The "Trawler" part of "Swift Trawler?"

[TheDory]

Well I certainly didn't mean to start a debate about what is a Trawler! But reading through the comments here I think I got my answer:

Regardless of whether its a "Trawler" or not, there are probably design differences between a Swift Trawler and a fast cruising boat like the Carver Aft Cabin I grew up on. This may be a keel, larger rudders, and more of a semi-displacement hull.

I pulled into a marina today and found a Kady Krogen and an American Tug on the hard next to each other. The differences in hull shape was drastic.

So the bottom line is if I'm looking for a boat that cruises comfortably at 7-9, but can step it up to 13-15 if desired, a ST, American Tug, Mainship or similar design may fit the bill and the differences between them and a fast cruiser are more than marketing and appearance.

 

[Baker]

I will agree with PSN that there is a smear through the spectrum from full displacement to Planing. Even planing hulls have different types. If you look at the large sportfish boats. They sacrifice performance for seakeeping ability in the form of deadrise. The most efficient highest performance planing hull is a flat bottom boat....lift created through the full length of the wetted surface. But obviously we need to different shapes to handle different conditions.

Semi planing(or Semi displacement....but I like the term semi planing better) boats usually have a deep forefoot with very little lifting area. And then the hull flattens out as you go aft. Many having very little V or deadrise at the transom because they need as much lift as possible that was sacrificed in the first 1/3 or 1/3 of the boat. The advantages of a SP boat is that you are able to achieve planing speeds with very decent seakeeping ability at the expense of performance. Basically a percentage of the hull is creating a good amount of lift while the rest is not. Also a flat aftersection has a resistance to the initial forces of rolling....that would be "static stability". Once the roll is induced, it does have a tendency to be "snappy" and absolutely sucks in a beam sea and anything aft of beam unless you can get to planing speeds.

Finally, be careful about brands as it relates to types of hulls. Grand Banks was always semi planing up until about the early 2000s when people wanted more speed. Grand banks then went to more of a Modified V....and definitely in their East Bay line but in their Heritage line as well. Mainship did the same thing. Hell, the Mainship 430(The sedan and not the earlier Tri-cabin) had twin 440hp Yanmars as standard and you could opt up to Cummins QSM11s at over 600hp a piece. Obviously boats powered to MOVE and with hulls to provide that performance.

Finally...really!!!.....what is a trawler??? Mainship is a trawler. Why? Because it says it right on the side of the boat...."MAINSHIP TRAWLERS"!!! And Grand Banks never called themselves trawlers. Their motto forever(but no longer) was "Dependable Diesel Cruisers". A trawler to me is a shrimp boat. But as it relates to recreational boats....a boat with a salty appearance that generally is designed as a low speed boat for efficiency and range. It is also a lifestyle....like "cruising under power".

 

[Nomad Willy]

I’m not sure I know what a Swift Trawler looks like. I looked down the thread and saw no pictures. So I’m not sure what the ST looks like ... it’s fast. That’s a given but I’m assuming they are sorta like a “Fathom 40”.

OK it’s not a trawler. That’s it. There are no “fast trawlers”. Slow is one of the biggest elements of trawlerness. The other one is weight. Heavy and slow. In the late 40’s and early 50’s these boats were called “heavy cruisers”.

The temptation to call cruisers trawlers is rather strong as being a trawler skipper says the owner is salty and manly compared to other boat people. Even a guy looking at a trawler assumes this status to some degree. C Dory even called their OB boats “trailerable trawlers” .. disgusting. And even more objectionable because the CDory was/is a good boat.

If it’s not a heavy cruiser it’s not a trawler. Weight and speed (or lack of it) marks a rec trawler. There are other elements of trawler like bigger keels and superstructure that generally to vaguely resembles a fish boat preferably a trawler.

Having said all that I’d sure like to see a picture of a Swift Trawler.

 

[BruceK]

Hard enough defining "trawler", but doing it via hull design is even harder. From my limited observation, after getting past planing hulls, there are many variations and combinations until you get to a full displacement hull. Some hulls I describe as "SD getting towards FD".

 

[mvweebles]

BoatTest.com review of ST44. https://youtu.be/rCjeNBbubAA

I can understand why the OP likes them. Trawler or not, she's a nice boat. Fuel efficiency numbers are impressive if true - 1nm per gal at 22 kts.

To answer the OP's question: in my opinion, functionally, there is really no difference between the ST44 and a Carver et al. Sure there are differences (the ST44 has good accommodation for line handling and access), but there are many, many more substantive similarities than differences. They are good, versatile designs that would be a blast to use in the PNW/Alaska, Great Loop, or Florida/Bahamas.

Peter

 

[mvweebles]

I’m not sure I know what a Swift Trawler looks like. I looked down the thread and saw no pictures. So I’m not sure what the ST looks like ... it’s fast. That’s a given but I’m assuming they are sorta like a “Fathom 40”.

OK it’s not a trawler. That’s it. There are no “fast trawlers”. Slow is one of the biggest elements of trawlerness. The other one is weight. Heavy and slow. In the late 40’s and early 50’s these boats were called “heavy cruisers”.

Here's a picture Eric. I had to look-up Fathom 40 as I don't know the boat, but it's a raised PH style similar to North Pacific or Helmsman boats these days. The ST is very similar in lines to the Mainship - a roomy sedan layout. I'm sure Beneteau sees this as a step-through from sail to power where the target market prefers relatively classic lines. Docksider's & Cocktails vs Thongs & Jello Shots.

I like sedan layouts a lot but there are not many options in classic styling, especially if you eschew the teak decks of sedan/Europa versions of Asia-made GB knock-offs. I understand the appeal of the ST44.

 

[TheDory]

Not to beat a dead horse but one more question:

If the general consensus is that there really isn't that much difference between a ST, or similar "Fast trawlers" and fast cruisers (Sea Ray, Carver, etc), then is there any reason I can't broaden my search to a nice, older Carver Aft Cabin with it's great layout and just travel at displacement speeds? Are the motors geared differently? I'm sure there's also the difference between gas/diesel.

Nomad Willy: we have a C-Dory 22. I'm a very active sailor but by wife convinced me we needed a power boat instead. We love our little C-Dory and she's what convinced us we really enjoy cruising slowly (well...10-12 most of the time. But our last trip back across the bay we went about 8 to see how we liked it.) She's not a Trawler but she travels wonderfully at displacement speeds.

MVWeebles said it best, we are the "Docksider's & Cocktails" crowd and I want a boat that doesn't associate me with the "Thongs & Jello Shots" crowd. And just to clarify, I don't particularly like the looks and layout of the ST's but I like the concept of being able to push up to the low-teens if desired. Also, the used market seems more affordable than the market for some of the "Tugs" that I really like.

Thanks again for everyone's input.

 

[4fun1]

I think you are answering your own questions. If you don't like the look and layout of the ST why would you get it.

The ST is great for doctors with the large cockpit and flybridge and has great all around access as one gets older. Getting to the both is a dream along with line handling. I can single hand it very easily. I may be biased. Since I have a ST34 and moving up to the 44 in a couple of weeks.

With an aft cabin boat. Look at how you will be getting on and off. There are several on our dock that complain about having to climb a ladder to get in or if they have stairs to carry there belongings up the stairs and then down again into the salon.

The aft cabins are great for space but lack the accessibility.

It will come down to how you use it. Will you be at the dock most of the time or travel. Will you be making day trips or extended. Will you be going through locks, etc.

Will you be on a floating dock or a fixed dock. There is a transient aft cabin at our marina now that cod not get off their aft cabin at high tide. We have fixed docks and they have a dingy on the swim platform. They are now using a small ladder to access the boat.

Just some thoughts for you to ponder.

Good luck.

 

[rslifkin]

Not to beat a dead horse but one more question:

If the general consensus is that there really isn't that much difference between a ST, or similar "Fast trawlers" and fast cruisers (Sea Ray, Carver, etc), then is there any reason I can't broaden my search to a nice, older Carver Aft Cabin with it's great layout and just travel at displacement speeds? Are the motors geared differently? I'm sure there's also the difference between gas/diesel.

In general, no, there's no reason you can't do that. You'll just want to look around a bit to see which models have better low speed handling, or have a better layout for line handling, or bigger tankage, etc. Some of the faster cruisers are well suited to longer distance travel and slow speed operation, others are more targeted at weekending and they expect to be run on plane as soon as you get out of the marina's no wake zone.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Hard enough defining "trawler", but doing it via hull design is even harder. From my limited observation, after getting past planing hulls, there are many variations and combinations until you get to a full displacement hull. Some hulls I describe as "SD getting towards FD".

