Hello from Victoria BC.

[Peter Knowles]

Hello all, my name is Peter Knowles and I'd like to introduce myself.
I'm a lifelong boater, sailed since a young lad. Now restoring and living aboard a 1953 38' Monk cruiser in Victoria BC.
I have ambitious cruising plans for the PNW and then possibly an overland ride to the Great Lakes and a few loops around America's Great Loop.

It seems passagemaking in wooden boats is a thing of the past, but I'm the sort of fellow to endure the perils.

I hope to be an active participant here in time.

Best Cheers
Peter

[Yahoo 1]

What a glorious boat !
Welcome to TF.
Best wishes.

[rochepoint]

Beautiful vessel, welcome aboard from Sidney BC..........

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Welcome aboard eh? Um, your avatar description lists Geordie as an 1853. Might want to change that...

[IRENE]

Greetings Peter...from across the strait. Welcome. I have only been here for a short time, but have learned a volume. There are many wise ones here.

So, what powers GEORDIE?

See you out there -

Jeff

[Peter Knowles]

Pilou,
Thank you for the welcome and kind words.


Mike,
Thanks for the welcome neighbor, had Geordie out at Vector boatyard last spring.


RTF,
Thanks, Geordie is old, but perhaps not quite that old.


Jeff,
Appreciate the welcome. Geordie sports a Perkins 6.354 which proudly propelled us all through the southern Gulf Islands this summer. But I suspect, given ambitious cruising plans, a BetaMarine 60 is in our future.

[rochepoint]

Originally Posted by Peter Knowles

Geordie sports a Perkins 6.354 which proudly propelled us all through the southern Gulf Islands this summer. But I suspect, given ambitious cruising plans, a BetaMarine 60 is in our future.

Peter, I would really like to hear more about this. The Perkins 6.354 is rated at 112/120HP and the BetMarine 60 is rated at 56HP, I can't get my head around a HP drop to half of what's in the boat.....

[Peter Knowles]

Hi Mike,

Damn I hate vBulletin forum software, always seems to lose my typing.
Just rewrote this entire post!

You have a valid point and I admit I only mentioned the Beta 60 casually, I’m also considering the 90.
But I do believe the boat is overpowered.
At hull speed of 8 and change the engine is only at about 1/3 throttle and at what I like to think of as a wake based efficient speed of about 7 knots the big Perkins is only ticking over. Several sources estimate hull speed load at about 42hp.
Now having lots of experience at sea I understand there are times when reserve power is required, but I consider that emergency situations. And in those situations, roaring past recommended RPM is justified.

I also believe peak engine efficiency is at peak torque, in the case of the Beta 60, that’s 1700 RPM giving 42 HP, my magic number for hull speed. Less a little for mechanical loss takes me to my favorite wake based speed.

This also puts me squarely in the 70% loading that diesels love.

So on paper the 60 is perfect, the 90 only buys me some more oomph against headwinds.
Plus an extra $5K and a rather tight fit.

Welcome your, and everyone else’s thoughts.

I should say that I am resistant to knee jerk overpowering, I recently hauled a 24’ Airstream all over North America with a 1962 Land Rover,........OK, it has a Chev V6 but still only about 160hp.
Some of the story here,...Travels With Geordie

Peter

[Peter Knowles]

I should add,

The boat was renamed after my dog Geordie. who I will lose soon.

My previous travels by road are documented in a blog named Travels with Geordie, with apologies to John Steinbeck. In this way, even when he's gone, I'll still be "travelling with Geordie"

The blog stops dead the day I arrived in Victoria, almost two years ago,...
I guess it felt like home,...

Hope that clears up any confusion,.....


Peter

[IRENE]

Peter,

This went around the world on 55hp -

[Crusty Chief]

Welcome Peter to the "Clan"!
We may of seen you during the summer during our trip.
Hope you are able to provide all of us with your stories and more importantly, a different perspective.

Cheers,

[Moonfish]

Welcome to you and your lovely boat!

[GFC]

Peter, welcome to TF. You live and boat in one of my favorite places in the whole PNW.

[Bob Cofer]

Peter,

Welcome! It is great to see another wood boat caretaker on the forum. Think I may have seen you around Montague/Saltspring this last summer.

Your re-power plans are very intriguing. Is it a matter of fuel consumption, size, weight, noise or something else? I have been kicking around the idea but cannot seem to justify the cost vs benefit in my case. Those are a lot of boat bucks that I can use somewhere else.

Cheers,
Bob

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Welcome Peter. A friend of mine has a 1948 Monk here on the Columbia River. Looks just like yours. Great boat.

[Peter Knowles]

Thank you all for the kind welcomes.
This is such a friendly place.


Bob, the repower is for a number of reasons, principally reliability.
I love this old Perkins but it's had some abuse, the boat was neglected by the previous owner and seawater rose to destroy the original oil pan by electrolysis.
I don't think anyseawater ever got pumped through the oil passages but I cant be sure.
Every system on the engine has been patched together, it's keel cooled, awkwardly.
I have to start it on ether to avoid a smoke plume and a slick in the water.
Once running, it's sweet and almost smoke free, love the sound!

When I had it out to replace the oil pan, I saw they had cut the floors (wooden boat speak for beams tying the frames together) right down to the frames to fit this beast in, all strength lost.
So although the cost is frightful, I really want to restore those floors and have the peace of mind.


If you're interested there's a thread about the restoration and a little about the engine in a thread on the WoodenBoat Forum.


Cheers
Peter

[Bob Cofer]

Peter,

Great thread on WoodenBoat!

Here is ours: http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s...ues-25444.html

I like the fact that you are making changes to suit your needs. Too often we are constrained by the "norm".

One question, is your boat bonded?

Bob

[Nomad Willy]

Peter,
Not everybody here is addicted to HP. However my knee jerk input is to think in terms of 75 to 85hp and 50 to 60% load. With 60hp you probably won't want to run at hull speed. Most all FD boats operate at one knot below HS (where drag is much less) and many aren't even capable of HS.

IMO you should need about 6 or 7 hp per ton of displacement. That may vary a bit re hull design. Full Displacement boats require 3 to 5hp per ton. My boat is FD and 8 tons .. requires about 4hp per ton. I've got about 5. And don't quite need that. Your boat is SD and if she was an average trawler she'd need 1.5 to almost twice the power of a FD boat. Yours should be closer to 1.5 times as much power as a FD boat.
Consider how much power the old Monks had in the day w their flat head gas engines. That could be a good yardstick.

I'd be looking up Klassen to consider Isuzu and Mitsubishi line of engines. Klassen in Seattle (where I bought my Mitsu) has been absorbed by Hatton in Ballard/Seattle. Klassen may be alive and well just south of Vancouver. They service the north fishing fleet and have since the 60's. They will have an engine for yo much cheaper than a Beta w much better service. If they still exist. Klassen became Yukon Power Systems in Seattle under the Hatton umbrella several years ago. You could call Jim Schiller at 206 784 0148 for further info. Or source Klassen in Canada. Don't know if it would be economically effective to import from Yukon.

Welcome to TF. I'm across the channel in LaConner.

[Peter Knowles]

Bob,


Love the new look.
I never liked forward fly bridges, but I do like my lower, aft cabin bridge deck.
Much more demure.


Good question re. bonding.
I'm completely rewiring and am paying very close attention to this critical issue.
I've removed all the bonding for now, and will probably stay that way, but will be using a high tech voltage balancing system for key structures.
I'm fastened with clinched galvanized nails which are still in very good shape and I want to keep them that way. Because I won't be able to remove them to refasten and I don't want different metals.


Peter

[Peter Knowles]

Eric,

Thanks for your thoughts.
Although I'm relatively new to power boats I've given it a lot of thought.
My natural inclination is that semi displacement is a marketing term.
To me if you're not up on a plane, you're sitting in the water.
Now there are certainly better bottom shapes, and the slipperyest is a canoe. pushing the water apart at the bow and allowing it's natural return to pinch the stern along forward. Problem is if you try to exceed hull speed you create a big void because the water hasn't returned against the hull in time. Thus massive wake.
Monk and others at the time, developed better bottoms to allow their boats to be pushed past hull speed without so great a loss, and you are correct, mine is a very sweet shape with a deep forefoot and almost flat at the transom only drawing a few inches.
This being a good improvement the canoe which rolls like a bugger without too much loss of efficiency.
But in the end I never intend to operate at any speed over hull speed, 1/3 throttle gives me hull speed, wide open gives me 2 more knots. And a tidal wave of wake.
I completely agree with you that an ideal speed is a bit below hull speed, it's so easy to judge it by the wake.
And yes, I also agree with your 3 to 5 HP per ton for a displacement hull.
Where I'm confused is where you indicate more power for a semi displacement hull. Is that for the same speed or a greater speed that is potentially achieveable?
The question would be, is my semi displacement hull any less efficient at say a knot below hull speed than a full displacement. I suspect it is, but only marginally. Can it really need 1.5 the power?

If I use 5 HP per ton, 9.5 X 5 = 47.5 HP.

I know the old Chrysler Crown had well over 100 HP, but in that era, throwing fuel away to achieve another knot or two was irrelevant.
I think it was way more than necessary for hull speed or that magical sweet spot slightly slower.

The power curves for my Perkins gives 50 HP at just over 1000 RPM!
But sadly peak torque at about 1800 RPM.
Poor thing is just carboning up.

Now in the end, all things being equal, I'd happily pop in 90 HP, "just to be safe" but my budget and the available space make that difficult.
Those old flatheads were pretty short.

Perhaps your engine recommendations will help me with those issues.
I'll look intro it.

Thanks again, great discussion.

Peter