Is It Cheaper To Motor Or Sail

Boston,

get the seating area elevated about 5 - 6 inch, you will sit in the basement otherwise!

And of course motoring is cheaper.....................
(but I do´nt say that, too many contradictions would pop up).


Regards
Richard

 

Nobody likes a diesel or wood stove without a chimney..

 

Apex that little handle under the seat is the jack adjustment for height so anyone can elevate it to there optimum height
both foot rest and back rest would also be adjustable. The seat post itself I was thinking should also slide for and aft for leg room adjustment although that would interfere with the recliner aspect somewhat

good call Teddy and here I though I'd just use the engine exhaust as an primary heat source after all, if you read the climate thread you will learn that co2 is actually good for you

cheers
B

working on a new layout
u shaped galley is a must and a full bed
I've slept on those fold outs before and always end up stuck in the seams, hardly the essence of comfort in my retirement

 

Cheaper to sail..

All in all from my own experience as a liveaboard sailor.. It is cheaper to sail (this includes the factors of long term maintenance of rigging and materials) however you have to learn to be conservative to make it work and have certain guidelines to practice by when underway.

 

my plan is to eventually install a kite assist system, which is why the forward section has nothing but a pair of benches the freezers and the washer and dryer. I will be engineering a mast step into the frame as well as a brace through the deck for a short mast. the floor of the forward area will be reinforced to later be retrofitted with the main winch and a pair of fly by wire sheets also powered from this forward area.

this allows me to get on the water soonest and fit the kite later should I decide its worth the trouble. Beefing up the forward area is not so difficult and if done rite makes the retrofit a simple task

I think you might have missed the discussion concerning local conditions and sailing vs power
the northern and central areas of the inside passage are not all that sail friendly and one might just find oneself motoring most of the time anyway

hardly justifies the additional cost of sail when I kite might make a better alternative

simply put I want to optimize for power and auxiliary with a kite rather than optimize for sail and auxiliary with power

 

Boston I was pointing towards the main saloon seating! This should be mounted on a pedestal to be able to look out without increasing the size of the windows to dangerous formats.

The Kite is my favourite too, once the size and prices come down to fit my needs.

And yes, the sail can be the cheaper alternative when you are able and willing to maintain, repair and replace the stuff yourself. Otherwise.....see above...

Retards
Richard

 

"Fred what are you basing this on? 50% better?"

Pro boat builder and sSail mag have been running articles by Nigel Calder..In one he explores the monstrous inefficiencies of underloaded gen sets which can drink 300% more fuel per watt produced at light load than when properly loaded .So can a 150 or 300 hp engine asked to provide 10 or 20% of its rated power.

He also in Sail discusses the fuel burn differences with speed and better loading on his main engine.

A quick summary from a post ,
The Jan 2010 issue if sail has a nice Boat works article by Nigel Calder.

It is a power , speed , fuel burn article for his 46 ft Malo a Swedish cruising boat whose hull in concept resembles the original Beede Passagemaker. IT is a full displacement boat.

The Beede was higher , so in a breeze to windward the fuel burn would be somewhat higher but the hull performance would be similar.

"With a 38.25 ft LWL the sq rt is 6.18ft so hull speed (6.18 x 1.34) is 8.28K

At 8.28 the power required is 55 to 74 hp depending on the efficiency of the prop with a fuel burn of 3.5 to 4.75 GPH.

Slow 1K to 7.28 and the HP required is 26 to 32 , with a burn of 1.6 to 2 GPH

Slow another 1K to 6.28 , HP is 15-17 and burn 1 to 1,25GPH.

So it takes 1/2 the fuel to go 1K slower and 1/4 the fuel to go 2K slower than hull speed,at $3.00 a gal ,the last 2K were $9.00 an hour.

AT 8.28K we are paying $1.50 per mile at 6.26K its 54cents.

Reducing speed by less than 25% and the fuel burn is 1/3 of what it was at hull speed."

This is as good as any an example of why most long range cruising is done at between .9 to 1.15 times the Sq Rt LWL .

IF you really MUST cruise at 10K the LWL should be about 100 ft.

When you put these articles together , and realize how screwed we are by engine builders or converters almost NEVER publishing a "Fuel Map" so the engine can be selected and loaded properly 'to live long and prosper", as well as efficient.

FF

 

hmmm
I was thinking about that Apex but not sure how to deal with that issue
I am planing on a developing a few seating arraignments more along the lines of commercial site seeing but am really stumped at to how to accomplish this
the aft cabin would make a nice observation area as would a roof top seating area however this would preclude the aft master suite and force my sleeping arraignments forward where it would be less comfortable

ah compromise
the bane of the boating world

I could eliminate one of the wheel house doors and fit in that U shaped galley or fit some really nice adjustable chairs but I'd be sacrificing some rather handy access.

seems I can either optimize as a bachelor flat or as a custom sight seeing craft
but not both
I was really hoping for both
maybe I will just have to settle for forward sleeping arrangements

 

Just put a pedestal where the bench and table is, thats all.

 

way to make a monkey out of me with the ultimately simple solution:idea: :idea: :idea:

 

B:
I found my cider influenced/misplaced redraw of your boat.

Now keep in mind I have ideas about things that others may not like...and that's OK.

Take what you like,ignore the rest:a few of my theories/thoughts:

-no point in having a monster engine unless a work boat or long distance cruiser,otherwise it's an expensive waste of space.
I'd rather have an extra foot or two or three in the head/galley/sofa/etc where Ispend many hours a day (not the head)-as opposed to an hour or two here and there in the engine room.
-no point in having a huge master stateroom,when you're sleeping you don't know where the H you are.
-DO have a well laid out galley and a big sink.You spend time here keeping yourself fed-it shouldn't be a PITA to do so.
-DO have a comfy bed.
-though I'm not shy in telling guests it's time to go,why spend your $$$ making nice staterooms for them??

Now,I had a bit of consideration to lines and such,just my idea of things-once again keep what u like,ignore the rest.

-Add skylights where I erased them,figure out the heights,etc
-Steerage is raised up a couple feet (?)-under that could be the freezer/washer room
-Measurements are approximate


Think I did Ok,considering that I had 4 huge mugs of cherry cider

Oh yeah..while your at it spending all this $$$,why not add another 2-3 feet of length to the boat???
Maybe in the pilot house section?

H


Oh yeah did u like the PM website I sent ya?

 

WestVan....great post...succinct and made a hell of a lot of sense...Don't have a big boat wallet...but even if I evr do...I'd hope I'd keep it a bit lean and mean...I guesss I'd need and engine that could carry me at 10 knots at best power setting for fuel consumption and/or optimal rpm to limit engine stress...a place for 3-4 to sleep and a decent galley/dining area...with small cockpit and whatever kind of tuna tower/flying bridge I can get away with and still keep the CG low...cheers..

 

my theory on the engine is that I have it and its close enough to what I need to be a serious contender, placing the engine partly under the stair hole is savingme a ton of room and I have a more than adequate engine/mechanical area at 420 cubic feet so space savings in not as prime a concern as getting the weight down low is

another theory of mine is if I do some day take on a charter I want to be able to charge em for it, Might make a few bucks in my old age after all eh.

also I was thinking I would want the major components in the aft cabin like the bed, storage chest and wardrobe to be removable so I could have a large storage space for a motorcycle or two. maybe not the wardrobe so much as the bed and the chest.





I took out one of the wheel house doors so now there is only one on the starboard side and added the aft cockpit access door back, flipped the floor plan of the aft cabin, as well as added a much better galley space up in the wheel house, where I really wanted it in the first place, although I think its a bit large and I might narrow it by 6" down to a 2' distance between counters and add 6" to the couch space

I also think Ill draw in the bed area as a fold out and see how it looks, maybe I can find a way to eliminate the seem issue when its in bed mode
I was also thinking of making the chest a flip out chair or love seat for in front of the fire on a cold day, it could still have storage under the seat area be movable as well. I was thinking the feet could slip into some holes in the floor and secure into place with a latch or pin so it could literally go inverted and not move around any

Ive designed tons of homes and various structures and seeing the options in plan view is really helpful so thanks Westy that was really nice of you to take the time and pound out that drawing over a few pints. Nice disco ball by the way and that brass girly pole has some real potential as well. How many pints did you say you had.
I think a nice master suet is a must if I want the option to bill this thing as top dollar accommodations as well as limit the accommodations to a couple rather than a family. I believe Im limited to six passengers and I was thinking if I did want to preserve the charter capability I would need 1 as crew and cook and myself thus leaving only space for 4 passengers. I think I need to include another head forward and seating arrangements on the aft cabin roof area but thats not any real design challenge. I'd like to preserve looking across at the fire place

am leaning away from the TJI type egg crate type framing system but it does save an awe-full lot of weight
tons actually

thought I'd post this although Im sure it will generate its share of nay saying
the turn of the bilge is way to complex and does not allow for ease of maintenance which is key to maintaining any wooden structure



the longitudinal members have a double webbing of 3/8 ply with an additional deflection support mid span between them. the holes are at 1/3 the total depth of 1' and placed in the center 1/3 of each member and lighten each web by ~25%

stringers are on 18c and bridging (frames) are at each bearing point

the size of the truss structure I extrapolated from the TJI tables as they do not have tables for members holding 180 lbs pr/ft which is what I have attempted to calculate for or ~3' of green water on deck

2,5 x 3 inch top and bottom cords bottom of white oak and upper of poplar ( ya ya ya I can hear it now but the upper cord is not in water contact at all and is the easiest piece to replace in the whole system

what look like frames is actually more like bridging and serve mostly as deflection resistance at each bearing point and as such are notably lighter in section than the longitudinal framing members

1.5 x 2 with a single 3/8 webbing and that I could probably reduce to 1/4 webbing ( Ill have to add it up and see how much weight it saves me as well as look up what kind of reduction in deflection resistance this would mean )

the turn of the bilge is kicking my *** for the moment but then again it is 5:20 am and I been working on drawings all night so I might just call it a day and catch a few winks before I need to get going. I dont need much sleep anyway.

I was thinking of making the frames in the turn of the bilge support the planking where as after the turn, at both the bottom and the sides the frames are held up off the planking one inch to allow any water that might infiltrate to quickly end up down at the pumps (two for each water tight section)

I was also thinking in my next draft of the turn area I might place the stringers perpendicular to the planking and make the two completely separate entities from one another rather than have them share a top cord like how its drawn now
I need to draw it but it would allow for a small space between the top cords of the two stringers that I could get into to replace the bridging in this area if needed but it would also mean that the stringers were no longer on 18C and that is something else Im trying to avoid
I want to maintain a nice consistent 18C throughout the hull stringers

oh there are weep holes along all the double webbing to allow water to escape this area and land down by the pumps

thing is the way I have this first draft it would be a nightmare to get into the bilge turn and repair anything in that area and so I think this plan is going to be scrapped or at least that detail.
I was hoping I could use a single top cord for both stringers in this are but once I drew it out it became apparent how difficult access to this area would be
not much hope of getting in there and replacing anything without having to chop your way in

I suppose I could also just leave out the plywood webbing in this area and simply make the bridging into actual frames in this area, it could then be fitted in through the engineered holes and into place if replacement were needed but digging the old one out might be a *****

hmmmm
high maintenance area to
ah decisions decisions

oh well
cheers
B

 

I've done high-speed hulls on longitudinal web stringers built of ply with solid fir caps, the loads this hull will see don't warrant all the effort and loss of interior volume. ...you need to minimize framing depth in the bilge so heavy weights (tanks) can be down as low as possible....which is very important in this top heavy type. Re-inventing the wheel has certain drawbacks.

 

I have a few tricks for getting the tanks down in the area of the webbing and for keeping the engine low as well
I'll show them once I draw out the engine room in greater detail

the webbing on the sides doubles as shelving for a lot of storage space and is one reason I nixed the wide body plan



in a nut shell the tanks all go down in the floors and do not sit on top of the stringers top cords
same with the engine, batteries and a few other things as well

I'll need to do a few more sections but having looked at several different methods of planking over really large solid stringers, or frames over keel designs I couldnt help but think that if I wanted to save weight I might try a framing plan more typical of the newer high speed light weight hulls

so thought I'd begin my decision of what method to use by drawing up a few framing plans and see which one afforded the most strength for the least weight
this particular method definitely does both and has been around long enough to have proved itself

cheers
B