They are rolling along now on their counter clockwise Great Loop.

Follow along.

http://dnkcruising.blogspot.com/

On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:52:57 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

They are rolling along now on their counter clockwise Great Loop.

Follow along.

http://dnkcruising.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the link. I was reading that he had an engine problem a
couple of days before they set off. I hate that. If he's anything like
me, he'll now have that little seed of doubt in the back of his mind,
just festering. Man, I hate that.

He's a handy guy. Hopefully, it's fixed and the rest will be smooth
sailing.

On May 21, 3:52 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
They are rolling along now on their counter clockwise Great Loop.

Follow along.

http://dnkcruising.blogspot.com/

Exceptionally handsome boat he's got there........ :-)


Of the approximately 50 Sundowners Doug mentions in his blog, most
were 30-footers.
There were less than 20 of the 36's built, with apocryphal dockside
historians typically mentioning numbers between 12-18. There are about
a half dozen 36's in the Pacific NW, (where the original dealer was
located), including mine. It's rare to know another person with a 36
Sundowner, especially when that ownership wasn't the basis for initial
introduction.

Wishing the Kings the very best. Looks like they got the "ism" for
this cruise ironed out
with the fuel system glitch, so perhaps they will have better luck
from here out.

On May 21, 9:34 am, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:40:25 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:52:57 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

They are rolling along now on their counter clockwise Great Loop.

Follow along.

http://dnkcruising.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the link. I was reading that he had an engine problem a
couple of days before they set off. I hate that. If he's anything like
me, he'll now have that little seed of doubt in the back of his mind,
just festering. Man, I hate that.

He's a handy guy. Hopefully, it's fixed and the rest will be smooth
sailing.

When Doug bought that tub, many folks questioned the wisdom of a
single engine. Doug's blustery over-confident reply was that with only
one engine, he'd lavish it with twice as much maintenance. Looks like
that was just more wind.

CWM

Sounds like a short version of a longer decision, possibly deflective,
certainly tounge in cheek, and probably out of context. Man, you are
just mean.


Anyway, Doug and Mrs. Doug, I think I remember you planning this a
couple of years back when I read the group more, smooth runnings to
you and most of all, have fun.

On May 21, 6:34 am, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:40:25 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:52:57 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

They are rolling along now on their counter clockwise Great Loop.

Follow along.

http://dnkcruising.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the link. I was reading that he had an engine problem a
couple of days before they set off. I hate that. If he's anything like
me, he'll now have that little seed of doubt in the back of his mind,
just festering. Man, I hate that.

He's a handy guy. Hopefully, it's fixed and the rest will be smooth
sailing.

When Doug bought that tub, many folks questioned the wisdom of a
single engine. Doug's blustery over-confident reply was that with only
one engine, he'd lavish it with twice as much maintenance. Looks like
that was just more wind.

CWM


Darn good thing you never see a twin engine boat getting towed back to
the dock.


Advantages of twins:

1. Redundancy
2. May be easier to handle in some close quarter situations.

(both are important)


Disadvantages of twins:

1. Fuel consumption is 100% higher at the same rpm, (but often only
about 80% higher
at the same speed)

2. Additional weight.

3. Weight is placed higher in many hulls, raising the COG. (Singles
can be placed lower and over the keel).

4. Exposed running gear. (more people probably lose propulsion because
they have torn off a strut or damaged an exposed shaft that los
propulsion doe to the failure of a pproperly maintained diesel engine)

5. Increased risk of sinking. Hit something hard enough to tear off a
strut, and just try to stop the water flooding in through a 3-4 sq ft
hole in the hull. (Singles often run the shaft through a shaft log,
and protect the prop with a skeg and rudder)

6. Maintenance costs are double.

7. Engine room is more crowded, without adequate room to work in many
cases. (As a result of the expense and inconvenience, sometimes twins
get less maintenance than needed).


Singles or twins......some pretty savvy boaters come down on both
sides of this issue.
Very few savvy boaters will dismiss the opposite school of thought as
being without merit.

On May 21, 1:32 pm, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On 21 May 2007 10:22:58 -0700, wrote:





On May 21, 9:34 am, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:40:25 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:52:57 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

They are rolling along now on their counter clockwise Great Loop.

Follow along.

http://dnkcruising.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the link. I was reading that he had an engine problem a
couple of days before they set off. I hate that. If he's anything like
me, he'll now have that little seed of doubt in the back of his mind,
just festering. Man, I hate that.

He's a handy guy. Hopefully, it's fixed and the rest will be smooth
sailing.

When Doug bought that tub, many folks questioned the wisdom of a
single engine. Doug's blustery over-confident reply was that with only
one engine, he'd lavish it with twice as much maintenance. Looks like
that was just more wind.

CWM

Sounds like a short version of a longer decision, possibly deflective,
certainly tounge in cheek, and probably out of context.

Nope. I reported what transpired. I wasn't even one of the many who
questioned his choice of a single screw.

CWM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just reporting what transpired, huh? Then how do you come to the
conclusion that Doug hasn't been meticulous in his maintenance nor
that he didn't lavish twice as much attention on his single engine?
Sounds like possibly a case of severe jealously on your part.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:48:41 GMT, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

Fuel problems occur far more often than tearing off a strut.
Not even close

I agree with that, and cooling system issues are a close second.

On May 22, 8:48 am, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On 22 May 2007 08:09:33 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On May 21, 6:34 am, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:40:25 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:52:57 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

They are rolling along now on their counter clockwise Great Loop.

Follow along.

http://dnkcruising.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the link. I was reading that he had an engine problem a
couple of days before they set off. I hate that. If he's anything like
me, he'll now have that little seed of doubt in the back of his mind,
just festering. Man, I hate that.

He's a handy guy. Hopefully, it's fixed and the rest will be smooth
sailing.

When Doug bought that tub, many folks questioned the wisdom of a
single engine. Doug's blustery over-confident reply was that with only
one engine, he'd lavish it with twice as much maintenance. Looks like
that was just more wind.

CWM

Darn good thing you never see a twin engine boat getting towed back to
the dock.

Advantages of twins:

1. Redundancy
2. May be easier to handle in some close quarter situations.

(both are important)

Disadvantages of twins:

1. Fuel consumption is 100% higher at the same rpm, (but often only
about 80% higher
at the same speed)

Really? 2 100 hp engines use twice as much fuel as a single 200hp
engine? Amazing! Who woulda thunk it?

It would be extremely atypical to put in two engines each rated at
half the horsepower of a single application. Performance in many cases
would be *worse* than the single engine alternative, as you would be
trying to move a heavier boat with the same total HP.






4. Exposed running gear. (more people probably lose propulsion because
they have torn off a strut or damaged an exposed shaft that los
propulsion doe to the failure of a pproperly maintained diesel engine)

Bzzzt. Fuel problems occur far more often than tearing off a strut.
Not even close

CWM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bzzt back at ya..... most fuel problems will disable both engines on a
twin setup. Sounds like Doug had a mechanical problem, ot actually a
fuel problem. Seems like it was with his with his lift pump. That's a
part that works until it fails, not really anything to "maintain"

On May 22, 9:56 am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:48:41 GMT, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

Fuel problems occur far more often than tearing off a strut.
Not even close

I agree with that, and cooling system issues are a close second.

A load of bad fuel will typically disable all engines, regardless of
the number of engines aboard.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:00:42 GMT, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

the king of
sailors, and then bought a trawler

And you have a problem with that?