BoatBanter.com - Spring is coming ...

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Spring is coming ... (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/160407-spring-coming.html)

Spring is coming ...

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:47:55 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/17/14, 6:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 5:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/17/14, 4:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 4:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:39:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Here we go. Now I just need to find a one acre barge with grass
that I
can tow for the horses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfyzrmjaFZ4

===

It looks like New England to Florida is about 4,000 gallons each way.
Let's hope the price of diesel doesn't get too much higher.

I hear you.

I was a little surprised at the fuel burn of the 52' Beneteau.

With two 600hp Cummins diesels it burns 27 GPH at 14 knots and 60 GPH
at 24.7 knots.

The 52' Navigator I had with two, 375 hp Volvo diesels burned 25-26 GPH
at 19 knots. It topped out at about the same (24 knots with a clean
hull) as the Beneteau but I don't remember what the burn rate was.
One of Navigator's claims to fame is a very fuel efficient hull, but
still that's quite a difference in hp.

The Beneteau must be a much heavier boat.

The 52' Beneteau has been replaced by a 50-footer with IPS drives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO9wBpzIkjw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3HFIgkxo-E

Really nice boats that take advantage of modern design developments.

I don't know much about the "Pod" drives. I recall when Volvo made a
big deal about them when they introduced their version but you don't
really hear much about them anymore.

From what I understand, the biggest advantage was being able to move
the engines back further towards the stern, freeing up more cabin space.
There are claims to better fuel economy and easier maneuvering in close
spaces. The negatives are complexity, expensive to repair and, in the
event of hitting something, the risk of tearing a big hole in the bottom
of the boat. That can happen with props and rudders also, but if a
rudder shaft starts leaking it's easier to deal with, I think.

Being a Luddite, I like conventional props and rudders. Once you learn
how to use them, maneuvering isn't a big deal, especially with twins.

I'm not a fan of pod drives for the reasons you mention. One of the
"discovery" type channels had a show on the replacement and repair of
one of the pod drives on a huge commercial ship, and the complexity of
it compared to replacing a conventional shaft or prop was just incredible.

Also, the waters in Chesapeake Bay are very thin even way offshore in
many places. Thin enough so that I found myself in a mud bank more than
once with my smaller outboard boats, and the prop churning up muck, and
I was at least a half mile offshore. Now, an inboard is going to draw
more water and be harder to dislodge, but a pod drive? That's got to be
a serious challenge.

That's what happens when you try to take a shortcut to the Bay coming out of the Deale Harbor. The
Long Bar gets a lot of folks when the tides out a bit.

Spring is coming ...

On 3/18/2014 7:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:47:55 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/17/14, 6:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 5:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/17/14, 4:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 4:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:39:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Here we go. Now I just need to find a one acre barge with grass
that I
can tow for the horses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfyzrmjaFZ4

===

It looks like New England to Florida is about 4,000 gallons each way.
Let's hope the price of diesel doesn't get too much higher.

I hear you.

I was a little surprised at the fuel burn of the 52' Beneteau.

With two 600hp Cummins diesels it burns 27 GPH at 14 knots and 60 GPH
at 24.7 knots.

The 52' Navigator I had with two, 375 hp Volvo diesels burned 25-26 GPH
at 19 knots. It topped out at about the same (24 knots with a clean
hull) as the Beneteau but I don't remember what the burn rate was.
One of Navigator's claims to fame is a very fuel efficient hull, but
still that's quite a difference in hp.

The Beneteau must be a much heavier boat.

The 52' Beneteau has been replaced by a 50-footer with IPS drives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO9wBpzIkjw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3HFIgkxo-E

Really nice boats that take advantage of modern design developments.

I don't know much about the "Pod" drives. I recall when Volvo made a
big deal about them when they introduced their version but you don't
really hear much about them anymore.

From what I understand, the biggest advantage was being able to move
the engines back further towards the stern, freeing up more cabin space.
There are claims to better fuel economy and easier maneuvering in close
spaces. The negatives are complexity, expensive to repair and, in the
event of hitting something, the risk of tearing a big hole in the bottom
of the boat. That can happen with props and rudders also, but if a
rudder shaft starts leaking it's easier to deal with, I think.

Being a Luddite, I like conventional props and rudders. Once you learn
how to use them, maneuvering isn't a big deal, especially with twins.

I'm not a fan of pod drives for the reasons you mention. One of the
"discovery" type channels had a show on the replacement and repair of
one of the pod drives on a huge commercial ship, and the complexity of
it compared to replacing a conventional shaft or prop was just incredible.

Also, the waters in Chesapeake Bay are very thin even way offshore in
many places. Thin enough so that I found myself in a mud bank more than
once with my smaller outboard boats, and the prop churning up muck, and
I was at least a half mile offshore. Now, an inboard is going to draw
more water and be harder to dislodge, but a pod drive? That's got to be
a serious challenge.

That's what happens when you try to take a shortcut to the Bay coming out of the Deale Harbor. The
Long Bar gets a lot of folks when the tides out a bit.

I just looked at a chart. You guys are *way* up on the Chesapeake.

The only boating experience I have down there is down by the Bay Bridge
and the ICW running through the Hampton Roads, Norfolk area.

Spring is coming ...

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:30:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/18/2014 7:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:47:55 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/17/14, 6:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 5:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/17/14, 4:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 4:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:39:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Here we go. Now I just need to find a one acre barge with grass
that I
can tow for the horses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfyzrmjaFZ4

===

It looks like New England to Florida is about 4,000 gallons each way.
Let's hope the price of diesel doesn't get too much higher.

I hear you.

I was a little surprised at the fuel burn of the 52' Beneteau.

With two 600hp Cummins diesels it burns 27 GPH at 14 knots and 60 GPH
at 24.7 knots.

The 52' Navigator I had with two, 375 hp Volvo diesels burned 25-26 GPH
at 19 knots. It topped out at about the same (24 knots with a clean
hull) as the Beneteau but I don't remember what the burn rate was.
One of Navigator's claims to fame is a very fuel efficient hull, but
still that's quite a difference in hp.

The Beneteau must be a much heavier boat.

The 52' Beneteau has been replaced by a 50-footer with IPS drives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO9wBpzIkjw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3HFIgkxo-E

Really nice boats that take advantage of modern design developments.

I don't know much about the "Pod" drives. I recall when Volvo made a
big deal about them when they introduced their version but you don't
really hear much about them anymore.

From what I understand, the biggest advantage was being able to move
the engines back further towards the stern, freeing up more cabin space.
There are claims to better fuel economy and easier maneuvering in close
spaces. The negatives are complexity, expensive to repair and, in the
event of hitting something, the risk of tearing a big hole in the bottom
of the boat. That can happen with props and rudders also, but if a
rudder shaft starts leaking it's easier to deal with, I think.

Being a Luddite, I like conventional props and rudders. Once you learn
how to use them, maneuvering isn't a big deal, especially with twins.

I'm not a fan of pod drives for the reasons you mention. One of the
"discovery" type channels had a show on the replacement and repair of
one of the pod drives on a huge commercial ship, and the complexity of
it compared to replacing a conventional shaft or prop was just incredible.

Also, the waters in Chesapeake Bay are very thin even way offshore in
many places. Thin enough so that I found myself in a mud bank more than
once with my smaller outboard boats, and the prop churning up muck, and
I was at least a half mile offshore. Now, an inboard is going to draw
more water and be harder to dislodge, but a pod drive? That's got to be
a serious challenge.

That's what happens when you try to take a shortcut to the Bay coming out of the Deale Harbor. The
Long Bar gets a lot of folks when the tides out a bit.

I just looked at a chart. You guys are *way* up on the Chesapeake.

The only boating experience I have down there is down by the Bay Bridge
and the ICW running through the Hampton Roads, Norfolk area.

Staying in the channel in the Bay is pretty safe. Nice deep water. But getting in and out of some of
the little harbors can get tricky. Like Harry says, sometimes the water is shallow quite a ways out,
or there's a sand bar just waiting for someone to take a shortcut.

Spring is coming ...

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:30:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just looked at a chart. You guys are *way* up on the Chesapeake.

The only boating experience I have down there is down by the Bay Bridge
and the ICW running through the Hampton Roads, Norfolk area.

===

Did you run outside past Ocean City, MD? We've done that a couple of
times but more often inside. I doubt that I'll ever go into Ocean
City again - tricky entrance, strong currents at the marina docks and
the town is not all that interesting.

Spring is coming ...

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:52:15 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Here's a power cat that will get 29 mpg at 5 knots.
19 mpg at 8 knots.
http://www.multihulldesigns.com/desi...ock/38tri.html
You can accept or reject that mpg figure.

===

Those numbers are wildly optimistic in my experience. Basically you
are talking about the same hull as a lightweight 38 foot sailboat,
typically burning between .5 and 1 gallon per hour depending on speed,
wind and seas, while doing 6 to 7 knots. Even the most optimistic
ends of that range only gets you to about 14 mpg. That might be
attainable if very lightly loaded in perfectly flat, dead calm
conditions. More typical would be 6 or 7 mpg.

Spring is coming ...

On 3/18/2014 9:10 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:30:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just looked at a chart. You guys are *way* up on the Chesapeake.

The only boating experience I have down there is down by the Bay Bridge
and the ICW running through the Hampton Roads, Norfolk area.

===

Did you run outside past Ocean City, MD? We've done that a couple of
times but more often inside. I doubt that I'll ever go into Ocean
City again - tricky entrance, strong currents at the marina docks and
the town is not all that interesting.

No, other than the Cape Cod Canal, I stayed "outside". Picked up the
ICW in Norfolk. From there it was ICW or Outside, weather dependent.

Spent a weekend at the Trump Marina in Atlantic City though. Fun, but
was happy to get out of there.

Spring is coming ...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:52:15 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Here's a power cat that will get 29 mpg at 5 knots.
19 mpg at 8 knots.
http://www.multihulldesigns.com/desi...ock/38tri.html
You can accept or reject that mpg figure.

===

Those numbers are wildly optimistic in my experience. Basically you
are talking about the same hull as a lightweight 38 foot sailboat,
typically burning between .5 and 1 gallon per hour depending on speed,
wind and seas, while doing 6 to 7 knots. Even the most optimistic
ends of that range only gets you to about 14 mpg. That might be
attainable if very lightly loaded in perfectly flat, dead calm
conditions. More typical would be 6 or 7 mpg.

This boat is about 80% lighter than your typical mono cruiser.
And maybe 60-75% lighter the most "light sailboats" of the same LOA.
Weight: 4,125 lb
Displacement: 5,278 lb (2.394 kg)
That's according to the designer. YMMV.
Though estimated ranges may be optimistic, I don't think "wildly".
I suppose at full power 2 15hp Hondas can only burn so much fuel.
The question is at what speed.
Haven't seen any "real experience" reports with the boat.

Spring is coming ...

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:49:58 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

I suppose at full power 2 15hp Hondas can only burn so much fuel.
The question is at what speed.

===

At full power, wide open throttle, they will burn about 3 gallons per
hour total. At 70% of WOT about half that.

Spring is coming ...

On 3/18/14, 10:49 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:52:15 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Here's a power cat that will get 29 mpg at 5 knots.
19 mpg at 8 knots.
http://www.multihulldesigns.com/desi...ock/38tri.html
You can accept or reject that mpg figure.

===

Those numbers are wildly optimistic in my experience. Basically you
are talking about the same hull as a lightweight 38 foot sailboat,
typically burning between .5 and 1 gallon per hour depending on speed,
wind and seas, while doing 6 to 7 knots. Even the most optimistic
ends of that range only gets you to about 14 mpg. That might be
attainable if very lightly loaded in perfectly flat, dead calm
conditions. More typical would be 6 or 7 mpg.

This boat is about 80% lighter than your typical mono cruiser.
And maybe 60-75% lighter the most "light sailboats" of the same LOA.
Weight: 4,125 lb
Displacement: 5,278 lb (2.394 kg)
That's according to the designer. YMMV.
Though estimated ranges may be optimistic, I don't think "wildly".
I suppose at full power 2 15hp Hondas can only burn so much fuel.
The question is at what speed.
Haven't seen any "real experience" reports with the boat.

Doesn't seem like a boat heavy enough to offer any comfort or feeling of
safety in anything but flat calm seas. To where would you cruise...from
one side of a small lake to the other side? You certainly would not want
to be out in a choppy bay.

Spring is coming ...