On 3/17/2014 5:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/17/14, 4:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 4:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:39:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Here we go. Now I just need to find a one acre barge with grass that I
can tow for the horses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfyzrmjaFZ4

===

It looks like New England to Florida is about 4,000 gallons each way.
Let's hope the price of diesel doesn't get too much higher.



I hear you.

I was a little surprised at the fuel burn of the 52' Beneteau.

With two 600hp Cummins diesels it burns 27 GPH at 14 knots and 60 GPH
at 24.7 knots.

The 52' Navigator I had with two, 375 hp Volvo diesels burned 25-26 GPH
at 19 knots. It topped out at about the same (24 knots with a clean
hull) as the Beneteau but I don't remember what the burn rate was.
One of Navigator's claims to fame is a very fuel efficient hull, but
still that's quite a difference in hp.

The Beneteau must be a much heavier boat.


The 52' Beneteau has been replaced by a 50-footer with IPS drives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO9wBpzIkjw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3HFIgkxo-E


Really nice boats that take advantage of modern design developments.


I don't know much about the "Pod" drives. I recall when Volvo made a
big deal about them when they introduced their version but you don't
really hear much about them anymore.

From what I understand, the biggest advantage was being able to move
the engines back further towards the stern, freeing up more cabin space.
There are claims to better fuel economy and easier maneuvering in close
spaces. The negatives are complexity, expensive to repair and, in the
event of hitting something, the risk of tearing a big hole in the bottom
of the boat. That can happen with props and rudders also, but if a
rudder shaft starts leaking it's easier to deal with, I think.

Being a Luddite, I like conventional props and rudders. Once you learn
how to use them, maneuvering isn't a big deal, especially with twins.

On 3/17/14, 6:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 5:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/17/14, 4:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 4:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:39:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Here we go. Now I just need to find a one acre barge with grass
that I
can tow for the horses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfyzrmjaFZ4

===

It looks like New England to Florida is about 4,000 gallons each way.
Let's hope the price of diesel doesn't get too much higher.



I hear you.

I was a little surprised at the fuel burn of the 52' Beneteau.

With two 600hp Cummins diesels it burns 27 GPH at 14 knots and 60 GPH
at 24.7 knots.

The 52' Navigator I had with two, 375 hp Volvo diesels burned 25-26 GPH
at 19 knots. It topped out at about the same (24 knots with a clean
hull) as the Beneteau but I don't remember what the burn rate was.
One of Navigator's claims to fame is a very fuel efficient hull, but
still that's quite a difference in hp.

The Beneteau must be a much heavier boat.


The 52' Beneteau has been replaced by a 50-footer with IPS drives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO9wBpzIkjw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3HFIgkxo-E


Really nice boats that take advantage of modern design developments.


I don't know much about the "Pod" drives. I recall when Volvo made a
big deal about them when they introduced their version but you don't
really hear much about them anymore.

From what I understand, the biggest advantage was being able to move
the engines back further towards the stern, freeing up more cabin space.
There are claims to better fuel economy and easier maneuvering in close
spaces. The negatives are complexity, expensive to repair and, in the
event of hitting something, the risk of tearing a big hole in the bottom
of the boat. That can happen with props and rudders also, but if a
rudder shaft starts leaking it's easier to deal with, I think.

Being a Luddite, I like conventional props and rudders. Once you learn
how to use them, maneuvering isn't a big deal, especially with twins.


I'm not a fan of pod drives for the reasons you mention. One of the
"discovery" type channels had a show on the replacement and repair of
one of the pod drives on a huge commercial ship, and the complexity of
it compared to replacing a conventional shaft or prop was just incredible.

Also, the waters in Chesapeake Bay are very thin even way offshore in
many places. Thin enough so that I found myself in a mud bank more than
once with my smaller outboard boats, and the prop churning up muck, and
I was at least a half mile offshore. Now, an inboard is going to draw
more water and be harder to dislodge, but a pod drive? That's got to be
a serious challenge.

On 3/17/2014 5:07 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:09:03 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:39:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Here we go. Now I just need to find a one acre barge with grass that I
can tow for the horses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfyzrmjaFZ4

===

It looks like New England to Florida is about 4,000 gallons each way.
Let's hope the price of diesel doesn't get too much higher.

It that point you could just charter one of those "executive" 737s and
still save money.



When I took the Navigator from MA to Florida my fuel expense was about
$2,800. (one way) Fuel prices probably averaged about $1.55 per gal
back then.

Figure about a 1600 mile trip, that's about 1,866 gallons burned.
(actually less because I still had fuel upon arrival).

I don't know what diesel goes for at marinas now, but it must be at
least $4.00/gal or more. So, today that trip would cost at least $7,500.

The Navigator was a nice compromise between cruising speed and fuel
economy. It would cruise all day at 17-19 knots which is fast enough to
get you there in a reasonable time and it didn't beat you up in rough
water. The Egg Harbor was much faster but most of the time you
couldn't use it's speed due to sea conditions.

On 3/17/14, 7:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 5:07 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:09:03 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:39:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Here we go. Now I just need to find a one acre barge with grass that I
can tow for the horses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfyzrmjaFZ4

===

It looks like New England to Florida is about 4,000 gallons each way.
Let's hope the price of diesel doesn't get too much higher.

It that point you could just charter one of those "executive" 737s and
still save money.



When I took the Navigator from MA to Florida my fuel expense was about
$2,800. (one way) Fuel prices probably averaged about $1.55 per gal
back then.

Figure about a 1600 mile trip, that's about 1,866 gallons burned.
(actually less because I still had fuel upon arrival).

I don't know what diesel goes for at marinas now, but it must be at
least $4.00/gal or more. So, today that trip would cost at least $7,500.

The Navigator was a nice compromise between cruising speed and fuel
economy. It would cruise all day at 17-19 knots which is fast enough to
get you there in a reasonable time and it didn't beat you up in rough
water. The Egg Harbor was much faster but most of the time you
couldn't use it's speed due to sea conditions.






About $3.65 to $4.04 around here.

Example:


Annapolis Landing Marina

Annapolis, MD
Annapolis Harbor, Back Creek
(410) 263-0090


Diesel Price: $3.679
Comments: Tax included.
Gas Price: $3.779
Tax Rate: -
Discounts: WE'RE OPEN WEDNESDAY THROUGH SUNDAY 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
CLOSED MONDAY AND TUESDAY .10/gallon for CASH or CHECK Check wed site
www.annapolismarina.com for fuel prices Volume discounts-500 gallons or
more .10/gallon
Last Update: Mar 13, 2014

On 3/17/2014 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Those are big, smoked glass windows that are in the master stateroom.
Here's another video where the guy is showing the boat internal areas.
(It starts out looking like the other video, but is different). He gets
to the main stateroom about 2/3rds of the way through the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX3LYpdEkAQ

I personally just don't "get" having a boat like that.
You give up a lot of seaworthiness, ease of maintenance, fuel
consumption and reliability for totally unnecessary "creature comforts."
Fuel consumption is a product of hull design and weight.
But different strokes.
If I had the money to spend I'd design a light trawler capable of 15
mpg. Maybe 6 knots cruising speed. Or a cat.
It can be done. Wouldn't be a nice ride in heavy seas.
So stay away from them.
But "the need for speed" is great among us.





It all depends on what you use your boat for obviously. In the bigger
boats, I like comfort mainly because I like to spend a lot of time on
them, not necessarily always underway.

The 36' Grand Banks we had was a 6-7 knot cruise boat that would go from
MA to Florida on a tank of fuel. For what it's designed for, it was a
great boat and I enjoyed what it had to offer.

The 37' Egg Harbor was designed for getting out to a fishing spot in a
hurry. It was fast, burned a lot of fuel but I found that most of the
time I had to slow down due to sea conditions, otherwise it would almost
go airborne. It was a nice boat but I sold it after only two years.

The Navigator was a nice compromise. Decent fuel economy, 17-19 knot
cruise if you wanted to get somewhere in a reasonable period of time,
soft ride in rough water and enough creature comforts to live on for
weeks at a time.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:21:20 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

If I had the money to spend I'd design a light trawler capable of 15
mpg.

===

There's no such animal. Even small sailboats do not get that kind of
fuel economy under most conditions.

On 3/18/2014 12:55 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:49:28 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:21:20 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

If I had the money to spend I'd design a light trawler capable of 15
mpg.

===

There's no such animal. Even small sailboats do not get that kind of
fuel economy under most conditions.

I get around 8-9 MPG at hull speed in my boat.



7 knots is the typical cruising speed of a 36' Grand Banks trawler with
the single screw, 120 hp Ford Lehman diesel. 7 knots is 8 mph. At that
speed the engine is burning just about 1.5 gallons per hour, so it's
getting just about 5.3 mpg. Granted, that engine is of an old and
antiquated design, but almost tripling that mpg seems a bit ambitious.
Are you going to build the hull and superstructure of the "light"
trawler out of Styrofoam?

On 3/17/14, 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Those are big, smoked glass windows that are in the master stateroom.
Here's another video where the guy is showing the boat internal areas.
(It starts out looking like the other video, but is different). He gets
to the main stateroom about 2/3rds of the way through the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX3LYpdEkAQ

I personally just don't "get" having a boat like that.
You give up a lot of seaworthiness, ease of maintenance, fuel
consumption and reliability for totally unnecessary "creature comforts."
Fuel consumption is a product of hull design and weight.
But different strokes.
If I had the money to spend I'd design a light trawler capable of 15
mpg. Maybe 6 knots cruising speed. Or a cat.
It can be done. Wouldn't be a nice ride in heavy seas.
So stay away from them.
But "the need for speed" is great among us.





I don't know how you would end up with a trawler, light or otherwise,
that would get 15 mpg, but I agree with your points about boats that
seem just too damned large, in terms of running costs, maintenance,
handling, inability to go into shallow waters, et cetera. Different
strokes.

When we lived in Florida and fished in the St. Johns River from time to
time, I used to look in wonder at some of the smaller pleasure trawlers
bucking the outflow current and trying to make progress getting into
Jacksonville. Some of them seemingly made no headway at all against the
current, and a few times I saw a couple of the boats simply anchor until
the tide shifted or the current abated.

On 3/18/2014 6:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/17/14, 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Those are big, smoked glass windows that are in the master stateroom.
Here's another video where the guy is showing the boat internal areas.
(It starts out looking like the other video, but is different). He gets
to the main stateroom about 2/3rds of the way through the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX3LYpdEkAQ

I personally just don't "get" having a boat like that.
You give up a lot of seaworthiness, ease of maintenance, fuel
consumption and reliability for totally unnecessary "creature comforts."
Fuel consumption is a product of hull design and weight.
But different strokes.
If I had the money to spend I'd design a light trawler capable of 15
mpg. Maybe 6 knots cruising speed. Or a cat.
It can be done. Wouldn't be a nice ride in heavy seas.
So stay away from them.
But "the need for speed" is great among us.





I don't know how you would end up with a trawler, light or otherwise,
that would get 15 mpg, but I agree with your points about boats that
seem just too damned large, in terms of running costs, maintenance,
handling, inability to go into shallow waters, et cetera. Different
strokes.

When we lived in Florida and fished in the St. Johns River from time to
time, I used to look in wonder at some of the smaller pleasure trawlers
bucking the outflow current and trying to make progress getting into
Jacksonville. Some of them seemingly made no headway at all against the
current, and a few times I saw a couple of the boats simply anchor until
the tide shifted or the current abated.

Not unusual at all for sailboat people. It's very common for them to
plan their transit in high current areas at "slack" tide.

The Cape Cod Canal develops currents as much as 6 knots during tide
cycles and most sailboaters time their transit to either go *with* the
current or wait until slack tide to transit in the opposite direction.

It's fun to watch even big powerboats make the transit. The speed limit
in the canal is 5 knots and you'll see big boats hull high pushing their
way through against the current.

I made the mistake of taking the Grand Banks through the CCC against the
current. It made it ok but the people jogging or walking on the side of
the canal going in the same direction waved at me as they passed me.
The Grand Banks chugged it's way through though with the throttle at
normal cruise setting or maybe a little more and the GPS reading my
speed at about 2 knots at one point.

The only danger in the canal is a railroad bridge that lowers twice a
day to allow the train to pass. Boats have to wait in the canal while
the bridge is lowered. There have been accidents when an underpowered
boat is going *with* the current, approaching the bridge and suddenly
the horn goes off and the bridge lowers. You have to come about and
hopefully hold your position against the current.

In article , says...

On 3/17/14, 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Those are big, smoked glass windows that are in the master stateroom.
Here's another video where the guy is showing the boat internal areas.
(It starts out looking like the other video, but is different). He gets
to the main stateroom about 2/3rds of the way through the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX3LYpdEkAQ

I personally just don't "get" having a boat like that.
You give up a lot of seaworthiness, ease of maintenance, fuel
consumption and reliability for totally unnecessary "creature comforts."
Fuel consumption is a product of hull design and weight.
But different strokes.
If I had the money to spend I'd design a light trawler capable of 15
mpg. Maybe 6 knots cruising speed. Or a cat.
It can be done. Wouldn't be a nice ride in heavy seas.
So stay away from them.
But "the need for speed" is great among us.





I don't know how you would end up with a trawler, light or otherwise,
that would get 15 mpg, but I agree with your points about boats that
seem just too damned large, in terms of running costs, maintenance,
handling, inability to go into shallow waters, et cetera. Different
strokes.

When we lived in Florida and fished in the St. Johns River from time to
time, I used to look in wonder at some of the smaller pleasure trawlers
bucking the outflow current and trying to make progress getting into
Jacksonville. Some of them seemingly made no headway at all against the
current, and a few times I saw a couple of the boats simply anchor until
the tide shifted or the current abated.

That's why I mentioned "cat". Should have said "tri".
There are "cat-trawlers" and while not the "traditional" trawler, I'm
not very traditional.
Here's a power cat that will get 29 mpg at 5 knots.
19 mpg at 8 knots.
http://www.multihulldesigns.com/desi...ock/38tri.html
You can accept or reject that mpg figure.


But you have the flexibility to to move at 12 knots with the expected
fuel consumption penalty, taking care of most inlet problems slow
trawlers encounter.
But the hull design and weight make it "possible."
It all in the hull design and weight.
There's probably similar designs, but they don't sell.
I can't speak to its handling and "seaworthiness."
You pay for taking your house with you, and some people prefer that.
It's light, and you'll have to keep it light.
You'll have to accept its handling an sea-keeping characteristics.
You'll have to resist pushing the throttle forward.


Range specs:
Range-38? Power Trimaran

Honda 15 hp

Full load, both engines at top speed (5,800rpm).
Fuel consumption is 1.412 gph. per engine
Speed is 12.3 knots.
100 gallons fuel gives 435 nautical miles


Half load, both engines at mid speed (4,000rpm).
Fuel consumption is 0.62 gph. per engine
Speed is 11 knots.
100 gallons fuel gives 887 nautical miles


Half load, one engine at low mid speed (3,000rpm).
Fuel consumption is 0.407 gph. per engine
Speed is 8 knots.
100 gallons fuel gives 1,965 nautical miles


Minimal load, one engine at low speed (2,000rpm).
Fuel consumption is 0.169 gph. per engine
Speed is estimated at 5 knots.
100 gallons fuel gives 2,958 nautical miles