BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Secular Humoresque[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On 10/22/10 10:50 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:08:02 -0400,
wrote:

A skilled seaman like Wayne might take advantage of long range cruising capabilities to actually go places.

It is really difficult to say whether or not the alleged new boat has
long range or not, but my guess would be not. Running on plane a
boat of that type will burn upwards of 20 gallons per hour. Running
off plane it will roll your eyeballs out of their sockets in anything
but a flat calm. Been there done that. True long range trawlers
almost always have some sort of stabilization system to prevent
rolling at low speed, and that would be unheard of on a 37 ft boat.
We met several people on our Caribbean cruise with unstabilized 50
footers and they were all having problems - fuel consumption was way
too high running on plane, and the rolling was intolerable when they
slowed down. A 37 footer would be a nice little boat for cruising
around the Chesapeake however as long as the weather was half way
decent.

And thus, a perfect example of why I won't be posting many real details
about the new boat.

My wife and I have no interest in "long range cruising" on a small boat,
even a larger small boat like W'hine's. If we want to do some "long
range cruising," we'll book passage on the Queen Mary II. What we bought
suits us, as it were.

At eight knots, according to the boat manufacturer and engine
distributor, the boat will burn between 3.5 and four gallons of diesel
an hour. I did no fuel burn testing yesterday.

We ran "off plane" for nearly two hours, in 2-3 footers, into them, with
them and broadside. We were both on the flying bridge and we both
commented there was a lot less roll than we expected. The roll wouldn't
have been noticeable inside the cabin.

snerk