Finding, and settling on a trawler. What a whirlwind! First of a zillion questions...

[PetePetePete]

We have been flip-flopping for years between a power cat and trawler. We are now FAR more to the side of trawler due to range, cost of operation, etc.

The first of many questions that I'm having trouble with.

Other than Nordhavn... what other trawlers have wing motors? Specifically a similar setup like the Nord -- whereas a separate motor, shaft, prop, fuel source, etc. We *really* love the N40 or N43, but all the once we find are out of our range... or not in the condition that we're after.

We are reading about Selene... Kady... but hard to determine which have wings. We're currently small power cat owners -- so redundancy is something I'm not ready to give up.

Thanks!

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Welcome aboard. Mr. 3P. When you really think about it, twins are just a single with a wing engine.

 

[magna 6882]

We thought about a wing engine but didn't see the real need since were not going to go across oceans. We have towboat and only one drive system to maintain.

 

[O C Diver]

As Mr. RT mentioned, if you need a wing, you really want twins. If you're going that far away from civilization, if the main quits, you really don't want less than your main. There are other considerations such as your wing won't likely get used enough. Will you free wheel the second propeller or use a variable pitched prop? In a critical situation would you want to have to start the wing engine or already be running with the second main? Two engines with the same spare parts.

Ted

 

[jimdavi]

How/where will you be using the boat?

 

[Comodave]

How/where will you be using the boat?

Key question!

 

[socalrider]

Sooo much more inventory with twins. I’d originally wanted a single. With 3 staterooms. Under 50’ and under $150k. There were I think either one or zero boats meeting these criteria on the W Coast.

I like the single/wing concept (though the spare parts issue is a good one I hadn’t thought of) but I do think there’s a reason there are so many twins out there. Docking is really nice and easy without thrusters too.

 

[mvweebles]

If you have been baptized into the church of Nordhavn and have accepted a wing engine as your personal savior, there are no other production choices.

The reaction you're getting thus far in this thread is..... Are you sure? There are hundreds of ways cruising gets unexpectedly truncated with gear failures. Main engine failure is one of the rarest - the focus on that as the sleep-at-night mitigation befuddles some of the older salts around here. There's a lot of legwork between "buying a trawler" and "gotta have a wing engine." I gotta hunch that Nordhavn owners spend more than their fair share of time and money waiting for repairs and parts which counterintuitive given the emphasis on redundancy.

But if you are converted, then go with it. You are looking for a Nordhavn.

Peter

 

[Comodave]

You haven’t really said what type of cruising you want to do. If it across oceans, then Nordhavn may be the way to go. But if you are planning on coastal cruising then they maybe way overkill. Not saying you can’t use one for coastal cruising but that level of boat isn’t needed. If you are going to do coastal, and probably over 95% do, then pick either a single or a twin. Either way get an unlimited towing policy. Lots of people prefer twins for handling and redundancy. But a single is also fine but you will limit your choices when you get to a bigger boat since most come with twins. First you need to define what your planned cruising style will be and then work out what boat will fit those needs. Keep in mind that lots of people plan or want to cross oceans but very few actually do it. Good luck in your search and have fun.

 

[Hippocampus]

