Yes, but I'd say if it fits any boat, Greenline is it. Good term and while it lacks precise definition, it does describe Greenline well.
Maybe I was wrong. I thought I wanted a trawler.
- Thread starter Owen Christensen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yes, but I'd say if it fits any boat, Greenline is it. Good term and while it lacks precise definition, it does describe Greenline well.
Hey, like many say here on TF.... amchor every single time as if you will be hit by a hurricane.
Not bad advice for tying at a marina either. I see damage from small, sudden storms, where boats were just not adequately secured and protected. Anytime we leave a boat, we leave it secured for bad weather.
ABfish
Senior Member
To return to the OP, I started my search with the idea of 8-knot cruising in mind. Ended up with a 20-knot Mikelson 43 that also runs well at 10 knots.
The extra speed is an important factor in allowing my wife to enjoy the boat. She cannot endure rolling from beam seas in displacement mode. Sickness is sure to follow.
However, banging through 4 footers at 16 knots is no problem for her. Even in the ICW, she always wants to go faster, though that's more of a patience issue and a gotta get there mindset.
A boat like mine, which is considered semi-displacement, is not intended to cross oceans. But returning to the dock after a day a Cape Lookout, in 15 to 20 knots from the southwest, I'd rather be in a boat like mine. I can run her just fast enough to "stiffen up" without beating up my passengers. You can't do that in a full displacement hull.
There are advantages to speed that are not reflected in offshore suitability ratings.
The extra speed is an important factor in allowing my wife to enjoy the boat. She cannot endure rolling from beam seas in displacement mode. Sickness is sure to follow.
However, banging through 4 footers at 16 knots is no problem for her. Even in the ICW, she always wants to go faster, though that's more of a patience issue and a gotta get there mindset.
A boat like mine, which is considered semi-displacement, is not intended to cross oceans. But returning to the dock after a day a Cape Lookout, in 15 to 20 knots from the southwest, I'd rather be in a boat like mine. I can run her just fast enough to "stiffen up" without beating up my passengers. You can't do that in a full displacement hull.
There are advantages to speed that are not reflected in offshore suitability ratings.
People come here asking what is the right boat to get. The right boat is the one that is right for you. We're with your wife in that we just don't enjoy displacement speeds. We have no issue with those who do, just not our thing.
You also make good mention of the ability to adjust speeds to better timing with the waves. You can match speed to conditions. You can turn otherwise uncomfortable seas into a nice ride. Also, tremendous advantage to transiting inlets, both in and out.
psneeld
Guru
If you tie up for an overnight at a orotected marina the same way you tie up for a hurricane......
IMHO
If you are going to have a boat [that you use only in protected waters or accomplishing fairly close to land coastal cruising]: Why chose one that only goes slowly and in no way can be made to go fast. When you can chose a boat that can go fast anytime and can also go slowly anytime?
Regarding similar weight, length and beam boats: Comparison of fuel use %age difference is negligible, by going slowly [i.e., a bit under hull speed] per hours-run/miles-traveled for a displacement, a semi displacement or a planing hull. Yes, the displacement may edge out the other two in fuel economy by 10 to 20%... but... in the long scope of boat cost that = tiny %age of overall expense. And, displacement sticks you to ONLY being able to do hull speed or below.
For inner waterways and coastal cruising semi displacement or planing hulls are my choice - due to opportunities of increased speed as well as other items... such as sea handling comfort-capability, running from bad weather, dealing with fast currents and accomplishing more travel miles per day when the reason for going is to reach destinations 100's to 1000's of miles away.
On the other hand: Displacement hull on a fairly large boat seems great for ocean crossing. Because... fuel economy is drastically needed and the length of bottom in water increases hull speed capability... so you can travel at a a good clip to reach your destination - across the pond!
If you are going to have a boat [that you use only in protected waters or accomplishing fairly close to land coastal cruising]: Why chose one that only goes slowly and in no way can be made to go fast. When you can chose a boat that can go fast anytime and can also go slowly anytime?
Regarding similar weight, length and beam boats: Comparison of fuel use %age difference is negligible, by going slowly [i.e., a bit under hull speed] per hours-run/miles-traveled for a displacement, a semi displacement or a planing hull. Yes, the displacement may edge out the other two in fuel economy by 10 to 20%... but... in the long scope of boat cost that = tiny %age of overall expense. And, displacement sticks you to ONLY being able to do hull speed or below.
For inner waterways and coastal cruising semi displacement or planing hulls are my choice - due to opportunities of increased speed as well as other items... such as sea handling comfort-capability, running from bad weather, dealing with fast currents and accomplishing more travel miles per day when the reason for going is to reach destinations 100's to 1000's of miles away.
