Calif Bill wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:22:13 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:54:37 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
On my Ranger, with my sexy high tech ETEC engine, at 9 knots, I burn
just under 2 gph.

Curious huh?
Yes. Touchdown for diesel power!

Similar amount of fuel used, moving a much heavier boat with much less
horsepower.

Case closed.
Well, not really.

I can't see your GB going 50 mph on the way to the fishing grounds.

Case reopened. :)

I wonder what the burn rate would be at the high end of the RPM range
for, say, 45 mph on a go fast diesel powered boat.

Bet 'cha it's about the same.

Then again, how would I prove it. :)
I don't know. The Egg Harbor, at about 30 kts, burned about 40 gallons
per
hour (combined, twin 420hp Cats).
But .... going back to the GB ..... you have to consider the weight that
the little 120 hp diesel is moving.
Absoutely - diesels are much more efficient than gas engines.

For me, I'd sacrifice the extra weight penalty if I could get 200 hp
outboard diesels - in a heart beat.

May not need that much HP with a diesel. Just a stronger overdrive gearbox.
As to efficiency, I think they are getting about 7 gallon an hour burn rate
on some of the 24' diesel jet boats. So probably in the 4 mpg range.
Here's one build for Florida delivery.
http://www.precisionweldboats.com/bo...ll18Thomas.htm
Would be good also in the shallows of Chesapeake Bay.




You'd get the crap pounded out of you in that hull. Not enough vee. And
most of the "fishable" Bay isn't shallow enough to require that sort of
boat. Now, up on the Susquehanna Flats, the water gets thin, but just
about everyone runs mod vees up there, and flat bottom boats, too.