ordkhntr

Center cockpit vs aft cockpit

Recommended Posts

Anyone with visions of zipping around on a big power boat needs to talk to the crew who do deliveries.  My friend was crew on a 90' viking, yes it could move, but only when the owner was there and it was miserable on a open ocean crossing, other than all the ac and plush carpeting.

For Cruising probably have the same wx window limitations as a medium Cruising sailboat on a decent powerboat once it's all averaged out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

These boats (RM, JPK... ) cover their windows with fabric when they go South, as you said it would unbearable inside otherwise.

It isn't just that, you need the airflow. I have my windshield down now, it is about 40F right this second. When it is 100F the windshield is unzipped!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SASSAFRASS said:

Anyone with visions of zipping around on a big power boat needs to talk to the crew who do deliveries.  My friend was crew on a 90' viking, yes it could move, but only when the owner was there and it was miserable on a open ocean crossing, other than all the ac and plush carpeting.

For Cruising probably have the same wx window limitations as a medium Cruising sailboat on a decent powerboat once it's all averaged out.

This times about 1000!

I have done some deliveries of big and fast(ish) powerboats and it really isn't fun unless it is flat calm and even then the engine noise is unbearable anywhere but the flying bridge and that isn't even getting into the gallons per mile fuel use.

The weather windows are much worse than even a 30 foot sailboat if you are talking surviving the trip unless you are talking some 100+ foot boats and not even all of them. The powerboats that can do the nasty weather are takeoffs on things like steel tugboats or crew boats and tend to be called "expedition yachts". This is millionaire territory and then some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This times about 1000!

I have done some deliveries of big and fast(ish) powerboats and it really isn't fun unless it is flat calm and even then the engine noise is unbearable anywhere but the flying bridge and that isn't even getting into the gallons per mile fuel use.

The weather windows are much worse than even a 30 foot sailboat if you are talking surviving the trip unless you are talking some 100+ foot boats and not even all of them. The powerboats that can do the nasty weather are takeoffs on things like steel tugboats or crew boats and tend to be called "expedition yachts". This is millionaire territory and then some.

When we're too decrepit to sail, tottering up and down the ICW or doing the Great Loop in a trawler sounds way better than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of nice power boats out there and range is only a matter of tankage.  You could spend a lifetime seeing BC in a small power boat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:
59 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This times about 1000!

I have done some deliveries of big and fast(ish) powerboats and it really isn't fun unless it is flat calm and even then the engine noise is unbearable anywhere but the flying bridge and that isn't even getting into the gallons per mile fuel use.

The weather windows are much worse than even a 30 foot sailboat if you are talking surviving the trip unless you are talking some 100+ foot boats and not even all of them. The powerboats that can do the nasty weather are takeoffs on things like steel tugboats or crew boats and tend to be called "expedition yachts". This is millionaire territory and then some.

When we're too decrepit to sail, tottering up and down the ICW or doing the Great Loop in a trawler sounds way better than this.

Well I don't want to drag this in the direction of comparing cruising under power to cruising under sail, but....

Sailing and line are expensive. When my wife and I were shopping for a "big, keep-in-water" boat (instead of the boats we kept on trailers when we lived 3 hours from the coast but less than 1 hour from many nice lakes)...

post-30927-030624200%201284318859_thumb.jpg

... we started out looking for a sailboat. I had 2 hard criteria, draft and performance. I love to sail and that means the fun of SAILING a boat. Cloth in the wind and riding along does not interest me. Most big cruising sailboats are not much fun to sail, though; many of our friends with same idea got these floating barns that might as well have been built of brick for all the SAILING enjoyment. And they motor around >75% of the time when cruising. We had zero intention of passage-making, so a trawler was fine for me.

post-30927-127681014806_thumb.jpg

Tankage does determine range, which is better figured as radius of action from a fuel supply. And the bigger your tanks, the options diverge. Marinas you can fill up at may be slightly fewer, but you can also dock anywhere near a paved road and call a fuel wholesaler to bring a truck with an extra-long hose. They'll be glad to sell you 400+ gallons, where ever they can meet you. Speed makes a HUGE difference in fuel consumption. If you can stand to go 6 knots, you will be amazed at how many miles you can cover for not that many gallons... motorboat hulls are still much less efficient at low speed though. Our top speed was about 8 1/2, and we normally cruised at exactly 7, which was where our fuel consumption curve was at 45. If we 5 knots, our range almost doubled.

BTW here's a big difference between trawler cruisers and sailing cruisers.... sailors brag about how fast they go. For most, a steady 8 1/2 knots would be a passage to brag about for life. Trawler skippers brag about how slow they go, but they are even bigger liars than sailors. Most trawler couples that wanted to cruise in company with us could not stand to slow down (in fact we only cruised in company with one other couple for any length of time). Many of them also complained about their fuel cost too.

Weather: most "trawlers" have much more narrow range of reserve buoyancy and stability than their owners think. Many a shippy-looking little motor vessel rolls like a pig in mud, and becomes unmanagable, in weather that would be an invigorating sail for a 35-ft sailing cruiser. Fast motorboats are sometimes worse, but not always. Those big windows can also bust out and sink you the first time a greenie comes over the rail.

We liked to chug along the miles in glassy calm. Our trawler (a Sundowner 36 "Taiwan Teaky" with 70 hp Ford Lehman).

post-30927-0-60500100-1356103841_thumb.jpg

was a hard-chine hull with a generous skeg, and resisted rolling to a fair degree. The skeg also protected the prop nicely, so we could go exploring without having all kinds of expensive dings down there. We mostly cruised with our dog, Hank. We went from Port Jefferson NY (Long Island) to Jupiter Fla, 5 or 6 times, enough that most of this coast was familiar & homey. Bahamas once, Great Loop once, between Charleston SC and the Chesapeake a dozen times. It was really nice. We liked anchoring out, but the dog made us picky about where. And we really liked the historic little waterfront towns, the canals rivers are great in this regard.

I think anybody interested in passage-making or out-island cruising would do better with a motorsailer. Such a boat does not necessarily need to be a slug, but if you're going to spend time away from civilization, you need to carry a lot of stuff.

I apologize for the hijack

FB- Doug

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

BTW here's a big difference between trawler cruisers and sailing cruisers.... sailors brag about how fast they go. For most, a steady 8 1/2 knots would be a passage to brag about for life. Trawler skippers brag about how slow they go, but they are even bigger liars than sailors.

Doubtless find a use for this in futuro.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well I don't want to drag this in the direction of comparing cruising under power to cruising under sail, but....

Sailing and line are expensive. When my wife and I were shopping for a "big, keep-in-water" boat (instead of the boats we kept on trailers when we lived 3 hours from the coast but less than 1 hour from many nice lakes)...

post-30927-030624200%201284318859_thumb.jpg

... we started out looking for a sailboat. I had 2 hard criteria, draft and performance. I love to sail and that means the fun of SAILING a boat. Cloth in the wind and riding along does not interest me. Most big cruising sailboats are not much fun to sail, though; many of our friends with same idea got these floating barns that might as well have been built of brick for all the SAILING enjoyment. And they motor around >75% of the time when cruising. We had zero intention of passage-making, so a trawler was fine for me.

post-30927-127681014806_thumb.jpg

Tankage does determine range, which is better figured as radius of action from a fuel supply. And the bigger your tanks, the options diverge. Marinas you can fill up at may be slightly fewer, but you can also dock anywhere near a paved road and call a fuel wholesaler to bring a truck with an extra-long hose. They'll be glad to sell you 400+ gallons, where ever they can meet you. Speed makes a HUGE difference in fuel consumption. If you can stand to go 6 knots, you will be amazed at how many miles you can cover for not that many gallons... motorboat hulls are still much less efficient at low speed though. Our top speed was about 8 1/2, and we normally cruised at exactly 7, which was where our fuel consumption curve was at 45. If we 5 knots, our range almost doubled.

BTW here's a big difference between trawler cruisers and sailing cruisers.... sailors brag about how fast they go. For most, a steady 8 1/2 knots would be a passage to brag about for life. Trawler skippers brag about how slow they go, but they are even bigger liars than sailors. Most trawler couples that wanted to cruise in company with us could not stand to slow down (in fact we only cruised in company with one other couple for any length of time). Many of them also complained about their fuel cost too.

Weather: most "trawlers" have much more narrow range of reserve buoyancy and stability than their owners think. Many a shippy-looking little motor vessel rolls like a pig in mud, and becomes unmanagable, in weather that would be an invigorating sail for a 35-ft sailing cruiser. Fast motorboats are sometimes worse, but not always. Those big windows can also bust out and sink you the first time a greenie comes over the rail.

We liked to chug along the miles in glassy calm. Our trawler (a Sundowner 36 "Taiwan Teaky" with 70 hp Ford Lehman).

post-30927-0-60500100-1356103841_thumb.jpg

was a hard-chine hull with a generous skeg, and resisted rolling to a fair degree. The skeg also protected the prop nicely, so we could go exploring without having all kinds of expensive dings down there. We mostly cruised with our dog, Hank. We went from Port Jefferson NY (Long Island) to Jupiter Fla, 5 or 6 times, enough that most of this coast was familiar & homey. Bahamas once, Great Loop once, between Charleston SC and the Chesapeake a dozen times. It was really nice. We liked anchoring out, but the dog made us picky about where. And we really liked the historic little waterfront towns, the canals rivers are great in this regard.

I think anybody interested in passage-making or out-island cruising would do better with a motorsailer. Such a boat does not necessarily need to be a slug, but if you're going to spend time away from civilization, you need to carry a lot of stuff.

I apologize for the hijack

FB- Doug

 

 

No apologies needed for me, I'm interested in hearing this stuff.

I find our boat fun to sail, but we can put up 200 mile days which is decent for a comparatively heavy cruising boat.

I think my problem with the next sailboat for me is that most monohull cruisers will feel like pigs in comparison, because we'll be ten feet shorter with a lot less waterline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

I find our boat fun to sail, but we can put up 200 mile days which is decent for a comparatively heavy cruising boat.

I think my problem with the next sailboat for me is that most monohull cruisers will feel like pigs in comparison, because we'll be ten feet shorter with a lot less waterline.

Doesn't that depend on how you measure performance?  Waterline is a good predictor of speed on passage, but that's not the only virtue in a cruising boat.

For example, I can think of many wonderful cruising grounds on crinkly coasts, where the desirable virtues would be more about agility than speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

No apologies needed for me, I'm interested in hearing this stuff.

I find our boat fun to sail, but we can put up 200 mile days which is decent for a comparatively heavy cruising boat.

I think my problem with the next sailboat for me is that most monohull cruisers will feel like pigs in comparison, because we'll be ten feet shorter with a lot less waterline.

I wouldn't be surprised if you end up going faster before you go slower.  The space and speed of a modern mono in the 40's will be appealing to a couple.  Not something so big to need powered everything but certainly capable of making similar miles and easy to sail double handed.  Alot less headache for maintenance, moorage and getting into tighter Ancorages.  No need for all the kid space at least in a permanent capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

Doesn't that depend on how you measure performance?  Waterline is a good predictor of speed on passage, but that's not the only virtue in a cruising boat.

For example, I can think of many wonderful cruising grounds on crinkly coasts, where the desirable virtues would be more about agility than speed.

This. I built my boat with the specific intention of poking about in the fringe bits. Shoal draft and robustness were much higher criteria than long distance passage-making speed.

And I can day-sail my boat any time. It takes about 30 minutes from the time we leave the house to the time we're sipping a drink and heading out off of the mooring.

On topic, it's sort of centre cockpit, minus the cockpit... typical Tom Colvin design in fact.

FKT

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

It isn't just that, you need the airflow. I have my windshield down now, it is about 40F right this second. When it is 100F the windshield is unzipped!

If you look carefully at the last photo, you'll see that you can open the front window for airflow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick! Introduce anti-drift measures.

Deploy meaningful photo on my mark.

3.2.1. Mark

slider-11-e1450439731710.jpg

Pheeeew. That was close.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matagi said:

Introduce anti-drift measures.

Marketing speak for a daggerboard?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer boats with ports rather than windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

Doesn't that depend on how you measure performance?  Waterline is a good predictor of speed on passage, but that's not the only virtue in a cruising boat.

For example, I can think of many wonderful cruising grounds on crinkly coasts, where the desirable virtues would be more about agility than speed.

I've been bluewater cruising though, coastal exploration is often why you have a dinghy which can plane.

Seakindliness and comfort are important of course, but I'm not in a local gunkholing boat. Eventually you leave that crinkly coast cruising ground and cross a long stretch of water to another.

200 mile days are nice, if you can get them. Though I plan my passages around 168.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

I've been bluewater cruising though, coastal exploration is often why you have a dinghy which can plane.

Seakindliness and comfort are important of course, but I'm not in a local gunkholing boat. Eventually you leave that crinkly coast cruising ground and cross a long stretch of water to another.

200 mile days are nice, if you can get them. Though I plan my passages around 168.

And your ratio of days on passage, to days on anchor exploring, to days in a marina berth is..... ?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

I've been bluewater cruising though, coastal exploration is often why you have a dinghy which can plane.

Seakindliness and comfort are important of course, but I'm not in a local gunkholing boat. Eventually you leave that crinkly coast cruising ground and cross a long stretch of water to another.

200 mile days are nice, if you can get them. Though I plan my passages around 168.

With a 35 foot boat we though we were the Gods Of The Sea to get 170 miles and then 180 the next day :D

Back to powerboats, when you deliver enough of them a steady 7 or 8 knots beats sometimes 30 and sometimes 4 all to hell. YMMV, running a SeaRay 55 with twin 1200 HP MAN diesels was fun enough in 2-3 foot chop as long as the fuel bill was an expense for the owner and not ME. The interior was like a bachelor party limo though, no sailor would enjoy it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

And your ratio of days on passage, to days on anchor exploring, to days in a marina berth is..... ?

FKT

That is the reality .. very few sea days 

choose a seaworthy , powerful design 

optimize the boat for coastal work and the good life 

then accept  the compromises when on passage 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

And your ratio of days on passage, to days on anchor exploring, to days in a marina berth is..... ?

FKT

Until the pandemic, the ratio of time in a berth was near infinite.

And honestly, I've never really had problems exploring at anchor in this boat. Yeah, a few places like Maupiti or Anegada I'd have to gird my loins and pucker it to get into, but I've never felt much limited by this boat.

Though your bars in Australia are a pain in the ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they won't let you in while wearing shorts! Very strange to me.

Oh, you meant the other kind of bars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Until the pandemic, the ratio of time in a berth was near infinite.

And honestly, I've never really had problems exploring at anchor in this boat. Yeah, a few places like Maupiti or Anegada I'd have to gird my loins and pucker it to get into, but I've never felt much limited by this boat.

Though your bars in Australia are a pain in the ass.

Not if you keep your back to the wall...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, olaf hart said:

Not if you keep your back to the wall...

Been spending free time at the Oyster Cove Inn lately, have we?

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2020 at 2:29 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

To extend that analogy, if I want to get 1 MPG or less I'll get a jet and make 1,000 miles before breakfast :P

* Bahamas and back from here at about 12 MPG is expensive enough, we leave at sunrise and land before sunset about 160 gallons of 100LL later.

I don't know man.  Jets have gotten way more efficient.  The one I fly the most gets 3.77 mpg in normal cruise and over four in long range:).

17AF8E00-04AD-4E72-A259-A43764657037.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That

51 minutes ago, dburchfiel said:

I don't know man.  Jets have gotten way more efficient.  The one I fly the most gets 3.77 mpg in normal cruise and over four in long range:).

17AF8E00-04AD-4E72-A259-A43764657037.jpeg

That is impressive. Best I ever did to the Bahamas was a Mooney that could do about 140-150 knots at maybe 10 GPH. The usual planes were 160-165 knots at 15-16 GPH.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
1 hour ago, dburchfiel said:

I don't know man.  Jets have gotten way more efficient.  The one I fly the most gets 3.77 mpg in normal cruise and over four in long range:).

17AF8E00-04AD-4E72-A259-A43764657037.jpeg

That is impressive. Best I ever did to the Bahamas was a Mooney that could do about 140-150 knots at maybe 10 GPH. The usual planes were 160-165 knots at 15-16 GPH.

That's better than a lot of motorboats!

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MoBo owners speak in gallons per hour because they don't want their wives to realize it's gallons per mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dburchfiel said:

I don't know man.  Jets have gotten way more efficient.  The one I fly the most gets 3.77 mpg in normal cruise and over four in long range:).

17AF8E00-04AD-4E72-A259-A43764657037.jpeg

My math (and Dassault's specs) has a Falcon 900 at less than 2mpg.  

What am I doing wrong?

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Panope said:

My math (and Dassault's specs) has a Falcon 900 at less than 2mpg.  

What am I doing wrong?

Steve

The conversion from metric, where it's cubits per square centimeter. To the nearest 1/16".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dburchfiel said:

I don't know man.  Jets have gotten way more efficient.  The one I fly the most gets 3.77 mpg in normal cruise and over four in long range:).

17AF8E00-04AD-4E72-A259-A43764657037.jpeg

Look like a Falcon 900.  Recent vintage. That and the 7X are great rides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
10 hours ago, SloopJonB said:
11 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:
11 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

That's better than a lot of motorboats!

 

Better than almost ANY of them.

MoBo owners speak in gallons per hour because they don't want their wives to realize it's gallons per mile.

True. And true again.

Gentleman, did you have a point?

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've cruised quite a bit on a friends 67' Lyman-Morse custom motorboat. We were doing high 20's along the coast of Nova Scotia and I glanced at the fuel and said "34 gph isn't bad". The owner pointed out "that's per engine". Twin 1000 hp Cats. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I've cruised quite a bit on a friends 67' Lyman-Morse custom motorboat. We were doing high 20's along the coast of Nova Scotia and I glanced at the fuel and said "34 gph isn't bad". The owner pointed out "that's per engine". Twin 1000 hp Cats. 

This is why,  philosophically and emotionally, I can't do a power boat.  (Let's not even talk about environmentally...)  The funny thing is that dollar/spreadsheet wise, especially on a 67' er, the difference in running costs between power and sail are probably not really the deciding factor.   1973 traumatized me when it comes to fuel use...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I've cruised quite a bit on a friends 67' Lyman-Morse custom motorboat. We were doing high 20's along the coast of Nova Scotia and I glanced at the fuel and said "34 gph isn't bad". The owner pointed out "that's per engine". Twin 1000 hp Cats. 

A friend who owned the yard I use was once offered a huge Sea Ray - 60' or thereabouts - by a customer who just wanted to get rid of it.

Chris said he only wanted like a dime on the dollar so he was seriously considering buying it.

Then he discovered it burned 37 GPH per side. It would have cost about a grand in fuel just to run across to Nanaimo for lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are thread drifting into "why would anybody spend a fortune on such a huge motor yacht." I postulate that 90% of the time it equates to visions of

Christian Nightmares on Twitter: "I'm blocked by Jerry Falwell Jr. on  Twitter, but over on his Instagram he's bragging about yachting around the  Greek Islands and taking photos of women in bikinis,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I've cruised quite a bit on a friends 67' Lyman-Morse custom motorboat. We were doing high 20's along the coast of Nova Scotia and I glanced at the fuel and said "34 gph isn't bad". The owner pointed out "that's per engine". Twin 1000 hp Cats. 

Is that Mad Max?

https://www.lymanmorse.com/project/mad-max/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I've cruised quite a bit on a friends 67' Lyman-Morse custom motorboat. We were doing high 20's along the coast of Nova Scotia and I glanced at the fuel and said "34 gph isn't bad". The owner pointed out "that's per engine". Twin 1000 hp Cats. 

That actually isn't bad at all. The Hatteras 36 I used to run with twin gas engines used something like 40 GPH to do 20 something and that was a much smaller boat.

What I like are the 1920s designs when engines were not that powerful. Long narrow hulls allowed a 50 something foot boat to do maybe 9-10 knot with 80-100 hp B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

That actually isn't bad at all. The Hatteras 36 I used to run with twin gas engines used something like 40 GPH to do 20 something and that was a much smaller boat.

What I like are the 1920s designs when engines were not that powerful. Long narrow hulls allowed a 50 something foot boat to do maybe 9-10 knot with 80-100 hp B)

The idea lives on in Molly Ban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only center cockpit boat that I have sailed was a Nor'Sea 27. For a small boat I thought it was the dumbest design I've ever seen compared to the "aft cockpit" version. Small boats are claustrophobic by definition. Chopping up a small space into smaller spaces makes that situation even worse. 

On the bigger boat front...the center cockpit thing results in the same question for me...WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 11:06 AM, Israel Hands said:

We are thread drifting into "why would anybody spend a fortune on such a huge motor yacht." I postulate that 90% of the time it equates to visions of

Christian Nightmares on Twitter: "I'm blocked by Jerry Falwell Jr. on  Twitter, but over on his Instagram he's bragging about yachting around the  Greek Islands and taking photos of women in bikinis,

So it boils down to "I like to watch the pool boy dog my wife"? 

We all have aspirations, I guess.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Diarmuid said:

So it boils down to "I like to watch the pool boy dog my wife"? 

We all have aspirations, I guess.

;)

Well actually the implication was supposed to be that the monied superegos who buy mega power yachts do it in part to have a steady entourage of young women aboard. It was just fun to use the Falwell Jr post (voyaging with wealthy Saudis) for the hypocrisy factor - his veneer of ‘I’m a good Christian.’

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Well actually the implication was supposed to be that the monied superegos who buy mega power yachts do it in part to have a steady entourage of young women aboard. It was just fun to use the Falwell Jr post (voyaging with wealthy Saudis) for the hypocrisy factor - his veneer of ‘I’m a good Christian.’

JFII does love the boating life:

Falwell tweet

The young woman who is not your wife -- prop also?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 2:57 PM, Steam Flyer said:

That's better than a lot of motorboats!

FB- Doug

 

On 12/17/2020 at 3:04 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

Better than almost ANY of them.

Water is a lot thicker than air...stickier, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Diarmuid said:

JFII does love the boating life:

Falwell tweet

The young woman who is not your wife -- prop also?

 

 

She looks nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

 

Water is a lot thicker than air...stickier, too.

A planing hull is a lifting body in air as well as water. I had a small powerboat that would do about 35 knots on 120 HP and when I trimmer her up in flat water you could feel the speed increase with much of the hull out of the water. I usually averaged about 6 GPH with that boat too :D

* until you hit the first wave which would about break your spine :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kent_island_sailor said:

A planing hull is a lifting body in air as well as water. I had a small powerboat that would do about 35 knots on 120 HP and when I trimmer her up in flat water you could feel the speed increase with much of the hull out of the water. I usually averaged about 6 GPH with that boat too :D

* until you hit the first wave which would about break your spine :o

True, but it's still dragging it's ass in the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

True, but it's still dragging it's ass in the water.

Not as much as those God-Awful constructions of the 1960s and 1970s that use twin 12 cylinder Detroit Diesels to try and get a 3 story condo on plane  and end up going around 18 or 20 knots with the stern sunk down leaving about a 5 foot wake and a huge cloud of black smoke while using about 3-4 gallons per mile. That is about twice the fuel a 737 uses :o

* fun time docking them in a crosswind, they'll go about 3-4 knots sideways! You go in at an angle with a bit of speed on and back down hard on the outside engine to try and yank the boat parallel to the dock before the wind takes control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ishmael said:

She looks nice.

Glad they took the picture when they did,  looked like she was pretty close to “stealing his soul”  didn’t even have enough time to button their pants.  He dodged a bullet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Marcjsmith said:

Glad they took the picture when they did,  looked like she was pretty close to “stealing his soul”  didn’t even have enough time to button their pants.  He dodged a bullet...

What the hell was going through his tiny mind posting that in the first place? I actually *almost* believe his explanation. That, and the pool boy/wife thing...he's an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ishmael said:

What the hell was going through his tiny mind posting that in the first place?

The wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

The wind.

I suspect it had a bit of "tank whiff" to it. Evangelists need to pump out way more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ishmael said:
4 hours ago, Marcjsmith said:

Glad they took the picture when they did,  looked like she was pretty close to “stealing his soul”  didn’t even have enough time to button their pants.  He dodged a bullet...

What the hell was going through his tiny mind posting that in the first place? I actually *almost* believe his explanation. That, and the pool boy/wife thing...he's an idiot.

This may actually have been calculated as the first step in a well-proven cycle.

  1. Let the photos get out there.
  2. Pray for them to trigger a media storm
  3. Deny everything
  4. Watch storm get bigger
  5. Make partial confession
  6. Watch storm grow even more
  7. Make full tearful confession, promising repentance
  8. Solicit funds to help the Lord facilitate the repentance
  9. Collect lots of cash
  10. Preach about how the Lord has chosen you as a symbol of repentance
  11. Buy your own megayacht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TwoLegged said:

This may actually have been calculated as the first step in a well-proven cycle.

  1. Let the photos get out there.
  2. Pray for them to trigger a media storm
  3. Deny everything
  4. Watch storm get bigger
  5. Make partial confession
  6. Watch storm grow even more
  7. Make full tearful confession, promising repentance
  8. Solicit funds to help the Lord facilitate the repentance
  9. Collect lots of cash
  10. Preach about how the Lord has chosen you as a symbol of repentance
  11. Buy your own megayacht

Um...no, I'll go with the idiot theory. He can't get past breakfast without lithium, librium, and Bokononism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 9:58 AM, SloopJonB said:

Then he discovered it burned 37 GPH per side. It would have cost about a grand in fuel just to run across to Nanaimo for lunch

Ha. I piss on your puny 37 GPH.

 I couldn't find the correct version of this Detroit Diesel 16V-92 TA engine (this one is down on the power by 50 HP), but this is close. I think his actual engines were spot on 80 GPH. Each. 

You could do Vancouver - Nanaimo for lunch for about $1400 or so if you slowed down to 40 knots. He could get to Campbell River in about 2-1/2 hours from Vancouver.

image.png.83d7a29d7eabe3ba803e907f41843d26.png

You wouldn't think so from the appearance but it did 43.x knots. If you look at the hull vents the rectangular ones all are into the engine room. Oval portlights were into the 2 cabins.

Malaspina-Express.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So about $4000 in fuel for a round trip to Campbell river. :blink:

Sounds like it should government owned.

Reminds me of a story about a PT boat - "You couldn't shoot gas out of a fire hose as fast as she'd suck".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

So about $4000 in fuel for a round trip to Campbell river. :blink:

Sounds like it should government owned.

Reminds me of a story about a PT boat - "You couldn't shoot gas out of a fire hose as fast as she'd suck".

That's why the mission profile of the PT boats was always to transit at low speed to the operation area, displacement mode barely above idle; then a short high-speed dash to the target, then a high-speed evasion run.

Even then it often included a rendezvous for refueling. And they had to keep their full power runs short and in calm weather or thye'd shake themselves apart. I don't know about the Thorneycroft ones, but the Trumpy built PTs were the best of the US ones and they were NOT built for longevity.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Trumpy built PTs were the best of the US ones and they were NOT built for longevity

That's not necessarily a bad approach, on a utilitarian calculation.  The Soviet Union applied a similar approach to main battle tanks (MBT): they made lots of low-cost tanks, whereas NATO forces spent a lot more per unit on a smaller number of more highly-specced tanks.

AIUI, the Soviet logic was no tank was going to survive a direct hit with the right weaponry, so in an attrition contest they'd come out on top.

Thankfully, neither side's tank-design philosophy was ever tested.  But I can see a similar set of calculations applying to PT boats: there were a lot of potential events that no PT boat would survive, so making them strong was pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Trumpy built PTs were the best of the US ones and they were NOT built for longevity

That's not necessarily a bad approach, on a utilitarian calculation.  The Soviet Union applied a similar approach to main battle tanks (MBT): they made lots of low-cost tanks, whereas NATO forces spent a lot more per unit on a smaller number of more highly-specced tanks.

AIUI, the Soviet logic was no tank was going to survive a direct hit with the right weaponry, so in an attrition contest they'd come out on top.

Thankfully, neither side's tank-design philosophy was ever tested.  But I can see a similar set of calculations applying to PT boats: there were a lot of potential events that no PT boat would survive, so making them strong was pointless.

Unless you're the poor unlucky bastard riding around in one...

Apologies for thread drift- Bill Robinson, long time editor of Yachting magazine, wrote an autobiography which is about half devoted to his WW2 Navy stint as a PT boat skipper in the Pacific. It's a really good first-hand account of many aspects

FB- Doug

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Unless you're the poor unlucky bastard riding around in one...

The whole logic of war of any type is that a lot of poor bastards won't make it home :( 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott's soliloquy in Patton covers it well;

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country... he won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone called this out, but there are two approaches to a center cockpit. One is to just stick the cockpit on the deck and retain the full-headroom cabin space beneath. This is a certain road to an ugly boat. The alternate is to set  the cockpit down into the boat and use the space below for non-headroom functions like an engine compartment. 

I was on one of Gulfstar 40 more or less like this one, and I though the interior was very workable.

 

2020-12-20_14-01-29.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are couple of smaller options.

The top one, from Parker-Dawson, was in production for quite a number of years under different names. All I ever heard about it was that it was slow.

 

parker_dawson_26_photo.jpg

Oceanix TS.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, SemiSalt said:

Here are couple of smaller options.

The top one, from Parker-Dawson, was in production for quite a number of years under different names. All I ever heard about it was that it was slow.

 

parker_dawson_26_photo.jpg

Oceanix TS.jpg

That's interesting, I hadn't realised that Herbulot had designed a small centre cockpit, I thought that Michel Dufour was the inventor of the first small modern centre cockpit with the Dufour T7 I posted above. On a small boat, it makes a lot of sense as you can access the mast from the cockpit which means that you only need to go forward to change jib (assuming no furler and a well setup slab reef system). I like the simplicity of these old 1960s boats, 5.8m2 genoa, that is the area of a modern windsurf or Laser sail and I am sure that most of them didn't even have an outboard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

That's interesting, I hadn't realised that Herbulot had designed a small centre cockpit, I thought that Michel Dufour was the inventor of the first small modern centre cockpit with the Dufour T7 I posted above. On a small boat, it makes a lot of sense as you can access the mast from the cockpit which means that you only need to go forward to change jib (assuming no furler and a well setup slab reef system). I like the simplicity of these old 1960s boats, 5.8m2 genoa, that is the area of a modern windsurf or Laser sail and I am sure that most of them didn't even have an outboard!

As best I remember,  the interior was pretty much raw fiberglass. I don't remember what boat show I saw it at. I always liked the way the tiller locked down the rear hatch! But there was no bulkhead where the berths met along the side so you could crawl, or maybe wiggle,  between fore and aft cabins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

I thought that Michel Dufour was the inventor of the first small modern centre cockpit with the Dufour T7 I posted above

Depends how you define small, but the Fairey Atalanta was only 26 feet long, and launched in 1955.  A real genius design.

Lots of info at https://atalantaowners.org/designs/atalanta-design/

92041543_FaireyAtalanta.thumb.jpg.dcbbfcbe38c8a359b6bfbafbc10c5981.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TwoLegged said:

Depends how you define small, but the Fairey Atalanta was only 26 feet long, and launched in 1955.  A real genius design.

Lots of info at https://atalantaowners.org/designs/atalanta-design/

92041543_FaireyAtalanta.thumb.jpg.dcbbfcbe38c8a359b6bfbafbc10c5981.jpg

Good point, as an Uffa fox fan, I knew about this one but somehow didn't make the mental connection!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The local "Zotl" is just about the only competition those Atalanta's have in the Ugly Boat sweeps.

If they were not designed by Fox would anyone look at them twice?

 

ZOTL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at the drawing of the Herbulot boat, and was struck by the thought of what might have developed if Phil Bolger had tried to emulate it his own style. 

And then I remember this boat called Grandpa's Pirate Ship. The idea was for a not-too-big boat for man to take his grandkids sailing. It's basically a catboat with some 19th century decoration. I think it's actually an unusually shaped catboat. But it's midship cockpit. Figuring a way to steer was pretty tricky. Bolger suggested a whipstaff.

 

Grandpa Pirrate Ship.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

The local "Zotl" is just about the only competition those Atalanta's have in the Ugly Boat sweeps.

If they were not designed by Fox would anyone look at them twice?

I think the Atalantas look great! Weird and very untraditional, but somehow it works for me. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

The local "Zotl" is just about the only competition those Atalanta's have in the Ugly Boat sweeps.

If they were not designed by Fox would anyone look at them twice?

I thunk the Atalanta is gorgeous.  Different to most boats, but gorgeously curvey.

And even those who think they are ugly should look again.  This is an oceangoing, beachable, trailer sailer from the 1950s.  Way ahead of its time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

And even those who think they are ugly should look again.  This is an oceangoing, beachable, trailer sailer from the 1950s.  Way ahead of its time.

I know form follows function but it should at least follow it in the same space time continuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I know form follows function but it should at least follow it in the same space time continuum.

Haha :D

But Sloopy, that's just 'cos your sense of space and time has been discombobulated by excessive immersion in a malfunction in the space-time continuum known as IOR. You have been led astray into trying to normalise an era when design took a sidetrack into weirdness, and I fear that when the pathologist finally inspects your mortal remains, she may well find that you have flattened areas on your forefoot, bustles on your rear end, lead weights in your headliner, and some tumblehome amidships. :D 

I like the fact that a vacuum-bagged, autoclaved lightweight with a roundy bow was being mass-produced half a century before the Mini 650 class started catching up.

I also like the fact that the same designer created a planing offshore racer.  Thirty years after Huff launched, the IOR boats which you fancy were still digging holes in the ocean to be filled with their spreaders.

But I do understand that this can be unsettling for the blooper generation ;)  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

...

But I do understand that this can be unsettling for the blooper generation ;)  

Remember, this same blooper generation were excited and titillated by boats that sailed somewhat better than bulldozers gone to sea. Some had their hopes dashed and turned bitter, but most caught at least a little bit of the spirit

"Give me a ship that sails fast for I intend to go in harms way fuck the rating rules"

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Remember, this same blooper generation were excited and titillated by boats that sailed somewhat better than bulldozers gone to sea.

Doug, I think we may disagree a bit about whether pintail-induced death rolls were really an improvement over bulldozers.  They were certainly were not an improvement over the Flying Thirty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TwoLegged said:

Doug, I think we may disagree a bit about whether pintail-induced death rolls were really an improvement over bulldozers.  They were certainly were not an improvement over the Flying Thirty.

God am I glad you are back. Slainte!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2020 at 9:44 AM, SloopJonB said:

So about $4000 in fuel for a round trip to Campbell river. :blink:

Reminds me of the conversation at the fuel dock with gas guzzler: "That sounds expensive" "It is, if you are poor"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2020 at 7:45 AM, Steam Flyer said:

That's why the mission profile of the PT boats was always to transit at low speed to the operation area, displacement mode barely above idle; then a short high-speed dash to the target, then a high-speed evasion run.

Even then it often included a rendezvous for refueling. And they had to keep their full power runs short and in calm weather or thye'd shake themselves apart. I don't know about the Thorneycroft ones, but the Trumpy built PTs were the best of the US ones and they were NOT built for longevity.

FB- Doug

If you haven't already. Robert Bulkeley's book is a good read on PT Boat operations.

https://www.amazon.com/At-Close-Quarters-United-States-ebook/dp/B072LVQ6RY

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm going to ride on a fuel-guzzler, I wanna go all the way.

NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: SR-71 Blackbird | NASA

 

Running full-time afterburners, the SR-71 burned 8,000 GPH of JP-7. Mach 3, baby!

If I remember right, Ben Rich at Lockheed said the air intakes had the flow rate equivalent of 80,000 humans breathing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many GPH did it leak sitting on the ground. :D

The first they had to do after takeoff was hit an air tanker to replace all of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

If I'm going to ride on a fuel-guzzler, I wanna go all the way.

NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: SR-71 Blackbird | NASA

 

Running full-time afterburners, the SR-71 burned 8,000 GPH of JP-7. Mach 3, baby!

If I remember right, Ben Rich at Lockheed said the air intakes had the flow rate equivalent of 80,000 humans breathing.

8,000 GPH?   That's nothing.   I'll take  20 tons/second.

To the Moon, baby!

Apollo-11-Launch-1969-400.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites