Engine size when using twins

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
We are neither the fastest, nor the slowest; the smallest nor the largest; the most comfortable nor the most basic; the newest nor the oldest; the prettiest nor the ugliest. There are millions of boats on each side of the spectrum from us and we love the spot in which we fall because it works for us. I truly appreciate that every most boat owners feel the same way abot THEIR OWN BOAT and with it, have found their niche on the water.

Then there are those who are ready for something bigger or smaller or faster or slower to fit their new stage in life. It all makes perfect sense and allows many more to enjoy this passion we call boating. And I appreciate that there are others here and on the water who share my passion without picking apart the boat I call mine. Hey, let's face it...we could all choose to nitpick every other boat if so inclined, but that takes the fun out of every boat encounter. I prefer to celebrate our differences and make the most of the blessings I have.

Cheers!
 
Marin of course I believe what I believe. How else could it be? And RT a lot of guys agree w Marin. Me most of the time and often profoundly so. Especially when he talks about worldly matters whereas some of us have seen little of the world (me) and here on TF often look through Marin's eyes.
And I had no idea (before this thread) how much most here disdain 6 knots. Actually find it intolerable. That means Mark and I have more in common than I thought.
Many wonderful designs be it a boat or an ice scraper fall short in the marketplace that is hugely influenced by subjective emotions, styles and personal tastes. What's below the WL means little to most here but it's the real deal to me. I really liked several trawlers before I saw them undressed on the hard.

Every boat has a speed or more accurately put a speed range. Very narrow for FD boats and becoming wider as speed increases.

To again take a poke at what I'm talking about let's take a look at the GB 36 single. What is usually it's top speed? And what is it's displacement? To hear form several would be preferable.
 
...
Every boat has a speed or more accurately put a speed range. Very narrow for FD boats and becoming wider as speed increases. ...

My normal cruising speed through water of 6.3 knots is not quite twice my idle speed of 3.2 knots (800 idle versus 1800 cruising RPM). Eleven-hundred RPM provides the five-statute-miles-per-hour "no-wake" speed. Maximum torque is at 1400, my minimum cruising setting.


img_300309_0_a36914f582e0a49bedb647db6fbaa95a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Eric, your not as alone as you think. I'm right down the street in the 7 knot neighborhood.

Ted
 
... Hey, let's face it...we could all choose to nitpick every other boat if so inclined, but that takes the fun out of every boat encounter. I prefer to celebrate our differences and make the most of the blessings I have.
So true. ... My Coot would not be a sensible choice for fisherman Al. (Perhaps this version would be more suitable: http://www.dieselducks.com/Coot.html) While the Seahorse Marine version of the Coot has stainless-steel rails, the stern deck isn't big enough to hold chairs or table. The Coot's deck-level seat orients the person in the wrong direction. Also, the Coot's optional sail rig has stays interfering with the use of fishing rods. This isn't a negative for me since I "fish" at the supermarket.

img_300320_0_f8506240c4505edae384881cb9a0a86c.jpg
 
Last edited:
To again take a poke at what I'm talking about let's take a look at the GB 36 single. What is usually it's top speed? And what is it's displacement? To hear form several would be preferable.

Eric--- Before we bought the cruiser we have now, we chartered a 1991 GB36 with a single Cummins 220 hp engine. We were told that the best cruise setting was 2000 rpm which gave the boat 8 knots pretty much right on the nose.

In contrast, we run our two FL120s at 1650 rpm, which gives us 8 knots.

I do not know what the top speed of the single engine GB36 is as we never had occasion to find out. My guess is that with the 220 hp Cummins at WOT it was in the neighborhood of 12 knots.

The displacement of the 1991 single-engine GB36 is probably slightly less than ours. Our boat by the Travelift scale is 30,000 pounds with full fuel, water, and all of our "stuff."

As the boat we chartered is a 1991 model, it would have been built somewhat lighter than our 1973 boat which, as fiberglass was a brand new material for American Marine, was overbuilt in terms of the hull and deck thickness.

The owner's manual displacement for our boat is 26,000 pounds empty weight. The single-engine version of our boat weighs appropriately less.

The GB owners forum manuals section does not contain a manual for a post-1988 single-engine model GB36, so I can only guess at its displacement. (1988 was the year American Marine began using brand new molds for the GB36 and GB42 and the boats changed a bit in terms of dimensions and layup). But I would guess that the displacement of the single-engine 1991 boat we chartered was in the 26,000-28,000 pound range.
 
Last edited:
Thank goodness there are some boats available without the majority interest of twin engines and flying bridge.
 
Many wonderful designs be it a boat or an ice scraper fall short in the marketplace that is hugely influenced by subjective emotions, styles and personal tastes. What's below the WL means little to most here but it's the real deal to me. I really liked several trawlers before I saw them undressed on the hard.
.

I don't know whether to find that statement insulting or find it humorous. Of course sales are influence by subjective views. You refuse to acknowledge that yours are equally subjective and emotions and personal tastes. There is no absolute measurement of what is best. It's all subject to how we each measure it, based on our personal preferences. If I set a minimum of 2 nmpg as the key measurement then my boats flunk. If I set a minimum of 15 knots then yours does.

Then to add that what is below the WL means little to most here but it's the real deal to you. Well, it's important to me, but that doesn't put me with a 35 hp Yanmar. Just because we reach different conclusions doesn't mean one of us is right and one wrong.

I respect those like you who love the boats you have and find 6-7 knots very acceptable. I think your boat is great in it's way. But whether you mean to or not you do come across as feeling that you are superior and smarter because you choose the boat you do.

Why can't you accept that there are thousands of different boats and just as many different tastes in boats and all those are fine and good. Yes, even the person out there who has a 90 knot capable Nortech or Fountain. Their boat is great in achieving their goal. I think Mark's Coot is an incredible boat just as I do your Willard. Not our choice but a very nice boat. I would never put down another's boat, nor would I ever put down a person for preferring a different boat.
 
I don't hear anyone saying others' choice of boat was necessarily wrong.
 
What's below the WL means little to most here.....

I think that's an extremely inaccurate assumtion. While a lot of boaters may not know all the forumulas for figuring out the right curve of a buttock line or whatever, I think most boaters are very cognizent of what their hulls look like below the water line and have reasons for liking (or not liking) what they have.

We selected the boat we did for our PNW boat precisely because it has a full keel that extends down lower than the rudders and the props, and precisely because it has a deep forefoot to help slice though the steep, closely spaced wind waves that are common on the inside waters, and preciscely because it has a flatter after section with sharp chines to reduce the roll amount and let us go faster than our cruise speed if we should feel we need to.

Our good friends with the custom lobsterboat know exactly how their hull works at speeds of 15 knots and at 9 knots and why faster speeds give a better ride in rougher water and about the effects their keel has on directional stability and speed. Again, they may not have all the hydrodynamics knowledge of how one arrives at a hull design like theirs, but they know damn well how it works and how to take advantage of it.

And of course I daresay that serious sailboaters probably know more about the finesses of underwater hull design than anybody.

So I think the notion that most powerboaters, particularly cruising powerboaters, don't care or know about the why's of their hull designs and are only concerned about whether or not they can fit a full-size Lazy-Boy recliner into the cabin is bollocks.

We may not have a design engineer's knowledge of how our hulls are shaped and why, but I believe most of us have a working man's knowledge of our hull's behavior and why it behaves the way it does and how to use the hull's design and behavior to our benefit. That's been my observation, anyway, based on the casual conversations I've had with boaters I've met on the docks or in the yard over the years.
 
I'm almost shocked by your post BandB.

You and others have read into my posts things that definitely aren't there.

My "issue" is boats that have a very inappropriate amount of power only as it relates to their hull design. I'm not selling any speed to run for anybody or how much power to put into their boat.

If the GB 36 w the single FL120 won't cruise (as in dosn't have the power) at very near hull speed then it is an inappropriate engine (relative to power) or an inappropriate hull design. So it must do something a FD 36' boat won't do to justify it's hull design or amount of power w it's existing SD hull. If it can cruise above hull speed w the FL then in my mind or opinion that would justify the FL or/and the hull design.

But if it won't even make hull speed the justification for it's configuration isn't there. That would make it an inappropriate design. Then it should have either more power or a FD hull.
 
Last edited:
If the GB 36 w the single FL120 won't cruise (as in dosn't have the power) at very near hull speed then it is an inappropriate engine (relative to power) or an inappropriate hull design..

A GB36 with a single FL120 easily exceeds hull speed by a bit in cruise (8 knots) and will do more than that if pushed. It won't go as fast as a GB36 with two FL120s (we get about 11 knots or so with our two FL120s at WOT and the props that we have), but it will probably do 9 or 10 knots depending on the prop. However nobody in their right mind will run the engines this way.

But late model GB36s with their more powerful engines (one or two, it doesn't matter) are often cruised at 12 knots, particularly by charter folks who don't have to foot the fuel bill.
 
Why can't you accept that there are thousands of different boats and just as many different tastes in boats and all those are fine and good..

This is my notion of the perfect cruising boat (minus the armament) and the perfect cruising boat engine. It is so foreign to what Eric views as the perfect boat and boat engine that it's not even on the same planet. But my belief in what a boat should be is no more or less valid than Eric's or anyone else's.

And yes, Eric, I know exactly why this hull is designed the way it is and exactly why it works.:)
 

Attachments

  • PT-107.jpg
    PT-107.jpg
    69.5 KB · Views: 90
  • Packard 4M-2500.jpg
    Packard 4M-2500.jpg
    97.1 KB · Views: 76
Well if I had to pick my next boat on no budget and wanted twins. I think it would be this one. Eric don't even try to tell me this is an overpowered/propped hunk of steel!:lol:ImageUploadedByTrawler Forum1421726807.181977.jpg
 
To again take a poke at what I'm talking about let's take a look at the GB 36 single. What is usually it's top speed? And what is it's displacement? To hear form several would be preferable.

They cruise at 7 - 7.5 knots with a 120 Lehman. If pushed to max rpm, they might hit 9 knots. So they run just fine at what I understand their hull speed to be.

And there is no on going over heating issue that I'm aware of with 120 FL. If the engine and cooling system are in good shape they'll run near or at max rpm all day long if for some reason you wanted to do that.
 
Last edited:
This is my notion of the perfect cruising boat (minus the armament) and the perfect cruising boat engine. It is so foreign to what Eric views as the perfect boat and boat engine that it's not even on the same planet. But my belief in what a boat should be is no more or less valid than Eric's or anyone else's.

And yes, Eric, I know exactly why this hull is designed the way it is and exactly why it works.:)

Wifey B: Now that's one freaking weird boat. You must have celebrated the win yesterday too much....lol. It it's not too much trouble can I ask what the heck that is?

Just proves though that before you can even evaluate a boat you have to know it's purpose. I like speed. Lots of it. On the lake we had a perfect boat, a 30 ft bowrider that would run 55 knots. Definitely not for the coast so we sold it and started over when we moved.

People laugh at our tenders which are jet ribs capable of 30-40 knots. But we don't use them as shuttles to shore. We get out and explore. Some days we'll cover like a couple hundred miles in a rib. Boy did we have fun doing that in Washington, especially around some of the islands. Fun in Alaska too. But they'd be like insane for someone who just uses them to take the dog to shore to pee or anchors and then goes to the dinghy dock and that's all.
 
Marin, now you're wanting a boat with three engines/propellers and dark living spaces! Even worse, you'll need a separate crew member to control just the engines.
 
Last edited:

and what? where would Marin get the cannons, machine guns, and torpedoes to equip his boat? but no doubt he would be best able of all of us.
 
Last edited:
Marin, now you're wanting a boat with three engines/propellers and dark living spaces! Even worse, you'll need a separate crew member to control just the engines.

Actually Mark, we have a boat with three engines in it now. However, it's on the other side of the Atlantic. Our PNW boat is still the old slow-poke we've had for the last 16 years. :-(
 
Last edited:
Marin, other side of the Atlantic, like Europe or Africa? ... Counting a generator would be cheating.
 
Wifey B: Now that's one freaking weird boat. .... It it's not too much trouble can I ask what the heck that is?

It's the Elco 80' PT (Patrol Torpedo) boat that was used by the US Navy in WWII. Hundreds of them were produced by Elco and Higgins. The Higgins boat, while built to perform the same mission, looks somewhat different.

The boat in the Elco company builder's photo is PT117. PTs were not commissioned as individual boats but as squadrons, most of which consisted of 12 boats. They were considered expendable, throw-away weapons, sort of like rifles. Hence the squadron commissioning and no names, just numbers. The crews gave them nicknames, of course.

PT-117 was one of a batch of Elco PTs that included the most famous PT boat of WWII, PT109, the one commanded by John F. Kennedy.

The Elco boats, which arguably were the better of the two, were 80 feet long and were powered by three Packard 4M-2500 V-12 marine engines that ran on aviation fuel. They were NOT P-51 engines or any sort of engine out of an airplane although the 4M-2500 did have an aero engine heritage. Each engine developed 1100 horsepower at the start of the war, although by 1945 Packard had managed to up this to 1500 hp. They carried 3,000 gallons of fuel which was just enough to run them for one mission, which in the Pacific usually started at sunset and went until dawn.

I've done a ton of research about the boats over the last 25 years or so, including interviewing a hundred or so PT vets for the purpose of writing a book I have wanted to write for decades since hearing the story from four PT vets in Hawaii way back when. Other book projects have taken priority, but I've been working on the PT book when I can. I'm on Chapter 9 now. It's not a history book or anything, but the story of a specific mission. I guess you could call it a novel based on a true story.

I first became fascinated with the Elco boats when I read a book in the Honolulu Public Library when I was just a little kid called They Were Expendable. It's the true story of the PTs in the Philippines at the start of the war, and the mission they undertook to evacuate Gen. Douglas McArthur from Corrigedor. They made a movie of the book in 1945 starring John Wayne and Robert Montgomery.

In the course of my research I have been give permission to explore for hours the inside of the only fully restored Elco PT (the inside is normally off-limits to everyone but PT vets), my wife and I have been invited to ride on the only PT powered by it's original type engines, the Packard 4M-2500, I've heard amazing stories from some amazing guys, I've bought just about every book every published about PTs including the hard-to-find book by Vice Admiral John Bulkeley (the skipper of the PT that evacuated McArthur) called At Close Quarters, the official Navy history of the PTs in WWII. I also have the manuals the PT crews were issued when they reported to PT school and the operating instructions for the Packard 4M-2500. My real prize is a video copy of a color film made by Elco during the war illustrating the entire construction process of the boats, from laying the first plank to test runs to fire the armament.

Very, very cool boats and I would give almost anything to have one and the funds to run it. It would take a lot of money, though. At the boat's maximum sustained cruise speed at 2000 rpm, fuel consumption was 292 gallons per hour. At top speed (about 40 knots although they only went that fast when they were brand new), fuel consumption was a miserly 474 gallons per hour.

The hulls were double-diagonal mahogany planked with a layer of doped canvas between the two layers of planking for waterproofing. Basically, the hulls were great big Chris Craft runabout hulls. The decks were conventionally planked. The only plywood in the boats (plywood only bends one way) were in some of the deck structures and the the two twin-.50 caliber gun turrets.

At the end of the war, almost all the PTs-- Elcos and Higgins--- were stripped of their armament and anything else of value to the Navy, and then the boats were burned en masse where they floated in the combat theatres. The only survivors were a handful of boats that were completed right at or just after the war's end and were never sent overseas. Some were purchased surplus, re-engined, sometimes shortened, and converted into yachts. Others just ended up in the mud in a Navy base backwater where they rotted away. A very few were kept around, slowly decaying until somebody or some vets organization obtained them and restored them.

So there you go. That's a pretty simplistic descripion of the boat and its history and is probably way more than you ever wanted to know and WAY off-topic but I hope that satisfies your curiosity.
 
Last edited:
A hobby/outside interest is great for mental wellness. ... No other details on your three-engined boat?
 
Well, I guess now he's outed it himself and it's no longer a secret, I can confirm in a PM or email Marin did hint to me some time ago he had plans to one day to have a boat built which was 'fast', and had 3 engines…

Looks like he went and did it...
 
They cruise at 7 - 7.5 knots with a 120 Lehman. If pushed to max rpm, they might hit 9 knots. So they run just fine at what I understand their hull speed to be.

And there is no on going over heating issue that I'm aware of with 120 FL. If the engine and cooling system are in good shape they'll run near or at max rpm all day long if for some reason you wanted to do that.


OK Captbill,
Somebody finally answered the question. So the 36GB w one FL120 will make 9 knots w normal cruising weight bottom ect. I didn't think it would go that fast. That means it will cruise continuously at well over 7 knots but probably working the FL fairly hard. But hull speed is just about 8 knots so if the GB 36 was a FD hull it could do everything the real boat does except perhaps the last half a knot top speed.

So I think I'm right in that ideally the 36 would be a FD boat. But it probably came into existance because some go slow people were asking for it. The designers probably said "well that's just not enough power for that hull". But the marketing dept probably decided they could build a few so Marin was right ... marketing brought the boat about. Building a special hull for what was thought to be just a few boats (and only a few were actually made) fit every bodies requirements acceptably. I'm sure thay would have made it w an upturned stern in the FD tradition if it had been cost effective .. but of course it wasn't.

But if I had one and were a younger man I'd get out the sawsall and into an interesting project. It would cruise w about 1/3 less power and have better control in following seas. So if I had been CEO at GB I may have done the same thing. Most people probably would have cruised them close enough to the hump so as not to gain much w the FD option. So the 36 single isn't ideal but it made good marketing sense and as Marin and others have pointed out the were very successful selling boats.

Are there other imperfect boats? You bet but I got enough flack from mentioning this one that I may not dredge any others up. Not say'in I wouldn't join in if others got into it though.
 
Last edited:
Mark-- No, afraid not for a number of reasons. Sorry......

The internet, twitter, fakebook etc is not a good or necessarily friendly place to share all.
 
The "original" GB36, Spray, designed by Ken Smith, was powered by a 270 hp Cat diesel. This gave the boat a cruising speed of 16 mph and a top speed of a bit over 17 mph. In this regard, she was more like a lobsterboat than a cabin cruiser. While the production boat based on Spray had a considerably different topside arrangement and configuration, the hull remained the same.

Why American Marine chose to use the much lower powered FL120 in the boat I do not know. I can speculate that it was to make the boat less expensive to buy and less expensive to operate, although in the mid-1960s I doubt the price of fuel was a consideration to the buyers of this type of boat. Perhaps the less expensive FL allowed American Marine to meet specific price and profit points in the production of the Gb36 and 42. We'll probably never know as the guys who made these decisions are all gone now.

But the GB36 hull was not originally conceived to be a slow, displacement speed boat as photos of Spray illustrate.

I, for one, wish American Marine had stayed with the 270 hp Cat in the production GB36. Preferably two of them if they would have fit in the hull. Of course the company eventually got back to this kind of power with the standard fitting of one or two 220 hp Cummins into the GB36. The people I know with Cummins-powered GB36s, particularly the twins, make use of the power to cruise at some 12-13 knots on a regular basis. It's really annoying when these folks with the same boat we have come blowing by us on their way to or from the islands. :)

If American Marine made a mistake, in my opinion it was in not sticking with the amount of power the hull was designed for.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    191.8 KB · Views: 67
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom