Trawlers - Off Topic

Wandering Sagebrush

Wandering Sagebrush

Free Range Human
Sorry, but this one is off topic. Anyone wanting to respond can do so offline if you want.

My bride and I are thinking of retirement. Me very (VERY) soon, and Diana in a year or so. One of the things we have been kicking around is keeping a second home in the Portland, OR area. As an alternative, Diana, bless her heart, tossed out the idea of selling the current town property and picking up a trawler for our home base, and perhaps some excursions up and down the coast.

Does anyone out there in CDory land have trawler experience or insight? The last thing I want to do is become a slave to brightwork or teak. I like the looks of the Lord Nelson Victory tugs, plus the Grand Banks 32s and 36s, but there is a lot of bright stuff on all of them. Not too wild about teak decks either. So, am I crazy, or is this an idea that just might work?

Regards,

Steve and Diana
Constant Craving (now you see why I name my boats the same thing anymore)
 
Steve & Diana, We owned a Krogen 39 trawler for 5 years prior to the TomCat. If you are thinking about traveling the coast, you will need some sort of stabilization on a full displacement trawler. This would include hydraulic stabilizers like the Niads or the unwieldy mechanical Paravanes. Both costly!

The Grand Banks, despite it's hype, is not a true trawler. The hull has a deadrise in the aft area and consequently worse mileage. If you don't like teak, the Nordhavn is the boat for you. Again, pricey

Feel free to PM me with any question. Roger
P8260016.sized.jpg
 
There is so much good technical information in PassageMaker magazine. It is very well written and I have yet to hear of someone who does not find it useful. Get back issues that talk about subjects that you are interested in, and you will have a better idea of what questions to ask of people like Roger and Bob.

My totally uninformed $0.02, FWIW, which is exactly zero. :shock:

Warren
 
Several of us have owned trawlers. I do a lot of "consulting" pro-bono, on selection of trawlers. I try and be unbiased based on the type of cruising, the budget and ability of the buyer.

Before Trawler Fest was purchased by Passagemaker Magazine some of us on the Trawler list were giving most of the lectures at the Trawler Fests


Check Passagemaker:
http://www.passagemaker.com/

Passagemaking under power
http://www.trawlersandtrawlering.com/fo ... nglis.html

Trawlers and Trawlering list servers http://www.trawlersandtrawlering.com/

There is also the "Marine Trader's owner's association":
http://www.mtoa.net/ You don't have to be a Marine Trader owner to belong.

The Liveaboard list seems to have less posters:
http://www.irbs.com/lists/live-aboard/

There are also Grand Banks, Hatteras, Nordic Tugs, American Tugs etc owner's association.

Incidently the originator of the Trawler list, and Trawler Fest owns a Tom Cat--so you have excellent resoruces.
 
I have to disagree slightly with Roger. The Nordhan is a great boat for long distance passage making, and the 62 or 46 is what I might choose for crossing oceans. I am not all that hepped up on the newer boats. For example several 47's just crossed the Atlantic, and averaged about 1.2 miles a gallon. Your Kadey Krogen would have done a multitude better than that. But for coastal cruising there are a lot of other pilothouse boats which are cheaper and just as good, or in some ways better.
 
Dreamer":1l120ayq said:
you will need some sort of stabilization on a full displacement trawler.
Click to expand...

Roger, I assume that Nordic Tugs and other boats of that ilk are not full displacement trawlers, correct? How do the two hull types stack up against each other?

What were your reasons for downsizing to the TC, if I may be so bold as to ask? Why not stay with the Krogen or get another big boat?

Thanks,
Warren
 
Warren, Nordic Tugs, Selenes, American Tugs, Grand Banks all flatten the hulls in the rear and are semi-displacement. Meaning, with enough power applied , they will plane. Some better than others. A full displacement trawler like a Krogen will only go hull speed and only needs 115 hp to do it. Ours would get 6 nmpg at 6kts. On 700 gallons, that's SF to Hilo and return unrefueled!

The semi-displacement hull is more stable thanks to the flat or slight deadrise hull. The full displacement hull rolls unmercifully in a beam sea without stabilization despite 2000# of lead ballast.

I recommended the Nordhavn due to it's complete lack of external wood. A big plus.

Main reason for downsizing=$$$,$$$

Iggy: You're a funny guy!
 
There seems to be a Catch-22 regarding semi-disp hulls. They are flattened in the rear to enable planing, but planing requires lots of power, huge engines, and very high fuel consumption. The 'trend' these days, however, seems to be to tout taking your house along with you, and cruising at 22 kts. They don't say too much about the fuel bills in these ads.

Of course, it is possible to cruise at hull speeds in these boats, much more economically. And there will be much less rolling due to the flatter hull. And you have the option of higher speeds when necessary to get from point A to B, out-run the weather, etc. OTOH, if you intend to cruise primarily at hull speed, you have just spent a fortune on two huge engines, including future maintenance obligations, AND you have given up a great deal of otherwise useful storage space.

It seems like it would make sense to build the semi-disp hull, avoid the rolling, put in a much smaller engine, and purposefully limit the boat to displacement speeds. So here's the quandary. A boat that looks like a Grand Banks will be expected to move like a Grand Banks. I suspect such a boat would find significant hurdles in the market place, although it sure makes sense to me.

Which brings us back to the original question: Other than market viability, what are the disadvantages of a semi-disp hull with a single (or perhaps dual) smaller diesel(s)? Inquiring minds . . .

iggy
 
iggy":3o8cfzem said:
Which brings us back to the original question: Other than market viability, what are the disadvantages of a semi-disp hull with a single (or perhaps dual) smaller diesel(s)?
Click to expand...

Isn't that basically what a Ranger tug is?

Warren
 
Yes, I guess it is! However, outside the C-D mfg, why doesn't anyone else do this? (I'm sure there are a few; a current Monk design comes close.) What about in a 32'-36' like the Grand Banks? (I realize this is a C-D site, but what the heck, this has already been identified as being off-topic . . ).

As I write this, the question is changing somewhat -- the semi-displacement hull is usually described as allowing the boat to plane, and the fact that it rolls less is secondary. How about designing the flatter aft section primarily to reduce rolling, with no consideration of planing at all? Provide adequate power, and design the hull, powerplant, storage areas, etc. to optimize displacement-speed cruising with minimal roll characteristics.

Again, this appears to be pretty much what the C-Ranger has done. But why aren't there more of them? Bigger? Smaller? Various layouts? I suspect everyone needs to go fast to take advantage of their 3-4 day weekends!

It may be that the source for such a boat would be the earlier trawlers, before they got into the hp/speed wars.

iggy
 
The true displacement hulls are much more effecient, at any speed that they can achieve. As Dreamer says, the KK 42 can go to Hawaii and back on 700 gallons (not sure of the specifics, but if you look at the Book Voyaging under Power (Passagemaker). The KK is very effecient. With my full displacement motor sailors, I would get 6 miles a gallon at 6 knots (both boats were very heavy, but had good hull lines--one was a little faster, and both only had 85 hp diesels). For example the 62 foot boat I owned, would carry 700 gallons, and with this at 6 knots I could go theoretically 4200 miles. What it really meant is that I picked up fuel at $0.15 a gallon and it lasted me a year or more. (Of course we also sailed when wind was available).

As Dreamer said, the full dispalcement's tend to roll more than the semi dispalcements--the hard chines have some effect--but even then they really need stabalizers. These cause more drag, and less effeciency.


There is a number which differentiates a displacement vs a semi displacement boat. That is 1.34 x sq root Length water line. This is the theorectical hull speed of a displacement boat. The 62 foot boat I owned would not go more than 9 knots--it was a true displacement boat--and 9 knots was the limit. It dug a bigger hole in the water if you put more power to the hull. The other motorsailer, had more semi dispacement hull form, and would go over 10 knots, even though its length water line was shorter than the longer boat. Many semi displacement boats will go 2 x sq root length water line, or even occasinoally 3 x LWL. There are books written about this. Read. David Gerr's Nature of Boats, or Bebee's origional Vogaging under power--first edition.

There are a number of full displacement power boats in all sizes. There are also a number of semi displacement boats. The C Ranger (not a C Dory product) is a semi displacement boat. The Camano is a semi displacement a couple of feet longer. Cape Dory makes one. I probably could name a dozen or so. A planing boat climbs over its bow wave. A true dispalcement boat will not plane. There are a lot of boats--for example the down east lobster boats, will go up to planing speeds--same for the Rosborough--but they get a bit "Squirley at the higher speeds, especially in heavy weather.

Buy the Power Boat buyer's guide--and look at all of the boats available. There are hundreds, and the book doesn't give all of them...
 
Steve and Diana,

You are a lucky guy to have a wife who is willing to live on a trawler.

I like the approach that Bill and El, and others have. They own a 22' C-Dory and a camper, from a truck camper to a full sized camper, as well as a house or condo. Fred and Pat from Pennsylvania have a 22' C-Dory and a RoadTek 170. The Roadtek will pull the 22' C-Dory. Sometimes they go with the boat and sometimes they go without the boat. But they go.

In today's Condo market, at least in the Boston Area which is a little high priced, you can get a two bedroom condo for about $250,000 to $350,000. One in Quincy has a marina attached to it, and the guy who runs the Marina will make sure the condo owner has first crack at a slip.

When I get out of the Inn business I hope to go the way of Fred and Pat. Presently my wife and I own a two family in Hingham Ma. She wants a new condo, I want to stay where I am, so we have to work it out. It si nice to have somebody pay your rent.

Before I owned a 22' C-Dory I owned a VW Caravan. I loved it.

I think as we get older we need to have alternatives.

Good luck on what ever you do.

Fred
 
>>a second home in the Portland, OR area...as an alternative...a trawler for our home base, and perhaps some excursions up and down the coast.

This might be my first post on this forum...I've been lurking a while, don't have a C-Dory, but had an Arima which I recently replaced with an Osprey (located in the San Juan Islands). More to the point, I also have a 44' trawler (moored on Lake Union in Seattle). And at one time I lived on a small trawler in Juneau, AK.

I don't know OR as well as I do WA, but I'm having a hard time envisioning satisfying boating "excursions" from Portland that don't start with a substantial coastwise passage to somewhere else.

I think you're trying to combine 3 different uses in one boat. The livability of a trawler as a "second home" is certainly observable, but livability at the dock is different than livability while cruising. And quite a bit different than livability while passagemaking. If you really want to keep this in Portland, then that pretty much dictates that you're going to make at most one trip north - or south - each year. And these are going to be serious trips indeed. Sure, this has been done in coastal cruisers of the GB and KK type, but as others have pointed out, they're no substitute for a boat built for ocean use like the Nordhavn. Have you been on a Nordhavn? What makes boats like that "livable" on the ocean is that they have (relatively) smaller windows, smaller cockpits, and - more importantly - smaller interior spaces. The expansive saloon that makes a widebody trawler so livable in port becomes a dangerously vast space to navigate when the boat is gyrating. You'll glady trade a roomy galley for a place to wedge yourself in so you can actually use your hands to do something useful, not just hold on.

By all means consider a boat in Portland as an maintenance-intensive and depreciating alternative to a condo. <smile> But as others have mentioned, you might be better off with a "pocket trawler" that you can haul north (or south).
 
centerisland":1mqvvhgt said:
I think you're trying to combine 3 different uses in one boat. The livability of a trawler as a "second home" is certainly observable, but livability at the dock is different than livability while cruising. And quite a bit different than livability while passagemaking. If you really want to keep this in Portland, then that pretty much dictates that you're going to make at most one trip north - or south - each year. And these are going to be serious trips indeed. Sure, this has been done in coastal cruisers of the GB and KK type, but as others have pointed out, they're no substitute for a boat built for ocean use like the Nordhavn. Have you been on a Nordhavn? What makes boats like that "livable" on the ocean is that they have (relatively) smaller windows, smaller cockpits, and - more importantly - smaller interior spaces. The expansive saloon that makes a widebody trawler so livable in port becomes a dangerously vast space to navigate when the boat is gyrating. You'll glady trade a roomy galley for a place to wedge yourself in so you can actually use your hands to do something useful, not just hold on.
Click to expand...

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is the kind of information that is supremely useful. It is one of the first posts I've read that helps me fully understand the differences between dock and cruising liviability. It also helps me understand why so many of my fellow TC and 25 owners are so passionate about the trailerability aspect. Before, I thought, "nice to have." But you have helped me see it as a true advantage.

Warren
 
Thanks everyone for the great information that has been posted. It has given me lots to think about and with a little luck I will be able to act on it too.

Kind Regards

Steve
"Constantly Craving (another boat)"
 
l agree with some of Centerisland's post and disagree with some. You do not need a Nordhavn to go from Columbia River Illwaco to Neah Bay--a two day trip, which can be made in fair weather by all manor of craft. We have run up and down the West Coast a number of times and have made that run in two days in our 6 to 7 knot motor sailor. (Total distance slightly over 200miles--two 100 mile days. ) We have seen Grand Banks, Carvers, Silvertowns, Cruisers, Tolly's, Defevers, Rough Water 36 and 41's all making this run. There are a number of nice pilot house boats--like the CHB 45, the Defever 44, 49, 55, Many Marine Traders, or Grand banks, or the Pacific 38/40 which make this run safely. We have seen most of these boats going down to Mexico--and even thru the Canal. We cruised along with a Defever 40 which went thru the Canal, up to Florida, then eventually down the Caribbean around South America and back up to the Bay area. The difference in interiors is made up in serious boats with hand holds (which the C Dories have) on the overhead. Sure there are some conditions when you will be tossed around--but the Nordhavn will also be tossed just as much, but be more likelly to have stabalizers, which come with their own set of problems. (for example I consulted with an owner who had grounded damaging one of the stabalizers and cracking his hull recently! He wanted to know what to do about getting it fixed and running to a place where it could be fixed with the hull damage and a temporary repair).

The Nordhavn is a great boat for crossing oceans, and PAE has made a wonderful advertising campaign--luring many to their boats. It turns out that a certain number find that they are not going to cross oceans and that there are far better boats for living on and doing coastal cruising.
For example despite its ocean crossing capabiity--the Nordhavn 40 has the main stateroom all of the wayforeward--not a place to be at sea!

I have been aboard all of the Nordhavn models up to the 72 and been in correspondance with the princples at PAE for a number of years. They have almost a cult following--sort of like C Dories! Of course 1.3 million plus for a new 47 Nordhavn, cuts the number of folks who can afford them.

We had a Symbol 42 Sun deck--great coastal cruising boat, and we had no problems with seas similar to what the average would be going up the coast. The galley was just as "tight" a U as the Nordhavn's--maybe a bit tighter than some of the larger ones. The Nordhavn's almost have to have stabalizers. The dinette in the Symbol was down next to the galley and suitable for most conditions. The main saloon had a full sofa, entertainment center, Lazyboy and barrel chair. Open space? Yes, but teak hand holds on all of the ceilings and corners. The staterooms both had queen beds and separate stall showers. The aft deck was perfect for lounging, and the fully enclosed flying bridge, with hard top, AC and heat, was like a pilot house, but would seat at least 10. Compare that with a Nordhavn 40. It also got reasonable "mileage", but would go 10 knots when necessary, instead of being limited to 7 knots--that makes a real difference when you need to make 100 to 120 miles in daylight hours.

We have owned small fast motor boats along with our sail boats for many years, we have enjoyed this mobility. The two C Dories give us even more mobility, with a Road Trek and my son's truck on the West Coast to handle the CD 25, and a 30 foot RV plus an Excursion in Florida. We could no longer maintain a larger boat, and we needed mobility for several reasons. Trawlers are great-but so are small faster pilot house boats.
 
Interesting (off) topic!!

We sold our CD22 and bought a used 1978, 37ft Puget Trawler, a Tiawan built semi-displacement yacht. She has a 120 hp Ford Lehman diesel, travels at 7 knots, plus or minus the tidal current and gets 3.5 MPG.

We can go from Everett to Ketchikan on the fuel aboard(360 gals) and still have 100 gals left on arrival. We paid $68,000 and put about $10,000 into repairs and improvements.

We have learned how nice it is to travel slowly enough to see the scenery and have half of our house with us!!

Grand Banks built from 66 thru the late 70's have the same power and cruise at similar speeds.

Our boat does have lots of varnished wood on the outside and is all wood inside. Grand Banks built in the 80's were built with minimal varnish on the outside.

If you keep your boat is Olympia, its only hours away and no Ocean transits are required to cruise the Puget sound, San Juans, Canadian Gulf Islands, and north to Desolation sound and beyond.

Trawlers... We like 'em.

Trawler Brats motto: Old and slow...but, we get there!!
 
Back
Top