Cruising: Sail vs. power
jean somerhausen
>
> I hope that I am not starting a huge flamewar here. I was just thinking
> abstractly at which boats are more suitable for long range cruising
> (something I am not planning to do in the near future but am curious
> about).
>
> The first thought that comes to my mind is that running an engine is noisy,
> smoky and expensive (fuel & maintenance costs) but on the other hand, an
> engine gets you to your destination on time regardless of weather. Whereas a
> sailboat is more at the mercy of winds. Plus, sailboats may be harder to
> operate for an inexperienced sailor.
>
> Also, any boat needs electric power, so even sailboats need to run some
> kind of an engine a lot every day.
>
> Sailboats seems to me to be more reliable since they do not have
> complicated engines -- just sails and masts. Considering general
> unreliability of engines, it does not seem like a good deal to not have
> a backup.
>
> Hm... I am curious, are there sailboats with decently powered engines
> that can propel them for very long periods of time effectively? Sort of
> like a combination sail/power boat. When the wind is good, you go under
> sail and save money and enjoy nature, when it is bad you start your diesel
> and keep going.
>
> Maybe it is a personality question more than a question of rational choice?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov
Well, Igor, you don't seem to have started a war in this NG, since most
of the responses were pretty much in agreement. However, one factor was
absent from the postings: boredom. I've been twice on motorboats for day
cruises in my 40 years of sailing and I was bored stiff - nothing to do!
I can go out on my little 29 footer for two hours on two consecutive
days and conditions will be completely different, the wind will be from
anothe direction, a bit stronger or less strong, got to tweak that sheet
or another to get her sailing at her best. On a power boat, you put her
at xxx rpm's and that's that. Once you decide to go cruising a long way
offshore, things get to be different since one's trying to GO somewhere
so that a seaworthy powerboat becomes a sensible option. In the first
edition of Beebe's "Voyaging under Power", he had the plans of a little
30 ft ketch rigged motorsailer by McMurray, along the lines of a
Scandinavian fishing boat, of which he said she could do 1600 miles at
low cruising revs (McMurray emphatically denied that...) so that I
bought the plans, just in case fate makes me a singlehander ashore. I
think that by adding a squaresail or "pyramidal rig" she could very well
do a part of an Atlantic crossing under sail (I had to do quite a bit of
it under motor with my sailboat last year...).
john
Anders Svensson
backside (IMHO) is that cannot be sailed.
The backside is mainly that small motor cruisers are limited in their range,
making for example a Atlantic crossing to a rather tricky project. Sailboats
have virtually unlimited range (proven by some small boats sailing round the
world non stop).
A sailboat with a large engine is a good compromise, also IMHO.
But ,make sure that it is a proper sailboat with a "too large" engine and tanks,
not a motor sailer in the words worst meaning - neither sailable or with a
adequate engine.
Anders
Igor skrev:
> I hope that I am not starting a huge flamewar here. I was just thinking
> abstractly at which boats are more suitable for long range cruising
> (something I am not planning to do in the near future but am curious
> about).
>
> The first thought that comes to my mind is that running an engine is noisy,
> smoky and expensive (fuel & maintenance costs) but on the other hand, an
> engine gets you to your destination on time regardless of weather. Whereas a
> sailboat is more at the mercy of winds. Plus, sailboats may be harder to
> operate for an inexperienced sailor.
>
> Also, any boat needs electric power, so even sailboats need to run some
> kind of an engine a lot every day.
>
> Sailboats seems to me to be more reliable since they do not have
> complicated engines -- just sails and masts. Considering general
> unreliability of engines, it does not seem like a good deal to not have
> a backup.
>
> Hm... I am curious, are there sailboats with decently powered engines
> that can propel them for very long periods of time effectively? Sort of
> like a combination sail/power boat. When the wind is good, you go under
> sail and save money and enjoy nature, when it is bad you start your diesel
> and keep going.
>
> Maybe it is a personality question more than a question of rational choice?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Tcimpidis
however.
John Abercrombie
>Hm... I am curious, are there sailboats with decently powered engines
>that can propel them for very long periods of time effectively? Sort of
>like a combination sail/power boat. When the wind is good, you go under
>sail and save money and enjoy nature, when it is bad you start your diesel
>and keep going.
>Maybe it is a personality question more than a question of rational choice?
It depends a lot on where you are thinking of doing your "long range
cruising", too.
For instance, my limited (1 season) experience of the BC (Canada)
Pacific Coast and "Inside Passage" cruising is that a power boat would
probably be a more rational choice than the sailboat I own because of
the lack of sailing winds in the "right" direction, calms, etc. Lots
of channels and fiords with contrary/calm winds up here.
However, if the weather gets really rough in open water most sailbaots
can probably handle the conditions better that the average powerboat,
and you do have the sails to keep you going if your engine quits.
The other issue is tankage- you need a lot of fuel to motor distances
and you need a big boat to carry the fuel, etc.
Most "motorsailers" I've seen tend to be just poor-performing
sailboats with undersized rigs and lots of windage, though there have
been some genuine motorsailers designed and built, I believe.
John
Paul Kruse
<Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>A good motor cruiser is as enjoyable as a good sailboat in many ways. The
>backside (IMHO) is that cannot be sailed. [snip]
Again, you have given good advice, Anders. The key is if you really
like sailing or not. If not, then the powered voyager is the better
alternative. Check out the Trawler World and the Passagemaker forums
at:
http://www.trawlerworld.com
http://www.passagemaker.com
It is reasonable to cross the Atlantic in powered voyagers as small as
about 34 feet.
As an interesting side note, I've got a friend who I've only met face
to face once, but with whom I've exchanged many email notes in the
last two years. He and his wife used to be full time cruisers on a
sailboat. Then they bought a Morgan 41 that had been seriously
damaged in a hurricane, and built it up into a very nice trawler.
When I was on the boat, I asked him why he had not retained the
sailing ability of the boat, for the times that the wind happened to
be going in the right direction. He told me that for the price of
putting a sail rig on that boat, he can buy enough diesel fuel for
three circumnavigations. He has a range of 3000-4000 nautical miles,
depending upon speed. (Much more range, if he is willing to accept
the same very slow speed that boat would have averaged back when it
was a sailboat.) They have been cruising their new powered voyager
for a couple of years now, and have covered a great deal of fine
cruising ground between Antiqua and Canada.
Boatless, but building M/V Doulos I and Doulos II
http://www.trawlerworld.com/abuilding/doulos001.html
Paul Kruse
plk...@iu.net
Port Canaveral, FL, USA
Jon V.
> The first thought that comes to my mind is that running an engine is noisy,
> smoky and expensive (fuel & maintenance costs) but on the other hand, an
> engine gets you to your destination on time regardless of weather. Whereas a
> sailboat is more at the mercy of winds. Plus, sailboats may be harder to
> operate for an inexperienced sailor.
My thoughts:
1) You should not be doing extended cruising in any boat that you are not
expert with, so ease for the inexperienced sailor shouldn't be a
problem... there shouldn't be inexperienced cruisers of any sort. Power or
sail you should work your way up in size and situation.
2) Sail boats can be smaller for their range. A power boat needs to be
large enough to carry the fuel for its entire trip, whereas a sailboat
doesn't really need to carry *any* fuel. For this reason, pacific
crossings in 20-25' sailboats are relatively common, but rare in
equivalently sized power boats.
3) Boats with sails tend to ride smoother. This applies to both power and
sail boats, of course.... many distance power boats have riding sails.
4) The cost differences between sail and power tend to cancel each other
out except in the extremes. Engines and fuel are offset by rigging and
sails, and many will forward the argument that a midsize power boat (45'
range) is less expensive to cruise than an equivalent sailboat. IMO, sails
favor the small boat, and power the midsize boat. Larger boats are special
cases.
> Also, any boat needs electric power, so even sailboats need to run some
> kind of an engine a lot every day.
Or have alternative power sources.
> Sailboats seems to me to be more reliable since they do not have
> complicated engines -- just sails and masts. Considering general
> unreliability of engines, it does not seem like a good deal to not have
> a backup.
I would say it is the other way around... sailboats are less reliable
because most people don't have their engines balanced 30-40' above their
boats with scrawny little wires and big parachute things flapping in the
wind.
A well chosen and maintained engine, especially of the sort favored for
cruising boats, will last forever with nothing but routine (though at
times significant) maintenance... sails are far more fragile... again,
because the are not kept in an engine compartment. A gust of wind, gull's
beak, or bad setup can very quickly render a sail worthless. I would bet
that a higher percentage of cruising sailors have had rig failures than
cruising powerboaters have had engine failures... but I wouldn't bet much.
> Hm... I am curious, are there sailboats with decently powered engines
> that can propel them for very long periods of time effectively? Sort of
> like a combination sail/power boat. When the wind is good, you go under
> sail and save money and enjoy nature, when it is bad you start your diesel
> and keep going.
Yes. "Motorsailers" are very common. Most are designed to sail with the
motor running... you would only drop the sails when the wind was so light
that the were flogging. Many of them have a difficult time maneuvering
(tacking) under sail alone. Even more boats are *used* as motorsailers.
> Maybe it is a personality question more than a question of rational choice?
Outside of the extremes, yes... for people that want to cruise "on the
cheap" a small sailboat is the only way to go... for someone that wants to
*sail* (as in have fun with the sailing, not just have sails up) a
sailboat is the only way to go... otherwise, the choice is arbitrary.
-Jon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange
protein -- it rejects it.
-- P. Medawar
Just Some Guy
exciting. I wanted bigger power boats for a nicer ride and seaworthiness. Now
that I have something big enough to be comfortable, I find it is indeed
expensive to travel (as someone mentioned) and not such a relaxing ride.
Amazingly, I'm thinking of switching over to sail. I started to think trawler
(which I've always wanted to own) and then sail.
After boating for 30 years, I find that I really don't have the need for speed.
With the limited sailling I did many years back and knowing something about
boats, I feel pretty confident that a sailboat would be a more enjoyable vessel
for ocean travel, cutting through the chop instead of running on top of it.
I'm only getting 16 - 17 Kts. at 3200- 3300 RPM without the quads open (which I
like for cruising) on my 30 Ft. Chris Craft. I feel like if I could get 7 - 8
Kts. in a sailboat with a smoother quieter ride, it would be worth it. What
good is it to get there an hour earlier if you're rattled from the ride?
I don't think I'd want to take any long trips for the next couple of years so
I'm not in any particular hurry. It would be good to spend a summer learning to
handle the sailboat before I go anywhere. So anybody wanna trade me a sailboat?
I think I would want a 36 Ft. or better. I hope to be able to throw in some
cash by next summer. Luckily I have many teachers who are good sailors, I'm
better at keeping them floating and running.
Regards to all and happy (and safe) boating this weekend, I hope we get some
dennis relief sometime in the next 3 days in NJ.
John G.
HarryKrause
>
> Ditto your thoughts on Dennis... but it's not looking too good for you in
> Jersey... nor us, come Monday in New England.
>
> I also have had my share of speed over the years.. Although in a moment of
> extreeeeem weakness with my oldest daughter (19) and my wife in tow, I did buy
> a go-fast this week. Primarily because the boat was a steal, the guy owed me
> money, and I can't ski very well behind my 250DA The Dancer will ski.. but the
> gas!.... (whew!)
>
> I find most of my cruising is done around the 15-18K range.. mostly from CT
> ports through LI sound to Block Island.. Sometimes it's to Watch Hill,
> Nantucket, and once in awhile to the Vineyard
> (except for when the Clinton's are in town… even the water is congested ).
>
> This speed is is just fine for the Dancer. Not noisy.. good fuel economy and
> you see alot more at the lower speeds. But I doubt if I could go the sailboat
> route.
>
> When I want to "get there", I want to do it today. I like to get into port
> quickly when a front is rolling in. I like the ability to crank it up once in
> awhile to feel the wind in my face and hear the hum of that 350 mag behind me.
> And, I especially like having the option of being a go-slow for a day, or
> challenging my seamanship under power in swells and chop.
>
> It's most likely a personal preference, I guess.
> BK
Hmmm. And how many of the Thimbles have you personally hit?
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Change is inevitable -- except from a vending machine.
HarryKrause
>
> Harry... more than I'd admit to here !
> BK
Well, I hit a few of them in my youth. I think my father at one point had
slammed into most of them.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Old physics teachers never die - they just cancel out.
MuryMann
MuryMann
Phoenix
Most sailboats have an auxiliary engine for calms and when your destination
is dead to the wind. I personally find sailing to be more enjoyable for
cruising, because you can enjoy nature without the sound of the engine.
When I was cruising we would run the engine for approx. 1 hr. a day to
charge the batteries. We had a refrigerator. and freezer and the wind
generator was not enough to keep them charged.
Sailing is not that difficult, you just need to know the basics and get some
sea time under your belt.
--
Jim
1994 Regal 256 for sale - see ad at
http://www.classifieds2000.com/cgi-cls/ad.exe?P1+C189+R1187463
Igor <ig...@Algebra.Com> wrote in message
news:slrn7svu6...@manifold.algebra.com...
> I hope that I am not starting a huge flamewar here. I was just thinking
> abstractly at which boats are more suitable for long range cruising
> (something I am not planning to do in the near future but am curious
> about).
>
> The first thought that comes to my mind is that running an engine is
noisy,
> smoky and expensive (fuel & maintenance costs) but on the other hand, an
> engine gets you to your destination on time regardless of weather. Whereas
a
> sailboat is more at the mercy of winds. Plus, sailboats may be harder to
> operate for an inexperienced sailor.
>
> Also, any boat needs electric power, so even sailboats need to run some
> kind of an engine a lot every day.
>
> Sailboats seems to me to be more reliable since they do not have
> complicated engines -- just sails and masts. Considering general
> unreliability of engines, it does not seem like a good deal to not have
> a backup.
>
> Hm... I am curious, are there sailboats with decently powered engines
> that can propel them for very long periods of time effectively? Sort of
> like a combination sail/power boat. When the wind is good, you go under
> sail and save money and enjoy nature, when it is bad you start your diesel
> and keep going.
>
> Maybe it is a personality question more than a question of rational
choice?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
mike
such)a boat requires a big engine and large fuel tanks. Of course the
larger the boat the less this is a problem. I think my dream boat would
be a large titanium hulled catamaran with twin submersible engines,2
large fuel tanks,telescoping mast and of course the ability to dive like
a submarine. The deck would be covered with solar panels just in case
the inevitable happens. While I'm dreaming maybe a hot air balloon on
the fore deck for those days when there is no wind.
--
Mike B
San Diego
"If you look far enough you might see everything"
Ed Kitchin
engines, for all the purposes you named, and they still need maintenance.
The big reason for a cruiser being a sailboat, in my opinion, is their
stability in bad weather. With its heavy keel, it is a "Bobo doll". It gets
hit, and comes right back up. Power boats get capsized, and stay there.
Don't mention high tech racing sailors with their "non-keels". That's
another whole ball of wax.
Ed Kitchin
Jerry Plante
racing and cruising on a sail boat, we bought our first power boat this
year. The sail boat was a 30 foot sloop with excellent performance to
windward and somewhat managable by 2 people for cruising (we used 5 for
racing). The power boat is an 88 Chaparral 20 foot. Here are my
observations.
1. Fuel consumption vs enough power - The sloop had an 8 horse Yanmar
one-lunger with a folding prop. Very reliable and uses 1/3 GPH (yes, one
third of a gallon per hour) cruising. In smooth water this power plant drove
the boat at hull speed 5.75 knots. In choppy water, you'd drop down to the
point where it was faster to sail into it. The worse I ever saw was 3.5
knots in Hog Is. Channel, with the current and into the wind. I'd opt for a
larger engine/prop and sacrifice some fuel consumption for these situations
where you must motor. BTW, you can't tack down Hog Is. Channel.