Very true Bruce,
But there are relatively easy to identify shape/form features in/on the afterplane that indicates what type she is re what speed she was designed for. And a straight run aft (from amidships) is the nature of a boat that I’m thinking of that was designed by Wm. Atkin ... probably in the 30’s. A straight run aft should indicate a planing hull but some trawlers have a straight run aft but are ladened w a big heavy keel w drive shaft within and a fully developed trawler inspired house. They can be trawlers and be known for being a trawler. Such boats are frequently fine trawlers but they lack a true SD hull. These boats will wallow a bit in big following seas and not have the efficiency of a true SD boat. Your boat is such a boat Bruce. And the IG certainly isn’t the only one. I’m not sure why the designer didn’t put some rocker in the hull bottom. But they didn’t. I’m not a NA.

I for one consider them (IG’s) w/o question trawlers but boats like this will make one wonder, not many to be sure. I generally look at the hull to label a boat as to hull type that further labels the boat a trawler status. If you look at a GB you will see an afterplane that ramps up from amidships aft unlike the IG that (as far as I can see in the pics I’ve seen) does not. An afterplane that “ramps up” in a fairly straight line is designed for a higher speed than one that has rocker. Rockered bottomed boats are all that I would choose if I was to design a trawler. But many NA’s may design boats w a straight run aft for flexibility. The rockered boat has a much narrower speed range. And NA’s don’t know what engines a builder will install in his hull. So he (or she) may favor straight bottomed hulls for flexibility not being ideal. But as you have observed Bruce it get complicated and many boats are right in the middle of SD/FD or SD/Planing or trawler or a cruiser. In the gray area. But in my playbook there’s no such thing as a fast trawler. The boats that are fairly regularly called fast trawlers aren’t trawlers at all. I would call them a trawler styled cruiser. The Ranger Tug boats are clearly such a boat and getting further yet from trawler status ... they are light. I would call any boat not excessively powered that is capable of 20 knots as planing. And weight per footprint is the #1 element of trawlerness. And I consider hull type/form as #2.

But I’m not a NA and it would take a NA to either come closer to or list another opinion. Many NA’s use different criteria to establish classification of hull type and boat type. So there will be variations of opinion among NA’s as well.

And that said I label my post as my opinion. And if you post yours it may be as valid as mine (or more) but I stand by what I’ve written above.

Thanks for the pictures Peter.

 

[BobMc]

It's marketing, plain and simple. The guy writing the ad probably had no real concept of trawler but knew many people wanted one, so picked up on the word without another thought. The word "trawler" has a rather specific meaning; "fast trawler" is an oxymoron by a moron!

Sorry for the rant - it just really gets my goat when the PR people over-indulge. Anything that can easily exceed hull speed is not a "trawler."

Good morning,

Please forgive me if this in an ignorant question but I'm unable to find the answer anywhere. Since the ST is a planing hull, capable of 20+ knots, what is is the "Trawler" part of the ST? Is it just marketing and design - created for those of us who like the more traditional look and feel of a trawler vs modern cruisers? Or is there something unique about the hull?
Thanks

 

[psneeld]

Peter....now you know why I hesitate from certain discussions beyond a hand grenade or two?


We have a logic train that calls marketing people names for advertising some boats trawlers from out of the blue but then says even a moderately fast one can't be one....

 

[mvweebles]

I know this topic has been re-hashed dozens of times, but I found this discussion helpful. For me, the 'ah-ha' moment was to get away from hull-form nuances and get to the utility function of the boat. For me, I seek functional capabilities such as:

• Long range - for me, I defined as 1500 nms at hull speed
• Safe, comfortable, and reliable (e.g. sacrifice initial stability for ultimate stability).
• Ability to carry a couple months of stores
• Economical to operate
• Approachable to maintain and repair.

In a small powerboat, the most practical way to tick the above boxes is a displacement-speed vessel which is why Wm Garden designed the Willard 36 the way he did (BTW - my sedan version trawler was marketed as the "Cruiser" model). Why did I chose 1500 nms for range? I think it's the right number for coastal passagemaking so you're not a slave to fuel stops. Coastal Passagemaking is Maine to Alaska via the Panama Canal. Circumnavigating - which my boat is not suitable to do, takes 2500 nm range, preferably 3000.

So PSN, I do agree, marketing folks have co-opted the term "Trawler." But that doesn't make this conversation irrelevant, at least not for me. TF gets wrapped around the axle on hull-form. But if you get down to function, the answer sharpens into focus quite a bit. What's also pretty clear is my definition of a Trawler is respected, but not popular. Why do I say that? A scan of the avatars on this forum shows very few boats meeting my definition.

Peter

 

[Nomad Willy]

Right on Peter but hull form/speed and displacement open the door to all the rest.
Guess that’s why I think of those two as primary. From there you get all the goodies.

My friend Bob had a 30’ Willard and bought a 36. But Bob’s got more money than us. And his 36 takes mountains more money to maintain most just due to her mass .. weight and volume. I don’t even want to think about six feet more moorage much less double the fuel burn. I’ve thought all through it and decided 2gph is OK fuel burn though.

An Albin 25 is very noticeably less than half the maintenance of the W30.
Size matters.

 

[psneeld]

So really all is being done is drag the term "Trawler" from marketing name to above waterline looks to hull shape to functionality....can't wait to see where we go next....


yet...not one bit of resolution...cause it's still only opinion and frame of reference.


No one died and left any one of us in charge of the definition.


Avatars=anything pertinent?.....other than a goofy pic, someones pic or someone's boat? Connecting it to anything else is a huge stretch.

 

[mvweebles]

So really all is being done is drag the term "Trawler" from marketing name to above waterline looks to hull shape to functionality....can't wait to see where we go next....


yet...not one bit of resolution...cause it's still only opinion and frame of reference.


No one died and left any one of us in charge of the definition.


Avatars=anything pertinent?.....other than a goofy pic, someones pic or someone's boat? Connecting it to anything else is a huge stretch.

If you chose to rename your boat, may I suggest "Wet Blanket?" I suspect you have much to offer besides negative commentary.

Peter

 

[Bryant]

swift trawler

Good morning,

Please forgive me if this in an ignorant question but I'm unable to find the answer anywhere. Since the ST is a planing hull, capable of 20+ knots, what is is the "Trawler" part of the ST? Is it just marketing and design - created for those of us who like the more traditional look and feel of a trawler vs modern cruisers? Or is there something unique about the hull?

I grew up boating on a large 38 foot Carver Aft Cabin Motor Yacht style boat so I am very familiar with these big planing boats, cruising at 21+ knots, and the subsequent fuel drain.

My wife and I now have a little C-Dory 22 Cruiser. Awesome little boat. Although this boat easily cruises in the 20's, we found we really enjoy 8-12 knots. This has convinced me that once we're ready to step up to our retirement boat, we should focus on trawlers. But I'd love the capability to cruise faster than 7 knots. Even 10 or 11 would be great.

Which brings me to the ST. Would be great to cruise along at economic trawler speeds but have the capability to step it up if needed. But how are the ST's any different from any other planing hulls? Do they somehow perform better at displacement speeds? Are the engines tuned to work better at these lower RPMs?

I don't foresee us ever going faster than 17 knots unless running from weather. My pocket book simply can't afford that fuel draw. So I imagine 7-10 knots would be perfect.

What is the difference, other than look/feel, of a ST compared to Carvers and all the other modern planing powerboats?

Thanks

First of all, we also have a C Dory 22 which we used in the PNW all around Puget Sound and the Islands, Pensacola to Apalachicola, Fl and the St Johns River. Love it.

If you want a "Trawler" or "Tug" that will operate at 8 kts and bump up to 20 or so you can chose between certain Mainships, Ranger Tugs, Cutwaters, Rosborough, or the Camano Troll 31 which is the closest thing you can get to a Trawler that will go fast. It will go between 17 and 20 kts WOT. You will pay for that privilege in fuel costs but If you are running from a storm or need to get somewhere quickly it might be worth it. Nice little boats, too. All of those other boats are nice as well and have plusses and minuses (as all boats do). I particularly like the Rosborough boats. Check them and the others I mentioned out.

 

[4fun1]

Chapman's has a definition of a trawler in it. If that means anything. I don't have my copy handy now.

Going by that definition my ST is not a trawler as with alot of others.

 

[mvweebles]

Chapman's has a definition of a trawler in it. If that means anything. I don't have my copy handy now.

Going by that definition my ST is not a trawler as with alot of others.

Trawler or not, sure looks like a nice boat. Is it as fuel efficient at speed as the BoatTest review suggests? Better than 1nmpg at 20-ish kts?

 

[Bryant]

Good Grief! Can we get over this argument of the definition of "Trawler" already? When you get right down to it, none of us has a "Trawler" unless there are some shrimpers here. A "Trawler" drags a trawl. But for commonality, marketing, ease of communication and convenience, the term "Trawler" for recreational boats fitting that description, design and general idea has been accepted for around 60 years now. I've never caught shrimp one but by the gods, my GB 36 is a friggin Trawler. And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[4fun1]

Trawler or not, sure looks like a nice boat. Is it as fuel efficient at speed as the BoatTest review suggests? Better than 1nmpg at 20-ish kts?

Between .9 and 1 nmpg. Of course depending on conditions and how much weight.

 

[Bryant]

Trawler

Chapman's has a definition of a trawler in it. If that means anything. I don't have my copy handy now.

Going by that definition my ST is not a trawler as with alot of others.

I’m reminded of the quote by a judge who said “I cant define Porn, but I know it when I see it”. Chapman’s definition is correct, in the strictest of terms, but the accepted term of “Trawler” applies to many recreational boats of that style, as opposed to the term “Motor Yacht”.

 

[mvweebles]

Between .9 and 1 nmpg. Of course depending on conditions and how much weight.

That's amazing. Nice boat.

 

[4fun1]

That's amazing. Nice boat.

Thank you sir![emoji846]

 

[NCheaven]

Did we forget Full Keels?

Many but not all boats marketed as trawlers have full keels with skeg-protected props. If part of the functionality of a “trawler” is supposed to be dependability, ability to cruise some waters outside the marked lanes and channels, and to help get through the crab pot minefields, a full keel certainly adds to that functionality. A significant part of the fun and beauty of the Chesapeake, the Dusmal Swamp Canal, and our second largest estuary on the east coast, Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds here in N.C., is to visit the smaller coastal colonial towns and fishing villages, not to mention Blackbeard’s last home town of Bath NC and his “Waterloo”, Ocracoke NC. Since we can’t outrun crab pots, shifting shoals, etc., that deep long keel and skeg contribute somewhat to our main objective....getting home. A keel also might add some effects of ballast, including placing the engine in a wide keel, which also allows the shaft to be more in line with optimal backward thrust, and not so angled downward, an inefficient drive angle. So, perhaps while shopping you might focus on keels and prop protection.

 

[djones44]

7 kts may not sound fast, but ability to run 170 nm days nonstop works out to be pretty fast.

Rather than having to outrun a storm or bumpy passages, I prefer to arrange flat water as a canvas for my autopilot. Read a magazine and you're in Baltimore - the illusion of speed. Just look up from the NY Times on my iPad now and then.

Earphones and music do much the same, especially with an old Volvo B41 under the floor boards - a true bucket of bolts to have to listen to.

Used to like night runs like that, but too many crab traps these days...

 

[psneeld]

My 37Foot, 1988 Silverton sportfish got 1 NMPG at 20 knots with 3208Ts..

 

[rslifkin]

My 37Foot, 1988 Silverton sportfish got 1 NMPG at 20 knots with 3208Ts..

In general, I think any moderate to low deadrise slow-ish (planing cruise in the high teens to maybe low 20s) planing hull in that size range is likely to get somewhere in the 0.9 - 1 nmpg range at planing cruise with diesels unless it's unusually light or heavy for the size range. MPG will vary a little more at low speeds due to engine differences, amount of submerged transom, etc. But most should be somewhere in the 2.5 - 3.5 nmpg range at a knot below hull speed with diesels.

 

[mvweebles]

In general, I think any moderate to low deadrise slow-ish (planing cruise in the high teens to maybe low 20s) planing hull in that size range is likely to get somewhere in the 0.9 - 1 nmpg range at planing cruise with diesels unless it's unusually light or heavy for the size range. MPG will vary a little more at low speeds due to engine differences, amount of submerged transom, etc. But most should be somewhere in the 2.5 - 3.5 nmpg range at a knot below hull speed with diesels.

When I was delivering, for a 42-ish foot boat, I figured around 1 nmpg at around 9.5-10.0 kts. I was rarely disappointed. Had I figured 1 nmpg at 20-kts, I'd still be floating off Cape San Martin waiting for a tow.

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

When I was delivering, for a 42-ish foot boat, I figured around 1 nmpg at around 9.5-10.0 kts. I was rarely disappointed. Had I figured 1 nmpg at 20-kts, I'd still be floating off Cape San Martin waiting for a tow.

Peter

Once you get above 40 feet, weight goes up a good bit, so I'd expect fuel economy to drop. Deeper V stuff like a sport fish or something like an SD hull that can kinda sorta plane but isn't really meant to go fast all the time will also burn more fuel. And of course, it depends on the boat in question and sea conditions too.



For a lot of planing hulls, the fuel burn per mile also can be surprisingly similar in the plowing region a couple kts above hull speed (like 10 kts) and at the most efficient planing speed once you get it up out of the water. In some cases it's actually a little better on plane vs plowing (both being far worse than below hull speed). Not necessarily the case on an SD hull though.