|
Spring is coming ...
.... and my thoughts are increasingly becoming: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img005.jpg?t=1395062020 |
Spring is coming ...
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:17:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
... and my thoughts are increasingly becoming: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img005.jpg?t=1395062020 Nice of you to say so. I woke up to four more inches of snow on the ground. Now I'm wishing they made snow skis for my new RC airplane. I'll have to admit I wouldn't mind going fishing with those guys and catching whatever the fish was in the next picture. Tuna? |
Spring is coming ...
On 3/17/2014 9:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:17:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ... and my thoughts are increasingly becoming: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img005.jpg?t=1395062020 Nice of you to say so. I woke up to four more inches of snow on the ground. Now I'm wishing they made snow skis for my new RC airplane. I'll have to admit I wouldn't mind going fishing with those guys and catching whatever the fish was in the next picture. Tuna? Yup, that was the tuna we got on our first tuna fishing expedition on the Egg Harbor. I had been warned by others, including some of the local charter captains that it could take a couple of seasons of trying to even hook up with a tuna. We left the dock at about 6am that morning and hooked that one by 8am. Lucky fishing boat. |
Spring is coming ...
On 3/17/2014 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 9:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:17:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ... and my thoughts are increasingly becoming: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img005.jpg?t=1395062020 Nice of you to say so. I woke up to four more inches of snow on the ground. Now I'm wishing they made snow skis for my new RC airplane. I'll have to admit I wouldn't mind going fishing with those guys and catching whatever the fish was in the next picture. Tuna? Yup, that was the tuna we got on our first tuna fishing expedition on the Egg Harbor. I had been warned by others, including some of the local charter captains that it could take a couple of seasons of trying to even hook up with a tuna. We left the dock at about 6am that morning and hooked that one by 8am. Lucky fishing boat. Here's a picture after we returned to the slip. Pictured are my son John, my brother Bob, my son-in-law Jim and another (shirtless guy) that we used to call the "Dock Rat". Nice guy but he was a busy-body, always checking on what was going on in the marina. He wasn't on the fishing trip. Funny story involving my father-in-law that day. He was a long time boater who loved fishing for flounder and never ventured more than a few hundred yards offshore in his old Uniflite. The crew that day consisted of just me, my brother, my son and son-in-law. When we hooked up so early in the day I realized we only had enough ice for the fish well to last a couple of hours. We were about 22 miles out, so I headed back to Scituate intending to stock up with ice and then head back out. On the ride back I called Mrs.E. and told her we had our first tuna. She in turn must have called her father because when we got back to the dock there he was, flounder rod in hand, ready to go back out with us for tuna. http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img001.jpg |
Spring is coming ...
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:51:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/17/2014 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/17/2014 9:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:17:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ... and my thoughts are increasingly becoming: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img005.jpg?t=1395062020 Nice of you to say so. I woke up to four more inches of snow on the ground. Now I'm wishing they made snow skis for my new RC airplane. I'll have to admit I wouldn't mind going fishing with those guys and catching whatever the fish was in the next picture. Tuna? Yup, that was the tuna we got on our first tuna fishing expedition on the Egg Harbor. I had been warned by others, including some of the local charter captains that it could take a couple of seasons of trying to even hook up with a tuna. We left the dock at about 6am that morning and hooked that one by 8am. Lucky fishing boat. Here's a picture after we returned to the slip. Pictured are my son John, my brother Bob, my son-in-law Jim and another (shirtless guy) that we used to call the "Dock Rat". Nice guy but he was a busy-body, always checking on what was going on in the marina. He wasn't on the fishing trip. Funny story involving my father-in-law that day. He was a long time boater who loved fishing for flounder and never ventured more than a few hundred yards offshore in his old Uniflite. The crew that day consisted of just me, my brother, my son and son-in-law. When we hooked up so early in the day I realized we only had enough ice for the fish well to last a couple of hours. We were about 22 miles out, so I headed back to Scituate intending to stock up with ice and then head back out. On the ride back I called Mrs.E. and told her we had our first tuna. She in turn must have called her father because when we got back to the dock there he was, flounder rod in hand, ready to go back out with us for tuna. http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img001.jpg Nice fish! So, did you catch some more when you went back out? |
Spring is coming ...
On 3/17/2014 10:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:51:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/17/2014 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/17/2014 9:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:17:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ... and my thoughts are increasingly becoming: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img005.jpg?t=1395062020 Nice of you to say so. I woke up to four more inches of snow on the ground. Now I'm wishing they made snow skis for my new RC airplane. I'll have to admit I wouldn't mind going fishing with those guys and catching whatever the fish was in the next picture. Tuna? Yup, that was the tuna we got on our first tuna fishing expedition on the Egg Harbor. I had been warned by others, including some of the local charter captains that it could take a couple of seasons of trying to even hook up with a tuna. We left the dock at about 6am that morning and hooked that one by 8am. Lucky fishing boat. Here's a picture after we returned to the slip. Pictured are my son John, my brother Bob, my son-in-law Jim and another (shirtless guy) that we used to call the "Dock Rat". Nice guy but he was a busy-body, always checking on what was going on in the marina. He wasn't on the fishing trip. Funny story involving my father-in-law that day. He was a long time boater who loved fishing for flounder and never ventured more than a few hundred yards offshore in his old Uniflite. The crew that day consisted of just me, my brother, my son and son-in-law. When we hooked up so early in the day I realized we only had enough ice for the fish well to last a couple of hours. We were about 22 miles out, so I headed back to Scituate intending to stock up with ice and then head back out. On the ride back I called Mrs.E. and told her we had our first tuna. She in turn must have called her father because when we got back to the dock there he was, flounder rod in hand, ready to go back out with us for tuna. http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img001.jpg Nice fish! So, did you catch some more when you went back out? No. The bluefin tuna come and go in cycles up here. During this period of time people were lucky to get one or two of these "football" tunas every season or two. That's why it was such a big deal that we got one on our first venture out and within a couple of hours of getting underway. I had just received the tuna permit the day before. A couple of years later, in the same waters, people were getting them almost every time they went out. |
Spring is coming ...
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:13:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/17/2014 10:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:51:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/17/2014 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/17/2014 9:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:17:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: ... and my thoughts are increasingly becoming: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img005.jpg?t=1395062020 Nice of you to say so. I woke up to four more inches of snow on the ground. Now I'm wishing they made snow skis for my new RC airplane. I'll have to admit I wouldn't mind going fishing with those guys and catching whatever the fish was in the next picture. Tuna? Yup, that was the tuna we got on our first tuna fishing expedition on the Egg Harbor. I had been warned by others, including some of the local charter captains that it could take a couple of seasons of trying to even hook up with a tuna. We left the dock at about 6am that morning and hooked that one by 8am. Lucky fishing boat. Here's a picture after we returned to the slip. Pictured are my son John, my brother Bob, my son-in-law Jim and another (shirtless guy) that we used to call the "Dock Rat". Nice guy but he was a busy-body, always checking on what was going on in the marina. He wasn't on the fishing trip. Funny story involving my father-in-law that day. He was a long time boater who loved fishing for flounder and never ventured more than a few hundred yards offshore in his old Uniflite. The crew that day consisted of just me, my brother, my son and son-in-law. When we hooked up so early in the day I realized we only had enough ice for the fish well to last a couple of hours. We were about 22 miles out, so I headed back to Scituate intending to stock up with ice and then head back out. On the ride back I called Mrs.E. and told her we had our first tuna. She in turn must have called her father because when we got back to the dock there he was, flounder rod in hand, ready to go back out with us for tuna. http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img001.jpg Nice fish! So, did you catch some more when you went back out? No. The bluefin tuna come and go in cycles up here. During this period of time people were lucky to get one or two of these "football" tunas every season or two. That's why it was such a big deal that we got one on our first venture out and within a couple of hours of getting underway. I had just received the tuna permit the day before. A couple of years later, in the same waters, people were getting them almost every time they went out. When I initially saw the picture of the boat, with your comment, I thought you'd found a boat of 'interest'. I measured the snow on the hood of my truck - six and a half inches. We're halfway through March. This is ridiculous. And the dogs want to go for a walk. Better take 'em. They'll bug me all day long if I don't. Adios for a bit. |
Spring is coming ...
On 3/17/2014 9:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
... and my thoughts are increasingly becoming: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img005.jpg?t=1395062020 Another Egg? |
Spring is coming ...
|
Spring is coming ...
On 3/17/2014 11:30 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 3/17/2014 9:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: ... and my thoughts are increasingly becoming: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img005.jpg?t=1395062020 Another Egg? No. Don't want another sportsfish type boat. Unless it's cheap. |
Spring is coming ...
On 3/17/14, 12:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 11:30 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote: On 3/17/2014 9:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: ... and my thoughts are increasingly becoming: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img005.jpg?t=1395062020 Another Egg? No. Don't want another sportsfish type boat. Unless it's cheap. You might like one of these...I sure do. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YokmT8Kft8 |
Spring is coming ...
On 3/17/2014 1:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/17/14, 12:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/17/2014 11:30 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote: On 3/17/2014 9:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: ... and my thoughts are increasingly becoming: http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/img005.jpg?t=1395062020 Another Egg? No. Don't want another sportsfish type boat. Unless it's cheap. You might like one of these...I sure do. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YokmT8Kft8 It has the look of a Bayliner. |
Spring is coming ...
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:25:10 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote: You might like one of these...I sure do. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YokmT8Kft8 It has the look of a Bayliner. === It does, and it's single engine, not particularly desirable for close quarters maneuvering with a high profile, flybridge design like that. Once the wind catches you things get very dicey if you are near docks and other boats. |
Spring is coming ...
On 3/17/2014 1:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:25:10 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote: You might like one of these...I sure do. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YokmT8Kft8 It has the look of a Bayliner. === It does, and it's single engine, not particularly desirable for close quarters maneuvering with a high profile, flybridge design like that. Once the wind catches you things get very dicey if you are near docks and other boats. The 34 does sorta have a Bayliner look to it, but I like some of their other models. Although single screw, the boat shown in the video had both bow and stern thrusters which overcome some of the close quarter maneuvering challenges. The single screw 36' Grand Banks we had was equipped with a hydraulically powered stern thruster which was useful although it was not particularly powerful. It was still fun learning "back and fill". I understand that Beneteau boats have a very good reputation but I've never been aboard one. I like this one though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZwWXyQFcA |
Spring is coming ...
On 3/17/2014 2:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 1:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:25:10 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote: You might like one of these...I sure do. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YokmT8Kft8 It has the look of a Bayliner. === It does, and it's single engine, not particularly desirable for close quarters maneuvering with a high profile, flybridge design like that. Once the wind catches you things get very dicey if you are near docks and other boats. The 34 does sorta have a Bayliner look to it, but I like some of their other models. Although single screw, the boat shown in the video had both bow and stern thrusters which overcome some of the close quarter maneuvering challenges. The single screw 36' Grand Banks we had was equipped with a hydraulically powered stern thruster which was useful although it was not particularly powerful. It was still fun learning "back and fill". I understand that Beneteau boats have a very good reputation but I've never been aboard one. I like this one though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZwWXyQFcA 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 |
Spring is coming ...
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. |
Spring is coming ...
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. |
Spring is coming ...
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. |
Spring is coming ...
|
Spring is coming ...
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. |
Spring is coming ...
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. |
Spring is coming ...
|
Spring is coming ...
On 3/17/14, 7:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/17/2014 5:07 PM, wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:09:03 -0400, 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. It that point you could just charter one of those "executive" 737s and still save money. When I took the Navigator from MA to Florida my fuel expense was about $2,800. (one way) Fuel prices probably averaged about $1.55 per gal back then. Figure about a 1600 mile trip, that's about 1,866 gallons burned. (actually less because I still had fuel upon arrival). I don't know what diesel goes for at marinas now, but it must be at least $4.00/gal or more. So, today that trip would cost at least $7,500. The Navigator was a nice compromise between cruising speed and fuel economy. It would cruise all day at 17-19 knots which is fast enough to get you there in a reasonable time and it didn't beat you up in rough water. The Egg Harbor was much faster but most of the time you couldn't use it's speed due to sea conditions. About $3.65 to $4.04 around here. Example: Annapolis Landing Marina Annapolis, MD Annapolis Harbor, Back Creek (410) 263-0090 Diesel Price: $3.679 Comments: Tax included. Gas Price: $3.779 Tax Rate: - Discounts: WE'RE OPEN WEDNESDAY THROUGH SUNDAY 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. CLOSED MONDAY AND TUESDAY .10/gallon for CASH or CHECK Check wed site www.annapolismarina.com for fuel prices Volume discounts-500 gallons or more .10/gallon Last Update: Mar 13, 2014 |
Spring is coming ...
On 3/17/2014 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. It all depends on what you use your boat for obviously. In the bigger boats, I like comfort mainly because I like to spend a lot of time on them, not necessarily always underway. The 36' Grand Banks we had was a 6-7 knot cruise boat that would go from MA to Florida on a tank of fuel. For what it's designed for, it was a great boat and I enjoyed what it had to offer. The 37' Egg Harbor was designed for getting out to a fishing spot in a hurry. It was fast, burned a lot of fuel but I found that most of the time I had to slow down due to sea conditions, otherwise it would almost go airborne. It was a nice boat but I sold it after only two years. The Navigator was a nice compromise. Decent fuel economy, 17-19 knot cruise if you wanted to get somewhere in a reasonable period of time, soft ride in rough water and enough creature comforts to live on for weeks at a time. |
Spring is coming ...
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:21:20 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: If I had the money to spend I'd design a light trawler capable of 15 mpg. === There's no such animal. Even small sailboats do not get that kind of fuel economy under most conditions. |
Spring is coming ...
|
Spring is coming ...
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. |
Spring is coming ...
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. |
Spring is coming ...
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 |
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 ...
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com