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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It
is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons used
for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but obviously
the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old data
(1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30 million
gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20 million gallons of
that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much of a
dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification for burning
50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just for
kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jim wrote:

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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons
used for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20
million gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much
of a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification for
burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just for
kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot
less fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Jim wrote:

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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It
is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons used
for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20 million
gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much of
a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification for
burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just for
kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot less
fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

I can tell you put a lot of thought into this matter.






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

HK wrote:
Jim wrote:

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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons
used for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20
million gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much
of a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification
for burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just
for kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot
less fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

How did you come up with the 40 gph number?

HK wrote:
Jim wrote:

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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons
used for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20
million gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much
of a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification
for burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just
for kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot
less fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

Large boats with smaller engines would burn less fuel per hour, but the
MPG would be worse since they have to run the same distance, dummy.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:04:18 -0500, Dan intrceptor@gmaildotcom
wrote:

Large boats with smaller engines would burn less fuel per hour, but the
MPG would be worse since they have to run the same distance, dummy.

In actual practice it does not work out that way. It takes a huge
increase in fuel consumption to run a large boat on plane. The same
boat run at something like 1.2 times the SQRT of waterline length will
average much less on a per mile basis. That's why people buy
trawlers.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:54:37 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:04:18 -0500, Dan intrceptor@gmaildotcom
wrote:

Large boats with smaller engines would burn less fuel per hour, but the
MPG would be worse since they have to run the same distance, dummy.

In actual practice it does not work out that way. It takes a huge
increase in fuel consumption to run a large boat on plane. The same
boat run at something like 1.2 times the SQRT of waterline length will
average much less on a per mile basis. That's why people buy
trawlers.

That's 5.1 mph for me. That's too fast to troll for stripers, but it would
be good for spanish mackerel.

Sounds good. Thanks!