Best Inside Passage Trawler??

You've got a 37' Tolly? I got lost in here somewhere but I thought you had a big Sea Ray. I did not deliver Sea Rays. I delivered boats for Westport Shipyards when Ted Holland owned it, then for Rick and Randy Rust when it was still in Westport. New owners were afraid of the ocean and nearly every boat had to be taken to Seattle or Portland. Some of them were similar to the Sea Ray. If you have a 37' Tolly, a great boat for pounding into weather, I can tell you some broach stories and about sucking large amounts of fuel. By-the-way, the hulls are very well made but it is as if a different crew took over after that. I renovated two of those and many of the screws holding the deck/cabin to the hull flange were holding air. I can tell you some other areas on that boat to look out for, as well. Yes, to each their own. Those boats do fine when the weather is nice. My mistake on Nanaimo -that's the one right in the open across from your house, right? I was thinking a little further north where the channel narrows. I have some friends with a deer farm there but can't remember the name - Can it be Campbell River? Oh, I forgot! Those friends bailed out Tollycraft twice from financial ruin ( He is a venture capitalist).
Sorry, I see all that is in quotes. Must be about Bob.

[RHough]

My wife wanted a GB type trawler ... until she came for a ride on an Express Cruiser. If we were going to be limited by S/L we could have gotten another sailboat (my first choice).

We had a Sabre 42 Express built for us.
Length on deck 42
LOA 45
LWL 38
Disp 29,000 light, 34,000 loaded
2 x 425HP Cummins QSB 5.9L diesels
440 Gallons Fuel
160 Gallons Water
25 GPH Water Maker
Washer/Drier
40k BTU AC/Heat

Actual Fuel Curve
1100 RPM 4.9 GPH 8.0 Knots Range 575 (1.63 NMPG)
1200 RPM 5.8 GPH 8.6 Knots Range 522 (1.48 NMPG)
1300 RPM 7.0 GPH 9.1 Knots Range 458 (1.30 NMPG)
1350 RPM 7.6 GPH 9.4 Knots Range 435 (1.24 NMPG)

1500 RPM 10.7 GPH 10.0 Knots Range 329 (0.93 NMPG)
1550 RPM 12.0 GPH 10.3 Knots Range 302 (0.86 NMPG)

1850 RPM 19.5 GPH 12.8 Knots Range 231 (0.66 NMPG)
1900 RPM 19.6 GPH 13.9 Knots Range 250 (0.71 NMPG)

2000 RPM 22.1 GPH 15.7 Knots Range 250 (0.71 NMPG)

2550 RPM 32.0 GPH 24.8 Knots Range 270 (0.78 NMPG)

(Note Range is with a 20% reserve)

So we have the option. Cruise below 9.4 knots and get very good mileage or boot it and cover some ground with decent mileage.

How does is work in the real world?

Banderas Bay Mexico to Victoria BC Canada and return:
Total was 500+ hours under way (7 days in the San Juans) at a 10.2 knot average and 1.2 MPG. That is a 244 mile per day average.

Note that at a 10.0 - 10.3 knot cruising speed we cannot get 1.2 MPG, we can only get 0.93 - 0.86 MPG. So the 1.2 MPG average is achieved by a combination of 20+ knots in good conditions and 8-9 knots at night or in heavier conditions.

The last day from Cabo San Lucas to home was 300 miles in 22.5 hours for a 13.3 knot average ... but the boat does not have a 300 mile range at 13 knots. We ran 25+ knots for 6-7 hours then throttled back to arrive when we wanted to. We had 31% fuel remaining so that leg was only 1.01 NMPG.

I don't claim that the boat is as efficient as a trawler at low speed, but I doubt a 42 foot trawler could have covered the same distance at the same speed and fuel usage.

Having the option of running fast in flat water pays off for us. If I wanted to go to Hawaii I have to paddle so passage making is off the table. For coastal cruising in any weather I would want to be cruising in, I'm happy with our choice. We have the ability (proven) to avoid yachting in severe conditions, we don't need a Cat A boat, Cat B is just fine for us.

I looked one up. I like that.

[Chuck Losness]

I usually don't jump into these heated discussions. I also don't want to offend anyone and respect your right to your opinions. But in this case I thought I would because the original post which I understood was asking for specific examples of actual boats was very interesting to me. I had hoped to read posts about actual boats. What would have been most responsive IMHO would be to state something like:

I have (or used to have) an XYZ whatever, xxx LOA,, xxx LWL, xxx beam, xxx displacement. It is/was equipped with _________________. I would have also liked it to have had __________________ because _________. I also found that I really didn't need ______________ because _______. I used this boat to cruise ______ waters during ________ times of the year. I found my typical fuel usage to be _____. I liked these features/handling characteristics. I disliked the way the boat handled in these conditions. And so on providing as much information about the boat as you can.

This type of information would have provided Danray and other interested readers with some facts that they then could use to refine what they really want and need in a boat. Just arguing with a poster doesn't provide much and is a losing battle. Neither one of you is going to get the other to change their mind. I see this argumentative discourse happen over and over again on this forum and on other forums. Sometimes it is warranted in the more theoretical topics. But asking for examples of specific boats is asking for facts, not argument.
Again, I am not trying to offend anyone. Just trying to get this thread back on topic to provide specific information about actual boats.

[Man Overboard]

Excellent post RHough.

Originally Posted by Man Overboard

Excellent post RHough.

Fully concur!

Quite often we leave the path and stick to arguments. (me included)

[Northman]

RHough and Chuck Losness,
I appreciate you taking the discussion back the original topic!
Regards
Walter

[BATAAN]

Originally Posted by Chuck Losness

I usually don't jump into these heated discussions. I also don't want to offend anyone and respect your right to your opinions. But in this case I thought I would because the original post which I understood was asking for specific examples of actual boats was very interesting to me. I had hoped to read posts about actual boats. What would have been most responsive IMHO would be to state something like:

I have (or used to have) an XYZ whatever, xxx LOA,, xxx LWL, xxx beam, xxx displacement. It is/was equipped with _________________. I would have also liked it to have had __________________ because _________. I also found that I really didn't need ______________ because _______. I used this boat to cruise ______ waters during ________ times of the year. I found my typical fuel usage to be _____. I liked these features/handling characteristics. I disliked the way the boat handled in these conditions. And so on providing as much information about the boat as you can.

This type of information would have provided Danray and other interested readers with some facts that they then could use to refine what they really want and need in a boat. Just arguing with a poster doesn't provide much and is a losing battle. Neither one of you is going to get the other to change their mind. I see this argumentative discourse happen over and over again on this forum and on other forums. Sometimes it is warranted in the more theoretical topics. But asking for examples of specific boats is asking for facts, not argument.
Again, I am not trying to offend anyone. Just trying to get this thread back on topic to provide specific information about actual boats.

Can we make this a standard form?

[FAST FRED]

2 x 425HP Cummins QSB 5.9L diesels

1100 RPM 4.9 GPH 8.0 Knots Range 575 (1.63 NMPG)
1200 RPM 5.8 GPH 8.6 Knots Range 522 (1.48 NMPG)

Sounds to me like the makings of a severe underload situation.

Stuck rings , slobbering , huge oil consumption , and about 1/5th the "expected" engine life?

5GPH is at best 100 hp, not a lot to take from 850 HP!

FF

[RHough]

Originally Posted by FAST FRED

2 x 425HP Cummins QSB 5.9L diesels

1100 RPM 4.9 GPH 8.0 Knots Range 575 (1.63 NMPG)
1200 RPM 5.8 GPH 8.6 Knots Range 522 (1.48 NMPG)

Sounds to me like the makings of a severe underload situation.

Stuck rings , slobbering , huge oil consumption , and about 1/5th the "expected" engine life?

5GPH is at best 100 hp, not a lot to take from 850 HP!

FF

You are correct to a point.

I included those data point for reference, I don't run the engines below 1200RPM for hours. 1200 - 1350RPM shows about 45-50% load. At 800 hours the engines use NO oil (I am pleasantly surprised). Running a couple of hours a day at 75-80% load is part of the normal duty cycle.

Also note that these are 5.9 liter engines rated at 425HP ... normally aspirated 425HP would require about 19 liter engines? Normally aspirated 5.9L should give about 130HP. Thus the 100HP for 5GPH is right in line with what the engines make with near zero boost.

These engines in service with the US Navy have seen over 15,000 hours with no issues (head never off). This is 60 years at 250 hours per year (heavy recreational use) and only 15 years at 1,000 hours per year.

This "reduced" engine life is one of the prices I accept for having a 35 knot boat.

[Man Overboard]

Apex advocates controllable pitch props; would a prop that could load the diesels more effectively be worth the extra cost over the life of an engine (before first rebuild). And I guess a secondary question; is there a CPP available for 400 - 500 HP displacement applications?

In my mind the Best Inside Passage Trawler, or at this point in the thread maybe we should say the Best Inside Passage Vessel, should include the likely lifespan of the engines. And even the efficiency of the propulsion system.

[gunship]

Make up your mind

i think apex advocates Controllable Pitch props, no?

[Man Overboard]

Controllable pitch propellers, yes, thanks for pointing that out, I corrected it in the post.

Sometimes I post from a smart phone with a 2" screen, Not really the best read/write/edit experience. I fixed it as well as the double post when I got to the office.

[MatthewDS]

Apologies if this has been covered in the proceeding 9 pages, but has DanRay mentioned *how* he will be using the vessel?

West's assertions about speed certainly seem to hold true if DanRay is planning on living in the PNW, and making occasional trips north, however, if the plan is long term cruising on the inside passage, it seems that a slower and more all-weather capable vessel would be prudent.

I will say that as someone who cruised at 8 kts, a slow boat certainly limits the range of your weekend cruising. You spend most of your travel time running after dark, and you quickly exhaust your options for new places to visit.

Originally Posted by Man Overboard

Apex advocates controllable pitch props; would a prop that could load the diesels more effectively be worth the extra cost over the life of an engine (before first rebuild). And I guess a secondary question; is there a CPP available for 400 - 500 HP displacement applications?

Of course there is! You even find a recent calculation in my thread.

And the myth about the CPP being expensive is, yes, a myth.

The Controllable Pitch Propeller, a summary.

Regards
Richard