Passagemaking question???

[GalaxyGirl]

Originally Posted by cat man do

Why would you buy a faster boat (bigger engines, higher fuel usage, heavier hull build) if you only plan on travelling at 8 to 10 knots?

Speaking to many people who actually do long passages on powered vessels you will find that sea-state and fuel usage dictates a 10 knot speed anyway.

Also, diesel engines apparently prefer a workout, so running big engines at slower RPM is apparently not a good thing.
Better to have a smaller hp engine working in its sweetspot.


I doubt that.
I am guessing, but I would suggest that this boat with 500hp plus running at 1/4 throttle will still use a fair bit more than the same vessel running 150hp in its sweetspot..
55 fter with 6LXB Gardner

That was a very nice boat you attatched actually. Love the enclosed pilothouse above. Too bad the hull is wood. Also, would it be safe to assume that this would NOT be an ocean-crosser?

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by GalaxyGirl

That's interesting. I didn't realize that if you went slow than you could still achieve close to the same efficiency.

But, that thought, now sparks another question. Why wouldn't trawler lovers buy faster boats and have the the option if needed?

Both skipmac and cat man do are correct, even though they've expressed slightly opposing viewpoints

Yes, slow works. Traveling at "hull speed" (there's a formula) is usually the most fuel-efficient (with some exceptions). OTOH, some hull forms aren't very comfortable at hull speed except in calm waters. Imagine being on a planing hull boat (like ours) in beam seas: rocky rolly. At "cruising speeds" (planing, for that kind of boat), the helmsman can usually control the boat easier, even if it means "tacking" toward the destination.

Diesels DO like to work. But once you get them up to operating TEMPERATURE, low RPMs is OK. IOW, running at slow speeds isn't always bad for the diesels, whereas running at low temps can be very bad.

Yes, bigger displacement diesels will use more fuel than smaller displacement diesels while delivering equivalent horsepower, even at lower speeds/RPMs. That said... our diesels are 450-hp each, and use about 3 GPH (each) at about 1000 RPMs... which gives us about 8.0 knots in calms seas, slightly above our calculated hull speed. Compared to 13 GPH (each) at our cruising speed of ~22 kts (2400 RPMs)... slow is reasonably fuel efficient. A trawler, or even a decent displacement hull with keel would be even more economical... but then that whole 22-knot option would usually disappear, too.

And that leads to your question about why trawler buyers don't want faster boats. Actually, some do. Over the last 20 years or thereabouts, a so-called "fast trawler" segment has emerged in the market place. Brands like Mainship, Sabre, etc. and even some of the more traditional brands like Grand Banks have simply added horsepower... on the principle that almost anything will fly, given enough thrust. Huge engines in some of these are a bit of overkill, but the usually stated theory is that it's great for running from a storm. The Hatteras LRCs are actually an earlier iteration of the same thought; not everyone (maybe very few?) runs 'em at their theoretical cruise speed.

Here's another listing you might enjoy:

My Emeralds, $398K
Walczak Yacht Brokerage Service (Annapolis, MD)&

Started life in 1977 as a 70', extended and rebuilt/refitted as an 82' in 1998. 4 staterooms. I have actually seen the outside of this boat, just this last Fall, and it's very impressive!

BTW, my Finder's Fee is very ecomnomical: just a nice bottle of Laphhroaig!

-Chris

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by ranger42c

Both skipmac and cat man do are correct, even though they've expressed slightly opposing viewpoints

Yes, slow works. Traveling at "hull speed" (there's a formula) is usually the most fuel-efficient (with some exceptions). OTOH, some hull forms aren't very comfortable at hull speed except in calm waters. Imagine being on a planing hull boat (like ours) in beam seas: rocky rolly. At "cruising speeds" (planing, for that kind of boat), the helmsman can usually control the boat easier, even if it means "tacking" toward the destination.

Diesels DO like to work. But once you get them up to operating TEMPERATURE, low RPMs is OK. IOW, running at slow speeds isn't always bad for the diesels, whereas running at low temps can be very bad.

Yes, bigger displacement diesels will use more fuel than smaller displacement diesels while delivering equivalent horsepower, even at lower speeds/RPMs. That said... our diesels are 450-hp each, and use about 3 GPH (each) at about 1000 RPMs... which gives us about 8.0 knots in calms seas, slightly above our calculated hull speed. Compared to 13 GPH (each) at our cruising speed of ~22 kts (2400 RPMs)... slow is reasonably fuel efficient. A trawler, or even a decent displacement hull with keel would be even more economical... but then that whole 22-knot option would usually disappear, too.

And that leads to your question about why trawler buyers don't want faster boats. Actually, some do. Over the last 20 years or thereabouts, a so-called "fast trawler" segment has emerged in the market place. Brands like Mainship, Sabre, etc. and even some of the more traditional brands like Grand Banks have simply added horsepower... on the principle that almost anything will fly, given enough thrust. Huge engines in some of these are a bit of overkill, but the usually stated theory is that it's great for running from a storm. The Hatteras LRCs are actually an earlier iteration of the same thought; not everyone (maybe very few?) runs 'em at their theoretical cruise speed.

Here's another listing you might enjoy:

My Emeralds, $398K
Walczak Yacht Brokerage Service (Annapolis, MD)&

Started life in 1977 as a 70', extended and rebuilt/refitted as an 82' in 1998. 4 staterooms. I have actually seen the outside of this boat, just this last Fall, and it's very impressive!

BTW, my Finder's Fee is very ecomnomical: just a nice bottle of Laphhroaig!

-Chris

Excellent follow up and covers the finer points of using a planing/semiplaning boat at hull speeds.

One additional comment, even a lot of trawlers designed for slow speed cruising aren't that comfortable in a heavy sea, especially beam on. That's why so many of them have stabilizers of some type.

[Erik C]

Cape Horn trawlers also make great long range yachts. Very safe and with good fuel polishing systems. They are no longer made but there are a few on the market. Google is your friend.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by GalaxyGirl

Too bad the hull is wood.

Nothing wrong with a wooden hull, they have been around for hundreds of years and I imagine it'll outlive you.
They have maintenance issues just like fiberglass and steel.

Also, would it be safe to assume that this would NOT be an ocean-crosser?

Why would you assume that?
Almost any vessel can cross an ocean given the right conditions and means of propulsion.
Cam it carry the fuel to cross an ocean? I am not sure, but whatever it can carry will last longer with that Gardner Vs a pair of 400's for example

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by cat man do

Does anyone actually have boats with economy in mind in the US?
As an example, look at this here in Australia. (cant believe its still available)
Probably smaller than what the op was after but you get the idea
MCLAREN 55 with 152hp GARDNER 6LXB

Dunno about wakeboarding behind it though.

[Stumble]

Cat,

The reason few people seem to care about economy is that most boaters (though not the people here) have very restricted times to use boats. So if it can't get from home port to the cruising grounds quickly, then it's of no use to someone who only has a week at a time to cruise. This results in fast trawlers, and other large volume, huge engine designs that are at best moderately effective for long range cruising.

There are a few out there however (the Dashew FPB 64) for instance. That are designed for real longe range passages.

[downunder]

Stumble,

i think GG has been enquiring about possibility of crossing oceans and long distance cruising down track and thus I would rate long distance fuel efficiency more important than the needs of speed of the weekend warrior type of vessel where speed is all important and fuel usage not.

My interpuation but could be wrong also.

[Stumble]

Down under,

I agree. I was just answering a specific question. Frankly if I had the budget, and was looking at long distance power cruising the FPB would be at the very top of my list. It is one of the few boats I know of that was designed to operate as a true displacement vessel, with efficiency being the prime driver.

What's really interesting to me is that because the FPB is so optimized for heavy weather, it can maintain a higher average speed than a vessel with a higher top speed, since it can maintain top speed in conditions that would make other vessels start worrying about survival strategies.

[BillAU]

G'day GG,

This retired Australian pro' steel fishing trawler WILL cross any ocean and at $10AU grand, or offers, it's affordable...It's big enough for you, your kids + another 10 kids ...Only questions...Can you afford the conversion cost, the running cost and ongoing maintenance cost.

Bill
Australia

[GalaxyGirl]

Originally Posted by ranger42c

Both skipmac and cat man do are correct, even though they've expressed slightly opposing viewpoints

Yes, slow works. Traveling at "hull speed" (there's a formula) is usually the most fuel-efficient (with some exceptions). OTOH, some hull forms aren't very comfortable at hull speed except in calm waters. Imagine being on a planing hull boat (like ours) in beam seas: rocky rolly. At "cruising speeds" (planing, for that kind of boat), the helmsman can usually control the boat easier, even if it means "tacking" toward the destination.

Diesels DO like to work. But once you get them up to operating TEMPERATURE, low RPMs is OK. IOW, running at slow speeds isn't always bad for the diesels, whereas running at low temps can be very bad.

Yes, bigger displacement diesels will use more fuel than smaller displacement diesels while delivering equivalent horsepower, even at lower speeds/RPMs. That said... our diesels are 450-hp each, and use about 3 GPH (each) at about 1000 RPMs... which gives us about 8.0 knots in calms seas, slightly above our calculated hull speed. Compared to 13 GPH (each) at our cruising speed of ~22 kts (2400 RPMs)... slow is reasonably fuel efficient. A trawler, or even a decent displacement hull with keel would be even more economical... but then that whole 22-knot option would usually disappear, too.

And that leads to your question about why trawler buyers don't want faster boats. Actually, some do. Over the last 20 years or thereabouts, a so-called "fast trawler" segment has emerged in the market place. Brands like Mainship, Sabre, etc. and even some of the more traditional brands like Grand Banks have simply added horsepower... on the principle that almost anything will fly, given enough thrust. Huge engines in some of these are a bit of overkill, but the usually stated theory is that it's great for running from a storm. The Hatteras LRCs are actually an earlier iteration of the same thought; not everyone (maybe very few?) runs 'em at their theoretical cruise speed.

Here's another listing you might enjoy:

My Emeralds, $398K
Walczak Yacht Brokerage Service (Annapolis, MD)&

Started life in 1977 as a 70', extended and rebuilt/refitted as an 82' in 1998. 4 staterooms. I have actually seen the outside of this boat, just this last Fall, and it's very impressive!

BTW, my Finder's Fee is very ecomnomical: just a nice bottle of Laphhroaig!

-Chris

Chris,
This boat is amazing. But, the size, I figured it was probably a stretch for me jumping into a 65' with no experience. On the other hand, I suppose it doesn't make much differnce. I can't take either out without first having many lessons. But, wonder if I would need a crew (other than my teens)? Price is real nice, too.

[GalaxyGirl]

Originally Posted by downunder

Stumble,

i think GG has been enquiring about possibility of crossing oceans and long distance cruising down track and thus I would rate long distance fuel efficiency more important than the needs of speed of the weekend warrior type of vessel where speed is all important and fuel usage not.

My interpuation but could be wrong also.

No, your spot on. My ultimate goal is to cross oceans and visit everywhere, so fuel economy is most important.

[GalaxyGirl]

Originally Posted by BillAU

G'day GG,

This retired Australian pro' steel fishing trawler WILL cross any ocean and at $10AU grand, or offers, it's affordable...It's big enough for you, your kids + another 10 kids ...Only questions...Can you afford the conversion cost, the running cost and ongoing maintenance cost.

Bill
Australia

This boat is clearly an ocean-crosser, but Whoa...122'. That would be waaayyyy bigger than I need. Also, a project boat is definitely not my thing. I get my fill of renovation with real estate. Thanks for sharing this listing though. It was fun to see. I'm actually surprised by the price. Seems the scrap metal alone would bring more than that.

[mcarling]

Originally Posted by GalaxyGirl

I figured it was probably a stretch for me jumping into a 65' with no experience. On the other hand, I suppose it doesn't make much differnce. I can't take either out without first having many lessons. But, wonder if I would need a crew (other than my teens)?

I cannot think of any reason why you and your teens could not learn to safely operate this boat.

[GrowleyMonster]

The trawler is a steal at that price, even for scrap. The engine will want some attention for sure, and likely it needs a haulout really really bad. The cost of the haulout and bottom job would be recouped in fuel savings in one ocean crossing. Conversion? That can come later. Speaking of ocean crossings, the location would be the dealbreaker. A couple thousand a day for fuel, from Oz to the US would add up to a tidy sum.

Steel boats need lots of care and attention. The kids will have plenty to do in their spare time, with needle guns, wire wheels, and paint brushes.