BrendanS
Well-known member
Re: Careful about claims
Try guessing?
<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
Try guessing?
<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
The best of Both Worlds?
- Thread starter Gludy
- Start date
kimhollamby
Active member
The iceberg
The second one, the twin engine, had three box keels, one on centreline and two to carry shafts. Props protected behind keels with skeg underneath. Felt wondefully safe and solid but boy was that a boat that taught you the value of not exceeding waterline speed!
<hr width=100% size=1>
The second one, the twin engine, had three box keels, one on centreline and two to carry shafts. Props protected behind keels with skeg underneath. Felt wondefully safe and solid but boy was that a boat that taught you the value of not exceeding waterline speed!
<hr width=100% size=1>
kimhollamby
Active member
okay okay
Stop there, let's not ruin a good discussion, I'll have a go at doing that myself bit later on today when have more time!
<hr width=100% size=1>
Stop there, let's not ruin a good discussion, I'll have a go at doing that myself bit later on today when have more time!
<hr width=100% size=1>
LittleShip
New member
AHmmmm !!
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.grandbanks.com/>http://www.grandbanks.com/</A>
<hr width=100% size=1>
I wish I'd been born rich instead of good looking ?
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.grandbanks.com/>http://www.grandbanks.com/</A>
<hr width=100% size=1>
I wish I'd been born rich instead of good looking ?
Gludy
Active member
Steve
"Buy the Marlowe, and then we can have trips next year together in both our boats, at the same speed (ish), without me having to set off five hours before you, or in the case of this year giving up totally and coming with you on Drumbeat instead."
I will probably still do the trips to Padstow at 20 knots!!!
No need to bother about the scanner - I need us both to be there, so we can deal with it when I get back.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
"Buy the Marlowe, and then we can have trips next year together in both our boats, at the same speed (ish), without me having to set off five hours before you, or in the case of this year giving up totally and coming with you on Drumbeat instead."
I will probably still do the trips to Padstow at 20 knots!!!
No need to bother about the scanner - I need us both to be there, so we can deal with it when I get back.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Gludy
Active member
Re: Careful about claims
No .. you try contributing clearly and properly without resorting to mist, fog and guessing that allows you to backtrack at any time. Try it, the word is 'contributing'.
I shall be introducing some serious points into this discussion concerning hull efficiency. There seems to be as much as 100% difference in efficency between different makes of semi-displacment boats.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
No .. you try contributing clearly and properly without resorting to mist, fog and guessing that allows you to backtrack at any time. Try it, the word is 'contributing'.
I shall be introducing some serious points into this discussion concerning hull efficiency. There seems to be as much as 100% difference in efficency between different makes of semi-displacment boats.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Wiggo
New member
Re: deja vu all over again
can anyone remember who it was who asked loads of questions that he already knew all the answers to?
<hr width=100% size=1>Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
can anyone remember who it was who asked loads of questions that he already knew all the answers to?
<hr width=100% size=1>Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
Gludy
Active member
Re: deja vu all over again
I really cannot understand that point.
What I do is discuss issues, even play devils advocate ... challange the status quo ... out of that I learn. I hope others do.
Sometimes I think I know the answer and find out I gain a better understanding of it ... other times I find I am wrong ... other times I am right ... but always I learn. I frankly do not care a hoot if I am right or wrong, in fact I have a preference if anything for being wrong because then I have learnt. What matters is the truth and that is of more value than any ego.
The jet threads were enourmous and the result was that I took advice based on points I have already outlined. You would think that my last few threads I contributted to were hugely threatening because of the reactions of some. Lets face it, I supported the right of the mags to run their business their way and got into trouble with standard misty smears, I start a thread on planing V semi displacment and there the pack emerge again, rather than contribute, the standard old smears emerge. My contributions are fairly clear and simple really but they seem , no matter what the subject, to challange a few ego's around here.
What I am certain of is that this marine trade is in a sort of strange denial about many issues and it needs challanging. I have done that all my life in every field of endevour and have not been that unsuccessful in doing it.
I really think you should concentrate on the points to hand rather than persue personal smear tactics in a sort of pack mentality ... after all fox hunting is about to be banned.... are you suggesting Gludy hunting as an alternative?
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
I really cannot understand that point.
What I do is discuss issues, even play devils advocate ... challange the status quo ... out of that I learn. I hope others do.
Sometimes I think I know the answer and find out I gain a better understanding of it ... other times I find I am wrong ... other times I am right ... but always I learn. I frankly do not care a hoot if I am right or wrong, in fact I have a preference if anything for being wrong because then I have learnt. What matters is the truth and that is of more value than any ego.
The jet threads were enourmous and the result was that I took advice based on points I have already outlined. You would think that my last few threads I contributted to were hugely threatening because of the reactions of some. Lets face it, I supported the right of the mags to run their business their way and got into trouble with standard misty smears, I start a thread on planing V semi displacment and there the pack emerge again, rather than contribute, the standard old smears emerge. My contributions are fairly clear and simple really but they seem , no matter what the subject, to challange a few ego's around here.
What I am certain of is that this marine trade is in a sort of strange denial about many issues and it needs challanging. I have done that all my life in every field of endevour and have not been that unsuccessful in doing it.
I really think you should concentrate on the points to hand rather than persue personal smear tactics in a sort of pack mentality ... after all fox hunting is about to be banned.... are you suggesting Gludy hunting as an alternative?
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Wiggo
New member
Re: deja vu all over again
Not attacking, Paul, but as a friendly suggestion, if you genuinely want to learn, then produce less 'evidence of your researches' - many people here got very tired of being bombarded with 'facts', and every other post coming from one member (look down this thread in 'threaded' mode, btw).
Ask open questions, by all means (otherwise, this place gets very dull), but sit back and watch the replies, digest, and then respond to one in ten with a succinct reply. Nothing is more entertaining than watching preconceptions getting overturned by a single, sharp observation. Much better than being bludgeoned to death with 'facts' and 'research'. You'll get a better level of debate, and less animosity.
FWIW, I agree with all of your comments about the cretins that design and built our boats, and the imbecile politicians that try to regulate us out of existence. Now, if you could just pass me my riding hat and whip, I think one of the hounds has scented something...
<hr width=100% size=1>Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
Not attacking, Paul, but as a friendly suggestion, if you genuinely want to learn, then produce less 'evidence of your researches' - many people here got very tired of being bombarded with 'facts', and every other post coming from one member (look down this thread in 'threaded' mode, btw).
Ask open questions, by all means (otherwise, this place gets very dull), but sit back and watch the replies, digest, and then respond to one in ten with a succinct reply. Nothing is more entertaining than watching preconceptions getting overturned by a single, sharp observation. Much better than being bludgeoned to death with 'facts' and 'research'. You'll get a better level of debate, and less animosity.
FWIW, I agree with all of your comments about the cretins that design and built our boats, and the imbecile politicians that try to regulate us out of existence. Now, if you could just pass me my riding hat and whip, I think one of the hounds has scented something...
<hr width=100% size=1>Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
Nauti Fox
Well-known member
When we used to build semi displacement boats ie 50/60 foot pilot boats the fuel consumption really did depend on speed.A really obvious statement I know,but as you start to push on above displacement speed it really is shoveling loads of water out of the way, far,far more than the same size planing hull.I think its a question of horses for courses.These boats would handle almost any weather conditions but you did pay a high price in fuel for it.In all the time I was there we never built one semi for joe public,they were all for government depts, they were the only people who could afford the fuel bills.I see it as; Planing more efficient while on the plane but uncomfortable in any weather and if you have to drop off the plane not very nice.Semi,will be efficient at low speeds but can go through heavy weather more comfortably and quicker, if you can afford the fuel bills.
<hr width=100% size=1>No dear,the water goes in the other one.
<hr width=100% size=1>No dear,the water goes in the other one.
burgundyben
Well-known member
I promised myslef a long time ago to never engage in a thread with you as I thought you were a complete loon. However, this is actually a rather good post and a very boaty point with lots of different angles to consider so well done.
I have a fast lightweight crashity bang affair, my next boat will be a semi displacement, I'd like to be able to acheive 20 knots, cruise at maybe 16, it wont be for a while, I'm young and enjoy tearing around and it suits my diary to do boating short bursts, but one day, I'll go semi displacement I am certain.
<hr width=100% size=1>My house is for sale, 2 beds, Hamble.
I have a fast lightweight crashity bang affair, my next boat will be a semi displacement, I'd like to be able to acheive 20 knots, cruise at maybe 16, it wont be for a while, I'm young and enjoy tearing around and it suits my diary to do boating short bursts, but one day, I'll go semi displacement I am certain.
<hr width=100% size=1>My house is for sale, 2 beds, Hamble.
Gludy
Active member
As a general point you are correct is stating that the faster you go with a displacment or SD hull the more fuel you use - that alone offers you the choice.
However there are hulls that really stand out from the rest and the Marlow is one example where efficiency is such that you can have 3000 miles range on 1600 USA gallons at displacment speed that is near to 2 mpg for a 65 foot thirty odd ton boat. So SD hulls can be apples and oranges.
I wuil publish some data (sorry for introducing facts Wiggo!) on this later but would you accept for the mpment that IF what I was saying was right - that you could get 2mpg at cruising displacment speed, go at say 18 knots and do alright on fuel consumption or choose to do 25 knots a say use 10% more fuel than a planing boat - this would be one hell of a good choice for many?
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
However there are hulls that really stand out from the rest and the Marlow is one example where efficiency is such that you can have 3000 miles range on 1600 USA gallons at displacment speed that is near to 2 mpg for a 65 foot thirty odd ton boat. So SD hulls can be apples and oranges.
I wuil publish some data (sorry for introducing facts Wiggo!
) on this later but would you accept for the mpment that IF what I was saying was right - that you could get 2mpg at cruising displacment speed, go at say 18 knots and do alright on fuel consumption or choose to do 25 knots a say use 10% more fuel than a planing boat - this would be one hell of a good choice for many?<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Gludy
Active member
"I promised myslef a long time ago to never engage in a thread with you as I thought you were a complete loon. "
That gave me a good chuckle. If you actually examine what I say and ignore all the smoke screens put up and personality cults that intertwine my threads, I hope you will see I am not a complete loony. I am very open to ideas but have to understand the why of something I am do not accept anything blindly.
"I have a fast lightweight crashity bang affair, my next boat will be a semi displacement, I'd like to be able to acheive 20 knots, cruise at maybe 16, it wont be for a while, I'm young and enjoy tearing around and it suits my diary to do boating short bursts, but one day, I'll go semi displacement I am certain. "
I know someone with a 28 footer also probably changing over to an SD boat. Presently he can do about 18 knots crusing and everyone hangs on for the ride. His prospective new boat offers 20 knots top end but he can choose to have a nice ride at 12 knots. He is also far more red diesel proof because he has the options and has a boat that is much bigger, more confortable and offers the joy of getting there for everyone.
The joy of getting there for everyone is important.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
That gave me a good chuckle. If you actually examine what I say and ignore all the smoke screens put up and personality cults that intertwine my threads, I hope you will see I am not a complete loony. I am very open to ideas but have to understand the why of something I am do not accept anything blindly.
"I have a fast lightweight crashity bang affair, my next boat will be a semi displacement, I'd like to be able to acheive 20 knots, cruise at maybe 16, it wont be for a while, I'm young and enjoy tearing around and it suits my diary to do boating short bursts, but one day, I'll go semi displacement I am certain. "
I know someone with a 28 footer also probably changing over to an SD boat. Presently he can do about 18 knots crusing and everyone hangs on for the ride. His prospective new boat offers 20 knots top end but he can choose to have a nice ride at 12 knots. He is also far more red diesel proof because he has the options and has a boat that is much bigger, more confortable and offers the joy of getting there for everyone.
The joy of getting there for everyone is important.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Nauti Fox
Well-known member
If the figures were correct it would indeed be a phenominal boat.All I can comment on though is that when we built semi's (albeit several years ago) the harder you pushed them the fuel consumption increased in a non linear way, ie for an extra couple of knots another 50% consumption.
If I could afford it, I too would go the semi way.
Al.
<hr width=100% size=1>No dear,the water goes in the other one.
If I could afford it, I too would go the semi way.
Al.
<hr width=100% size=1>No dear,the water goes in the other one.
ShipsWoofy
New member
Sounds like you need a power catamaran. No pushing over the hump and wasting fuel, deep V hulls for speed and then that stability and room for the crew.
You know I am right /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Woof</A>
You know I am right /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Woof</A>
Wiggo
New member
Not throwing the towel in on red diesel, are you, by any chance, Paul? /forums/images/icons/wink.gif - Aaaarrrgghhh! I've done it! I've used a smiley. I must go and wash my keyboard finger in bleach.
<hr width=100% size=1>Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
<hr width=100% size=1>Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
Wiggo
New member
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>
I wuil publish some data (sorry for introducing facts Wiggo!) on this later
<hr></blockquote>
OK, as long as you don't bring the toaster out. ;-)
<hr width=100% size=1>Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
I wuil publish some data (sorry for introducing facts Wiggo!
) on this later <hr></blockquote>
OK, as long as you don't bring the toaster out. ;-)
<hr width=100% size=1>Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
Gludy
Active member
Nope not throwing in the towel just considering alternatives.
It would be nice to have a boat with 3000 miles range that you can pop elsehwere with to fill up for the year's UK cruising.
It is a factor yes but more so at present is the fact that we want to enjoy getting there as well as arriving there.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
It would be nice to have a boat with 3000 miles range that you can pop elsehwere with to fill up for the year's UK cruising.
It is a factor yes but more so at present is the fact that we want to enjoy getting there as well as arriving there.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Gludy
Active member
"If the figures were correct it would indeed be a phenominal boat."
It is.
"the harder you pushed them the fuel consumption increased in a non linear way, ie for an extra couple of knots another 50% consumption."
I think this has changed on some makes, yes the harder you push the more fuel you use and yes it is not a linear relationship but nor is at heavy as you suggest it is on some boats.
Tell me how you can with a 65 foot boat get 3000 miles using (1600 USA gallons which is 1332 UK gallons) out of a pair of 700hp Cats when cruising at displacment speed say 10 knots? That is 2.25 miles per gallon!!! This boat can then go up to 25 knots and I believe at that speed it will use about the same as a planing boat, maybe 10% more.
I will be giving chapter and verse on this soon.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
It is.
"the harder you pushed them the fuel consumption increased in a non linear way, ie for an extra couple of knots another 50% consumption."
I think this has changed on some makes, yes the harder you push the more fuel you use and yes it is not a linear relationship but nor is at heavy as you suggest it is on some boats.
Tell me how you can with a 65 foot boat get 3000 miles using (1600 USA gallons which is 1332 UK gallons) out of a pair of 700hp Cats when cruising at displacment speed say 10 knots? That is 2.25 miles per gallon!!! This boat can then go up to 25 knots and I believe at that speed it will use about the same as a planing boat, maybe 10% more.
I will be giving chapter and verse on this soon.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Wiggo
New member
I'd also like it to be collapsible, so I only pay for a 20' mooring when I'm not using it. As it uses so little diesel, I will leave the engines running 24x7, and connect it to shorepower, so I can sell the surplus leccy to the grid. And it will be maintenance free, and provide me with an endless supply of free lunches, as well. And it will have hot and cold running women in every cabin.
<hr width=100% size=1>Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
<hr width=100% size=1>Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
