On May 22, 6:13 pm, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On 22 May 2007 17:07:44 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote:





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.

I'll refer you back to your statement that a twin screw setup would use twice as
much fuel. Lets say that we want to compare 2 140 hp engines to one 200 hp
engine if you think that will somehow make your argument work.

You are just running around trying to move the goal posts at this point. You
said something stupid. Just own up to it, and save us the mindless temper
tantrum.

CWM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Is there some specific reason that you can't post without making mean
spirited personal remarks? To just about everybody?

You keep referrring to a situation that doesn't commonly exist.
According to your theory, manufacturers routinely install smaller
engines in twin engine configurations.

Allow me to suggest a very commonly encountered example of a boat in
both a single and twin configuration. Doug's boat was never offered in
a twin engine setup, but I will use a boat of similar size and also a
semi-diplacement hull characteristics.

If you access Yachtworld and search for listing #61889-1563030 you
will find a 36-foot Grand Banks Classic. This single engine GB has an
engine rated at 210-HP.

Now search for YW listing #1472-169087. This is a twin engine version
of the same hull in the previous listing. What's it powered with? A
pair of diesels *each* rated for 220 HP. According to your version of
reality, this boat should be powered with maybe a pair of 135's?

Make as many nasty remarks and accuse me of being as "stupid" as you
care to....the fact is that at the same rpm a pair of 220 HP diesels
will burn twice the fuel that a single 210 HP diesel would burn.

So there's my real world example. I now await yours. Please provide
information about any manufacturer that commonly drops the HP of
engines in a twin configuration to 50-60% of the HP used in the same
boat set up as a single screw.

Let's talk real world, not "move the goalposts" to outerspace.