Stabilizers - hydraulic or pneumatic

Getting quotes for new stabilizers to install on my new to me trawler. I have priced Wesmar and Gyro-Gale. They are basically the same price for the parts. The big difference is the installation. I can do the Gyro-Gale my self (Basically free), the Wesmar will require professional installation.
From what I've read here and other places, people are very happy with Gyro-Gale. I like the idea of one less oil change on the boat.
Am I missing something?

I don't see how that installation is any less complex, in some ways it looks more complex with more components than a hydraulic system. And no more DIY. And oil changes are a non-factor in hydraulics systems anyway (and I see components that need oil in the GG system); that was thacse for our heavily used Naiads. So it must be me who is missing something.... and that's nothing new.

I also have to admit I take the simple minded approach that there must be a reason Naiad, ABT and Wesmar are so much more common.

That said, by all means go for it and report back to us. There has to be a reason GG is still around, frankly I thought they were no more. So there has got to be a reason they are.

2 observations. Air can compress . Does this make the Gale units sluggish when under heavy load? Also can you just bolt stabilizers to a hull or do you have to reinforce the hull to accept them?

Arc said:

Also can you just bolt stabilizers to a hull or do you have to reinforce the hull to accept them?

Click to expand...

That's what makes them an easier install. The GG uses two steel plates to sandwich the hull. After that is simple tools to finish the assemble.
The Wesmar has to have the hull reinforced.

Watched their video of install on Defever 49. Surprised to see 5sf fins, but they have an articulated trailing edge so perhaps more ooomph per square foot of fin. Tough to tell if a heavy backing block is required, but I would guess so. No difference in forces exerted. As others have said, I see no material difference for install between these and hydraulic.

As others have said, not sure what problem they are solving by replacing hydraulic with pneumatic. Hydraulic controls have been around for a very, very long time and are proven simple and relatively trouble free in applications such as this (large fishing boats are exclusively hydraulic controls) . But I admit, I don't know squat about pneumatics except they are often used in assembly line controls such as bottling plants and such.

As far as the best hydraulic unit, I am in the midst of a refit and am replacing my 1970 vintage vosper fins with wesmar (4.5sf for my Willard 36, thus my surprise the defever 49 with roughly same size fins). I chose wesmar as they had a small system. In my opinion, a mistake. Their customer service and technical support has been awful. They freely cashed my check, then stopped replying to some very simple questions that should have been part of their design specs.

At about the same time, someone in this forum posted they, as second owner of a nordhavn, had problems with original equipment ABTs during a cruise. ABT responded immediately - - - - on a Sunday.

I believe all three of the hydraulic stabilizer brands mentioned use Eaton control brains. In the last few years, stabilizers have touted three dimension stabilization - pitch has been added. Not sure how effective, but that's the claim. Would see if the Gale system uses similar controls and technology. The control panel looks a lot like the old naiad with analog dial controls.

Bottom line, I am really sorry I chose wesmar. I would have returned the unit except they would charge a 20% restocking fee. I understand they changed owner a few years ago. Perhaps that led to the change.

Would advise ABT even at a premium, then Naiad. Then paravanes. Then Wesmar.

Good luck!

Hornloaded said:

That's what makes them an easier install. The GG uses two steel plates to sandwich the hull. After that is simple tools to finish the assemble.
The Wesmar has to have the hull reinforced.

Click to expand...

Why? Stabilization forces should be the same assuming the fin is same size. Options are 1) articulated trailing edge of GG provides more lift without transferring lift to hull, or 2) GG is under-engineered, or 3) Wesmar/ABT/Naiad are over-engineered.

Careful on sizing. Not uncommon for folks to decide to increase fin size down the road after saving a few bucks at install by selecting smaller end fins. As mentioned in previous post, 5sf fins on a Defever 49 seems small. Only explanation is the articulated fin is Magic

One advantage of air: it doesn't make a mess when it leaks, and hydraulics will leak, now or in the future.

My 2 cents worth

The compressor is not small for the gyro gales. A hydraulic pump is minuscule in comparison, especially if a PTO.

As Arc mentioned, air is compressible thus a slower response. In industry I've replaced air cylinders with hydraulic to reduce actuator time.

The air compressor requires a driver motor and cooling. Horn, how did GG propose these two issues be dealt with? The last GG unit I looked at had a sizeable electric motor and an in ER air cooling setup.

I had Naiad 7.5sq fins installed on my GB46 in about 2016. No problems since. They are large fins for the size of the boat, and they work a treat.

Having seen that work done, and seen the fins in action, I would always get a professional to install stabiliser fins. The loads that go onto them in heavier seas are huge, I would be surprised if a normal boat hull didnt need to be reinforced to take them (no matter which brand).

H.

The Gale system uses an engine driven compressor.

I wonder that someone doesn't make a fin stabilizer system using servo tabs to actuate the fins, which would require almost no power.

DDW said:

The Gale system uses an engine driven compressor.

Click to expand...

Not always. As I mentioned in a previous post, one I evaluated relied upon a large stand alone electric motor drive compressor to power the fins. The electric motor required the genset to run all the time when the boat was cruising. Considerable heat was given off from the air cooled compressor.

Hornloaded said:

That's what makes them an easier install. The GG uses two steel plates to sandwich the hull. After that is simple tools to finish the assemble.
The Wesmar has to have the hull reinforced.

Click to expand...

Why would one system require hull blocks and the other not?

My old Vospers had relatively hull blocks compared to those spec'd by Wesmar . Old ones were about 20"x22"x6" thick, glassed into hull with heavy roving. They were actually too thick for new ones and needed to be cut down an inch. Wesmar pads are mahogany and extremely beefy (and expensive). The blocks serve no purpose except as a pad, meaning there is nothing except through bolts and the shaft going through them.

The three hydraulic brands mentioned by OP use a heavy wood pad. Why not use a large, thick SS backing plate to distribute the load?

Regardless, I don't see where one system is much easier to install than the other. Laid out on a shop floor, my new Wesmar system was pretty well plug and play (well, once I figured out what to do about the voltage discrepancy - I ordered a 12v system but they shipped a 24v system, which is when they stopped communicating why I'm sorry I bought a Wesmar system ). There are two brain boxes, a panel-mount display, hydraulic pump, oil tank, and a heat exchanger mounted inline on engine raw water inlet. Wiring harnesses connecting them are mostly idiot proof (though one is way too short). There's no reason a skilled DIY person couldn't install them self.

BTW - the ABT system is self-centering/locking. The Wesmar and Naiad system (I think) require a pin to be manually inserted to hold the shaft centered and keep the fin from flopping unless system is energized. In your selection, you may want to validate this - would be a differentiator unless you plan to run the system energized every moment you're underway.

Why would one system require hull blocks and the other not?

If the vessel runs aground , or is blown ashore to rest on a fin , the hull is reinforced so the fin does not tear a hole in the boat.

Sure the fin "should " break off , but this disaster has happened.

Attached picture is from a few days ago. You can see the size of the reinforcement block compared to the base plate on the new stabilizer. From memory, Wesmar specifies total thickness, including hull, of 4-inches. My original blocks were closer to 6-inches, so yard cut-down the thickness, guessing with multiple passes of a router or perhaps skilsaw kerfs planed smooth, than glassed over as shown in the picture. The wood beneath is laid-up plywood glued together in opposite directions to thickness.

The original Vosper Thorneycroft stabilizers were OEM to my Willard 36 when she was delivered in 1970. At the time, these systems were fairly custom and required substantial engineering - I still have the original blue-prints and engineering calculations that came with the boat. Must be over a dozen D-Size sheets (24"x36") neatly folded into a large envelope.

Bottom line, even though the pads are further strengthened by being glassed into a stringer and a bulkhead, because they were apparently carefully engineered, I would hesitate to make the pads smaller. Of course, not a decision I need to make - they are already there.

DDW said:

One advantage of air: it doesn't make a mess when it leaks, and hydraulics will leak, now or in the future.

Click to expand...

My old Vospers have not leaked in my 22-years of ownership. I've had to replace a couple hoses due to wear where they passed through a limber hole and I replaced the oil cooler heat exchanger ($125 part), but no leaks. I would think air would be more likely to leak and perhaps harder to detect, though maybe not - probably makes a helluva hissing noise when it does leak. I don't recall ever touching the oil except to top-up when replacing the hose or oil cooler. Maybe I should have changed the oil, but didn't.

Either way, I'm still curious what problem is being solved by going to pneumatic.

mvweebles said:

Attached picture is from a few days ago. You can see the size of the reinforcement block compared to the base plate on the new stabilizer. From memory, Wesmar specifies total thickness, including hull, of 4-inches. My original blocks were closer to 6-inches, so yard cut-down the thickness, guessing with multiple passes of a router or perhaps skilsaw kerfs planed smooth, than glassed over as shown in the picture. The wood beneath is laid-up plywood glued together in opposite directions to thickness.

The original Vosper Thorneycroft stabilizers were OEM to my Willard 36 when she was delivered in 1970. At the time, these systems were fairly custom and required substantial engineering - I still have the original blue-prints and engineering calculations that came with the boat. Must be over a dozen D-Size sheets (24"x36") neatly folded into a large envelope.

Bottom line, even though the pads are further strengthened by being glassed into a stringer and a bulkhead, because they were apparently carefully engineered, I would hesitate to make the pads smaller. Of course, not a decision I need to make - they are already there.

View attachment 99272

Click to expand...

Wow, and I thought my OEM glassed in FRP pads were big and stout. Your setup is built to USN standards for sure, as are most other things on Willards. Too bad they don't build for the recreational markets anymore although I did hear that the cost to build to USN specs adds a "bit" more.

mvweebles said:

My old Vospers have not leaked in my 22-years of ownership.

Click to expand...

You are quite lucky. I have hydraulics on the sailboat, and on numerous bits of construction and farm equipment. Leaks are a way of life with hydraulics. True that some seem to go for decades without, and some only a year or two, without a pattern that I can discern. Pneumatics leak just as often (have a bunch of those too) but don't make a mess.

DDW said:

You are quite lucky. I have hydraulics on the sailboat, and on numerous bits of construction and farm equipment. Leaks are a way of life with hydraulics. True that some seem to go for decades without, and some only a year or two, without a pattern that I can discern. Pneumatics leak just as often (have a bunch of those too) but don't make a mess.

Click to expand...

I have pretty limited exposure to hydraulics, less to pneumatics. I've replaced hoses and rams and such, but, compared to other mechanical stuff, not a lot of experience. From the perspective of a novice, when is hydraulic used vs pneumatic, or vice-versa? I've always thought hydraulic, due to being incompressable, was beefier. I'm guessing food-grade package handling is air vs oil, but is there more to the design criteria? Why not use pneumatic thrusters or windlasses or stabilizers?

If you don't do any PM, hydraulics will leak. So will compressed air systems, except it's treated air, not pure oil.

As I referred to in another post, GG has been around awhile, so they are not some fly by night operation. I think Hornloaded should buy a set and install them, and report back.

By the way Hornloaded, I love your screen name. What's the genesis of that? Way back in the day, I had a set of JBL speakers my brother in law built for me from plans JBL provided. Had a 15" woofer rear horn loaded, a horn mid range and a ring radiator tweeter, all JBL; beautifully made stuff. Great rock and roll speakers that could blast your ears out with a 35 watt per side tube amplifier.

ABT's are a steel sandwich install. No wooden blocks involved. It's one of the reasons I went with them when I installed fins on my old Grand Banks 47. The two large steel plates spread the load out over a much large section of hull. But the hull still needs to be strong enough, and whether air or hydraulic driven, equally effective fins will place the same load on the hull.

mvweebles said:

I have pretty limited exposure to hydraulics, less to pneumatics. I've replaced hoses and rams and such, but, compared to other mechanical stuff, not a lot of experience. From the perspective of a novice, when is hydraulic used vs pneumatic, or vice-versa? I've always thought hydraulic, due to being incompressable, was beefier. I'm guessing food-grade package handling is air vs oil, but is there more to the design criteria? Why not use pneumatic thrusters or windlasses or stabilizers?

Click to expand...

Hydraulic is (more or less) incompressible, and usually operates at higher pressures. That produces higher forces in the same size cylinder, and more certain location of the actuator. Air on the other hand, can be more forgiving of error as it is more easily forced to a different position without damage. On stabilizers, that may allow them to give a bit when struck by a log, but I'd think that would be not a great advantage. Properly engineered, either would supply the force required in stabilizers. Air has two advantages I can think of, no messy leaks, and no need to bleed the air from the system. Neither is very energy efficient. The seals in each are similar, sliding connections like this in a dirty environment are difficult to keep sealed long term. Rotating seals are much easier as they don't drag over a dirty rod each actuation.

Here are some pictures of an ABT stabilizer


In the first picture, the interior "sandwich" place is on the left, and the actuator on the right mounts to it.


In the second picture you can see the exterior "sandwich" plate. And it's not held together with three 1/2" bolts. There are either of them. The hull thickness (just the fiberglass) is about 2-1/2" in this area.


Sandwich or not, I would consult with the manufacturer or a naval architect about hull strength before committing to any install. When I did my Grand Banks, GB provided me with the hull reinforcement schedule. GB's are pretty stoutly built boats to begin with, but more was needed.

mvweebles said:

Regardless, I don't see where one system is much easier to install than the other. Laid out on a shop floor, my new Wesmar system was pretty well plug and play (well, once I figured out what to do about the voltage discrepancy - I ordered a 12v system but they shipped a 24v system, which is when they stopped communicating why I'm sorry I bought a Wesmar system ). There are two brain boxes, a panel-mount display, hydraulic pump, oil tank, and a heat exchanger mounted inline on engine raw water inlet. Wiring harnesses connecting them are mostly idiot proof (though one is way too short). There's no reason a skilled DIY person couldn't install them self.

Click to expand...

If you haven't already started the install, dispute the charge with your credit card company. Justification is that you still have not received what you ordered (ordered 12 volt, they sent 24 volt, and won't talk to you/rectify the situation). No restocking charge will be accessed by the CC company. Wesmar can provide a RMA # with return shipping label, or if they refuse to communicate with CC company, CC company will refund your FULL amount. Then Wesmar can come get them, issue an RMA and return shipping label, or if they still refuse to communicate with you, you can dispose of them as you see fit if they do not contact you.

slowgoesit said:

If you haven't already started the install, dispute the charge with your credit card company. Justification is that you still have not received what you ordered (ordered 12 volt, they sent 24 volt, and won't talk to you/rectify the situation). No restocking charge will be accessed by the CC company. Wesmar can provide a RMA # with return shipping label, or if they refuse to communicate with CC company, CC company will refund your FULL amount. Then Wesmar can come get them, issue an RMA and return shipping label, or if they still refuse to communicate with you, you can dispose of them as you see fit if they do not contact you.

Click to expand...

It's complicated. First, Wesmar insisted on bank wire transfer. Second, although I originally used their form to initially spec the system (and specified 12v, an option on their form), they no longer make a 12v system. No one does - a year or two ago, technology changed for all the manufacturers and they went to Eaton 3D controls that adjust for pitch in addition to yaw. Apparently, only 24v. So Wesmar says they spec's 24v and I approved it verbally.

Most importantly, this should have been an easy fix - it took me a while, but there are step-down converters that are fairly small, you just need to know the power being stepped down. Wesmar was 1) unaware of this and instead sent me a hand scribbled note describing a 24v battery system complete with 50a charger; and 2) was unable to tell me the power requirements so I could size the step down converter myself. Apparently, these questions stumped them as that's when they went radio silent. Calls/emails to their CEO were also unanswered (three attempts). BTW - Naiad includes the step-up converter including wiring diagram as an option when a boat is 12v. Why it's a surprise to Wesmar that someone would actually own a boat with 12v systems is a mystery.

I hope their product works better than their customer service. All I can say is I'm very sorry I did business with them.

Stabilizer options

I had vospers for years on a 1977 Hatt 58. They were very reliable even though 25+ years old. I just purchased a 48 LRC with gyro gales. Their customer support has been incredible even on the weekend. The former boat owner was very happy with them for many years. But like anything else you do have routine maintenance or you can face major repairs and that is the case here. There was also some physical damage probably from impact that bent one of the 4. So I have decided to remove and glass the hull penetrations for now. Will probably put a new system in back in San Diego after some time to evaluate. If I go hydraulic I still have one heck of an air compressor on board. Wonder if I could use it to fill scuba tanks!

A GB 46 with 7.5sq ft fins must be amazing in a rough sea. Sizing stabilizers up properly is something most builders don’t do to either save on cost or the speed penalty of drag. I’ve seen big displacement yachts like an Outer Reef running 6sq ft fins as their standard.

Kapn said:

A GB 46 with 7.5sq ft fins must be amazing in a rough sea. Sizing stabilizers up properly is something most builders don’t do to either save on cost or the speed penalty of drag. I’ve seen big displacement yachts like an Outer Reef running 6sq ft fins as their standard.

Click to expand...

In my research on replacing my stabilizers, I found many citations with owners who increased the size of their fins or lamented not being able to afford the correct sized SeaKeeper gyro stabilizer. The folks on Sea Venture YoutTube channel (I believe it's a Cheoy Lee 55-footer or so, LRC) said they looked into a SeaKeeper system and the parts alone were in the $120k range, it's tempting to get a smaller system and hope for the best (they ultimately kept their paravane system).

Size really does matter.

READY said:

I had vospers for years on a 1977 Hatt 58... But like anything else you do have routine maintenance or you can face major repairs and that is the case here....I have decided to remove and glass the hull penetrations for now.

Click to expand...

Having to replace my stabilizers was a surprise - replacement parts were no longer available. Fine for physical parts that can be fabricated, but the ancient electronics would be impossible to replace.

A fellow Willard owner made a suggestion that I wish I had had a month earlier: why not abandon the hydraulic stabilizers and go with paravanes? I'm not positive I'd go that route, but I wish I had at least considered it more fully. I like the push-button convenience of hydraulic stabilizers. Let's face it, if you see an oncoming mega-yacht pushing a tsunami wake, you're not deploying the paravanes in time. Also, not using them in narrower channels, including crossing inlets/bars. But the simplicity and dual purpose as an at-anchor flopper stopper rig is compelling, especially if you're cruising any distance (versus weekend/week cruising).

mvweebles said:

It's complicated. First, Wesmar insisted on bank wire transfer. Second, although I originally used their form to initially spec the system (and specified 12v, an option on their form), they no longer make a 12v system. No one does - a year or two ago, technology changed for all the manufacturers and they went to Eaton 3D controls that adjust for pitch in addition to yaw. Apparently, only 24v. So Wesmar says they spec's 24v and I approved it verbally.
I hope their product works better than their customer service. All I can say is I'm very sorry I did business with them.

Click to expand...

Okay, that makes sense, although it is unfortunate. For me, a company requiring a wire transfer to pay for their product would be a HUGE red flag. . . . Maybe they've had a history of people purchasing with CC's, who they treated shabbily, and who disputed their charges?!? I like to have some recourse in the event the purchase goes south. I did note where you approved the change to 12 volt, but it is unacceptable that they left it for you to finish the engineering/spec'ing of the final part of the installation. Thank you for the heads up, Wesmar is now permanently off my list of stabilizers that I want to put in.

My Grand Banks ABT stabilizer installation was a 24V stabilizer system in a 12V boat. ABT included an appropriately sized 12V to 24V converter. Worked a charm.