Minimum Passagemaker/Cruiser

Ahhh, the serenity

If you ever decide to respond in a reasonable manner instead of being an abusive ****, I may change the setting.

 

Just for clarification, for some that have misunderstood or misread
the vessel I have should be quite capable of 2200 NM @ 8 knots with the tankage built in and an additional 1000 NM could be achievable with the addition of collapsible bladders for the first few days use of the passage.

I did mention this in earlier posts.

Dropping back to 6 knots would increase the range somewhat again.

 

yeah, downwind and with the current.

 

I would suggest that those on this forum that have 6000+ posts probably spend more time driving the computer on shore than they do actual boats

 

Hell no! Leave it as it is, I don´t need your replies. Not your suggestions either.

For improving your knowledge about modern communication devices you should study some Marine catalogues. Can be older ones...

 

I await the response to that.

 

look upwards....

 

Quite an acceptable and normal practice according to some

So if I have a vessel that is capable of comfortably doing a passage as follows:

Brisbane - Vanuatu........1070nm
Vanuatu - Samoa..........1218nm
Samoa - Kiribati............ 1255nm
Kiribati - Hawaii .............1063nm
and
Hawaii - LA...................2142nm

It is deemed by apex 1 definition above, to be a passagemaker
And I have one.

Makes you wonder why he has sprayed so much **** over this thread and others.

Mental issues, ePenis or both?

 

You really think your boat will go uphill against the trades and current like that huh. Now I am questioning you passages.

 

Question all you like

Lets just say that nearly every powered passage I have done to date has been in weather like this as we have waited for the correct weather window before jump off
We had no time constraints, so we could afford to wait.
Sensible seamanship don't you think?


This was day 5 of a delivery, strongest wind for that passage was around 10 knots.

Of course in sail vessels, we had more wind, but thats the idea for sail vessels right?

Also it's worth noting that I never suggested that I have any intention whatsoever of going to the US
My vessel is a Vanuatu to South east asia loop vessel, but capable of a us trip non the less.

 

Dagone sabhahcat yain't been in the trades yet. Wind blow one direction 24/7

 

yes, we get "The Trades" here in the southern hemisphere

until they dont
The above picture was proof of that

The pics below showing light easterly winds in Hawaii


and light westerly winds approaching the US


Would suggest that there could be favourable times of the year to do that passage if you chose to.

But, I choose the Vanuatu Asia loop for my passagemaker.

 

You mean prime hurricane.typhon season. Ooooookay.

 

Just highlighted a few words for you there Pierre.

The deliveries I have done have been in prime Cyclone season, or at least the end of the season
That glassout picture was a 25 day plus window we chose after a cyclone had blown out and long range models had nothing else showing.

Considering that the passage for the longest leg of the US trip should only be 10 days or less if you increased speed slightly from 8 to 10knots shortening the trip by two days itcould be worth it if you chose to do it.

I have no real issue with doing it for the shorter 4-5 day legs

I suppose the real point here is you claimed the trades blew 24/7
I proved this claim to be incorrect.

 

Tad
I think that your PL 39 is more than adequate. Apex never will because he is in the business of designing, building and selling larger boats. He has to be true to his product and I respect him for that. I just don't always agree with him. Just as Apex is entitled to his opinions, I am entitled to mine. Pierre admits to suffering from extreme fatigue at sea. I don't. In fact I sleep better on boats then I do on land. I suffer from fatigue on land and can hardly wait to get back to my boat to get a good night's sleep. So I can understand why Pierre would desire larger boats given his susceptibility to fatigue at sea.
Let's get back to your PL 39. One complaint was a lack of good sea berths. There are two settees. One in the salon and one in the pilot house. Both could be fitted with lee clothes just like you do on a sailboat. They would then be secure, comfortable berths in rough weather. I don't think that anyone can dispute that a settee berth with lee clothes makes a fine sea berth.
Another complaint was the lack of an engine room. Apex said it was an absolute necessity. I am curious as to why an engine room is an absolute necessity. True you need good engine access. If you have good engine access why the need for an engine room on a 40' boat? Let's have some facts. I would really like to learn why this is absolutely necessary.
There was also a comment that the galley was too wide. I am still trying to figure that out. Most of the galley is in the narrow passageway from the pilothouse to the salon. Does a galley need to be narrower that 2' in front of the stove? Again, I would like to know why. Please be specific.

These threads interest me because I am in the process of deciding whether or not to go from sail to power. And I am trying to learn as much as I can about powerboats to help me make that decision. Just telling me something is an absolute is meaningless to me. I want to know why.
So Apex and Pierre please explain the why to me with examples from actual boats and you will gain vast credibility with me. Show me interior layout drawings that have the qualities that you feel are desirable and tell me specifically why. Show me interior layout drawings that are undesirable and tell me specifically why. Tell me what could be done with the undesirable layouts to make them better. This type of information is readily available for sailboats. But information on powerboats is not easy to find. Or just tell me to apply the same information about desirable features in the interior layout for sailboats to powerboats. It might be just that simple. If you don't want to share this type of information in this manner. Just politely decline and move on. I'll look elsewhere.
The discussion on boat size has been beaten to death, raised from the dead and beaten to death again several times over. Same thing with the range that you need. I looked back through some of Apex's posts on other threads and saw one where he offered a "57' trawler/passagemaker." His words not mine and he stated that it had a 3500 mile range. I saw another post where he opined that a boat needed at least enough range to cover the distance from California to Hawaii because this was the longest passage that had to be made. So I feel that the minimum necessary range has also been covered. California to Hawaii plus a safety factor. No more need to beat that dead horse anymore.
So let's move on and look at other topics, i.e., interior layouts, mechanical and electrical systems, etc. Let's keep the focus on "minimal." That's what this thread is supposed to be about. I believe that to be the bare minimum that you would need. A lot of this will reflect a person's personal needs which could be vastly different from yours or mine. If someone says he only needs X and you disagree, don't disparage his ancestry, ask him why he thinks that he only needs X. Ask him to be specific. Or just politely say you disagree and explain with specificity why you think something else is necessary. Offer alternatives. Boats are compromises. This way you have made your point and you can move on and the discussion can move on. If the poster disagrees with you, just move on. You've made your point and if he want's to do otherwise, it's no skin off your nose.
Not being disrespectful to anyone. Just trying to keep the discussion moving in a positive direction. And hopefully we will all learn something.
Chuck