Cruiser design poll... [Archive]

Polarity

04-02-2002, 01:59 PM

OK design fans here's the next part :)

- If you just got here, welcome, and please see the next post, first!

We have collectively voted to design a power cruiser to go coastal hopping for a week. Where, how fast, staying at anchor,marina or gas station, how many people etc is undecided as yet...
...So will it be... (drum roll heard in the background)....

Option 1 - Trailerable, couple, home build $

1 Coastal hopping
2 Trailerable
3 Range 300 miles
4 Crew, 2 minimum
5 Price range, under 50K US, for home built.
6 Must be able to carry on a normal conversation at 3/4 throttle.

Option 2 Tough, family+friends, pro build $$$

1.Capable of handling a wind against tide/current situation (say the Gulf stream at 2.5knts, against a solid f4) - medium nasty.
2. Not trailerable, lives at the marina for long season use (see 1.)
3. Range of 600 miles minimum - spending time at anchor rather than on the dock.
4. Sleep 4 in comfort, with space for a couple of kids in the bilges if needed.
5. Designed for Semi-custom production with a set number of options by a relatively small yard.
6. protected prop(s?) in case of umm.. "operator error".

Option 3 Maxi Trailerable Hardbottom Inflatable $$

1 Very fast coastal hopping
2 Range 600 miles
3 Crew 2-3
4 Welded Aluminum Construction
5 High speed in all weather & in darkness.
6 Small shop one-off, CNC kit, moderate $$
7 Diesel Waterjet

Option 4 - Medium to high-speed coastal cruiser:$$$.5

1. LOA 30 to 35 feet
2. Range 400 to 500 miles at a cruise of 20 to 30 knots. Still economical at displacement speeds
3. Accomodation for 4 - possibly 2 more occaisionals on convertible dinette / sofa.
4. Designed for semi-custom production - but still possible for owner/builder construction.
5. Light weight - economical to build, power and operate.
6. Powered by 2 large (200+ hp) 4-stroke or dfi 2-stroke outboards. The installation of a single o/b possible if lower cruise speeds considered.

Option 5 - Crewed, heavy, cruiser $$$$

1) 42-48’ semi-displacement (but on the heavy side-cruise @9-10 max @ 14Kts)
Cored fiberglass (weight and maintenance)
2) Crewed by 2 at all times! Sleep 6 (2 state rooms, convertible saloon)
3) Range of 800-1000 mi
4) Twin screws for maneuverability in foreign harbors, reliability
5) Custom production with plan adjustment for competent one-off construction
6) Covered aft deck w/ soft enclosure

Now a few more guideline (Ok who yawned? :o) :-

* If it's not specified... - its up for discussion eg number of hulls, material, location, speed, build type, length, cost, market etc etc.

*To keep the diversity going, the originator of the chosen design option might elect not to give any further specifications and let the discussions (or even 1 day poll) decide, it's up to them..

*This poll will run until Wednesday

*Dont forget to post why you voted for what and any ideas you already have for that option.

*Oh yes .. time to vote NOW!

Cheers
Paul

Polarity

04-02-2002, 02:09 PM

confused :confused:

The low-down on what's going on is here:

http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=439 for the original concept
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=441 for the first vote
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=464 for the second
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=483 for where these suggestions came from and who was responsable!

Now you can vote with confidence:p

Cheers

Paul

duluthboats

04-02-2002, 09:39 PM

Well I’m going to hold my vote for a day or two. My mind is open, a little anyway. After reading the archives I found out that many, who visit here, know a great deal about boats. I think the real fun will start when we pick our target. I do want to encourage all who are reading this thread to vote and tell us what you think.
Gary

8knots

04-02-2002, 11:20 PM

In regards to option 5, (my vote and my pet project) I feel i must clarify Crew. My idea of crew is 2 or a couple! Can handle the boat in all conditions. 1 would be able to handle her easily with the bow thruster. Hmmmm.... Toys ..yes toys by the credit card load. By the time I get around To building her I will be in a walker and a gps chart plotter will cost $400.00 He He He! I think we should give her a full compliment of electronics though. A plus in safety factor for the week long warrior! 8Kts:p

tom28571

04-03-2002, 08:44 AM

Ivoted for the trailerable coastal hopper but could get very interested in the high speed lightweight boat too. I'm less interested in working with an open budget and maxed out facilities, etc. Lots of designers/builders are working to satisfy the well heeled sector. It seems to me that the tough job is working to a tight budget and providing the most for the buck in the form of performance and usability.

A friend has been looking to me to help him find a boat like the small trailerable of option 1 in a store bought version. The list of possibilities is very, very small. This nitch is not being served. The reasons are probably obvious. That is not the large market and it's harder to build a boat that will satisfy it than to build one that will appeal to the first time buyers coming in the showroom. Nevertheless I think that there are more hard and interesting design decisions to be made there than in the other categories.

My friend ordered a C-Dory last week. He had to make a couple of concessions in that the boat does not have a self bailing cockpit and uses a porta-pottie stored under the bunks. We ought to be able to make better choices in either category that is chosen.

Polarity

04-03-2002, 09:53 AM

...is for the RIB. But I'm thinking about 2 hulls for a smoother ride, more cruising space, economy at slower speeds. Multihull RIB ? Why not? ...

Paul

(and why...)

ErikG

04-03-2002, 10:01 AM

I voted for option 1.

I agree with (almost) all that Tom said.
I think it would be more challenging to design a cheap but with well used interior space on a tight budget.

Tom I think there is only a small market for these boats because there are "none" to choose from. I think an affordable trailerable small cruiser would be what a lot of people wants. But since they can't afford whats on the market and dont want to build themselves there are no options available. I think that there's a huge market waiting to happen but only if the PRICE is right.

It has to bepretty cheap and easily driven. Not really needing 2x225 HP outboards to make it move since they are not what I would consider cheap.

A small boat has enough to have opinions about if we ever want a completed design. BUT on the other hand is that what we are aiming for?
For me the ideas and opinions about anything and everything regarding this design are the most interresting.

ErikG

Willallison

04-03-2002, 08:20 PM

I voted for option 4 (the medium to high speed cruiser) because......well.....it was my idea!:D
Actually, to those who follow this forum on a regular basis, you will notice that it is essentially the same boat that I referred to in my post regarding ULDB powerboats (don't know how to put a link in to that thread) - it is somewhat of a pet project of mine.
I see the boat as being reasonably rugged, the use of outboards will allow a shallow draft and as I have mentioned previously they are (relative to the other alternatives) cheap to buy, easy to install and nowadays, economical to run.
To me it is an extension of the boat proposed by Tom - and like him, I could get excited about that project too.

1. An LOA of 30 to 35 ft means the boat is big enough to accomodate its crew in comfort, yet not too big to handle or maintain.
2. The range of 4-500 miles means the boat is capable of putting in at least 50 miles / day with a reasonable safety margin. Where I cruise, that would be considered a pretty high daily average and so puts the boat into the "serious" short passagemaker category.
3. Accomodations for 4. In my experience, cruising with any more than four (unless of course they happen to be your family!) is too much of a hassle. Indeed I find my most pleasant cruises are the ones I spend simply in the company of my wife (+ our 2 dalmations...)
4. Semi-custom / owner bilder construction, speaks for itself, but raises all sorts of questions regarding build materials etc.
5. Lightweight. I see this as one of the most critical aspects of the design. In order to perform with the outboard power I have suggested - at least with anything resembling economy - the boat needs to be light. Few, if any production boats, seem to address this issue - it's simply a matter of pouring in all the goodies that the consumer supposedly expects and piling in the power necessary to make it go. The use of smaller water tanks in combination with the newer generation of small watermakers, for instance can reduce the amount of weight carried.
6. The outboard issue I have already covered.

The thing that I look forward to most however, is seeing how effective the design process will be when conducted by a group.....

duluthboats

04-04-2002, 01:34 PM

Well I just cast my vote for option 1. My reasons are selfish.
This is the only option that I could aford to own and operate. I also think that this boat could fill a hole in the market. I know two other people looking for a boat like this. The "Boomers" are slowing down and are finding that going in comfort is as important as getting there. With a boat like this on a trailer I have access to the East coast thru the Great Lakes, or the Gulf coast down the Mississippi. I suspect I could get help from many of you on this project even if the group picks another design.:) I do have some ideas for option 4:D
Gary

nemo

04-04-2002, 03:31 PM

Hi everyone,
I'm pretty new to this forum, but I'd like to join this "project". My vote is for option 4, but what about a stern-drive or a v-drive propulsion?

Polarity

04-04-2002, 03:52 PM

... good to have some more Med representation!

Paul

Jeff

04-05-2002, 12:10 AM

My vote is for option 4, but what about a stern-drive or a v-drive propulsion?Welcome nemo!

Paul is officially in charge of this project, but my feeling is that it just depends on whether you can sell that alternative as either better or equally meeting the primary goals of option 4:

Could you use a stern drive or v-drive and have your design:
1.) Still economical at displacement speeds. Range 400 to 500 miles at a cruise of 20 to 30 knots
2.) Still possible for owner/builder construction.
3.) Economical to build, power and operate.

Or would there be serious sacrifices in economy and ease of construction/maintenance?

What would be your motivations to want a stern drive or v-drive rather than an outboard? Will has pointed out some strong advantages of using an outboard a few posts up: less expensive to buy and operate, easy to maintain, shallow draft, and lightweight. On the other hand, it would be interesting if you create or propose an alternate way of achieving the same goals.

Again, Paul is in charge, so if he wants to keep the project moving in a straight line please ignore what I've said. But I think there’s still plenty of room for fine tuning and discussion, if you want to try and convince the others that there is a better way. At least looking at design competitions, it seems often the winning entry has taken liberties showing that it can achieve the spirit of the guidelines by discovering and proving a better option to one of the details. In this case I'm not sure if there is a better option for the concept at hand, but I'm sure everyone would love to hear your ideas.

Jeff

04-05-2002, 12:20 AM

(don't know how to put a link in to that thread)
It's easy - you can just visit that thread and copy the URL from the address bar of your browser. When you paste a URL into any thread it becomes a link as long as it starts with either http:// or www.

http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=341

If you want to link to a specific post rather than a whole thread, each post also has a small button on the bottom labeled "post link" - you can either click it to put the URL into your browser's address bar to copy it from the address bar, or you can right click on that icon and choose "copy shortcut" (IE) or "copy link location" (Netscape) or "copy link address" (depending on the browser.)

For example if I wanted to link to the specific post in which Tom included a drawing:
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1250#post1250

You can also use a variety of quick codes as shown at http://boatdesign.net/forums/misc.php?s=&action=bbcode to include different types of links.

Jeff

04-05-2002, 12:32 AM

P.S.

I voted for Option 1 because it seems like a very realistic project with a lot of flexibility. I came very close to voting for Option 4 though because that also seems very intriguing ever since the Ultra Light Displacement discussion was posted.

Actually, every one of these options would make for a very interesting project :)

duluthboats

04-05-2002, 01:14 AM

Welcome aboard nemo,
The larger this group gets the better it is. If option 4 wins you can take a shot at convincing us to change the drive. Paul hasn't pulled out the rule book yet. ;) Some of us old timers are set in our ways, so you should have a good argument.

If it's not to personal to ask, what part of Italy are you from?

Well I'm off for the weekend again, back on Sunday.

For those that haven't voted. OPTION #1!!!!! :D

Gary

Willallison

04-05-2002, 01:40 AM

Welcome once more Nemo!
One of the reasons that I suggested outboards (apart from those already listed) is that there are thousands of boats already out there with the sterndrive / inboard / v-drive configuration. Outboards, however, have really only ever been used widely by the Americans in powering go-fast fishing machines. With the recent advent of big 4-strokes and dfi 2-strokes, I think that the day of the outboard powered cruiser is just around the corner - so why not ensure that our project boat breaks some new ground?

p.s. Jeff, thanks for the tip on how to post links - I'm still rather new to all this stuff.....

nemo

04-05-2002, 05:48 AM

Hi,
I just thought about inboard/outboard propulsion (let's forget about inboard) because it seems to me that's the trend nowadays, looking around boat shows.. talking about economy, inboard/outboard gives you the possibility to use a Diesel engine, and you know Diesels are reaching very high specific power.
An inboard-outboard is not do different from an outboard, in terms of draft, trim control.
Another reason, less technical, is "aesthetic", I prefer to see a transom free from one or two big engine carters.
This is just my opinion, I woud be happy to carry on the outboard project as well, if someone else vote for option 4! :-)

Dul, I live near Genoa, on the North-West Coast, maybe you've heard about Portofino, I live in the neighbourhood, anyway, not far from Cote D'Azur

04-05-2002, 06:07 AM

I agree about liking a clean transom.

But a Diesel would add a lot of weight, no?

Or is there such a thing as a light weight Diesel?

04-05-2002, 06:12 AM

For a stern drive alternative that is still light weight, how about a Rotary engine like http://www.rotarymarine.com/

Are these fuel efficient? Are they quiet because of low vibration and no reciprocating parts, or are they loud because of their higher RPM range? I have not seen one of these, but my guess is that it would be a less likeable sound like an outboard vs. an inboard, but with some engine insulation it might be nice and quiet.

Polarity

04-05-2002, 07:59 AM

Jeff - spot on about the alternatives!

--------------------------------------------
is that it just depends on whether you can sell that alternative as either better or equally meeting the primary goals of option 4:
--------------------------------------------

Nemo and anyone else - if you want to change something - just convince the majority...

Good luck with it!

Cheers

Paul

Viceroy

04-05-2002, 05:49 PM

...is option #2. Tough, comfortable, maximum 11 knots, ideally aluminium hull, single diesel main and gen-set (possibly with a "come-home" arrangement). Our waters are prone to flotsom/jetsom from logging operations and our tides and resulting currents can run 10+ knots is some passages, hence metal, protected running gear, sufficient power (in an easily accessable engine compartment) and exceptional ground tackle (all chain plus back-up). A vessel in the 38' to 45' range adequate but 50+ would be nicer. Further, because of extended cruising where few facilities exist, outside of the southern portions, self sufficiency for 10 - 14 days is required for fuel and stores. And because of my personal preference to seek out peace and quiet, a large battery bank and hearty inverter when swinging on the hook...also a preference. A pilot house large enough for the helm and seating/dining area, good fenistration (windows/ports for viewing), access to side decks, excellent forward visibility. Would consider para-vanes or fixed keelboards for reduced rolling but not internal/gyro stabilizers...they wouldn't last a season! For our limited number of sunny days or piloting in close quarters, a flying bridge with duplicate/remote instruments & steering is required. Year around operation is anticipated so good insulation, ventilation and heating necessary...but not A/C. For re-sale, chases for A/C "plumbing" should be installed, just in case ever required. Only one master stateroom and one head with separate shower stall required. Any guests would be put up in salon or pilot house. Never-the-less, room for entertaining 6 people, comfortably, is required. Ideally, the engine and gen-set would be fresh water cooled...keel coolers and/or seachest...with dry exhaust with extensive insulation for heat and noise abatement. That's my dream boat if unilaterally powered. I'm playing with the idea of a motor sailer that has many of these qualities. Cheers, Richard.

tom28571

04-05-2002, 10:02 PM

My choice of a transom mounted outboard is based on practical concerns. I started out with the outboard inside an open transom so that it was not visible. Eventually, the aesthetics could not offset the negatives of loss of cockpit room, poorer steering (especially around docks) and loss of buoyancy. Besides, it seems more honest to put the outboard engine where it belongs. The appearance of an outboard on the transom does bother me at all. Maybe it's the form-function thing but it just looks logical.

I/O's are very popular. They appear especially popular with repair facilities since everyone I know who owns one has had mechanical trouble with the complex drive system. Another problem is corrosion and fouling since the foot does not raise completely out of the water.

I saw a couple of the little rotary inboards at IBEX last year and they look pretty neat. Small and light for the power output but the drive system was not there. I tried to get some fuel use figures, but could not get anything nailed down. As I remember, fuel economy is not a strong suit of the rotaries.

In my opinion, the transom mounted outboard best fits the outline of option 1. Availability, service, waranty, performance, cost and reliability all seem better suited than the other choices.

8knots

04-05-2002, 11:38 PM

Hello All (welcome to those of you new to our madness)
My 2 cents on the outboard and the fans of option 1
I myself would lean towards the I/O For eye appeal. Yanmar makes a line of small "lightweight" diesels But i like the Volvo Duo-prop outdrive "great low end"
But..... The option 1 crowd seems to be looking at the cost factor and the ability to backyard build. The outboard presents a-lot of great qualities to this type of vessel First is the cost, MUCH CHEAPER to install and maintain.
I have priced a Lugger diesel w/ gear @$27.000 175hp
you can buy a lot of outboard for that!
A good outdrive with a gas motor @ 200+hp will easily cost $12.000 and up
Anyway enough ramble. I think if i were to build or design a option 1 boat i would steer toward the outboard for cost and simplicity reasons!

04-06-2002, 04:59 AM

An inboard-outboard is not to different from an outboard, in terms of draft

You're probably right on draft, but as tom says, outboards typically require less maintenance.

Another neat thing is that a friend repowered but then rebuilt his old outboards so he now actually has a spare set of outboards. If the motors on his boat act up during the season and require a time consuming fix, he can just swap them in a few hours and be up and running that day... then fix any major problem when he has time. This isn't really applicable to this thread, but it's a nice option he has :D

04-06-2002, 05:05 AM

I tried to get some fuel use figures, but could not get anything nailed down. As I remember, fuel economy is not a strong suit of the rotaries.

I vaguely remember hearing that the Mazda car engines were not fuel efficient a long time ago. And on their site they stress fuel efficiency through weight savings, but don't mention any figures, which leads me to believe you are right. Might compare favorably against a big block stern drive because of weight savings in a particular hull, but probably not against an OB.

With 4-stroke outboards now, are there any remaining environmental concerns vs. a gas or diesel inboard or i/o?

twalker

04-06-2002, 08:29 PM

I started out with the outboard inside an open transom so that it was not visible. Eventually, the aesthetics could not offset the negatives of loss of cockpit room, poorer steering (especially around docks) and loss of buoyancy. Besides, it seems more honest to put the outboard engine where it belongs.
I'm surprised that it made such a noticeable difference in steering response. I would have thought it would be very similar to what builders such as Four Winns are doing with their swim steps integrated into the running surface. Although their "active after-pods" which "assist in planing" (which makes sense) break free once you're on plane, at slow speeds they would seem to function just like your original setup. Is there any difference? Has anyone read or heard any negative comments on how boats with these running-surface-integrated swim steps handle at slow speeds?

twalker

04-06-2002, 08:33 PM

And I'm still not 100% convinced that the transom has to be where the outboard belongs. After all, v-drives put the engine aft while it really 'belongs' nearer the CG for better balance most times. The question might be: does the form have to follow the function of every single component, or can the form follow the function of the whole design. I suppose there is a certain falseness to covering an outboard up when it already has a shell, and there might be issues of airflow, etc. But I don’t know if putting an outboard in a box is all that more “false” than the whole idea of a stern drive… maybe it’s just a hybrid step. Moving an outboard forward could:
1.) free up the transom
2.) increase safety if the boat were used for watersports
3.) reduce noise if the enclosure were properly sound insulated, though the echo effect of the enclosure could be a problem too…
4.) improve the appearance

tom28571

04-06-2002, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by twalker
[B]And I'm still not 100% convinced that the transom has to be where the outboard belongs. After all, v-drives put the engine aft while it really 'belongs' nearer the CG for better balance most times. The question might be: does the form have to follow the function of every single component, or can the form follow the function of the whole design. I suppose there is a certain falseness to covering an outboard up when it already has a shell, and there might be issues of airflow, etc. But I don’t know if putting an outboard in a box is all that more “false” than the whole idea of a stern drive… maybe it’s just a hybrid step.
You bring up some good points. The engine in a slotted bottom is very common here on the North Carolina coast with fishermen. It clears up the transom for nets, etc. In my experience the engine in a slotted bottom increases turning radius quite a bit whether at speed or around the dock.

The planing "pods" are something of a mystery to me. Perhaps they help get a heavy boat on plane when the trim angle is high on acceleration. On a properly designed light boat, they would never come into play since the trim angle would stay too low for them to be effective.

>Moving an outboard forward could:
1.) free up the transom -- Yes it would but I don't personally mind the outboard being on the transom.

2.) increase safety if the boat were used for watersports -- True, but I don't think that use rates very high on the list of significant uses for a cruising boat.

3.) reduce noise if the enclosure were properly sound insulated, though the echo effect of the enclosure could be a problem too -- Perhaps, but I doubt it if the engine on the transom is shrouded with a proper box.

4.) improve the appearance -- Perhaps, but it is a subjective opinion.

I expect that the design of Option 1 will work with the engine in either location, so it's not a big deal anyway. Moving the engine forward into a box also moves the exhaust outlet forward.
Sometimes it causes a lot of trouble in both aspiration and exhaust fumes. Often, an inlet fan or larger opening has been needed to eliminate these problems

Polarity

04-07-2002, 02:16 PM

...of the poll. Since there is not a clear winner yet, and the votes are still coming in, the poll finish date has been extended to this Wednesday.

(Thanks to Jeff for the tech side of that)

Cheers all

Paul

PS Re the inboard/outboard discussion, I would like to add my.02 Euro's worth in that in Europe the fuel cost for gas(petrol) Vs diesel are much more significant than in the USA and from an economy point of view - depending on the use, - the additional initial expense of a diesel could be paid for in a couple of seasons use.
Then again for home build what could be easier to install than an outboard.:rolleyes:

nemo

04-07-2002, 03:30 PM

Yes, the difference between petrol and Diesel is significant in Europe. Actually, almost every inboard here is a Diesel engine. I think those engines are also more reliable than gasoline ones, especially Volvo Penta and Yanmar.

Polarity

04-07-2002, 06:36 PM

Nemo

Thats true, but both are significantly more expensive in europe:
1 L gas/petrol in California : 30 cents , 1 L gas/petrol in UK $1.30 (these are VERY rough but should be within 15% either way so please dont shout at me if its wrong!) - so fuel consumption becomes a much more important factor.
However as any yachtie will tell you, the only thing more expensive than gasoline is... Volvo Penta spares! :(

Paul

tom28571

04-07-2002, 07:46 PM

We will need to have all the effects of the different propulsion systems in order to make the individual decisions of which will be the one most suited to the intended use for each builder or buyer.

Cost of the installation.
Difficulty of installation.
Cost of fuel.
Maintenance costs.
Ready availability of maintenance.
Weight - effect on performance - effect on trailerability.
Cruising range.
Effect on available boat space.
Noise.

I have often been asked why I did not choose a diesel to power my boat. The short answer is that it would be an entirely different boat in cost and performance with a diesel. The design goals simply could not be met with a heavy inboard power plant.

Willallison

04-07-2002, 08:23 PM

Here in Oz, petrol and diesel prices are essentially the same. But almost regardless of fuel price differences, the cost differential between the purchase and installation cost of a diesel sterndrive and an outboard mean that (unless you put in the kind of hours logged by professionals) the logical choice - for either option 1 or 4 - would surely still fall heavily in favour of the o/b.
The question of reliability is an interesting one. I just had to replace the engine in my sterndrive powered boat after only 500 hrs (ouch!:eek: ) and these days any outboard should do more than double that without problem. A lightly stressed diesel should run a couple of thousand hrs without so much as a cough. But all these things rely on an engine - and its drive system - being properly maintained and it is here that the outboard comes into its own. Parts cost a fraction of those for a diesel, the engine is easy to get at, and the work can generally be done by an owner / operator (though with the new generation engines this is becoming less of an option). Sterndrive legs (and particularly the counter-rotating variety) are notoriously expensive to maintain.

As far as locating an outboard fwd of the transom, there have been a number of attempts at this in the past. It's not such a problem on a displacement boat, but on a planing boat all previous attempts that I've heard of have run into some serious stability problems. In fact most boats built these days place the o/b on a "pod" in order to move it aft of the transom. It places the prop in a cleaner water flow and produces better, flatter acceleration on to plane.
Having said all that, I did see a press release a few monthes ago about an Italian company which was releasing a boat with the propulsion package located up the bow!
Nemo: I spent a bit of time around Ropallo / Portofino - a beautiful part of the world.......

duluthboats

04-07-2002, 09:29 PM

LOL!!!!
I see it has been a busy weekend. I’m glad to see the group has grown. With the closeness of the poll I agree with Paul on the extension. I can see now that even the designs that are passed over for this project will get a good working over by this group. If the professionals will continue to tolerate us armatures we should all learn something. That is my first reason for being here. To those of you who are lurking out there I ask again that you please join us! I’ll tell you what I think, and would like to hear what you think. If I disagree with you I’ll tell you so, take no offence, it’s only my opinion. I have been known to change my mind once in awhile. The inboard/outboard question is a good example. If a thread has already been started on this question I’ll bring it to the top. If I can’t find one I’ll start one. This subject (inboard vs outboard) deserves to have a thread of its own. :cool:

Gary

nemo, I have been in your area a few times, only breifly. I spent almost 2 years in Gaeta, courtesy of the US Navy. 1975-76