Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

General boating discussion
Morning bite
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:17 am

Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#1

Post by Morning bite »

Going to build a 26 Pacific sleeper. I will use the boat for everything including trolling for salmon. I am wondering about people’s thoughts on the pros and cons.
Thanks!

MacCTD
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:53 pm
Location: MA

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#2

Post by MacCTD »

IMO I think a single is better, so much easier to and cheaper to maintain, plus unless you are going to have two separate fuel systems I do not see twins as a huge safety advantage over a single, performance wise I believe on that hull single will be better as well.
'05 Pacific 1925
Honda 90hp

Morning bite
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:17 am

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#3

Post by Morning bite »

Thanks, I was leaning towards twin motors except I couldn't come up with a good reason.

dingahling
Donator ,15
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:41 pm

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#4

Post by dingahling »

Capt Frank (Fish Miss Hayden) built a Pacific 26HT with twins that looked too stern heavy - can't find the thread on here but pic links don't seem to work on old threads anyway.
His website is https://www.fishmisshayden.com/our-boats.html, there are a couple of pics of the boat there but only underway, doesn't show the stern sink as much. His newer Bayweld build seems better suited for twins.
He also has a face book page that has some pics of the Pacific.

kmorin
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20
Posts: 1487
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#5

Post by kmorin »

AM bite,
twins offer a smaller torque load on each crankshaft- relative to the entire load being moved. So a little longer service life is gained by twins- due to top speed/displacement loading per engine. Twins offer a natural offset between the two wheels so harbor steering in a breezy afternoon (we see those here in SC AK) is much easier to get into a slip or mooring if you can't just land to moor bow or stern-on.

Depending on your off shore plans there are some pretty exotic steering systems now available- they are digitally based on a two engine model- and allow the hull stay over a given GPS point or to dock using a joy-stick and gyro combined with GPS.

Dual fuel systems and for some dual tankage is considered normal here- but lots of the distances are somewhat longer range than in the Puget Sound. If you're going "off soundings" into the Pacific lots of boats of this class would have twins- along with dual fuel systems as a matter of course.

Added wt aft contributing to pitch by the bow- from the added wt aft- I think any builder should be able to address the fixed loading(s) to accommodate whatever wt you choose to put along the load waterline?

As to the single engine, less moving parts is less to go 'wrong'- simple math. However, single on centerline engine naturally lowers the leg many inches (depending on deadrise) to get the wheel in the (wake) water while running. Steering isn't quite as agile at very slow/harbor speeds as you have to use more helm and shift compared to the spread of thrust.

Adding a kicker/trolling engine is usually more work when you have twins- less when you have a centerline engine. However, as near as I've seen in the last few years of reading as a 'helper' on a build for a 34'er.... there's not that much real high quality remote gear for a kicker engine regardless of where it's located on your transom.

Overall, I see more twin installations, common along the Gulf Coast of Alaska, than I see larger singles, but again, that may be due to the probably longer distances run by these boats?

just a few points to consider, you probably already have gone around these considerations but figured it was best to mention them?

Cheers,
Kevin Morin
Kenai, AK
kmorin

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic