Troller Yachts vs Trawler Yachts

[Willallison]

Vega - without wanting to hijack this thread, or turn it into a sail vs power debate - I'm not suggesting that it's always less expensive to own a powerboat, just that it's certainly not always the opposite..... buying, owning and operating a boat (as I know you are well aware) is about a lot more than the cost of fuel.

[Vega]

Willallison, I agree with that.
I am not a "fundamentalist" about sailing boats (or anything), but this is a very interesting discussion and I would like to continue and get deeper in this.
Perhaps if there are more members interested in this, we can open a new thread about it?
Not to defend sail boats, but to really see the pros and cons of each kind of boat, regarding cruising costs, price of the boat and maintenance.

[Greenseas2]

I agree that the two boats are really great. I do like the canoe stern design as we do, all too often, run relatively rough inlets like Manasquan in New Jersey. Almost all inlets on the east coast of the US have inlet channels on the ICW in the shape of a V where the base of the V is near the mouth of the inlet. This means that a boat will be getting stern seas going either north bound or south bound. The motorsailers without a mast and larger fuel capacity may be the answer.n You guys do good work.

[Greenseas2]

The idea of a cruising vessel with long range and low fuel consumption may be the direction that we all are taking. Fire up the new thread and we'll be there.

[bananabender]

Apart from the $$$Nordhavns there are a few genuine displacement cruisers around... I drive a Roberts Waverunner displacement 40, steel, weighs in around 16 tonnes with 1800litres of fuel and water. Power is a Cummins 6B naturally aspirated, set up for 115 continuous HP at 2500rpm but governed back to 2050rpm since it was obviously overpowered at 2500. Fuel burn is 12-15 litres/hr at 8.5knots by GPS when the underside is clean. I suspect significant savings would be available at 7K but haven't measured consumption at this speed.

We don't miss water skiing behind and it's nice to sit back, make a cup of tea, and drink it while the Whitsundays go past. (see Google for details!) Motor sizes in US cruising boats amaze me... I see the occasional "Passagemaker".

Happy boating...
Bananabender.

[fcfc]

"long range and low fuel consumption"

Already done long ago.

http://www.morrellimelvin.com/powerb...40-Yanmar.html
http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/529

You probably missed something in your request.

[Vega]

Originally Posted by fcfc

"long range and low fuel consumption"

Already done long ago.

http://www.morrellimelvin.com/powerb...40-Yanmar.html
http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/529

You probably missed something in your request.

I have searched the forum before about it, and again with : "long range and low fuel consumption" and I only got this:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sea...earchid=511224

Not really what I want to discuss. And I have not talked about long range, only cruising costs, maintenance and price of the boat. Most sailors do cruise, but few do long range cruising. Why restrict the discussion?
I am going to open the new thread on the Design category and it is going to be a short post, because I have to work
I'll be there again in the evening
cruising costs, maintenance and price of the boat (sailboats versus motorboats)

[Vega]

Originally Posted by Greenseas2

The motorsailers without a mast and larger fuel capacity may be the answer.n You guys do good work.

Hum, That boat (that particular Banjer) is a 36ft with a 105hp and his fuel tank can carry 750L (500L of water). How big do you want that fuel tank to be?

http://www.michellippens.nl/newsfiles/135.php

[Vega]

Originally Posted by fcfc

"long range and low fuel consumption"

Already done long ago.

http://www.morrellimelvin.com/powerb...40-Yanmar.html
http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/529

You probably missed something in your request.

Sorry, I miseanderstood. You mean the boat, not the thread!
Welcome to the discussion (on the new thread)
cruising costs, maintenance and price of the boat (sailboats versus motorboats)

[Greenseas2]

In studying hanson troller designs further, the underwater hull design is quite close to being that of efficent sailing vessels. The hull flares at the strn above the waterline for extra work deck space and to handle following seas. His illustraztion of the 30 foot troller is a good example of an efficient hull design for economical long range cruising. These are work boats that also had to carry a lot of weight in gear, ice and fish.

[Guillermo]

Banjers (37' motorsailers) have a canoe stern and deep vee hull with full length keel, so lots of wetted surface. Full load displacement around 13 tonnes.
My boat's engine is a Perkins M 4-236 delivering a maximum of 71 HP DIN (86 HP SAE) at 2500 rpm. Continuous is 61 DIN (74 SAE) at 2250 rpm.
Propeller is a 28" x 18" three bladed one, SAR 55%, slip around 22%. Reduction gear ratio, 3:1.

At 1.06 Fn Banjers do 6.0 knots (Tested. Clean hull, calm seas, full load) at 1300 rpm of the mentioned engine, the prop absorbing something like 14 HP of the 39 HP (DIN) available from engine at that rpm (These last two data estimated, as power-rpm curves are not available).

By the way: Somebody has those curves for this engine? I'd appreciate very much if he/she makes them available to me).

Fuel consumption at this Fn is 1.08 Lts/mile (6.5 lt/h) or 0.29 gall/mile (1.72 gall/h). With a 900 lts tank, allowing for a non-usable 10%, range goes to 748 miles, if I worked out numbers correctly. At hull speed (around 7.5 kn) mileage comes down to 500 and consumption rises to around 12 lt/h

[Greenseas2]

Hi Guillermo,
The Banjer hull would indeed make the basis for a good long raange cruising boat under power and has the capacity for additional tankage. Newer engines are coming on the market that are even more efficient. Man Diesel used to put out a slow turning diesel that could swing a large prop. Don't know if they still do. But the combination of the Banjer hull with a slow turning fuel efficient engine would be a winner for sure. This al;most parallels hulls and power on Pacific salmon trollers.

[Guillermo]

Attached you'll find the very nice and slender lines of a beautiful 50' old wooden Irish fishing boat.

Main data:
LOA: 50' (15.24 m)
LWL: 46' 8" (14.2 m)
Beam, outside planking: 15' 6" (4.7 m)
Draft, forward: 3' 9" (1.15 m)
Draft, aft: 5' 6" (1.67 m)
Displacement: 28.43 tons (28.9 ton)
Midship section area: 32.72 sqft (3.04 sqm)
Prismatic coeficient: .652

Lines are similar to those of Banjers, although more 'champagne glass' style (Banjers' are more 'wine glass' style)
Banjers' Lines at: http://banjer37msclub.tripod.com/lines_sailing.htm

Cheers

[SAQuestor]

Originally Posted by Greenseas2

In studying hanson troller designs further, the underwater hull design is quite close to being that of efficent sailing vessels. The hull flares at the strn above the waterline for extra work deck space and to handle following seas. His illustraztion of the 30 foot troller is a good example of an efficient hull design for economical long range cruising. These are work boats that also had to carry a lot of weight in gear, ice and fish.

Indeed. And pray tell where one can see these designs? The books are out of print (obviously) and do not seem to be available in the normal used book shops.

Thanks

[Tad]

Okay, I love the styling of the Banjer and all the old fishboats. But, once again, they are not efficient users of fuel.

The Banjer is using 6.5 lts/hr or about 1.7usg/hr for 6 knots, this is about 3.5 nautical miles per US gallon. This is decent, but much more fuel than I want to buy every day. In comparison the Memory 38 cruises at 7.2 knots on .75 usg/hr for about 9.6 mpg. The Arthur Martin designed Energy 48 cruises at 8.6 knots on .75gph for 11.6 mpg.

About the best mileage I can find is the attached motorsailer by Phil Bolger. He estimates she will cruise at 6 knots with a 16HP Yanmar getting about 20mpg and considerably more with some use of the sails. A 35' version of this would be awsome!

That is efficient use of fuel, anything less is purely styling.

All the best, Tad