Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-12-2022, 02:15 PM   #21
Guru
 
mvweebles's Avatar
 
City: Saint Petersburg
Vessel Name: Weebles
Vessel Model: 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7,179
That does make it more attractive especially in areas where generator is typically not run full time. I like the idea of a second dedicated alternator (250 amp @12v), a decent bank of AGM batteries, and a 3000w inverter. For $5k-$6k, you are preserving the generator while underway and likely offsetting the install cost in 700-1000 operating hours. However, if minimum Seakeeper power is 1000 watts, I doubt it's practical to run the system at anchor for more than a few hours even with a large LiFePO4 bank.

Would be interested to know if this has been done?

Peter
__________________
_______________________________________
Cruising our 1970 Willard 36 trawler from California to Florida
Join our Instagram page @MVWeebles to follow along
mvweebles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2022, 02:25 PM   #22
Guru
 
KnotYet's Avatar
 
City: Los Angeles
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,487
The reason that mounting a gyro stabilizer is so critical is due to the large
forces at play when stabilizing is happening. Those forces come from
electric or hydraulic actuators that use a lot of energy while they work.
A 3 or 4 kW inverter ought to be able to keep up with enough batteries,
at least for a few hours.
__________________
Science doesn't care what you believe. -Neil deGrasse Tyson
KnotYet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2022, 02:35 PM   #23
Guru
 
backinblue's Avatar
 
City: Stratford, CT
Vessel Name: Blue Moon
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 355
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 3,937
Surprisingly, according to a demo at a boat show by Seakeeper, the unit does not need to be mounted on or even close to the centerline. In fact smaller boats had them mounted far off to one side where there was normally a storage area. If someone is considering adding one, they will consult with you on your particular boat model.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson
backinblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2022, 02:36 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Sababa's Avatar
 
City: Mercer Island
Vessel Name: Sababa
Vessel Model: Maritimo 52
Join Date: May 2022
Posts: 318
I’ve been investigating the Quick MC2 gyro stabilizers for my NT 37. Smaller, cheaper, no through-hull cooling required, come in both AC and DC models. Sounds too good to be true! Lots of talk but haven’t yet found anybody who has tried them on my or a comparable model boat.
Sababa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2022, 03:15 PM   #25
Guru
 
KnotYet's Avatar
 
City: Los Angeles
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by backinblue View Post
Surprisingly, according to a demo at a boat show by Seakeeper, the unit does not need to be mounted on or even close to the centerline. In fact smaller boats had them mounted far off to one side where there was normally a storage area. If someone is considering adding one, they will consult with you on your particular boat model.
Location not being as critical as the structural sturdiness of the area, of course.
The closer to the center of motion a gyro can be mounted, the
more efficiently it can do it's job, no doubt.
__________________
Science doesn't care what you believe. -Neil deGrasse Tyson
KnotYet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2022, 05:10 PM   #26
Guru
 
backinblue's Avatar
 
City: Stratford, CT
Vessel Name: Blue Moon
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 355
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnotYet View Post
Location not being as critical as the structural sturdiness of the area, of course.
The closer to the center of motion a gyro can be mounted, the
more efficiently it can do it's job, no doubt.
I agree, especially on the sturdiness, I was just surprised that centerline is not required.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson
backinblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2022, 06:05 PM   #27
Guru
 
Jeff F's Avatar
 
City: Guelph
Vessel Name: Escapade
Vessel Model: 50` US Navy Utility trawler conversion
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 2,432
Some installations use two units. Seakeeper recommends this in cases where there are space limitations for a single unit, and claim that the effects are cumulative, so a SK4 and SK2 used together are equivalent to a SK6. No need for centerline mounting.

This might offer a way to manage power requirements a bit, as you could keep stabilization running at 2/4/6 according to anticipated need.
Jeff F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 06:29 AM   #28
Guru
 
City: Newport, R.I.
Vessel Name: Hippocampus
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 42
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 3,890
Totally agree for a FD hull fins are well protected in most grounding situations. But for many SD hulls and even more so for planing hulls think that’s not the case. Think that’s augmented by the occurrence of commonly running aground in settings where depth is rapidly changing.


Like that my engine room has enough space for access. Putting more stuff in to have the SeaKeeper run off the propulsion engine would mean more difficulty getting around the front of the engine. So from above post if I can find the space I can put in another small genset for ~$6k or increase the hours on the existing one meaning it will need replacement sooner. Don’t think the economics are much different and having another thing taking up space and needing service is inconvenient.
Our SeaKeeper is on the stringers that run the length of the boat. Minimal reenforcement was required. It’s midline under the center lazerette access hatch so we have full access to all sides of the enclosure, pumps and related paraphernalia from above and side hatches. Perhaps on larger boats retrofitting off midline is possible. But suspect on many boats in the 40-50’ range placing it on existing support structures with additional beefing up if necessary would make more sense. Usually that means midline or close.
For fuel usage think it does decrease range but so far in use has minimal impact. Genset is 3/4gph. But SeaKeeper is on when we’re doing 7-10k. When going faster it’s rarely necessary. Our main propulsion engine is miserly at 7-10k but fuel use dramatically increases at >10k. So if we run at 7-8K with the SeaKeeper on we are using much less fuel overall than running at higher speeds and are still very comfortable. Coming from sail 7k-8k is just fine with us. Just ran from Deltaville VA to NEB RI on 278g. Went against current lower NYC and alternated with and against throughout L.I. Sound. Minor chop except one day in L.I. Sound and through Block I sound. Then 4’. Happy to trade fuel for comfort as the wife could put things down without them moving and no need to hold anything when you moving around. Happy wife happy life. Average speed mid sevens low eights.
Think for coastal SD boats the SeaKeeper is a good choice. Agree with Peter that for FD hulls fins may make more sense. At least with our program where skinny water is commonly involved fish make no sense. Like the idea of Magnus especially on the new LDL boats which will see mixed use. But again if crossing oceans is part of the program electric fins (Humphrees) would top my list. Less impact on space and less servicing as no hydraulics.
Hippocampus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 06:41 AM   #29
Guru
 
City: Rochester, NY
Vessel Name: Hour Glass
Vessel Model: Chris Craft 381 Catalina
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 7,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocampus View Post
Totally agree for a FD hull fins are well protected in most grounding situations. But for many SD hulls and even more so for planing hulls think that’s not the case. Think that’s augmented by the occurrence of commonly running aground in settings where depth is rapidly changing.
Even on my planing hull I think fins would remain within the hull/keel envelope. But as you mentioned, what kind of bottom you hit is a big factor in what parts of the boat you'll hit. Many boats (mine included) already have to be careful of that, however, as even with a keel, plenty of twins have pretty exposed props (mine are both exposed with not much in front of them and a few inches below the bottom of the keel).

Given a free choice of stabilization on my boat, I think I'd go for fins first, paravanes as a second choice. There's no good space for a Seakeeper, so that's pretty much ruled out for practical reasons. Fins would fit fine and be nice to have. Paravanes would be almost as good, provided the rig is easy to deploy / retrieve and can stow in a way that doesn't add a bunch of air draft. Realistically, the times where I'd want stabilization are mostly in deep enough, open enough water that dragging fish wouldn't be an issue, and at low speed (stabilization on plane would only be a nice bonus with fins, but I wouldn't consider it worth extra money).

Of course, when retrofitting any existing boat, there's always going to be the question of "what fits best?" Some boats will have a good spot for fins, others would require moving major equipment. Same thing with a Seakeeper. And some are more practical than others to mount paravanes.
rslifkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 08:12 AM   #30
Guru
 
mvweebles's Avatar
 
City: Saint Petersburg
Vessel Name: Weebles
Vessel Model: 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocampus View Post
Totally agree for a FD hull fins are well protected in most grounding situations. But for many SD hulls and even more so for planing hulls think that’s not the case. Think that’s augmented by the occurrence of commonly running aground in settings where depth is rapidly changing.


Like that my engine room has enough space for access. Putting more stuff in to have the SeaKeeper run off the propulsion engine would mean more difficulty getting around the front of the engine. So from above post if I can find the space I can put in another small genset for ~$6k or increase the hours on the existing one meaning it will need replacement sooner. Don’t think the economics are much different and having another thing taking up space and needing service is inconvenient.
Our SeaKeeper is on the stringers that run the length of the boat. Minimal reenforcement was required. It’s midline under the center lazerette access hatch so we have full access to all sides of the enclosure, pumps and related paraphernalia from above and side hatches. Perhaps on larger boats retrofitting off midline is possible. But suspect on many boats in the 40-50’ range placing it on existing support structures with additional beefing up if necessary would make more sense. Usually that means midline or close.
For fuel usage think it does decrease range but so far in use has minimal impact. Genset is 3/4gph. But SeaKeeper is on when we’re doing 7-10k. When going faster it’s rarely necessary. Our main propulsion engine is miserly at 7-10k but fuel use dramatically increases at >10k. So if we run at 7-8K with the SeaKeeper on we are using much less fuel overall than running at higher speeds and are still very comfortable. Coming from sail 7k-8k is just fine with us. Just ran from Deltaville VA to NEB RI on 278g. Went against current lower NYC and alternated with and against throughout L.I. Sound. Minor chop except one day in L.I. Sound and through Block I sound. Then 4’. Happy to trade fuel for comfort as the wife could put things down without them moving and no need to hold anything when you moving around. Happy wife happy life. Average speed mid sevens low eights.
Think for coastal SD boats the SeaKeeper is a good choice. Agree with Peter that for FD hulls fins may make more sense. At least with our program where skinny water is commonly involved fish make no sense. Like the idea of Magnus especially on the new LDL boats which will see mixed use. But again if crossing oceans is part of the program electric fins (Humphrees) would top my list. Less impact on space and less servicing as no hydraulics.
I don't think there is any "best" form of stabilization for any given boat. There are pluses and minuses to each so selection is dependent on intended use and personal preference. But when it comes to gyros, top-of-list benefit is some form of 'no holes needed' or 'no exposed fins to tear off.' Those are emotional appeals that conviently avoid 60+ years of data that clearly show probability of catastrophic failure is infinitesimallly small. You have a better chance of throwing a rod in a generator running a Seakeeper than snapping off a fin.

Peter
__________________
_______________________________________
Cruising our 1970 Willard 36 trawler from California to Florida
Join our Instagram page @MVWeebles to follow along
mvweebles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 08:16 AM   #31
Guru
 
Datenight's Avatar
 
City: Groton, CT
Vessel Name: Datenight
Vessel Model: North Pacific 45
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvweebles View Post
You have a better chance of throwing a rod in a generator running a Seakeeper than snapping off a fin.

Peter


Rob
__________________
North Pacific 45
Datenight is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 08:38 AM   #32
Guru
 
City: Newport, R.I.
Vessel Name: Hippocampus
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 42
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 3,890
Don’t disagree and defer to your superior knowledge and experience. Think there’s a misperception. Never said nor intended to imply fins present a safety issue. the experience with the KK in the keys was clearly an outlier. Hence never said anything about no holes nor anything about fins tearing off.
But still think there are advantages to having as few as possible appendages sticking out. Same with unprotected running gear. Agree much of it is marketing hype. But there is a kernel of truth.
But there’s a difference in what fits best on a given hull for a given use pattern.they say about running aground it’s not if but when. Some boats are easy to get off. Some present more of a challenge. In my solo (more to follow I’m sure) grounding was able to give a jolt of thrusters, strong rudder and pivot off. In the soupy then thick mud of the lower Chesapeake I’m fairly confident fins would have been in the mud. So I remain believing in that particular setting having dual thrusters, single protected screw behind the keel allowed a quick no hassle fix. We didn’t even suck up much and the engine exhaust water wasn’t colored that we could see at night. You could feel the boat slide sideways and pivot. Think it would have been more difficult with a different set up. Peter I find it difficult to have a different opinion than you about anything as you have much experience and great wisdom. But there is a difference.
Hippocampus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 08:44 AM   #33
Guru
 
City: Rochester, NY
Vessel Name: Hour Glass
Vessel Model: Chris Craft 381 Catalina
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 7,550
Don't forget, different boats will often lead to different behavior in skinny water. There are places I'd never take my boat, but would happily take a well protected single or a sailboat of similar draft. The price for bumping the bottom in my boat is just too high unless the bottom carries a lot of slope where I'd hit on the keel forward of the running gear.

Generally, if I'm not very confident of what's down there, I'm nervous and down to idle by 3 feet remaining under the boat. If I get down to 2 feet remaining I'm out of gear and if the depth continues to drop at all I'm in reverse. If the bottom in the area is likely to be anything other than soft mud or carries risk of any significant debris, I'll add another foot or so to those levels.

Because of that, I wouldn't worry much about sticking fins in the mud as I'd be trying my best to keep away from the bottom with the running gear (which hangs lower than fins would). For perspective, I draw 3'10" loaded in fresh water, but the deepest part of the keel is only about 3'5" (the props hang about 5 inches lower).

On a boat with really well protected running gear or a really shallow hull, I'd worry more about fins as they'd be more likely to be the first point of concern in skinny water.
rslifkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 09:01 AM   #34
Guru
 
City: Newport, R.I.
Vessel Name: Hippocampus
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 42
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 3,890
Totally agree RS. That’s all I was saying. My concern in skinny water is sucking up too much stuff by the engine intake. Draft is 4’7” by manufacturers report but actually measures 4’10” with full tanks and full cruising kit. Engine intake is ~2’ above keel bottom. Stir stuff up enough that maybe an issue. But beyond that have less concern about grounding this boat than prior ones. Rocks coral heads and ledges are still a no no.
Hippocampus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 09:02 AM   #35
Guru
 
mvweebles's Avatar
 
City: Saint Petersburg
Vessel Name: Weebles
Vessel Model: 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocampus View Post
Don’t disagree and defer to your superior knowledge and experience. Think there’s a misperception. Never said nor intended to imply fins present a safety issue. the experience with the KK in the keys was clearly an outlier. Hence never said anything about no holes nor anything about fins tearing off.
But still think there are advantages to having as few as possible appendages sticking out. Same with unprotected running gear. Agree much of it is marketing hype. But there is a kernel of truth.
But there’s a difference in what fits best on a given hull for a given use pattern.they say about running aground it’s not if but when. Some boats are easy to get off. Some present more of a challenge. In my solo (more to follow I’m sure) grounding was able to give a jolt of thrusters, strong rudder and pivot off. In the soupy then thick mud of the lower Chesapeake I’m fairly confident fins would have been in the mud. So I remain believing in that particular setting having dual thrusters, single protected screw behind the keel allowed a quick no hassle fix. We didn’t even suck up much and the engine exhaust water wasn’t colored that we could see at night. You could feel the boat slide sideways and pivot. Think it would have been more difficult with a different set up. Peter I find it difficult to have a different opinion than you about anything as you have much experience and great wisdom. But there is a difference.
My statements are more universal about marketing on gyros. They are a great system and must be considered, especially for a new-build. But let's be clear: fins do have a hole in the hull, and there is an appendage. There will always be more risk than a gyro that has neither. But the risk is near enough to zero that it is a non-factor (though I'm sure the owner of the KK will never own a boat with fins again).

To my mind, there is only one near-absolute: stabilization is highly desireable. My wife would not cruise on a non-stabilized boat so it's a non-option for us. What form of stabilization varies - there is a strong case to be made for each of the three major forms of stabilization: Paravanes (simple, inexpensive, provide at-anchor stabilization - but relatively difficult to launch, snag traps, and air-draft so Loop is out); fins (easy on/off, relatively compact installation, reliable, but no at-anchor stability and yes, there is an appendage); and gyro (at-anchor, no appendage, but requires constant power-source).

For my thinking, if you're a 24/7 generator boat (many are), then the Seakeeper makes a lot of sense. If you're doing offshore passages, the simplicity and effectiveness of paravanes makes a lot of sense. For everything else, fins probably strike the right balance, though need some flavor of at-anchor stabilization depending on cruising grounds.

I do have a question: several mentions up-thread that Seakeepers can be installed anywhere in the boat, not necessarily on centerline, and have been installed in the lazarette. While electronic controls of fins have come a long way in the last few years, I would think Seakeepers would do a better job of controlling pitch and yaw in addition to roll. Further, I would think that installing in the lazarette would greatly reduce the effetiveness of controlling pitch/yaw due to long-lever arm. Thoughts?

Peter
__________________
_______________________________________
Cruising our 1970 Willard 36 trawler from California to Florida
Join our Instagram page @MVWeebles to follow along
mvweebles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 09:12 AM   #36
Guru
 
City: Rochester, NY
Vessel Name: Hour Glass
Vessel Model: Chris Craft 381 Catalina
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 7,550
On the paravanes topic, I've wondered whether it's possible to build a paravane setup that when retracted folds the arms aft against the hull sides rather than straight up in the air. Arm length would be limited (shorter arms might also make vertical storage a non-issue), so they wouldn't be as effective for a given size of fish, but it might make paravanes practical in a wider range of situations.

If it could be done without pushing air draft above 14'6" I wouldn't mind paravanes on my boat. Provided the launch / retrieve can be made easy enough, I'd be happy to use them for a few hour run down Lake Ontario. In confined waters where they'd need to remain stowed, stabilization would typically only be for boat wakes and such, so doing without stabilization would be fine.
rslifkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 09:13 AM   #37
Guru
 
mvweebles's Avatar
 
City: Saint Petersburg
Vessel Name: Weebles
Vessel Model: 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocampus View Post
Totally agree RS. That’s all I was saying. My concern in skinny water is sucking up too much stuff by the engine intake. Draft is 4’7” by manufacturers report but actually measures 4’10” with full tanks and full cruising kit. Engine intake is ~2’ above keel bottom. Stir stuff up enough that maybe an issue. But beyond that have less concern about grounding this boat than prior ones. Rocks coral heads and ledges are still a no no.
I forget the installation guidance, but the fin manufacturers require the fins to be well inside the 'envelope.' Even on semi-displacement boats such as Hatts, the deep-vee forefoot provides ample protection for fins.

When I moved to Florida 15-years ago, I thought it was go-fast country. No place for a trawler. I really thought I'd sell Weebles and buy something a bit more 'Florida-esque.' As I spent time in Florida on friends' boats, I came to realize that there are a lot of no-wake zones, and a lot of skinny water. Suddenly, seemed like a perfect place for a displacement trawler. Especially since my wife and I really prefer jogging speed and find higher speeds detract from our enjoyment.

My friend's 52-foot Horizon PowerCat draws about the same as Weebles - just under 4-feet. As Rslifkin observes, he gets damn nervous in water skinnier than 7-feet. Me? While I don't look for ways to run aground, I don't mind the Braille method of sneaking to the forward part of an anchorage.

Peter
__________________
_______________________________________
Cruising our 1970 Willard 36 trawler from California to Florida
Join our Instagram page @MVWeebles to follow along
mvweebles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 09:19 AM   #38
Guru
 
mvweebles's Avatar
 
City: Saint Petersburg
Vessel Name: Weebles
Vessel Model: 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by rslifkin View Post
On the paravanes topic, I've wondered whether it's possible to build a paravane setup that when retracted folds the arms aft against the hull sides rather than straight up in the air. Arm length would be limited (shorter arms might also make vertical storage a non-issue), so they wouldn't be as effective for a given size of fish, but it might make paravanes practical in a wider range of situations.

If it could be done without pushing air draft above 14'6" I wouldn't mind paravanes on my boat. Provided the launch / retrieve can be made easy enough, I'd be happy to use them for a few hour run down Lake Ontario. In confined waters where they'd need to remain stowed, stabilization would typically only be for boat wakes and such, so doing without stabilization would be fine.
I thought it was on this TF forum a year or two ago that someone built a system with swing-out arms. If memory serves, an Aussie?

I've used a few paravane systems. I'm sure they get easier to handle after a while but there is a learning curve. Can't imagine setting them from a sundeck of a motoryacht style boat.

Peter

EDIT - here is the thread....with pictures of fold-out arms for paravanes.

https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/...ign-48062.html
__________________
_______________________________________
Cruising our 1970 Willard 36 trawler from California to Florida
Join our Instagram page @MVWeebles to follow along
mvweebles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 09:25 AM   #39
Guru
 
City: Rochester, NY
Vessel Name: Hour Glass
Vessel Model: Chris Craft 381 Catalina
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 7,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvweebles View Post
I thought it was on this TF forum a year or two ago that someone built a system with swing-out arms. If memory serves, an Aussie?

I've used a few paravane systems. I'm sure they get easier to handle after a while but there is a learning curve. Can't imagine setting them from a sundeck of a motoryacht style boat.

Peter
On my boat they'd be particularly awkward, as I'd be setting them from the side decks. I think they'd have to be rigged such that you could retrieve the fish tightly against the arms, then retrieve the arms and stow the fish after the arms are retrieved (being that there's no room to swing the fish inboard without hitting the cabin sides). Or maybe if using an A frame type arm that stows upright, design it so the fish stow on the arms and don't have to be moved by hand. Probably not a practical idea though, so I'll just keep ignoring the stabilization issue until the day I want to spend the value of the boat on fins (there's plenty of space to install them).
rslifkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2022, 09:39 AM   #40
Guru
 
mvweebles's Avatar
 
City: Saint Petersburg
Vessel Name: Weebles
Vessel Model: 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 7,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by rslifkin View Post
On my boat they'd be particularly awkward, as I'd be setting them from the side decks. I think they'd have to be rigged such that you could retrieve the fish tightly against the arms, then retrieve the arms and stow the fish after the arms are retrieved (being that there's no room to swing the fish inboard without hitting the cabin sides). Or maybe if using an A frame type arm that stows upright, design it so the fish stow on the arms and don't have to be moved by hand. Probably not a practical idea though, so I'll just keep ignoring the stabilization issue until the day I want to spend the value of the boat on fins (there's plenty of space to install them).
Have you considered roll-chocks? Several W40's have installed them and reported strong results at relatively low cost. I realize your under-body is much different, but maybe there are some examples out there. Would have a negative effect on faster speeds, though with diesel running >$5/gal, may not be an issue

Peter
__________________
_______________________________________
Cruising our 1970 Willard 36 trawler from California to Florida
Join our Instagram page @MVWeebles to follow along
mvweebles is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Trawler Port Captains
Port Captains are TF volunteers who can serve as local guides or assist with local arrangements and information. Search below to locate Port Captains near your destination. To learn more about this program read here: TF Port Captain Program





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012