The "Trawler" part of "Swift Trawler?"

[Njlarry]

Baker, Thank you for your insights. We are coming from sail and are confused aft cabin vs walk around deck trawler vs cockpit like the Carver 404. Also confused inside vs outside spaces and functionality.
Aft cruisers have lots of interior space but line handling looks to be a challenge. I thought a cockpit would fix that plus be more secure for the admiral while docking and be a great place for drinks and snacks while swimming at anchor. You seem seem to feel a little differently about cockpits. Interested in the opinions of experienced skippers like you who have had different designs. Totally agree about steps vs ladders! We love the aesthetic and bridge of trawlers but space for space and hp for hp are much more costly than other designs of similar build quality.
So many compromises, so little time.

[rslifkin]

Aft cabins can be great or terrible for line handling. All depends on the deck layout, cleat placement and step on/off positions. My boat is a trunk cabin, for example (like a Grand Banks classic), so there's a full walk around deck around and behind the aft cabin, which is great for line handling. Full width aft cabins where you're up top for aft line handling can be a little harder. Cockpits are nice, but some have poor access from the cockpit to the side decks, so moving around can be a challenge.

[OldDan1943]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

Aft cabins can be great or terrible for line handling. All depends on the deck layout, cleat placement and step on/off positions. My boat is a trunk cabin, for example (like a Grand Banks classic), so there's a full walk around deck around and behind the aft cabin, which is great for line handling. Full width aft cabins where you're up top for aft line handling can be a little harder. Cockpits are nice, but some have poor access from the cockpit to the side decks, so moving around can be a challenge.

My AT34 has about a 10inch walk around, outside and no railing to keep one from falling in. I have a cockpit that cant be more than 4ft, just enough for line handling. This midship cleats are just outside the pilothouse doors. I dont worry about an exterior walk way. I just go through the boat.

[Baker]

Originally Posted by Njlarry

Baker, Thank you for your insights. We are coming from sail and are confused aft cabin vs walk around deck trawler vs cockpit like the Carver 404. Also confused inside vs outside spaces and functionality.
Aft cruisers have lots of interior space but line handling looks to be a challenge. I thought a cockpit would fix that plus be more secure for the admiral while docking and be a great place for drinks and snacks while swimming at anchor. You seem seem to feel a little differently about cockpits. Interested in the opinions of experienced skippers like you who have had different designs. Totally agree about steps vs ladders! We love the aesthetic and bridge of trawlers but space for space and hp for hp are much more costly than other designs of similar build quality.
So many compromises, so little time.

I don't necessarily disagree with cockpits. I just think that if you are getting a cockpit strictly for linehandling, then the Carver solution of secure stairs to a secure stern platform solves that problem. Maybe not quite as secure as a cockpit, but definitely gives you the ability to handle lines easily. The Carver 404 you mention was the same boat as my 356 except with a 5 foot cockpit. Great boat by the way. If you are wanting a cockpit for other things like fishing, then yeah, it makes sense. But I think it is a waste of money if it is just for line handling when the problem is solved already on the 356. But if you are contemplating those boats, please shop for diesel. I had the Cummins 330B and man what a perfect boat/engine combo. I cruised between 2300-2400rpm(on a 2800rpm boat that I had underpropped) and it yielded 17-19 knots at about 16gph. The 404 might do even better with the longer waterline....although interestingly, the 356 swim platform was not just bolted on, it was part of the hull....something my bottom painter guy noticed and walked away shaking his head because he knew I was getting a few extra feet for free.

Anyway, I don't know if you are zeroing in on the 404 but it really is harder to find a better value in a boat that cruises nicely with such decent economy. The only reason we sold is we wanted to try the sedan lifestyle. No regrets and we love the new boat. But I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the Carver 356 we had. It was an absolutely wonderful boat. Small enough to not be a hassle handling in tight quarters. And big enough to be comfortable. Good luck in your search. I think you are doing it right by researching alternative solutions!!

[BDofMSP]

Originally Posted by psneeld

depends on the boat.....hull shape.

My experience as a delivery captain and dealership captain aligns with rslifkin's generality. A 42 footer with a thirty something waterline and modified vee hull at around 10 knots would be plowing so bad I wouldn't even guess at the low NMPG.

We have a 42 footer with a thirty something waterline. Since I just filled up I thought I'd throw some data into this. On the last tank we burned 278 gallons over 26 hours (No generator use). 23 of those hours were at 10 knots (1500 RPM). The other 3 were at 18.5 to 19 knots (2250 RPM) where I burn 32 GPH (well documented by days of running at that speed across the Great Lakes this summer). So 96 gallons at 19 kts leaves 182 burned at 10 kts. 182 gallons / 23 hours = 7.9 GPH at that speed or 1.25 NMPG.

Next summer we have several long, slow trips planned so I'll be able to compare 8 kts vs 10 kts.

BD

[psneeld]

My guess is your boat was throwing a decent wake at 10 knots. Hull speed for a 39 WLL is something like 8.3 knots.....so pushing the boat 1.7 knots above hull speed must be throwing a decent wake....thus not terrible but not great savings/efficiency.

Your boat is more efficient at 19 knots if burning 32 gph..... 1.6 NMPG.

[Baker]

Originally Posted by psneeld

My guess is your boat was throwing a decent wake at 10 knots. Hull speed for a 39 WLL is something like 8.3 knots.....so pushing the boat 1.7 knots above hull speed must be throwing a decent wake....thus not terrible but not great savings/efficiency.

Your boat is more efficient at 19 knots if burning 32 gph..... 1.6 NMPG.

I think your math may be a bit off....more like .6 NMPG!!!

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by Baker

I think your math may be a bit off....more like .6 NMPG!!!

Ooops...thanks....probably in a rush.

Thought it strange.... but 10 knots is not known to be efficient for 40 something boats.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by BDofMSP

We have a 42 footer with a thirty something waterline. Since I just filled up I thought I'd throw some data into this. On the last tank we burned 278 gallons over 26 hours (No generator use). 23 of those hours were at 10 knots (1500 RPM). The other 3 were at 18.5 to 19 knots (2250 RPM) where I burn 32 GPH (well documented by days of running at that speed across the Great Lakes this summer). So 96 gallons at 19 kts leaves 182 burned at 10 kts. 182 gallons / 23 hours = 7.9 GPH at that speed or 1.25 NMPG.

Next summer we have several long, slow trips planned so I'll be able to compare 8 kts vs 10 kts.

BD

I've gotta wonder... How heavy is that boat? And is it a really deep V or something that makes the hull inefficient? 32 gph at 19 kts is surprisingly high with diesels for a 41 foot boat in my mind. That's barely any better fuel economy than I get in a slightly smaller boat with gassers.

[BDofMSP]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

I've gotta wonder... How heavy is that boat? And is it a really deep V or something that makes the hull inefficient? 32 gph at 19 kts is surprisingly high with diesels for a 41 foot boat in my mind. That's barely any better fuel economy than I get in a slightly smaller boat with gassers.

Not particularly heavy or deep. Attached is a shot of the specs. But I went back to the logs and recalculated fuel burn over that trip. Mackinaw City to Salut Ste Marie was 238 gallons over 8 hours (29.75 GPH), but a lot of that is no wake in the St Marys up to SSM. SSM to Copper Harbor was 276 gallons over 9 hours (30.6 GPH) and Copper Harbor to Bayfield was 248 gallons over 8 hours (31 GPH).

So the real number seems to be more like 31 than 32 GPH.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by BDofMSP

Not particularly heavy or deep. Attached is a shot of the specs. But I went back to the logs and recalculated fuel burn over that trip. Mackinaw City to Salut Ste Marie was 238 gallons over 8 hours (29.75 GPH), but a lot of that is no wake in the St Marys up to SSM. SSM to Copper Harbor was 276 gallons over 9 hours (30.6 GPH) and Copper Harbor to Bayfield was 248 gallons over 8 hours (31 GPH).

So the real number seems to be more like 31 than 32 GPH.

Interesting. Your boat is about 10k lbs heavier than mine (loaded), but hardly has any more deadrise. The weight has to account for a good bit of the extra burn, as with my gassers, 30 - 32 gph gets me in the 17 - 18 kt range and your engines should be a good bit more efficient (plus your hull design is more modern).

[Baker]

You also have to add in balance of the hull. I know of a few boats that are loaded aft that burn a staggering amount of fuel...at least compared to what one would think. One is a Meridian 368. Short fat hull. Pretty much the harder your push the engines, the better the economy. I’m not kidding. Also a Sea Ray 47 Sedan Bridge. They only built the boat for two years but it had V-droves putting a lot of weight aft. Add a dinghy on the swim platform and that boat was burning 55gph at 20 knots with QSC600s. I have another friend with a 560 Sedan Bridge and Man 1050hp that burns the same amount at 24 knots!!!....for comparison. So there can be other factors.

[BDofMSP]

We do have a rigid hulled Walker Bay RIB with a 20 HP Yamaha on the back. It definitely adds some weight to the stern.