Well, I've made up my mind...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
For this size and type of boat, I'm not at all convinced that diesels
offer any more of an advantage.

I could be mistaken in my belief and would be perfectly willing to go
the diesel route given the same level of performance. I have been on
a new 32' Topaz and all things considered, felt just so-so with the
overall performance.

I just think that for this type boat, and the way I tend to run the
boat, outboards are the preferred power system.



There's a female in Australia selling big diesel outboards.

Eisboch




And rust is standard, not an option.

Well, I've made up my mind...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


By the way, I disagree with the close quarter manuevering, but that's
another discussion.


You may be correct as I confess I've never tried backing a larger, twin
outboard type boat into a narrow slip. I am going more by observation of
others.

The boat beside the GB in Scituate is a 34 foot something or other with twin
Yamaha 300 outboards. I've assisted the owner several times this summer
(grabbing a line) as he returns to his slip and attempts to back into his
slip. It seems to me that with outboards the props are too far back and
too close together to effectively spin the boat or easily move the stern
around as compared to twin inboards. He typically also has to use the helm
to get some vectored thrust as well as add some well timed throttle. To me,
this just adds to the overall complexity of docking. With twin inboards, I
don't touch the helm and do all the stern adjustments with the
transmissions, only occasionally added a bit of throttle to counteract wind
or current.

Now, the GB is a whole different story ......

Eisboch

Well, I've made up my mind...
 

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:23:16 -0400, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

But the Yamahas give him a chance to buy into solid, four cycle outboard
technology!


Nothing more solid than a pair of four cycle diesels. Or even two cycle, if
anybody still makes 'em.

Eisboch




I actually saw one of those Japanese (Yanmar?) diesels once, long ago
and far away. It was on a crabber's workboat. I think I remember that it
seemed noisy.

There obviously is a way to put a high output, lightweight diesel in
cars (recall that an Audi diesel was the first diesel to win at Le Mans
- an aluminum, 5.5-liter, 12-cylinder that produced more than 650 hp)
and if there is a market for it, in boats and perhaps someday in an
outboard.

I wouldn't mind a diesel-powered jet (water pump) deep vee fishing boat.

I've read that Audi is planning to import a diesel again. The damn thing is
in the $100K range, so I won't have one. Never was an Audi fan.

Well, I've made up my mind...
 

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:41:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

With twin inboards, I
don't touch the helm and do all the stern adjustments with the
transmissions, only occasionally added a bit of throttle to counteract wind
or current.

Now, the GB is a whole different story ......

Not mine.

Big engines, big props, lots of torque widely spaced, full length
keel, 60,000 lbs of displacement: Docks like a dream, bow thrusters
not required.

The problem with twin OBs and I/Os is exactly as you describe: small
props, too close together. Most people I know treat them as a single
engine and use vectored thrust along with judicious use ot the
throttles.

Well, I've made up my mind...
 

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:35:33 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:41:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

With twin inboards, I
don't touch the helm and do all the stern adjustments with the
transmissions, only occasionally added a bit of throttle to counteract wind
or current.

Now, the GB is a whole different story ......

Not mine.

Big engines, big props, lots of torque widely spaced, full length
keel, 60,000 lbs of displacement: Docks like a dream, bow thrusters
not required.

The problem with twin OBs and I/Os is exactly as you describe: small
props, too close together. Most people I know treat them as a single
engine and use vectored thrust along with judicious use ot the
throttles.

That's correct - twins are not a real advantage with a relatively
narrow beam (compared to your...um...beam).

However, it's just as efficient and I would posit that someone with
twin outboards is as efficient at docking as you in your GB given
experience with the boat.

To tell you the truth, it would take me a while to get used to
throwing your boat around, but I could put a twin outboard boat
anywhere I wanted.

Safely.

Intact.

Well, maybe a minor scratch or two. :)

Well, I've made up my mind...
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:41:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

With twin inboards, I
don't touch the helm and do all the stern adjustments with the
transmissions, only occasionally added a bit of throttle to counteract
wind
or current.

Now, the GB is a whole different story ......

Not mine.

Big engines, big props, lots of torque widely spaced, full length
keel, 60,000 lbs of displacement: Docks like a dream, bow thrusters
not required.

Ya hafta remember. Ours is a baby GB.

Eisboch

Well, I've made up my mind...
 

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:51:08 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Big engines, big props, lots of torque widely spaced, full length
keel, 60,000 lbs of displacement: Docks like a dream, bow thrusters
not required.

Ya hafta remember. Ours is a baby GB.

I call them Baby Grands...