PCUK
Well-Known Member
No, I was thinking of smaller capacity heavy duty engines.
Re engine 16M trawler yacht
- Thread starter silverdee
- Start date
No, I was thinking of smaller capacity heavy duty engines.
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Not sure that I can think of a specific motor at the moment.
I agree that hull speed could be obtained with two 80 hp motors running at their rated speed, however not sure tearing the nuts out of Kubota based engines would be in character or that they could be made to swing real big props.
Compromise projects always seem to spin out of control.
I agree that hull speed could be obtained with two 80 hp motors running at their rated speed, however not sure tearing the nuts out of Kubota based engines would be in character or that they could be made to swing real big props.
Compromise projects always seem to spin out of control.
Last edited:
silverdee
Well-Known Member
Wow thanks everyone for lots of info.
Yes boat in in Union Hall/ Glandore SW Cork just now btw Her mooring that I had laid 2 yrs ago ( 2x 500kg ships anchors 42 mil chain etc) at cost of £2000 euro is surplus to requirements now if anyone wants it? And for that matter my similar chunky mooring in loch Etive n of Oban (6x 2.5 ton concrete blocks etc) is up for rent for the foreseeable.
Back on track
1- unlike JFM do not assume I have any engineering knowledge so I will find out more answers and revert.
2- IS 24 VOLTS (and positive earth electrics which I think is issue for starter motors etc ??)
3- one engine needs a belt to run stabiliser hydraulics and I`m keen to end up with remote- wander lead control of engines and thrusters like the zf box of tricks- so you can walk round aft deck when stern to-ing, also would love some fuel flow type `puter disply -- I think all this is poss whichever what engine but if folk think some engines wont take all this then I`d be glad to hear.
4- pre kids and uk summers becoming same as winter used to do 600 hours a year for first 8 years of ownership- now kids bigger and heading for med hope to do same again- hope to keep boat a long time and quite possible in 10 yrs or summink might cash in and spend extended periods doing serious miles- strangely I enjoy the non stop 7 kt for a few days thing.
5- v keen to hear latestarter and others opin on the low horsepower (twin 130s???)- mapis totally hear what you say-and or small capacity debate - would be cheap? could be economical? happy to change ballast about so no prob whatever weight engines end up being. is it wrong to tick along at say 1500 rpm on big 7 or 8 litre 300 hp turbo engines at 8 knts- I do love the quiet of all that.
By way of background when new to me she was 30 tons (without 600 gal water and 1000 gal fuel) and with the fuel etc did 12 knts flat out at 2250 odd rpm 1900 was somewhere near 10 knts----- but not stable enough -partic when at rest -when stabilisers useless and trying to kit up divers so put 3.5 ton or so lead in her
bought her down about 4 inches into the water- stability fantastically improved but flat out became 10 knts 1700 gives an unstressed 8 knt if you are prepared to go 1500 7 knt 1600 7.5 ish then even better on fuel. Quite sure I need to reprop/ re gear her to get best performance at displacement type speeds wouldn`t mind being able to do 10 knts at a push ( last orders at the bar etc) but not at cost of fuel efficient disp cruising.
6- feel content to have modern computer controlled everything- I can only do simple jobs like filters/strainers anyway so if a black box goes I will need to get a man anyway- on balance think as modern as poss best- which tends to put me off recons but am I right ??
I will post again once I know more of current spec flywheel housings etc- thanks again.
Yes boat in in Union Hall/ Glandore SW Cork just now btw Her mooring that I had laid 2 yrs ago ( 2x 500kg ships anchors 42 mil chain etc) at cost of £2000 euro is surplus to requirements now if anyone wants it? And for that matter my similar chunky mooring in loch Etive n of Oban (6x 2.5 ton concrete blocks etc) is up for rent for the foreseeable.
Back on track
1- unlike JFM do not assume I have any engineering knowledge so I will find out more answers and revert.
2- IS 24 VOLTS (and positive earth electrics which I think is issue for starter motors etc ??)
3- one engine needs a belt to run stabiliser hydraulics and I`m keen to end up with remote- wander lead control of engines and thrusters like the zf box of tricks- so you can walk round aft deck when stern to-ing, also would love some fuel flow type `puter disply -- I think all this is poss whichever what engine but if folk think some engines wont take all this then I`d be glad to hear.
4- pre kids and uk summers becoming same as winter used to do 600 hours a year for first 8 years of ownership- now kids bigger and heading for med hope to do same again- hope to keep boat a long time and quite possible in 10 yrs or summink might cash in and spend extended periods doing serious miles- strangely I enjoy the non stop 7 kt for a few days thing.
5- v keen to hear latestarter and others opin on the low horsepower (twin 130s???)- mapis totally hear what you say-and or small capacity debate - would be cheap? could be economical? happy to change ballast about so no prob whatever weight engines end up being. is it wrong to tick along at say 1500 rpm on big 7 or 8 litre 300 hp turbo engines at 8 knts- I do love the quiet of all that.
By way of background when new to me she was 30 tons (without 600 gal water and 1000 gal fuel) and with the fuel etc did 12 knts flat out at 2250 odd rpm 1900 was somewhere near 10 knts----- but not stable enough -partic when at rest -when stabilisers useless and trying to kit up divers so put 3.5 ton or so lead in her
bought her down about 4 inches into the water- stability fantastically improved but flat out became 10 knts 1700 gives an unstressed 8 knt if you are prepared to go 1500 7 knt 1600 7.5 ish then even better on fuel. Quite sure I need to reprop/ re gear her to get best performance at displacement type speeds wouldn`t mind being able to do 10 knts at a push ( last orders at the bar etc) but not at cost of fuel efficient disp cruising.
6- feel content to have modern computer controlled everything- I can only do simple jobs like filters/strainers anyway so if a black box goes I will need to get a man anyway- on balance think as modern as poss best- which tends to put me off recons but am I right ??
I will post again once I know more of current spec flywheel housings etc- thanks again.
silverdee
Well-Known Member
sorry Latestarter you posted while I was v slowly 1 finger typing.
so should I kind of have in mind a minimum capacity 8 litre etc engine ??
so should I kind of have in mind a minimum capacity 8 litre etc engine ??
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
I am not hung up on capacity at all, however once we know your propeller sizes this will drive other factors. As general rule maneuvering with inertia of big props requires heavy flywheel which SAE 3 cannot provide.
Deere 6068 and QSB 6.7 would do the job real well and both very sociable engines.
Alf (Divemaster) made a perceptive suggestion of using Cummins C 8.3, engine in mechanical form is out of production, however still produced as recon unit (actually 100% new) in non emissions compliant territory (Mexico) to get around U.S. legislation. However in my experience with QSL9 in MOD Police patrol launches replacing Volvo TD70's has been 100% positive, all passed 10,000 hours without a single issue, well one, cooked engine due to MODPLOD forgetting to open seacock. Cost of QSL9 pretty much awash with C if configured the same.
Last edited:
silverdee
Well-Known Member
Thanks Latestarter
We have all left the odd seacock closed ?? 30 odd of the bloomin things on Silverdee.
I do like the look of that QSL9 CD/HO. You wouldn`t worry too much about fuel economy compared to smaller engine ?? or would I be doing them harm ticking along at 8 knts- from the spec sheet 800 rpm=80hp and 1000= 143hp ??
We have all left the odd seacock closed ?? 30 odd of the bloomin things on Silverdee.
I do like the look of that QSL9 CD/HO. You wouldn`t worry too much about fuel economy compared to smaller engine ?? or would I be doing them harm ticking along at 8 knts- from the spec sheet 800 rpm=80hp and 1000= 143hp ??
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Yep, being able to make just 8kts flat out with 500 (albeit possibly tired) ponies would sound really weird indeed, but I'm a bit puzzled by the latest explanation from SD, who says that he used to make 12kts @ WOT, so I would think that the props pitch was (and still is?) correct. Otoh, as I understand, 8kts is now his "preferred" speed, rather than the max speed/rpm - which makes good sense.
Anyway, i'm not surprised to hear that the additional ballast affected dramatically the max speed, which happens to be at the worst possible condition (just above hull speed), for a 16m hull. Otoh, the ballast probably didn't affect significantly the performance (rpm/load, hence fuel burn) at pure D speed, where weight doesn't really matter a lot, other than for a bit of wet surface (=drag) increase.
Btw, 4" lower for 3.5 T additional ballast sounds a LOT. SD, are you sure that you didn't add more weight for other stuff at the same time?
On my boat, from empty to full of diesel (4k liters) the difference is just 6 or 7 cm...
Anyhow, I am attaching below the numbers related to my boat, which might be interesting as a comparison, with a few forewords:
1) I am talking of a 16.25m (actual hull length) x 4.58m (max beam) boat, weighing about 35T, with a full displacement hull.
Engines are Cat 3116TA, E rating, 350hp @ 2800rpm.
2) Yeah, I know that my previous suggestion to fit less than 2x250hp on a similar hull might seem ridiculous, considering that I've actually got 2x350. But my engines were specced by the first owner, who came from a planing boats-only experience, and as such he didn't trust the builder's recommendation that 2x200 was already plenty. Actual data below prove that the builder knew better, obviously...
3) aside from any power considerations, I wouldn't aim at 11 kts cruising, even in a hurry, if also SD has (as I suppose) a displacement hull.
Not because hull speed can't be exceeded also with full displacement boats, as the table below shows, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in practice.
At that speed, any full D hull of this length is bound to "climb" on the water, digging a big hole astern, and moving mountains of water.
Fuel consumption aside, that's a really awful cruising attitude, and in fact I can't remember to have had good enough reasons to push the boat at more than 9/9.5 knots for any significant amount of time, since I bought her in 2000!
I suppose that in the UK the needs might be different, e.g. to beat the tide and reach a marina before a lock gets closed, but here in the Med it's only the weather that might affect the cruising plans. And whenever I met some really rough stuff, I always found that it was rather a further speed reduction (say, 6 or 7 knots) and/or a slight route deviation that gave the best chances to arrive safely and in one piece, rather than trying to "beat" the weather. Which in fact is a battle that any boater is bound to loose anyway, sooner or later...
4) on the matter of power requirement, it's worth reiterating what I previously said in my reply to LS1, i.e. that by all means I was NOT suggesting LDA engines when I mentioned that less than 250hp per side could be more than adequate. To some extent, it's the contrary.
Let's look at the numbers below, to keep the example practical: back in its days, the very same block used in my E rated engines was available also in other higher rating flavours, up to an A (continuous duty) version, capable of "only" 205hp @ 2400rpm.
In hindsight, that version would have been a more appropriate choice for the boat, being more than enough for any practical usage, and still able to push her at almost 11kts anyway (as opposed to 11.7, a speed I never ever used in practice).
Bottom line, whatever the brand/model, on a boat like SD, I'd be much happier to fit a solid, high duty block with 200 or even less hp, rather than any low rating engine capable of 250 or more.
If there's any further comparison you might be interested in, just ask.
Including of course coming down here and go for a ride, to get a "hands on" feeling of the behaviour!
silverdee
Well-Known Member
Mapis and others
-thanks for so much time and thought on this-- good forum.
JFM has slightly confused issue the boat would do 12knts pre ballast and will do 10 now (not 8) flat out . In either of these states its kinda 2250 revs and v v old engines screaming. 8 is my preferred top cruising speed maybe even tending more to 7 on a long run to save juice.
The hull is a ragged chine version of arun 52 lifeboat type -the boat is a Poseidon 52 GRP hull. The hull I think was designed by Alan Maclachlan at GL Watsons .So its a semi-displacement I would say and if it had say twin 600s and no ballast or all the compressors/ dive kit aboard would do 18 knots easy. But all I want is basically displacement cruising and long range with mega understressed engines and maybe the grunt to push up to 10 knts if I need to get somewhere.
The reason I felt repropping / different gbox ratios might be needed was because of the ballast / other weight and desire to maximise efficiency rather than achieve much more than displacement speeds. But I need to get the data on current props and other stuff as Latestarter amongst others suggests FIRST.
-thanks for so much time and thought on this-- good forum.
JFM has slightly confused issue the boat would do 12knts pre ballast and will do 10 now (not 8) flat out . In either of these states its kinda 2250 revs and v v old engines screaming. 8 is my preferred top cruising speed maybe even tending more to 7 on a long run to save juice.
The hull is a ragged chine version of arun 52 lifeboat type -the boat is a Poseidon 52 GRP hull. The hull I think was designed by Alan Maclachlan at GL Watsons .So its a semi-displacement I would say and if it had say twin 600s and no ballast or all the compressors/ dive kit aboard would do 18 knots easy. But all I want is basically displacement cruising and long range with mega understressed engines and maybe the grunt to push up to 10 knts if I need to get somewhere.
The reason I felt repropping / different gbox ratios might be needed was because of the ballast / other weight and desire to maximise efficiency rather than achieve much more than displacement speeds. But I need to get the data on current props and other stuff as Latestarter amongst others suggests FIRST.
silverdee
Well-Known Member
Sorry wasn`t shouting "FIRST" just can`t work caps lock
moonraker 36
Well-Known Member
how about a nice pair of gardner marine diesel's.
http://www.gardnermarine.com/gardner-marine-engines/standard-engines.aspx
http://www.gardnermarine.com/gardner-marine-engines/standard-engines.aspx
tinkicker0
Well-Known Member
Cummins ISC or variant?
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Spot on, add 10mm more stroke to a C and you get an QSL 114X145 with added benefit of roller cam followers.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Aha, interesting.
That explains why the boat achieved 12kts with "only" 500hp, which would have been surprising, with a strictly displacement hull.
Not that this changes anything of what we said so far, anyway.
I'm sure she will be a great boat also if powered/optimized for using her just at D, rather than SD speed.
All the best for your project, and keep us posted on the results.
I for one am very interested to hear about them!
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
Same here, I shall follow this thread with keen interest.
Here is a Poseidon in Baltimore for sale - http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/198...92984/Baltimore/MD/United-States#.UiOdyH-Pj-u
It looks like Silver Dee also has these multiple very close together spray rails?
Moonraker has mentioned Gardner engines above - they do seem to be 'the business' for a heavy displacement boat, and I am wondering why they are not more popular?
I guess that initial cost (and possibly weight) is an issue (?).
A friend of mine in Poole used to have a commercial fishing boat with a Gardner 6LX, and he said it was the best engine he had ever owned.
And John Deeres have a very good reputation - quite a few fishing boats here have been fitted with them over the past 15 years, and all the ones I have met have averaged between 1,000 - 1,500 hours a year with excellent reliability, and invariably they have passed 10,000 hours with no major issues reported.
http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_INT/products/equipment/marine_engines/marine_engines.page
The Dashews have been fitting John Deeres in their displacement motor yachts - the first one was the 83' Wind Horse, who has a pair of 4045TFM engines.
http://setsail.com/wind-horse/
And they have impressive fuel economy for an 83' yacht, burning 7 gallons (American, not Imperial) at 11 knots.
http://setsail.com/wind-horse-atlantic-crossing-fuel-burn/
Here is some more info about the machinery (it is not easy to find on the website!) - http://setsail.com/the-drive-line/
Here is a Poseidon in Baltimore for sale - http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/198...92984/Baltimore/MD/United-States#.UiOdyH-Pj-u
It looks like Silver Dee also has these multiple very close together spray rails?
Moonraker has mentioned Gardner engines above - they do seem to be 'the business' for a heavy displacement boat, and I am wondering why they are not more popular?
I guess that initial cost (and possibly weight) is an issue (?).
A friend of mine in Poole used to have a commercial fishing boat with a Gardner 6LX, and he said it was the best engine he had ever owned.
And John Deeres have a very good reputation - quite a few fishing boats here have been fitted with them over the past 15 years, and all the ones I have met have averaged between 1,000 - 1,500 hours a year with excellent reliability, and invariably they have passed 10,000 hours with no major issues reported.
http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_INT/products/equipment/marine_engines/marine_engines.page
The Dashews have been fitting John Deeres in their displacement motor yachts - the first one was the 83' Wind Horse, who has a pair of 4045TFM engines.
http://setsail.com/wind-horse/
And they have impressive fuel economy for an 83' yacht, burning 7 gallons (American, not Imperial) at 11 knots.
http://setsail.com/wind-horse-atlantic-crossing-fuel-burn/
Here is some more info about the machinery (it is not easy to find on the website!) - http://setsail.com/the-drive-line/
Last edited:
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Volvo 63 in fitted in 2004?? Thought that motor was out of production by that time?
Gardner went out of business in 1988/89, Hawker Siddley made big investment in machine tools however screwed the company up. Sold to Perkins who tried and failed to update designs. Latter engines were dogged with quality issues, I was present when one of the very last 6LXDT's built had been troublesome and went back to Patricroft works for re-work and dyno test which ended in tears when pulling full load on the dyno, piston grabbed liner and pulled it down into crankcase, crank web said 'get outa here' leaving a big mess. Company sold to asset stripper who made big $$ selling off all the modern tooling put in by Hawker Siddley.
Paul Gardner Engineering now gone, but plenty of others, generally related to ex employees re-building engines to a high standard.
Deere are excellent engines, however have no magic qualities, durability fuel economy no better than equivalent engines employing similar technology, typical of US they have built a certain folklore with long range cruisers. No other manufacturer offers a four pot with range of heavy duty ratings similar to the Deere 4045. Support for Deere in Europe is pretty weak.
aquapower
Well-Known Member
63 was in production from 1994-2005
silverdee
Well-Known Member
Well after much deliberation (and work pressures interfering) I have ordered a pair of John Deere 6068 AFM 85 engines with prm 1000 2.1 gearboxes.
So 266 hp at 2400 revs M2 rated. Very Very close call between these and TFM50 variant of same block M4 225hp at 2600 rpm. Differences are AFM 85 has 4 valves per cylinder, common rail, computerised? (I am not an engineer) fuel pump vs mechanical so for eg can get (and have ordered) read out at each helm station for engine % load and fuel consumption (why don`t they just chuck in a few pence worth of gps and it could do range as well). Substantial price difference (think the price of a new ford mondeo or summink) and i might be paying for hp I don`t need but the deed is done now. Hope to be up at boat this weekend -will try to post photos thereafter. Had lots of good advice through this forum thank you all for that thus far.
So 266 hp at 2400 revs M2 rated. Very Very close call between these and TFM50 variant of same block M4 225hp at 2600 rpm. Differences are AFM 85 has 4 valves per cylinder, common rail, computerised? (I am not an engineer) fuel pump vs mechanical so for eg can get (and have ordered) read out at each helm station for engine % load and fuel consumption (why don`t they just chuck in a few pence worth of gps and it could do range as well). Substantial price difference (think the price of a new ford mondeo or summink) and i might be paying for hp I don`t need but the deed is done now. Hope to be up at boat this weekend -will try to post photos thereafter. Had lots of good advice through this forum thank you all for that thus far.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
At a guess, the output from the engines ECU which feeds the JD instruments should be NMEA2000 compatible.
And if it is, you should be able to get NMPG and range figures just by interconnecting the plotter.
Anyway, there's a well known engineer here in the asylum, who also happens to belong to your family, that can surely advise you on the installation!
jfm
Well-Known Member
At a guess, the output from the engines ECU which feeds the JD instruments should be NMEA2000 compatible.
And if it is, you should be able to get NMPG and range figures just by interconnecting the plotter.
Anyway, there's a well known engineer here in the asylum, who also happens to belong to your family, that can surely advise you on the installation!
The way to do this is
buy 2x Maretron J2K100 (off eBay seems to be cheapest) which takes the J1939 data from the engine and talks it onto the N2k network
buy 2 cables to connect these to John Dear Deeres (from maretron most likely)
make up a small N2k network as silverdee is currently only nmea0183 (I have all the bits for this including the gps mushroom; don't buy anything J)
Configure the 2x maretron J2k100 into "port" and "starboard" using a maretron DSM250 (which I have - don't buy one, nor even look a the price)
install one plotter, Garmin or Raym for example, that has engine data pages, eg a Garmin 7000 would be nice
And then you're done. It's plug and play. You'll have all fuel data nicely displayed on the screen - lph, litres per mile, range, litres fuel left in tank, etc. You then see instantly how throttle tweaks affect lpm, as you speed up in d mode and ultimately begin to push the bow wave
Last edited: