Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

I now have four new thru-hulls in ECHO, my Ericson
46. Fortunately three are above the waterline!

http://support.pacificseacraft.com/Ericson/E46.pdf

My new Yanmar engine is completely installed, but
not yet tested or run in.

I now have two high volume bilge pumps, one above
the other, on brackets that I can pull up to service.
Formerly, I could not service my electric bilge pump
without removing the engine.

My old electric pump was T'd into a cockpit drain
--not the best set up. Each of the new pumps has
its own through hull with a substantial anti-siphon
loop, run with smooth hose for low friction.

I have a new larger raw water inlet to service the new
engine, and a much larger exhaust with two anti-siphon
loops and a flapper valve thru-hull. That is like wearing
a belt, suspenders, and tie wraps to hold your pants up.
That is confidence in a rough following sea.

The flapper valve was not planned but it was the only
through-hull available for that size exhaust hose.

I have a new SS strut, new cutlass bearing, new 20" Flexifold
prop, new SS shaft, dripless packing gland, a gorgeous new
engine bed made out of solid glass that adds to the structure
of the hull. It is holding a spotless new Yanmar 75 HP engine.
This is hooked up to a newly mounted engine panel that is
protected by a waterproof hatch at an easy to observe location
adjacent to the binacle. I have a second set of guages I plan
to hook up at the companionway adjacent to the engine.

I will have to cut part of my ignition key handle off if I want
to close the hatch covering the gauges in the cockpit--I can live
with that. I have some sort of engine alarm I need to mount that
--I'm thinking about using the hole for the old engine shut off--the
new engine has an electric fuel cutoff--very nice--no more
sticking plunger engine shut-offs. The throttle and transmission
cables are both new heavy duty cable.

Everything in the auxiliary propulsion system has been replaced
except the fuel tanks--that will happen in the next few months.
I'm replacing my two old 50 gallon tanks with new ones and
perhaps adding a third. I'll decide about that after I make the
bulkhead forward of the rudderpost into a watertight to a level
above the waterline. That is going to be difficult and means
hanging upside down to tab that in. And it means two more
bilge pumps.

Also removed were two not used for many years, capped fuel
tanks--the originals. These made space for a huge muffler
about five times bigger than the old one. And gave room for the
many runs of bilge pump hose.

I still have to figure out how I'm going to run 4" air hose for
engine space ventilation, and exactly how I'll configure the
sound insulation for the engine space. I'm debating ripping the
salon apart and reconfiguring the middle of the boat.

I still have a little work on my manual bilge pump. ECHO
originally had the manual pump near the helm and it was
later moved next to the shore power--bad idea. I plan to
move it back where it was before, using a better hand pump
with a removable handle. Everyone knows why it is better
to pump your bilge by hand when sailing on the ocean--right?

All this sounds like overkill I'm sure. But consider this,
a 46' sloop with a 3/4 keel and a "too-small" rudder, is not
an easy thing to dock under sail--I've done it in light winds
and would not want to do it in adverse conditions. ECHO
is a good performing boat, but I'll admit it is a dog in a
combination of light winds and big waves. A motor is not just
a nice thing to have in a boat this size--it is a necessity. If I
ever find myself short handed and want to get somewhere on
a schedule, it will be very nice to have a reliable motor.

I'm guessing fuel consumption will be on the order of 1.2
gallons @ 6 knots. It will be interesting to see what the
fuel economy will be at hull speed ~ 8.5 knots. That would
give me a range under power of 500 miles or so. The
actually tank volume is more like 115 gallons. I left out
a 15 gallon reserve. That would be more like 575 nm.

I don't plan to motor that much when I cruise with ECHO,
however, I do want be pelagic--free floating, independent
of the outside world for as long as possible. 150 gallons
of fuel would give me 52,500 Amp-Hours of power generating
capacity if I buy one of those WhisperGen's. That 144 AH
per day for a year running it two hours a day.

