can tell you about some friends who are currently getting over 2 nmpg in their N50 as they head to Tahiti. Fuel consumption and tankage in the N47s is truly proven. The buyers by sheer numbers and miles traveled have voted, this is the power vessel of choice in the 46' range.

 

[MurrayM]

Using Henning's 4 litres a day average for anchoring (not sure what ours will be, especially during colder/darker months) and estimating 2/3 of our fuel used to get somewhere with reserve, that leaves about 40 days at anchor.

Our spongy aft deck needs to be replaced, so larger fuel tanks and a smaller water tank will be considered. You don't have to go far to find fresh creek water here, and it's even easier to get if you have a rain catchment tarp set up!

 

[Nomad Willy]

Murray,
It's natural to talk about pasagemakers above 40' as they pretty much don't exist below 40'. It was a silly question by the OP in a way but much more interesting than if one asked about boats 40' and up .... because it's obvious.

But if you limit the discussion to under 40' you start talking about the elements of a REAL passagemaker instead of just a big boat. That's the beauty of the under 40' question. Obviously if you asked about passagemakers 6' and under you could only talk about why there weren't any. Fuel capacity and speed just too low and slow to make a passage across any ocean.

So the question of a PM under 40' is interesting. Over 40' and it turns into something like a list of good boats.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Murray,
IMO any good PM needs to be a FD boat so the first thing you'd need to do is forget about your soft deck and get another boat .. FD.

 

[MurrayM]

What is the real difference between a 46 and a 47' boat? A new Tad Roberts lite and a used N47 would be an interesting cost comparison. I love the TR and Sam Devlin designs too. But for pure passage making, overall design and proven cost it seems the N47 has set the current time's bar.

As stated in the first post most passagemaker threads drift off into larger, more expensive boats. This thread is intended to go the other way, for those of us who didn't inherit big money or chose to live life without a big income.

Personally, I wouldn't use a "passagemaker" for ocean passages, but would use it to disappear for months, or preferably whole seasons, without coming back to civilization.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Wxx3-excuse my naivety, but what design eliminates green water from coming over the rails

There aren't any.
None has hit our wheelhouse but we've not been in big enough seas and our boat's too big for the ones we have been in.

High freeboard would help and Wxx3's Krogen has lots of that but windage, CG and other variables get into the equation that would predict that getting a boat that can deal w the seas on board becomes a better option.

Here's high freeboard and the boat in the background w normal freeboard appears to be favorably equiped to deal w seas on deck. And at least as importantly she is a double ender also so has advantages in following seas as well that a square sterned vessel just can't match.

 

[NewbieFromNJ]

Thanks Willy, to follow up is there any disadvantage to a high freeboard and for lack of a better term a rounded stern. Always seems to be pros and cons when talking about boat design.

 

[sunchaser]

Personally, I wouldn't use a "passagemaker" for ocean passages, but would use it to disappear for months, or preferably whole seasons, without coming back to civilization.

Well then Murray, a well tended coastal cruiser will work just fine. The definition of Passage Maker does get into safe and proven ocean crossing capability. Those build specific vessels are indeed higher priced.

 

[sunchaser]

Thanks Willy, to follow up is there any disadvantage to a high freeboard and for lack of a better term a rounded stern. Always seems to be pros and cons when talking about boat design.

Free board is a detriment for the most ubiquitous passage makers - sailboats. Right now I am in Hawaii, amazing how many relatively "low" free board big wave capable vessels are in use here and in other south sea locales.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Thanks Willy, to follow up is there any disadvantage to a high freeboard and for lack of a better term a rounded stern. Always seems to be pros and cons when talking about boat design.

NJ,
Oh yes just as Wxx3 said or implied the higher up the wheelhouse is the bigger wave it will take to reach the windows or cabin structure itself. The disadvantages of the high freeboard are many. Much more windage. Beam seas can push a boat over w very high freeboard whereas on a very low freeboard boat the seas would or may just wash over it. Higher hull weight. Much more "boat motion" that can be both unpleasnt and dangerous from high lateral forces.

And the disadvantage of pointed stern is limited speed as one gets near hull speed as the water then needs to be pulled back to where it was before the bow pushed it aside. It flows back in by itself well under hull speed.

The square stern can still be FD .. kinda like a Diesel Duck but quartering stern waves can lift the stern quarter pushing the downwind fwd quarter down into the trough where there is little to support it. But the DD does not have a full width stern so the lifting and it's results are minimized. Heavy rolling or broaching can result if the stern is wide enough and low enough aft (in the water).
A SD or planing square stern results in much more drag (just a bit to about 2 times as much depending on design) but also gives increased fuel capacity that can't be utilized because if the increased drag. I mention this to show how all the variables intereact. Also SD or planing hulls need reduced size rudders for lower drag at higher speeds that affect control in big seas .. greatly.

Sunchaser wrote;
"Free board is a detriment for the most ubiquitous passage makers - sailboats. Right now I am in Hawaii, amazing how many relatively "low" free board big wave capable vessels are in use here and in other south sea locales."

A very seaworthy boat comes to mind .. the 30' Bristol Bay Gillnet boats used out of Nakneck Alaska in the 30's and 40's. Very low freeboard and even open cockpits. They were cat rigged sailboats and the fishermen would be towed out into Bristol Bay and fished for a week before the Monkey Boat (powerboat about 40') came out to get them. There is a Bristol Bay boat on our float in LaConner sans sails of course. Has a very small inbd diesel engine.

This is really too big to address in a post.

 

[C lectric]

Weird...for some reason I thought the last owner had the larger engine put in.

We run it at 2700rpm for 7 knots because it sounds happiest there (turbo has got a nice whine to it) and throttling up results in Badger's arse squatting down lower and the bow pushing a bigger wake without really gaining much speed.

I crunched the fuel purchased / fuel used / engine time numbers after our first year and it averaged out to be 1.3 gallons per hour, so I've just rounded it up to 1.5 for estimating purposes. That puts our range at about 550 nautical miles...how does that stack up against other slow boats our size?

Seven knots for us is fast because it's a bit more than twice what we used to average while sea kayaking, and it's warm, and there's a bathroom

We still love the boat and have big plans for when I retire in a few years!

I did slow for him and he travelled at ~ 8K , a hair under, so we mostly stayed close. So at your 7K that would still push more fuel than the original engine at 6K. If you find the nose lifting appreciably and the stern squatting with a large increase in the rolling stern wave then you are still on the edge of the boat trying to plane. 7K sounds good though which is about what I travel at now.

One thing to consider is a set of trim tabs. Install the largest possible. That will lift the stern somewhat and knock down that big stern wave. They also get used for side/side trim.

I know because my boat has them and originally I thought what a waste. Well I was wrong and the use of them makes a difference. Not big , but a difference. Knocks the big stern wave way down. The engine note backs off a bit which means the governor doesn't need to feed as much fuel to maintain the same revs.

I don't get any noticeable speed increase but the change in running waves and engine note shows they help. I have never worried about fuel use to the degree that I tried to sort out the difference between no tabs and tabs.

My boat carries about 240 Imp gallons [1090L] and I allow a range of about 2/3 or 720L for ~ 65 hr MAX running time at 7K and about 460 N.M. Usually I look for fuel around 50 hrs.

My boat is 32' so I use more fuel overall than you at about 10-11LPH but it still is acceptable to me. At my old speed of about 8.3K it used to burn 15-17LPH.

I seem to think that your boat with the 50hp at 6K the boat used to use about 1GPH or maybe a hair under.

I have never travelled past Cape Caution so fuel supply would not be as big a concern for me as it would seem for you.

My BIL was the one who installed the 100Hp engine.

 

[MurrayM]

Well then Murray, a well tended coastal cruiser will work just fine. The definition of Passage Maker does get into safe and proven ocean crossing capability. Those build specific vessels are indeed higher priced.

Still...things can get snotty fast around here, so a proven passagemaker could provide peace of mind. We don't spend too much time aboard while at anchor, so cushy comfort is low on the priority scale. Put another way; our boat isn't an end unto itself, but more of a base camp to adventures ashore.

 

[MurrayM]

...One thing to consider is a set of trim tabs. Install the largest possible. That will lift the stern somewhat and knock down that big stern wave...

Interesting...never thought of that.

The stern is heavy right now because the extra 40 gallon fuel tank is aft of the other tanks and butted up against the transom, plus the weight of the soggy aft deck probably doesn't help either. If two larger fuel tanks and a smaller water tank go where the weight was designed to go, and the aft deck is dry, that might be enough to solve the squatty arse issue.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Re the trim tabs a much better approach would be to extend the stern. Then the boat would be a much better boat in most all ways.

 

[MurrayM]

Re the trim tabs a much better approach would be to extend the stern. Then the boat would be a much better boat in most all ways.

On daydreaming days, a beautifully rounded tug like stern with an outboard kicker well drifts into view...then reality hits and it quickly disappears.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Then there's the NT32.
If your beam and the NT32 were almost the same getting a NT32 would be about the same as the Sundowner lengthened. Or you could lenghten a NT26 and even give it some rocker. But then as you say there is reality.
I'd like to lengthen my W30 but done amidships. But again reality says that's more work than I can do now. I just want more cabin space. Our walkaround decks take too much space.

 

[AusCan]

I like some of the Bruce Roberts designs. They may or may not be true passagemakers, but they are solid no-nonsense boats which would appear to take a pounding if finished off properly.

This first PCF 40 is a local Adelaide boat. I considered buying it when I was shopping for my current boat but couldn't get the price down to within my range. The second one is really nice, built in steel, from Tasmania . It is currently for sale. Used Roberts Pacific Coast Fisher 40 "ptarmigan" for Sale | Boats For Sale | Yachthub

These boats could easily be fitted with paravanes rather than sails, if this was the preference for stabilization.

The third one is a Bruce Roberts Trawler Yacht 43. I haven't seen one over here yet.