On 3/17/14, 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Those are big, smoked glass windows that are in the master stateroom.
Here's another video where the guy is showing the boat internal areas.
(It starts out looking like the other video, but is different). He gets
to the main stateroom about 2/3rds of the way through the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX3LYpdEkAQ

I personally just don't "get" having a boat like that.
You give up a lot of seaworthiness, ease of maintenance, fuel
consumption and reliability for totally unnecessary "creature comforts."
Fuel consumption is a product of hull design and weight.
But different strokes.
If I had the money to spend I'd design a light trawler capable of 15
mpg. Maybe 6 knots cruising speed. Or a cat.
It can be done. Wouldn't be a nice ride in heavy seas.
So stay away from them.
But "the need for speed" is great among us.





I don't know how you would end up with a trawler, light or otherwise,
that would get 15 mpg, but I agree with your points about boats that
seem just too damned large, in terms of running costs, maintenance,
handling, inability to go into shallow waters, et cetera. Different
strokes.

When we lived in Florida and fished in the St. Johns River from time to
time, I used to look in wonder at some of the smaller pleasure trawlers
bucking the outflow current and trying to make progress getting into
Jacksonville. Some of them seemingly made no headway at all against the
current, and a few times I saw a couple of the boats simply anchor until
the tide shifted or the current abated.

On 3/18/2014 6:34 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/17/14, 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Those are big, smoked glass windows that are in the master stateroom.
Here's another video where the guy is showing the boat internal areas.
(It starts out looking like the other video, but is different). He gets
to the main stateroom about 2/3rds of the way through the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX3LYpdEkAQ

I personally just don't "get" having a boat like that.
You give up a lot of seaworthiness, ease of maintenance, fuel
consumption and reliability for totally unnecessary "creature comforts."
Fuel consumption is a product of hull design and weight.
But different strokes.
If I had the money to spend I'd design a light trawler capable of 15
mpg. Maybe 6 knots cruising speed. Or a cat.
It can be done. Wouldn't be a nice ride in heavy seas.
So stay away from them.
But "the need for speed" is great among us.





I don't know how you would end up with a trawler, light or otherwise,
that would get 15 mpg, but I agree with your points about boats that
seem just too damned large, in terms of running costs, maintenance,
handling, inability to go into shallow waters, et cetera. Different
strokes.

When we lived in Florida and fished in the St. Johns River from time to
time, I used to look in wonder at some of the smaller pleasure trawlers
bucking the outflow current and trying to make progress getting into
Jacksonville. Some of them seemingly made no headway at all against the
current, and a few times I saw a couple of the boats simply anchor until
the tide shifted or the current abated.

Not unusual at all for sailboat people. It's very common for them to
plan their transit in high current areas at "slack" tide.

The Cape Cod Canal develops currents as much as 6 knots during tide
cycles and most sailboaters time their transit to either go *with* the
current or wait until slack tide to transit in the opposite direction.

It's fun to watch even big powerboats make the transit. The speed limit
in the canal is 5 knots and you'll see big boats hull high pushing their
way through against the current.

I made the mistake of taking the Grand Banks through the CCC against the
current. It made it ok but the people jogging or walking on the side of
the canal going in the same direction waved at me as they passed me.
The Grand Banks chugged it's way through though with the throttle at
normal cruise setting or maybe a little more and the GPS reading my
speed at about 2 knots at one point.

The only danger in the canal is a railroad bridge that lowers twice a
day to allow the train to pass. Boats have to wait in the canal while
the bridge is lowered. There have been accidents when an underpowered
boat is going *with* the current, approaching the bridge and suddenly
the horn goes off and the bridge lowers. You have to come about and
hopefully hold your position against the current.

In article , says...

On 3/17/14, 6:21 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Those are big, smoked glass windows that are in the master stateroom.
Here's another video where the guy is showing the boat internal areas.
(It starts out looking like the other video, but is different). He gets
to the main stateroom about 2/3rds of the way through the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX3LYpdEkAQ

I personally just don't "get" having a boat like that.
You give up a lot of seaworthiness, ease of maintenance, fuel
consumption and reliability for totally unnecessary "creature comforts."
Fuel consumption is a product of hull design and weight.
But different strokes.
If I had the money to spend I'd design a light trawler capable of 15
mpg. Maybe 6 knots cruising speed. Or a cat.
It can be done. Wouldn't be a nice ride in heavy seas.
So stay away from them.
But "the need for speed" is great among us.





I don't know how you would end up with a trawler, light or otherwise,
that would get 15 mpg, but I agree with your points about boats that
seem just too damned large, in terms of running costs, maintenance,
handling, inability to go into shallow waters, et cetera. Different
strokes.

When we lived in Florida and fished in the St. Johns River from time to
time, I used to look in wonder at some of the smaller pleasure trawlers
bucking the outflow current and trying to make progress getting into
Jacksonville. Some of them seemingly made no headway at all against the
current, and a few times I saw a couple of the boats simply anchor until
the tide shifted or the current abated.

That's why I mentioned "cat". Should have said "tri".
There are "cat-trawlers" and while not the "traditional" trawler, I'm
not very traditional.
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.


But you have the flexibility to to move at 12 knots with the expected
fuel consumption penalty, taking care of most inlet problems slow
trawlers encounter.
But the hull design and weight make it "possible."
It all in the hull design and weight.
There's probably similar designs, but they don't sell.
I can't speak to its handling and "seaworthiness."
You pay for taking your house with you, and some people prefer that.
It's light, and you'll have to keep it light.
You'll have to accept its handling an sea-keeping characteristics.
You'll have to resist pushing the throttle forward.


Range specs:
Range-38? Power Trimaran

Honda 15 hp

Full load, both engines at top speed (5,800rpm).
Fuel consumption is 1.412 gph. per engine
Speed is 12.3 knots.
100 gallons fuel gives 435 nautical miles


Half load, both engines at mid speed (4,000rpm).
Fuel consumption is 0.62 gph. per engine
Speed is 11 knots.
100 gallons fuel gives 887 nautical miles


Half load, one engine at low mid speed (3,000rpm).
Fuel consumption is 0.407 gph. per engine
Speed is 8 knots.
100 gallons fuel gives 1,965 nautical miles


Minimal load, one engine at low speed (2,000rpm).
Fuel consumption is 0.169 gph. per engine
Speed is estimated at 5 knots.
100 gallons fuel gives 2,958 nautical miles

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.

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.

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.

In article ,
says...

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.

That's in line with the specs I gave. The question is can one engine
push it at 8 knots. Can't answer that.

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:00:14 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

That's in line with the specs I gave. The question is can one engine
push it at 8 knots. Can't answer that.

===

Possibly in ideal conditions, but even if it can, you're still only
getting about 5 mpg (8 kts / 1.5 gph). Best fuel economy and range
would be with a single small diesel, somewhere around 20 horsepower
would be about right. At 70% of WOT that would burn about 1 gph with
a speed of around 7 kts.

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.

In article , says...



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.

A 38' boat should handle chop.
Can't say anything other than that.
It could be busy in heavy seas.
Probably no more uncomfortable than a similar sized heeling sail boat.
I guess it pitches, rolls and yaws like every boat, but more.
You can't have everything.