On 25 Jun 2008 09:21:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:56:11 -0400, Wayne.B
said:

That's an oxymoron. There are *no* well-found blue water sailboats
with outboard engines.

Neal has a well-known propensity for trying to make a virtue of necessity.

I guess. It is certainly interesting in a weird sort of way watching
him talk to himself in these contrived discussions. Knowing better of
course, I could still not let the "blue water outboard" pass without
comment.

Having a nice little 4 stroke Honda of my own for the dinghy, and a
couple of 6 gallon tanks, I know something of the fuel range of such
animals. Figure about 1 gph if you are lucky, at maybe 6 knots on a
small light sailboat, times 12 gallons for typical tankage, I get a
fuel range of 72 miles. Just the ticket for a nice blue water
crossing to Bermuda, the Exuma Out Islands, the BVI, etc. Let's hope
for favorable winds and lots of time for the crossings.

What nonsense.

Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising
sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on
deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course.

"Wayne.B" wrote

Knowing better of course, I could still not let the "blue water outboard"
pass without comment.


Nor should the idea of a "blue water" Coronado 27 pass without comment,
welcome though the unintended humor may be in these unnerving times.

People have certainly made blue water voyages, even circumnavigations, in
less but my E 32 is twice the boat and I would not consider her a "blue
water cruiser", despite windvane and extended tankage. That doesn't mean I
wouldn't undertake a passage to Bermuda or a transatlantic in the safest
part of the year but I wouldn't push my luck by making a habit of it.

A "blue water" cruiser is one designed, built, and outfitted primarily for
passages and long cruises. More importantly, it is one that actually does
these things.

--
Roger Long

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:26:50 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote

Knowing better of course, I could still not let the "blue water outboard"
pass without comment.


Nor should the idea of a "blue water" Coronado 27 pass without comment,
welcome though the unintended humor may be in these unnerving times.

People have certainly made blue water voyages, even circumnavigations, in
less but my E 32 is twice the boat and I would not consider her a "blue
water cruiser", despite windvane and extended tankage. That doesn't mean I
wouldn't undertake a passage to Bermuda or a transatlantic in the safest
part of the year but I wouldn't push my luck by making a habit of it.

A "blue water" cruiser is one designed, built, and outfitted primarily for
passages and long cruises. More importantly, it is one that actually does
these things.

Roger,
That definition of a "Blue water Cruiser" is dependent upon an
individual's viewpoint. I have met many boats that would not meet your
criteria including several barebones Wharram cats that I would
consider grossly inadequate for my own needs. However, to their long
time owners and crusiers they are considered ideal for crossing
oceans. Quite a lot of what are advertised in boating magazines as
"blue water cruisers" are not, regardless of their size and how many
people have bought them to go "blue water cruising" Jenneaus, Oceans
and Benetaus are only a few of them. They are certainly not made for
out of sight of land crusing though doubtless some are taken there.

Each owner has a different set of criteria. Your friend Wilbur for
example, extols the virtues of a simple wooden bucket. The texbooks
say that twin or bilge keel boats are not good cruisers. The cruiser
who has one would extol the virtues of shallow draft and being able to
anchor close in and dry out level.

Provided the vessel is sound and seaworthy and the sailor has
knowledge of his boat and its behaviour in all sea conditions, the
main component of a "blue water cruiser" is the sailor him/herself.

Neither Bligh nor Shackleton captained the ideal "blue water cruiser'
though I dare say they would have prefered one such.

Peter

"Herodotus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:26:50 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote

Knowing better of course, I could still not let the "blue water
outboard"
pass without comment.


Nor should the idea of a "blue water" Coronado 27 pass without comment,
welcome though the unintended humor may be in these unnerving times.

People have certainly made blue water voyages, even circumnavigations, in
less but my E 32 is twice the boat and I would not consider her a "blue
water cruiser", despite windvane and extended tankage. That doesn't mean
I
wouldn't undertake a passage to Bermuda or a transatlantic in the safest
part of the year but I wouldn't push my luck by making a habit of it.

A "blue water" cruiser is one designed, built, and outfitted primarily for
passages and long cruises. More importantly, it is one that actually does
these things.

Roger,
That definition of a "Blue water Cruiser" is dependent upon an
individual's viewpoint. I have met many boats that would not meet your
criteria including several barebones Wharram cats that I would
consider grossly inadequate for my own needs. However, to their long
time owners and crusiers they are considered ideal for crossing
oceans. Quite a lot of what are advertised in boating magazines as
"blue water cruisers" are not, regardless of their size and how many
people have bought them to go "blue water cruising" Jenneaus, Oceans
and Benetaus are only a few of them. They are certainly not made for
out of sight of land crusing though doubtless some are taken there.

Each owner has a different set of criteria. Your friend Wilbur for
example, extols the virtues of a simple wooden bucket. The texbooks
say that twin or bilge keel boats are not good cruisers. The cruiser
who has one would extol the virtues of shallow draft and being able to
anchor close in and dry out level.

Provided the vessel is sound and seaworthy and the sailor has
knowledge of his boat and its behaviour in all sea conditions, the
main component of a "blue water cruiser" is the sailor him/herself.

Neither Bligh nor Shackleton captained the ideal "blue water cruiser'
though I dare say they would have prefered one such.

Peter


Well said. The boat and the crew work as a team. Even the best of boats
skippered by an inept crew hardly stands a chance of making a successful
blue water voyage. On the other hand, even a marginal boat, well-fitted out
and modified to eliminate potential weaknesses and crewed by an experienced
expert such as myself who knows the boat inside and out and can and does
handle all the maintenance has a near 100% chance of a successful ocean
voyage.

Capt. Neal's blue water Coronado 27 did not start life as a blue water
designed vessel. She was sold as a coastal cruiser. This designation was
more due to the limits of tankage, storage, interior layout etc. than her
ability to withstand the rigors of ocean voyaging. The good captain went to
work to shore up the few weaknesses the Coronado 27 was produced with. He
re-designed the interior to make it more practical for voyaging. He has
installed 1/4" Lexan on the inside of the deadlights in lieu of outside
storm boards. He added flotation foam between the liner and the hull where
there were voids. He poured a block of flotation foam just forward of the
transom to seal and support the rudder post tube. He claims his blue water
Coronado has positive flotation and will not sink but settle on an even keel
to about the rubbing strake if seriously holed. But, even the eventuality of
being seriously holed is greatly lessened by virtue of the flotation foam
poured into all the voids.

He has replaced all the standing rigging and terminals are all Sta-Loks.
Running rigging is kept in tip-top shape. The boom has been internally
reinforced. Sails are plentiful and new and hanked-on in the fore triangle.
He even ships storm try and storm jib. His philosophy has always been,
"first she's a sailboat" and everything he has done to modify her and
improve her weaknesses was done with this in mind. He claims he is safer in
his blue water Coronado than in any other boat except for an Etap of similar
size due the Etap also having positive foam flotation built in. The good
captain has always claimed it's just plain stupid to go to sea in a boat
that is sinkable when holed (like the erstwhile "Red Cloud") when unsinkable
vessels are being mass produced or when you can modify your existing vessel
to also be unsinkable due to a hole or holes in the hull. The old gentleman
is entirely correct.

The world famous Master Mariner himself told me that a small
outboard-powered sailboat is the only way to go and I believe him. It makes
sense. Small, light, fuel efficient engine, economical to purchase, maintain
and operate. Easy to remove and stow when crossing oceans. After all, an
auxiliary is supposed to be just that. Anybody who goes around with a huge,
heavy, built in diesel and a 100 gallon tank so he can attempt to motor
across oceans is an idiot and no sailor. He should have bought a long range
trawler like the former sailor Doug King.

One of the virtues of a 27-footer is she is handy and easily driven. Even a
two knot wind is enough to sail her just about anywhere and she can be
anchored under sail and gotten underway under sail. The only rationale for
even an outboard is maneuvering in close quarter situations where there is
no wind or less wind than current. In all other cases, learn to sail but
that takes a handy small vessel in order for a single-hander to be entirely
successful.

It is a well-known fact that inboard diesels get you into trouble more than
they get you out of trouble. That's a fact of life and you'd best accept it.
Even if you didn't have to live with the smell of the beast which permeates
every diesel boat I've ever stepped aboard it would still be folly to
embrace them like today's so-called sailor has. They make you lazy, they
turn you into a motorhead moron. They harm your health. Breathing the
exhaust is carcinogenic.

So, to sum up, Captain Neal's Coronado is, indeed, a blue water voyager for
two clear reasons.

1) She has completed many a blue water voyage and weathered severe storms
and has never been compromised or beaten back.

2) She has a qualified, experienced, intelligent, handsome captain who knows
her inside and out and has fitted her out for blue water voyaging.

Wilbur Hubbard

On Jun 26, 10:43*am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

Nealburs Fantasy snipped

Nealbur are you ever going to stop reving your tiny little outboard
and put it into gear?

Fred


- Show quoted text -

On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B said:

Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising
sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on
deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course.

OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power!

The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised
that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25'
that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and
it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:31:53 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B said:

Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising
sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on
deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course.

OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power!

The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised
that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25'
that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and
it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons.

From my experience amongst fellow cruisers, they don't simply add
tankage below due to space constraints. Also, in many ports it is
necessary to use jerry cans to ferry the diesel between the pump and
the boat. It is not as straight forward as using a dock hose in many
places in the world when there are no marinas or alongside fuel docks.
Therefore one may as well keep the jerry cans full of fuel on the
deck. I carry two 20 litre (take 24 litres each) plastic jerry cans in
the sail locker beneath my forward double berth as absolute emergency
fuel. I could of course build a tank in there but I would rather keep
it as a pure sail locker. I could of course invest in the inflatable
tankage but would rather spend the money on something else.

Also, regardless of how much tankage, most of us seem to want to carry
that little bit more to extend our range - probably just human nature.
Besides, when one is done with crossing oceans, the built in tanks
will normally be more than enough. It's amazing how much of the space
that could be utilised for extra tankage is readily filled up with
other necessary 'stuff' such as spares, tools, provisions, folding
bikes (2), sleeping bags, mountain tents, scuba gear (3 sets), roller
blades (3 pair), shioes of various types for three people, clothing
for all seasons for 3 people, school books, spare engine oil, gear box
oil, etc., etc., etc., no matter the size of the vessel.

regards
Peter

On Jun 27, 2:15*am, Herodotus wrote:
... Also, in many ports it is
necessary to use jerry cans to ferry the diesel between the pump and
the boat. ...

That's been our experience. Many boats, particularly North American
boats, put a plank between some stanchions and tie their extra fuel
and water to it. It was so common for a while on the coconut milk run
that I had a Kiwi tell me that for years he was convinced that
American designers didn't put fuel tanks in their boats. The
advantages are that you carry extra fuel on an extended passage
through places where fuel may be unavailable or expensive or of poor
quality. And, you get the weight out on the rail for a passage that is
essentially all on one tack. Some of the disadvantages are that the
cans sit in the sun and may get contaminated by salt water and are
exposed to wave impacts that can result in loss of fuel, damage to the
stanchions or loose cans on the deck.

We keep our cans in a sail locker. We started with one 20 liter can
and one 10, but over the years have acquired enough cans so we can
fill the main tanks in one run (if you've got to borrow a truck to go
to find fuel it's nice to do it all in one go). And, it is hard to
resist the temptation to use them as extra tankage now that we have
them...

-- Tom.

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:31:53 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B said:

Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising
sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on
deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course.

OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power!

The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised
that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25'
that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and
it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons.


Imagine a couple of scenarios. (1) You plan a trip to Chagos islands
in the Indian ocean. Down and back, about a four thousand mile trip,
several months in the islands where absolutely nothing is available. A
little fuel in cans on the deck in addition to the inside tankage
might be advisable. Or (2) a trip from Phuket to Malaysia where diesel
is half the cost of Thailand. Maybe a few jerry cans on the deck to
bring some back?

Or the trip a mate of mine just made to India. Three weeks to Cochin
and no wind for the last week - motored for 160 hours.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:31:53 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

On 2008-06-25 23:24:41 -0400, Wayne.B
said:

Even with proper diesel inboard aux, most of the serious cruising
sailboats that we see are carrying 40 to 60 gallons of extra fuel on
deck. These are boats that actually go someplace of course.

OMG! That'd give Xan a conservative 1,400-2,000 mile range under power!

The idea of 3-500# of fuel up on deck, though.... I'm always surprised
that they don't just add tankage. Doubt there's a boat over about 25'
that doesn't have some out of the way place to stick another tank, and
it doesn't take much to add 40 gallons.


Imagine a couple of scenarios. (1) You plan a trip to Chagos islands
in the Indian ocean. Down and back, about a four thousand mile trip,
several months in the islands where absolutely nothing is available. A
little fuel in cans on the deck in addition to the inside tankage
might be advisable. Or (2) a trip from Phuket to Malaysia where diesel
is half the cost of Thailand. Maybe a few jerry cans on the deck to
bring some back?

Or the trip a mate of mine just made to India. Three weeks to Cochin
and no wind for the last week - motored for 160 hours.


More like a bulk carrier than a sailboat. But, whatever floats your boat . .
..

Myself, I prefer to sail. This no wind for an entire week is a load of crap.
Won't happen in that part of the world. He obviously lied. What he didn't
want to admit was the winds were light and variable and he was too lazy and
in too much of a hurry to work them. Not to mention his boat was so heavy
loaded down with huge diesel engine and huge tanks to feed its appetite.
Easier to just motor. It takes half a gale to make any decent amount of way
with any motor sailer like that.

That's the problem with carrying a lot of tankage. You quickly turn into
just another worthless motorboat. Now, I think I understand why you failed
to make it around even one time. Your tanks just weren't large enough. Some
sailor, you!



Wilbur Hubbard