On the other hand: Displacement hull on a fairly large boat seems great for ocean crossing. Because... fuel economy is drastically needed and the length of bottom in water increases hull speed capability... so you can travel at a a good clip to reach your destination - across the pond!
Hippocampus
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 3,926
- Location
- Plymouth
- Vessel Name
- Hippocampus
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 42
The LDL boats can exceed hull speed with very modest HP and fuel burn. For mixed use (offshore, passage, inshore, inland) that would be my choice. I own a SD hull and already as a newbie have made use of all available throttle settings. Agree SD makes great great sense in a coastal or occasional inshore setting. Disagree that FD isn’t suitable for coastal.
Other than foilers all sailboats are FD. They seem to do just fine.
Other than foilers all sailboats are FD. They seem to do just fine.
Last edited:
Mono D hull power boats are just fine if rolling in certain sea conditions is not a bother [otherwise stabilizer of some sort may be needed] and n-e-v-e-r going over hull speed is desired for %100 of all cruising.
IMO - For the fullest [and most comfortable] of boat usefulness, during coastal and inside cruising, SD and P hulls are the way to go!
Regarding: "Other than foilers all sailboats are FD. They seem to do just fine." That's true. However... it is apples to ranges as compared to any hull type of a power boat. Along many levels of hull design, stabilization opportunities/capabilities, trim while cruising, engine power, prop type, draft, air-height, steering accommodations, rudder designs/hook-ups...
Last edited:
Hippocampus
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 3,926
- Location
- Plymouth
- Vessel Name
- Hippocampus
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 42
Going back to the ancients it was understood as speed increases for a displacement hull you set up 1 1/2 wave along the hull. You need to climb the bow wave to plane. This is true for SD, FD and planing operating at displacement speeds. The alternative is to not have or to dramatically decrease the bow wave. Rather than thinking about prismatic coefficient think about fineness of entry and wave piercing. This concept is quite old. Bulbs on FD hulls are another way to try to alter movement of water along the hull but to decrease power needs not increase speeds.
Even with human power these hulls can and do exceed calculated hull speed without planing. Look at a shell during a crew race. They are not defying physics. Just with less frontal plane there’s less resistance. Ultralight displacement also deceases resistance. One human even if quite fit is a mear fraction of a HP.
This same principles has been applied to power for quite a long time as well. I’m up in Newport. Look at the commuter boats or the rum runners of decades past. Things of great beauty built in wood with by modern criteria low powered. They can operate in that range between plane and 1.34 x sq lwl. efficiently. Even NJ sea brights incorporate some of this thinking. So if you look at the performance of the current crop of light, thin Al there’s nothing new beyond excellent refinements made possible by computer modeling and understanding of hydrodynamics. But the basic hull form ain’t new. These and prior such hulls operate above hull speed but are not planing. Can even cross oceans at those speeds.
Should also mention these hulls are self righting. Why? Fluids and machinery are below the designed waterline producing a very strong righting arm at all heel angles. Airdraft is very modest to allow canal travel so excellent A/B. These boats (like efficient multis) float more on the water not in it. With light ends less pitchpoling but quicker heave. Roll is modified by meta center which is low.
Approaching this as mom and pop cruisers there’s one major downside and it’s not rolling. Rather there’s very limited capacity for payload. Same issue as with efficient multi hulls. Look at the Tenant designs and compare with Leishman’s. Then think about payload. For dollar spent and operating cost boats of equal size favors the standard FD hull capacity for useful payload. The FD hull will absorb additional weight with little complaint or change in performance. Payload is a big deal. If you don’t think so watch Carlin’s routine about “my stuff and your sh-t”.
Even with human power these hulls can and do exceed calculated hull speed without planing. Look at a shell during a crew race. They are not defying physics. Just with less frontal plane there’s less resistance. Ultralight displacement also deceases resistance. One human even if quite fit is a mear fraction of a HP.
This same principles has been applied to power for quite a long time as well. I’m up in Newport. Look at the commuter boats or the rum runners of decades past. Things of great beauty built in wood with by modern criteria low powered. They can operate in that range between plane and 1.34 x sq lwl. efficiently. Even NJ sea brights incorporate some of this thinking. So if you look at the performance of the current crop of light, thin Al there’s nothing new beyond excellent refinements made possible by computer modeling and understanding of hydrodynamics. But the basic hull form ain’t new. These and prior such hulls operate above hull speed but are not planing. Can even cross oceans at those speeds.
Should also mention these hulls are self righting. Why? Fluids and machinery are below the designed waterline producing a very strong righting arm at all heel angles. Airdraft is very modest to allow canal travel so excellent A/B. These boats (like efficient multis) float more on the water not in it. With light ends less pitchpoling but quicker heave. Roll is modified by meta center which is low.
Approaching this as mom and pop cruisers there’s one major downside and it’s not rolling. Rather there’s very limited capacity for payload. Same issue as with efficient multi hulls. Look at the Tenant designs and compare with Leishman’s. Then think about payload. For dollar spent and operating cost boats of equal size favors the standard FD hull capacity for useful payload. The FD hull will absorb additional weight with little complaint or change in performance. Payload is a big deal. If you don’t think so watch Carlin’s routine about “my stuff and your sh-t”.
Last edited:
FWT
Guru
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2020
- Messages
- 1,522
- Vessel Name
- Resilient
- Vessel Make
- Helmsman Trawlers 38E
And then there was the Camano hull, which cracked the code to eliminate a bow wave that needed power to get over and onto plane. Creating a smooth curve on the fuel burn to speeds well above hull speed. They did this by taking some hull volume off of the bow sections and adding to the belly of the boat against the keel, creating lift there. The downside becoming skittish and "squirrely" and unstable at about 15 knots, probably from excessive lift at higher speeds. I've been surprised the concept has not been adapted and refined.
rslifkin
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2019
- Messages
- 7,602
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Hour Glass
- Vessel Make
- Chris Craft 381 Catalina
The Camano hull is an interesting design for sure, and also not the only one that can plane, but runs into handling problems if you go too fast. The ability to push through the bow wave is definitely a bit unique though.
As proof that there are multiple ways to achieve the same speed goal, I look at my boat vs the same year 39 foot Sea Ray a few slips over. Both boats have the same engines and are pretty much the same size. Mine has bigger props and deeper reduction gears. My boat has a narrower waterline beam due to more hull flare, a much deeper forefoot, a keel, smaller chine flats, bigger trim tabs, no prop pockets, bigger rudders and rounded forward sections instead of lifting strakes. And my boat is also about 6k lbs heavier when loaded.
Logically, when looking at the 2 hulls, the Sea Ray should be a much faster boat. But in reality, it's not. At WOT, the Sea Ray does ~27 - 28 kts. My boat does ~25, but I know it's seen 27 earlier in its life with less weight on board. Cruising on plane, the Sea Ray is only about a knot faster at max continuous, so not much. Funny enough, the Sea Ray owners all say the boat is a bit underpowered and a little sluggish to get on plane, while my boat has no such issue due to more lift from the hull and big tabs, plus better low speed thrust with the bigger, slower turning props.
However, if you put more power in the Sea Ray, it'll go faster. Put more power in my boat and you'll run the same speeds in reality, as once you get much above 20 kts, the handling starts to get a bit skittish and you can't apply full rudder safely as you'll roll the outside chine out of the water and get some seriously sketchy handling in a turn.
Nick14
Guru
I appreciate everyone's comment and thoughts on this topic. I have a great interest in the semi-displacement/super-displacement/semi-planing space as that is where I like to boat, and have for a long time. Full displacement speeds are both not practical in my area (7 knots bucking a 3-4 knot adverse current in Buzzard's Bay or the Cape Cod Canal means less than walking speed).
More importantly, full displacement speed would result in my single-handing most of the time. When we've experimentally tried going at 7-8 knots, within 15 minutes the Admiral declares, 'speed up, I can't take it anymore!'. I love the idea of being able to cruise in the low-mid teens, but with better ability to handle nasty sea conditions than a typical flat-bottom full planing hull (I strayed and ventured down the dark side of the path with a full planing boat about 15 years ago, and regretted it).
Therein lies the rub. People like big, spacious cabins. So many builders and dealers have joked about the 'wow' factor to impress Admirals at boat shows (it's happened to us...). This has led to ever beamier designs and full-width cabins at the expense of walk-around decks. It's in our cultural nature - bigger is better, and we like boat spaces that feel like a house.
However... diesel fuel prices north of $6/gal are with us, and will likely stay with us for the foreseeable future (probably as long as Putin is alive and the West boycotts Russian oil). The truly wealthy are immune from such pedestrian things as fuel prices and it won't stop super-yachts. But for most of the rest of us, I wonder if over time as the reality of fuel prices and the realization that we're not likely to see sub-$3/gal fuel in our lifetimes sets in, if there might be renewed interest in the classic pre-war designs Hippocampus refers to. Lean, narrow hulls that can exceed displacement speeds and cruise in the teens on modest power, the way boats were designed and performed in the days before high-power engines.
Few like this are offered now, because the tradeoff is (as you described) less interior space and carrying capacity. We would have to get used to smaller spaces and carrying less stuff.