Come to this from a different perspective. 95%+ of recreational boats actually doing passages are single masted sailboats. One stick. Range under auxiliary power is measured in hundreds of miles. Voyaging sailboats have wear from stress cycles orders of magnitude higher than coastal. So whereas used coastal boats commonly have original standing rigging ocean boats prophylactically replace all standing rigging every ~7 years and all sails (except unused storm sails) at about the same interval. In short key systems are diligently maintained and replaced. There’s no effective failback.
95%+ of all vessels crossing oceans are power. Virtually no commercial shipping is sail. The overwhelming majority of these are single screw. Same thinking the single engine is viewed just like the single mast. A key system,, so diligently maintained. There’s no effective failback. A wing will ,power the boat but typically at around half the speed. A imbalanced twin will moderately lower speed but there’s also a penalty in range as you fight helm. You can make water but not food. Every day off the shelf increases the risk of encountering weather. So neither wings nor twins is a real solution. The solution is to maintain key systems so they don’t fail.
Striking debris, whales or containers is as likely as being struck by lightning in the open ocean. Fishing disappears once you’re ~200m out as there are virtually no game or commercially viable fisheries. So there is a risk of entanglement but mostly from weed or floating plastic line. Risk of being unable to have damage you can’t fix or clear once outside the coastal environment is negligible.
The wing or twin comes into its own in the coastal environment.
Once you are outside typical cruising grounds there’s no tow services. Some cruisers enjoy going from one premium cruising area to another. Others strive to get truly off the beaten track and totally off the grid. It’s only for this later group that there’s a realistic concern. They may actually need some form of propulsion to get them somewhere that parts and service are available.
We’ve been looking to purchase a blue water powerboat. Of all we’ve seen (now double digits) none have been set up as functional ocean boats. Doesn’t matter which brand you’re talking about and that includes the Nordies. Some are reasonable long hop coastal boats but none have met the belt and suspenders attitude required for safe passage making. Personally would want twins, wing or sails but not for the reason most state. Realize is an outlier position. But would prefer it for coastal cruising in more remote areas. This is preference not a key requirement as now with modern communications and global increase in services it’s increasingly unlikely a situation involving loss of life would occur. Continue to believe coastal cruising is more dangerous and demanding than voyaging in many respects. Major variance is with ocean is that if you didn’t bring it with you you ain’t got it. It’s from there that the belt & suspenders attitude comes in to play.

 

[mvweebles]

Come to this from a different perspective. 95%+ of recreational boats actually doing passages are single masted sailboats. One stick. Range under auxiliary power is measured in hundreds of miles. Voyaging sailboats have wear from stress cycles orders of magnitude higher than coastal. So whereas used coastal boats commonly have original standing rigging ocean boats prophylactically replace all standing rigging every ~7 years and all sails (except unused storm sails) at about the same interval. In short key systems are diligently maintained and replaced. There’s no effective failback.
95%+ of all vessels crossing oceans are power. Virtually no commercial shipping is sail. The overwhelming majority of these are single screw. Same thinking the single engine is viewed just like the single mast. A key system,, so diligently maintained. There’s no effective failback. A wing will ,power the boat but typically at around half the speed. A imbalanced twin will moderately lower speed but there’s also a penalty in range as you fight helm. You can make water but not food. Every day off the shelf increases the risk of encountering weather. So neither wings nor twins is a real solution. The solution is to maintain key systems so they don’t fail.
Striking debris, whales or containers is as likely as being struck by lightning in the open ocean. Fishing disappears once you’re ~200m out as there are virtually no game or commercially viable fisheries. So there is a risk of entanglement but mostly from weed or floating plastic line. Risk of being unable to have damage you can’t fix or clear once outside the coastal environment is negligible.
The wing or twin comes into its own in the coastal environment.
Once you are outside typical cruising grounds there’s no tow services. Some cruisers enjoy going from one premium cruising area to another. Others strive to get truly off the beaten track and totally off the grid. It’s only for this later group that there’s a realistic concern. They may actually need some form of propulsion to get them somewhere that parts and service are available.
We’ve been looking to purchase a blue water powerboat. Of all we’ve seen (now double digits) none have been set up as functional ocean boats. Doesn’t matter which brand you’re talking about and that includes the Nordies. Some are reasonable long hop coastal boats but none have met the belt and suspenders attitude required for safe passage making. Personally would want twins, wing or sails but not for the reason most state. Realize is an outlier position. But would prefer it for coastal cruising in more remote areas. This is preference not a key requirement as now with modern communications and global increase in services it’s increasingly unlikely a situation involving loss of life would occur. Continue to believe coastal cruising is more dangerous and demanding than voyaging in many respects. Major variance is with ocean is that if you didn’t bring it with you you ain’t got it. It’s from there that the belt & suspenders attitude comes in to play.

Interesting. Never heard a perspective where a sailboat is single threaded due to dependence on rigging.

I wonder if the 100s of threads like these - especially those initiated by new entrants into power cruising - confuse risk aversion (newbie) with vessel preparedness (experienced cruiser)? In some ways, subtle differences, but maybe not. I think the classic Nordhavn mindset is a hot-standby for as much as possible. A classic cruiser settles for raw materials aboard to affect a repair

Peter

 

[sunchaser]

Hippo
We've a friend with a very nice 42' sloop. One year we met him in AK and asked how he'd been doing. He said great, hadn't raised the sail once so far. His claim was the greatest power boat was a sail boat with a good diesel and suitable tankage.

 

[O C Diver]

Come to this from a different perspective. 95%+ of recreational boats actually doing passages are single masted sailboats. One stick. Range under auxiliary power is measured in hundreds of miles. Voyaging sailboats have wear from stress cycles orders of magnitude higher than coastal. So whereas used coastal boats commonly have original standing rigging ocean boats prophylactically replace all standing rigging every ~7 years and all sails (except unused storm sails) at about the same interval. In short key systems are diligently maintained and replaced. There’s no effective failback.
95%+ of all vessels crossing oceans are power. Virtually no commercial shipping is sail. The overwhelming majority of these are single screw. Same thinking the single engine is viewed just like the single mast. A key system,, so diligently maintained. There’s no effective failback. A wing will ,power the boat but typically at around half the speed. A imbalanced twin will moderately lower speed but there’s also a penalty in range as you fight helm. You can make water but not food. Every day off the shelf increases the risk of encountering weather. So neither wings nor twins is a real solution. The solution is to maintain key systems so they don’t fail.
Striking debris, whales or containers is as likely as being struck by lightning in the open ocean. Fishing disappears once you’re ~200m out as there are virtually no game or commercially viable fisheries. So there is a risk of entanglement but mostly from weed or floating plastic line. Risk of being unable to have damage you can’t fix or clear once outside the coastal environment is negligible.
The wing or twin comes into its own in the coastal environment.
Once you are outside typical cruising grounds there’s no tow services. Some cruisers enjoy going from one premium cruising area to another. Others strive to get truly off the beaten track and totally off the grid. It’s only for this later group that there’s a realistic concern. They may actually need some form of propulsion to get them somewhere that parts and service are available.
We’ve been looking to purchase a blue water powerboat. Of all we’ve seen (now double digits) none have been set up as functional ocean boats. Doesn’t matter which brand you’re talking about and that includes the Nordies. Some are reasonable long hop coastal boats but none have met the belt and suspenders attitude required for safe passage making. Personally would want twins, wing or sails but not for the reason most state. Realize is an outlier position. But would prefer it for coastal cruising in more remote areas. This is preference not a key requirement as now with modern communications and global increase in services it’s increasingly unlikely a situation involving loss of life would occur. Continue to believe coastal cruising is more dangerous and demanding than voyaging in many respects. Major variance is with ocean is that if you didn’t bring it with you you ain’t got it. It’s from there that the belt & suspenders attitude comes in to play.

You make an interesting case, however I would challenge you on the highlighted part.

First, it would seem to me that most twins aren't optimized to run on one engine. If I were setting up a twin for ocean crossing, it would seem that significant improvements could be made.

Second, while I have never done it under sail or power, is a power boat that cruises at 7 knots (twin) and slows to 6 knots (single) for the same fuel range (14% speed reduction), that much different than a sailboat that optimally cruises at 7 knots but suffers from wind direction or lack of wind?

Ted

 

[Hippocampus]

Ted I’m going to have to defer to your opinion. You may well have a deeper understanding. Please post a reference. My limited and possibly incorrect understanding was loss of range running on a single engine was fairly vessel specific. Different if twin rudders then single. Different depending on how separated the screws are from each other and centerline. So how much helm is produced. Different depending on the peculiarities of that vessel. I further understood that autopilots use much more energy when the boat isn’t in balance and constantly fighting a helm. That in turn requires a hotter running alternator drawing more hp. So my post may have a false premise. Thought running a twin for days under one engine isn’t a great idea. Please expand on your post.

 

[rslifkin]

What's involved in running a twin after you have to shut one down depends on the boat. Depending on your transmissions, you may have to lock the dead shaft to prevent freewheeling. A locked prop will add extra drag. And depending on prop spacing, hull design, rudder size, etc. the boat may be easy to steer with 1 shut down, or it might be a bit of a headache (and more work for an autopilot).

