Cruising and reality
 

On Apr 17, 8:05*am, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:
In article ,
says...





wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:01:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

.. wouldn't a newer boat in the
size I mentioned from a reputable US manufacturer be powered properly?

This is what Froggy is saying "properly" depends on which side of the
compromise you want to come down on. You can have a fast power boat
with sails or a fast sailboat with a motor but both at the same time
is hard to do.

My understanding is that the engine on a cruising type boat would be able to
bring the boat to "hull" speed. You can't really go faster than that, so I
suppose the appropriate engine would be one that could do that (or nearly
so)? 1.34 x sq. rt of water line? So, assuming there's overhang on a 42'
boat, say the water line is 40' the max speed would be about 8.5. Of course,
if it were not pushing all the water, skimming, then you could go faster.

Cruising and reality
 

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 8:05 am, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:
In article ,
says...





wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:01:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

.. wouldn't a newer boat in the
size I mentioned from a reputable US manufacturer be powered properly?

This is what Froggy is saying "properly" depends on which side of the
compromise you want to come down on. You can have a fast power boat
with sails or a fast sailboat with a motor but both at the same time
is hard to do.

My understanding is that the engine on a cruising type boat would be
able to
bring the boat to "hull" speed. You can't really go faster than that, so
I
suppose the appropriate engine would be one that could do that (or
nearly
so)? 1.34 x sq. rt of water line? So, assuming there's overhang on a 42'
boat, say the water line is 40' the max speed would be about 8.5. Of
course,
if it were not pushing all the water, skimming, then you could go
faster.

They call "skimming" "planing" here.
And you are correct. But many hull types are incapable of planing.

Peter

Displacement hull sailboats cannot plane which is why they need so
little power. Manufacturers generally use an engine just big enough
to get to hull speed. I do not think that is enough for a real
cruising boat because a real cruising boat will spend far more of its
time under power than people realize AND because sometimes it will be
used in conditions when a lot of power is needed for safety. For the
size boat Nom is considering, a 4 cylinder diesel would be good and
they normally have sufficient power. The problems come in with
smaller boats when it is a compromise between a 1 or 2 cylinder or a
slighter larger boat betwen a 2 and 3 cylinder. She prob does not
need to worry about the engine.


Reply: I would never worry about the engine. That's someone else's area.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Cruising and reality
 

On Apr 17, 10:23*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...
On Apr 17, 8:05 am, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:



In article ,
says...

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:01:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

.. wouldn't a newer boat in the
size I mentioned from a reputable US manufacturer be powered properly?

This is what Froggy is saying "properly" depends on which side of the
compromise you want to come down on. You can have a fast power boat
with sails or a fast sailboat with a motor but both at the same time
is hard to do.

My understanding is that the engine on a cruising type boat would be
able to
bring the boat to "hull" speed. You can't really go faster than that, so
I
suppose the appropriate engine would be one that could do that (or
nearly
so)? 1.34 x sq. rt of water line? So, assuming there's overhang on a 42'
boat, say the water line is 40' the max speed would be about 8.5. Of
course,
if it were not pushing all the water, skimming, then you could go
faster.

They call "skimming" "planing" here.
And you are correct. But many hull types are incapable of planing.

Peter

Displacement hull sailboats cannot plane which is why they need so
little power. *Manufacturers generally use an engine just big enough
to get to hull speed. *I do not think that is enough for a real
cruising boat because a real cruising boat will spend far more of its
time under power than people realize AND because sometimes it will be
used in conditions when a lot of power is needed for safety. *For the
size boat Nom is considering, a 4 cylinder diesel would be good and
they normally have sufficient power. *The problems come in with
smaller boats when it is a compromise between a 1 or 2 cylinder or a
slighter larger boat betwen a 2 and 3 cylinder. *She prob does not
need to worry about the engine.

Reply: I would never worry about the engine. That's someone else's area.

--
Nom=de=Plume

The smell of diesel, the most masculine cologne.

Cruising and reality
 

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 10:23 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...
On Apr 17, 8:05 am, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:



In article ,
says...

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:01:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

.. wouldn't a newer boat in the
size I mentioned from a reputable US manufacturer be powered
properly?

This is what Froggy is saying "properly" depends on which side of
the
compromise you want to come down on. You can have a fast power boat
with sails or a fast sailboat with a motor but both at the same time
is hard to do.

My understanding is that the engine on a cruising type boat would be
able to
bring the boat to "hull" speed. You can't really go faster than that,
so
I
suppose the appropriate engine would be one that could do that (or
nearly
so)? 1.34 x sq. rt of water line? So, assuming there's overhang on a
42'
boat, say the water line is 40' the max speed would be about 8.5. Of
course,
if it were not pushing all the water, skimming, then you could go
faster.

They call "skimming" "planing" here.
And you are correct. But many hull types are incapable of planing.

Peter

Displacement hull sailboats cannot plane which is why they need so
little power. Manufacturers generally use an engine just big enough
to get to hull speed. I do not think that is enough for a real
cruising boat because a real cruising boat will spend far more of its
time under power than people realize AND because sometimes it will be
used in conditions when a lot of power is needed for safety. For the
size boat Nom is considering, a 4 cylinder diesel would be good and
they normally have sufficient power. The problems come in with
smaller boats when it is a compromise between a 1 or 2 cylinder or a
slighter larger boat betwen a 2 and 3 cylinder. She prob does not
need to worry about the engine.

Reply: I would never worry about the engine. That's someone else's area.

--
Nom=de=Plume

The smell of diesel, the most masculine cologne.


NOT blech.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Cruising and reality
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 6:59 pm, wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:


But wouldn't a boat of the size I mentioned be powered with a decent
engine?
Seems like it would be, but I haven't really looked into it.

You have a _lot_ of homework ahead of you.


Getting the right prop is a major deal. Major controversy over fixed
2 blade fixed or 3 blade fixed because the 3 blade fixed hurts sailing
performance about 1/2 kt but the 3 blade gives better motoring
performance. There is a company that makes an oversize plastic
composite prop called PerfectPitch that makes up for this but they are
sorta unknown.
Then, there are the folding props..................


Larry is a jerk. In any case, I ask again... wouldn't a newer boat in the
size I mentioned from a reputable US manufacturer be powered properly?


I'm not a jerk. You are throwing around all of this information and
misinformation and you even have a budget attached to it. You are also
asking questions that are rather basic.

First it was a $2K Hobie and now it's a $300K sailing cruiser.

Yes, you have a lot of homework to do. That is a very fair statement.

Cruising and reality
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:01:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


.. wouldn't a newer boat in the
size I mentioned from a reputable US manufacturer be powered properly?

This is what Froggy is saying "properly" depends on which side of the
compromise you want to come down on. You can have a fast power boat
with sails or a fast sailboat with a motor but both at the same time
is hard to do.


My understanding is that the engine on a cruising type boat would be able to
bring the boat to "hull" speed. You can't really go faster than that, so I
suppose the appropriate engine would be one that could do that (or nearly
so)? 1.34 x sq. rt of water line? So, assuming there's overhang on a 42'
boat, say the water line is 40' the max speed would be about 8.5. Of course,
if it were not pushing all the water, skimming, then you could go faster.


It's not that simple. Size is one thing. Then there is displacement,
hull design, load distribution, etc. Even those factors don't limit speed.

I really hope this isn't a troll or I'm wasting my time...

Imagine a cruise ship. They have displacement hulls. They don't "skim"
or plane (the correct term). Their speed is not limited solely by hull
design. If they add more HP, the ship will move faster.

You are looking at a sailboat, right? Why all of this interest in speed
from the diesel?

Cruising and reality
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 8:05 am, "Peter (Yes, that
wrote:

In ,
says...






wrote in message
...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:01:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


.. wouldn't a newer boat in the
size I mentioned from a reputable US manufacturer be powered properly?


This is what Froggy is saying "properly" depends on which side of the
compromise you want to come down on. You can have a fast power boat
with sails or a fast sailboat with a motor but both at the same time
is hard to do.


My understanding is that the engine on a cruising type boat would be
able to
bring the boat to "hull" speed. You can't really go faster than that, so
I
suppose the appropriate engine would be one that could do that (or
nearly
so)? 1.34 x sq. rt of water line? So, assuming there's overhang on a 42'
boat, say the water line is 40' the max speed would be about 8.5. Of
course,
if it were not pushing all the water, skimming, then you could go
faster.

They call "skimming" "planing" here.
And you are correct. But many hull types are incapable of planing.

Peter

Displacement hull sailboats cannot plane which is why they need so
little power. Manufacturers generally use an engine just big enough
to get to hull speed. I do not think that is enough for a real
cruising boat because a real cruising boat will spend far more of its
time under power than people realize AND because sometimes it will be
used in conditions when a lot of power is needed for safety. For the
size boat Nom is considering, a 4 cylinder diesel would be good and
they normally have sufficient power. The problems come in with
smaller boats when it is a compromise between a 1 or 2 cylinder or a
slighter larger boat betwen a 2 and 3 cylinder. She prob does not
need to worry about the engine.


Reply: I would never worry about the engine. That's someone else's area.


Yet you are dwelling on it here.

Cruising and reality
 

On 17/04/2010 6:06 PM, Larry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 6:59 pm, wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:

But wouldn't a boat of the size I mentioned be powered with a decent
engine?
Seems like it would be, but I haven't really looked into it.
You have a _lot_ of homework ahead of you.
Getting the right prop is a major deal. Major controversy over fixed
2 blade fixed or 3 blade fixed because the 3 blade fixed hurts sailing
performance about 1/2 kt but the 3 blade gives better motoring
performance. There is a company that makes an oversize plastic
composite prop called PerfectPitch that makes up for this but they are
sorta unknown.
Then, there are the folding props..................

Larry is a jerk. In any case, I ask again... wouldn't a newer boat in the
size I mentioned from a reputable US manufacturer be powered properly?

I'm not a jerk. You are throwing around all of this information and
misinformation and you even have a budget attached to it. You are also
asking questions that are rather basic.

First it was a $2K Hobie and now it's a $300K sailing cruiser.

Yes, you have a lot of homework to do. That is a very fair statement.

Forgive de-fumer, she hasn't had it in awhile.

--
Time to ask ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the
government?

Cruising and reality
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:01:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


.. wouldn't a newer boat in the
size I mentioned from a reputable US manufacturer be powered properly?

This is what Froggy is saying "properly" depends on which side of the
compromise you want to come down on. You can have a fast power boat
with sails or a fast sailboat with a motor but both at the same time
is hard to do.


My understanding is that the engine on a cruising type boat would be able
to
bring the boat to "hull" speed. You can't really go faster than that, so
I
suppose the appropriate engine would be one that could do that (or nearly
so)? 1.34 x sq. rt of water line? So, assuming there's overhang on a 42'
boat, say the water line is 40' the max speed would be about 8.5. Of
course,
if it were not pushing all the water, skimming, then you could go faster.


It's not that simple. Size is one thing. Then there is displacement,
hull design, load distribution, etc. Even those factors don't limit
speed.

I really hope this isn't a troll or I'm wasting my time...

Imagine a cruise ship. They have displacement hulls. They don't "skim"
or plane (the correct term). Their speed is not limited solely by hull
design. If they add more HP, the ship will move faster.

You are looking at a sailboat, right? Why all of this interest in speed
from the diesel?

Cruise ships go slower than hull speed. But hull speed is pretty high on a
1000' long ship.

Cruising and reality
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:18:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The smell of diesel, the most masculine cologne.


NOT blech.

--
You may be too young to remember the 70s when guys would spritz a
little gasoline behind their ear in hopes a girl would think you
worked in a gas station.


Good grief... did any of them live?

--
Nom=de=Plume