economical coastal cruiser

Hey Sandy
if you really want to get around the tow restrictions get Farm Plates for your vehicle and you can tow anything
no permits
no restrictions
all you need is a light and your good to drag anything
at least thats how it works here

come to think of it you dont even need the light

best of luck
B

 

Take a look at Tom Lathrops BJ series www.bluejacketboats.com

 

Sandy,
I echo the recommendation to check out Tom Lathrops Bluejacket boats website. He seems to to have the answer, at least for me. We have trailered 22 and 25 foot C-Dorys around the US and Canada. Also spent 3 months aboard on a trip up the Illinois to the Great Lakes. Tom has come up with a lighter, longer, more efficient hull without the $100K price tag.
Regards,
Duane

 

The Bluejacket 28 seems to solve all the problems. Trailerable , light , a yet with scantlings to go fast as you can stand in rough water.

AIREX , (for the insulation and low noise with light weight ) would be my construction choice , but under $100K might be hard with core material as expensive as Airex.

FF

 

The Bluejacket is about as efficient as you will get in a planing hull. If your mission is mainly lakes and fair-weather coastal cruising at higher speeds than you'd get from a sailboat, with a decent sprint speed to get out of the way of bad weather, the Bluejacket is hard to beat at any price- and they appear very economical to build.

If heavy weather is in the cards on a regular basis, or you plan to carry large quantities of cargo, the Bluejacket may be too light for you. It gets its remarkable performance in large part by being extremely lightweight relative to its planing surface. Tom may be able to confirm this, but I doubt it's capable of 12 nmpg at cruising speeds- almost nothing this size is. Even my nearly flat bottom runabout, with only 30 hp and weighing about a quarter tonne empty, can't reach this level of economy.

 

Dave Gerr's book arrived this morning, and I'm enthralled. My criteria WILL change after I've read it cover to cover. In the mean time I have some questions:

Are there any 40 to 75 hp diesel engines with N2K data output?

What would the issues be with loading a boat in a shipping container on its beam? The doors to a container are something like 7'8" wide and something like 9' tall. It would require a cradle that could be broken down and shipped via motorfreight to the destination port. The cradle might be designed to help roll the boat on it's side. The boat would need a collapsing cabin top. I'm sure it would neccessitate draining all fluids.

I'm leaning towards a displacement design for the economy, and hope to see a very traditional look, like a 20's commuter. Gerr's 34' DR Northwest Cruiser really rings my bell!

 

"What would the issues be with loading a boat in a shipping container on its beam?"

I have been contemplating a cruising boat that could ship by container for a couple of years.

My conclusion so far is upright , on simple wooden rollers would be superior to a special cradle , nothing to ship , store , chase down later etc.

Additionally narrow beam is usually a big help in terms of speed and fuel consumption.

The ATKIN "box keel with reverse deadrise" seems to be my answer , but I am willing to cruise at just below plaining speeds SL 2.8 or so.

On a 39 ft boat 18K as fast cruise , with about 12-14 as LRC would work fine as a good boat for touring.

If you need heavy cargo ability , it might be OK as the original Box Keel boats were both beachable and an 18 ft boat could take a ton of load easily.

There have been a number of "Pocket Cruiser" discussions and others on the Atkin efficiency claims on this board in the archives..

If you come across the insert for Herrishoffs "STROLLER" 1929 commuter , its my idea of what a skiney boat should look like.

FF

 

Dave Gerr's DR Northwest Cruiser is a boxed keel round-bilged boat, a "Jersey Sea Bright Skiff". Powered by a small diesel it seems to fit my original ideas. But all those compound curves must make it a bit expensive to build.

 

Sandy,
Glad you like the book. Strangely enough, I too am drawn towards the box keel boats for my mind's eye dream boat.

Study the parts about speed, hull shape, engines, horsepower and torque, gears and props. These are the parameters that need to be tweaked and tuned to deliver whatever the desired optimization you demand.

Everything costs money. At this point I wouldn't worry too much about the cost of curvaceous vs. simpler hulls. Get the engineering parameters figured out roughly, then you can concentrate on simplifing hull lines for cost effective construction if all else is still a go.

 

Hello guys, I see that my Bluejacket has drawn some discussion here on a thread that I missed. I am just coming off serious heart surgery last week and it will be several weeks before I'm up to speed.

Speaking of speed, I need to answer the following:
"I would also question eriks assertion that a displacement hull that is 'pushed' beyond its theoretical hull speed - and that is designed to do so - is a better proposition than a planing hull that is designed to operate at the lower end of the speed spectrum. Depending on circumstance, one may well be favoured over another, but it's certainly not a hard and fast rule.
Clearly, at true displacement speeds the displacement hull is likely to be better, but beyond this, an argument can be made for either solution IMHO"

In my design brief to myself for the Bluejacket, this was precisely my objective. That is, to see whether a good cruising boat could be designed to run at very low planing speed rather than drive the semi-displacement hull beyond its natural top speed. You may take a look at my website at: www.bluejacketboats.com That particular goal is covered in the "Designing Liz" page. You should use Internet Explorer which is kinder to my site than Mozilla.

I can report that, to my complete satisfaction, a very normal cruising boat can be built that does this. Some are built at 24', 27' and 28' and the prototype has been running for 10 years. I am currently planing to run fuel use details this spring but I do have some averages. While I doubt that these boats can meet the 12kts and 12nm/hr goal, I don't think any one else can either with similar cruising boats. Fuel use has always been less than 2 gal/hr on all cruises and speeds run from 6 to 23 mph. The boat can be run at any speed desired from zero to 23mph with no apparent planing hump. We often cruise at 12mph to 17mph unless in restricted water where the speed is controlled at lower rate.

I direct attention to the series of photos for the BJ24 on the "Galleries page".
This series show that there is no stern squat from zero to top speed. There is undoubtedly a planing hump, but it is not detectable from the helm.

I have discussed a cruising hull with Will and a couple others here that may have the best chance of meeting that 12/12 goal. I call my version the BJ Glider which has a slim and high L/B canoe central body and a normally appearing topsides. I do know that the Gerr skiff cannot meet the goal and is well short of the Bluejacket in performance other than offshore capability. No free lunch yet.

I'm not completely free from operation nausea yet so will sign off for now.

 

Congratulations on your surgery, Mr. Lathrop! The results are very uncomfortable, but the alternatives are completely unacceptable!

I am impressed with your designs, and most interested in your customer's experiences with the 28, which very nearly meets my (ever-changing) needs.

What is the smallest engine in use on the 28, and what are its fuel consumption figures? It would help to know what the boat displaced at those numbers, too.

I liked my old BF-50, and am watching the newest engines in the 60 to 90 hp range with interest, but these numbers (and the resultant tank sizes for 200 to 400 miles between fuel stops) are wildly variable.

I would also like to know if these engines can be raised completely out of the water, and if you have ideas for heating the cabin.

 

" But all those compound curves must make it a bit expensive to build"

With foam core a cheap plug (of house grade wood) is required , so the cost of building and scraping it adds to the overall building costs .

BUT compound or really difficult curves (in wood or aluminum) are a snap!

"No free lunch yet." TL

Probably never will be , but GET BETTER!!

The world needs guys that will push the envelope a bit!!

Hope to see the BJ Glider sometime soon.

FF

 

Sandy,

The first BJ28 is due to launch this Spring. The owner, who is dong the interior finish work, is a fine woodworker and can't be pushed too fast. Of course he is trying to work in NW PA, which this Winter, is not fun.

This BJ 28 will be powered by an Etec 90. The engine on all Bluejackets lift completely free of the water. Unfortunately, that does not include the mount and tilt mechanism but nothing is perfect. I expect speed performance to be greater than the smaller boats with less power but fuel use will undoubtedly be somewhat higher at higher speed.

Below is the first model of a BJ Glider. I had a hard time visualizing just how the bow shape could be fitted in and this is the result. A main reason for doing such a boat is an attempt to provide a spacious cruiser that can have all the amenities for long cruises without fuel penalties. The initial design LOA is about 30' and the beam would be over normal highway limits but acceptable with permits. The initial snap at displacement is about 6000# with about 75% of that in the canoe body. The L/B ratio of the canoe body is ~ 16 and the aft bottom has zero deadrise. The idea is that the canoe body speed will run in the teens with very low drag and wave making while the upper body will plane at the same speed because of its very low bottom loading. All my boats must be trailerable so that is a limiting factor, which I am pushin in this case.

It is only an interesting project for me since I have neither the money nor available effort to complete such a big job. I do expect to get into a towing program with a 4' model.

Ideally, I see a small Beta diesel with horizontal shaft and all other heavy stores to be in the canoe body. Some thought is to create a bit of a tunnel behind the canoe body to allow a larger diameter prop for greater efficiency. I see fuel efficiency to be similar to a small displacement cat of similar LOA.

With outboards, I see a pair of small 4 strokes very close to each other and on or just inside the transom so that cruise could be on one or both depending on which offers the best performance for the need. The aft length of the canoe body would depend on which power is used and where it is placed.

 

I always jump into these discussions looking over my shoulder a bit. Let's look at your original post. You state you would like the boat for snow birding the Eastern Seaboard. If that is your goal then let's look at the real situation for dollars and cents practicallity.

When you consider an RV, the miles you can travel in a year can easily exceed 15,000 miles. The miles you can reasonably do on a boat doing the snowbird route is at best 4,000 miles. It does not take much thought here to see that the boat can get substantially less mileage than the RV yet not exceed the RV in yearly fuel cost even though the RV gets far better mileage.

Now the length of time that you will be in the boat to do the 4000 miles will be more time than you will have in the RV. The RV does not rock in waves. Weight must be removed from boats to get better mileage. Removing weight removes comfort items and a comfortable ride in waves. Is that a good tradeoff in your case? That is the question you must answer. Study chapter 14 in The Nature of Boats.

For 4,000 miles, (not NM), a boat that gets 5 mpg at 9 mph will burn a total of 800 gallons. Now the current price is $3.00 per gallon. That is a total of $2,400 per year or $200 a month. Your current utitlity bill is probably higher. Is cutting your fule bill to say, $1,400 a year worth giving up subtantial comfort in a seaway. Only you can answer that.

The miles per gallon a boat gets does not tell the whole story.

 

Some good thoughts Pierre. Just as MPG does not cover the real expense of cruising, these numbers don't either. First, you have to look at the demographic being served by the proposed economical cruiser. So far, the people here seem to be more middle class in economics than are able to buy any boat they want, have it delivered anywhere they want it and have all the attendant systems cost whatever falls out.

We seem to lean in the direction of trailerable boats that we can haul to our desired cruising grounds to cruise for the period of time in our vacations from the work required to pay for it. After our cruise, we haul the boat back to dry storage and go back to work. For many of us, this is the only way, other than chartering, that distant cruising grounds become practical. Its desirable that no special vehicle be required for the towing also. Many of us, me included, consider this the most enjoyable way to cruise distant or inland locations rather than trapped by the demands of a larger boat.

I agree with you that fuel costs are not the bugaboo of annual costs of larger boats, considering the amount of time spent on them. For the family saving for the kids college fund, it may be critical to the amount of time a boat is used. Also, some just want to make a smaller footprint, GW or not. One end of the Option One thread is my 24 footer and the other end at present is Will Allison's Graphite,which is larger, faster and a bit more lavish in appointments.

For me, I can go out to my inexpensive selfbuilt boathouse, hook up the boat, launch it free and take off. The ONLY immediate cost is fuel. Our RV compares in about the same way to the bigger ones you mention. 15mpg, parks just about anywhere in a legal space, gets underway in a flash and has probably been more places that most. There is no best solution, just one that is best for the individual looking at it.