On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:08:02 -0400, Harry®
wrote:

A skilled seaman like Wayne might take advantage of long range cruising capabilities to actually go places.

It is really difficult to say whether or not the alleged new boat has
long range or not, but my guess would be not. Running on plane a
boat of that type will burn upwards of 20 gallons per hour. Running
off plane it will roll your eyeballs out of their sockets in anything
but a flat calm. Been there done that. True long range trawlers
almost always have some sort of stabilization system to prevent
rolling at low speed, and that would be unheard of on a 37 ft boat.
We met several people on our Caribbean cruise with unstabilized 50
footers and they were all having problems - fuel consumption was way
too high running on plane, and the rolling was intolerable when they
slowed down. A 37 footer would be a nice little boat for cruising
around the Chesapeake however as long as the weather was half way
decent.

On 10/22/10 10:50 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:08:02 -0400,
wrote:

A skilled seaman like Wayne might take advantage of long range cruising capabilities to actually go places.

It is really difficult to say whether or not the alleged new boat has
long range or not, but my guess would be not. Running on plane a
boat of that type will burn upwards of 20 gallons per hour. Running
off plane it will roll your eyeballs out of their sockets in anything
but a flat calm. Been there done that. True long range trawlers
almost always have some sort of stabilization system to prevent
rolling at low speed, and that would be unheard of on a 37 ft boat.
We met several people on our Caribbean cruise with unstabilized 50
footers and they were all having problems - fuel consumption was way
too high running on plane, and the rolling was intolerable when they
slowed down. A 37 footer would be a nice little boat for cruising
around the Chesapeake however as long as the weather was half way
decent.



And thus, a perfect example of why I won't be posting many real details
about the new boat.

My wife and I have no interest in "long range cruising" on a small boat,
even a larger small boat like W'hine's. If we want to do some "long
range cruising," we'll book passage on the Queen Mary II. What we bought
suits us, as it were.

At eight knots, according to the boat manufacturer and engine
distributor, the boat will burn between 3.5 and four gallons of diesel
an hour. I did no fuel burn testing yesterday.

We ran "off plane" for nearly two hours, in 2-3 footers, into them, with
them and broadside. We were both on the flying bridge and we both
commented there was a lot less roll than we expected. The roll wouldn't
have been noticeable inside the cabin.



--
Guns Don't Kill People -- Fundamentalist Religion Kills People!

In article ,
says...

On 10/22/10 10:50 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:08:02 -0400,
wrote:

A skilled seaman like Wayne might take advantage of long range cruising capabilities to actually go places.

It is really difficult to say whether or not the alleged new boat has
long range or not, but my guess would be not. Running on plane a
boat of that type will burn upwards of 20 gallons per hour. Running
off plane it will roll your eyeballs out of their sockets in anything
but a flat calm. Been there done that. True long range trawlers
almost always have some sort of stabilization system to prevent
rolling at low speed, and that would be unheard of on a 37 ft boat.
We met several people on our Caribbean cruise with unstabilized 50
footers and they were all having problems - fuel consumption was way
too high running on plane, and the rolling was intolerable when they
slowed down. A 37 footer would be a nice little boat for cruising
around the Chesapeake however as long as the weather was half way
decent.



And thus, a perfect example of why I won't be posting many real details
about the new boat.

My wife and I have no interest in "long range cruising" on a small boat,
even a larger small boat like W'hine's. If we want to do some "long
range cruising," we'll book passage on the Queen Mary II. What we bought
suits us, as it were.

At eight knots, according to the boat manufacturer and engine
distributor, the boat will burn between 3.5 and four gallons of diesel
an hour. I did no fuel burn testing yesterday.

We ran "off plane" for nearly two hours, in 2-3 footers, into them, with
them and broadside. We were both on the flying bridge and we both
commented there was a lot less roll than we expected. The roll wouldn't
have been noticeable inside the cabin.

snerk

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:41:45 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

At eight knots, according to the boat manufacturer and engine
distributor, the boat will burn between 3.5 and four gallons of diesel
an hour. I did no fuel burn testing yesterday.

That's probably about right for 8 kts but you will carbon up your
turbos and rings in no time at all if you run at that speed for long
durations. Fuel will look cheap compared to the overhaul.

If I were you, I'd be out on it today. Once you get the hang of
docking a twin engine boat it should be easy to take out by yourself,
and you can probably run all day on only $300 to $600 of fuel. What
the heck, it's only money big spender.

On 10/22/10 2:17 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:41:45 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

At eight knots, according to the boat manufacturer and engine
distributor, the boat will burn between 3.5 and four gallons of diesel
an hour. I did no fuel burn testing yesterday.

That's probably about right for 8 kts but you will carbon up your
turbos and rings in no time at all if you run at that speed for long
durations. Fuel will look cheap compared to the overhaul.

If I were you, I'd be out on it today. Once you get the hang of
docking a twin engine boat it should be easy to take out by yourself,
and you can probably run all day on only $300 to $600 of fuel. What
the heck, it's only money big spender.


Busy today; I'm not retired. Sunday looks good. Temps supposed to be a
little higher, too.

I'm pleased *you* are so concerned about how much I might spend on fuel
while boating, w'hine, but I'm not concerned. I rarely run a boat's
engines "all day," and on those occasions when I do, I have the money to
pay for the fuel.


--
Guns Don't Kill People -- Fundamentalist Religion Kills People!

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:28:28 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

That's probably about right for 8 kts but you will carbon up your
turbos and rings in no time at all if you run at that speed for long
durations. Fuel will look cheap compared to the overhaul.

If I were you, I'd be out on it today. Once you get the hang of
docking a twin engine boat it should be easy to take out by yourself,
and you can probably run all day on only $300 to $600 of fuel. What
the heck, it's only money big spender.


Busy today; I'm not retired. Sunday looks good. Temps supposed to be a
little higher, too.

I'm pleased *you* are so concerned about how much I might spend on fuel
while boating, w'hine, but I'm not concerned. I rarely run a boat's
engines "all day," and on those occasions when I do, I have the money to
pay for the fuel.

I'm sure some of our resident archivists will be able to dig up the
post where you explained why you sold the 24 ft Parker because it
burned too much fuel.

On 10/22/10 2:35 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:28:28 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

That's probably about right for 8 kts but you will carbon up your
turbos and rings in no time at all if you run at that speed for long
durations. Fuel will look cheap compared to the overhaul.

If I were you, I'd be out on it today. Once you get the hang of
docking a twin engine boat it should be easy to take out by yourself,
and you can probably run all day on only $300 to $600 of fuel. What
the heck, it's only money big spender.


Busy today; I'm not retired. Sunday looks good. Temps supposed to be a
little higher, too.

I'm pleased *you* are so concerned about how much I might spend on fuel
while boating, w'hine, but I'm not concerned. I rarely run a boat's
engines "all day," and on those occasions when I do, I have the money to
pay for the fuel.

I'm sure some of our resident archivists will be able to dig up the
post where you explained why you sold the 24 ft Parker because it
burned too much fuel.


It was that my Harry could not afford the fuel, as a good global
citizen, no one should own a boat that big unless he was a commercial
fisherman. My Harry believed that anyone with a large boat, should be
taxed till they could no longer afford it.

He also believes we should outlaw handguns.

--
Dr. Karen Grear
For a good time contact a bricklayer.
Bricklayers do it longer and harder.

On 10/22/10 2:38 PM, Dr. Karen Grear, MD, PhD, STD wrote:
On 10/22/10 2:35 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:28:28 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

That's probably about right for 8 kts but you will carbon up your
turbos and rings in no time at all if you run at that speed for long
durations. Fuel will look cheap compared to the overhaul.

If I were you, I'd be out on it today. Once you get the hang of
docking a twin engine boat it should be easy to take out by yourself,
and you can probably run all day on only $300 to $600 of fuel. What
the heck, it's only money big spender.


Busy today; I'm not retired. Sunday looks good. Temps supposed to be a
little higher, too.

I'm pleased *you* are so concerned about how much I might spend on fuel
while boating, w'hine, but I'm not concerned. I rarely run a boat's
engines "all day," and on those occasions when I do, I have the money to
pay for the fuel.

I'm sure some of our resident archivists will be able to dig up the
post where you explained why you sold the 24 ft Parker because it
burned too much fuel.


It wasn't that my Harry could not afford the fuel, as a good global
citizen, no one should own a boat that big unless he was a commercial
fisherman. My Harry believed that anyone with a large boat, should be
taxed till they could no longer afford it.

He also believes we should outlaw handguns.

Edit



--
Dr. Karen Grear
For a good time contact a bricklayer.
Bricklayers do it longer and harder.

On 10/22/10 2:35 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:28:28 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

That's probably about right for 8 kts but you will carbon up your
turbos and rings in no time at all if you run at that speed for long
durations. Fuel will look cheap compared to the overhaul.

If I were you, I'd be out on it today. Once you get the hang of
docking a twin engine boat it should be easy to take out by yourself,
and you can probably run all day on only $300 to $600 of fuel. What
the heck, it's only money big spender.


Busy today; I'm not retired. Sunday looks good. Temps supposed to be a
little higher, too.

I'm pleased *you* are so concerned about how much I might spend on fuel
while boating, w'hine, but I'm not concerned. I rarely run a boat's
engines "all day," and on those occasions when I do, I have the money to
pay for the fuel.

I'm sure some of our resident archivists will be able to dig up the
post where you explained why you sold the 24 ft Parker because it
burned too much fuel.


Nope. That Parker was pretty efficient at cruise speeds, about 11-12 gph
if memory serves. My last Parker burned 6-7 gph at cruise speeds.

Of course, the assholes here can make a post and its headers say
whatever they want. They really should get some help with their obsession.

And you should lighten up, w'hine.


--
Guns Don't Kill People -- Fundamentalist Religion Kills People!

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:28:28 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

That's probably about right for 8 kts but you will carbon up your
turbos and rings in no time at all if you run at that speed for long
durations. Fuel will look cheap compared to the overhaul.

If I were you, I'd be out on it today. Once you get the hang of
docking a twin engine boat it should be easy to take out by yourself,
and you can probably run all day on only $300 to $600 of fuel. What
the heck, it's only money big spender.


Busy today; I'm not retired. Sunday looks good. Temps supposed to be a
little higher, too.

I'm pleased *you* are so concerned about how much I might spend on fuel
while boating, w'hine, but I'm not concerned. I rarely run a boat's
engines "all day," and on those occasions when I do, I have the money to
pay for the fuel.

I'm sure some of our resident archivists will be able to dig up the
post where you explained why you sold the 24 ft Parker because it
burned too much fuel.

Do you remember when the spoofer said that anyone that owned a boat over
19 or 20 feet was wasting money and natural resources?!!!