On 4/4/10 12:53 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Apr 4, 12:25 pm, wrote:

Tell us about the fuel consumption of your lobster boat? Aren't you
the one always whining here about the fuel burn of other people's
boats that you're jealous of?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Loog, Harry never had a Lobsta' boat... Google has ruined his
life He can't lie about himself anymore so he lies about us from
under his desk.

Scotty


How would you and your nearly-as-dumb buddy loogy possibly know,
****-for-brains?

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

In article 7cf25d85-8cc3-4fdf-bb0e-b98d1839e364
@r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, says...

Something I noticed on this leg of my cruise is the radical diff tween
the wakes of mono and catamaran hulls for power boats. The monos have
huge wakes while the cats have very small wakes. This should give
better fuel economy. Does it?

Is it possible that the two hulls each have half of the wake of a
similar weight monohull? Effectively, it should do half the damage to
the shoreline, but pound for pound I don't think it should make a huge
difference in total drag assuming the hulls were all similar in design
and function...

Scotty

--
For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article 7cf25d85-8cc3-4fdf-bb0e-b98d1839e364
@r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, says...

Something I noticed on this leg of my cruise is the radical diff tween
the wakes of mono and catamaran hulls for power boats. The monos have
huge wakes while the cats have very small wakes. This should give
better fuel economy. Does it?

Is it possible that the two hulls each have half of the wake of a
similar weight monohull? Effectively, it should do half the damage to
the shoreline, but pound for pound I don't think it should make a huge
difference in total drag assuming the hulls were all similar in design
and function...

Scotty

--
For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v


On a planing hull, maybe not much difference in fuel burn, but still have to
move water. On a displacement hull, thedifference will be dramatic. Yoou
have pretty much effectively double the hull length, giving a higher hull
speed. This should add both performance and fuel economy.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 19:35:35 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:

On a planing hull, maybe not much difference in fuel burn, but still have to
move water. On a displacement hull, thedifference will be dramatic. Yoou
have pretty much effectively double the hull length, giving a higher hull
speed. This should add both performance and fuel economy.

The secret to catamaran efficiecy is light weight combined with a high
length to width (beam) ratio. A typical ratio for either a
displacement powerboat or sailboat is about 3:1. The hull of a
catamaran however might be twice that or even greater. At high
ratios the formula for hull speed goes out the window because wave
making/hull drag is greatly reduced similar to what you'd experience
with a canoe hull or a rowing shell. Basically you can think of it as
being more streamlined. Naval architects refer to it as a lower
prismatic coefficient.

With regard to capsize issues, most cruising sail cats are under
rigged with short masts and small sails. That greatly decreases the
liklihood of becoming overpowered in a wind gust.

I've never heard of a power cat capsizing but it certainly could
happen with the right wave conditions, as it can with any other
powerboat.