Vixen has a 190 HP 4.3 L OMC I/O. Turns out that this is too much power,
because the first mate doesn't like crashing around Buzzards Bay at 25 kts.
We're looking at a trawler as a reasonable compromise.
2. Draft. After having cruised Buzzards Bay and the islands for a while, you
get used to where you can and can't go with a 6 foot draft. When you draw 18
inches, there's a lot more cruising ground accessible without a dinghy. And,
if the tide goes out, you can just jump off and push. It's much more
enjoyable exploring new harbors. Hitting a rock with a prop is farless
dramatic that hitting one with a lead keel. Pulling the outdrive up and
replacing the pro is much easier than pulling the boat out on a travel lift
and repair the keel.
3. Comfort. I think a sail boat can take adverse weather conditions better
than a power boat of the same size. However, you have to do something with
the sail area to achieve this comfort level, which itself can be
uncomfortable or dangerous (such as going forward in a squall to change
jibs).
4. Amenities. A 30 foot power boat, say a Larson, has much more room on deck
and below than a 30 foot sailboat, say a J-30. On a week's cruise with 2
bored teenagers, this becomes important. Of course the Larson had TV/VCR,
stereo and microwave. but you needed shore power to run it all. A genset
would be a good option, but the noise is annoying, especially to your
anchorage neighbors. The sloop had a deck of cards. We would listen to the
marine operator calls for amusement.
5. While it's true that you must run the auxilary in a sailboat to charge
the batteries, on the Bermuda trips, this was 1/2 hour per day. We run the
usual power load, nav and instrument lights, radio and on the return trips
GPS and Loran. The boat had 2- 6 volt golf cart batteries as the main and a
12 volts for back up starting. i have 2 batteries in the Chaparral, but my
years in a sailboat has taught me to conserve so I'll probably never need
the second battery.
A side note, we could start the Yanmar by hand with a dead battery.
6. Reliability. In deference to a previous post, I believe sailboats are
more reliable. They have 2 power sources. Vixen was down for 5 weekends this
summer awaiting parts. I could have taken her out as is, but chances are I
would have had to use SeaTow at least once. OTOH, we had a collision during
a sailboat race in the sloop that bent the mast, and we only missed one
weekend. And we were able to motor home. We also lost a forestay going to
weather in 25 kts of wind and were able to sail (downwind) most of the way
home, using the spare halyards to replace the headstay.
In the end, we opted for a power boat because we felt that we could handle
it with two people better. If I were making an extended offshore or coastal
cruise shorthanded, I'd go with a trawler as the best of both worlds.
--
JP 'Vixen' Buzzards Bay MA
Igor wrote in message ...
M.Holden
and convert it.
I was shocked to hear that sailing large boats cost more than motoring them
[wear + tear on big sails = big bucks].
although I love machines + engines, I find sailing infinitely more pleasurable
than motoring, but I couldn't ever be able to buy a 25 meter sailboat that
I could sail single handed.
also, the sailing rig takes up a lot of space, above and below.
most people spend much more time in port than underway, so it seems to
me, just put a nice little sailboat on deck, to use when you feel in the mood
for a sail,
and live in a nice, seaworthy floating palace, with room for play + work
[I like to work in metal + wood].
it would be easy to set up such a thing to run itself, and sound an alarm if
anything is
on the radar or if any unexpected shoals or misfunctions of equipment
turns up.
of course, to run at a reasonable level of economy, it would be pretty slow
[probably have to be repowered with a smaller engine], this is not a boat
to spend a week on, it's to live on and travel with full time.
M. holden
Igor wrote:
> I hope that I am not starting a huge flamewar here. I was just thinking
> abstractly at which boats are more suitable for long range cruising
> (something I am not planning to do in the near future but am curious
> about).
>
Paul Kruse
[lots of good thoughts snipped below. I agree with most of what Jon
wrote.]
>3) Boats with sails tend to ride smoother. This applies to both power and
>sail boats, of course.... many distance power boats have riding sails.
This is generally a true statement, but powered voyagers use any one
of several different roll stabilization methods, such that the ride is
about the same. A small sail is one such option, as you say, but not
the most common option. For a long time flopper stoppers were very
common, and still are for many folks; but active roll stabilization
has become cheap enough that many are now selecting that option.
>4) The cost differences between sail and power tend to cancel each other
>out except in the extremes. Engines and fuel are offset by rigging and
>sails, and many will forward the argument that a midsize power boat (45'
>range) is less expensive to cruise than an equivalent sailboat. IMO, sails
>favor the small boat, and power the midsize boat. Larger boats are special
>cases.
Excellent point. All that rigging often costs more than an engine,
which you end up buying anyway. (Pardey style cruising excepted, of
course.)
Paul Kruse
Abercrombie) wrote:
>However, if the weather gets really rough in open water most sailboats
>can probably handle the conditions better that the average powerboat,
Of course, you are right on that one; but then if you are planning
some serious ocean voyaging, then you are not going to be buying an
"average power boat."
I'd dare say that it is also a true statement, that the typical
powered voyager (passage maker) will handle really rough open water
better than the average sailboat.
>and you do have the sails to keep you going if your engine quits.
Most people who take power boats far off shore also have a
contingency for that, too. Once it a while the contingency is even a
sail. :-)
>The other issue is tankage- you need a lot of fuel to motor distances
>and you need a big boat to carry the fuel, etc.
Not a problem. It is pretty easy for a powered voyager to carry
enough fuel for a Pacific crossing. How much more fuel do you need to
carry than that?
It was not all that long ago that a (40 foot plus) trimaran made the
San Francisco to Honolulu at ten knots, and burned only 185 gallons.
That is about three times as fast as the average sailboat making the
same passage. The same boat went on to Australia on about 400
gallons. If you want to know more about it, pick up any Yanmar diesel
outboard flyer. (Yes, it was a twin engine outboard.) Most passage
makers burn more fuel than that, but not so much that they cannot
carry it. A range of 3000-5000 nautical miles on a single fill up is
very reasonable, and that in a boat under 50 feet. Some of them under
40 feet.
>Most "motorsailers" I've seen tend to be just poor-performing
>sailboats with undersized rigs and lots of windage,
Agreed. You really need to decide up front if you want a sailboat or
a power boat, and then buy what you want. Either one is able to get
you across an ocean, if you buy one designed to do that.
The bottom line is that if a person likes to sail, then he/she should
buy a sailboat. If they don't like to sail, then they should buy a
power boat. Either will get you from point A to point B equally well.
Skipper
> ... I'd dare say that it is also a true statement, that the typical
> powered voyager (passage maker) will handle really rough open water
> better than the average sailboat. ...
> The bottom line is that if a person likes to sail, then he/she should
> buy a sailboat. If they don't like to sail, then they should buy a
> power boat. Either will get you from point A to point B equally well.
However, that powered passagemaker may get you to the destination more
rested and allow you to take on several destinations with greater ease.
--
Skipper
John Abercrombie
>On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 19:44:04 GMT, john...@netcom.ca (John
>Abercrombie) wrote:
>>However, if the weather gets really rough in open water most sailboats
>>can probably handle the conditions better that the average powerboat,
>Of course, you are right on that one; but then if you are planning
>some serious ocean voyaging, then you are not going to be buying an
>"average power boat."
That's really the point if you don't have unlimited money, isn't it?
As you so often point out, very modest, small, light-displacement,
lightly-rigged sailboats can make ocean passages like LA-Hawaii, and
more. Say we are talking about spending $50K on a boat to go
LA-Hawaii. You are not going to get a powered "passage-maker" for that
kind of money.
>I'd dare say that it is also a true statement, that the typical
>powered voyager (passage maker) will handle really rough open water
>better than the average sailboat.
I would question that statement.
>>The other issue is tankage- you need a lot of fuel to motor distances
>>and you need a big boat to carry the fuel, etc.
>Not a problem. It is pretty easy for a powered voyager to carry
>enough fuel for a Pacific crossing. How much more fuel do you need to
>carry than that?
A Pacific crossing ? ie US coast to Phillipines or Japan non-stop?
easy for a powered voyager? Just what powered voyagers are you
thinking of ?
You are looking at (a minimum of) 2000 gallons of fuel in a
displacement trawler-type or something around 18000 lb of fuel. We are
talking large, expensive boats here. (aside from "record-setting"
projects).
>The bottom line is that if a person likes to sail, then he/she should
>buy a sailboat. If they don't like to sail, then they should buy a
>power boat. Either will get you from point A to point B equally well.
This is really stretching it- there are so many ocean passages and
circumnavigations made in 30-40 ft sailboats that it is considered
completely unremarkable these days. A list of circumanvigations done
in similar sized power boats would be pretty short.
When you introduce purchase cost into the discussion, there is even
more of a contrast. Sure- if you have $500k- $5M to spend, either
type(power or sail) will get you from point A to point B.
The only limit to sail passagemaking is water and food capacity- and
the slower, more seaworthy, power boats have the same limitation.
Paul Kruse
Abercrombie) wrote:
>That's really the point if you don't have unlimited money, isn't it?
>As you so often point out, very modest, small, light-displacement,
>lightly-rigged sailboats can make ocean passages like LA-Hawaii, and
>more. Say we are talking about spending $50K on a boat to go
>LA-Hawaii. You are not going to get a powered "passage-maker" for that
>kind of money.
If your budget for a passage maker is only $50K, then you will
probably end up with a sailboat, but not necessarily so. Either way,
you are not buying a new boat, or even an almost new boat. You are
going to buy a well used one, and then put some "sweat equity" into it
to make it suitable for the meeting of your objectives.
I don't consider myself to be a recreational boater, but I do find it
interesting to associate with them in various forums--both face to
face and also electronic. They tend to be some very nice and very
interesting people. Rather, I consider myself to be a commercial
operator. Both the boats we are currently building will be put into
commercial fishing service. If we don't go hog wild on the smaller of
the two boats, it will come in at less than $50K, and it will have a
5000-6000 nautical mile range. The same boat could be built as either
a commercial work boat, or an economical recreational passage maker.
I have absolutely no intention of building any boats for anyone else,
nor do I plan to license our designs; but it is not difficult to find
other designers who are in that business, who can sell you an
economical passage maker. You may not use it to cross an ocean, but
then you can cruise from Newfoundland to Patagonia, cover several
times the distance of an ocean crossing, and never have a passage more
than two or three hundred miles. In that case, you are looking for a
good sound stable boat, safe in all reasonably expected seas, that
gets really good fuel economy; but not necessarily one that can carry
enough fuel to cross an ocean. Maybe only 1200 mile range would make
you happy, and that would be easy in a boat under thirty feet. If you
want to go to 36-40 feet, then the Atlantic becomes a reasonable
crossing. Add only a couple of feet, and the Pacific becomes
reasonable. Again, on a $50K budget, you are not going to buy one of
these boats new; but it would be reasonable to pick one up used and to
fix it up the way you like it.
>>I'd dare say that it is also a true statement, that the typical
>>powered voyager (passage maker) will handle really rough open water
>>better than the average sailboat.
>I would question that statement.
If you don't understand it, then it would be wise to question it. Ask
a question, if you like, and get a discussion started. Under what sea
conditions would you think that the sailboat would have an advantage
in comfort and safety?
>A Pacific crossing ? ie US coast to Phillipines or Japan non-stop?
>easy for a powered voyager?
When folks talk about passage makers, the passage that sort of defines
the term is the ability to make California to Hawaii. That is the
longest passage that you would need to make, if you planned a
circumnavigation so as to minimize the lengths of your passages. A
3000 mile range gives you all you need, especially since you can
always extend your range significantly by simply slowing down a little
bit.
>You are looking at (a minimum of) 2000 gallons of fuel in a
>displacement trawler-type or something around 18000 lb of fuel. We are
>talking large, expensive boats here. (aside from "record-setting"
>projects).
I don't remember the exact numbers, but that converted 41 foot Morgan
that I mentioned earlier carries about 1200 gallons. That seems to be
about average for passage makers of this size. The boat will get
between three and four miles per gallon at its typical cruising speed.
That is a range of 3600 to 4800 nautical miles, depending upon how
fast you want to go. The total cost of the boat to buy it and to
convert it to a powered voyager was 70,000 dollars, plus a lot of
sweat equity. Frankly, I find such a project to be a bit
unreasonable, but it made the owners happy, and continues to make them
happy as they cruise perhaps 5000 nautical miles per year. If I were
to take on such a project, I'd start with a commercial fishing troller
that was already designed for long passages like this. I think that
probably the total costs in terms of both money and time would be
significantly less. You could probably even keep it down close to the
$50K limit that you imposed upon this conversation.
>This is really stretching it- there are so many ocean passages and
>circumnavigations made in 30-40 ft sailboats that it is considered
>completely unremarkable these days. A list of circumanvigations done
>in similar sized power boats would be pretty short.
Yes, it is pretty short. The sailing paradigm has ruled among
cruisers for a long time now, but that is changing. I find it quite
remarkable that it has taken so long, since small commercial fishing
boats have been making very long voyages for a very long time now.
Anyone seriously interested in power cruising or voyaging should check
out the archives at both the Passage Maker magazine, and also for
Trawler World. (I find the TWL to be much more productive.) You will
find lots of folks who have made long passages, and others that are in
the process of putting their dream boats together for that purpose.
Join in on the discussions. They are both friendly groups. I've
already posted the URL's for them.
jean somerhausen
>
> plk...@iu.net (Paul Kruse) wrote:
>
> Paul:>>>I'd dare say that it is also a true statement, that the
> typical
> >>>powered voyager (passage maker) will handle really rough open water
> >>>better than the average sailboat.
>
>
> Paul:>If you don't understand it, then it would be wise to question
> it. Ask
> >a question, if you like, and get a discussion started. Under what sea
> >conditions would you think that the sailboat would have an advantage
> >in comfort and safety?
>
> roll a lot more in a beam or quartering sea than a sailboat with some
> sail up. That's why most of them have outriggers and drag vanes in the
> water to keep the rolling under control.
>
> Trawlers have a much smaller stability range than most well-designed
> monohull sailboats. How many examples are there of powerboats that
> have been knocked down more than 90 degrees or rolled and survived? On
> the other hand there are plenty of cases of fishing boats, etc rolling
> or being knocked down and sinking.
>
> In a boat with 10000 or 20000 lbs of fuel capacity there are all sorts
> of stability issues -full vs empty tanks, fuel sloshing around in
> half-full tanks, etc that do not need to be addressed in a sailboat.
>
> Just look at the expanses of glass in the typical trawler. One
> manufacturer boasts that their picture-window sized windows are made
> of 3/8 inch tempered glass! One breaking sea would take them out and
> the boat would probably sink- the area is huge.
>
> Strictly anecdotal: I was talking(in Alert Bay, BC) to a commercial
> fisherman who had fished in the Queen Charlottes,etc in rough
> conditions and who also had sailed on his folks 40-ft sailboat when
> younger. He said there was "no comparison" - the sailboat was "far
> more comfortable" when things "got rough".
>
> Most of the cruising guides for the Pacific Northwest seem to be
> oriented toward power cruisers and they are all full of dire warnings
> about conditions that do not bother most sailboats. However, cruising
> guide authors seem to be concerned about protecting themselves from
> litigation and tend to be very cautious, so this probably means
> nothing.
>
> I do agree that for coastal cruising trawlers can be excellent boats,
> but I don't think we will ever see many 35 ft powerboats
> circumnavigating, and certainly not by way of "the Great Capes".
>
> John
In "Voyaging under Power" (1975), Robert Beebe has three pages on heavy
weather handling in which he said: "But for a small motorcraft a
thousand miles at sea, not much has been written - the experience is
just not there". But the strategy he advocated for powerboats was to do
the opposite of of sailboats: "go for the highs, where there is no
wind".
john
jean somerhausen
>
> John Abercrombie <john...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> * plk...@iu.net (Paul Kruse) wrote:
> *
> * >On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 19:44:04 GMT, john...@netcom.ca (John
> * >Abercrombie) wrote:
> *
> * >>However, if the weather gets really rough in open water most sailboats
> * >>can probably handle the conditions better that the average powerboat,
> *
> * >Of course, you are right on that one; but then if you are planning
> * >some serious ocean voyaging, then you are not going to be buying an
> * >"average power boat."
> * That's really the point if you don't have unlimited money, isn't it?
> * As you so often point out, very modest, small, light-displacement,
> * lightly-rigged sailboats can make ocean passages like LA-Hawaii, and
> * more. Say we are talking about spending $50K on a boat to go
> * LA-Hawaii. You are not going to get a powered "passage-maker" for that
> * kind of money.
>
> So, how much would a used sailboat that can safely go to Hawaii,
> cost?
>
> igor
>
> * >I'd dare say that it is also a true statement, that the typical
> * >powered voyager (passage maker) will handle really rough open water
> * >better than the average sailboat.
> * I would question that statement.
> *
> * >>The other issue is tankage- you need a lot of fuel to motor distances
> * >>and you need a big boat to carry the fuel, etc.
> *
> * >Not a problem. It is pretty easy for a powered voyager to carry
> * >enough fuel for a Pacific crossing. How much more fuel do you need to
> * >carry than that?
> * A Pacific crossing ? ie US coast to Phillipines or Japan non-stop?
> * easy for a powered voyager? Just what powered voyagers are you
> * thinking of ?
> * You are looking at (a minimum of) 2000 gallons of fuel in a
> * displacement trawler-type or something around 18000 lb of fuel. We are
> * talking large, expensive boats here. (aside from "record-setting"
> * projects).
> *
> *
> * >The bottom line is that if a person likes to sail, then he/she should
> * >buy a sailboat. If they don't like to sail, then they should buy a
> * >power boat. Either will get you from point A to point B equally well.
> *
> * This is really stretching it- there are so many ocean passages and
> * circumnavigations made in 30-40 ft sailboats that it is considered
> * completely unremarkable these days. A list of circumanvigations done
> * in similar sized power boats would be pretty short.
> * When you introduce purchase cost into the discussion, there is even
> * more of a contrast. Sure- if you have $500k- $5M to spend, either
> * type(power or sail) will get you from point A to point B.
> *
> * The only limit to sail passagemaking is water and food capacity- and
> * the slower, more seaworthy, power boats have the same limitation.
> *
> *
> *
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov
put in some $ 3-4000 more and went to Europe and back.
john
John Abercrombie
Paul:>>>I'd dare say that it is also a true statement, that the
typical
>>>powered voyager (passage maker) will handle really rough open water
>>>better than the average sailboat.
John:>>I would question that statement.
Paul:>If you don't understand it, then it would be wise to question
it. Ask
>a question, if you like, and get a discussion started. Under what sea
>conditions would you think that the sailboat would have an advantage
>in comfort and safety?
Well, practically all the fishing boats and trawlers I've seen seem to
Paul Kruse
<diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In "Voyaging under Power" (1975), Robert Beebe
That is a very excellent boat, which anyone interested in this topic
should read at least twice. He covers the topic in much greater
detail than we could ever hope to do in this NG.
>has three pages on heavy
>weather handling in which he said: "But for a small motorcraft a
>thousand miles at sea, not much has been written - the experience is
>just not there".
There have been many passages since 1975. Also, Beebe himself made
many long passages under power.
>But the strategy he advocated for powerboats was to do
>the opposite of of sailboats: "go for the highs, where there is no
>wind".
Some time ago, I exchanged emails with a guy who had just made an East
to West passage across the Atlantic in a 42 foot power boat. He did
this at the height of the hurricane season, and in fact there were
three of them out there during his crossing. When I asked him about
the wisdom of having done that, he pointed out that he crossed at six
degrees North latitude, and that there has never been a record of a
hurricane down that low. So why don't sail boats cross in like
manner? The answer is "No Wind." He had a very pleasant and
uneventful crossing at 6.5 knots under air conditioning--in the middle
of September, often the worst of the hurricane season. The reason
that you don't see much written about this sort of passage making is
that it is so boring and uneventful--completely unremarkable. If you
want excitement, then buy a sailboat.
Paul Kruse
comfort and/or survivability of a passage maker with that of a
sailboat that is also able to make the passage. He did not disappoint
me, and this should get to be interesting, if some of the rest of you
also join into this discussion.
On Sun, 05 Sep 1999 07:48:16 GMT, john...@netcom.ca (John
Abercrombie) wrote:
>Well, practically all the fishing boats and trawlers I've seen seem to
>roll a lot more in a beam or quartering sea than a sailboat with some
>sail up. That's why most of them have outriggers and drag vanes in the
>water to keep the rolling under control.
You are absolutely correct. A powered voyager (passage maker to some)
has a serious roll problem, if modeled after a monohull troller or a
trawler, as nearly all are. It is for that reason that many use the
various means of roll stabilization that I've previously mentioned.
It does not make them unsafe to use them without roll stabilization,
but it can make them uncomfortable for that portion of the journey.
If someone has trouble understanding this, then just imagine the ride
of most sailboats at sea under power with no sails up. The typical
powered voyager will not be that bad, even with no roll stabilization
at all, but you get the idea.
>Trawlers have a much smaller stability range than most well-designed
>monohull sailboats.
I really hate to use the word "trawler" apart from its true commercial
fishing sense. The marketing wizards have completely corrupted the
meaning of that term as used in regard to recreational boats, so that
it has little meaning beyond "big, fat, and slow power boat." I will
agree that most of what is generally sold as a recreational trawler
would make a poor powered voyager. Most of these will have the same
range of stability as a sailboat, and indeed I've talked to owners who
have laid their power boats on beam ends much like you have mentioned
here, with no ill effect.
On the other hand, a power boat is much less likely than a sailboat to
be knocked on its beam ends, such that it would need that sort of
stability.
>In a boat with 10000 or 20000 lbs of fuel capacity there are all sorts
>of stability issues -full vs empty tanks, fuel sloshing around in
>half-full tanks, etc that do not need to be addressed in a sailboat.
That is ten times as much fuel as we are talking about for small
powered voyagers. Yes, they handle a bit differently empty and full,
but it is a difference that is easily manageable by good design. Keep
in mind that this technology has been very common place among
commercial boats for a very long time now, even if it is just now
catching on among recreational cruisers.
>Just look at the expanses of glass in the typical trawler.
I agree that the "typical" recreational trawler would make a very poor
voyager.
>Strictly anecdotal: I was talking(in Alert Bay, BC) to a commercial
>fisherman who had fished in the Queen Charlottes,etc in rough
>conditions and who also had sailed on his folks 40-ft sailboat when
>younger. He said there was "no comparison" - the sailboat was "far
>more comfortable" when things "got rough".
I have no doubt that he is right. While both his powered work boat
and is parents’ sailboat are able to survive the rough stuff, the
sailboat is probably more comfortable during heavy weather. I'd
venture to say that the power boat is more comfortable the rest of the
time, since it is not laid on its side as a matter of routine.
Comfort or not, both were safe in those conditions.
>I do agree that for coastal cruising trawlers can be excellent boats,
>but I don't think we will ever see many 35 ft powerboats
>circumnavigating, and certainly not by way of "the Great Capes".
I'm sure that you are right, in that you will not see very many of
them. Most folks who buy powered voyagers seem to prefer a few more
feet of hull than that. That does not mean, however; that you won't
see any of them in this size range making ocean passages. On the
other hand, powered multihull passagemakers seem to be catching the
interest of some designers and builders. It would be pretty easy to
build a cat of that size that would have both sufficient range and
sufficient living space to keep some long distance cruisers happy.
Paul Kruse
>Hm. My humble 20ft powerboat eats, like, 0.4 gallons per mile.
>
>I am curious what makes those BIGGER cruisers so much more fuel
>efficient.
You don't mention what sort of 20 foot power boat you have, but I'd
venture a guess that it has a planing hull. A displacement hull is
much more efficient, but then of course you are limited to
displacement speeds. We used to have a 21 foot sailboat, and it got
six miles per gallon with an ancient two stroke outboard. With a good
modern diesel, it could easily have gotten three for four times that
efficiency, especially if I was willing to slow down a quarter or a
half of a knot.
Anders Svensson
it was a trimaran).
Note that it used diesel outboards and had a unusual configuration. Multihull
ships are becoming more common these days,and some very remarkable results have
came out of experimenting with light "surface skimmers", light tunnel catamarans
and other "exotic" powerboats. The modern "fast ferry" is often such a vessel.
If you have the patience and the inclination, you could get very low fuel
consumption from your own boat too, but then you would need to radically change
the speed band you operate in and get a engine that is at it best delivering 5
HP or so...
. Planing boats will "go over the hump" and not be trapped by thir bow wave, so
to say, but they still will be very much more efficient well below hull speed.
BTW (and as a troll) - I am surprised that when cruising sailboats are
discussed, stability numbers, light build, ULDB construction and fractional rigs
on ocean voyagers bring many sailors to the verge of a massive heart attack, but
power boaters don't bother about "unproven, sophisticated design"- or do they?
Anders
Igor skrev:
> Paul Kruse <plk...@iu.net> wrote:
> * It was not all that long ago that a (40 foot plus) trimaran made the
> * San Francisco to Honolulu at ten knots, and burned only 185 gallons.
> * That is about three times as fast as the average sailboat making the
> * same passage. The same boat went on to Australia on about 400
> * gallons. If you want to know more about it, pick up any Yanmar diesel
> * outboard flyer. (Yes, it was a twin engine outboard.) Most passage
> * makers burn more fuel than that, but not so much that they cannot
> * carry it. A range of 3000-5000 nautical miles on a single fill up is
> * very reasonable, and that in a boat under 50 feet. Some of them under
> * 40 feet.
>
> Hm. My humble 20ft powerboat eats, like, 0.4 galons per mile.
>
> I am curious what makes those BIGGER cruisers so much more fuel
> efficient.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
Douglas King
>
> >Well, practically all the fishing boats and trawlers I've seen seem to
> >roll a lot more in a beam or quartering sea than a sailboat with some
> >sail up. That's why most of them have outriggers and drag vanes in the
> >water to keep the rolling under control.
Paul Kruse wrote:>
> You are absolutely correct. A powered voyager (passage maker to some)
> has a serious roll problem, if modeled after a monohull troller or a
> trawler, as nearly all are. It is for that reason that many use the
> various means of roll stabilization that I've previously mentioned.
> It does not make them unsafe to use them without roll stabilization,
> but it can make them uncomfortable for that portion of the journey.
> If someone has trouble understanding this, then just imagine the ride
> of most sailboats at sea under power with no sails up. The typical
> powered voyager will not be that bad, even with no roll stabilization
> at all, but you get the idea.
Hmm- don't think so. Sailboats have much higher righting moment, and a
higher moment of inertia about the roll axis, and less form stability,
and finally built-in roll damping in the keel/rudder foils. In my
somewhat-limited experience, motorboats roll *much* worse in large
waves. OTOH small waves (such as wakes) seem to rock sailboats more.
> >Trawlers have a much smaller stability range than most well-designed
> >monohull sailboats.
>
> I really hate to use the word "trawler" apart from its true commercial
> fishing sense. The marketing wizards have completely corrupted the
> meaning of that term as used in regard to recreational boats, so that
> it has little meaning beyond "big, fat, and slow power boat." I will
> agree that most of what is generally sold as a recreational trawler
> would make a poor powered voyager.
I agree.
> .... Most of these will have the same
> range of stability as a sailboat
I disagree strongly here. The righting moment of a big ballast keel is
far greater than anything any power boat I'm familiar with would
develop.
> ..... and indeed I've talked to owners who
> have laid their power boats on beam ends much like you have mentioned
> here, with no ill effect.
Interesting. I have read a bit about some incidents such as this, and
usually it is at least traumatic on the crew and at most very
destructive.
> On the other hand, a power boat is much less likely than a sailboat to
> be knocked on its beam ends, such that it would need that sort of
> stability.
(grin) in other words, you say "motorboats are just as stable, but they
don't need to be?" Anyway, it's true that a motorboat is not likely to
be knocked down by wind, but being rolled by a large breaking sea is
whole 'nother can o' worms. IMHO a motorboat is far more vulnerable, as
they usually have less reserve bouyancy, and less reserve stability.
> >Strictly anecdotal: I was talking(in Alert Bay, BC) to a commercial
> >fisherman who had fished in the Queen Charlottes,etc in rough
> >conditions and who also had sailed on his folks 40-ft sailboat when
> >younger. He said there was "no comparison" - the sailboat was "far
> >more comfortable" when things "got rough".
>
> I have no doubt that he is right. While both his powered work boat
> and is parents’ sailboat are able to survive the rough stuff, the
> sailboat is probably more comfortable during heavy weather. I'd
> venture to say that the power boat is more comfortable the rest of the
> time, since it is not laid on its side as a matter of routine.
> Comfort or not, both were safe in those conditions.
A comment- "being laid on it's side" is first of all relative, and
secondly heeling is part of sailing. One gets used to it, and some of us
even like it. IMHO the only time a motorboat is more comfortable is when
it's at anchor or dockside.
> >I do agree that for coastal cruising trawlers can be excellent boats,
> >but I don't think we will ever see many 35 ft powerboats
> >circumnavigating, and certainly not by way of "the Great Capes".
>
> I'm sure that you are right, in that you will not see very many of
> them. Most folks who buy powered voyagers seem to prefer a few more
> feet of hull than that. That does not mean, however; that you won't
> see any of them in this size range making ocean passages. On the
> other hand, powered multihull passagemakers seem to be catching the
> interest of some designers and builders. It would be pretty easy to
> build a cat of that size that would have both sufficient range and
> sufficient living space to keep some long distance cruisers happy.
Yup- and it will be interesting to see how many of the advances in
powerplant and hull design are adapted to production power boats over
the next few years.
Fresh Breezes- & for the non-wind-propelled I'll add "Fair Skies"- Doug
King
--
This is what we look like when we're at our best:
http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/ei/eisboch-webjump/45.htm
Jerome A. Schroeder
cruising and could not afford an ocean liner, I have no choice but sail.
For distances under 500 miles and if I were subject to a schedule in
enclosed waters (eg. the Puget Sound) Diesel seems to be the way to go.
Under 200 miles, probably gas is adequate.
Jerry
Igor <ig...@Algebra.Com> wrote in message
news:slrn7svu6...@manifold.algebra.com...
HarryKrause
>
> Depends on a lot of circumstances. If I were interested in long distance
> cruising and could not afford an ocean liner, I have no choice but sail.
>
> For distances under 500 miles and if I were subject to a schedule in
> enclosed waters (eg. the Puget Sound) Diesel seems to be the way to go.
>
> Under 200 miles, probably gas is adequate.
>
> Jerry
If I wanted to voyage considerable distances and not be land-bound, I'd opt
for a nice, heavy, cruising sailboat. Much better ride than most trawlers,
no engine noise, little dependency on an engine at all. I haven't been in
that many yacht trawlers, but their motion in a seaway is something I do not
think I could long endure. I don't mind pitching and yawing, but that
rolling. Blech.
Karl Denninger
Igor <ig...@Algebra.Com> wrote:
>Paul Kruse <plk...@iu.net> wrote:
>* It was not all that long ago that a (40 foot plus) trimaran made the
>* San Francisco to Honolulu at ten knots, and burned only 185 gallons.
>* That is about three times as fast as the average sailboat making the
>* same passage. The same boat went on to Australia on about 400
>* gallons. If you want to know more about it, pick up any Yanmar diesel
>* outboard flyer. (Yes, it was a twin engine outboard.) Most passage
>* makers burn more fuel than that, but not so much that they cannot
>* carry it. A range of 3000-5000 nautical miles on a single fill up is
>* very reasonable, and that in a boat under 50 feet. Some of them under
>* 40 feet.
>
>Hm. My humble 20ft powerboat eats, like, 0.4 galons per mile.
>
>I am curious what makes those BIGGER cruisers so much more fuel
>efficient.
They're displacement hulls and not planing.
Run your 20 footer at idle (as a displacement boat making 5 knots) and
you'll be shocked at how far you can go on the fuel you have aboard.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for
a plan to do exactly that!
Paul Kruse
>And what kind of motor do they have?
It is a four cylinder John Deere. I'm not sure of the model number,
but it puts out about 120 hp.
>Another question, how do they sleep during stormy/wavy weather? Do people
>get used to it? I took a family of four with me today, and three of them
>got seasick. Made me think about it.
They both have been cruising for quite a while. They tell me that
they did not cut off quite enough keel weight, so that the roll is a
bit snappier than they would like. They also talk about adding
flopper stoppers, but I guess that the motion of the boat has not
bothered them enough yet to convince them to stop cruising long enough
for that modification.
I suspect that this particular boat rolls more than most folks would
like; certainly more than a boat that was designed for this sort of
service from the start.
Paul Kruse
<doug...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Concerning my statement that a powered voyager can have the same
stability range as a sailboat:
>Hmm- don't think so. Sailboats have much higher righting moment, and a
>higher moment of inertia about the roll axis, and less form stability,
>and finally built-in roll damping in the keel/rudder foils. In my
>somewhat-limited experience, motorboats roll *much* worse in large
>waves. OTOH small waves (such as wakes) seem to rock sailboats more.
Everything that you say is true. It is just that power boaters and
sailboaters often think of stability in different terms. A sailboater
will often talk about a righting moment, whereas a power boater will
talk about the number of degrees he can roll and recover, and about
the roll period. I was talking about the former, since it best fit
the question that I was answering. A powered voyager can have 180
degrees of roll stability, just like some sailboats. As a practical
matter, most of them are a little less than that. (But then so do
many sailboats.)
>I disagree strongly here. The righting moment of a big ballast keel is
>far greater than anything any power boat I'm familiar with would
>develop.
I stand corrected. In terms of righting moment, you are correct.
Frankly, a powered voyager will have less righting moment than a
sailboat. Keep in mind, however; that these power boats that we are
talking about also have big ballasted keels, like sailboats. It is
just that they carry a little less ballast. They also get about the
same roll dampening from the keel as would be expected from a full
keel sailboat, or perhaps a little less, but certainly of the same
order of magnitude.
>> ..... and indeed I've talked to owners who
>> have laid their power boats on beam ends much like you have mentioned
>> here, with no ill effect.
>
>Interesting. I have read a bit about some incidents such as this, and
>usually it is at least traumatic on the crew and at most very
>destructive.
I'm sure that it is traumatic, sail or power. I've only been knocked
down a couple of times in a sailboat, and I did not like it either
time. The amount that I would not like it would be about the same in
a powered voyager. As for as destructive, that depends upon the boat
and how well it has been prepared for such an event. In this, I
really don't see much difference between sail and power.
>> On the other hand, a power boat is much less likely than a sailboat to
>> be knocked on its beam ends, such that it would need that sort of
>> stability.
>
>(grin) in other words, you say "motorboats are just as stable, but they
>don't need to be?"
Any boat that crosses an ocean may find very heavy weather, and
therefore needs to be able to survive it--sail or power. I'm just
saying that a 90 degree roll is more likely in a sailboat than in a
powered voyager.
>Anyway, it's true that a motorboat is not likely to
>be knocked down by wind, but being rolled by a large breaking sea is
>whole 'nother can o' worms. IMHO a motorboat is far more vulnerable, as
>they usually have less reserve bouyancy, and less reserve stability.
What exactly do those terms mean as applied to a power boat?
Paul Kamen
>...BTW (and as a troll) - I am surprised that when cruising
>sailboats are discussed, stability numbers, light build, ULDB
>construction and fractional rigs on ocean voyagers bring many
>sailors to the verge of a massive heart attack, but power boaters
>don't bother about "unproven, sophisticated design"- or do they?
(taking bait)
My experience is that powerboaters are *far* more conservative in their
boat, equipment, and materials selection than sailors.
Note how quickly sailors abandoned wood construction for fiberglass. But
as late as 1970, when wood production sailboats were almost extinct in the
U.S., many powerboaters still insisted that only wood hulls had the right
amount of "give" and that a fiberglass hull didn't ride as well. Or that
plastic would repel fish, or similar nonsense.
Those "massive heart attacks" are reactionary responses to the continuing
innovation in cruising sailboats.
Both power and sail have full access to spin-offs from racing technology.
Sailors have, by and large, embraced lighter boats, bigger rigs, better
sail materials, better foil designs, etc. etc. Some might argue that
cruisers accept these things too easily, but that's not the issue here.
Powerboaters, on the other hand, still resist a basic improvement (for
many applications) like the surface-piercing propeller.
In sailing there's an ethic that admires the eccentric, that glorifies
innovation for its own sake. Not found to anywhere near the same degree in
powerboating.
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Paul Kamen
>So, how much would a used sailboat that can safely go to Hawaii,
>cost?
It's been done a number of times (even round-trip) with a Santana 22 and
similar. They go for about $2K.
Paul Kamen
>...They tell me that they did not cut off quite enough keel
>weight, so that the roll is a bit snappier than they would like.
I'd be willing to bet that if they cut off more keel the roll would be
even more snappy. Metacentric height is waterplane inertia divided by
displacement, and I think the displacement will change faster than the
waterplane inertia in this case. If they increase tankage to keep the boat
on its lines, the waterplane inertia doesn't change at all. (Yes, the CG
goes up a bit, but this is a reasonably wide hull and if you raise CG
enough to soften the roll by reducing initial GM then you'll be left with
dangerously little in reserve.)
John Abercrombie
>So, how much would a used sailboat that can safely go to Hawaii,
>cost?
>igor
I won't touch that one, except to say that it would probably involve
"the cost of buying and refurbishing" a used sailboat.
The "safely" part probably depends on the skipper/crew as much as the
boat and equipment, but I have no real experience of this.
John
Karl Denninger
Igor <ig...@Algebra.Com> wrote:
>Karl Denninger <ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net> wrote:
>* In article <slrn7t5bh...@manifold.algebra.com>,
>* Igor <ig...@Algebra.Com> wrote:
>* >Paul Kruse <plk...@iu.net> wrote:
>* >* It was not all that long ago that a (40 foot plus) trimaran made the
>* >* San Francisco to Honolulu at ten knots, and burned only 185 gallons.
>* >* That is about three times as fast as the average sailboat making the
>* >* same passage. The same boat went on to Australia on about 400
>* >* gallons. If you want to know more about it, pick up any Yanmar diesel
>* >* outboard flyer. (Yes, it was a twin engine outboard.) Most passage
>* >* makers burn more fuel than that, but not so much that they cannot
>* >* carry it. A range of 3000-5000 nautical miles on a single fill up is
>* >* very reasonable, and that in a boat under 50 feet. Some of them under
>* >* 40 feet.
>* >
>* >Hm. My humble 20ft powerboat eats, like, 0.4 galons per mile.
>* >
>* >I am curious what makes those BIGGER cruisers so much more fuel
>* >efficient.
>*
>* They're displacement hulls and not planing.
>*
>* Run your 20 footer at idle (as a displacement boat making 5 knots) and
>* you'll be shocked at how far you can go on the fuel you have aboard.
>
>I assume that the best way to do it would be with a small outboard motor.
>Not with my 305 CID 228 HP engine.
>
>Am I correct?
Yep. However, you'll be surprised at the gas mileage that big 305 obtains
at idle :-) The small motor will beat it handily of course (since its
operating in the efficient part of its range, and so is your hull)
>I am actually looking for a small used outboard, probably at 10HP or so.
>Any idea how much it could cost?
Unfortunately no, but most small outboards (especially used ones) are going
to be 2-cycle PREMIX (*NOT* oil injected.) This is bad if you have a
primary drive system that uses straight gasoline, as it means TWO complete
fuel systems and the second one is going to be somewhat to significantly
dangerous to have on board (since any leakage at all is an instant
ignition/explosion hazard.)
Douglas King
> ... It is just that power boaters and
> sailboaters often think of stability in different terms. A sailboater
> will often talk about a righting moment, whereas a power boater will
> talk about the number of degrees he can roll and recover, and about
> the roll period. I was talking about the former, since it best fit
> the question that I was answering. A powered voyager can have 180
> degrees of roll stability, just like some sailboats. As a practical
> matter, most of them are a little less than that. (But then so do
> many sailboats.)
Ah, so- the limit of positive stability (LPOS, also called point of
vanishing stability). Very important to sailboats also. It appears that
it would be easier to design and build a practical motorboat with 180
degree than a sailboat. Good point.
> Frankly, a powered voyager will have less righting moment than a
> sailboat.
And they need less, so it's not a bad thing!
> .. Keep in mind, however; that these power boats that we are
> talking about also have big ballasted keels, like sailboats. It is
> just that they carry a little less ballast. They also get about the
> same roll dampening from the keel as would be expected from a full
> keel sailboat, or perhaps a little less, but certainly of the same
> order of magnitude.
I have seen powerboats with pretty good size keel flats, but I didn't
realize that they were ballasted. Some "trawler yachts" I'm familiar
with have cement in the bilges, which adds stability but would probably
be disastrous in hard weather offshore.
> I'm sure that it is traumatic, sail or power. I've only been knocked
> down a couple of times in a sailboat, and I did not like it either
> time. The amount that I would not like it would be about the same in
> a powered voyager. As for as destructive, that depends upon the boat
> and how well it has been prepared for such an event. In this, I
> really don't see much difference between sail and power.
Very good point. In weather severe enough to knock down or roll over a
large sail or power boat, it is likely that large masses of water will
impact the deck and topsides. Imagine dropping a boat (sail or power) on
it's deck from twenty feet up in the air.
> Any boat that crosses an ocean may find very heavy weather, and
> therefore needs to be able to survive it--sail or power. I'm just
> saying that a 90 degree roll is more likely in a sailboat than in a
> powered voyager.
Agreed!
> Douglas King <doug...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Anyway, it's true that a motorboat is not likely to
> >be knocked down by wind, but being rolled by a large breaking sea is
> >whole 'nother can o' worms. IMHO a motorboat is far more vulnerable, as
> >they usually have less reserve bouyancy, and less reserve stability.
Paul Kruse wrote:>
> What exactly do those terms mean as applied to a power boat?
Reserve bouyancy is how far you can push it down into the water and not
have a big problem (like it won't come back up); or conversely, how hard
the boat tries to pop back up to it's normal waterline. This also can be
considered as reserve bouyancy around the center, or how easy it is to
push the bow or stern under. Watertight integrity is important at the
limit of reserve bouyancy!
Reserve stability includes LPOS but has to also consider time- how long
can you hold the boat at 90 degrees (or 120, etc) before big problems.
And loose ballast such as chunks of cement crashing through the
floorboards.
Not very good def'ns probably others can do better. A good discussion so
far!
Fair Skies- Doug King
Paul Kruse
>I'd be willing to bet that if they cut off more keel the roll would be
>even more snappy. Metacentric height is waterplane inertia divided by
>displacement, and I think the displacement will change faster than the
>waterplane inertia in this case. If they increase tankage to keep the boat
>on its lines, the waterplane inertia doesn't change at all. (Yes, the CG
>goes up a bit, but this is a reasonably wide hull and if you raise CG
>enough to soften the roll by reducing initial GM then you'll be left with
>dangerously little in reserve.)
That is an interesting idea, Paul; and one that I don't fully
understand. The only thing they cut off the keel was a large hunk of
lead. I seem to remember that it was about a third of the total lead
ballast, but I'm not sure. The fuel tanks were added very near to the
center of the boat, and the center of the tanks are only a few inches
above the waterline. The boat is very close to being on its design
waterline, but then they have also added a whole lot of weight in
other cruising supplies, too.
Paul Kruse
<Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>BTW (and as a troll) - I am surprised that when cruising sailboats are
>discussed, stability numbers, light build, ULDB construction and fractional rigs
>on ocean voyagers bring many sailors to the verge of a massive heart attack, but
>power boaters don't bother about "unproven, sophisticated design"- or do they?
Fishmeal summed it up pretty well, but I'll also take this bait.
I spent a long time on a mailing list of a bunch of mostly high
performance sailors, some of them cruisers. Then I switched to a
mailing list of trawler owners. The difference in their attitudes
concerning their boats was night and day between these two different
groups. To the sailors, their boats were almost an end unto
themselves. They would actually take their boats out, spend the day
going nowhere, end up back where they started; and then tell you about
what a wonderful day it was, when they had done nothing else but to
take a ride on their boat. I can relate to that. When I go sailing,
I am much the same.
To most power boaters, especially owners of the types of boats we have
been talking about on this thread, the boat is more an end to a means,
rather than being a means unto itself. A power boater will enjoy
himself at the dock or swinging at anchor. When he fires up the
engine, it is to go someplace else to swing on an anchor or to sit at
another dock. (Or in some cases, to spend the day fishing, or doing
some other activity that requires a boat for transportation.) True,
for those who are cruising or voyaging, the next dock may be multiple
thousands of miles away, and they will certainly enjoy the journey,
but the boat itself is still an means to that end.
The power boaters are certainly aware of improvements in boat building
technologies, and they consider these technologies when buying a boat.
They are conservative, as Fishmeal has said, so that they will wait a
while when a new fade blows by, until the data is in to support the
new idea as being a good idea; but they are also very conservative on
how they spend their money. After an idea has proven itself to be
sound, like foam or honey comb core hulls, they ask themselves, "Is
this where I will get the most bang for my buck, or should I continue
with the older technology and spend my money on something else?" In
most cases, especially among cruisers, the clear answer is to spend
their money on another cruise instead of spending it on a fancier boat
of the latest technology.
That is not to say that we don't spend our money on new technology in
a big way, when it serves to advance our objectives. We have been
talking about a particular oil filter for two years on the Trawler
World List. Collectively, many thousands of dollars have been spent
to test the filter out and to report back to the group. I'm told that
well over a hundred people on that list have installed these filters
onto their boats, even though it costs about $500 dollars to do so. A
number of these boats have spent over $1000 on their fuel filters, and
we have talked about them at great length, too. You can buy a hand
held oil analyzer for about 1300 dollars from any one of several
different companies, and a number of folks on the list have bought
them, too. A lot of money is also put into communication and
navigational equipment, and RADAR, too. Side scan and forward looking
SONAR are also popular items. These are seen as much better
investments of limited resources, than to spend money on a high tech
hull.
The main advantage of a higher tech hull is that it will be lighter.
That seems to be important to a sailboater, but not nearly so
important to a displacement power boater. The only disadvantage of
carrying around more weight is that it will burn more fuel; but then
diesel fuel is much cheaper than spending money on a high tech light
weight boat. The difference in fuel consumption at these speeds is
quite small, anyway.
As for surface piecing propellers, they are a great idea for what they
were designed for; which has absolutely nothing to do with
displacement boats. At displacement speeds, is far more efficient to
swing a large conventional wheel at a slow rpm, and that is very old
technology. (You are beginning to see a few controllable pitch
propellers and variable speed hydrostatic transmissions. I suppose
that counts as "higher technology.")
Paul Kruse
Denninger) wrote:
>>I assume that the best way to do it would be with a small outboard motor.
>>Not with my 305 CID 228 HP engine.
>>Am I correct?
>Yep. However, you'll be surprised at the gas mileage that big 305 obtains
>at idle :-) The small motor will beat it handily of course (since its
>operating in the efficient part of its range, and so is your hull)
Our family has had a number of small boats like this over the years.
We have found that at hull speed, the outboard will burn up about the
same amount of fuel as the inboard. I suppose that some of the more
modern outboards, especially the four stroke ones, would probably burn
less fuel; but the amount of difference is probably not worth the
effort of firing up the outboard in most cases. We used the outboard
only as a get-home device in the event of a main engine failure,
besides the few times we cranked it up to see how well it performed.
It also can help a great deal to maneuver, if you have to maneuver in
very tight spots.
>>I am actually looking for a small used outboard, probably at 10HP or so.
>>Any idea how much it could cost?
>
>Unfortunately no, but most small outboards (especially used ones) are going
>to be 2-cycle PREMIX (*NOT* oil injected.) This is bad if you have a
>primary drive system that uses straight gasoline, as it means TWO complete
>fuel systems and the second one is going to be somewhat to significantly
>dangerous to have on board (since any leakage at all is an instant
>ignition/explosion hazard.)
We always just carried the extra oil for the outboard, just in case we
ever needed it. We also had a means of transferring fuel from the
main tank into the tank for the outboard.
Paul Kruse
<doug...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I have seen powerboats with pretty good size keel flats, but I didn't
>realize that they were ballasted.
They are almost always ballasted, often with many thousands of pounds.
>Some "trawler yachts" I'm familiar
>with have cement in the bilges, which adds stability but would probably
>be disastrous in hard weather offshore.
I've seen sailboats built the same way. It is it not done right, it
could be a very serious disaster in heavy weather. I don't know of
any serious powered voyagers that are ballasted in this manner, though
some of the coastal cruisers are. I suppose that is acceptable in a
coastal cruiser, so long as the concrete is properly retained. That
same statement applies equally well for power boats and for sailboats.
>> What exactly do those terms mean as applied to a power boat?
>
>Reserve bouyancy is how far you can push it down into the water and not
>have a big problem (like it won't come back up);
Full displacement power boats tend to have a great deal of reserve
buoyancy, especially those modeled after commercial fishing trawlers,
in which the primary design objective is to be able to carry a huge
amount of cargo in a small boat.
The basic weight of the 48 foot troller that we are building will be
very close to five tons, perhaps six by the time we add all our
equipment. (Being a trimaran, it will need no ballast.) Then it will
have a capacity sufficient for 1200 gallons of fuel, 600 gallons of
water, and four tons of fish under refrigeration. If you were to take
that same hull form and use it as a powered voyager, then you would be
able to carry pretty much anything you desire in terms of fuel, water,
and supplies. It has a considerable displacement range, but would
have much more if it were being built after the trawler model.
>Reserve stability includes LPOS but has to also consider time- how long
>can you hold the boat at 90 degrees (or 120, etc) before big problems.
>And loose ballast such as chunks of cement crashing through the
>floorboards.
Of the powered voyagers that I've seen, none would have a problem with
chunks of ballast crashing through the floor boards. Everything is
secured to prevent it from flying around, just like in a sailboat used
for the same purpose. After that, it is pretty much a matter of good
housekeeping, not to have loose stuff available to fly around the boat
in heavy weather. All this is the same, be it a sailboat or a powered
one.
I have seen much more thought and effort put into these powered
voyagers to make them unsinkable, than I've seen put into cruising
sailboats. You will see a lot of water tight bulk heads, sealed
compartments, and even large amounts of foam insulation. I've even
seen freezers that were large enough, and built with enough
insulation, that they could float a very large percentage of the boat
all by themselves. That 41 footer that we were talking about before
has enough foam to float it, ballast and all.
Terry Schell
Paul Kruse wrote:
>
<snip>
> I'd dare say that it is also a true statement, that the typical
> powered voyager (passage maker) will handle really rough open water
> better than the average sailboat.
Why do you say this? The average "powered voyager" still has a higher
CG (at least when the tanks are mostly empty) and lower roll damping
than an average monohull sailboat of similar size. Which power and sail
boats did you have in mind when you made this statement?
<snip>
> It was not all that long ago that a (40 foot plus) trimaran made the
> San Francisco to Honolulu at ten knots, and burned only 185 gallons.
> That is about three times as fast as the average sailboat making the
> same passage.
Actually it would be a *very* slow sailboat that made that particular
passage at 3.3 knots. Even a full keel, small sail area sailboat will
easily make 5+ knots on this route. A 40+ foot sailing trimaran will
typically make this passage at 10 knots without buring *any* fuel.
Terry Schell
Paul Kruse wrote:
<snip>
> I don't remember the exact numbers, but that converted 41 foot Morgan
> that I mentioned earlier carries about 1200 gallons. That seems to be
> about average for passage makers of this size. The boat will get
> between three and four miles per gallon at its typical cruising speed.
> That is a range of 3600 to 4800 nautical miles, depending upon how
> fast you want to go. The total cost of the boat to buy it and to
> convert it to a powered voyager was 70,000 dollars, plus a lot of
> sweat equity. Frankly, I find such a project to be a bit
> unreasonable, but it made the owners happy, and continues to make them
> happy as they cruise perhaps 5000 nautical miles per year. If I were
> to take on such a project, I'd start with a commercial fishing troller
> that was already designed for long passages like this. I think that
> probably the total costs in terms of both money and time would be
> significantly less. You could probably even keep it down close to the
> $50K limit that you imposed upon this conversation.
I agree with you on one point, Paul. I don't think it is more expensive
to buy/run a powerboat than a sailboat. Imagine buing a used 40-50 ft
sailboat that needs new rigging and sails... which is cheaper (a)
replacing the rigging and sails (b) putting in 1200 gal of tankage and
removing 1/2 of the lead keel with a chainsaw? You will have a suitable
passagemaker either way. The sailboat will still have the stability and
roll damping advantage so it would be more seaworthy... but both can
make a 3000 mile downwind passage
I strongly disagree that you should start with a commercial fishing
boat. The sailboat hull was designed with efficiency as a paramount
concern, fishing boats are designed with efficiency way down their list
of priorities. Placement of fishing equipment and fish storage are the
primary design considerations for a commercial fishing boat.
Terry Schell
Paul Kruse wrote:
>
<snip>
> I stand corrected. In terms of righting moment, you are correct.
> Frankly, a powered voyager will have less righting moment than a
> sailboat. Keep in mind, however; that these power boats that we are
> talking about also have big ballasted keels, like sailboats. It is
> just that they carry a little less ballast. They also get about the
> same roll dampening from the keel as would be expected from a full
> keel sailboat, or perhaps a little less, but certainly of the same
> order of magnitude.
Probably true... but the keel only accounts for a fraction of the roll
damping on any sailing course other than dead downwind. The sails are
the primary roll dampers and they actually become more effective at
damping as the wind picks up.
<snip>
> >Anyway, it's true that a motorboat is not likely to
> >be knocked down by wind, but being rolled by a large breaking sea is
> >whole 'nother can o' worms. IMHO a motorboat is far more vulnerable, as
> >they usually have less reserve bouyancy, and less reserve stability.
>
> What exactly do those terms mean as applied to a power boat?
>
...the same thing they mean when applied to a cargo vessel, navy
destroyer or sailiboat: Reserve bouyance is a measure of the volume of
the hull above the waterline and below the deck. We are usually most
worried about reserve bouyance fore and aft since this helps determine
the handling in waves. Reserve stability is the energy required to
capsize a vessel from its current condition. If a breaking wave rolls
the vessel to 30 degrees, how much energy would be required to push it
the rest of the way over?
Terry Schell
Igor wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I am curious what makes those BIGGER cruisers so much more fuel
> efficient.
>
They go slow enough that they make very little wave resistance.
Peter W. Meek
>In sailing there's an ethic that admires the eccentric, that glorifies
>innovation for its own sake. Not found to anywhere near the same degree in
>powerboating.
<a power boater is heard from>
I suspect that it is because in most power boating applications
it is too easy to just add more power. The main place where
all the 'trick' construction techniques and pared-to-the-bone
weights are found is in classed racing. If you are limited in
the amount of power you can have, you find your performance
in other areas.
I'm not racing anybody, so my boat is very heavy for its size:
around 4000# wet for a 20' open power boat. (Typical is around
2600#.) If I want to go faster, I can put a bigger motor on it.
Perhaps the true analogue to
>> ...stability numbers, light build, ULDB
>>construction and fractional rigs on ocean voyagers...
>>Anders Svensson <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se>
...is the overpowering of some recreational powerboats. Now that
is *not* uncommon, and *is* worrisome to a fair number of people.
There is an old joke that the definition of a race is two sailboats
in sight of each other. It is not much less true that two power
boats in sight of each other are likely to have operators who
are thinking about the relative speeds of those two boats. The
best thing about undeclared races is that if you begin to fall
behind you weren't really racing. You may even believe it.
--
--Pete
pwm...@mail.msen.com (Peter W. Meek)
rec.boats caps and burgees available at:
http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/cap-main.html
Anders Svensson
Considering that a ocean voyage woill take anything between 30 days and two months in
a sailboat, it is probably a good thing that sailors like sailing. - I can agree on
that.
Now, stating it as a fact that the same voyage hardly can be done in much less than
1/2 the time in a powerboat, and that the voyage is just as dangerous in many ways, I
still find it strange that the seakeeping and stability merits of ocean going
sailboats can be discussed so much and that powerboaters dismiss that as unimportant
and concentrate on other issues.
Few, if any 26 foot powerboats are suitable for a Atlantic gale, and absolutely not a
storm - most 26 foot sailboats will take a gale without a problem and most will
survive a storm. (In all fairness, I beg to exclude the worlds different Bayliners
and "Baysailers" from these expectations - of course there are a number of sailboats
where ocean crossings have no bearing, whatsoever)
It seems like the "facts" are that small sailboats do this all the time (small =
around 30 foot and upwards) and that small powerboats do it far less often. I
therefore suggest that a serious ocean crossing is something that *can* be done
without too much fuss by a "ordinary" 26 foot sailboat - proved by many people doing
it in less.
The same journey will need a purpose designed powerboat, and in the same size, it
will be hard to do it at all.
Now, is this because the sailor has a (unrealistic) dream to conquer the ocean, and
most powerboaters are mature and rational enough to see themselves differently.
Or - The Troll speaking - have they drowned their seamanship in the in-depth oil
filter cartridge and looked too much at the display of the forward looking sonar
instead of the horizion ?
Anders
Paul Kruse skrev:
> Boatless, but building M/V Doulos I and Doulos II
> http://www.trawlerworld.com/abuilding/doulos001.html
>
> Paul Kruse
> plk...@iu.net
> Port Canaveral, FL, USA
--
Paul Kruse
wrote:
>I agree with you on one point, Paul. I don't think it is more expensive
>to buy/run a powerboat than a sailboat. Imagine buing a used 40-50 ft
>sailboat that needs new rigging and sails... which is cheaper (a)
>replacing the rigging and sails (b) putting in 1200 gal of tankage and
>removing 1/2 of the lead keel with a chainsaw? You will have a suitable
>passagemaker either way. The sailboat will still have the stability and
>roll damping advantage so it would be more seaworthy... but both can
>make a 3000 mile downwind passage
I'm glad to know that we agree on some things. :-)
Actually, the power version of this boat will make that 3000 mile
passage in any direction, and in a straight line at that. Some
directions will just be a bit more comfortable.
>I strongly disagree that you should start with a commercial fishing
>boat. The sailboat hull was designed with efficiency as a paramount
>concern, fishing boats are designed with efficiency way down their list
>of priorities. Placement of fishing equipment and fish storage are the
>primary design considerations for a commercial fishing boat.
That depends on what sort of commercial fishing boat you want to start
with. If you start with a trawler, then what you say is correct. If
you start with a troller, then the exact opposite of what you said is
correct. They will be more fuel efficient for a long distance cruiser
than a sailboat hull. They will still have a good load carrying
capacity, which a cruiser needs; but not the hundreds of tons of cargo
space that a commercial trawler needs. The single most important
design objective of a troller is to burn as little fuel as possible at
trolling (displacement) speeds; or at least that is very high on the
list, along with good sea keeping and stuff like that.
You are correct, that a sailboat has been optimized for good
efficiency at displacement speeds; but the designers are seriously
handicapped by the need to have good efficiency at a wide range of
roll angles. That has forced them to make some compromises, which
results in them having less efficiency at zero degrees of roll than
your typical troller. The troller would therefore be the better boat
to start out with, if the end objective was to have an efficient and
comfortable powered voyager.
Paul Kruse
>> I'd dare say that it is also a true statement, that the typical
>> powered voyager (passage maker) will handle really rough open water
>> better than the average sailboat.
To which on Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:23:17 -0500, Terry Schell
<tsc...@uwf.edu> asked:
>Why do you say this? The average "powered voyager" still has a higher
>CG (at least when the tanks are mostly empty) and lower roll damping
>than an average monohull sailboat of similar size. Which power and sail
>boats did you have in mind when you made this statement?
It would be good to clarify, the conditions under which I intended
that to be true would be perhaps fifty knots, with seas of three or
four meters, minimum. I've talked to more than one powered passage
maker captain, who has told me that he has powered against a head wind
in conditions like that, without slowing down. This is consistent
with what I know of the commercial work boat business. Yes, the ride
is rough; but it is not going to be terribly comfortable in conditions
like this, regardless of what sort of boat you are in. Simply put,
the powered voyagers typically have the reserve power and a very large
propeller required for handling a boat in these conditions.
If you want to talk about conditions much worse than fifty knots and
four meters, then you are talking about the survival mode. Neither
will be very comfortable at all, and both are equally likely to come
out of it afloat.
I will agree, however; that if your intention is to hunker down under
minimum sail, perhaps hove to, or perhaps with a sea anchor, then the
sailboat will probably be the more comfortable of the two.
As for the CG with a tank empty or full, it hardly makes a difference.
The percentage of the total weight of a full tank of fuel is
relatively small.
One 49 foot powered voyager that I know of, which has been from
California, Hawaii, to Alaska, to Panama, to Newfoundland, and then to
the Caribbean is a good example, even if it is a bit larger than many.
It typically runs at between 40-60 hp of actual engine load for normal
cruising, and to run the various accessories, to include an air
conditioner. It swings a 40 inch prop at a very low rpm. When
conditions get rough, it can deliver 435 hp to that same big wheel.
His wing engine can supplement that to a total of about 550 hp. He
also has a bow thruster which is much larger than you would think
necessary for maneuvering around the dock. In heavy weather, he uses
it to control the attitude of his boat to the seas and to the wind.
He can do all of this from the relative comfort of his dry and air
conditioned pilot house.
>> It was not all that long ago that a (40 foot plus) trimaran made the
>> San Francisco to Honolulu at ten knots, and burned only 185 gallons.
>> That is about three times as fast as the average sailboat making the
>> same passage.
>
>Actually it would be a *very* slow sailboat that made that particular
>passage at 3.3 knots. Even a full keel, small sail area sailboat will
>easily make 5+ knots on this route. A 40+ foot sailing trimaran will
>typically make this passage at 10 knots without buring *any* fuel.
I assume that you would know better than I, at least for that
particular passage. The overall world wide average speed for a
monohull sailboat crossing an ocean is less than four knots, however;
and less than five knots for a mulithull. We had a huge discussion on
that about three years ago on the Multihulls list, and that seemed to
be the consensus. It is also what Chris White has published in his
book on cruising catamarans. A small passage maker will average at
least six knots under power. Those in their upper 40's in terms of
LOA will typically average about 7.5 knots. One big advantage, of
course, is that they can run a straight great circle route on
autopilot, while the sailboats have to tack against unfavorable winds.
For this boat in particular that I was talking about, which was a very
high tech cutting edge prototype trimaran, it averaged about ten
knots. Its big sister, a 60 footer of about the same cost as a 40
footer (according to the designer/builder/owner/captain), averaged 21
knots until it hit a rock and sank. This designer used a SWATH-type
main hull with a very high aspect ratio. You really cannot get much
more efficient than that.
Marcus G Bell
> I am actually looking for a small used outboard, probably at
In good running condition, expect $200-900. Depends on how old it
is, how much it cost when new if it's fairly new.
Karl Denninger <ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net> wrote:
> ... most small outboards (especially used ones) are going to be
> 2-cycle PREMIX (*NOT* oil injected.)
This is more true for used than new. However, almost every
manufacturer now sells a 10 HP 4-stroke. Tohatsu/Nissan is the
only 2-stroke holdout, Force is being discontinued altogether, and
Honda sells only 4-stroke. Additional 4-stroke "high thrust"
models are available, where no such models are available in
2-stroke, so with all this taken into account, 4-stroke makes up
more than 50% of the current 10 HP product offering. 10 HP
2-stroke kickers have been available for many more years than
4-strokes, so it makes sense that the the used market would be
dominated by 2-stroke.
Accessory oil mixing devices have been available for many years,
so that a 2-stroke kicker can draw straight gas from the main
tank. On the other hand, a 3 or 6 gallon tank of premix is a
redundant system that adds a margin of safety, should the main
tank have problems with bad gas or clogged fuel pickup. Portable
outboard tanks with automatic vent provide good resistance to
leakage and spill, with the advantage of being easily inspected. I
have such tanks that are 40 years old.
-- -- Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
HarryKrause
I've seen some really nice prices on new, in the box, smaller FORCE engines
around. Make a great motor for a kid or for a kicker.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Good lawyers are harder to find than honest politicians.
Terry Schell
Paul Kruse wrote:
>
<snip>
> Actually, the power version of this boat will make that 3000 mile
> passage in any direction, and in a straight line at that. Some
> directions will just be a bit more comfortable.
<snip>
You *might* be able to do it in any direction, but powerboats have the
"into waves, wind, and current" problem just like sailboats. They just
don't show it over short distances.
The fuel use of an efficient design can easily double per mile under
these conditions, making upwind/upcurrent passages out of range.
>
> >I strongly disagree that you should start with a commercial fishing
> >boat. The sailboat hull was designed with efficiency as a paramount
> >concern, fishing boats are designed with efficiency way down their list
> >of priorities. Placement of fishing equipment and fish storage are the
> >primary design considerations for a commercial fishing boat.
>
> That depends on what sort of commercial fishing boat you want to start
> with. If you start with a trawler, then what you say is correct. If
> you start with a troller, then the exact opposite of what you said is
> correct. They will be more fuel efficient for a long distance cruiser
> than a sailboat hull. They will still have a good load carrying
> capacity, which a cruiser needs; but not the hundreds of tons of cargo
> space that a commercial trawler needs. The single most important
> design objective of a troller is to burn as little fuel as possible at
> trolling (displacement) speeds; or at least that is very high on the
> list, along with good sea keeping and stuff like that.
I think you will find that minimum drag at speeds 30% less than hull
speed is usually the primary design criteria for sailboat hulls. I have
never seen a powerboat hull on any <70 boat that was not designed with
higher speeds in mind... of course there may be many powerboat hulls I
have not seen. What specific design did you have in mind?
<snip>
>
> You are correct, that a sailboat has been optimized for good
> efficiency at displacement speeds; but the designers are seriously
> handicapped by the need to have good efficiency at a wide range of
> roll angles. That has forced them to make some compromises, which
> results in them having less efficiency at zero degrees of roll than
> your typical troller. The troller would therefore be the better boat
> to start out with, if the end objective was to have an efficient and
> comfortable powered voyager.
I don't think the range of heel for which sailboats are optimized (+-20
degrees) makes much difference in shape below the waterline. It may
change what one does with freeboard. It has only been in the last
decade that NA's actually had good numerical methods for optimizing drag
over a range of heel angles. For most every existing design, drag
estimates for upright hulls have been used.
Paul Kruse
a career in commercial fishing. :-)
On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 18:43:28 +0200, Anders Svensson
<Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>Now, stating it as a fact that the same voyage hardly can be done in much less than
>1/2 the time in a powerboat, and that the voyage is just as dangerous in many ways, I
>still find it strange that the seakeeping and stability merits of ocean going
>sailboats can be discussed so much and that powerboaters dismiss that as unimportant
>and concentrate on other issues.
That ties in extremely well with what I said previously. Powered
passage making hulls are not only old technology, but are all
basically clones of each other. Their performance in heavy weather is
extremely well known, so there is hardly any purpose in discussing it
further. I've found that when I've introduced new ideas into the
conversation, like SWATH-type trimarans or multihulls in general, or
like commercial fishing trollers, then the power voyaging crowd comes
alive with questions of the sort you are asking.
>Few, if any 26 foot powerboats are suitable for a Atlantic gale,
If you are talking about a 26 foot boat crossing an ocean, then it
will either be a sailboat, or it will be some nut trying to prove a
point in a very special power boat. You don't have to get much larger
than this, however; and it becomes fairly reasonable to at least cross
the Atlantic.
>(In all fairness, I beg to exclude the worlds different Bayliners
>and "Baysailers" from these expectations - of course there are a number of sailboats
>where ocean crossings have no bearing, whatsoever)
Agreed.
>Now, is this because the sailor has a (unrealistic) dream to conquer the ocean, and
>most powerboaters are mature and rational enough to see themselves differently.
All the people I know of or even have read about who have crossed
oceans in small power boats were sailors before they were power
boaters. Many even crossed oceans in small sailboats before they did
it under power. They tend to be a very mature and rational crowd.
>Or - The Troll speaking - have they drowned their seamanship in the in-depth oil
>filter cartridge and looked too much at the display of the forward looking sonar
>instead of the horizion ?
I'm sure there is a certain amount of truth in that. :-)
Paul Kruse
wrote:
>You *might* be able to do it in any direction, but powerboats have the
>"into waves, wind, and current" problem just like sailboats. They just
>don't show it over short distances.
>
>The fuel use of an efficient design can easily double per mile under
>these conditions, making upwind/upcurrent passages out of range.
It can more than double. For a short period of time, it can increase
by a factor of ten or more. Any passage under power requires very
careful real time fuel budgeting. If you end up burning more than you
wanted to during a part of your trip, then you must slow down later to
make up for it. One boat that I'm thinking of, for example, will save
60 percent by slowing down from 8.4 knots to 7.2 knots. A passage is
normally started off a bit slower than it is finished, so that if you
run into fuel problems like this, then you will have the reserves you
need to get through it. If you don't run into that problem, then you
can do the last part of your voyage a bit faster. I know of one
Hawaii to Australia passage in which the boat only had fifteen gallons
left upon revival. That is not cutting it close, like some would
suppose; but rather it is very excellent fuel management. He ran the
last few hundred miles at an increased speed, and the last hundred
very fast, knowing that he had the fuel to burn.
Besides this, powered passagemakers rarely make passages that are at
the outside limit of their range, anyway.
>I think you will find that minimum drag at speeds 30% less than hull
>speed is usually the primary design criteria for sailboat hulls. I have
>never seen a powerboat hull on any <70 boat that was not designed with
>higher speeds in mind... of course there may be many powerboat hulls I
>have not seen. What specific design did you have in mind?
What I had in mind was the hull form used for commercial fishing
trollers. They are typically very inefficient indeed at an S/L
greater than 1.4 or 1.5; and are normally trolled at between 0.9 and
1.3 or so. The water flows along their bottoms in a manner similar to
a rowing shell. These are long and narrow full displacement boats,
normally with a ballasted keel. The longest one that I've ever seen
was 120 feet, the shortest about 32 feet. The length often is an
indicator of what sort of fish they were built to target. I've heard
that in the PNW, where they troll at perhaps 3 knots or less, you can
find these boats that are shorter than I've seen, perhaps in the 24-26
foot range. In this area, trolling is normally done at between six
and twelve knots, so you pick a WLL that is suitable for your fishing
style. Some of the faster trollers are of a semi-displacement design,
and are therefore not as efficient; but still not terribly bad.
Anders Svensson
the archetypical sailor (beard, breton cap and Adlard Coles "heavy
weather" book under one arm, Skenes "Elements of Yacht Design" under the
other) vs the common powerboater (carrying a cell phone, a BBQ recipe
book and a aluminium anchor)
Diesel, Wind and Water to all in the proportions they like.
The Troll.
Paul Kruse
<Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>Paul, you *do* seem to understand that I speak of not you and me, but of
>the archetypical sailor (beard, breton cap and Adlard Coles "heavy
>weather" book under one arm, Skenes "Elements of Yacht Design" under the
>other) vs the common powerboater (carrying a cell phone, a BBQ recipe
>book and a aluminium anchor)
You troll well, Anders; and yes, I understand.
Actually, I've been there, too. :-)
I find it interesting that some of the more popular threads among the
trawler owners are how to store flour and to use it for baking bread
and making muffins. BBQ recipes and techniques don't get a small
amount of interest, either. I once started a thread on food
preservation for cruising that ran for quite a while. We can talk
endlessly on pressure cookers and bread machines. We have had rather
interesting discussions on how to make wine and bear aboard, and no
small detail on how to keep it cold without shore power.
We've had long discussions on aluminum anchors, complete with very
detailed test results, too. I think that we all have cell phones, and
most use the Internet while at sea. We have had some very interesting
discussions on the best and/or the cheapest way to stay connected.
jean somerhausen
>
> Wich leads us in a nice, even circle back to the suggestion that sailing *is*
> both the means and the motivation behind travel by sail boat.
>
> Is this possibly a "escapist vs realist" thing... :-)
>
> Anders
>
> Paul Kruse skrev:
>
> > On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 21:19:00 +0200, Anders Svensson
> > <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> >
> > >Paul, you *do* seem to understand that I speak of not you and me, but of
> > >the archetypical sailor (beard, breton cap and Adlard Coles "heavy
> > >weather" book under one arm, Skenes "Elements of Yacht Design" under the
> > >other) vs the common powerboater (carrying a cell phone, a BBQ recipe
> > >book and a aluminium anchor)
> >
> > You troll well, Anders; and yes, I understand.
> >
> > Actually, I've been there, too. :-)
> >
> > I find it interesting that some of the more popular threads among the
> > trawler owners are how to store flour and to use it for baking bread
> > and making muffins. BBQ recipes and techniques don't get a small
> > amount of interest, either. I once started a thread on food
> > preservation for cruising that ran for quite a while. We can talk
> > endlessly on pressure cookers and bread machines. We have had rather
> > interesting discussions on how to make wine and bear aboard, and no
> > small detail on how to keep it cold without shore power.
> >
> > We've had long discussions on aluminum anchors, complete with very
> > detailed test results, too. I think that we all have cell phones, and
> > most use the Internet while at sea. We have had some very interesting
> > discussions on the best and/or the cheapest way to stay connected.
> >
> > http://www.trawlerworld.com/abuilding/doulos001.html
> >
> > Paul Kruse
> > plk...@iu.net
> > Port Canaveral, FL, USA
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Anders Svensson
> Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
> -----------------------------------------------------------
hours spin under sail in waters he's been in a hundred times already,
knowing that the conditions are never exactly the same from day to day,
whilst no "motorboater" in hid right mind would do it ?
john
jean somerhausen
>
> pwmeek's analogy between ultralight sailboats and overpowered powerboats
> probably has some merit. Although, I would still argue that new
> technologies allowing sailboats to be lighter and faster seem to gain
> acceptance much faster than those that allow powerboats to have more
> power.
>
> On another issue: I too agree that cruising under power can be less
> expensive than cruising under sail. Even when the sailing equipment is
> already installed and in working order. There was once a sign in the cabin
> of Merlin, a 67' ocean racer, intended for the deliver crews: "Diesel fuel
> is cheaper than sails."
>
> And on another another issue: The good stability characterstics of most
> cruising powerboats depend very heavily on the integrity of the
> superstructure. This is their real shortcoming, imho. As one data point -
> recently I did some expert witness work for a case involving a commercial
> crabber that capsized and sank off Point Bonita (near SF Bay) with loss of
> life. (The one survivor ignored the liferaft and surfed into the beach on
> the ice box lid.) The vessel would probably not have gone over if the
> pilothouse windows had remained intact.Didn't you mean "the vessel would not have gone UNDER if the pilothouse
windows had remained intact" ?
john
Jere Lull
> On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:54:07 -0500, ig...@Algebra.Com (Igor) wrote:
>
> >Hm. My humble 20ft powerboat eats, like, 0.4 gallons per mile.
> >
> >I am curious what makes those BIGGER cruisers so much more fuel
> >efficient.
>
> You don't mention what sort of 20 foot power boat you have, but I'd
> venture a guess that it has a planing hull. A displacement hull is
> much more efficient, but then of course you are limited to
> displacement speeds. We used to have a 21 foot sailboat, and it got
> six miles per gallon with an ancient two stroke outboard. With a good
> modern diesel, it could easily have gotten three for four times that
> efficiency, especially if I was willing to slow down a quarter or a
> half of a knot.
We have an 18 hp diesel on our 7,000# 28' boat and use about 1/4 gallon
per hour at 6+ knots: Figure 25 miles per gallon. At about 5 knots, our
consumption is somewhat lower. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the
converted sailboats called trawlers don't give similar figures, with a
longer waterline that increases their top speed.
Best economy would be a round hulled monohull, but the roll would be so
bad that a bunch of stabilizing fins would be needed, which would
increase drag and decrease economy.
I seem to remember that sailing cats of our weight are in the 35-40 foot
range. A powerboat version with round-bottom hulls (for lower wetted
surface) should give pretty respectable range. Without the sail rig,
structure wouldn't need to be quite as beefy and that weight could go
toward increased stores, which most cats don't like.
BTW, a local TowBoat/U.S. chase boat is a cat and -- to my surprise --
they like its speed and comfort in ALL weathers.
--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux -- '73 Tanzer 28 #4 -- out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's Pics & Specs: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI Vacation trip FAQ (250+ Annotated pics):
http://members.dca.net/jerelull/BVI.html
jean somerhausen
>
> jean somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Didn't you mean "the vessel would not have gone UNDER if the
>
> No, it capsized first, then sank. If the wheelhouse had remained intact
> it probably would have recovered from the knockdown.Ok, it's a question of semantics, then. In my mind, a boat can be thrown
down by a wave but will recover if it is watertight, but will go under
if it is not and water can flood it
john
Anders Svensson
both the means and the motivation behind travel by sail boat.
Is this possibly a "escapist vs realist" thing... :-)
Anders
Paul Kruse skrev:
> On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 21:19:00 +0200, Anders Svensson
> <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
> >Paul, you *do* seem to understand that I speak of not you and me, but of
> >the archetypical sailor (beard, breton cap and Adlard Coles "heavy
> >weather" book under one arm, Skenes "Elements of Yacht Design" under the
> >other) vs the common powerboater (carrying a cell phone, a BBQ recipe
> >book and a aluminium anchor)
>
> You troll well, Anders; and yes, I understand.
>
> Actually, I've been there, too. :-)
>
> I find it interesting that some of the more popular threads among the
> trawler owners are how to store flour and to use it for baking bread
> and making muffins. BBQ recipes and techniques don't get a small
> amount of interest, either. I once started a thread on food
> preservation for cruising that ran for quite a while. We can talk
> endlessly on pressure cookers and bread machines. We have had rather
> interesting discussions on how to make wine and bear aboard, and no
> small detail on how to keep it cold without shore power.
>
> We've had long discussions on aluminum anchors, complete with very
> detailed test results, too. I think that we all have cell phones, and
> most use the Internet while at sea. We have had some very interesting
> discussions on the best and/or the cheapest way to stay connected.
>
Rick Morel
>Karl Denninger <ka...@Genesis.Denninger.Net> wrote:
>* Igor <ig...@Algebra.Com> wrote:
>* >I am actually looking for a small used outboard, probably at 10HP or so.
>* >Any idea how much it could cost?
>*
>* Unfortunately no, but most small outboards (especially used ones) are going
>* to be 2-cycle PREMIX (*NOT* oil injected.) This is bad if you have a
>* primary drive system that uses straight gasoline, as it means TWO complete
>* fuel systems and the second one is going to be somewhat to significantly
>* dangerous to have on board (since any leakage at all is an instant
>* ignition/explosion hazard.)
>
>Good point. Forgot about it.
About straight gasoline and oil-mixed. You _can_ mix in the required
oil to the main tank if need be. The only effect on the inboard is a
bit of smoke. I've done this on more than a few occasions.
I mounted a fitting with a 1/4" barb in place of my 6-gallon outboard
tank's vent and ran a vent line from it. I have a short length of line
with a plug for moving the tank. I'll probably get another cap later
so I don't have to fool with removing the vent line and putting the
"plug".
The plan was to leave the tank empty and carry oil. I can pump from
the main tank. However, my inboard, on a Morgan 27, really heats up
the cabin. I have a 7 mile run under power. So now, the drill is to
use the 15 HP outboard outgoing and the inboard to return. Keeps the
cabin as cool as it's gonna' get in our Sout' Loo'siana heat and the
batteries recharge on the return run.
Re amount of gas used, the Atomic 4 seems to do a little better than
the Johnson outboard at the same speed. I more than suspect because of
that relativly big 2-blade in comparison to the outboards tiny
3-blade.
Rick
Please remove "NOSPAM" from my email address.
* * * * * * * * * * * * **** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Rick Morel * # # # ### ### *
* Morel Research, Ltd. * # # # # # *
* New Iberia, LA * # # # # *
* * # # # # # *
* http://www.morelr.com * # # # ### ### *
* * *
* rmo...@morelr.com * *
* * Keep It Simple Stupid! *
* * * * * * * * * * **** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
jlrogers
Absolutely! There is nothing more real than sailing. There is nothing more
escapist than 9-5.
--
"Surely fortune will smile upon two such talented sailors. And, if not fortune,
...then at least misfortune."
(Paraphrased, with apologies to Phil Frank, author of "Miles to Go.")
jean somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37D3FC...@worldnet.att.net...
> Anders Svensson wrote:
> >
> > Wich leads us in a nice, even circle back to the suggestion that sailing *is*
> > both the means and the motivation behind travel by sail boat.
> >
> > Is this possibly a "escapist vs realist" thing... :-)
> >
> > Anders
> >
> > Paul Kruse skrev:
> >
> > > On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 21:19:00 +0200, Anders Svensson
> > > <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Paul, you *do* seem to understand that I speak of not you and me, but of
> > > >the archetypical sailor (beard, breton cap and Adlard Coles "heavy
> > > >weather" book under one arm, Skenes "Elements of Yacht Design" under the
> > > >other) vs the common powerboater (carrying a cell phone, a BBQ recipe
> > > >book and a aluminium anchor)
> > >
> > > You troll well, Anders; and yes, I understand.
> > >
> > > Actually, I've been there, too. :-)
> > >
> > > I find it interesting that some of the more popular threads among the
> > > trawler owners are how to store flour and to use it for baking bread
> > > and making muffins. BBQ recipes and techniques don't get a small
> > > amount of interest, either. I once started a thread on food
> > > preservation for cruising that ran for quite a while. We can talk
> > > endlessly on pressure cookers and bread machines. We have had rather
> > > interesting discussions on how to make wine and bear aboard, and no
> > > small detail on how to keep it cold without shore power.
> > >
> > > We've had long discussions on aluminum anchors, complete with very
> > > detailed test results, too. I think that we all have cell phones, and
> > > most use the Internet while at sea. We have had some very interesting
> > > discussions on the best and/or the cheapest way to stay connected.
> > >
> > > Boatless, but building M/V Doulos I and Doulos II
> > > http://www.trawlerworld.com/abuilding/doulos001.html
> > >
> > > Paul Kruse
> > > plk...@iu.net
> > > Port Canaveral, FL, USA
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Anders Svensson
> > Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
jlrogers skrev:
> > Is this possibly a "escapist vs realist" thing... :-)
>
> Absolutely! There is nothing more real than sailing. There is nothing more
> escapist than 9-5.
>
> --
>
> "Surely fortune will smile upon two such talented sailors. And, if not fortune,
> ...then at least misfortune."
> (Paraphrased, with apologies to Phil Frank, author of "Miles to Go.")
>
> jean somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:37D3FC...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Anders Svensson wrote:
> > >
> > > Wich leads us in a nice, even circle back to the suggestion that sailing *is*
> > > both the means and the motivation behind travel by sail boat.
> > >
> > > Is this possibly a "escapist vs realist" thing... :-)
> > >
> > > Anders
> > >
> > > Paul Kruse skrev:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 21:19:00 +0200, Anders Svensson
> > > > <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Paul, you *do* seem to understand that I speak of not you and me, but of
> > > > >the archetypical sailor (beard, breton cap and Adlard Coles "heavy
> > > > >weather" book under one arm, Skenes "Elements of Yacht Design" under the
> > > > >other) vs the common powerboater (carrying a cell phone, a BBQ recipe
> > > > >book and a aluminium anchor)
> > > >
> > > > You troll well, Anders; and yes, I understand.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I've been there, too. :-)
> > > >
> > > > I find it interesting that some of the more popular threads among the
> > > > trawler owners are how to store flour and to use it for baking bread
> > > > and making muffins. BBQ recipes and techniques don't get a small
> > > > amount of interest, either. I once started a thread on food
> > > > preservation for cruising that ran for quite a while. We can talk
> > > > endlessly on pressure cookers and bread machines. We have had rather
> > > > interesting discussions on how to make wine and bear aboard, and no
> > > > small detail on how to keep it cold without shore power.
> > > >
> > > > We've had long discussions on aluminum anchors, complete with very
> > > > detailed test results, too. I think that we all have cell phones, and
> > > > most use the Internet while at sea. We have had some very interesting
> > > > discussions on the best and/or the cheapest way to stay connected.
> > > >
> > > > Boatless, but building M/V Doulos I and Doulos II
> > > > http://www.trawlerworld.com/abuilding/doulos001.html
> > > >
> > > > Paul Kruse
> > > > plk...@iu.net
> > > > Port Canaveral, FL, USA
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Anders Svensson
> > > Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Isn't it rather that a "silboater" will happily go for a little 2-3
> > hours spin under sail in waters he's been in a hundred times already,
> > knowing that the conditions are never exactly the same from day to day,
> > whilst no "motorboater" in hid right mind would do it ?
> > john
--
Paul Kamen
>As for surface piecing propellers, they are a great idea for what
>they were designed for; which has absolutely nothing to do with
>displacement boats...
Case in point.
When I was Applications Naval Architect at Arneson Marine, we did some
spectacularly successsful surface propeller installations on displacement
hulls. The data has been out there for a decade, and the science behind
it is very basic (more info on my web page).
But the popular perception is still "absolutely nothing to do with
displacement boats." That's why this is such a good example of the sort of
conservatism I'm trying to describe.
Paul Kamen
probably has some merit. Although, I would still argue that new
technologies allowing sailboats to be lighter and faster seem to gain
acceptance much faster than those that allow powerboats to have more
power.
On another issue: I too agree that cruising under power can be less
expensive than cruising under sail. Even when the sailing equipment is
already installed and in working order. There was once a sign in the cabin
of Merlin, a 67' ocean racer, intended for the deliver crews: "Diesel fuel
is cheaper than sails."
And on another another issue: The good stability characterstics of most
cruising powerboats depend very heavily on the integrity of the
superstructure. This is their real shortcoming, imho. As one data point -
recently I did some expert witness work for a case involving a commercial
crabber that capsized and sank off Point Bonita (near SF Bay) with loss of
life. (The one survivor ignored the liferaft and surfed into the beach on
the ice box lid.) The vessel would probably not have gone over if the
pilothouse windows had remained intact.
Paul Kamen
>What I had in mind was the hull form used for commercial fishing
>trollers...
But at those low speeds, how much drag is from the hull and how much is
from the fishing gear?
If the gear is a producing a large portion of the drag, then the opitmal
hull may well be the shape that's best for getting to and from the fishing
grounds, and not really optimal for the low trolling speed. Good
propulsive coefficient at low speed becomes much more important than hull
shape. (And this is also one of the differences between a good
dipslacement powerboat hull and a good sailboat hull.)
Paul Kruse
> Paul Kruse <plk...@iu.net> wrote:
>
> >As for surface piecing propellers, they are a great idea for what
> >they were designed for; which has absolutely nothing to do with
> >displacement boats...
>
>Case in point.
>
>When I was Applications Naval Architect at Arneson Marine, we did some
>spectacularly successsful surface propeller installations on displacement
>hulls. The data has been out there for a decade, and the science behind
>it is very basic (more info on my web page).
>
>But the popular perception is still "absolutely nothing to do with
>displacement boats." That's why this is such a good example of the sort of
>conservatism I'm trying to describe.
Thanks for the note, Paul. This is new information to me. I tried to
access your web page, but could not. Maybe it was temporarily down.
Perhaps you could quickly sum up the reasons why a surface propeller
might be a good alternative for a full displacement long range
cruising power boat, or even a commercial fishing troller? Feel free
to start a new thread, if you think there might be enough material
here to have a good discussion.
Terry Schell
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
<snip>
> If the gear is a producing a large portion of the drag, then the opitmal
> hull may well be the shape that's best for getting to and from the fishing
> grounds, and not really optimal for the low trolling speed. Good
> propulsive coefficient at low speed becomes much more important than hull
> shape. (And this is also one of the differences between a good
> dipslacement powerboat hull and a good sailboat hull.)
>
I am not sure I follow here. Isn't the propulsive coefficient effected
primarily by the prop and prop placement? Perhaps I am reading this
wrong, but it seems that you are saying the propulsive efficiency is a
function of the hull. In what ways?
Terry
Jordan Bigel
>
>Paul Kruse wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> I'd dare say that it is also a true statement, that the typical
>> powered voyager (passage maker) will handle really rough open water
>> better than the average sailboat.
>
>
>CG (at least when the tanks are mostly empty) and lower roll damping
>than an average monohull sailboat of similar size. Which power and sail
>boats did you have in mind when you made this statement?
>
>
>
>> It was not all that long ago that a (40 foot plus) trimaran made the
>> San Francisco to Honolulu at ten knots, and burned only 185 gallons.
>> That is about three times as fast as the average sailboat making the
>> same passage.
>
Terry Schell wrote:
>Actually it would be a *very* slow sailboat that made that particular
>passage at 3.3 knots. Even a full keel, small sail area sailboat will
>easily make 5+ knots on this route. A 40+ foot sailing trimaran will
>typically make this passage at 10 knots without buring *any* fuel.
>
Yeah really! What sort of sailboat did you have in mind that cruises at
3.3 knots? I think the "average" cruising boat would turn in speeds more
like 5k average, and many many that would show 6-7k avg on that passage.
J.
Paul Kamen
>Perhaps you could quickly sum up the reasons why a surface
>propeller>might be a good alternative for a full displacement
>long range cruising power boat, or even a commercial fishing
>troller? ...
Because it allows a much larger and much slower-turning propeller. With
conventional gear, the propeller diameter is compromised against
navigational draft, shaft angle, and hull clearance. With the
surface-piercing propeller the main compromise is against propeller
and driveline cost. So especially for applicataions with a long duty
cycle (commercial operation or long-range cruising) where fuel economy is
critical, the surface-piercing propeller makes a lot of sense.
There may be other factors (poor backing performance, fishing gear
interference) why surface-piercing propellers are not a good choice for
fishing vessels.
Paul Kamen
>Didn't you mean "the vessel would not have gone UNDER if the
>pilothouse >indows had remained intact" ?
No, it capsized first, then sank. If the wheelhouse had remained intact
it probably would have recovered from the knockdown.
--
Paul Kamen
>...it seems that you are saying the propulsive efficiency is a
>function of the hull. In what ways?
Wake fraction. A hull shape that produces a uniform decelerated flow field
into the propeller will have a higher propulsive coefficient.
M.Holden
the prop was just breaking the water. there was so little backing
power, that the force 5 wind from astern made it impossible to stop
in time, and we struck a bridge [we were to stop and wait for the
bridge man to come open it...] - oh crumple...-
in what way are these 'surface piercing' props different from other
big slow props?
M.Holden
Paul Kamen wrote:
Terry Schell
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> Terry Schell <tsc...@uwf.edu> wrote:
>
> >...it seems that you are saying the propulsive efficiency is a
> >function of the hull. In what ways?
>
> Wake fraction. A hull shape that produces a uniform decelerated flow field
> into the propeller will have a higher propulsive coefficient.
> --
hmmm... I had always thought of prop placement to take advantage of hull
flow, rather than hull design to give proper flow to the prop.
Can you point out what changes in hull shape might be beneficial for
propulsive efficiency for a conventional inboard engine configuration?
Paul Kamen
>in what way are these 'surface piercing' props different from other
>big slow props?
With repsect to backing, the problem is that the slipstream is aimed
right at the trasnom! There have even been cases where reverse power made
the boat go forwards. There are ways to fix this, but backing power is
not the strong point of surface-piersing propellers.
Paul Kamen
>Can you point out what changes in hull shape might be
>beneficial for propulsive efficiency for a conventional inboard
>engine configuration?
Wide and flat at the stern, to let more of the propeller get into more of
the wake field. This is counter to the "round bottom" shape for minimum
frictional resistance, and it takes an extensive series of powered tank
tests to really determine where the optimal design will fall.
Such tests are commond for military or large commercial projects, but
unheard-of for a recreational design. Cheaper to learn by trial and
error.
Lauri Tarkkonen
> jean somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Didn't you mean "the vessel would not have gone UNDER if the
> >pilothouse >indows had remained intact" ?
>No, it capsized first, then sank. If the wheelhouse had remained intact
>it probably would have recovered from the knockdown.
There was a case of two steelhulled motorboats sinking in the southern
Baltic as they met some stormy squalls and heavy waves. The boats did
all right untill the waves smashed their pilothouse windows. Then they
got some (perhaps a ton or more) water in and then they capsised and
sank. The boats were some 30 feet in lenght heavily built with really
big pilothouse windows. The design is very common in Hollland and, I
believe, perfectly safe in the canals and protected waters. Perhaps
if the windows had bee made of polycarbonarte instead of acryl, they
would have survived.
- Lauri Tarkkonen
brob...@erols.com
activites:
Power boating is about the destination.
Sailing is about the trip.
Thanks
Bert Robbins
In article <37D4A6E8...@swipnet.se>, Anders Svensson
Paul Kruse
>But at those low speeds, how much drag is from the hull and how much is
>from the fishing gear?
I would imagine that the fishing gear typically accounts for less than
a quarter hp of the total drag on the boat at trolling speeds. These
boats in this size range typically pull four to ten lines through the
water. Often, two of them will have up to five hooks on them, while
the others would be a single hook. Sometimes they are all a single
hook. I suppose that a fast troller using downriggers or planers
might require as much as two or three hp to pull the equipment through
the water. Basically, the drag of the fishing gear is nothing. That
is why these boats can be designed to be so efficient. The equipment
that is in the water is very similar to a sport fisherman's; but the
equipment that is out of the water is much different.
Paul Kruse
wrote:
>We have an 18 hp diesel on our 7,000# 28' boat and use about 1/4 gallon
>per hour at 6+ knots:
So that speed cost you about 4-6 hp of the total 18 available. That
is only slightly less than I would have guessed; but then the power
requirements will go up very fast with small increases in speed above
these six knots.
>Figure 25 miles per gallon. At about 5 knots, our
>consumption is somewhat lower. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the
>converted sailboats called trawlers don't give similar figures, with a
>longer waterline that increases their top speed.
They do, except that the one we were talking about is considerably
larger and heavier. It was a full displacement 41 foot cruising
sailboat before the conversion, and it only lost a little bit of
weight when the keel was trimmed.
BTW: I notice that the owner of that boat has posted lots of neat
details concerning his boat, and that they are featured as the "Quote
of the Day" on the Trawler World site. Some of the numbers that I had
quoted from memory are a bit different, but not a whole lot different.
I see, for example, that it was a bit larger. I've been on the boat.
It makes for a very excellent cruiser. We were drinking beer at the
time, which he had made on the boat. Perhaps that accounts for the
slight inaccuracies in my memory. :-)
http://www.trawlerworld.com/quotes/quote050899.html
He has also posted quite a lot in the TWL archives, if you have an
interest in poking around a bit.
>Best economy would be a round hulled monohull, but the roll would be so
>bad that a bunch of stabilizing fins would be needed, which would
>increase drag and decrease economy.
These particular owners have not installed any roll stabilization at
all. Mark tells me that he would like to do that some day, but that
is relatively low on his list of priorities right now. Roll
stabilization does cost more drag, but not much more.
>I seem to remember that sailing cats of our weight are in the 35-40 foot
>range.
Now you are singing my song. I'm pretty much convinced that multihull
powered voyagers will continue to become more popular, until they are
the standard for this sort of boat. Both the boats we are currently
building are multihulls, one cat and one tri.
>BTW, a local TowBoat/U.S. chase boat is a cat and -- to my surprise --
>they like its speed and comfort in ALL weathers.
That does not surprise me at all.
Paul Kruse
>Because it allows a much larger and much slower-turning propeller.
I had thought that the primary advantage of the surface piercing
propellers was its super-cavitating performance at high speeds.
Apparently, that is not the case here. :-)
Draft is not a concern with these trollers. Would it not be better to
put the same large prop a few feet under the surface, in its normal
location?
>There may be other factors (poor backing performance, fishing gear
>interference) why surface-piercing propellers are not a good choice for
>fishing vessels.
That was my biggest concern. In fact, on the cat, I'm considering
putting the props forward of center, facing forward. Perhaps about
twenty feet aft of the stem on a sixty foot hull. What do you think
of that idea? It is un-conventional enough that I probably won't do
it, but I have given it much thought. They would be out there in a
good clean water flow.
Paul Kamen
>Ok, it's a question of semantics, then. In my mind, a boat can be
>thrown down by a wave but will recover if it is watertight, but
>will go under if it is not and water can flood it
More than semantics here, I think. There was still plenty of reserve
buoyancy when the boat capsized. It was the flooding water's effect on
stability at large heel angles that did it in.
Paul Kamen
>I had thought that the primary advantage of the surface piercing
>propellers was its super-cavitating performance at high speeds.
>Apparently, that is not the case here. :-)
That's the main advantage for high speed applications, along with
eliminating shaft/strut/lower unit drag. Except it's not really
supercavating - the surface-piercing propeller uses air to suppress
cavitation, replacing it much more benign ventillation.
>Draft is not a concern with these trollers. Would it not be
>better to put the same large prop a few feet under the surface, in
>its normal location?
If the big propeller fits, at a reasonable shaft angle, then yes.
>...on the cat, I'm considering putting the props forward of center,
>facing forward. Perhaps about twenty feet aft of the stem on a
>sixty foot hull. What do you think of that idea?
I don't like it. There's some data on forward propellers that resulted
from doulbe-ended ferry design, and even if the blade camber was the
right way, the propulsive coefficient from the forward propeller is quite
a bit worse because it's completely outside the wake field.
"Clean water flow" is fine at high speed, but at low speed you might as
well take advantage of water that's been accelerated by the hull. Think of
it as recovering some othe energy put into the water by the hull. Modern
submarines, in fact, with their axi-symmetric wake, often have propulsive
coefficients greater than one when submerged. (I'm using "wake" in the
technical sense, meaning the flow field behind the vessel, not the surface
waves.)
I'd also worry about the pitch-heave coupling being wrong, causing
frequent changes in propeller immersion. Because the stern is likely to
pitch down when the vessel heaves up, aft propellers tend to stay in the
water better.
Paul Brackett
Igor wrote:
> I hope that I am not starting a huge flamewar here. I was just thinking
> abstractly at which boats are more suitable for long range cruising
> (something I am not planning to do in the near future but am curious
> about).
>
> The first thought that comes to my mind is that running an engine is noisy,
> smoky and expensive (fuel & maintenance costs) but on the other hand, an
> engine gets you to your destination on time regardless of weather. Whereas a
> sailboat is more at the mercy of winds. Plus, sailboats may be harder to
> operate for an inexperienced sailor.
>
> Also, any boat needs electric power, so even sailboats need to run some
> kind of an engine a lot every day.
>
> Sailboats seems to me to be more reliable since they do not have
> complicated engines -- just sails and masts. Considering general
> unreliability of engines, it does not seem like a good deal to not have
> a backup.
>
> Hm... I am curious, are there sailboats with decently powered engines
> that can propel them for very long periods of time effectively? Sort of
> like a combination sail/power boat. When the wind is good, you go under
> sail and save money and enjoy nature, when it is bad you start your diesel
> and keep going.
>
> Maybe it is a personality question more than a question of rational choice?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov
Terry Schell
Paul Kruse wrote:
>
<snip>
> Draft is not a concern with these trollers. Would it not be better to
> put the same large prop a few feet under the surface, in its normal
> location?
I strongly suspect that there are still limits on prop diameter which
make it difficult to run the optimal sized prop disk. By the time you
add the needed draft, the prop diameter and the hull clearance you get a
pretty exposed prop and a pretty bad shaft angle. By running a surface
piercing prop you can run a much larger prop disk (or hemi-disk if you
will) without these problems.
The area of a half circle with a fixed radius is always greater than the
area of a full circle with that radius as the diameter. For slow boats
the easiest way to increase efficiency is to increase prop diameter
(assuming your prop has appropriate area and pitch for that diameter).
Fishmeal is claiming that for slow displacement boats, these two
advantages often outweigh the disadvantage of increased free-surface
drag from the surface piercing.
Jeff Meeks
> Then they bought a Morgan 41 that had been seriously
> damaged in a hurricane, and built it up into a very nice trawler.
> When I was on the boat, I asked him why he had not retained the
> sailing ability of the boat, for the times that the wind happened to
> be going in the right direction.
Rousmaniere says that removing a mast from a sailboat significantly hurts roll
stability. Counterintuitive, but tank testing has shown that the moment arm of
the mast prevents the snap-rolling that can occur after a dismasting.
Jeff
Paul Kruse
wrote:
>Rousmaniere says that removing a mast from a sailboat significantly hurts roll
>stability. Counterintuitive, but tank testing has shown that the moment arm of
>the mast prevents the snap-rolling that can occur after a dismasting.
I don't find that counterintuitive at all. This is also the reason
for removing some of the ballast when the mast is removed.
Jeff Meeks
> On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 09:03:40 -0700, Jeff Meeks <je...@techline.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Rousmaniere says that removing a mast from a sailboat significantly hurts roll
> >stability. Counterintuitive, but tank testing has shown that the moment arm of
> >the mast prevents the snap-rolling that can occur after a dismasting.
>
> I don't find that counterintuitive at all. This is also the reason
> for removing some of the ballast when the mast is removed.
Maybe it's just me then. I was initially surprised that lowering the center of
gravity (by removing the mast) made the boat more prone to rollover. On a second
look, it makes more sense.
I'm somewhat unclear on how removing part of the keel weight compensates for the
removal of the mast. If eliminating the moment arm above the deck (the mast)
exacerbates roll, why doesn't reducing the moment arm below deck (the keel) worsen
the problem too?
I'm a mechanical engineer but I claim ignorance on much of the dynamics that drive
a boat. However, I see the rolling problem on a boat as illustrated by a shaft with
two weighted arms attached to it. If you try to rotate the shaft, or change
direction of the shaft rotation, the rotational inertia in the assembly will work
to dampen the rotation. The way to decrease the rotational inertia of the assembly
is to either reduce the weight of the arms or reduce their distance from the axis
of rotation. I think that if you remove the mast, and remove some of the length and
weight of the keel, you are doing both. The boat is bound to roll more violently,
and I suspect, be more prone to roll over than it would if unaltered.
If I misunderstand the problem, I'd welcome comments, some people pay big bucks for
the education that trolling this ng provides. Here I get it for free ;-)
Back to your original point, I think that a cruising sailboat makes a perfectly
satisfactory power-driven cruiser. It would be very possible, in my boat at least,
to make quite long crossings and never raise sails. Or maybe only raise them for
their stability benefits.
After listening to an engine drone for a day or two, I suspect most sailors would
welcome the peace and quiet of raising sails however.
Jeff
George Jefferson
:I'm somewhat unclear on how removing part of the keel weight compensates for the
:removal of the mast. If eliminating the moment arm above the deck (the mast)
:exacerbates roll, why doesn't reducing the moment arm below deck (the keel) worsen
:the problem too?
try this, guessing a snap roll is something like a large wave impact
on the side of the hull. This force acts more or less at the surface
or water line part of the hull. Its tendency to flip the boat
is related to the moment of the force about the CG, and is resisted
be the moment of inertia about the CG. When you dismast you not only
reduce the moment of inertia, but you lower the CG, hence increase
the moment of the force - two fold bad news.
If removing some keel mass is helpul (raising the CG, but lowering
the Icg) then I would infer the depth of the CG below the water is
the more important factor.
--
george jefferson : geo...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu
to reply simply press "r"
-- I hate editing addresses more than I hate the spam!
Paul Kruse
wrote:
>Maybe it's just me then. I was initially surprised that lowering the center of
>gravity (by removing the mast) made the boat more prone to rollover. On a second
>look, it makes more sense. [snip]
Removing the mast really does not have a significant effect on the
placement of the CG. The mast and rigging simply do not weigh that
much compared to the rest of the boat. What it does do is reduce your
moment of inertia about the roll axis. That does not make you any
more or less stable. What it does is to greatly decrease your roll
period. The effect is a very snappy roll. That is very
uncomfortable. With a reduced moment of inertia, you have less
resistance to the high frequency dynamics that tend to roll you over.
In other words, you may get knocked over quicker and easier by a wave;
but you will snap back much more quickly without the mast.
What you will find with this boat is that it rolls very easily for
about plus or minus fifteen degrees of roll. In that window, you have
very little righting moment, so it tends to roll quite a lot. Beyond
that, your righting moment greatly increases, so that stability beyond
the 15 degrees is very great.
The reason for removing some of the ballast, which does not change
your moment of inertia nearly as much as you might think, is to
increase the roll period. This makes the ride much more comfortable
in this fifteen degree window. Since you don't have the big sail, you
also don't need so great of a righting moment beyond the fifteen
degrees, either.
Skipper
> After listening to an engine drone for a day or two, I suspect most sailors would
> welcome the peace and quiet of raising sails however.
Suspect the trade might be for high pitched flapping sails rather than
the low muffled drone of an engine. Sailing can really wear you out.
--
Skipper
Phoenix
What high pitched flapping sails are you talking about? Have you ever been
aboard a sailboat?
--
Jim
1994 Regal 256 for sale - see ad at
http://www.classifieds2000.com/cgi-cls/ad.exe?P1+C189+R1187463
Skipper <ski...@KSCable.com> wrote in message
news:37D826C5...@KSCable.com...
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Jeff Meeks wrote:
>
> > After listening to an engine drone for a day or two, I suspect most sailors would
> > welcome the peace and quiet of raising sails however.
>
> Suspect the trade might be for high pitched flapping sails rather than
> the low muffled drone of an engine. Sailing can really wear you out.
If you can hear your sail flapping, you probably don't have it set
right.
Steve
--
/ / /
\ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
/ / /
Jon V.
> Skipper wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Meeks wrote:
> >
> > > After listening to an engine drone for a day or two, I suspect most sailors would
> > > welcome the peace and quiet of raising sails however.
> >
> > Suspect the trade might be for high pitched flapping sails rather than
> > the low muffled drone of an engine. Sailing can really wear you out.
>
> If you can hear your sail flapping, you probably don't have it set
> right.
Naw, Ol' Skip has the right of it. Tis like y'old lar' bird. Ye set the
main'sl to flappin' to gains yer propul... porpul... for'ard mov'munts.
You'll have seen t'results of a bird that ceased aflappin, aye? Sames can
be said o'boats. W'out their flappin they hits t'ground.
Aye, tis sad, but once ye pry the shot out they be tasty eatin'.
Din' nobody larn ye yer boats an ships, sonny?
-Jon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking
about.
-- John Von Neumann
Skipper
>
> Skipper wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Meeks wrote:
> >
> > > After listening to an engine drone for a day or two, I suspect most sailors
> > > would welcome the peace and quiet of raising sails however.
> >
> > Suspect the trade might be for high pitched flapping sails rather than
> > the low muffled drone of an engine. Sailing can really wear you out.
>
> If you can hear your sail flapping, you probably don't have it set
> right.
Suspect you are absolutely correct. However, I haven't experienced the
raising of the sails or tacking as a peace and quiet time. Seems more
like an attentive and noisy time to me.
--
Skipper
Phoenix
Sails flapping will destroy a sail very quickly, so any sailor would not
allow them to flap without trimming the sails quickly. Skip as always has
no idea what he is talking about.
--
Jim
1994 Regal 256 for sale - see ad at
http://www.classifieds2000.com/cgi-cls/ad.exe?P1+C189+R1187463
Steven Shelikoff <shel...@averstar.com> wrote in message
news:37D847B3...@averstar.com...
> Skipper wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Meeks wrote:
> >
> > > After listening to an engine drone for a day or two, I suspect most
sailors would
> > > welcome the peace and quiet of raising sails however.
> >
> > Suspect the trade might be for high pitched flapping sails rather than
> > the low muffled drone of an engine. Sailing can really wear you out.
>
> If you can hear your sail flapping, you probably don't have it set
> right.
>