Shafts & Legs

[simon_m]

Calm down now ;-) Following on from my last posting re maintenance costs, I'm wondering if there are any new twin engined planing 30-33ft motor cruisers around, which are *not* flybridge that come with shafts instead of legs ?

Simon

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[terryw]

The Doral 330 is available with shafts or outdrives, and it does not have a flybridge.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[omega2]

Aquabell 33

<hr width=100% size=1>J HAMER

 

[hlb]

Why ever do you not want a fly bridge??

<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue>No one can force me to come here.<font color=red> I'm a volunteer!!.<font color=blue>

Haydn

 

[h4nym]

'Cos u have more room, more sun and more fun with a cockpit!

H

<hr width=100% size=1>Life balance?

 

[hlb]

More rain too!.

<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue>No one can force me to come here.<font color=red> I'm a volunteer!!.<font color=blue>

Haydn

 

[h4nym]

lol - fair point... not to mention spray! Still more fun in a cockpit, tho!

H

<hr width=100% size=1>Life balance?

 

[duncan]

clearly a large flybridge gives the best of both worlds!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[simon_m]

Coz I was looking around the 30ft mark, and whilst I seem to remember that Rodman do a 30ft flybridge, it seems a tadge out of proportion to me on a boat of that length.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hlb]

Ah. I see now. You dont want a fly bridge cos nearly no one makes one so small!! Think you will strugle to find a sports boat on shafts. Though I dont blame you for trying.

<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue>No one can force me to come here.<font color=red> I'm a volunteer!!.<font color=blue>

Haydn

 

[jimg]

Nimbus 350

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[wheneverIcan]

My Nimus 320 is a single shafdt 250 yanmar but you can get it with twin 125 yanmars. Why do you want twins?

I looked into the single or twin debate for sometime. The twin 125 nimbus does 1kt more than a single 250. The single sits lower in the bilge so better stability than the two 125's which have to be slightly higher to fit in.

One twin 125 owner I know has recently converted to a single 250 - his point was that if a rope got snagged on one prop then the chances are that on a smaller boat (32ft) it would get snagged on both props and probably caused shaft damage.

Also only one engine to service.

I've just had rope cutters fitted on my single engine shaft and get 27kts at full throttle or 23 cruising at the 3100rpm recommended. Thats gives me 2 litres per mile fuel consumption.

I am slowly getting more confident with only one engine - afterall if you are buying from new then what can go wrong? It you get dodgy fuel then chances are that both engines will suffer.

Oh and the other point is a single engine model is around 15k cheaper than twin.

Simon

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[h4nym]

Singles without bow-thrusters are a mare at low speed... and bow-thrusters are cheating!

H

<hr width=100% size=1>Life balance?

 

[rich]

there were single screw boats before bow-thrusters were invented.

<hr width=100% size=1>rich )

 

[Chris771]

I can handle my boat perfectly well without using the bow thruster.
However, for spinning it around in tight spots with crosswinds I would not be without it.

I cannot see why so many people consider bowthrusters "cheating". To me that seems about the motoring equivalent of saying Aircon is cheating when you can wind the windows down. With Aircon you have the choice of either, to me my bowthruster is the same, I can choose if and when I use it.

I like it that way. Those who choose not to have bowthrusters, are welcome not to have them. Having handled boats from dinghys to 68000 tonne containerships, most with and without thrusters, I like them. To each his own. In the world of big ships bow (and or stern thrusters) are mainly fitted to allow ships to come alongside, or pull off berths without the expense of using tugs; shipowners would not make the outlay unless they paid for themselves. In days of old, single screw ships always needed at least one tug for berthing. With a wind blowing onto a berth it was simply not possible to get "off the wall" without a tug. Nowadays, big twin screw ships with bowthrusters (often multiple) simply walk sideways, safe,easy, cheap. Long live thrusters!

Chris

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hlb]

But them there were always at sea. and never leareded how to drive. Did them!!

<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue>No one can force me to come here.<font color=red> I'm a volunteer!!.<font color=blue>

Haydn

 

[wheneverIcan]

Cheating!!??
Is using a landing net cheating when Fishing?
Is letting a child use arm bands cheating when swimming?
Is using a microwave cheating?

Of course they are not and neither is a bow thruster. Its there to make life easier and when you are short handed and want to enjoy yourself then anything to make life easier is great.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hlb]

No. Cheating is using the bow thruster to pull away from the pontoon, whilst three people push and shuv at the stern to keep the swim platform from disembowling itself whilst the helmsman looks dead ahead with a poker face grin.

<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue>No one can force me to come here.<font color=red> I'm a volunteer!!.<font color=blue>

Haydn

 

[simon_m]

Well, my current boat has a single shaft ( Marex 280), and no bowthruster, and I have the maneovuring just about sussed, as long as I don't have to stop in a tight spot ( marina) where the wind gets me, I'm fine. It was a nightmare to start with, but fine now.

No problems getting on or off pontoons. My reason for wanting 2 engines was for increased reliability / safety on long trips. Over the last month 2 people at Falmouth have had nets on the props during long trips, both of whom had twin legs, and of course had one leg to go on. Looking at the size of the nets / sackcloths, I don't think a rope cutter on a single shaft would have been able to hack it.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Chris771]

Simon, does your Marex have a skeg? I've never seen one out of the water.
Most of the single screw boats I have owned have been shaft with a skeg lending some protection under the propellor.
Over the years I have on occasion caught things on the prop, but with a cutter on the shaft and something for it to pull against (the skeg) I have always been fortunate enough to get the propellor at least moderately clear enough to proceed. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that the skeg tends to deflect most bits of flotsam under the prop. Certainly feel that I am better protected than "naked" twin screws on shafts, or single or twin outdrives, although in a lot of cases you can lift the latter out of the water to see what you have caught.

<hr width=100% size=1>