fishing trawler to pleasure conversion

Is that fuel consumption calculated by the designer?

 

I mentioned speed, not consumption. In the Damen product sheet(p.4 above) they say a speed of 8.5 knots. So fuel consumption should be less at 5kts, right? The sheet doesn't give any possible range.
Ahhh, belay that...you meant the LRC 58. Yes, that's the Artnautica builder, also Dutch.

 

Loa: 17.6m

Beam: 4m

Lwl: 17.4m

Draft: 0.85m

Heavy Displacement: 14 tonnes

Engine: 75-90 hp

Fuel: 3,800 litres

Fuel efficiency: 0.80 litres per nautical mile

Water:1,300 litres

Cruising speed 7-8 knots

Range: 5000 nautical miles @ 7 Knots

 

As an average, a diesel engine will burn about 0.21 litres/hour per HP. Their published values mean that at 8 knots they are burning approximately 6.4 l/hr, or generating 30HP. It sounds a bit optimistic. Maybe on completely flat water and no wind.

 

Its normal to estimate like that, calm conditions. Anyway, Its a thin, light boat. I wonder what real life stats would be, and at 5kts. In any case, still pretty impressive for guys worried about diesel consumption. I guess the Dutch Artnautica builder also does a hybrid version, and they get better milage.

 

The only pleasure conversions I know of that remained successful long term are the couple deltas built of the 58 seiner hulls. Truth be told you gotta go back to the 70s and the gas crunch to find a hull acceptable enough to make an efficient cruiser. Chris van peer, Hansen and even a Wahl squeaked out some "expedition" type pleasure boats built off of very popular design commercial boats. I can thunk of a couple that had short life's and expensive refits to commercial craft.

Commercial fisherman the world over have been limited by length and given incentives to develop boats fit for permits not necessarily purpose. That's why the under 10m fleet in England, 32 and 58 foot boats in Alaska and the fat fortys of ns. I myself have begun the trading down of longer boats for what amounts to bigger shorter boats. They are built to survive brutal weather and pack tons. Even at 6.07 a gallon this summer my insurance bill was multiples of my fuel cost, never mind all the other costs. Sadly it's more cost effective to beat the water into submission with a c18 cat and a veem than it is to slide through the water on a 20 foot longer sleek 3:1 l to b ratio hull.

On top of that we're mostly visual, I spend days looking at bouys and driving in a circle. Or looking aft at setting or hauling gear, the best ride on the boat is out back on deck...

Long and short of it, while the allure of "tough" sounds cool how many days do you plan to to spend in gale + conditions? Our season starts in 14 days and I've been. Watching the weather on the grounds. There are 3 of the next 5 days pulling for 12+ seas, that's substantially calmer than the last two weeks. That's a normal week for boats in this category. That's why they look like they do. All very unnecessary for 99.9% of the average mariner. If I sold my boats and permits today and decided to buy a live aboard in that range, the 19 wide 58-74 foot long delta would probably be the only commercial hull I've seen over the last 20+ years I'd even consider.

 

Couldn't understand your point in, "that remained successful long term". What made them successful, and others not successful?

And on tough boats and, " how many dats donyou plan to be in gales"........I wouldnt plan to be in ANY, but if im circumnavigating, and DO happen to get stuck in a gale, I would prefer to know my boat was really tough, as opposed to some flimsy day cruiser or marina queen party boat.

 

Remained successful, meaning still in operation as a charter or pleasure boat. Moat made it 5 to 7 years and then sold cheap to guys who cut off superstructure and deck and converted to a commercial boat. One made it almost 15 years but only made it like 2700 hrs, even with several seasons chartering. I'd not call that an unmitigated success.

Look up the f/v trionfo, it's for sale on the California coast. It's one of the factory stretch deltas, maybe one of 3 or 4 and probably the last one left (not a fault of the design, fisherman are just really hard on things). It's probably the sleekest hull from a commercial platform. Those with a 19 liter probably do a gallon a knot or better at 5 knots.

About a year ago I sold a small seiner made by delta off what became the leclerg 42. I took that boat to the limit of what you can possibly imagine as far as weather, it wasn't fun but it survived it all. Compared to it the 50+ foot nordhanvn boats look like the queen Mary or a north sea anchor boat.

Point being, for cruising I'd take a 62 nordhanvn over most commercial designs unless spending time at the poles or the north sea are the main goals.

 

OK, fair enough, and as they say , every boat is a compromise, and everybody has their individual.taste in boats. You like Nordhavns, but we likely would never get a plastic boat.
The article on Trionfo said theyvhad to pay $65k as a fishing boat, that cant be the same latercas a pleasure boat, right?

 

Just wondering James, why you are not keen on fibreglass trawler yachts?
Steel and aluminium have their advantages, but they also have disadvantages as well - there is no 'perfect' material, everything is a compromise.

I can see why @comfisherman likes the old Nordhavn 62 - N62 – Nordhavn Yachts https://nordhavn.com/models/retired-models/n62/

Or her replacement the 63 -
N63 – Nordhavn Yachts https://nordhavn.com/models/n63/

They both look fairly 'commercial' in appearance with their aft wheelhouses, and the engine rooms are surely large enough to be able to have an electric drive along with a couple of generators instead of the standard Lugger or John Deere single propulsion engine (325 hp)

 

I like the nordhanvn because there is one based in Kodiak that travels out west from time to time. I've had it slip past me while I was standing on a plethora of different fishing boats. It slides through the water very nice and appears to handle very well. I use it as an example as it's a known proven platform, several of that design have gone all over the world. It's a good balance of size, beam, length and layout.

Preference for steel is a unique choice in a pleasure boat. No perfect material exists but frp is pretty close for pleasure use. Happiest day of my life was selling the Ingersoll rand and clemco, second was the day I sold the steel boat. It's a good material for ice and bouncing tall boy cod pots off of, but man does it take work to keep them looking nice. Granted if your within 10 years of the average life expectancy it's a decent option, that's about how long they take to age like bananas.

 

Yes, just in my very last message I repeated the phrase about everythin about boats is a compromise. There are tons of sites listing pro and cons of different hulls, and my favorite is unpainted aluminum above the waterline, no painting, no blisters, no soaking up water by osmosis, strongervthan plastic, etc. I never said it was perfect. Maybe titanium is though.

 

Well if your in your early 20s and plan to run it Un changed to your mid 80s. Titanium is probably the way to go.

First boat had a Titanium keel cooler, it was about 4.5x bronze in 91' when the boat was built. Sure looked nice after 20 years.

Having owned and worked on some big aluminum boats, they certainly have their place. Maybe half moon bay north to Vancouver island, and summers farther north. It always surprised me how, even with quality insulation it was apparent it was a very large heat sink. Material was nice and tough from a utility standpoint, but it was hard to beat the cold in winter and heat in summer.

 

Maybe those were real old ALU boats, the new ones have really good insulations nowadays, so are comfy all seasons, places. I guess some even use that new superinsulator, aerogel.

 

I suppose, maybe the new alloy and foams are much better.