Wood Boats...SCARY???

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chrisjs said:
Crossing an ocean like the Atlantic is such a major feat of endurance that most people do not do it, even if they may have boats that might be able to be suitably equipped. Personally, I know several people who have done it in sailboats, but nobody who has done it in a power vessel. No matter what route you take, you are looking at 15-20 days of non-stop (24 hour) travel. Somebody, qualified, must be on watch the whole time. Assuming 4 hour rotations (it is very boring mostly) that means you really need an absolute minimum of 3 experienced hands, more is definitely better. Day upon day of rotating watches at sea takes a toll - everybody gets really tired. That is without any mechanical problems or bad weather. Maintenance on the vessel is an ongoing process while underway. Oil changes at a minimum will need to be done 2x during the crossing. Assuming twin engines this means shutting down one at a time. Fuel filters will almost certainly need changing multiple times during the crossing. Who knows what else?? At the end of the voyage what have you really accomplished?? You have put a lot of hours on your vessel and crew to make a journey that you could make in 6 hours by plane at a fraction of the cost. Along the way, you have probably been scared sh1tless several times. Hey you might have even died!!
The voyage itself is primarily one of being out of sight of land or any other living thing, so not much to see along the way. Compared to cruising closer to land or taking 500 mile offshore runs to get somewhere like Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Caribbean, or Canada it is really boring except when it is really scary. Are you really convinced you want to build your whole concept of boating around the need to have a large ocean going vessel for a trip you may make once (hopefully in both directions)??
Click to expand...

I will travel the world in a boat...for sure... and when I do, I'll write about my experiences so that those who are too fearful can read what it's like. I am a planner, not a dreamer.
I'm 100% sure that many other things that I have already done in my life most would not even have considered.
 
GalaxyGirl said:
I will travel the world in a boat...for sure... and when I do, I'll write about my experiences so that those who are too fearful can read what it's like. I am a planner, not a dreamer.
I'm 100% sure that many other things that I have already done in my life most would not even have considered.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is doubting your intentions. Okay, maybe a few. But if you thought that the dock queen was 'the one' , it shows you need to work on your plan a bit more, but because it seemed you may have been attracted to the wrong attributes of that boat, a dream. Believe it or not, many of us here have travelled and have gone to sea. We get it.

I'll leave you with a saying I had to memorize when I was a cadet. 'The sea is selective. Slow in recognizing effort and aptitude, but fast in sinking the unfit.'
 
GalaxyGirl said:
I will travel the world in a boat...for sure... and when I do, I'll write about my experiences so that those who are too fearful can read what it's like. I am a planner, not a dreamer.
I'm 100% sure that many other things that I have already done in my life most would not even have considered.
Click to expand...

GG

Care to share examples? - Many on TF, me included, are always anxious to learn about adventures! Feel free to expound!! :thumb:
 
Art said:
GG

Care to share examples? - Many on TF, me included, are always anxious to learn about adventures! Feel free to expound!! :thumb:
Click to expand...
I'd certainly second that - a new thread maybe on Off Topic Board..?
 
Assuming 4 hour rotations (it is very boring mostly) that means you really need an absolute minimum of 3 experienced hands, more is definitely better."

With a small crew we have found 3 on 6 off much easier to live with.

An extra crew member just means someone gets a full day off.

3-6 is really easy if the bunk has a 12V warmer so little time is spent warming the bunk with body heat.

With autopilot or self steering most "on Watch" time is spent reading in the PH .

A good reason for Murphy alarm gauges, the "engineer" is always on watch
 
Last edited:
Tad Roberts said:
First I'll say that I don't think there should be any doubt that Sopressa, properly equipped and crewed, could not safely cross the Atlantic.

I also doubt, looking at the pictures of the saloon and galley, that she was finished out with ocean cruising intentions.

And no, for me she would not be a suitable ocean going vessel. That huge open saloon, no handholds in sight anywhere, slick looking varnished sole, glass topped coffee table.....none of that spells open water to me. Way too far to fall (18' beam) for my old bones. And the galley with big open countertops with not a bit of searail in sight(and no handholds), it's useless at sea.

I really like the instant access from pilothouse to flying bridge. But those wide open spaces frighten me. Of course you can fit temporary rails and handholds on the overhead, but I'd rather have something solid to hang onto.
Click to expand...

I saw Sopressa about 4 years ago at the Trawler Fest in San Diego and Tad is exactly correct. She was converted into a very nice dock queen by her current owner. He had a professional skipper drive it to San Diego (I don't think the owner ever took her away from the dock). The skipper did a very impressive parallel park job in a space that was only a few feet longer than the boat. Everyone on the dock turned and watched and he got a standing ovation from the crowd when he docked her without even bumping the fenders against the million dollar yacht next to him. I was thinking it wouldn't cost too much to return her to a original passagemaker capability, but they tore out the bulkhead between the Pilothouse and the galley to make a bigger and very elaborate galley, which would cost a lot to put back. Her asking price has steadily decreased over the years, probably because she no longer fits anyone's needs.
 
Walt, Chrisjs,

Make that 30% fuel margin (at least) for me.
 
Last edited:
Crunching some numbers on Sopressa; using an equation I obtained from David Gerr's "Messing About In Boats" with 59' length at waterline (LWL), 87,000 lbs displacement, 18' beam, I calculate a power requirement at 10 knots of 157.6 HP with no allowance for waves or wind, which would give a fuel burn rate of 8.67 gal/hr. Using the reported 2,700 gallon fuel capacity and holding 30% reserve she could do 2,178 NMi +/- 10% in ideal conditions. However, most ships this size will be running their generator to power the ships systems, which for Sopressa means running one of the two 25 KW Westerbeke generators, which burn 2.92 gal/hr at full load. Assuming 20% average loading on the generator, fuel burn at 10 knots increases to 9.25 gal/hr and range with 30% reserve decreases to 2,040 NMI. This would be sufficient to cross the Atlantic and technically sufficient to cross the Pacific at 10 knots. The distance from Hilo HI to San Francisco CA is 2019 NMi, but most people refuel in Honolulu, HI and cross to Los Angeles, CA which is 2,233 NMI. To cross from Honolulu to LA the Sopressa would need to slow to 9.5 knots. This would require 235.1 hours or 9 days, 19 hours and 9 minutes +/- a day or two. Note: these calculations are entirely theoretical and the fuel burn rates should be confirmed with operational data. Your mileage may vary based on the actual loading of the ship, the condition of the engines, the fouling of her bottom, ...

Having said that, I would not cross Oceans in the Sopressa. She has no stabilization, either active or passive. I would prefer active stabilization with passive as a backup, but one or the other is mandatory for me. Trawlers roll and can make for a miserable trip without stabilization. All of Bebe's "Passagemakers" had stabilization. She also has a rather low D/L of 189 (see Choosing a Passagemaker ). If I remember correctly, Bebe recommend a D/L of greater than 250. The handholds in the saloon are a concern, especially with children aboard. For adults you could add handholds on the ceiling, but what do the children hold onto? On the other hand, the intelligent way to cross Oceans is to leave the children home and fly them across once the boat gets there.

Finally, I think the wide body layout of the Sopressa is far less desirable than the conventional layout. I'd prefer to have the side decks for easier docking and line handling and having the side windows less exposed to waves when she rolls.

GG: not trying to give you a hard time, plenty of others are doing that, I'm only trying to further your education. Feel free to ask questions. The only stupid question is the one you never ask.
 
...boredom and routine interspersed with moments of sheer terror...
Click to expand...

Yup. But you know, when your half way to your destination, on watch with horizon to horizon stars and you're the only one out there, priceless. :)
 
Larry M said:
Yup. But you know, when your half way to your destination, on watch with horizon to horizon stars and you're the only one out there, priceless. :)
Click to expand...

YES, and here's more like that:

Blue Horizons: Dispatches from Distant Seas; Following Seas, Sailing the Globe, Sounding a Life; both by Beth Leonard
"...if you have ever wondered what it might be like to exchange conventional comforts for an adventure not packaged with round-trip airfare, Beth Leonard has written these dispatches to you" Don Casey

Lin and Larry Pardey, Cruising in Seraffyn, Seraffyn's European Adventure, Seraffyn's Oriental Adventure
These are great books about about the pleasures of sailing the world.

Dove by Robin Lee Graham
A 16 year old sails around the world.

The Cure for Anything is Salt Water, How I threw My Life Overboard and Found Happiness at Sea by Mary South
A woman buys a trawler, takes lessons and goes. :dance:
 
Northern Spy said:
I don't think anyone is doubting your intentions. Okay, maybe a few. But if you thought that the dock queen was 'the one' , it shows you need to work on your plan a bit more, but because it seemed you may have been attracted to the wrong attributes of that boat, a dream. Believe it or not, many of us here have travelled and have gone to sea. We get it.

I'll leave you with a saying I had to memorize when I was a cadet. 'The sea is selective. Slow in recognizing effort and aptitude, but fast in sinking the unfit.'
Click to expand...

I thought the Sopressa was the one until I learned more and then I knew that she wasn't. I am not the one who mentioned Sopressa. Others here have been pushing her and I said that I did not believe that she was built for passagemaking and challenged them to show me that she was blue water worthy. I stopped considering Sopressa about 6 months ago. I have been focusing more on steel boats that I know were built and able to cross safely.
 
Art said:
GG

Care to share examples? - Many on TF, me included, are always anxious to learn about adventures! Feel free to expound!! :thumb:
Click to expand...

Art,
As much as I would love to share, if I did, I would completely reveal my identity. My life has been quite distinctive, in that anyone who knows me, would immediately know that it's me if I shared. Also, the general lurking public would also know exactly who I am by googling. I havn't told anyone about my latest plan, which is the boat. I love the element of surprise and the grand unveiling. But I promise, if we one day cross pathes somewhere, we can share stories over tea at sea :)
 
portager said:
Crunching some numbers on Sopressa; using an equation I obtained from David Gerr's "Messing About In Boats" with 59' length at waterline (LWL), 87,000 lbs displacement, 18' beam, I calculate a power requirement at 10 knots of 157.6 HP with no allowance for waves or wind, which would give a fuel burn rate of 8.67 gal/hr. Using the reported 2,700 gallon fuel capacity and holding 30% reserve she could do 2,178 NMi +/- 10% in ideal conditions. However, most ships this size will be running their generator to power the ships systems, which for Sopressa means running one of the two 25 KW Westerbeke generators, which burn 2.92 gal/hr at full load. Assuming 20% average loading on the generator, fuel burn at 10 knots increases to 9.25 gal/hr and range with 30% reserve decreases to 2,040 NMI. This would be sufficient to cross the Atlantic and technically sufficient to cross the Pacific at 10 knots. The distance from Hilo HI to San Francisco CA is 2019 NMi, but most people refuel in Honolulu, HI and cross to Los Angeles, CA which is 2,233 NMI. To cross from Honolulu to LA the Sopressa would need to slow to 9.5 knots. This would require 235.1 hours or 9 days, 19 hours and 9 minutes +/- a day or two. Note: these calculations are entirely theoretical and the fuel burn rates should be confirmed with operational data. Your mileage may vary based on the actual loading of the ship, the condition of the engines, the fouling of her bottom, ...

Having said that, I would not cross Oceans in the Sopressa. She has no stabilization, either active or passive. I would prefer active stabilization with passive as a backup, but one or the other is mandatory for me. Trawlers roll and can make for a miserable trip without stabilization. All of Bebe's "Passagemakers" had stabilization. She also has a rather low D/L of 189 (see Choosing a Passagemaker ). If I remember correctly, Bebe recommend a D/L of greater than 250. The handholds in the saloon are a concern, especially with children aboard. For adults you could add handholds on the ceiling, but what do the children hold onto? On the other hand, the intelligent way to cross Oceans is to leave the children home and fly them across once the boat gets there.

Finally, I think the wide body layout of the Sopressa is far less desirable than the conventional layout. I'd prefer to have the side decks for easier docking and line handling and having the side windows less exposed to waves when she rolls.

GG: not trying to give you a hard time, plenty of others are doing that, I'm only trying to further your education. Feel free to ask questions. The only stupid question is the one you never ask.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. Most of my kids are actually teens and pre-teens, so ceiling handhelds would probably work. I am really not considering the Sopressa, but the education in regard to a real life boat is great. Thank you. Would you mind elaborating a bit on the difference between passive and active stabilization. I suspect that I know the difference already, but want to see if I am correct.
 
Passive stabilizers are mechanical devices, usually "birds" or "fish" that are hung down into the water from heavily constructed outriggers that hinge out from the side of the boat. Much like the trolling poles on a salmon troller.

The "birds" are finned weights that are suspended a few feet below the surface and "swim" alongside the boat. Because of their shape, they resist the rolling movement of the boat. They are passive because they don't do anything other than hang down from the outriggers.

Active stabilizers are just that. They are usually in the form of powered fins attached to the bottom of the boat. Electrically or hydraulically driven, they (usually) have a gyro mechanism that senses the boat's rolling and pitching movement and this information in turn directs the fins to move to counteract it. So if the boat rolls to the left the fins will move to counter the roll.

Active stabilizer systems are used on boats as small as a Grand Banks 42 up to vessels as large as a 1000' cruise ship.

The advantage of passive stabilizers is they are very simple. No motors or computers or gyro sensors, etc. The advantage of active stabilizers is they actively and rapidly counter the movement of the boat and so tend to provide a smoother ride than passive stabilizers.

The disadvantage of passive stabilizers is they require a properly designed, heavy-duty structure to support them and take the high strain of resistance from the birds in the water. The disadvantage of active stabilizers is the cost, the complexity of the system, their vulnerability to being hit by debris in the water or obstructions in shallow water, and the added service and maintenance requirements imposed on the boat owner.

The first photo below shows a pair of stabilizer "birds" on the Nordhavn across from our slip in Bellingham. The second photo is of the same boat showing the heavy outriggers or stabilizer poles that are hinged outboard and suspend the heavy birds in the water.

image-425004438.jpg



image-1506466626.jpg
 
Last edited:
Marin has a good explanation. Stabalizers must be important because Voyaging Under Power, fourth edition, has a whole 23 page chapter called Stabilizing Against Rolling. There are also sails used for steadying a trawler mentioned in the book.
 
Going on what people who have GBs and steady sails have told me, the sails do a great job of keeping a boat heading into the wind (and presumably the waves) when on a mooring or at anchor. This greatly reduces the yawing back and forth and the subsequent uncomfortable rolling motion added to the pitching motion. The steady sail is sort of like putting bigger feathers on the back of an arrow, and in this respect they can be worthwhile, although we accomplish the same thing with a stern anchor.

However they have all said that a steady sail of the size that can be carried on GBs and similar boats have little to no effect in reducing roll underway in a quartering or beam sea. The sails are simply not large enough to make any significant difference.

So if roll reduction underway is something one wants to do, passive or active stabilizers are the way to do it unless one can carry a very large steady sail on one's cruiser, with the mast, mast stay, and hardware strength to take the tremendous pressure.
 
For three years I helped dad design, build, and sea test this stabilizer. Simple, effective, affordable - flexable main body, no other moving parts!
_______________________________________________
United States Patent / 3,753,415 / August 21, 1973

HYDROFOIL-SHAPED STABILIZING OR ATTITUDE-AFFECTING MEANS FOR BOATS

Abstract​

A hydrofoil-shaped stabilizer or attitude-changing means for boats, having an elongated frame assembly adapted to be connected to a submerged portion of the hull of a boat with its longitudinal axis parallel to the fore-to-aft axis of the boat. A flexible curtain assembly extends about the frame assembly and is fixed thereto but free to move laterally and to a more limited extent longitudinally relative to the frame assembly. The interior of the curtain assembly communicates with the surrounding water and is deflected to one side or the other relative to the frame assembly by its displacement relative to the water caused by a change in the attitude of the boat so as to form a hydrofoil having a camber for generating forces to oppose the change in attitude to one side or the other when the boat is underway.
 
Marin provided a good description except that the active fins are mounted on either side about half way between the keel and the waterline and near the center fore and aft. The active stabilizers are fin shaped and when they are tilted relative to the flow they produce a positive or negative lift force, like a small wing, to counter roll. A gyro is used to sense roll and a control system deflects the fins to produce the desired force to counter roll. Most active stabilizers claim to reduce roll by up to 80% to 90%. Passive stabilizers might reduce roll about 50%.

It used to be that active roll stabilizers required flow over them so they only worked while underway. However, modern stabilizers have the fins mounted off center so they can produce some force, like a paddle even with no flow, so the work at anchor (although I don't know how effective they are). The down side of active stabilization at anchor is you need to run the generator.
 
If I had a boat that was ocean capable, and the money to afford to equipe it properly, I would now go for a form of active stabilisation the above did not mention, and that is the full gyroscopic stabilisers which are fitted internally, and stabilse by rotating at high speed in a vacuum. They do draw power, as do all active stabilsers, but that is something one is not usualy short of when ocean crossing is the game, via engines or generators. This type has two added advantages of definitely working at anchor, (if required), and they are not vulnerable to damage in such as a grounding, nor the danger of snagging something in the water like the passive fish type. Have a look here....

Seakeeper Gyro Retrofit on a 65 Mikelson Nomad - YouTube

Seakeeper Website
 
Peter B has a good point. The Seakeeper gyro stabilization is another option and could be a much easier retrofit than active or passive roll stabilization since they don't require through hulls or stick out of the boat. Their smallest unit requires about 1x1x0.7 meters of room, 2.24 KW of power and a very solid mount so they may require structural modifications to the boat. They also require about 35 minutes to reach their 7,500 rpm operating speed. I haven't found a good comparison of gyro stabilization to active stabilization, so I'm not sure which is more effective underway. However, gyro stabilization should be more effective at anchor since its performance isn't dependent on speed.
 
portager said:
gyro stabilization should be more effective at anchor since its performance isn't dependent on speed.
Click to expand...

FF needs one of these so he could run his noise maker at anchor
 
GalaxyGirl said:
Art,
I would completely reveal my identity. My life has been quite distinctive, in that anyone who knows me, would immediately know that it's me if I shared. Also, the general lurking public would also know exactly who I am by googling. :)
Click to expand...

The nice thing about boating is there are some truly famous people on the water who are accepted for their skills, savvy and are a bit humble about it all.
 
GalaxyGirl said:
As much as I would love to share, if I did, I would completely reveal my identity. My life has been quite distinctive, in that anyone who knows me, would immediately know that it's me if I shared.
Click to expand...

That's ironic as I have the same potential problem! Only three TF members know my true identity (dwhatty, FlyWright & moonstruck) and they are sworn to secrecy. (We all belong to the same institution.):nonono:
 
GalaxyGirl said:
Art,
As much as I would love to share, if I did, I would completely reveal my identity. My life has been quite distinctive, in that anyone who knows me, would immediately know that it's me if I shared. Also, the general lurking public would also know exactly who I am by googling. I havn't told anyone about my latest plan, which is the boat. I love the element of surprise and the grand unveiling. But I promise, if we one day cross pathes somewhere, we can share stories over tea at sea :)
Click to expand...

And these people that know you, don't know what your mom looks like? Just in case you forgot, her avatar is a picture of herself.
 
mahal said:
And these people that know you, don't know what your mom looks like? Just in case you forgot, her avatar is a picture of herself.
Click to expand...

How do you know that her Mom's avatar is a picture of herself? :confused:
 

It time this discussion be closed and several new one started? We are way off topic and not even talking/looking at wood boats? :horse::banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
Oh My God Not A Wooden Boat
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
garbler
G
B
orcas attacks... which protection for rudder and fins on trawlers?
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
vertigopilot
vertigopilot
D
Velair VSD New Installation
Replies
3
Views
621
Vatu
V
Pete Meisinger
There is humor everywhere, even selling a boat
Replies
2
Views
859
psneeld
psneeld
CaptainKen
Watching My Wake
Replies
4
Views
569
Mambo42
Mambo42

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom