Chuck, what's wrong with this picture?
 

On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:25:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

99% of engine failures are due to either bad/no fuel, or
dead batteries.

I'd argue that cooling system issues are right up there also. Dead
batteries are easily fixed on a boat with a generator of some sort.

Chuck, what's wrong with this picture?
 

99% of engine failures are due to either bad/no fuel, or
dead batteries.


Wayne.B wrote:
I'd argue that cooling system issues are right up there also. Dead
batteries are easily fixed on a boat with a generator of some sort.


Good point, but if your engine is overheated you can usually
wait for it to cool down and then idle along.... unless
you've run it to the melt-down point.

The genius who formerly owned our boat tied the generator
start battery to a couple of lights & fans so that it could
be dead, too (and it was). Some people deserve to pay higher
tow insurance!

Fair Skies
Doug King

Chuck, what's wrong with this picture?
 

In article ,
says...


Are you concerned about get-home power in the event of a failure?


Nope.

99% of engine failures are due to either bad/no fuel, or
dead batteries. A second engine is no help in those
circumstances, and a "get-home" engine is usually a bad
compromise and gets skipped on maintenance so it's actually
*less* reliable than the main.

My "get-home" plan in the event of main engine failure is to
stay put while I fix the damn thing. And with the full
maintenance effort devoted to just one engine, I feel that
it's far more reliable than twins anyway.

Staying put can be a dicey situation. Say you're in a following sea and
it's foggy and you're in shipping lanes that feature mega ton vessels
that take miles to slow down and that engine craps out 'cause you nearly
pitchpoled on a wave. It won't start and you're hearing bridge-to-
bridge communications on channel 14 that confirms your radar display's
suggestion that a tanker is bearing down on your position.

I've been in this situation, minus the engine failure, where my
visibility extended to about 50 ft. and I was losing light.

The last place I want to be in a rolling boat is trying to figure out
what happened to my very hot engine in its very hot engine room.

That was the day I decided to brush up on my coastal navigation skills.

jps

Chuck, what's wrong with this picture?
 

jps wrote:
Staying put can be a dicey situation. Say you're in a following sea and
it's foggy and you're in shipping lanes that feature mega ton vessels
that take miles to slow down and that engine craps out 'cause you nearly
pitchpoled on a wave. It won't start and you're hearing bridge-to-
bridge communications on channel 14 that confirms your radar display's
suggestion that a tanker is bearing down on your position.


Is that likely to happen in the ICW?


BTW just for perspective, those tankers & other big ships
rely on single engine power.

DSK

Chuck, what's wrong with this picture?
 

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:
Staying put can be a dicey situation. Say you're in a following sea and
it's foggy and you're in shipping lanes that feature mega ton vessels
that take miles to slow down and that engine craps out 'cause you nearly
pitchpoled on a wave. It won't start and you're hearing bridge-to-
bridge communications on channel 14 that confirms your radar display's
suggestion that a tanker is bearing down on your position.


Is that likely to happen in the ICW?

So, you're admitting that different choices in power plant may be
appropriate in different circumstances? Be that as it may, there's a
ton of folks in your single screw camp up thisaway. I'm not among 'em.

BTW just for perspective, those tankers & other big ships
rely on single engine power.

I'd feel a lot safer if I were in one of those rather than something
that looks big at the dock and feels like a cork once it's in deep
water...

DSK

jps