On my boat, shutting one engine down means running at 6, maybe 6.5 kts max to avoid beating on the remaining engine. At that speed my transmissions are fine to freewheel. So you just end up with some rudder in all the time, but no real handling issues outside of worse close quarters maneuvering and limited speed.

 

[O C Diver]

Ted I’m going to have to defer to your opinion. You may well have a deeper understanding. Please post a reference. My limited and possibly incorrect understanding was loss of range running on a single engine was fairly vessel specific. Different if twin rudders then single. Different depending on how separated the screws are from each other and centerline. So how much helm is produced. Different depending on the peculiarities of that vessel. I further understood that autopilots use much more energy when the boat isn’t in balance and constantly fighting a helm. That in turn requires a hotter running alternator drawing more hp. So my post may have a false premise. Thought running a twin for days under one engine isn’t a great idea. Please expand on your post.

Most of the HP requirement to push a displacement hull through the water is the hull itself. Certainly there can be additional drag from opposing wind, waves, currents, rudder(s), and a disabled motor's propeller, but it's mostly the hull.

The numbers I'm most familiar with are from my boat.

At 8 knots the boat consumes 3.7 GPH or 74 HP.
At 7 knots 2 GPH or 40 HP
At 6 knots 1.2 GPH or 24 HP

Now if the boat were set up with twin engines the same as the single in my boat, I would expect an increase in fuel consumption 10 to 20%. I repowered my boat from 450 HP to 135 HP but kept the same transmission, shaft and propeller diameter (28"). The propeller is significantly larger than what you would expect for a 45' boat traveling 7 knots. As a result, the slippage remains fairly constant until you pass 7.5 knots.

1,000 +/- RPM equals 5 knots.
1,210 +/- RPM equals 6 knots.
1,440 +/- RPM equals 7 knots
1,850 +/- RPM equals 8 knots

It is my contention that my boat could be setup with twins the same as my single with 28" propellers, suffer an engine failure, reduce speed from 7 to 6 knots without loosing fuel range.

With regard to rudders, most twin engines boats have significantly smaller rudders than the same boat offered as a single. The thought is that you will likely jockey engines for docking and the prop wash from two engines striking two rudders is sufficient while underway with smaller rudders. I would make the rudders larger and of the foil design so the disabled engine's rudder acts like a sailboat rudder with the water passing by it.

I have seen this concept of two rudders several times recently with newer design sailboats. The rudders are designed so that when the boat is healing, one rudder is straight down and the other may be partially out of the water. When cruising down wind neither rudder points down and neither is in line with the keel. So it seems that two rudders could be designed for a twin engine boat where it wouldn't require as much rudder angle to maintain a straight course.

The power consumption for the autopilot really isn't an issue. First rudders should be balanced where 25 to 28% of the area behind the pivot point of the rudder, should be in front of the pivot point. The smaller the percentage, the more effort is required to turn the rudder underway. Secondly, most of the autopilot pumps for vessels in this size range are drawing less than 30 amps. The alternator on my single engine is rated 220 amps continuous duty.

In summary, most twin engine boats are designed to optimize twin engine use. It shouldn't be difficult to optimize for both. There are sailboats with off center single engines that seem to cruise down the AICW reasonably well and the boats with designed wing engine backups (Nordhavn) that seem to manage reasonably well. This is a concept with a very small market (passage making) so there aren't but a handful of production manufactures that would probably be interested in the concept. I would guess that Nordhavn with there new 40 ish foot build in Turkey has probably addressed some of these issues as that boat is setup with twins.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

In summary, most twin engine boats are designed to optimize twin engine use. It shouldn't be difficult to optimize for both. There are sailboats with off center single engines that seem to cruise down the AICW reasonably well and the boats with designed wing engine backups (Nordhavn) that seem to manage reasonably well. This is a concept with a very small market (passage making) so there aren't but a handful of production manufactures that would probably be interested in the concept. I would guess that Nordhavn with there new 40 ish foot build in Turkey has probably addressed some of these issues as that boat is setup with twins.

Ted

One observation that I have not seen is you could reverse the rotation of the props, though would cause a severe penalty when docking. With very rare exceptions, twins are setup so the stbd engine has a right-hand prop, port has a left-hand prop. If you have the stbd engine in forward, not only do you have the offset push of the engine, but the RH rotation of the prop produces prop-walk that drags the stern to starboard too. Of course, would complicate docking - for anyone who's a fan of postware British motorcycles with brake and gear on opposite side (and 1-up/3-down vs reverse), you know what I mean.

Since none of these modifications are easy dock-side mods, best solution would be to install bigger tanks and be done with it. Just run the boat as intended.

Peter

 

[O C Diver]

I have run a 42' crew boat where both drive trains were identical. The original company had their boats built this way so that everything was interchangeable. Need to change a transmission or prop, the spares fit either side. Anyway, not really bad to dock or maneuver in tight quarters. Not optimal, but really not that bad. Drove a number of twin outboard boats in the 80s that didn't have counter rotating engines, again not bad, just not optimal.

Ted

 

[firehoser75]

Good friends of mine own a Kadey Krogen 52 and it has a John Deer single engine with a "get home" wing engine. They factory ordered it this way. From what I have heard, a lot (maybe most) KK's are single engine. KK's have a reputation of being "off shore" capable.

My friends moved up to this boat as they planned on going offshore especially to the south Pacific. It has been over 10 years and so far they have only "coastal cruised" going as far as from Seattle to Alaska and Haida Gwaii (and areas in between).
Good luck in your boat hunting.

 

[Shrew]

Both of these boats are single engine, with no 'Get Home' engine.

Back to the original question. Where will you be venturing? One thing to consider is that even a 'get home' engine will not have an isolated fuel tank. If fuel is the issue, it will impact all engines.

 

[O C Diver]

Both of these boats are single engine, with no 'Get Home' engine.

Back to the original question. Where will you be venturing? One thing to consider is that even a 'get home' engine will not have an isolated fuel tank. If fuel is the issue, it will impact all engines.

Why not?

If I were building a passage maker, whether twins or a single and a wing, they would have separate fuel, electrical, and controls. The fuel would go into large bulk tanks and then polished into day tanks.

Ted

 

[socalrider]

Yeah even my CHB41 has separated fuel systems. There’s a crossover tube with a valve if you want to use it, but east to keep separate during a passage in case a tank gets contaminated.

 

[La Sirena]

A single engine plane has no get home engine. But the one engine it does have is impeccably maintained.

My fear without a get home engine would not be crossing an ocean. I doubt a get home engine would get you to your destination if you had thousands of mile to travel. In weather, a get home engine will just keep you pointed into the weather but not make any headway.

My fear would be if the main engine failed 20 miles off the coast of northern CA and I was being blown towards shore in rough weather. Help may not be available to get to you in time. A sea anchor would slow the process and keep you pointed into the weather, and would be a necessary thing to keep on board if you didn't have a get home engine.

 

[rslifkin]

Fuel-wise, in my mind, every engine gets its own tank. Having additional tanks that can be transferred or selected is fine, but for normal running, no 2 engines should be drawing from the same tank (whether it's single + wing or twins). That at least reduces the risk of a fuel problem taking out multiple engines at the same time.

A single engine plane has no get home engine. But the one engine it does have is impeccably maintained.

My fear without a get home engine would not be crossing an ocean. I doubt a get home engine would get you to your destination if you had thousands of mile to travel. In weather, a get home engine will just keep you pointed into the weather but not make any headway.

My fear would be if the main engine failed 20 miles off the coast of northern CA and I was being blown towards shore in rough weather. Help may not be available to get to you in time. A sea anchor would slow the process and keep you pointed into the weather, and would be a necessary thing to keep on board if you didn't have a get home engine.

I generally agree. Backup power matters most in confined areas, especially if just dropping an anchor is not a great option where you are. Being able to at least retain maneuverability while you work on the problem is a big benefit. In the middle of nowhere, things are less time sensitive.

 

[sunchaser]

Both of these boats are single engine, with no 'Get Home' engine.

With an onboard "rated" owner/engineer and large spare parts inventory.

 

[guy with a boat]

Both of these boats are single engine, with no 'Get Home' engine.

Back to the original question. Where will you be venturing? One thing to consider is that even a 'get home' engine will not have an isolated fuel tank. If fuel is the issue, it will impact all engines.

Our boat has a single main and a wing engine, and the wing has its own day tank. Fuel is always polished when transferred from the main tanks to the day tank. Not foolproof, but will deal with most minor water/sediment contamination issues.

Our wing is half the size of the main, but is a continuous-duty CAT. It will push our boat at 5-6kts until we run out of fuel, which is long enough to get from almost anywhere to somewhere.

There are lots of ways to skin the cat, but I have become a big fan of singles for a cruising boat. Between the simplicity and the much-easier maintenance access, I would only have a single for this type of boat.

 

[grandbanksbayfield]

Wing Engine Alternative.

It all depends on how far you go offshore. Crossing oceans? Go Nordhavn... Coastal? Reliable single diesel or twins and unlimited BoatUS towing. I, a small-timer with a GB32, have concerns about stalling out in the wrong place at the wrong time, although our Lehman 135 is one of the best, most trust-worthy engines on the market. My worst nightmare is to stall out in the St. Clair River and have a freighter run over us. This past spring, I built a bracket that can be quickly attached to the swim platform so we can clamp our 6hp outboard on it. Surprisingly, it moves the boat along about 3 knots, plenty go get out of the way of a 1000-foot freighter (a bit over 100 feet wide). Alternatively, an easily deployed dinghy and tow rope can keep you off the rocks in most situations. Scale down your thinking some and you will see more alternatives. The best things to worry about are how to supply your engine with clean fuel and keep the cooling system working well.

 

[slowgoesit]

The boat we are in the process of purchasing is a Beebe design passagemaker. It has a single main engine, a Gardner 8LXB, and the auxiliary engine is an Isuzu 4LE2 which can be coupled to the main drive shaft if needed. The Aux engine is only 40.2hp continuous, but that should kick the boat along at a reasonable clip. The boat has traveled from the Philippines, where it was built to Seattle via the Aleutians, Alaska, and Canada. Granted if the main driveshaft/prop is damaged, you're dead in the water, but it's something. My point is that there are options out there, some mainstream, some outliers, like the Beebe.
Another thought. If you have twins, and use active stabilization, it is normally only run off of ONE engine, not both . . . so, you just need to make sure that the engine that packs it in is NOT the one with the hydraulic pump that runs the stabilizers!

 

[Hippocampus]

The wing on nordhavn has a separate tank. There’s also a day tank and ability to polish all fuel tanks. Having clean fuel is a big deal.
On one passage we topped off our tanks in Hampton Va. actually just one of four. That trip to BVI was light air and no wind at all in the saragasso. We fouled both racors before realizing we had a bad tank. Normally draw a little from each tank to keep trim so although we had 4 tanks it took us dummies awhile to realize that just one tank was bad. We then drew the other three down to 20%. Decided to go back the the bad tank wanting plenty of reserve for landfall. Went through another 4 filters. Fortunately had more than a dozen. As soon as we made landfall got a portable polisher to clean the bad tank and replaced the filters we used.
So now moving to power one of the must haves is on board polishing and definitely like a gravity feeding day tank. Still think a wing ain’t a bad idea for reasons previously mentioned. Still think you can’t have too many spares for key systems like engines.
Since that passage pay a lot of attention as to where I get fuel and when. Won’t fuel up the first day the fuel dock gets new fuel. Try to avoid anyplace that doesn’t sell a lot of fuel. Things like that.
Think bad fuel is as big a deal coastal as anyplace else. Think it’s actually a bigger deal. You can’t just drift and have the time to sort yourself out.

 

[O C Diver]

On my boat I have only one tank that I pump fuel into. To transfer it to the other (where the engine and generator draw from), it has to go through the polisher. Generally wait for it to settle before transferring. It makes fueling a little more complicated, but only lets bad fuel get into one tank. Always start the transfer/ polishing with a light shining in the bowl of the Racor 1000. Transfer pump pulls from the lowest corner of the tanks.

Ted