Stabilizers: A Must for Passage-Making?

[mvweebles]

Several Willard 40 owners have installed roll chocks and reported satisfactory results. Rpackard posted up-thread that it has reduced use of his paravane system.

My understanding is while they do not necessarily greatly reduces the initial roll, they are effective at dampening the oscillation and therefore attenuate the overall roll frequency. Given the relatively low cost, sounds like a strong value proposition to me.

Good luck.

Peter (Moderator of Willard Boat Owners forum since 1998)

 

[Simi 60]

thinking of installing something like this. any comments appreciated

They are the ones done by Rogers and Lough . MBBW also do a fiberlass version.

Fuel bill getting your vessel to Australia will add to cost

 

[Simi 60]

Cool idea. Looks interesting and a decent project. Wouldn't be hard to create a suitable living and work space.

I've crewed on a friend's 52 foot power cat and I have to say, I'm not overly fond of the tide, especially with anything approaching beam seas. Great at anchor and has an amazing cockpit area. But both the owner and myself feel a stabilized monohull has a better ride. His wife suffers horribly from seasickness and had hoped the power cat would assist. No noticeable effect.

I think stabilization is more of a comfort item which bleeds into crew safety in a way. A recent episode of Below Decks showed a super yacht with failed stabilizers. Guessing over 80-meter yacht that easily went to 25-30 degrees on either side.

Peter

The ride is different for sure and better than rolling imho
But reality is, for our use we'd still be picking weather windows - why be out doing miles in crap weather if you don't need to?
Rather sit in a sheltered coral lagoon drinking cocktails and eating fresh fish.

Big upside on catamaran hull form is ability to dry out and do bottom work if required
I could see myself if I had that having a decent MIG, bandsaw, pressure blaster etc onboard.
Aluminium is pretty easy for me as I did my apprenticeship building big aluminium vessels.

 

[rslifkin]

Even on the Great Lakes I'd say stabilizers would be nice. They'd extend the range of forecasts we'd call reasonable.
But the big one would be increased comfort when the forecast turns out to be just plain wrong and the weather turns while we're already out there.

 

[ofer]

They are the ones done by Rogers and Lough . MBBW also do a fiberlass version.

Fuel bill getting your vessel to Australia will add to cost

wouldn't do the trip without stabilizers

did you consider those for your vessel?

 

[mvweebles]

But reality is, for our use we'd still be picking weather windows - why be out doing miles in crap weather if you don't need to?
Rather sit in a sheltered coral lagoon drinking cocktails and eating fresh fish.

What is crap weather? Headed north along the pacific coast means most summer afternoons will bring 25 kt winds off the port bow which means 4-6 foot seas at around 5 seconds. That's normal. I simply don't remember a time where there was not a USCG declared Small Craft Warning (they are pretty conservative about declaring a SCW).

OPs question was about stabilization and passagemaking. To my mind, passagemaking means waiting for acceptable weather, but if you plan on waiting for perfect weather, well, you won't make it very far at least along thr US pacific coast. There will always be a reason not to leave port. Stabilizers expand options. Doesn't mean enduring Perfect Storm. Just means making miles in marginally uncomfortable conditions such are common in my neck of the woods.

Peter

 

[Simi 60]

wouldn't do the trip without stabilizers

did you consider those for your vessel?

Nope
Cost to much.

 

[mvweebles]

Nope

Cost to much.

That's a choice and perfectly valid. You liveaboard and anchor out. That's great and I'm envious. But many people don't have or want the patience to wait for perfect weather. Stabilizers expand the decision criteria for go/no-go.

I can tell you that my wife of 26 years is pretty savvy around boats and cruising. She would not accompany me without Stabilizers. It's that big of a difference. Really a game changer. Even if I was okay with non-stabilized (and I have spent many, many open water miles without them), I really like having my wife along and want them for her if not for me - and i definitely want them for me. If i were solo, I'd consider a sailboat and get stability and simplicity that way.

Cost too much? They are expensive. But boats generally are expensive to keep. Adding 10%-20% via stabilizers is often a minor expense that is offset by increased use and enjoyment, just as thrusters are. Maybe not everyone, but in this category of owner (TF), a viable value proposition.

Peter.

 

[slowgoesit]

We get it you don't like paravanes!

But... those of us who have ACTUALLY cruised boats with them offshore and have actual knowledge of how they work on a recreational power boat like them. Years ago I read the Canadian info and this was relevant to commercial boats who are out in crap weather that the rest of us "pleasure" boaters chose to sit tied to the dock. Not to mention that the overall stability of lots of commercial boats changes drastically due to gear on deck, product in the hold or holds ballasted down to help the stability if empty. Keep in mind this report was also geared to the crowd that on a relatively frequent basis rolls boats over do to many other factors not related to paravanes.

We also get it you love your gyro, personally I would not own a boat where the genset has to run all the time to make the boat ride better.

Many have I guess been lucky to survive just having one fish in the water, I personally have deployed just one at times due to needing to take the edge off the roll .. or because I was just lazy and the boat didn't need both.
Lots of boats do just fine with paravanes, some folks prefer them for the simplicity.
HOLLYWOOD

THIS!!!!
Many are the times we have deployed just the upswell paravane when confronted with a beam sea. Didn't need two, just the one to take the edge off.
I can't help but wonder if the people who discount paravanes have ever used them. . . .

 

[catalinajack]

We owned a 2001 DeFever 44+5 CPMY and used it for the Great Loop cruise. The full-length deep keel gave it plenty of lateral stability and the flat after section of the cockpit gave it form stability. I would not put stabilizers on this boat for a couple of reasons. 1st we wanted to do the loop and stabilizers in the canals just snagged stuff. 2nd, we wanted to go to the Bahamas and stabilizers were notorious for snagging sand bars. Newer ones today, will break away rather than holling the boat.

The 44 is different. The keel is shorter and the flat section is not that long compared to the 44+5. It is a boat that will let you know you're at sea.

But let's talk about that.

If you plan to just cruise around Kentucky and the rivers. I wouldn't bother.

If you're planning on doing the Great Loop, you won't see 3 to 6 foot seas unless you missed the NOAA broadcast before heading out so, I wouldn't bother. Only one short segment between Atlantic City and NY will you be offshore (or you could take the ICW, but you need to pay attention and not miss a buoy). If you do hit rough seas, drive from below. You won't be thrown from side to side - woohoo and you won't have the 1st mate screaming, "get me off this effing boat!"

If you're planning on Passagemaking and extended offshore cruising, well then that's another story all together. Put on the stabilizers. I like the rolling but the first mate, well that's another story.

These full-displacement passagemaking boats have wine-glass hull forms like sailboats and are designed to roll with the sea. Keeps it from being a "white knuckle" ride.

We have done the Loop in a stabilized DF44. There are PLENTY more areas than you assert where our stabilzers were very much welcomed. Uh, Lake Michigan comes to mind as does the 24 hour crossing of the Gulf of Mexico (bad forcast), Lake Simcoe. Have you even done the Loop such that you can credibly speculate on potentially difficult cruising grounds? Have you even cruised on a DF44? I can assure you that, without stabilizers you will indeed roll uncomfortably even piloting from the lower helm. I must wonder if your speculation is based on actually cruising on a DF44. Over the years, I have experimented with using and not using the stabilzers in various conditions. My advice? Don't leave home without them.

 

[catalinajack]

Short answer: absolutely not necessary. We cruised over 45,000 miles in two trawlers without stabilizers. If you need your boat to be more like your home and are looking for a way to spend more money, then consider stabilizers; if you understand that your boat is a boat, maybe bumpy at times, don't!

Absolutely not necessary ssys the captain and mate who are not prone to motion sickmess.

 

[Hippocampus]

We’ve done our passage making. As explained multiple times we’re now coastal. Also said in multiple posts for passage making in power my first choice would be fins and second Magnus.
My Nordic Tug and most commonly available recreational trawlers would be unsafe with any ,even modest, sailplan. I’ve been knockdown in heavily ballasted sail with minimal area under null on the Gz curve and minimal risk of down flooding. We came back. Once was in a coastal setting presumably from a microburst. The vast majority of recreational trawler don’t even have a AVS of 90. Engine intakes would flood the ER even in the absence of a full knockdown or failure of port lights. They well may not come back. When running before a sea we would drop the main and even trail a warp to in an effort to decrease the risk of broaching. Due to the surface area of the saloons on recreational trawlers risk of broach is increased. With sail up risk of knockdown is further increased. The new N41 could not even tolerate a flybridge to be able to receive a “A” rating. To talk of common designs getting a sailplan and receiving a “A” boggles. That much weight aloft and that much lateral resistance would be an obstacle.
In a coastal setting the gyro goes on before we leave. It goes on only when forecast suggests it might be needed. Given the vast majority of use entails one to three days of continuous use it goes on rarely. The exception is when we have landlubbers aboard. Unlike when we were passage making being coastal that’s more frequent. The use of this boat is very different than prior. We no longer see three meters and up. Mostly deal with 3-4’ high frequency chop at the worst. A different world.
I picked an NT rather than a AT in part due its ride. The NT is narrower with less form stability but equal stability. For equal LOD you lose a small amount of space but have less snap roll and a better ride in chop. The At still does remarkably well in chop from what I’m told but looking at characteristics the NT would seem to be favored slightly. The AT has many things to favor it over the NT but narrow over wide isn’t one especially when fuel costs are considered.
All boats are beautiful but none do everything well. I was quite distinct in my list saying this in that setting. As alluded to in the prior post for us where we are frequently in less than 18’, have no interest in the labor involved in setting up and taking down paravanes for a one day trip paravanes make no sense. I did say and continue to believe there are better choices for those who are doing our prior program of occasional passages. Most voyaging yachts are short handed. For modest passages of under a week commonly double handed. Can imagine what a sh-t show it would be if in a seaway paravanes needed to be attended to. Particularly if one crews function was diminished. It’s a two person job in that setting to take them in. Fins fail you are in for a rocky ride but stability is unaffected but ultimate safety is not. Worst comes to worst you drop a sea anchor or drogue until weather moderates and you sort yourself out. Voyaging boats are another kettle of fish. Requirements very different than coastal. I’m no longer voyaging. I never said gyros would be my choice for voyaging but rather said they make great sense for coastal and gunkholing.
The risks the Canadians pointed out are NOT restricted to commercial vessels but rather universal. That includes voyaging powercraft. Such recreational vessels are further at risk by often not being crewed by young fit skilled crew. Most boaters have never seen a gale let alone a storm. As said it’s an unlikely occurrence but unfortunately still happens. Most have never seen a dry squall nor a microburst. The prudent mariner hopes for the best but plans for the worst. Cannot understand why anyone would knowingly increase their risks when other (and more effective) options are available.

 

[READY]

I have a Hatt LRC that had old defunct stabilizers so I removed. Have done multiple trips including San Francisco To San Diego. Stabilizers are great but they are not a "must have" either. In your case yes I would make it a high-priority to find a boat that already has them. Adding them at $70k will increase comfort but you will likely never recover much of that cost. But when it comes time to sell yours will move quicker than an unstabilized version.

 

[hollywood8118]

We’ve done our passage making. As explained multiple times we’re now coastal. Also said in multiple posts for passage making in power my first choice would be fins and second Magnus.
My Nordic Tug and most commonly available recreational trawlers would be unsafe with any ,even modest, sailplan. I’ve been knockdown in heavily ballasted sail with minimal area under null on the Gz curve and minimal risk of down flooding. We came back. Once was in a coastal setting presumably from a microburst. The vast majority of recreational trawler don’t even have a AVS of 90. Engine intakes would flood the ER even in the absence of a full knockdown or failure of port lights. They well may not come back. When running before a sea we would drop the main and even trail a warp to in an effort to decrease the risk of broaching. Due to the surface area of the saloons on recreational trawlers risk of broach is increased. With sail up risk of knockdown is further increased. The new N41 could not even tolerate a flybridge to be able to receive a “A” rating. To talk of common designs getting a sailplan and receiving a “A” boggles. That much weight aloft and that much lateral resistance would be an obstacle.
In a coastal setting the gyro goes on before we leave. It goes on only when forecast suggests it might be needed. Given the vast majority of use entails one to three days of continuous use it goes on rarely. The exception is when we have landlubbers aboard. Unlike when we were passage making being coastal that’s more frequent. The use of this boat is very different than prior. We no longer see three meters and up. Mostly deal with 3-4’ high frequency chop at the worst. A different world.
I picked an NT rather than a AT in part due its ride. The NT is narrower with less form stability but equal stability. For equal LOD you lose a small amount of space but have less snap roll and a better ride in chop. The At still does remarkably well in chop from what I’m told but looking at characteristics the NT would seem to be favored slightly. The AT has many things to favor it over the NT but narrow over wide isn’t one especially when fuel costs are considered.
All boats are beautiful but none do everything well. I was quite distinct in my list saying this in that setting. As alluded to in the prior post for us where we are frequently in less than 18’, have no interest in the labor involved in setting up and taking down paravanes for a one day trip paravanes make no sense. I did say and continue to believe there are better choices for those who are doing our prior program of occasional passages. Most voyaging yachts are short handed. For modest passages of under a week commonly double handed. Can imagine what a sh-t show it would be if in a seaway paravanes needed to be attended to. Particularly if one crews function was diminished. It’s a two person job in that setting to take them in. Fins fail you are in for a rocky ride but stability is unaffected but ultimate safety is not. Worst comes to worst you drop a sea anchor or drogue until weather moderates and you sort yourself out. Voyaging boats are another kettle of fish. Requirements very different than coastal. I’m no longer voyaging. I never said gyros would be my choice for voyaging but rather said they make great sense for coastal and gunkholing.
The risks the Canadians pointed out are NOT restricted to commercial vessels but rather universal. That includes voyaging powercraft. Such recreational vessels are further at risk by often not being crewed by young fit skilled crew. Most boaters have never seen a gale let alone a storm. As said it’s an unlikely occurrence but unfortunately still happens. Most have never seen a dry squall nor a microburst. The prudent mariner hopes for the best but plans for the worst. Cannot understand why anyone would knowingly increase their risks when other (and more effective) options are available.

Again,
Do you have any actual experience at all with paravanes or is this all hypothesis?
I usually set and retrieved the fish ALL BY MYSELF, using them on trips as short as less than two hours. Idled the boat in gear with autopilot set on a heading to reduce roll and picked them up.

I will admit the time I picked up a log ( 20' + long ) in the middle of the Strains of Georgia with 6-8' sea running was a pain in the ass. That was the only time I recall any "issue" using paravanes.



Again, since I have ACTUAL experience on powerboats with both paravanes and active stabilizers I feel comfortable with both systems and for a long coastal passage or a blue water crossing would take either system.

For a new boat owner that buys a boat with paravanes it will be a longer learning curve no doubt. But in my opinion from actual use no one should fear a well set up boat with either system.


HOLLYWOOD

 

[mvweebles]

Again,
Do you have any actual experience at all with paravanes or is this all hypothesis?
I usually set and retrieved the fish ALL BY MYSELF, using them on trips as short as less than two hours. Idled the boat in gear with autopilot set on a heading to reduce roll and picked them up.

I will admit the time I picked up a log ( 20' + long ) in the middle of the Strains of Georgia with 6-8' sea running was a pain in the ass. That was the only time I recall any "issue" using paravanes.



Again, since I have ACTUAL experience on powerboats with both paravanes and active stabilizers I feel comfortable with both systems and for a long coastal passage or a blue water crossing would take either system.

For a new boat owner that buys a boat with paravanes it will be a longer learning curve no doubt. But in my opinion from actual use no one should fear a well set up boat with either system.


HOLLYWOOD

I've set fish on three or four different boats, including retrieval just ahead of a gale in the Straits Juan de Fuca where the boat was running down 10 foot quartering seas with a fair amount of corkscrewing. Definitely more work than flipping a switch, and I didn't know the boat well at all and i mostly set/retrieved alone, but workable. Not sure how viable fish would be for a motoryacht/sundeck style of boat.

The OP asked about passagemaking which to me connotes long runs, perhaps multi-day runs. If that's the use case, fish would be near or at top of my list of stabilization options.

Peter

 

[Fish53]

In my many years of commercial fishing I've seen far too many dangers with having paravanes to ever have them on my boat. Once actually had a 250 pound bird come through a side window of the pilothouse in severe weather (over 80 kts). A lot of New England guys used to call them "sissy sticks".

 

[Mac2]

Why no one is talking about the type of ballast tank I installed is beyond me. I put the 275 gallon ballast tank smack dab in the middle of my upper deck. Works great. It's marketed as an inflatable hot tub. It's amazing! When in use, it really makes a difference. Super easy to deploy too. 4 clips and boom-the lid is off. I find it works best when deployed with a martini-still experimenting with this though. I'll let you know how it works if I ever leave the dock.

 

[rslifkin]

Why no one is talking about the type of ballast tank I installed is beyond me. I put the 275 gallon ballast tank smack dab in the middle of my upper deck. Works great. It's marketed as an inflatable hot tub. It's amazing! When in use, it really makes a difference. Super easy to deploy too. 4 clips and boom-the lid is off. I find it works best when deployed with a martini-still experimenting with this though. I'll let you know how it works if I ever leave the dock.

That will slow the roll, but adding weight up high also reduces ultimate stability. So in my mind, it wouldn't be an ideal solution.

 

[socalrider]

That will slow the roll, but adding weight up high also reduces ultimate stability. So in my mind, it wouldn't be an ideal solution.

I suspect the above post may have been written with tongue firmly in cheek. Or perhaps after a few hot-tub martinis...

 

[dannc]

Good catch. A rigging failure - whether for paravanes or sail-plan (an under-discussed form of stabilization) - is not necessarily catastrophic (as evidenced by the recent N40 crossing the Atlantic that had a rigging failure), but a major inconvenience and expense.

One of the Diesel Ducks was traveling from Japan to Alaska via the Aleutians and they got hit by a big storm with big waves. They got hit by a bigger wave on the beam and got rolled to at least 90 degrees. Found out many years later that the roll likely busted some of their engine mounts. They had their paravanes out and one pole broke and sank as I remember it. They continued on with one fish in the water.

In the end, there is no one perfect stabilization system for all people, use-cases, and budgets. But there is near universal agreement by those who have cruised a stabilized boat that the effort/expense is worth it and they would not cruise a non-stabilized powerboat.

Picking the type of stabilization is one of those boat decisions where there is no right or wrong answer, just an answer.

We have been on a boat with paravanes in use and they work. The only effort is getting the fish out of the water and that is not really hard work. It does not take that long to deploy the fish or retrieve the fish. Sure it takes more effort than pushing a button but it is not that hard. Paravanes are simple, reliable and easily fixable in the field. One can choose to NOT use them if the sea state allows.

We have also had a paravane fish catch a crab/lobster trap in a gale. Not fun that is for sure, but eventually, the fish freed itself and on we went. While active fins might fend off a line to a crab/lobster trap, I would not bet on it. A gyro would not have this risk but the idea of using up the valuable space for a gyro, their expense to buy and maintain, AND having to run an engine all of the time the gyro is in use just has to many negatives for us. The magnus effect stabilizers are interesting, spin on things.

If life allows us to get the boat we want, it will have paravanes for stabilization as long as we can figure out a design with a low air draft to allow canal usage.

Later,
Dan

 

[Hippocampus]

Don’t want to get into a pissing war over this. Different folks different boats.
Have spoken with folks who had fins and fish. Several removed the fish. Reasons given-air draft, more roll if not deployed, hassle, limited use.
Had commercial fisherfolks as patients. Mostly negative reviews.
Say what you want confirmed to increase risk. Think this similar to sailors arguing full keeled boats are safer in a seaway when over and over that’s shown to be not true.
I said we wouldn’t own a boat dependent upon fish for stabilization. Didn’t make any inference about what you choose to do. Know my limitations and have no interest in messing with them when it gets really bumpy. Those who can mess with them by themselves G-d bless you. Others tell me they can’t and sometimes it’s a struggle with two. I’m firmly in the wimp category .

 

[Mac2]

For sure my earlier comment was done in jest. The following is not.
I would think one of the more attractive reasons for having/keeping paravanes would be for anchoring. For those of you with paravanes, can you expand on the value of paravanes for anchoring? I would think that two flopper stoppers, at the end of those long poles, would be a dream for anchoring and should be considered in this discussion for the purpose of comfort and passage making.

 

[Fletcher500]

Don’t want to get into a pissing war over this. Different folks different boats.
Have spoken with folks who had fins and fish. Several removed the fish. Reasons given-air draft, more roll if not deployed, hassle, limited use.
Had commercial fisherfolks as patients. Mostly negative reviews.
Say what you want confirmed to increase risk. Think this similar to sailors arguing full keeled boats are safer in a seaway when over and over that’s shown to be not true.
I said we wouldn’t own a boat dependent upon fish for stabilization. Didn’t make any inference about what you choose to do. Know my limitations and have no interest in messing with them when it gets really bumpy. Those who can mess with them by themselves G-d bless you. Others tell me they can’t and sometimes it’s a struggle with two. I’m firmly in the wimp category .

I think the point he is trying to make, is what actual hands on experience do you have with fish? I have also talked to many people who have them and enjoy hearing about their experiences, but I would never post my opinions about their use, safety, or whatever because I don't have any hands on experience with them.

I know Gyros are generally not popular with most people on TF. That is fine, to each his own and most like fins for their trawlers - all good. You previously made some negative comments about Gyro's, and that they were "dangerous". You subsequently bought a boat with a Gyro, and now you like it and post fairly often about it. Not trying to make this personal, just keeping it real. You have some extensive past boating experience but many people who sign on here don't, and they do not need need mis information about any subject including the various types of Stab that are available. I know, welcome to the internet, buyer beware.

 

[mvweebles]

For those of you with paravanes, can you expand on the value of paravanes for anchoring? I would think that two flopper stoppers, at the end of those long poles, would be a dream for anchoring and should be considered in this discussion for the purpose of comfort and passage making.

My boat has fins. For at-anchor, I have a set of flopper stoppers with 12-foot spinnaker poles thst store horizontally against the cabin side so about 32-feet wing span (attached picture is pretty old - mast has been replaced with a hard-top). I'm in the process of having new ones fabricated that will be a bit lighter and shorter. Cost is about $2k (plus rigging and the plates). They take about 10-15 minutes to setup or retrieve. They make the boat at least as steady as a friend's power cat.

I realize the west coast is prone to open roadstead anchorages with swell, but I'm still amazed more boats don't have flopper stoppers. They work well, they are relatively inexpensive, and they are easy to deploy and stow. Especially boats with gyros would benefit by not having to run the generator.

The biggest downside of flopper stoppers is they are, for the most part, a custom installation. They do not require near the super structure of paravanes so it's not an engineering dilemma, but it is usually a rigging challenge. Forespar makes a decent kit - about $2k/side (including the plates).

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

I realize the west coast is prone to open roadstead anchorages with swell, but I'm still amazed more boats don't have flopper stoppers. They work well, they are relatively inexpensive, and they are easy to deploy and stow. Especially boats with gyros would benefit by not having to run the generator.

The biggest downside of flopper stoppers is they are, for the most part, a custom installation. They do not require near the super structure of paravanes so it's not an engineering dilemma, but it is usually a rigging challenge. Certainly not something easily available from West Marine.

I keep brainstorming ideas for building some for my boat (and figuring out what it would cost). Would be nicer to deal with and more effective than the plastic cones hung off the spring cleats.

 

[socalrider]

I'm sitting now on a mooring in White's Cove off Catalina with flop stoppers off both midship cleats. https://flopstopper.com/FlopStopper/Home.html

It's still pretty rolly but they make quite a difference. I tried the orange cones two years ago (they suck), then a single flop stopper last year (better) and two this year (better still).

I still want to design and build some poles to get them farther away from center. We are a SD hull; I suspect the motion might be a bit better in a FD as we get a pretty quick low amplitude motion at anchor that the flop stoppers struggle to combat.

I agree that an advantage of paravanes is that they double as flop stopper poles - yes flop stopper poles are less expensive and easier to design but it's still a project, as evidenced by the fact that I haven't yet done it... maybe this winter.

 

[Hippocampus]

Yup there are negative features to gyros. Again clearly stated they wouldn’t be my first choice in a voyaging boat. At the tim those statements were made was considering FD and SD hulls. Was considering continuing our program of occasional passage making. Finally decided go with SD and near coastal. So those concerns were no longer applicable.
I don’t need to go diving over 100’ down to be aware of the risks involved. Happy staying where light penetrates and there’s much more sea life to see. Agree nothing teaches like experience but for some things have no desire to acquire the experience.

 

[Simi 60]

.

The biggest downside of flopper stoppers is they are, for the most part, a custom installation. They do not require near the super structure of paravanes so it's not an engineering dilemma, but it is usually a rigging challenge. Forespar makes a decent kit - about $2k/side (including the plates).

Peter

View attachment 131282

h frames like we had made use one line only
The h being 3 foot across at base stops for and aft movement
The plates in the water are scaled up magma style done from 3mm s/s plate and welded hinges and attachment points
They are weighty, I reckon 2mm would have been fine for ours but......

Cost for alloy arms, s/s plates and dyneema cost a bit under $3000aud so $2070usd
$1000usd/ side.

Saying that, I was getting quotes of around $10k from most places for polished s/s which I can live without and ornamental jewellery hanging from the ends which I also do not need.

It was a simple job to do, a phone call and parted with money.

Finding someone to do it how I wanted was the hard bit, six years in the making.
Silly bit was the guy who I used is somone I've known for years, just never thought of for this job.

 

[mvweebles]

Yup there are negative features to gyros. Again clearly stated they wouldn’t be my first choice in a voyaging boat. At the tim those statements were made was considering FD and SD hulls. Was considering continuing our program of occasional passage making. Finally decided go with SD and near coastal. So those concerns were no longer applicable.

Question for you Hippocampus: You did an amazing amount of research and thought in your selection, and I'm guessing you talked to a lot of people. What do you believe is the main reason people chose Gyro/Seakeeper over, say fins? Easy option offered by the builder? No appendages? At-anchor stability? Or the inverse - why do people chose fins over gyro? I totally understand why paravanes don't get much notice on a new-build, but curious what problem folks are trying to solve when they make a choice between Seakeeper and Fins. I doubt cost is much of a factor given the overall expense of a new boat so there must be a functional or perceived reason why someone choses one over the other. For me, my only gripe with gyro is the persistant power requirement - no other issues. The oft-touted disadvantages of 30-min spin-up time and maintenance costs are false flags as far as I'm concerned as they are both easily incorporated into a normal usage cadence and would not alter my cruising lifestyle (running generator full-time would change my style, but that's just me).

Thoughts?

Peter

 

[mvweebles]

h frames like we had made use one line only
The h being 3 foot across at base stops for and aft movement
The plates in the water are scaled up magma style done from 3mm s/s plate and welded hinges and attachment points
They are weighty, I reckon 2mm would have been fine for ours but......

Cost for alloy arms, s/s plates and dyneema cost a bit under $3000aud so $2070usd
$1000usd/ side.

Saying that, I was getting quotes of around $10k from most places for polished s/s which I can live without and ornamental jewellery hanging from the ends which I also do not need.

It was a simple job to do, a phone call and parted with money.

Finding someone to do it how I wanted was the hard bit, six years in the making.
Silly bit was the guy who I used is somone I've known for years, just never thought of for this job.

A drop-down A-Frame would be incredibly easy to fabricate and use - could probably deploy in just a couple minutes instead of 10-15 for me. If I were on your boat with such a commercial lineage and living full-time at anchor, I would definitely consider something like that. For me, aesthetics were important, as was air-draft. Plus, we don't set the flopper stoppers each time we anchor so they are somewhat infrequent.

Peter