Hi,
As this group is just starting out, I don’t expect much of
a reply to this, but what the heck — nothing ventured – nothing gained!
I would like to hear from anyone interested in cruising under power. By this
I mean boats capable of making passages of, say, more than 1000 miles. Boats
in this category that I have been on are the Krogen 42 and the Nordhavn 46.
Indeed, these two boats are on our "short list" of boats to retire onto. IMHO,
the Nord is the better passage maker, while the Krogen is really a coastal cruiser,
with long distance capabilities. OTOH, the Krogen is half the price of the Nord.
But, am I wrong? Are there other alternatives (no, I don’t mean sail boats. We
sail too, bu have decided to retire onto a trawler.
It would be great to see postings from anyone cruising aboard these two vessels, or
any similar ones.
Thanks for reading.
Maurice
from the land of endless summer
The one thing about cruising under power is it must get EXPENSIVE…
boats capable of powering that kind of distance are not exactly fuel
efficient, and for that kind of distance it takes a lot of fuel and a
lot of weight and a lot of MONEY. I can’t see it as a viable
retirement option unless you have a huge nest egg for paying for the
fuel.
Now I realize sailboats require a lot of maintenance and fiddly bits
that you don’t need to be paying for on power boats, but still I think
the operating expense of a powerboat would be a lot more than the
equivalent sailboat. Sure you get to go faster and in style but you
pay for that luxury.
–Bill.
—
/| William R Ward Bay View Consulting Services
/ |\ her…@cats.ucsc.edu 1803 Mission St. #339
/ | \ +1 408/479-4072 Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA
—| \ Finger her…@ucscb.ucsc.edu for PGP public key
|——/ Home sweet home: 1970 Cal 27 _Iguana_
~~~~~~~~~~
In article <HERMIT.95May15122…@ese.UCSC.EDU> her…@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward) writes:
>The one thing about cruising under power is it must get EXPENSIVE…
>boats capable of powering that kind of distance are not exactly fuel
>efficient, and for that kind of distance it takes a lot of fuel and a
>lot of weight and a lot of MONEY. I can’t see it as a viable
>retirement option unless you have a huge nest egg for paying for the
>fuel.
This is an interesting view, but I’m not certain it matches with the
facts. Suppose you were willing to go under power relatively *slowly*—
more like trawler cruising than Cigarette cruising. Suppose you took
my boat and called it a powerboat. At 37 feet overall, she weighs
16,800 lbs, I think, about 5000 of which is ballast. Get rid of all
that sailing stuff like the mast and rig and the stiffened structures
to take the load, and you’ve got yourself another 1000 lbs. So…assuming
you remove the keel and that other junk (grin), you’ve got room for
6000 lbs of fuel. That "room" is only in the sense of "displacement to
support"; the lead keel occupies much less space in producing 5000 lbs of
load than would the comparable pile of fuel…but let’s continue to
speculate….
Let me think a moment…7.5 gals/cu ft, a cu ft of water weighs about 60 lbs,
a cu ft of gas has to be no more than about 60% of that…say 40 lbs…
so you’ve got room for 6000/40 = 150 cu ft = about 1000 gallons of fuel.
With the current engine, the boat moves about 5.8 kts under power, using
up .5 gallons of fuel per hour. That means that she could run 2000 hours
on her new fuel tank. That gets her a distance of about 12,000 miles.
Not too shabby, I’d say.
Let’s compromise, and give her a 6000 mile cruising range. That’d require
only 500 gallons of fuel, which is about 75 cubic feet. We’ve got a keel
that’s about 15 feet long and about 4′ deep, and it’s about 7" thick; expand
that to 12", and you’ve got yourself 60 cubic feet of space, which is a lot.
Of course, some of it’s occupied by the water tank right now, but there’s
space between the watertank and cabinsole…about 40 cubic feet of space
I’d guess…
So all in all, I think that you could take an Alberg 37 hull and engine,
rebuidl the interior, and have yourself a powerboat that could cruise for
5000 miles between fillups. She’d roll like the dickens, of course, without
either the keel or the mast to stabilize her, which is why no one would
really do it, but the point is pretty clear: if you’re willing to make
a long, thin displacement powerboat and run at moderate speeds, you
can get a pretty remarkable cruising range.
>Now I realize sailboats require a lot of maintenance and fiddly bits
>that you don’t need to be paying for on power boats, but still I think
>the operating expense of a powerboat would be a lot more than the
>equivalent sailboat.
That 6000 mile trip costs you about 500 gallons of diesel fuel, which
comes to about $800 US. I’ll bet that after sailing 6000 miles, you’ll
have suffered $800 worth of wear and tear on sails, lines, furling eqpt,
etc. After all, I sail perhaps 1000 miles in a typical summer, and I
spend about $200 per year on sailmaker’s expenses, mostly for small
repairs…I’ve not actually *purchased* any new sails.
On the downside, you make your trip in a *very* small 37′ powerboat.
. The engine is not very accessible.
Most 37′ powerboats have more room in them than my last apartment did,
while my boat has rather less
But it *is* close by, and you’d have to live with that noise for 24
hours a day. Some folks regard this as high living, whereas I’d think
of it as pretty close to Hell. Still, it *is* a possibility.
Then again, I may have slipped a zero in my computations above, and
just be completely wrong
-John
In article <3p8cek$…@cocoa.brown.edu> j…@cs.brown.edu (John F. Hughes) writes:
>>The one thing about cruising under power is it must get EXPENSIVE…
>This is an interesting view, but I’m not certain it matches with the
>facts. Suppose you were willing to go under power relatively *slowly*—
>more like trawler cruising than Cigarette cruising.
>Not too shabby, I’d say.
>Let’s compromise, and give her a 6000 mile cruising range. That’d require
>only 500 gallons of fuel,
>She’d roll like the dickens, of course, without
>either the keel or the mast to stabilize her, which is why no one would
>really do it,
My "dream" boat would be a motor-sailor. using John’s calculations,
I would want a 2,000 mile cruising range under power, this would be
around 170 gallons of fuel, lets go with a 200 gallon tank or 1000 lbs
(40 lbs/7.5 gallon). Not to bad. You could also use portable tanks
for some extra fuel at the beginning of the trip. I must admit,
I like crossing Lake Ontario under power with an auto pilot.
With a motor-sailor, you would have a keel and mast to stabilize
the boat, you could pick the right conditions to sail under
plus you could motor when you have know wind or going thru inland
passes (like Alaska).
For me, the real issue is what happens if something goes wrong.
.
If in the middle of the atlantic and I lose 1/2 my mast, I have
a better change of rigging something up than fixing a broken
piston shaft. I do not want to be dependent on a motor (this is why
I have no desire to fly small planes, I do not want my tomb stone
to read "Mark died becuase he forgot to fill up with fuel").
A motor-sailor give me two options, plus with 200 gallons of fuel
I can still take hot showers
Mark Armstrong
m…@raster.kodak.com
In article <3p29jt$…@raffles.technet.sg>, nu…@slip.technet.sg (Maurice
Nunas) wrote:
> Hi,
> As this group is just starting out, I don’t expect much of
> a reply to this, but what the heck — nothing ventured – nothing gained!
> I would like to hear from anyone interested in cruising under power. By this
> I mean boats capable of making passages of, say, more than 1000 miles. Boats
> in this category that I have been on are the Krogen 42 and the Nordhavn 46.
> Indeed, these two boats are on our "short list" of boats to retire
onto. IMHO,
> Maurice
___________
We have many retirees in our trawler club that report diesel fuel to be
very inexpensive in many countries, especially when you buy from the
places the commercial boats buy from as opposed to buying fuel in a
"resort" marina. Of course in the dear US of A you need to buy the
correct color of fuel which means the most expensive and poorest quality
fuel.
Some thing that full time live aboards have found is 1) a "sundeck"
trawler is the best because of the shade provided on the aft "covered"
deck (as opposed to a double cabin/traditional trawler design or a sedan),
2) try to avoid the soft chine bottoms (like the Krogen ??) unless you
enjoy the rock & roll, 3) the 40 to 44ft range seems preferred for living
aboard, 4) *ALWAYS* have a dual manifold fuel filter system so you can
switch filters underway without shutting down the engine, 5) *ALWAYS*
carry lots of spare fuel filters, plus all the other necessary spare
parts, 6)an ice maker is preferred for a full time live aboard life, 7
thru xx) …
Enjoy
Bob S.
–
Bob Stephenson
rlsteph…@space.honeywell.com
— Never try to outstubborn a cat —
In <3p29jt$…@raffles.technet.sg> nu…@slip.technet.sg (Maurice
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Nunas) writes:
>Hi,
>As this group is just starting out, I don’t expect much of
>a reply to this, but what the heck — nothing ventured – nothing
gained!
>I would like to hear from anyone interested in cruising under power.
By this
>I mean boats capable of making passages of, say, more than 1000 miles.
Boats
>in this category that I have been on are the Krogen 42 and the
Nordhavn 46.
>Indeed, these two boats are on our "short list" of boats to retire
onto. IMHO,
>the Nord is the better passage maker, while the Krogen is really a
coastal cruiser,
>with long distance capabilities. OTOH, the Krogen is half the price
of the Nord.
>But, am I wrong? Are there other alternatives (no, I don’t mean sail
boats. We
>sail too, bu have decided to retire onto a trawler.
>It would be great to see postings from anyone cruising aboard these
two vessels, or
>any similar ones.
>Thanks for reading.
>Maurice
>from the land of endless summer
Maurice,
Many think that the only way to do any offshore cruising is by sail
only………….wrong!………the Nordhaven ….the Seaton…..the
Durbeck………and of course the Krogen have proven to be very capable
and economical passagemakers. We are now planning a cruise from Miami
to Chile………..still looking to complete the chart search for the
South American area! The vessel? Kadey Krogen 42!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Would prefer the 48 or above but they are out of the norm for pricing!
John F. Hughes (j…@cs.brown.edu) wrote:
: In article <HERMIT.95May15122…@ese.UCSC.EDU> her…@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward) writes:
: >
: >The one thing about cruising under power is it must get EXPENSIVE…
: This is an interesting view, but I’m not certain it matches with the
: facts.
<analysis, by comparing stripped sailboat>
: Then again, I may have slipped a zero in my computations above, and
: just be completely wrong
A little off on the density of fuel, but still, just about
right. A *displacement* power hull is a fairly economical
way to cruise. It’s slow, but when you’re retired, usually
time for money is a desirable trade-off. And while it may
not be as peaceful as sailing, a designed-for-cruising
power boat doesn’t have to be as noisy as either a
monster go-fast boat OR the deisel auxilliary on most
sailboats. (I suspect that the lack of sound isolation
on sailboats is due to viewing the motor as an undesirable
last resort — when it’s running, you *should* suffer.)
Fixing power train/fixing sail equipment is probably
about equal, or lost in the other costs of running a boat.
And don’t forget, if you retire to a boat, you save the costs
of keeping up a house (no small savings.)
–
–Pete <pwm…@mail.msen.com> http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/
"The price of aesthetic education is never small."
[Dorothy Dunnett]
In <HERMIT.95May15122…@ese.UCSC.EDU> her…@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Ward) writes:
>The one thing about cruising under power is it must get EXPENSIVE…
>boats capable of powering that kind of distance are not exactly fuel
>efficient, and for that kind of distance it takes a lot of fuel and a
>lot of weight and a lot of MONEY. I can’t see it as a viable
>retirement option unless you have a huge nest egg for paying for the
>fuel.
>Now I realize sailboats require a lot of maintenance and fiddly bits
>that you don’t need to be paying for on power boats, but still I think
>the operating expense of a powerboat would be a lot more than the
>equivalent sailboat. Sure you get to go faster and in style but you
>pay for that luxury.
>–Bill.
>–
> /| William R Ward Bay View Consulting Services
> / |\ her…@cats.ucsc.edu 1803 Mission St. #339
> / | \ +1 408/479-4072 Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA
> —| \ Finger her…@ucscb.ucsc.edu for PGP public key
> |——/ Home sweet home: 1970 Cal 27 _Iguana_
>~~~~~~~~~~
Bill,
This is a commomn misconseption of the power cruising family of
vessels; Boats like the Nordhaven , Seaton, Krogen when compared to the
cost of maintaining rigging and the fuel cost of sailboats ,fair better
than the cruisiung sailboat. At 3 GPH the powercruiser is very
efficient…. with that being the consumption at cruising
speed…….consider this at 6-7 knots the GPH decreases to the point
to make sails economical only for those who are going nowhere!
At this speed you can see that we are not concerned with going fast to
our destination…….straight and in comfort YES!
>Fixing power train/fixing sail equipment is probably
>about equal, or lost in the other costs of running a boat.
>And don’t forget, if you retire to a boat, you save the costs
>of keeping up a house (no small savings.)
Ah, but you’re not calculating the cost of the alimony!