Maybe I was wrong. I thought I wanted a trawler.

A year and a half ago I started looking for a boat. I’ve always dreamed of a Grand Banks. I’m older and own a business. I may never retire. I live fifteen miles from Lake Superior and we love the waterfront. We have a few very nice destinations to spend about a weeks worth of vacation now and then. Three trawlers that I looked at all had issues. I finally bought a Sea Ray 440 Express Bridge. Mostly because of the perfect condition.
To my surprise, the boat is big enough for the two of us with a extra cabin for occasional guests. I still like to go slow, and the boat does that just fine. I’m guessing this one is the one. Even at 25 mph it is stable as a rock in moderate seas, if you need to get to somewhere faster. Twin variable thrusters allow me to do my own tie up, or depart.
Still love trawlers, but I can live with this just fine.

Last summer we sold our trawler since it wasn’t fast enough to respond in an emergency with my mom. A month after we sold the trawler she fell, ended up in a skilled care facility, then passed away due to Covid. We had bought our Formula so we could get home faster in case she needed us. Oh well…

Comodave said:

Last summer we sold our trawler since it wasn’t fast enough to respond in an emergency with my mom. A month after we sold the trawler she fell, ended up in a skilled care facility, then passed away due to Covid. We had bought our Formula so we could get home faster in case she needed us. Oh well…

Click to expand...

Sorry for your loss. Tough situation, to need skilled help but be at a much greater risk for other diseases and viruses.

Ted

Thanks, Ted. Yes it was and is still tough, but she had a long and good life. She was 101 when she passed.

For coastal use there's definitely nothing magical about a trawler compared to a similar size motoryacht type with a good layout and a hull that's happy running at low speeds. We're plodding along happily at a trawler-like 6.6 kts right now on our not-a-trawler with just as much space and comfort as most 38 foot trawlers. It'll happily cruise at 17-18 kts, but right now it's not worth the fuel.

I took was looking for a real trawler, Grand Banks, Marine Trader, etc. Ended up with a Concorde 41 motor yacht. Coming from a sailboat so 6 knots seems fast but this one will do about 18. I still run it 6-8 for fuel economy but knowing I can open it up if I have to is nice. Like the upstream run on the Ohio River to Paducah. About 3 knot opposing current and 3-4 knots over ground just sounds like too long a day. If I have enough fuel onboard at that time I'll open her up. Or trying to beat a storm into port.

Condolences Dave.
BTW I thought you sold the trawler because it blocked the water view for your mom. Whatever the reason, caring for mom.

Agree, Sea Ray makes a great boat and the 440 Express Bridge is a nice model. We previously owned a Sea Ray 36 Sun Dancer and have great memories from when our kids were younger. Loved that boat; never gave me any headaches.

Soo-Valley said:

Condolences Dave.
BTW I thought you sold the trawler because it blocked the water view for your mom. Whatever the reason, caring for mom.

Click to expand...

She thought it was too big but we really sold it so we could respond faster if she needed help and we were gone on the boat. But the new boat, that she never saw, doesn’t block the view as much. We are having a memorial ceremony for my mom and dad later this month. Glad we have good memories.

Years ago I delivered a 55-foot Sunseeker from Seattle to San Francisco. It has come from Florida and had an extended swim platform with a jet ski instead of a dinghy. At 25-kts it burned 60 gph which didn't go far with it's 500 gals tanks. I finally talked the owner into throttling back to 7-kts and we got well over 1 m/g. Turns out it was much faster to go slow than go fast. With exception of spray ingress, it wasn't a bad sea boat. Something to be said for deep vee forefoot, wide beam and low profile.

Glad you're enjoying your boat. Sounds like it's the right boat for you, especially given you'll be working. Time matters, and speed is the antidote

Peter

For what we've done with it and to have fun-boat ownership VERY affordable...

Our really good condition, all original, 1977 Tollycraft tri Cabin makes for us a really great "Trawler-Style", planning capable, pleasure cruiser.

- Very affordable on fuel running one engine at 4.5 to 5 knots... 3 +/- nmpg
- Well affordable on fuel running twins at 6.5 to 7 knots... 2 to 2.5 nmpg
- Great to cruise at 16 to 17 knots... 1 nmpg
- Fun to scoot along with if/when necessary at 21 to 23 knots... .5 nmpg!

Some time this June I'm cruising her out of an SF Delta covered slip [been there for 14 yrs] to an open berth in SF Bay. May keep her, may not. Wife's health and one of by business expansions both play strong parts in our decision.

We Do LOVE Our Fun-Time Tolly! And, its great tow behind runabout...

Trawler to me means a EU A rated full displacement boat regardless of size. So Weebles would be A if that was done at that time as are the Nordies and KKs. I thought I wanted a trawler coming from sail. Several close friends convinced me that was wrong. For the way we use our first power boat the mission was appropriate for a SD hull. We ended up with a Nordic Tug. Now after taking her from RI to VA and back they were right. The ability to exceed hull speed whenever you want creates freedom and lowers stress. Compared to the sailboat we can ignore tide and current if we so choose.
Perhaps this statement will offend some here but still do not think of SD hulls as true trawlers. Think I have a boat that looks like a Tug others have boats that look like trawlers. They are great vessels for recreational use and possibly the best choice for many. Wouldn’t get hung up on names promo guys give to boats.

Willard 36 is most definitely not an CE Class A. Doubtful even a Class B as is the Nordic Tug 42, though a great source to ask would be Rick Etsell, naval architecr who was hired by NT to oversee the Class B rating design changes of the 42, and also an avid fan of Willard's (he hosts Willard boat.org).

The W36 was designed in the 1950s by Wm Garden long before anything resembling class ratings came into vogue. Designers back then used practical interpretations of the conditions their clients (commercial fishermen) worked in to influence their work. The W36 originally came off Gardens drafting board as a 34 footer that was stretched with the entire additional length in her cockpit for lounging and fishing. She originally carried 500g of diesel so she could make Cabo and return without refueling which was necessary as Cabo barely existed and there was nothing in-between it and San Diego. The W36 carries a very high bow yet modest reserve bouyancy, a common feature amongst West Coast boats intending to cut through headseas.

39 hulls were laid between 1961 and 1970, an incredibly successful run for the time. W36s ventured far and wide - Hawaii, the Galopogas Islands, Panama Canal, long before most boats even had VHFs let alone Radar. This says more about the people who owned them then the boat itself.

Trawlers have changed a lot since then. I'm a proponent of the CE Class rating systems but the hazard is builders will "cram for the exam." Nordhavn has clearly done this, even Nordic Tug. These boats have been reverse engineered into a classification and have been marketed to the masses who are risk averse.

So where are we now. 50-years ago it was about seamanship skills, knowledge, grit, and determination. It was about the men who decided to head off to distant lands under power. Now, with adjuncts such as CE Rating, it's entirely about the boat and how much space the owner has on their credit card. In some ways that's great - cruising has been democratized, at least to those who can afford it. But in other ways, we've lost a lot. It used to be about the people. Now it's about the boat. Doubt it? Look no further than the idolatry of Nordhavn and KK.

Peter

I'd be a little surprised if a W36 didn't meet CE B or was at least close except for 1 or 2 details. I'd expect the same from quite a number of planing motoryacht types as well.

Generally, I group trawlers into 2 types: the heavy duty trawlers (like Nordhavn, KK, etc.) and the light duty trawlers (all of the more coastal stuff, Grand Banks, Marine Traders, etc.). Many (but not all) of the light duty trawlers are basically just underpowered planing hulls anyway.

I won't say I'm a big Sea Ray fan, but their bigger sedan bridge and motoryacht models do seem to do a pretty good job for traveling. The bigger boats and later models seem to have much better performing hulls than many of the earlier and smaller Sea Rays. We got passed by a nice looking later model Sea Ray sedan bridge yesterday (probably in the 48 - 50 foot range). Owners looked pretty comfortable sitting up on the flybridge. Considering they had the canvas closed (probably to keep the darn flies out!) on a rather hot day, I'm betting they've got A/C up there.

Being that others have given examples, my own boat is a Chris Craft 381 Catalina. Definitely a planing hull motoryacht type, but it's a fairly slow one (planing cruise is 17 - 18 kts, hull doesn't handle well above that anyway). Handles just fine at low speeds (big enough rudders and enough keel to track well). The only big thing that's not ideal are the (rather thirsty) gas engines. Well, that and the bow is rather full, so the ride in a head sea can be rather stiff with a significant amount of pitching (and very wet if running on plane). But that same overly buoyant bow is a great asset in following seas, as it doesn't try to dig in and bow steer (even with a deep forefoot) unless you really screw up at the helm.

Owen Christensen said:

A year and a half ago I started looking for a boat. I’ve always dreamed of a Grand Banks. I’m older and own a business. I may never retire. I live fifteen miles from Lake Superior and we love the waterfront. We have a few very nice destinations to spend about a weeks worth of vacation now and then. Three trawlers that I looked at all had issues. I finally bought a Sea Ray 440 Express Bridge. Mostly because of the perfect condition.
To my surprise, the boat is big enough for the two of us with a extra cabin for occasional guests. I still like to go slow, and the boat does that just fine. I’m guessing this one is the one. Even at 25 mph it is stable as a rock in moderate seas, if you need to get to somewhere faster. Twin variable thrusters allow me to do my own tie up, or depart.
Still love trawlers, but I can live with this just fine.

Click to expand...

"Trawlers" can be a state of mind.

See avatar.

Finally got around to our long-delayed WOT test yesterday, after engine rehabs last year, Spring hull and running gear cleaning/painting, and prop reconditioning: all good, and 29.5 kts, 80 GPH total.

So once we captured the data, we returned to our slip at hull speed, 4 GPH total. "Trawlering."

-Chris

The main CE Class related flaws of the W36 are too much glass, too large of a cockpit (though I have tripled the size of freeing ports). What it has going for it is it's heavily ballasted with likely very high AVS (angle of vanishing stability). It's also a very low profile (A/B ratio).

What this means in practical terms is the W36 is exceptionally comfortable up through Beaufort 7, tolerable in 8 or so. Survivable through sustained 9. After that trouble. Fortunately, that also corresponds to my tolerance for seastate - Force 7 is at my outer limits and is to be avoided if at all possible. Pretty easy to do.

I know of no Willard 36 (or 40) that has foundered at sea despite primarily being a West Coast boat. What does this say? To me it says the weather isn't as bad as people think it is - incidence of being surprised by dangerous weather is exceedingly rare even 50-60 years ago when access to accurate marine weather was poor.

The emphasis on CE Rating is way over stated. No doubt, if I were going from Miami to Azores, a N40 would be top of my list, but mostly due to wing engine. It's one of the most inherently comfortable rides Nordhavn had at that time and stabilization was less important than, say, the N47 (though flybridge option makes a difference to both). The one thing I really admire about Nordhavn is they are highly spray-resistant. Also there is good space and fastening ideas (such as dinghy and anchor storage) so things don't move when weather freshens. This is left to the owner in many boats, Willard included. Surmountable, but nice that Nordhavn has already figured it out.

We chose a Willard because we simply fell in love. When we first walked aboard with a broker 25-years ago I told Cheryll "this boat is sold. Just have to figure out the price.". We've cruised with friends on faster boats, on newer boats, on fancier boats. Our style is 100% aligned to the strengths of Weebles. We really like cruising at jogging speed and just plan around speed. It's part of the experience for us. Throttling up to catch a bridge opening or weather or tides just seems so terrestrial in mindset.

Sounds like the OP has found the right boat for his usage and family which is fantastic. I look forward to hearing more and hopefully viewing a few pictures along the way (hint, hint....)

Peter

ranger58sb said:

"Trawlers" can be a state of mind.

See avatar.

Finally got around to our long-delayed WOT test yesterday, after engine rehabs last year, Spring hull and running gear cleaning/painting, and prop reconditioning: all good, and 29.5 kts, 80 GPH total.

So once we captured the data, we returned to our slip at hull speed, 4 GPH total. "Trawlering."

-Chris

Click to expand...

That, right there sums up the biggest reason I would love a nice pair of diesels... My boat is 20 feet smaller and a whole lot lighter, yet plodding along at a sedate 6.5 kts (about a knot below hull speed) still burns about 5 GPH. Planing cruise for us is typically ~17 kts at ~30 GPH. WOT is around 25 kts, no solid GPH figures but should be somewhere around 55 - 60 GPH.

Greetings,
Horses for courses. EVERY boat is a compromise. Ya run what ya brung.

I think it all depends on where you are planning to boat if a true full displacement boat, SD or planing hull are the best fit. After doing a bit of boating in the PNW I can really see the advantage of FD or SD and running at slower speeds. There are so many places to go which are just 10-20 miles or so apart why rush to get there? Down here in SoCal places to go are few and far between, so having the option to get up and go at 18-20 knots can make a big difference on how you boat (if you can stomach the fuel bill). We are talking about doing the great loop and for that we would likely sell the current boat and get something slower and more economical, but for now we are liking the flexibility of our current boat.

lwarden said:

I think it all depends on where you are planning to boat if a true full displacement boat, SD or planing hull are the best fit. After doing a bit of boating in the PNW I can really see the advantage of FD or SD and running at slower speeds. There are so many places to go which are just 10-20 miles or so apart why rush to get there? Down here in SoCal places to go are few and far between, so having the option to get up and go at 18-20 knots can make a big difference on how you boat (if you can stomach the fuel bill). We are talking about doing the great loop and for that we would likely sell the current boat and get something slower and more economical, but for now we are liking the flexibility of our current boat.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind, unless you get one of the more efficient displacement hulls out there, a planing hull run slowly (if it handles well enough) is just as efficient at low speed as a lot of slower boats, partly because they're typically much lighter weight (which offsets the less ideal hull shape for low speed operation). The big issues start with fast planing hulls where reducing drag often leads to too many compromises for good low speed handling.

RS raises a key point. The more weight you want to move the more energy it will take. Not Einstein but Newton and still true. Modifications to minimize drag be it water, land or air don’t impact the need to accelerate to the speed to which you want to travel. Even at a sustained speed more weight means more energy as friction and parasites drag increases. People spend fortunes to get rid of weight be it in cars, boats or planes. Here we commonly talk of FD, SD and planing but there’s been a rediscovery of fast displacement exemplified by Artnautica, deep water, Arksen and LM as the thinking of Dashew has been brought forward. Only Deep Water has offered a size that is affordable to many in their 50xlc but suspect other vendors may follow. ?are they trawlers given they cruise at 8-10kts or planing as they can go over 20kts comfortably? Think the labels are meaningless.

Hippocampus said:

RS raises a key point. The more weight you want to move the more energy it will take. Not Einstein but Newton and still true. Modifications to minimize drag be it water, land or air don’t impact the need to accelerate to the speed to which you want to travel. Even at a sustained speed more weight means more energy as friction and parasites drag increases. People spend fortunes to get rid of weight be it in cars, boats or planes. Here we commonly talk of FD, SD and planing but there’s been a rediscovery of fast displacement exemplified by Artnautica, deep water, Arksen and LM as the thinking of Dashew has been brought forward. Only Deep Water has offered a size that is affordable to many in their 50xlc but suspect other vendors may follow. ?are they trawlers given they cruise at 8-10kts or planing as they can go over 20kts comfortably? Think the labels are meaningless.

Click to expand...

The term "trawler" is so blurred in actual usage that you could probably still call them trawlers. I'd have to watch one accelerate to 20 kts and see the wake at that speed to know if I'd call it planing or not though.

IMO - Full Displacement hulls are not appropriate until boats become quite long... say 75' and above. Shorter than that, my preference is Semi Displacement down to 55' and Full Planing form there on down.

Each to their own and own to their each!!

rslifkin said:

The term "trawler" is so blurred in actual usage that you could probably still call them trawlers. I'd have to watch one accelerate to 20 kts and see the wake at that speed to know if I'd call it planing or not though.

Click to expand...

I only use the term "trawler type" boat which also is quite vague, intentionally so. If one considers a boat a trawler, then I count it as "trawler type." No other way to sneak Bayliner, Searay, Mainship and many others in. Today's Grand Banks is a planing hull. I still am fine counting it as "trawler type."

IMHO it all comes down to your engine. Have the right engine for how you plan on using the boat. If you need the speed and don't mind burning the fuel, then the SD hull will work for the majority of cruising. If you have an engine that isn't electronically fuel injected, then your looking at hurting the engine if running at low/slow rpms where your engine can't get up to proper temperatures. It took me many years, and a turbo, to understand the proper working of a diesel engine. I thought I was taking care of the engine by babying it and running at low rpms. A huge mistake easily resolved by running hard the last 30-45 minutes of your cruise.
Another consideration to consider is if you plan on anchoring out a lot. A full displacement hull is wonderful in harsh sea conditions compared to the SD hull, but rolls all day at anchor compared to the SD hulls that have the flatter sections to tame the waves a little quicker. A flopper stopper solves this issue on the full displacement hull easy enough. I added the magma pole off the side of my Krogen Manatee, which helped tremendously.
These are all general statements, but things I had never considered when I bought my first boat.

mvweebles said:

Trawlers have changed a lot since then. I'm a proponent of the CE Class rating systems but the hazard is builders will "cram for the exam." Nordhavn has clearly done this, even Nordic Tug. These boats have been reverse engineered into a classification and have been marketed to the masses who are risk averse.

So where are we now. 50-years ago it was about seamanship skills, knowledge, grit, and determination. It was about the men who decided to head off to distant lands under power. Now, with adjuncts such as CE Rating, it's entirely about the boat and how much space the owner has on their credit card. In some ways that's great - cruising has been democratized, at least to those who can afford it. But in other ways, we've lost a lot. It used to be about the people. Now it's about the boat. Doubt it? Look no further than the idolatry of Nordhavn and KK.

Peter

Click to expand...

I’m curious about your logic on these two points. Rather than “reverse engineered” from CE ratings, I would say the boats are designed to meet the desired specs and capability.

On the second point, do you feel that the availability of safer, more capable boats is bad because they may tolerate bad conditions with less capable seamanship? Do you think off roading has gone downhill (bad pun) because you can buy a new Jeep Wrangler Rubicon that is capable off of the showroom? New sportscars are bad because they are easy to drive fast? Not saying that’s a bad perspective, just curious about the reasoning. It makes things too easy?

guy with a boat said:

I’m curious about your logic on these two points. Rather than “reverse engineered” from CE ratings, I would say the boats are designed to meet the desired specs and capability.



On the second point, do you feel that the availability of safer, more capable boats is bad because they may tolerate bad conditions with less capable seamanship? Do you think off roading has gone downhill (bad pun) because you can buy a new Jeep Wrangler Rubicon that is capable off of the showroom? New sportscars are bad because they are easy to drive fast? Not saying that’s a bad perspective, just curious about the reasoning. It makes things too easy?

Click to expand...

Race cars or off road vehicles are built to fairly objective criteria. Speed, suspension travel, etc. If you want to do certain things, you need certain functional capabilities. In short, these are vehicles built to do stuff people want to do. Without exception, CE Rating is an insurance policy against undesired conditions - nobody wants to boat in a hurricane, but if it were to happen.....

I'll pick on Nordhavn because I've got a good 20k miles on them (maybe more). They are a really nicely made boat designed and constructed by people who know boats. That's unique in and of itself. Exceptionally well built boats. Water tight with lots of gadgets. Impressive kit.

But unless you're crossing a pretty large body of water where you are well beyond 3-day forecasts, and unless you're clueless about weather and use of pilot charts to plan a trip (err....seamanship skills), your chances of hitting sustained Force 8+ conditions (CE B if I recall) are essentially zero. And yet there are legions of onlookers who chant the chorus of Nordhavn/KK to anyone who wants asks about taking a decent coastal passage. Leaves the distinct impression that going from, say, Seattle to Florida via the Panama Canal would be a risky proposition in anything other than a N/KK. So there is an echo chamber hawking meteorite insurance.

Thus my statement that it's become all about the boat. It's great that something is built to a standard. But very rarely does anyone discuss what that means and what is the likihood it's relevant in a given use case. Strong inference is that if it's CE A, that its a better boat in any condition than a non-A rated boat, that a GB42 (for example) is a lessor choice for going from Seattle to Florida. It may be for reasons such as range or water tightness, but not related to CE Rating.

Again, nothing untoward about high quality long range trawler builders such as Nordhavn or KK. I'd be a proud owner and have considered them for myself. Just the use case for them is ultra narrow and the marketing (and the converted choir) over-extrapolates what that means.

Peter

Well said Peter. My only exception is CE-A is a rating that applies only when the boat is initially launched. After that it’s highly variable if the boat continues warrant that rating. Sometimes it degrades because of nature of construction. That boat isn’t stout enough to maintain its initial structural integrity over time. Grid separates from canoe body. Stringers or frames can’t handle repetitive loading cycles. Adhesives fail or layup was inadequate. So many reasons to mention. So In my mind there’s a huge difference between some series production boats and some stick built or one offs. One can be unsound to voyage in as little as a decade or less. The other sound for 30-50 years. Both initially rate A. Even in series production the things that don’t sell boats at boat shows are ultimately things that matter.
The cE system had input from the industry to my understanding. To my understanding they notably don’t mention service life of the vessel nor it’s components. They do make mention of initial integrity. This is unlike the best practices approach of ABYC. But even then before taking any boat on a passage I want to know about THAT boat because it’s that one I’m betting my life on.
This was again brought home to me when we went shopping for N40s and N43s. Several I wouldn’t take out of sight of land. Others remained RTW boats after decades of use. There are other boats I’ve been on where you can watch them oilcan or bulkheads flex enough doors and some drawers won’t open if closed or can’t be shut if already open. Others flex under your feet. But still launched as “A”. The concept that you can get on any A boat and go voyaging is just plain wrong in my humble view.

mvweebles said:

Race cars or off road vehicles are built to fairly objective criteria. Speed, suspension travel, etc. If you want to do certain things, you need certain functional capabilities. In short, these are vehicles built to do stuff people want to do. Without exception, CE Rating is an insurance policy against undesired conditions - nobody wants to boat in a hurricane, but if it were to happen.....

I'll pick on Nordhavn because I've got a good 20k miles on them (maybe more). They are a really nicely made boat designed and constructed by people who know boats. That's unique in and of itself. Exceptionally well built boats. Water tight with lots of gadgets. Impressive kit.

But unless you're crossing a pretty large body of water where you are well beyond 3-day forecasts, and unless you're clueless about weather and use of pilot charts to plan a trip (err....seamanship skills), your chances of hitting sustained Force 8+ conditions (CE B if I recall) are essentially zero. And yet there are legions of onlookers who chant the chorus of Nordhavn/KK to anyone who wants asks about taking a decent coastal passage. Leaves the distinct impression that going from, say, Seattle to Florida via the Panama Canal would be a risky proposition in anything other than a N/KK. So there is an echo chamber hawking meteorite insurance.

Thus my statement that it's become all about the boat. It's great that something is built to a standard. But very rarely does anyone discuss what that means and what is the likihood it's relevant in a given use case. Strong inference is that if it's CE A, that its a better boat in any condition than a non-A rated boat, that a GB42 (for example) is a lessor choice for going from Seattle to Florida. It may be for reasons such as range or water tightness, but not related to CE Rating.

Again, nothing untoward about high quality long range trawler builders such as Nordhavn or KK. I'd be a proud owner and have considered them for myself. Just the use case for them is ultra narrow and the marketing (and the converted choir) over-extrapolates what that means.

Peter

Click to expand...

Great points Peter.

You might enjoy this clip about Selene, by a guy who has spent most of his career working on Nordhavns. He made a lot of the same points, and gets pretty pointed about that in the concluding remarks.

I'd be very slow to put down a classic or current Grand Banks. I would think most would have been solid B's and some perhaps A's, but mostly I think of them as safe for their designed use. On the other hand, I would not get carried away on CE-A on any boat in the 40' range and I would most definitely not attempt to cross the Atlantic or Pacific in a Nordhavn 40 in spite of the fact others have done so. Certain aspects are well equipped for such purpose, but the short length remains to me a negative in waters you could encounter.