Adreyale of France builds a few models like this. I think they're absolutely gorgeous. There only seem to be a handful in the U.S., which pop up for sale periodically.
https://www.tofinou.com/en/motor-yachts/andreyale-15-m
Sam Devlin recently offered a similar design, I don't know if any have actually been built.
https://devlinboat.com/blue-fin-48/
I've wondered the same as well. Why haven't more builders adopted the Camano hull design? Any patents would seem to have long expired. It seemed like the perfect compromise of being able to cruise in the low teens, beyond 'displacement' speeds, but without sacrificing interior space or carrying capacity. For my own personal desires it's perfect. Over the years I've chased the few Camano and Bracewell 41's that come on the market, but the few in existence seem to be mostly on the wrong coast (I tried buying the only east coast Camano 41 I ever saw; it was initially listed years ago for $399k, which at the time I thought was too high. I offered $325k which the broker scoffed at. To my knowledge it was for sale on and off for 6 years, and I believe ultimately sold for $225k).
More importantly, full displacement speed would result in my single-handing most of the time. When we've experimentally tried going at 7-8 knots, within 15 minutes the Admiral declares, 'speed up, I can't take it anymore!'. I love the idea of being able to cruise in the low-mid teens, but with better ability to handle nasty sea conditions than a typical flat-bottom full planing hull (I strayed and ventured down the dark side of the path with a full planing boat about 15 years ago, and regretted it).
Therein lies the rub. People like big, spacious cabins. So many builders and dealers have joked about the 'wow' factor to impress Admirals at boat shows (it's happened to us...). This has led to ever beamier designs and full-width cabins at the expense of walk-around decks. It's in our cultural nature - bigger is better, and we like boat spaces that feel like a house.
However... diesel fuel prices north of $6/gal are with us, and will likely stay with us for the foreseeable future (probably as long as Putin is alive and the West boycotts Russian oil). The truly wealthy are immune from such pedestrian things as fuel prices and it won't stop super-yachts. But for most of the rest of us, I wonder if over time as the reality of fuel prices and the realization that we're not likely to see sub-$3/gal fuel in our lifetimes sets in, if there might be renewed interest in the classic pre-war designs Hippocampus refers to. Lean, narrow hulls that can exceed displacement speeds and cruise in the teens on modest power, the way boats were designed and performed in the days before high-power engines.
Few like this are offered now, because the tradeoff is (as you described) less interior space and carrying capacity. We would have to get used to smaller spaces and carrying less stuff.
Adreyale of France builds a few models like this. I think they're absolutely gorgeous. There only seem to be a handful in the U.S., which pop up for sale periodically.
https://www.tofinou.com/en/motor-yachts/andreyale-15-m
Sam Devlin recently offered a similar design, I don't know if any have actually been built.
https://devlinboat.com/blue-fin-48/
I've wondered the same as well. Why haven't more builders adopted the Camano hull design? Any patents would seem to have long expired. It seemed like the perfect compromise of being able to cruise in the low teens, beyond 'displacement' speeds, but without sacrificing interior space or carrying capacity. For my own personal desires it's perfect. Over the years I've chased the few Camano and Bracewell 41's that come on the market, but the few in existence seem to be mostly on the wrong coast (I tried buying the only east coast Camano 41 I ever saw; it was initially listed years ago for $399k, which at the time I thought was too high. I offered $325k which the broker scoffed at. To my knowledge it was for sale on and off for 6 years, and I believe ultimately sold for $225k).
darkside
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2016
- Messages
- 402
- Location
- New Zealand
- Vessel Name
- Ahi
- Vessel Make
- Roger Hill Powercat
Plenty of NZ designed sailboats plane without foils, I've owned two, cruised offshore on one. Bruce Farr was one of the designers who started that craze in the 60's and 70's, he's now based in Annapolis. They have to be light and powerful, definitely sporty when it blows a bit.
There aren't any production yacht builders left in NZ due to various tax rules over the years. If you want a cruising monohull sailboat that planes, the Pogo 1250 from France is a good choice.
backinblue
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 3,937
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Blue Moon
- Vessel Make
- Mainship Pilot 355
I can't be the only guy who wanted to waterski being towed by a Macgregor 26!
Only my opinion. The Macgregor 26 was the best or worst boat every conceived. (In my mind the worst). It was a bad sailboat and a bad powerboat but I am sure there are some who loved it.
darkside
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2016
- Messages
- 402
- Location
- New Zealand
- Vessel Name
- Ahi
- Vessel Make
- Roger Hill Powercat
I don't get the reason for the MacGregor 26 either.
However I meant more like Comanche.
However I meant more like Comanche.
