Longest nonstop passage on a powerboat?

[mvweebles]

What’s your opinion on how to view the miles per gallon reported in the addendum in the back of “Voyaging under Power”? Appendix C. It’s owner supplied and date of passage isn’t mentioned so one cannot know if current navigation instruments and flow gauges were used. Still would think if you averaged numbers for a particular engine/boat they wouldn’t be too far off. Do you agree?

I haven't looked at VUP in 20+ years so don't remember what was there. Jim Leishman (PAE /Nordhavn) updated the book around 2000 or so so the numbers may be fairly recent. If it's based on HP per ton or something, I have never been able to correlate.

Owner reported consumption numbers are notoriously inaccurate. The exception are the long distance folks like the N47 post a few up from here in this thread. They do it the old fashioned way. Fill up before leaving. Run 200+ hours straight. Fill up again. Do the math.

I've also been on some very recent boats with electronic controls. Theoretically, they should give a very accurate accounting of fuel used. They seem to be off by a good 10% or more.

There was a recent thread of a couple on a fairly large (65?) Hatteras going from Gibraltar to US. Fuel was going to be really tight for them - they had some longer distance runs and had confidence in their numbers. Given the critical nature of being wrong, I believe their estimates. But most owners are wildly optimistic with their fuel burn estimates.

Honestly, when I was delivering, I used a general rule of 1 gal per mile at hull speed, and would adjust up/down based on size, twin vs single, planing vs SD vs FD. No magic. Just a wild guess based on experience. For the most part, over 50-100 hours of running, my guess was usually pretty good. If I'd listed to owners estimates, I'd still be floating 50 nms off Cape Mendocino

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

I think a lot of people forget that on shorter legs, a surprising portion of "engines running" time ends up being at something other than your standard cruise speed for the run. You either end up slowing down for things at times, or if locks are involved, idling, etc. And if that's not accounted for (especially when estimating without flow meters), it can skew the fuel burn estimates lower by a good bit.

Plus, there's also accounting for sea state. If you only ever run in fairly calm conditions, it's hard to accurately estimate how much your fuel burn per mile will increase when conditions get worse.


So without good flow meters, a lot of us just can't produce a terribly accurate fuel burn estimate. And most don't want to take the fuzzy numbers and then adjust them to be conservative, as they like the more efficient sounding number.

 

[Hippocampus]

Thanks for the input. Was just thinking that list is open water passages so concerns about not operating at cruising speeds isn’t that relevant. They do list distance, fins or fish and generator use.
My concern isn’t really mpg but rather range. Have an aversion to any form of deck bladders or containers. Think they’re not a great idea. So just accurate measures of distance travelled and given absence of refills on most of these trips volume at beginning and end should suffice. Was surprised by how well the DDs did.

 

[mvweebles]

When PAE launched the N40 and decided to do the around the world PR cruise, Jim Lieshman wrote extensively about assuring adequate range to get to Hawaii, the longest leg of the trip. They ran the boat up to PNW a couple times. Ultimately, they installed a gravity fed day tank with very precise measurements so they could monitor fuel at a very granular level. At the time, FloScans were widely available but they went with visual measurements (as would I under the circumstances).

They arrived in Hawaii without much fuel, but they powered-up after the halfway mark knowing they were in good shape.

There's a lot to be said about a company like PAE and Fleming who actually use their boats under the intended conditions. PAE learned a lot on that ATW trip. I know very little about the DDs.

Peter

 

[Chrisjs]

As I posted earlier in this thread, we ran 7 days non-stop 1,160 nm offshore in a bee line from Lauderdale to Block. So perhaps not defined as "bluewater" but a hundred plus miles off shore for a decent portion. The Selene 47 had 900 gallons on board. We averaged 2.58mpg at 7.4kt with a 280HP Cummins 6BTA. So allowing for 12.5% safety margin, 800 gallons would give a range of over 2,000nm. Fuel consumption was pretty consistent for the entire period we owned the vessel.

 

[Hippocampus]

Did you have any issues at commissioning or later on? I really like the layout and look of the Selene but hear stories about cracks in the tanks and other problems. Is that overstated? Both the 43 and 47 would serve our function at considerable savings c/w the comparable Ns.

 

[Chrisjs]

We purchased hull 001 first production Selene 47 (1999) in 2006, so not new when we got it. We put about 2,500hr on it over the next 8 years. No unusual issues during that time. New owners have done extensive travel on the vessel since 2014 and not aware of any problems other than normal maintenance and repair items. I am guessing there must be about 5,000hr on the boat by now. The Selene has great seakeeping (by my standards) and we have been out in 50kt winds and 12ft seas (not by choice). We carried 900 gallons in 2 aluminum tanks, though newer boats may have bigger tanks. On vacation in Barcelona a few years ago, we saw a 47 that had motored from South America (Argentina?).

 

[Hippocampus]

Excellent. Good to hear.

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

When PAE launched the N40 and decided to do the around the world PR cruise, Jim Lieshman wrote extensively about assuring adequate range to get to Hawaii, the longest leg of the trip. They ran the boat up to PNW a couple times. Ultimately, they installed a gravity fed day tank with very precise measurements so they could monitor fuel at a very granular level. At the time, FloScans were widely available but they went with visual measurements (as would I under the circumstances).

They arrived in Hawaii without much fuel, but they powered-up after the halfway mark knowing they were in good shape.

There's a lot to be said about a company like PAE and Fleming who actually use their boats under the intended conditions. PAE learned a lot on that ATW trip. I know very little about the DDs.

Peter

I applaud PAE and Jim for sending their N40 around the world. They had lots of media coverage, company and vendor support. Its not a cakewalk by any stretch of the imagination.The other end of the spectrum is the Idlewilde Voyage

The DD's (of which Idlewilde isn't but a close relative) didn't have any company support, a bit of media but were on their own....Thats why most haven't heard of this trip. Ben and his son were just good ole boys looking for some adventure. They worked with George Buhler to come up with a design, built it,sailed it and sold it after... I bet less than 15% of the TF peeps have every heard of this boat or the amazing adventure.

 

[hollywood8118]

Showing your age there
Does anyone do actual sail changes any more?
Seems most cruising boats I see now have furlers and some even in mast furling for the main.

Shyte sail shape so would never have been something I had......or that's what I tell myself.
Reality was I never had the budget.
Nah, reality is I could never accept shyte sail shape.

But yeah, long offshore passage for us with great coastal/race crew cost us on a Australia to New Caledonia run.
I was shattered after a very ordinary few days at the start so crashed out and woke several hours later airborne and being pummeled into the bulkhead of our cat.
Crew up top were having a great time launching off of waves doing low teens, water everywhere but handling it fine........until it wasn't.
Double reefed main and working jib and nek minute, reef point was gone, blew out full length of the main.

Had to do the run from Chesterfield reef to Nouméa with a main held together with electrical ties and gaffer tape.

All good, no one died and the main held together for another few months while there.

We never liked to lollygag on passages and actually sailed the boat for performance. While its true many cruising boats have in the mast furling, I wouldn't put up with the crap sail shape or the chance the thing jams up 1000 miles from anywhere. We ran double forward furlers, and carried 4 different kites. With the newer tech and sail cloth it is true the range of conditions a sail can perform have become wider ( note I didn't say perform well).

I guess when we made the switch to power from sail we traded deck checks for ER checks.

HOLLYWOOD

 

[Hippocampus]

With reef lines brought aft, a Dutchman and powered winches on a solent rigged boat there’s no reason to put up with poor sail shape. We used single manned watches on passage. It’s what’s between your ears not your arms that makes for a good oceangoing sailor. My 4’10” 100lbs. wife has no trouble with any evolution-reef,hand or steer. Have a strong aversion to both in mast and in boom reefing. KISS.

 

[Group9]

I was crew on a 90 foot power boat, where we went almost all the way to Grand Caymen, from New Orleans, Louisiana, where we turned around about an hour before we would have spotted Grand Cayman (we did get close enough to Cuba to see it going down and coming back) because what we were going down there to do, got canceled.

I always referred to this as "The Voyage to Nowhere" when talking about it later.

We had engine problems with one engine, too, and had to go slower than we could have. It ended up being seven days on the water.

 

[SailorGreg]

A few years ago we ran our Krogen 52 from Canaveral to Newport. Just under 1000 miles after routing to stay in the stream and later to dodge weather. 8 knots speed through the water and 9.5 knots over the ground, thanks to the Gulf Stream. More like extended coastal than offshore, but things are different in a powerboat.
After 20,000 or so offshore miles in sailboats, I find offshore passages somewhat more challenging in a powerboat. Lots of systems need to function in order to stay safe and make progress. And my weather limits are more restrictive in the powerboat.
With the sailboat I always felt a sigh of relief after coming off soundings. Nothing to hit, no engine needed. I figured I could loose all sources of electrical/ mechanical power and still keep sailing. As long as the mast stayed up and I had a compass I could find one Caribbean island or another. And I wasn’t that fussy.
But with this boat, as reliable as it has been, lots of stuff needs to work; at least one engine, stabilization, etc. So the sense of freedom and relaxation just isn’t quite the same.
I have enjoyed multiple trips to Bermuda in sailboats. Always an interesting offshore experience. But if I wanted to return now, I would fly.
That said, the creature comforts are more than worth it.
( written as we enjoy a mooring at Cambridge Cay in Exuma Park)

 

[Nick F]

Vancouver to Ft Lauderdale in a Hatteras 58 LRC
.
.
.
.
on the back of a Dockwise yacht transporter!

(I had done the trip in that same boat in the opposite direction, but we were stopping.)

Nick

 

[Hippocampus]

SG thank you for your post. Hope you would possibly expound further on your thoughts and experience. Now a days most systems are quite similar on sail and power. You still need the redundancies on both. Water in gallon jugs in case tanks get contaminated or water maker membrane fails. Hand held nav equipment. Dry stores in case frig/freezer fails. Redundancy in battery banks and multiple forms of electrical power. Emergency steering.etc.
Have thought you’re trading two forms of propulsion (sail/auxiliary) for two engines ( twins/main and wing). But other than needing stabilization (fins and possibly fish in reserve) there’s similar levels of exposure to system failure.
What am I missing?

Think the KK52 is magnificent btw.

 

[SailorGreg]

SG thank you for your post. Hope you would possibly expound further on your thoughts and experience. Now a days most systems are quite similar on sail and power. You still need the redundancies on both. Water in gallon jugs in case tanks get contaminated or water maker membrane fails. Hand held nav equipment. Dry stores in case frig/freezer fails. Redundancy in battery banks and multiple forms of electrical power. Emergency steering.etc.
Have thought you’re trading two forms of propulsion (sail/auxiliary) for two engines ( twins/main and wing). But other than needing stabilization (fins and possibly fish in reserve) there’s similar levels of exposure to system failure.
What am I missing?

Think the KK52 is magnificent btw.

Hi,
Part of the issue is personality based. I may worry about failure modes more than others. Richard on Dauntless is more easy going than I am, I suppose. That said, on our trawler we need at least one propulsion system running. Yes, diesels are pretty reliable. And I can fix most anything, but Stuff happens. Bad fuel maybe? And with a modern engine I need the electronics that manage it.
Most get home engines are not suited to motoring home in heavy seas from 600 miles out.
Hydraulic stabilization isn’t absolutely required, but we are talking offshore here, let’s say a trip from Virginia to the BVI, so 20’ seas are to be expected at some point. Survivable as long as the engine is running, otherwise out comes the sea anchor. Sailboats are lots more stable.
Lots of subsystems on a modern trawler need electrical power. Steering pumps, autopilots, etc. try hand steering a trawler in heavy seas for a few days straight. I haven’t tried my emergency tiller but now way that will work in the open ocean.
So move to a sailboat. No engine required. No electrical power essential. No fuel necessary. Plenty of ballast to keep the bottom end down. And can be steered without a tiller or a rudder by sails alone. ( yes, the mast needs to stay up)
So I am not suggesting one shouldn’t do long offshore passages in a power boat, it just requires a lot more investment, planning, systems redundancy, etc. than for the same trip in a sailboat. And after all that effort, not as intrinsically reliable.
And for me at least, not as much fun. (BTW, you and I may have done the Salty Dog trip to the BVI a while back. You in an Outbound, me in a little Harbor)

 

[Jeff F]

Greg, it's great to hear your perspective.

I was docked next to Choise in Oswego a couple of years ago. Is that your boat, or a sistership? Nice boat.

 

[Hippocampus]

Yup that was me. Done it multiple times. Love Teds boats. Don’t think he drew or made a bad one sail or power.

You make good points. We had a windvane (hydrovane) that could serve as our emergency rudder as well but several friends didn’t and just carried a extra ram and rudder angle indicator. Some (a large Outremer I believe) had full redundancy on their AP. Hell even coastal the AP steers except for docking or poking through coral heads or skinny water.

Need more thinking on this. How did you set up your electrical system to achieve redundancy? Boats I’m looking at are not common rail nor even turbocharged. Even in the state of the art boats their still avoiding them. Betas now that yanmar is all common rail.

 

[rslifkin]

In general, I wouldn't worry about whether an engine is turbocharged, common rail, etc. I'd worry more about making sure I have any special tools needed to diagnose it, knowing what common weak points are and knowing that if I come into port needing a part, I won't be waiting weeks to get one.

On a boat with twins, if you can get the rudders centered-ish, you can maintain some amount of steering with just the engines if you have a failure. It won't be enough in bad conditions, but it can at least buy you some options and time while you work on getting the steering serviceable again. In general, I say that twins can support loss of an engine or loss of steering, but both together will leave you screwed.

 

[CamoPirate]

My longest “non stop” is san diego to hawaii
2300nm. Have done is several times.

Puerto Vallarta to ensenada i have done 6+ times @ 1200nm

Florida to Seattle i have done at about 5400nm but of course we “stop” in Panama to go through the canal but have done it twice without ever going ashore.

Currently on a san diego to Seattle trip aboard a 57 nordhavn 1100nm and have done this run many times.

1000nm is a normal trip for us.

 

[Hippocampus]

Do know how to work on mechanical controlled engines. Don’t know common rail.

 

[Southern Boater]

...........Many of my fellow Nordhavn owners have circumnavigated in their boats. That includes my good friends Scott and Mary Flanders whose circumnavigation took them south of the five great capes, including Cape Horn. More information on their voyaging here: https://www.passagemaker.com/destinations/voyage-of-egret

Hi Milt

I had the pleasure of hosting Scott and Mary at one stage during their epic high latitude voyage around the world, I had been following their voyage/blog for many months, until one day the mighty Egret appeared in our city.
These are two of the nicest human beings I’ve yet met, in fact they mentioned your name at various times during their time with us, relaying many Nordhavn stories, realising my obsession with motor boats .

Another post stated the longest single voyage under power, was Capetown to Western Australia, Scott and Mary left from Western Australia to Madagascar non stop, so nearly as far, and against the trades.

 

[Hippocampus]

Most encouraging article. Thanks so much for the link.

 

[Cruising Sea Venture]

Sea Venture's longest run to date: (prior owners) Galapagos Islands to La Paz, Mexico, 2,158 miles, 16 days, used almost exactly 50% of total fuel on board.
Jim and Rosy
M/V Sea Venture

 

[Medic]

Longest non-stop voyages

Ensenada to Panama Canal, 2729 nm and Panama Canal to Key West, 1000 nm.

 

[mvweebles]

Ensenada to Panama Canal, 2729 nm and Panama Canal to Key West, 1000 nm.

Your profile states you went from Dana Point to Wisconsin in 63 days. That's a really impressive run!

 

[Medic]

Yes. Spent one night in Ensenada, four days getting onto the Panama Canal, 7 days at the eastern end because of a storm (a great story), then straight through to the Keys, one night there then straight to Stuart, FL. Boat sat there for a while and I flew home to show everyone that I still loved them. Then Stuart, FL straight to NYC for third crew change, New York to Nantucket because we wanted to see Nantucket, Nantucket straight through to Quebec City via Gulf of St. Lawrence, then to Montreal for final crew change, then Montreal to Bayfield, WI via St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes.

Great trip. I really like going through the night. Three helmsmen works well, 4 on - 8 off. I always got stuck with the night shift, midnight to 0400, then again from 1200 to 1600, but I never told anyone that I absolutely loved it the night shift.

The only problem was that I was almost always the only person who could/would do the engine room checks. So a quick "wake-up" generally once on every "off-shift". Also, whenever we came across big ships, like cruise liners, cargo ships, etc a few of my watch-standers were hesitant to use the radio and would get me up, which was OK too because I loved talking to the big ships, especially the cruise liners.

 

[Hippocampus]

Medic your post raises questions for me to which I hope you add your experienced comments. Always have had owner operator insurance so except one occasion always on the boat. Even when crew is more experienced than me go to my bunk with a IPad linked to the nav. You get use to the sounds and feel of your boat. Something changes and you’re up checking it out. Even out of sleep.
Furuno doesn’t link to the new IPads. Do you monitor some other way?
If you stay in the regular watch rotation do you end up sleep deprived?
We left instructions to avoid all shipping by a minimum of 3 miles. Why talk with them other than a radio check? Nearly all intercepts were >5 miles. Only exceptions were close to landfalls and you’re up anyway.

 

[Larmex99]

In 2012 we travelled in our Offshore 54 from San Diego to Cabo San Lucas but took on fuel from a panga in Turtle Bay. We never tied up or anchored. The weather was so good we never turned on our stabilizers. There were a mass of fishing nets close to shore. We were happy to have line cutters on the shafts. The fishermen were not so happy. Total distance was approx. 1350 mi. and it took a week.

 

[Medic]

Medic your post raises questions for me to which I hope you add your experienced comments. Always have had owner operator insurance so except one occasion always on the boat. Even when crew is more experienced than me go to my bunk with a IPad linked to the nav. You get use to the sounds and feel of your boat. Something changes and you’re up checking it out. Even out of sleep.
Furuno doesn’t link to the new IPads. Do you monitor some other way?
If you stay in the regular watch rotation do you end up sleep deprived?
We left instructions to avoid all shipping by a minimum of 3 miles. Why talk with them other than a radio check? Nearly all intercepts were >5 miles. Only exceptions were close to landfalls and you’re up anyway.

On long voyages aboard my Nordhavn I was probably the least experienced person aboard, especially on the longest legs which were considereds training legs by Lloyds of London. I had not one, but two training captains aboard until Florida. The last 3 weeks I was the most experienced person aboard. I never felt uncomfortable having anyone else aboard be at the helm. We did not have any other way of monitoring the instruments, which were Furuno. From Florida to Quebec City we encountered quite a few big ships. We passed at one mile. I always talked to them to make sure we were on the same page. The cruise ships especially were very good about passing on the latest information on weather, etc. I enjoyed talking to them. From Dana Point to Ensenada we were about 50 miles offshore. From Ensenada to Panama, 150. From Panama to the Keys pretty much a straight shot. From Stuart, FL to the Gulf of St. Lawrence usually 20 (ish). Now my cruising is generally within 20 miles and with the current hysteria don't see or talk to many cruise ships. Bummer.