Page 33 May MBY Mag, makes so much sense

P

paul salliss

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
1,037
Location
Sevenoaks
Visit site
Dave Marsh has written an article on page 33 as per title, it pretty much sums up my thoughts it's worth a read

I don't always buy the mag but it's a good edition great article on displacement long range cruising
 
jrudge said:
And the article is about?!
Click to expand...
It basically said that if you cruise slower, it will take longer to get to where you're going and if you cruise faster, you'll get there quicker. And if you want to dry out on a beach, you'll need an Aquastar. Apart from that, it had some nice pretty pictures:)
 
Page 33. It is an article that asks why on earth are we all running around with two huge engines and dispels myths, it highlights the values of one big well maintained single

It's worth reading
 
That old corker. Bound to start another argument on the pro's and cons again. Nicely delivered under the radar :encouragement:
 
paul salliss said:
Page 33. It is an article that asks why on earth are we all running around with two huge engines and dispels myths, it highlights the values of one big well maintained single

It's worth reading
Click to expand...

Ah that article. Sorry don't agree with Marsh on that one because he's completely omitted to mention one of the major reasons why people like me always go for twins and that's prop fouling. In the 24yrs I've been boating, I have only experienced 1 terminal engine failure but I have experienced fouling of one prop or another on several occasions and I've been very glad to have had another engine available to get me home. As for his idea of lashing the tender to the side of the boat, is he kidding? Try doing that in the middle of the Channel in a F5 wind against tide.

And another reason to have twin engines is steering failure. A few years ago, I experienced steering failure with the rudders stuck hard to starboard. The only way I could make headway was to use the starboard engine against the rudders. If I had had a single engined boat, I would still be out there now going around in circles!

25% fuel saving? Some boat builders disagree (eg Fleming) and even if it was true, a 25% fuel saving is relatively small within the overall cost of keeping a boat and IMHO, certainly not worth the risk of losing the security of having 2 engines
 
Deleted User said:
Ah that article. Sorry don't agree with Marsh on that one because he's completely omitted to mention one of the major reasons why people like me always go for twins and that's prop fouling. In the 24yrs I've been boating, I have only experienced 1 terminal engine failure but I have experienced fouling of one prop or another on several occasions and I've been very glad to have had another engine available to get me home.
Click to expand...

Good point, but there is a third way. I recently interviewed an Elling E3 owner for the July edition of MBY - his 2011 model has a wing engine with a folding prop. He used it to limp home after he ran over a fishing pot, but the rest of the time it's stowed away and he gets 19l/h at 10 knots from his single 435hp Volvo D6. The best of both worlds?
 
ChrisJefferies said:
Good point, but there is a third way. I recently interviewed an Elling E3 owner for the July edition of MBY - his 2011 model has a wing engine with a folding prop. He used it to limp home after he ran over a fishing pot, but the rest of the time it's stowed away and he gets 19l/h at 10 knots from his single 435hp Volvo D6. The best of both worlds?
Click to expand...

Not IMHO for 2 reasons. First you don't get the benefit of using that 2nd engine for close quarters manouvering and second, I've heard of wing engines not starting or failing after a short period of time because they are so seldom used. You've got to put the wing engine under load regularly to keep them in good condition and most owners won't do that

I'm also betting that the purchase cost of a big single + wing is not much less than 2 smaller twins so then any cost saving comes from using a bit less fuel which when you're spending a whopping £600k on a new boat or whatever doesn't strike me as very logical. Maybe save the same money by not specifying teak decks all round;)
 
i used to fly. Twin engined planes are pretty worthless in the light aircraft world as they burn twice the fuel, have more than twice the maintenance (they normally have a petrol powered heater to service as well) and go only a tiny bit faster ( really tiny - like 140 kts over 130kts).

If boat builders produced single engine boats as a matter of course then I would probably buy one. The snag is that in general terms they all produce twin engine models, so you generally don't have an option ( some small planning boats and displacement boats aside).

I like planing hulls. A S65 has 2300hp so it can trog along at 33 knots odd. If you took out the weight of one engine, took say 40% of the fuel capacity away you would save a lot of weight. What would it then need? I don't know lets say 1800 hp, this could be done with a single engine - albeit a big one.

The snag is that convention is 2 engines and until the market in general accepts one engine then singles will be the oddity. I cant see Sun / Fair / Prin champing at the bit to break the mould.

For me 2 engines is mostly about ego. Bow and stern thrusters can make the boat do almost anything. The kit is reliable in general. Nets - I have picked up one once ( and that did only knock out one engine) so Mike F has a point -but this could be countered with a small get you home engine.
 
Just spent over a week cruising on the boat, hardly say any motor boats out at sea, all very quiet which was great, but when we saw the odd one it was always a big old motor boat with twin engines chugging along at 8 ish, the world is changing and themes evolve, for some I accept they will never look beyond twins , for many they are stuck with 900 HP and would swap away if they could afford to , but they are stuck, I almost bought an Elling E3 but went with Broom as just a better layout, there is no right or wrongs here I am just saying before everyone chips in please read the article it makes some interesting points
 
I was firmly in the "why have two engines" camp until I fouled a rope going through central London, both props were fouled and both engines stopped dead, there was a 5knt tide running and I was being swept towards a bridge with fast moving traffic all around. One engine restarted and cleared but the other stalled the moment I selected gear, if that had been my only engine we would have been in immediate danger sending a mayday whilst fending off a bridge!

However the other 99.9% of the time I would be perfectly fine with one engine and richer.
 
ChrisJefferies said:
Good point, but there is a third way. I recently interviewed an Elling E3 owner for the July edition of MBY - his 2011 model has a wing engine with a folding prop. He used it to limp home after he ran over a fishing pot, but the rest of the time it's stowed away and he gets 19l/h at 10 knots from his single 435hp Volvo D6. The best of both worlds?
Click to expand...

19L/h @ 10 knots? And that's good?

Mine has twins and uses around 6 L/h total @ 7 knots (OK so it can't go any faster than that).
I'm quite happy with my 124hp pushing 7 tonnes
 
C
onsider this based on a typical Solent scenario

1) A healthy percentage of owners must wish they had no engines, as all marina's I have visited are stuffed with boats that go absolutely no where,
2) Another group never get to go past Portsmouth or Hurst Castle in either direction, they really only need one, if they were to hit trouble, they have a VHF, Sea Start, Anchor, Life raft, Tender, EPIRB etc etc to obtain help quickly
3) For those that take on longer cruising then its a whole different debate with pro's and con's which I accept, based on time, cost and another whole range of arguments.

I would love to look at the log books of some of those that say that they HAVE to have two, it would be interesting, suspect some would show they fall in to section 1 above!!!
 
Deleted User said:
I've heard of wing engines not starting or failing after a short period of time because they are so seldom used. You've got to put the wing engine under load regularly to keep them in good condition and most owners won't do that
Click to expand...

That's a really good point, but the best systems have a gen set with a selectable hydraulic drive to a get you home shaft and folding prop.
 
Deleted User said:
Ah that article. Sorry don't agree with Marsh on that one because he's completely omitted to mention one of the major reasons why people like me always go for twins and that's prop fouling. In the 24yrs I've been boating, I have only experienced 1 terminal engine failure but I have experienced fouling of one prop or another on several occasions and I've been very glad to have had another engine available to get me home. As for his idea of lashing the tender to the side of the boat, is he kidding? Try doing that in the middle of the Channel in a F5 wind against tide.

And another reason to have twin engines is steering failure. A few years ago, I experienced steering failure with the rudders stuck hard to starboard. The only way I could make headway was to use the starboard engine against the rudders. If I had had a single engined boat, I would still be out there now going around in circles!

25% fuel saving? Some boat builders disagree (eg Fleming) and even if it was true, a 25% fuel saving is relatively small within the overall cost of keeping a boat and IMHO, certainly not worth the risk of losing the security of having 2 engines
Click to expand...

I have one engine

I have beaching legs

I have an emergency steering tiller

I have a protected skeg & rope cutter

I have a propeller access hatch

I do have bow and stern thrusters

Its my kind of article!
 
Our current boat has twin petrol engines, so fuel (other than getting it) is never going to be the problem.
We are based on the Norfolk Broads and spend most of our hours running at 6 knots, often using just one of our two engines.
About 3 times a year we go out to sea, twice for 1 week at a time and once for two weeks.
During the 6 years we have owned our boat we have twice lost one engine. once was a rope around the port prop about 6 miles out and the other was an exhaust rubber connection that was pouring water into the engine bay at an alarming rate.
The exhaust rubber was not (so I am told by the Volvo agent) a service item and was not showing visible signs prior to failure.
The exhaust rubber could possibly have been taped up at sea but the rope there was no chance of freeing, and I did try, even with outdrives.

You don't need to be crossing oceans to be saved by twin engines, we have had it twice in 6 years despite spending 80% of our time on the river.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top