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

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.

"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

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.

"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

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

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:15:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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?


Gee whiz ... nothing? not even a mercy LOL?
You must be too young to remember gas lines. ;-)

I worked for the guvmint my sr year of high school, Monday to Friday, so
I was free on Saturday and Sunday to wait in gas lines while my friends
worked. It worked out well, I never had to buy beer.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:15:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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?


Gee whiz ... nothing? not even a mercy LOL?
You must be too young to remember gas lines. ;-)


There were people in line to spritz gas behind their ears??

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Apr 18, 12:45*am, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:15:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"





wrote:
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?

Gee whiz ... nothing? not even a mercy LOL?
You must be too young to remember gas lines. *;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I remember them. Wait in lne for a hour so you could get $5.00 of gas
and that was the limit. And if you were lucky you could get gas before
the station ran out. It was rationed to them too!

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.