The engine is predicted to need 65 HP to make hull speed.
I have 10 extra HP. So I have a bit extra to handle any
accessories I might want to add onto the engine. The
prop has 5" of clearance to the hull so I can change to a
bigger wheel (prop) if the size and pitch do not seem ideal.

Ok, so I have four more thru-hulls? Is that bad? I have a couple
I'm considering removing, and plans for a few others that are
not being used now.

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

The engine is predicted to need 65 HP to make hull speed.
I have 10 extra HP.



Bart, I'm no expert on engines, but that seems underpowered. I thought
hull speed should occur within 60-70% of rated horsepower in calm
conditions. For example....and my math is admittedly fuzzy here....the
35s5 makes hull speed with 16.6 HP on her 28 HP Volvo diesel. With your
vessel's weight and wetted surface ratio, 10 extra HP seems way to low.
A 46 foot J Boat carries a 76 HP engine, but doesn't it weigh a lot
less than your boat? I thought I saw an Ercison 46 for sale some years
back and it had more like 105 HP.


RB
35s5
NY

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Capt. Rob wrote:
The engine is predicted to need 65 HP to make hull speed.
I have 10 extra HP.

Bart, I'm no expert on engines, but that seems underpowered.

No, it seems just about right, unless the priority is to go at hull
speed regardless of the conditions or fuel cost.

I thought
hull speed should occur within 60-70% of rated horsepower in calm
conditions.

No. First of all, you don't really want to go a hull speed at all on
most displacement sailboats because fuel usage will go up dramatically
for the last 10% of speed.

And while you don't don't to run a light diesel at 100% for long
periods, 80-85% should work fine. At 60% you might start to worry
that you're running too slow.

For example....and my math is admittedly fuzzy here....the
35s5 makes hull speed with 16.6 HP on her 28 HP Volvo diesel.

The "rule of thumb" is that 1 HP per 500 pounds displacement gets you
just shy of hull speed (S/L ratio of about 1.3). So you would need
about 23 HP, Bart about 63.

With your
vessel's weight and wetted surface ratio, 10 extra HP seems way to low.
A 46 foot J Boat carries a 76 HP engine, but doesn't it weigh a lot
less than your boat?

The J46 is about 6000 lbs lighter, so by my reckoning it could use a
little less power. However, if you look at the Yanmar lineup, there
is nothing at 64 hp; the next size down could certainly be viewed as
too small. Also, the hull speed for the J is probably higher, both
because of a longer waterline and because the achievable S/L ratio is
probably somewhat higher than 1.34.

I thought I saw an Ercison 46 for sale some years
back and it had more like 105 HP.

It could be an old gas engine - I'm not sure how they actually get
rated but I don't think they are generally run at 80% for extended
periods. Certainly tons of 30 footers were overpowered with Atomic
4's. Also, lots of boats get re-powered with whatever happens to be
sitting in someone's warehouse.

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Damn..sounds like you've been busy.
If you put the thru hulls in properly it should not be an issue.

Joe


Bart wrote:
I now have four new thru-hulls in ECHO, my Ericson
46. Fortunately three are above the waterline!

http://support.pacificseacraft.com/Ericson/E46.pdf

My new Yanmar engine is completely installed, but
not yet tested or run in.

I now have two high volume bilge pumps, one above
the other, on brackets that I can pull up to service.
Formerly, I could not service my electric bilge pump
without removing the engine.

My old electric pump was T'd into a cockpit drain
--not the best set up. Each of the new pumps has
its own through hull with a substantial anti-siphon
loop, run with smooth hose for low friction.

I have a new larger raw water inlet to service the new
engine, and a much larger exhaust with two anti-siphon
loops and a flapper valve thru-hull. That is like wearing
a belt, suspenders, and tie wraps to hold your pants up.
That is confidence in a rough following sea.

The flapper valve was not planned but it was the only
through-hull available for that size exhaust hose.

I have a new SS strut, new cutlass bearing, new 20" Flexifold
prop, new SS shaft, dripless packing gland, a gorgeous new
engine bed made out of solid glass that adds to the structure
of the hull. It is holding a spotless new Yanmar 75 HP engine.
This is hooked up to a newly mounted engine panel that is
protected by a waterproof hatch at an easy to observe location
adjacent to the binacle. I have a second set of guages I plan
to hook up at the companionway adjacent to the engine.

I will have to cut part of my ignition key handle off if I want
to close the hatch covering the gauges in the cockpit--I can live
with that. I have some sort of engine alarm I need to mount that
--I'm thinking about using the hole for the old engine shut off--the
new engine has an electric fuel cutoff--very nice--no more
sticking plunger engine shut-offs. The throttle and transmission
cables are both new heavy duty cable.

Everything in the auxiliary propulsion system has been replaced
except the fuel tanks--that will happen in the next few months.
I'm replacing my two old 50 gallon tanks with new ones and
perhaps adding a third. I'll decide about that after I make the
bulkhead forward of the rudderpost into a watertight to a level
above the waterline. That is going to be difficult and means
hanging upside down to tab that in. And it means two more
bilge pumps.

Also removed were two not used for many years, capped fuel
tanks--the originals. These made space for a huge muffler
about five times bigger than the old one. And gave room for the
many runs of bilge pump hose.

I still have to figure out how I'm going to run 4" air hose for
engine space ventilation, and exactly how I'll configure the
sound insulation for the engine space. I'm debating ripping the
salon apart and reconfiguring the middle of the boat.

I still have a little work on my manual bilge pump. ECHO
originally had the manual pump near the helm and it was
later moved next to the shore power--bad idea. I plan to
move it back where it was before, using a better hand pump
with a removable handle. Everyone knows why it is better
to pump your bilge by hand when sailing on the ocean--right?

All this sounds like overkill I'm sure. But consider this,
a 46' sloop with a 3/4 keel and a "too-small" rudder, is not
an easy thing to dock under sail--I've done it in light winds
and would not want to do it in adverse conditions. ECHO
is a good performing boat, but I'll admit it is a dog in a
combination of light winds and big waves. A motor is not just
a nice thing to have in a boat this size--it is a necessity. If I
ever find myself short handed and want to get somewhere on
a schedule, it will be very nice to have a reliable motor.

I'm guessing fuel consumption will be on the order of 1.2
gallons @ 6 knots. It will be interesting to see what the
fuel economy will be at hull speed ~ 8.5 knots. That would
give me a range under power of 500 miles or so. The
actually tank volume is more like 115 gallons. I left out
a 15 gallon reserve. That would be more like 575 nm.

I don't plan to motor that much when I cruise with ECHO,
however, I do want be pelagic--free floating, independent
of the outside world for as long as possible. 150 gallons
of fuel would give me 52,500 Amp-Hours of power generating
capacity if I buy one of those WhisperGen's. That 144 AH
per day for a year running it two hours a day.

The engine is predicted to need 65 HP to make hull speed.
I have 10 extra HP. So I have a bit extra to handle any
accessories I might want to add onto the engine. The
prop has 5" of clearance to the hull so I can change to a
bigger wheel (prop) if the size and pitch do not seem ideal.

Ok, so I have four more thru-hulls? Is that bad? I have a couple
I'm considering removing, and plans for a few others that are
not being used now.

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Joe wrote:
Damn..sounds like you've been busy.
If you put the thru hulls in properly it should not be an issue.

Joe

This boat has too many thru-hulls anyway. But I can
work on reducing those later.

Right now I'm thinking about removing the rusted steel
mast step, and building a new one out of fiberglass. It is
rusting and flaking off in big pieces and I can't seem
to get at it from all sides unless I rip out the cabin sole.
So refurbishing them seems like a perpetural problem and
requires drastic action taken--ripping out the cabin sole
to get access to pull the water tanks.

I'm thinking it will be better to make a mast step out of glass,
and likewise the frames for the floors. The other option
is to make a mast step out of aluminum and weld it to
my existing Aluminum ring frames. That might work out
well, as long as I can keep that area dry--unlikely.

My keel is encapsulated, but there seem to be some
J-bolts, according to the sketches I've seen of the boat.
However, I can see no sign of these. They must be
potted into the bilge with epoxy filler. I can get some
keel bolts and backing in if it looks like a good idea.

One weird thing is the steel is attached to the aluminum
frames. I can't tell exactly how. I feel uncomfortable with
that. In any case, either steel or aluminum will corrode in
a bilge. I think fiberglass is the best option and it would be
the easiest one for me to do myself. My idea is to buy
some solid fibgerglass sheets and build it into a T-shape
on one side and tab it into the hull witha fillet and about
10 layers of tabbing. Perhaps I'll use some carbon
strapping like Doug used on his dinghy to secure the
area around the bolts I'll use to tie into the ring frames.

The top of the T is what I'll use to attach a teak and holly
sole for the floors, and if I'm clever about it, I can design
these with removeable sections for access to the bilge
and water tanks.

This work never seems to end, but I feel like I'm on the
home stretch.

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Capt. Rob wrote:
The engine is predicted to need 65 HP to make hull speed.
I have 10 extra HP.

Bart, I'm no expert on engines, but that seems underpowered. I thought
hull speed should occur within 60-70% of rated horsepower in calm
conditions. For example....and my math is admittedly fuzzy here....the
35s5 makes hull speed with 16.6 HP on her 28 HP Volvo diesel. With your
vessel's weight and wetted surface ratio, 10 extra HP seems way to low.

Jeff has it right in his post. The number is around 65 HP.
He is probably more accurate as I was going by rough
numbers with his number of 64. I believe I used it method
and just rounded it off when picking an engine. There is
not perfectly accurate method. 1-2 HP either was in ot a
big deal. One thing you do not want to do is pick too
small an engine.

YOur boat has an extra 11 HP to play around with. That
is good for you as you can add a HD Alterntaor or other
accessory and still drive your boat to hull speed.

The other thing is the prop. It should be designed for the
type and weight of boat at the engines max rpm. I relied
on Chuck at Flexifold for this information. He was a big
help.


A 46 foot J Boat carries a 76 HP engine, but doesn't it weigh a lot
less than your boat? I thought I saw an Ercison 46 for sale some years
back and it had more like 105 HP.

Most boats in this size range us the Yanmar 75 HP engine.
The trend in recent years is to up the size of the engine
slightly over the sized used 20-30 years ago.

The J-44 I've seen has a 55 HP engine. That is a lot lighter.
I would have prefered a naturally aspirated engine lilke that as
I feel they are a bit more reliable. The J-46 is about 24400 lbs
--heavier than a J-44 at 20500 lbs, but not as heavy as my
31,500 lbs.

I can only guess that the J-46 has many engine driven
extras like a water maker, I read it has a "hard to turn" 140 Amp
HD alternators, and perhaps engine driven refridgeration. All of
which require substantial HP to service. It probably carries more
water and fuel and being a cruiser is likely to be loaded still
heavier which would bring it's weight up closer to mine.

My boat is a beastie weight wise--that is both good and bad. The
J-46 with the same engine, is surely propped differently and I'm
sure it will be more economical to motor. Weight is the single
biggest factor in fuel economy for diesel powered vessels. If my
wieght starts to climb, I'll be glad to have a bit more HP and the
option to change my prop size and pitch.

I can't imagine an Ericson 46 having a 105 HP engine unless it
was added by an owner who didn't have the sense to calc out the
correct size. I could have easily put a 110 HP more in ECHO--the
footprint is the same, the cost is very close, but the extra HP
would be consuming fuel I didn't need. More power is only
good on planing hulls like powerboats.

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Jeff wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
The engine is predicted to need 65 HP to make hull speed.
I have 10 extra HP.

Bart, I'm no expert on engines, but that seems underpowered.

No, it seems just about right, unless the priority is to go at hull
speed regardless of the conditions or fuel cost.

I thought
hull speed should occur within 60-70% of rated horsepower in calm
conditions.

No. First of all, you don't really want to go a hull speed at all on
most displacement sailboats because fuel usage will go up dramatically
for the last 10% of speed.

And while you don't don't to run a light diesel at 100% for long
periods, 80-85% should work fine. At 60% you might start to worry
that you're running too slow.

The "rule of thumb" is that 1 HP per 500 pounds displacement gets you
just shy of hull speed (S/L ratio of about 1.3). So you would need
about 23 HP, Bart about 63.

With your
vessel's weight and wetted surface ratio, 10 extra HP seems way to low.
A 46 foot J Boat carries a 76 HP engine, but doesn't it weigh a lot
less than your boat?

The J46 is about 6000 lbs lighter, so by my reckoning it could use a
little less power. However, if you look at the Yanmar lineup, there
is nothing at 64 hp; the next size down could certainly be viewed as
too small. Also, the hull speed for the J is probably higher, both
because of a longer waterline and because the achievable S/L ratio is
probably somewhat higher than 1.34.

I like your logic Jeff. My opinion also. The danger of going too
small
is not a happy one, while going too big is not a terrible penalty.

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Jeff what do you think of the 29 HP sail drive units
that Yanmar makes. It that not a sweet setup for
a Catamaran. Or the bigger saildrives for larger
cats?

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Bart wrote:
Jeff what do you think of the 29 HP sail drive units
that Yanmar makes. It that not a sweet setup for
a Catamaran. Or the bigger saildrives for larger
cats?

I have twin 2GM20F's (18 hp) with saildrives. I've been nervous about
corrosion so I change zincs religiously, even hauling in FL to do a
quick change. I also have a galvanic isolator, and keep an eye on the
outlets at the marina, though I'm not really sure what to look for
other than polarity issues. So far, no sign of a problem, but I've
heard of disasters, especially in southern climates with warmer water.
Also, I suspect that long seasons and cheap marinas are a problem.

PDQ no longer makes a boat with saildrives, and they swear, "never
again." I guess it doesn't take too many problems to make them
skittish. I've always wondered if I went the right way with diesels -
it was probably the right thing at the time, but if I had to do it
over, I'd go with twin 9.9 outboards and a serious genset, maybe a
WhisperGen.

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Bart wrote:
....

I like your logic Jeff. My opinion also. The danger of going too
small
is not a happy one, while going too big is not a terrible penalty.

One thing I forgot to mention is that the number presumes a reasonable
prop - one that's about 55% efficient. If you use a 2 blade folder,
you might think you're underpowered. Mine work OK, but given my light
weight (10K lbs) and slippery hulls (11:1 length to beam) I really
expected to be able to power over 10 knots, but 8.5 is the practical
limit.

Also, while I think you have enough juice for your needs, I don't
think you will be overpowered. If you were using it as a motorsailer,
and expecting to exceed hull speed even when fighting a headwind,
you'd want 100 hp or more. And you'd probably be swinging a 4 blade
prop, although you can make a good case for a big variable pitch prop
on a motorsailer.

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

"Bart" wrote in message
oups.com..
..

This work never seems to end, but I feel like I'm on the
home stretch.


Do you have a target date for launching?

SBV

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Interesting thread. Thanks.



RB
35s5
NY

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Bart wrote:
I like your logic Jeff. My opinion also. The danger of going too
small
is not a happy one, while going too big is not a terrible penalty.

Well, it costs more money, plus loss of space in the boat &
added weight. It's a case of "more is better" (up to a degree).


Jeff wrote:
One thing I forgot to mention is that the number presumes a reasonable
prop - one that's about 55% efficient. If you use a 2 blade folder, you
might think you're underpowered.

Yes but with a too-small or ineffective prop, more
horsepower isn't going to do much good, it's only going to
make bubbles & waste fuel.


.... Mine work OK, but given my light
weight (10K lbs) and slippery hulls (11:1 length to beam) I really
expected to be able to power over 10 knots, but 8.5 is the practical limit.


Wouldn't have expected that... is that full RPMs? Do you
think it's the props?


Also, while I think you have enough juice for your needs, I don't think
you will be overpowered. If you were using it as a motorsailer, and
expecting to exceed hull speed even when fighting a headwind, you'd want
100 hp or more. And you'd probably be swinging a 4 blade prop, although
you can make a good case for a big variable pitch prop on a motorsailer.

Yes, that would be the way to go. As for horsepower, we have
become lazy & spoiled... most boats could do quite well with
far less than the owner think acceptable... and I mean
sailboats, not the obscenely overpowered motor boats (for
example, my own motorboat is overpowered by about 30%, which
I would not call obscene but it's got one of the smallest
engines I've ever heard of in a boat of it's type & size).

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

DSK wrote:
Yes, that would be the way to go. As for horsepower, we have
become lazy & spoiled... most boats could do quite well with
far less than the owner think acceptable... and I mean
sailboats, not the obscenely overpowered motor boats (for
example, my own motorboat is overpowered by about 30%, which
I would not call obscene but it's got one of the smallest
engines I've ever heard of in a boat of it's type & size).

I don't know Doug. I think I'd call that obscene.

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

.... my own motorboat is overpowered by about 30%, which
I would not call obscene but it's got one of the smallest
engines I've ever heard of in a boat of it's type & size).



Bart wrote:
I don't know Doug. I think I'd call that obscene.


Well what about the same hull & same disp with twin 400s? Or
those 16' sliver shaped bass boats with twin 225 outboards?

I know of two sisterships of ours, one has the same engine &
the owner grips that he wants twins & more power, the other
has a 165 Perkins and the owner thinks the boat has "about"
the right amount of power. I think it would do just fine
with 90hp.

A fellow I used to work with tried to earnestly convince me
that his 17' runabout absolutely needed more than 150 HP in
order to "plane properly." Oh well.

DSK

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

I think you should take it out and put in a steam engine.

DSK wrote:
.... my own motorboat is overpowered by about 30%, which
I would not call obscene but it's got one of the smallest
engines I've ever heard of in a boat of it's type & size).



Bart wrote:
I don't know Doug. I think I'd call that obscene.


Well what about the same hull & same disp with twin 400s? Or
those 16' sliver shaped bass boats with twin 225 outboards?

I know of two sisterships of ours, one has the same engine &
the owner grips that he wants twins & more power, the other
has a 165 Perkins and the owner thinks the boat has "about"
the right amount of power. I think it would do just fine
with 90hp.

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Bart wrote:
I think you should take it out and put in a steam engine.

DSK wrote:
.... my own motorboat is overpowered by about 30%, which
I would not call obscene but it's got one of the smallest
engines I've ever heard of in a boat of it's type & size).

Bart wrote:
I don't know Doug. I think I'd call that obscene.

Well what about the same hull & same disp with twin 400s? Or
those 16' sliver shaped bass boats with twin 225 outboards?

I know of two sisterships of ours, one has the same engine &
the owner grips that he wants twins & more power, the other
has a 165 Perkins and the owner thinks the boat has "about"
the right amount of power. I think it would do just fine
with 90hp.

There's not enough room in his engine room...and he would have to put a
paddle wheel on back and then he wouldn't fit in his slip....

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

Bart wrote:
I think you should take it out and put in a steam engine.


That would suit me just fine. I am comfortable with
technology on the level of shoveling coal.

DSK

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

According to GPS I clocked ECHO powering at
8 knots+ @ 2500 rpm! It showed 9.4 knots!
At one point--which I do not believe [GPS's
can show erratic speeds at times]. However at
that rpm it never dropped below 8.0 knots and was
typically around 8.3 - 8.4 knots or more. At the time
I was in the channel going against a very slight flood
which I estimated at 0.0 knots to be conservative.
Yanmar specs say this is a burn rate of 2 gal/hr
for this rpm.

Later at against a stronger adverse current in the Sound,
the GPS showed a steady 6.3 to 6.4 knots. I'm guessing
my speed to be ~ 7 knots @ 2000 rpm. I'll have to do some
calculations to better estimate the current drift. Yanmar
specs stated a burn rate of only .96 gal/hr at that rpm. If
true then my expectations have been greatly exceeded. I
thought I would have to throttle back for fuel economy. Well
I can do that and still go fairly fast.

Hull speed was about 3300 rpm although I would have to test
more to be more accurate. It was throwing a pretty big double
wake at this rpm. The extra rpm does not seem to give me
much more speed for the extra throttle. Max rpm for the engine
is 3800 rpm and max long term cruise is 3500 or 3600 rpm.
I won't need to go that high unless perhaps I'm towing. I'm guessing
my speed was around 8.5 knots at 3300 rpm.

The engine was louder, and fuel consumption much higher I'm sure
for only a small gain in speed. On the plus side, I felt like I had
plenty of power in reserve. I will be able to motor along at lower rpm

and conserve fuel while making good speed.


Everyone aboard was impressed with the engine. I had doubts
about the motor making this much power at such a low rpm.
The large diameter, super efficient Flexofold prop seems to be
the key. The smart choice is to pick the best prop for motoring
in forward and reverse. Unlike feathering props the Flexofold has
a very efficient shape for motoring--both forward and reverse. The
folding feature gives it low drag under sail--of course anything is
an improvement over a fixed three-blade prop. I'm happy with the
choice. I could not have picked a better prop.

http://www.flexofold.com

This has been a great day. On par with the day I finished
painting ECHO a few years ago. Next up are new fuel tanks
and a larger rudder.

Yanmar recommends running in the engine at high rpms during the
break in period. So I was motoring faster than I would have normally
heading out of the marina.

On the humorous side, my transmission controls have been
reversed from the original shifter directions--up for forward/down
for reverse.

Leaving at nearly dead low, I managed to run agound on a sand
bar not listed on the chart. Which would have been no big deal,
except my transmission controls were reversed. After shifting to
neutral, I attempting to motor off. However, I shifted it back into
forward by mistake, and made the situation worse. In time I'm
sure I'll get used to the reversed controls. The combination
of running a little faster than normal and mixing up forward and
reverse combined to get me stuck pretty well.

Believe it or not I actually winched myself off using my
organ grinder! Frankly, I am flabbergasted that it worked!
I ground in the winch on high gear as far as it would go and
then switched to low gear and pulled myself off. The
anchor was set so well I had a harder time recovering it
than I did pulling myself off! In the past I'd thought about
removing the organ grinder, but it has come in so handy,
so many times. I can lead a line to it from any place on
the boat. No matter how high a load a sail or line puts on
it, a child could winch it in.

Lessons Learned: Never to work to someone elses
schedule. My crew was in a hurry to go home. I tried to
accomodate him. It was a mistake. I should have stayed
at the dock and found someone else.

Looking back on several situations in the past eight years where
I later regreted being in a hurry; in each case I was trying to
accomodate crew's schedules or trying to stick to my own plan,
and this got me into trouble. Sometimes plans need to be
changed!

Now that I have a reliable and efficient power plant, and a
comfortable boat, I can do it all myself. Additionally, I am going
to make a point to tell people that I am never on "a schedule".
Schedules cause problems. Breaking a schedule makes many
problems disappear.

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

"Bart" wrote
|I now have four new thru-hulls in ECHO, my Ericson
| 46. Fortunately three are above the waterline!
| My new Yanmar engine is completely installed, but
| not yet tested or run in.
| I now have two high volume bilge pumps, one above
| the other, on brackets that I can pull up to service.
| Formerly, I could not service my electric bilge pump
| without removing the engine.
| My old electric pump was T'd into a cockpit drain
| --not the best set up. Each of the new pumps has
| its own through hull with a substantial anti-siphon
| loop, run with smooth hose for low friction.
| I have a new larger raw water inlet to service the new
| engine, and a much larger exhaust with two anti-siphon
| loops and a flapper valve thru-hull. That is like wearing
| a belt, suspenders, and tie wraps to hold your pants up.
| That is confidence in a rough following sea.
| The flapper valve was not planned but it was the only
| through-hull available for that size exhaust hose.
| I have a new SS strut, new cutlass bearing, new 20" Flexifold
| prop, new SS shaft, dripless packing gland, a gorgeous new
| engine bed made out of solid glass that adds to the structure
| of the hull. It is holding a spotless new Yanmar 75 HP engine.
| This is hooked up to a newly mounted engine panel that is
| protected by a waterproof hatch at an easy to observe location
| adjacent to the binacle. I have a second set of guages I plan
| to hook up at the companionway adjacent to the engine.
| I will have to cut part of my ignition key handle off if I want
| to close the hatch covering the gauges in the cockpit--I can live
| with that. I have some sort of engine alarm I need to mount that
| --I'm thinking about using the hole for the old engine shut off--the
| new engine has an electric fuel cutoff--very nice--no more
| sticking plunger engine shut-offs. The throttle and transmission
| cables are both new heavy duty cable.
| Everything in the auxiliary propulsion system has been replaced
| except the fuel tanks--that will happen in the next few months.
| I'm replacing my two old 50 gallon tanks with new ones and
| perhaps adding a third. I'll decide about that after I make the
| bulkhead forward of the rudderpost into a watertight to a level
| above the waterline. That is going to be difficult and means
| hanging upside down to tab that in. And it means two more
| bilge pumps.
| Also removed were two not used for many years, capped fuel
| tanks--the originals. These made space for a huge muffler
| about five times bigger than the old one. And gave room for the
| many runs of bilge pump hose.
| I still have to figure out how I'm going to run 4" air hose for
| engine space ventilation, and exactly how I'll configure the
| sound insulation for the engine space. I'm debating ripping the
| salon apart and reconfiguring the middle of the boat.
| I still have a little work on my manual bilge pump. ECHO
| originally had the manual pump near the helm and it was
| later moved next to the shore power--bad idea. I plan to
| move it back where it was before, using a better hand pump
| with a removable handle. Everyone knows why it is better
| to pump your bilge by hand when sailing on the ocean--right?
| All this sounds like overkill I'm sure. But consider this,
| a 46' sloop with a 3/4 keel and a "too-small" rudder, is not
| an easy thing to dock under sail--I've done it in light winds
| and would not want to do it in adverse conditions. ECHO
| is a good performing boat, but I'll admit it is a dog in a
| combination of light winds and big waves. A motor is not just
| a nice thing to have in a boat this size--it is a necessity. If I
| ever find myself short handed and want to get somewhere on
| a schedule, it will be very nice to have a reliable motor.


Ever go sailing? Ever think of getting a sailboat instead of a hull full
of stuff that has nothing to do with sailing and takes all your time away
from sailing? Lord a Goshen!

Cheers,
Ellen

Four new thru-hulls = one happy man !
 

I was out twice today. Quite a bit over powered
this afternoon. I'm going out tomorrow.

You? I didn't think so ...

I can prove I was out. The fixed mark/light R-14 is down
in the entrance to Norwalk Harbor. The tower and the
light on it are both gone--nothing there but a red fender
to mark the spot. Check in next weeks Notice to Mariners.
You won't find it in this weeks notice.


Ellen MacArthur wrote:

Ever go sailing? Ever think of getting a sailboat instead of a hull full
of stuff that has nothing to do with sailing and takes all your time away
from sailing? Lord a Goshen!