A question for you all.

General boating discussion
ibasquarepeg
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:25 pm
8

A question for you all.

#1

Post by ibasquarepeg »

L&G,

I'm new to boats, but have been researching them seriously for a few years now with the intention of purchasing one in the next year(or two).
My desire would be to make extended cruises up the left coast from the Vancouver Island area. The craft would only have to sleep two regularly and four for shorter periods. The boat would have to be durable, reliable, have large tankage and good fuel economy. Speed is not a priority except to retreat to shelter. It would need to be able to take the abuse of offshore passages. It needs to be big enough to host the amenities required for long trips. Parts need to be readily available.

Aluminum was the first construction that came to mind, as it is light and can better withstand contact with floating debris. I believe a planing/semi-displacement hull would be required to give the speed I would need.

After looking at the boats on many websites, I have just one question that I can't seem to find the answer to. Just about all recreational boats, whether inboard or outboard, have what I will call a high output motor. My definition would be one that has one or more HP/cubic inch of displacement. These motors seem to be rated for 100 to 200 hours of yearly use. I haven't seen a boat that doesn't use this sort of setup. So…what the heck, what does one do if the plan is to run 500 hours/year for example? Does no one do this? I can't see running the spit out of, for example, a Volvo D6 or one of the new injected gas outboards. What do the workboats use, and why don't serious recreational users do the same. Is it a boat displacement issue?

Sorry for the long first post!
kmorin
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
15
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: A question for you all.

#2

Post by kmorin »

ibasquarepeg, welcome aboard, lots of good questions in your post and there's no need to make all posts one liners? It wasn't long and how would the AAB.com Forum know what was being asked unless you gave us the setting?

First the aluminum and collision issue. You're right; for the given strength to weight ratio of any boat, aluminum's collision or impact performance will be as good OR better than other materials. But- since it sounds like a displacement boat scene, there may be lower cost boat hulls available? Not better hulls, not proportionally stronger or longer lasting but perhaps less expensive?

Aluminum is expensive compared to other boat building materials so...
#1 it's main payback (return on investment) is in going fast.
#2 if going fast is defined as planing and that typically begins to happen around 12-14mph (decent estimated range for discussion) THEN
#3 being light or 'all up displacement' will allow a smaller/lower horsepower/lighter wt. engine to push that smaller mass with less fuel, faster in comparison to the same engine's performance on a heavier hull.
#4 the tankage and range can be different for a lighter wt. hull.

What is the main market factor in most welded aluminum boats? Time to use the boat; the owners are all working!!! So... they get a couple weeks off a year, or can go boating on the weekends.. they want to sprint out (go fast) to the fishing/camping/hunting areas, and enjoy all the time there possible. Then, when its time to 'get home' that scenario is reversed. So going fast becomes a big market factor.

IN your remarks it seems time is not nearly as critical? That means you're not willing to pay 30-50 gallons per hour to 'get where you're going' ?? It's important to understand that is EXACTLY what some of these dual 300hp outboard boats cost to run.
ibasquarepeg wrote:What do the workboats use, and why don't serious recreational users do the same.
Commercial boats may be high speed but there remain the displacement class boats (traveling slower than 10-12mph generally***) and "cruising yachts" as they're called when used for recreational live aboards, which is more what you have described.

A slower traveling boat can have a fraction of the horsepower as a planing boat and cost a fraction to run, maintain and own. However, the cost to build a cruising boat is often higher in the matter of finish or accommodation since more creature comforts are expected/needed and that requires more finish work with its higher costs.

I think you either already understand(?) or are close to understanding, that this you've described a hull form and top speed class of hull form issue. To answer your question directly
ibasquarepeg wrote:Is it a boat displacement issue?
Yes, you're describing a displacement hull based yacht of some size. I would not expect to find this type of boat made by stock builders but very commonly built by those yards on a one-off basis. These boats are too unique to be built in series but can be built by the yards that will do one off boats.

To begin to shop for a design you'll need a design office or a good used boat broker and a welded aluminum qualified marine surveyor. If you follow the design and build path, then looking at past work of the design office and their associated builder/yards is the most reliable reference to gauge your future satisfaction with each phase of the new boat project.

Another method and potentially less expensive is to find an existing boat and make a conversion. If you find a commercial fishing boat that is roughly the size and hull you decide, there is the potential to have a yard convert her to recreational use, but I would personally make sure you had a marine architect or qualified design office involve BEFORE you ever make an offer on any boat if you're considering a conversion. There are very successful conversion projects and there are conversions that bankrupt innocent owners- the difference is the design office's interaction and the yard's reputation.

I hope you'll find something helpful in my remarks, welcome to the AAB.com Forum and please let us know if you'd like a few more cents of opinion about your project!

**** Rough numbers not intended to be all inclusive but 'rules of thumb' for conversational purposes.

Cheers,
Kevin Morin
Kenai, AK
kmorin
Chaps
Donator '09
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:19 am
16
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: A question for you all.

#3

Post by Chaps »

An answer to your question could go in many directions but some of the reasons I think boats are powered the way they are these days centers around these considerations:

Modern 4 stroke outboard motors are displacing i/o's and inboards at an ever greater pace due to their reliability, ease of maintenance and adaptability to many vessel types

Boats equipped with outboards are easier to build and cheaper to buy than boats with equivalent HP internal machinery

Today's outboards are fully capable of running many hundreds of hours annually at overall lower costs than other power plants

Outboards allow greater utilization of below decks space for stowage, fish holds, fuel tankage, etc.

Outboards are much quieter than other propulsion systems making for a more enjoyable cruise

Outboards provide higher speeds pound for pound or dollar for dollar

Want a heavier boat and less speed? Low HP outboards with low pitch props on a semi displacement is a good set-up.
1987 24' LaConner pilothouse workboat, 225 Suzuki
Image
please view and like: https://www.facebook.com/bottompainting/
ibasquarepeg
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:25 pm
8

Re: A question for you all.

#4

Post by ibasquarepeg »

Thanks for the welcome and posting a response. I'd like to continue the conversation(for the second time unfortunately. Lost the first one).
I'll make this one a bit shorter.
First of all, I'm newly retired so time isn't an issue. I'd like to explore the PNW.
I've left the issue of cost out to concentrate on reliability, operating expense and range at the desired cruising speed. The cost will become an issue after I discover my options.
My logic is as follows:a) I would like a higher cruising speed than a displacement hull(10-12 knots) but less than a full out planing hull(30-35knots), b) I see these commercial grade motors on the sites of John Deere, Cummins etc with their inherent reliability and low RPM horsepower (high torque) and wonder why they're not used? Perhaps they're too heavy? c) why not take a lightweight production planing hull(aluminum), drop the cruising speed to just above planing under the worst conditions, say my fifteen knots, and you could reduce the horsepower needed to move the craft. Because of the reliability you could even go to a single diesel to reduce more of the weight. Maybe size is an issue?
Using different props and perhaps a higher final drive on the motor, would this not work?
Interestingly, Ranger Tugs makes a small semi displacement cruiser that cruises at fifteen knots. In aluminum and with the aforementioned motor it would be near perfect. But as you say Kevin, how many would you sell?
I'm not sure outboards would have the fuel economy to give the best range and fuel is heavy. No?
Then there's the issue of direct drive vs I/O vs pod vs surface drive etc!
Thanks in advance!
Chtucker
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:14 pm
12

Re: A question for you all.

#5

Post by Chtucker »

You are describing a downeast style boat in my mind. http://www.wesmac.com/Inventory/Category/1006/

Cruises at 15-20 knots. Big industrial style diesel inboard. Don't know of any built out of aluminum.

Fuel cost is the least of your worries when buying a boat. If I put a single 350hp outboard on my boat it would cost about $30k , a Single inboard diesel would be $50k. It takes A LOT of cruising to make up that $25k in reduced fuel usage. If you cruise 250 hours a year and your outboard lasts 10 years, your diesel will most likely need major work to keep it going 20 years. At 10 years, throw another outboard o n for 1/2 the cost of the diesel, get a new warranty and continue motoring on.

500 hours a year at average 10knts is 2-3 round trips to Sitka Alaska a YEAR from Seattle.
kmorin
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
15
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: A question for you all.

#6

Post by kmorin »

ibasquarepeg, lots of reading ahead of you. Your post has some large scale misconceptions and those could only be converted to facts when you did more reading. I'd like to recommend some books, and then take a short stab at pointing out some phrases that seem to indicate the areas where study will help you become more informed.

First, is the concept of boat speed, and hull form, there are numerous discussions printed and some online but I'd point you t Dave Gerr's (pronounced like bear with a G) books. The Nature of Boats is my first recommendation http://www.alibris.com/The-Nature-of-Bo ... ok/4595611 and I point you to Alibris to buy a used copy for pennies instead of the new or even hardback new editions. (I used to give this book to friends for seasonal gifts in decades past).

What is not firm in your understanding is the three speed classifications; displacement, semi-planing and planing and what separates these as classes of boats. Your post(s) show you're relying on vague concepts not clear and defined facts of the boats, shapes and power required. That is the first part of your project that need attention because all the other decisions will come as a result of this learning and the following class selection.

I can also recommend all the Gerr books as the best in their categories, and that's because there is no one writing who is actually in Dave Gerr's league providing references and simple math to help you learn the topics.

Next is the SOR or Statement of Requirements and this is a design document which is prepared, drawn up, written down into an unchangeable concrete standard for ALL your decisions. There are no "well I kind a sort-a.." There are no "I wouldn't mind if...." There are no " about this long or about his fast or sleep about this many...." An SOR is the basis of any new boat design and build. But there is on detail I'll share with you as the designed and builder of a few welded aluminum boats.

99.95% of all new owners can't write this document and stick to it;
AND 150% of all boat building problems which are due to change orders and 'rethinking' after the boat is designed; could be avoided if the SOR were adhered to;
AND 1,000% of all cost overruns from changes are due to the previous two facts.

So the first step for you is to make/write/find/create/"OWN" a SOR that meets your needs- after you read Gerr's book(s). AT this time you're in the casting about stage, still learning the terminology and concepts that express your ideas. Soon you'll have to prioritize those ideas and desires, based on facts, into an SOR document. (of course you can pay a design office to do this...?)
ibasquarepeg wrote:a) I would like a higher cruising speed than a displacement hull(10-12 knots) but less than a full out planing hull(30-35knots)
This shows that you're misinformed about the speed ranges, below 10 is displacement 10 to 15-6 is semi-displacement and >16 is planing and 30-35 is only a few small percentage of all planing boats. Probably 85 % or more cannot achieve 35mph. A displacement boat will cruise at 6-8 and run up to 9.5-maybe 10? but the cost in fuel likely triples to go the extra knot or two.

If you want to cruise above the displacement hull range but don't want to plane(???) then you'll need to contemplate the semi-displacement range or the planing range operated slowly. The design factor for planing hulls is 5 the design factor for displacement hull is 7 and the design factor for semi-displacement hulls is 43. (there are no typo's in that line; 5, 7, & 43 )

Your above quote reaches so far that about 75% of recreational craft could fit somewhere in that statement so you'll see it not to helpful really getting you closer to your goal, its to wide/sweeping/vague/far encompassing to be realistic.
ibasquarepeg wrote:b) I see these commercial grade motors on the sites of John Deere, Cummins etc with their inherent reliability and low RPM horsepower (high torque) and wonder why they're not used? Perhaps they're too heavy?
Obviously those engines (electricity drives motors, marine power is from internal combustion engines so I use that term) are widely used. What is apparently outside your experience at this time their application? They are used in countless commercial boats that travel far, stay out long, and do not (90%) plane.

There is a small part of each engine manufacturer's product line that features higher RPM diesels of lighter relative wt and these are most used in the recreational market where speed (see my first post) is priority. However as Chaps, and Ctchucker have mentioned quite a few times; they cost more because they're longer term investments (Ctchucker is being pessimistic by implying a 20yr. diesel life is unexpected- I've seen 40 on lots of engines, depends on use and regular maintenance.) Deisels are heavier for each HP delivered due to the increased compression and crank mass, and we can look at another comparison in the wood shop for an example.

An 117VAC router that is used a few hours a year costs affordable money and will 'last a life time'. The same job can be done with spindle shaper (table) but the two tools work with similar action, rotary cutting bits even if they do so in a different manner. The hand held router turn 20,000 rpm and develops its cutting power due to speed of the bit and it cuts fine but is not really reliable for a 2,000 hr per year cabinet shop.

The spindle shaper is belt reduced to about 3-5,000 rpm most, and has much more torque on the cutter head, but can be run for 3,000 per year and just needs new bits to cut as good as it's first day.

NOW; we've had posters being realistic about outboard engine's performance (routers) they're very cost effective considering all the 'stuff' the have built in... and can be essentially considered disposable, like a wood shop's 3hp Plunge router purchase.

On the other hand if you're running a day shift and thinking about going to night shift to keep your cabinet shop door panel forming shaper's running enough to do the work you have?? well now the cabinet mounted spindle shaper (diesel engine) is the better investment. But the cutters for the spindle shaper do cost more than the most expensive hand held router by three to four times!!! That's not buying the shaper, just the cutters.

So, your remark b) can be answered by the combination of the posts that have been put up. #1 cost differences ,#2 expected use or number of hours per year & #3 installation and boat space is much more involved. Those engines you describe ARE used in boats, but with the above conditions in the SOR for those boats.
ibasquarepeg wrote: c) why not take a lightweight production planing hull(aluminum), drop the cruising speed to just above planing under the worst conditions, say my fifteen knots, and you could reduce the horsepower needed to move the craft.
Planing hulls will not perform as you've assigned them. They will do OK 'walking', in displacement mode, and they do fine 'on step' but they wallow like hogs in between. They won't steer, they're wandering due to the relationship of the bottom's buttock lines to the very small 'keel' (outboard leg) and since the Center of Gravity is so far aft on planing hulls they balance once they're 'up'. But if that same boat is run at the 'transition speed' is is not well balanced so there are no planing production hulls that will perform in the speed range you're describing. (see previous hull range design remarks) Fuel use of a planing boat in transition is higher than either on plane or in displacement mode.

It is critical for you to understand that boat movement resistance is not like a wheeled vehicle. There is no rolling friction reduction once a boat is moving. Water resists uniformly at all speeds based on some ratios that D.Gerr's books will explain.

Next 'thing' or issue you've miss-assigned is engine rpm vs torque curve vs power delivered to the prop vs propulsion vs hull behavior. This is not a simple concept to understand so I'll defer to Dave Gerr. In short, there is a kind of Catch22 involved but your concept doesn't acknowledge those physical facts.

This area of 'tuning' an engine to the hull to the load to the speed you're describing is harder than it appears in the phrases you're using.
ibasquarepeg wrote:Interestingly, Ranger Tugs makes a small semi displacement cruiser that cruises at fifteen knots.
The planing formula is 1.34 x the square root of the waterline; so a 30 boat (square root about 5.5' X 1.35) going over 7.5 knots -let's say 8 knots is planing. So the company you're discussing is sort of fiddling with the terminology- it helps to read more on this. I think the Ranger is actually planing if it 'cruises' at 15knt.s ??

ibasquarepeg are you familiar with making "value tables"? just a spread sheet to help quantify decisions using assigned values - they could help you as you move ahead; but first you'd be best served to get more of the terms correct, and to grow your overall class design awareness. I'd say it was a good move to get and read D.Gerr's books?

Cheers,
Kevin Morin
Kenai, AK
kmorin
ibasquarepeg
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:25 pm
8

Re: A question for you all.

#7

Post by ibasquarepeg »

I appreciate the time spent giving me an education, and the directness.
Unfortunately this medium makes it difficult to express myself better. I do understand more than I let on, but obviously not near enough.
I will read the books mentioned(thanks) and continue to think this through.

It's fascinating, if what you say is true, that so many people own boats worth perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars and use them so little- even only weeks per year. I hope to spend months on board annually.

Essentially I'm looking for a small aluminum cruiser with extended range and good efficiency with better than displacement speed. I'm not looking to design a boat and have a custom build.

Your example, Kevin, is spot on and is how I was thinking. Power the craft with the long term in mind. Outboard motors or engines, as you say, seem to be the realm of the weekend user which I hope not to be. I also don't want to spend hours on maintenance/repairs if I can go commercial grade and by diligently doing routine maintenance spend more time on the water. That is how I do things here now.

I certainly am a greenhorn at boating so I hope you bear with me
kmorin
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
15
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: A question for you all.

#8

Post by kmorin »

ibasquarepeg,
I do understand your approximated description of a coastal cruiser and that is how I've replied, trying to point out that boat is not widely sought, even if 80% of the entire AAB.com Forum might agree that a retirement to the coast and summer time cruises from Puget Sound up the Inside Passage could be close to heaven for lots of us.

So, we're back to brokers, brokerages, and considering used fishing boats that might be converted to cruisers if a keel up built cruiser is not found for sale with the accommodations and size you're hunting.

If the example of wood working tools helped make the power point (no pun intended) then lets expand on that? Are there any huge hand held routers? We all know about 3hp 12 lb. 20,000 rpm plunge routers but are than any 5hp 30,000 rpm routers? No. Are there any super scaled down versions of shaper tables? Say 1hp and 2,500 rpm using smaller bits and having a tiny little table top? No. There are router tables that could be called small shapers but they are an adaptation of the existing router, so they aren't an 'in between' shaper and router- there's a gap in products where you buy from one group or the move to the other.

I'm trying to put a heavy importance on the market's products to point out there is a big gap between the two tools, they both do roughly the same job- shape wood sticks into a profile. So too .... with marine engines there is a pretty big gap (narrowing some in the last 2 decades) between the inboard and outboard engine blocks' torque (resulting in a thrust to speed range for any engine) and that gap is where your exploration look like it will take place.

I can't agree that a big block (or two) outboard engines could not be used to cruise - depending on the hull you choose. I'm not saying the commercial fishing (work boat) engines are the ONLY way to go; I was arguing while trying to explain my logic (if it was?) that the speed of your cruise is what has to be set firmly, then the other decisions will come from that fact in your SOR.

Let's summarize:
#1 you're shopping for an existing boat.
#2 I've tried to point out that boat is very small percentage ( "0.0000001%" ) of the market, if it exists?
#3 The speed length (S/L) ratio is really planing ("small"= LOA < 30') but you plan to operate at the very lowest planing speed for this hull and if there are #2's in the market- now they're even fewer in number! Planing boats designed to plane as slow as they can seem to contradict why someone would buy a planing hull?
#4 a heavy, low rpm engine in a planing hull is contradictory to the goal of planing. (heavy is relative to gas higher rpm engine)
#5 low rpm engines last decades by turning at low rpms; props turning at low rpms don't push boat's to planing speeds
#6 your speed goals, coupled with low rpm diesel concepts are in a marketplace 'gap' or non-existent combination
ibasquarepeg wrote:It's fascinating, if what you say is true, that so many people own boats worth perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars and use them so little- even only weeks per year. I hope to spend months on board annually.
I know that many people would like to be on their boats longer, but life and times doesn't always go the way we want! Had you noticed this market is very full of designs that are limited to "trailerable" widths? That seems to me to confirm the boats are not in the water as much as they are on the trailer?

ibasquarepeg, I think your questions are great reading for the Forum, especially if someone were here exploring similar questions? I'm surely not put upon to reply to your questions, they're a great review of some of the factors in our market of welded aluminum boats. So we're happy to discuss this niche of boating the PNW and there's no 'bearing with' at all. I personally like the class boat the best of all since long duration cruises are more interesting to me (65yr.old) than sprinting out to fish and sprinting home.
ibasquarepeg wrote:Essentially I'm looking for a small aluminum cruiser with extended range and good efficiency with better than displacement speed.
Allow me to mark up this sentence for your boat shopping future? What is small (in bold above) in numbers? I'd need to know a Length OverAll (LOA) bow to stern in feet and inches, or metric? Without a number you're condemned to wander the boat 'want ads' for eternity. I call "small" less that 30'LOA and you may say that "small" is less than 40' LOA? Thousands of boats are in or out of your shopping list, without a definition of the word "small" in numbers.

Notice the other subjective and vague terms I put in bold font? They are all undefined so they can't be decided for any given boat as a Yes or No; or even a Maybe! Unless you're able to set out fixed definitions for each of these not-defined terms in this one sentence SOR; you can't really move ahead in your hunt for a suitable boat.

This is why the SOR is written like Sargent Friday of Dragnet's interview criteria "Just the facts, Ma'am." (not sure if everyone recalls Dragnet as one of the original cop shows on TV- some time back?) Relative terms are little help as you can't compare a given boat's spec.s to your own criteria if you haven't firmed up the numbers in your search.

I'd suggest you could re-write your SOR above to: " Essentially I'm looking for a (28' LOA) aluminum cruiser with (350 mile) range and (burning no more than 5 gallons per hour at full throttle) efficiency with (a top speed of 12 knots, and a cruise speed of 7 knots) displacement speed. The boat needs to have two non-convertible bunks, two more convertible bunks, a head and shower, and a galley, inside helm and outside helm stations and have a BOA that is highway legal in US and Canada."

When you approach a broker they'll have enough to get you started shopping, if you can give these simple numeric values. If they can't match all of them, then you can focus on that single or few elements that don't match and see if compromise is possible?

Cheers,
Kevin Morin
Kenai, AK
kmorin
ibasquarepeg
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:25 pm
8

Re: A question for you all.

#9

Post by ibasquarepeg »

kmorin,

I believe you understand what I'm trying to do, and essentially there is no boat out there other than something refurbished that meets the criteria. That's fine- I'm really trying to learn here so no loss. Let me get my reading done.
Size to me to fit 2+ 2 people and have the shower, head, galley etc and to cruise for weeks would to me mean 30 feet minimum length with a 11-12 foot beam. I considered that small for a cruiser.
My focus (if you can call it that) on planing hulls came from my web searches on aluminum hulls and that seems to be all that I found.(Monos and cats).
I simply don't need the speed and therefore the horsepower so it begged the questions I have been asking.

Lets turn this around: if you were to cruise for weeks on end in remote ares of the west coast multiple times a year as I would, what would you do it in? Since this is AAB we are sticking with aluminum. I would be interested in reading what your criteria might be WRT cruising speed, power, and hull design. Anything outrageously custom is disqualified.(It's my budget!)

All comments welcome.
kmorin
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
15
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: A question for you all.

#10

Post by kmorin »

ibasquarepeg, I'm not saying there are no, none, not any boats, I was saying I think they're rare, chtucker mentioned that the down east style yachts basically fill your bill, not that we were able to provide a broker's listing page link for a metal version. I think your boat's concept is actually closely reviewed by D. Gerr in the opening pages of his book 'The Nature of Boats', but again I'm not able to provide a builder's link to an existing boat.

The West coast is divided in my mind to Puget Sound and North or PS and South, but historically a very active coastal freighter all along its entire length is the scow hull and that would be most recognizable today as a 'houseboat' where a wide almost flat hull with a big cabin is the solution I'd use/build/want. I'm not sure if you can find the old W**denBoat magazine editions (?) but there was an historic review of the sailing scows hauling lumber ranging from Mexico to Vancouver, BC. The hull type works, can be made plenty seaworthy, the design offers the most volume for any hull shape and they're very shoal draft so they take less power per tonne to move. http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread. ... -Schooners http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-d ... -5131.html http://donkotts.com/gallery/fishing/naknek.htm

http://www.glen-l.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=8448 I've been in this conversational vein at Glen-l's site forum.

Image
For the size of any given power scow shaped boat, they represent the least metal forming and most 'square sheet building' so the hull is much less complex to shape than a conventional power boat. This example, is inspired by my interest in this idea and follows the Alaskan version of the US Army power scows of the 1920's and 40's and these were also used by the canneries to haul fish and service remote sites in the areas you've planned to cruise. http://dot-island.com/Illustration/imag ... ts_pp.html

http://www.mooseislanddesign.com/scowboat.htm here is a design by Moose Island, one of the most imaginative design firms in the country.
http://www.tadroberts.ca/services/small ... l/harry226 one that sails from Tad Roberts, this could be adapted to metal and made a pure power boat without that much design cost.

Why I would chose this design direction over others for your application?
#1 You're planning on cruising on inland waters with only a few windy openings between islands in the season when storms are not very common, so open ocean sea keeping is not the big factor for your boating needs; so I'd spend all the effort on a hull form maximizing volume to get living space.
#2 Cruising is most luxurious in large living spaces- large 30' long motor coaches are more comfortable than 9' long tear drop camper trailers pulled by a Subaru station wagon? Volume of living space is the premium luxury in a cruising boat.
#3 Speed is totally irrelevant, you're not outrunning weather in a cruiser, you watch the weather maps, broadcasts, and plan accordingly, you don't eVer plan to outrun weather. Bad plan.
#4 50 or even 75% of time in a good quality coastal cruise is spent on the hook so #2 and #3 appear again as the higher priorities (over speed shapes) since anchored living in the countless coves of the Alaskan coast is heaven- so if heaven can have more furniture, creature comforts and cold beer- so much the better.
#5 the cost to build or convert is relatively lower because of the finish work. The cabinets can come from Home Depot, the fixtures can too, (marine head though) and so much of the interior is not hand fit, one off, custom made but fit to square or nearly square volume- labor saving is huge.
#6 big flat shallow boats are easier to push than deeper V'd boats, so they draw less and float into shallower places. This hull can go dry and not be damaged or inconvenienced beyond waiting for the tide to get afloat again.
#7 a slow rpm diesel of moderate hp will push this shape reliably with low fuel consumption for years, so the high speed higher maintenance diesels are not needed.
#8 a generator head can be mounted to the forward end of the main engine so that it can be run while on the hook for AC or DC charging. This is possible if you select a small size diesel to push the boat, if you choose a 300hp the gen head would have to engineered closely or the idle vs maintenance can become problematic.
#9 deck space on a scow is plentiful and if fold down walking grate decks were mounted along the hull they could be up to travel and down to anchor leaving recreational landings for kayaks, dinghy's, inflatables as the shore boat.
#10 made in aluminum this boat could be taken to a remote location in Alaska, beached on a fall high tide in some cove, metal window covers bolted on from the inside and locked and left till spring without anything but vandals to risk its winter storage. The typical remote located Alaskan is not a vandal so this scow could go anywhere that there's a nice little beach and winch itself to the high tide line, and stay there 'til you got back. Skiff out to a village or bay and call a float plane and head for Skagway.
#11 room for incredibly tankage, fuel, potable, grey water, sewage processing, rec boat gas, stove fuel, whatever you wanted to haul.
#12 I could keep going ....

Why don't more people think this way? they're working and need to get home for Monday's 8:00am job. Not everyone that is retiring is interested in cruising the Alaskan coast, thank heavens we can warehouse them in AZ and have AK to ourselves(!)

So, regardless of the proportions, I'd focus on a scow shape to do what you've described. IF you're not familiar (?) http://www.boats-and-harbors.com/ is a magazine and newspaper that has serious marine equipment and you may find a barge/scow/float of the rough size you're considering? Worth watching, engines too, and services too. Don't forget to look for landing craft too, remember they could be converted in many cases to skip their well deck and make the entire boat cabin.

There are some more ideas, hopefully, food for thought, more avenues to explore and my fantasy boat idea. I'd build one to spend my remaining time in the Sound of Prince William, and I'd have died and gone to heaven.

Cheers,
Kevin Morin
Kenai, AK
kmorin
User avatar
goatram
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Posts: 1959
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:53 pm
15
Location: Stanwood WA

Re: A question for you all.

#11

Post by goatram »

Kevin you are a true thinker that has a head full of Ideas that you are able to convey them to us. Your last post is epic in detail with lots of thought and time taken in typing out for all of AAB to understand just not the OP.
Thank-you Sir :smitty:
John Risser aka goatram
33' RBW with twin 250 Hondas (Aliens)
2015 Ford F350 Dually
Master of R&D aka Ripoff and Duplicate
ibasquarepeg
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:25 pm
8

Re: A question for you all.

#12

Post by ibasquarepeg »

Kevin,
Wow! is all I can say. I didn't see that one coming. I'll second the comments by goatram- I feel like I've struck gold. Thank you for sharing.
Your comments have given me more encouragement although some rethinking is obviously needed. You can't get much further from a planing boat than a scow. I think you are a few years older than me and I'm fairly active. I could no more sit on a beach or on a dock than fly to the moon. I would be off climbing something or out exploring. I'm guessing perhaps I would be on the move more than you would be- if that affects things.
The speed comments probably are the number two shocker. My logic was that reserve speed was an insurance policy if there was ever an emergency or some other urgency. You've put the emphasis on seamanship/technology rather than brute force, so to speak. A lot of the cruising articles I've read seem to have cruisers dealing with currents( and having nightmares) and my simplistic view was to power through.
The idea of landing the craft had not come to me…I need to think on that.
How are scow shaped hulls at anchor? I'm guessing they are stable, but might get pushed around more? Bigger anchor?
What beam would a 32 foot scow have?

You've obviously been thinking about this for a long time, I hope you get your scow.
I'm off to the mountains for a few days, so will be away from the computer. Will check again Tuesday.
For those of you in the heat…it's snowing here.
kmorin
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
15
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: A question for you all.

#13

Post by kmorin »

John, thanks for the very generous remarks, I appreciate hearing others enjoy reading what I'm writing.

Just think, if you had a scow/houseboat a couple hundred miles up the coast, and it had decent sized tanks, fully segregated gasoline from diesel, you could run the family up there for the weekend, and tank up and run home? What if the class of scow we're discussing were considered more of a remote cabin "up the coast"? If the run up was a late trip then the next day’s fishing can start from a comfortable bed and shower, run out to fish, come in, take care of the catch on a deck mounted sink and freeze what isn’t eaten and a few days later, run back to the Sound and life in the fast lane.

We all know the cost of coastal land, what tiny fraction is private (0.00001% ?) is expensive and what's gov'rn'mt land is 'stay off this land'. What's indigenous persons' lands are also exclusive so what can a man do to get a cabin in remote location? That is without being a millionaire land mogul or dot com investor? I'm saying there's a good case for those who might consider an alternative to building on the beach. Take your cabin there- on the water; anchor it and use your planning boat to get back and forth. Same concept of using a motor coach to travel the inland ‘rivers of tar’ (highways) to “See the USA, in a Chevrolet” (Dinah Shore?) but instead of using a passenger car (planing day-boat) using a big Winnebago**-like boat. (**generic term)

If you anchored in a different cove or bight every year that we all remain alive... you'd never anchor in the same cove twice in succeeding years and never make a dent in the number of new places to be. If you made some small floats, with hand rails that pinned together, they'd make a 'path' to the beach. If that were anchored near one of the 100,000,000 freshwater streams coming down the hills then fresh water could be flowing full time out to the boat, and overflowing a tank into the bay.

A row boat, inflatable, or other dinghy allows you to go to the beach to climb, beach comb, explore, photograph, hunt, fish and do whatever comes along.

ibasquarepeg, thank you for the feedback, I appreciate that you found the remarks helpful. I hope the hike in the mountains is enjoyable? Didn't realize that fall had really arrived there yet?

So here is ibasquarepeg on his cruise along the Panhandle coast:

When you come down off a 15 mile hike up a coastal mountain that you reached from your cruiser, 600 miles N of Puget Sound, and return to a (possible) 10' BOA planing hull, the shower may or may not be hot; but it will be cramped by comparison to having an inflatable hot tub on deck! Sitting in a nice hot tub in the Alaskan summer evening after climbing mountains, rowing for miles, exploring adjoining coves or fishing for hours in the SE'ern sun--- holding a nice cold one, (perhaps a glass of nice California Cab'net Sav?) is really nice.. you can add a few more really's into that phrase.

I prefer to beach comb, row and just burn gas in small skiffs exploring the infinite shoreline of Alaska over climbing mountains- but regardless of the level of energy burned in the day- the comforts of scow houseboat cruiser will be far beyond other hulls. If I put lots of energy into day's events they tend to be fishing, along the coast you're planning to explore there is lots of high quality seafood so a day’s work here and there can return the best food in the world. My related question is however.... which vessel is going to be equipped to clean 25 lb. of razor or butter clams and freeze them? The planing boat or the scow?

Anchorage is a term used to describe someplace that is sheltered and shallow enough to do that - put out the hook- and that is how the town in AK got it’s name. So there's usually not a lot of weather and wave action compared to the open reaches, not that Alaskan anchorages don't have some odd winds- as they do. But the scow is better than any vessel at anchor since it so wide it won't roll or pitch much that 'much' is comparing it to other hull types of identical LOA.

A 32' scow’s beam at the waterline could easily be 12' feet and a bit more on deck (flam the sides a little) and still have a "livable" Beam to Length ratio when steerage and hull drag was considered. A 32'' scow depending on the end rake or angle of the wrapped up bow and stern, could have a waterline of 28' feet, so the waterplane of 12x28 is an area of 336 ft^2 float 1750lb./inch, and since the ends are ramped outward; as the hull goes down in load the waterplane goes up so it floats more per inch of immersion. So a 20,000 lb scow would float in less than a foot of water and doubling that to 40,000lb or 20tons (short tons not the marine long tonne of 2,240lb.) will still not even draw 2’.

I’m not considering the running gear (prop, skeg, rudder and pintle ) I’m just noticing this shoal draft would go places that may have NEVER had a power boat because of the ‘catch22’ implied. A boat large enough to carry the needed fuel to get to (the most) remote locations- needs to be larger than any conventional shaped boat that can float in less than 2’ of water.

Thanks again for the kind words, gentlemen, yes, I have thought about this for years and I have lots of ‘what I’d do worked out’ so if I get the chance on my bucket list to build one of these scows, I’ve got some start on problem solving for the design.

Cheers,
Kevin Morin
Kenai, AK
kmorin
ibasquarepeg
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:25 pm
8

Re: A question for you all.

#14

Post by ibasquarepeg »

Thanks again for the detailed and very enticing response, Kevin. You know of what I only dream about.
The cabin on the water is a great idea. I'm not sure I could pull that one off. But I will add the scow idea to my list of things to pursue. You make a strong argument for it. My wife would certainly favour it.
The idea of parking the cruiser and exploring with a skiff is interesting in that you would need a bigger skiff and a boat designed to carry it. How far afield would you venture with this skiff?
We're planning on attending the Vancouver and/or Seattle boat shows in January to initiate some contact with builders. By then I hope to have budgets and design ideas firmed up, but who knows? I'm not sure what to expect from the shows.
kmorin
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
15
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: A question for you all.

#15

Post by kmorin »

ibeasquarepeg,
If the Cook/First Mate is happy? = Its a Happy Ship. If the ship is happy the Skipper is happy too. (First Law of family boating)
You can expect a 50-75 mi. radius from a 20' open with CC console or weather helm, and a 32'er can tow or sling on the stern in davits. (crooked short cranes to hold a boat or load over the side of a bigger vessel) Can be deck loaded as well, scows haul big loads without much depth of immersion.

Cheers,
Kevin Morin
kmorin
ibasquarepeg
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:25 pm
8

Re: A question for you all.

#16

Post by ibasquarepeg »

I finally sat down and thoroughly read all the links you posted. Very, very interesting. A lot of my questions about scows were answered. The Nina was sweet! I think I'll play around with scow designs a bit. My big question was about the lower accommodations and overall height of the cabin. But with the cabin sole on the hull of the boat and a lowered ceiling the boat doesn't get too high. Your boat design with windows was a great improvement also.
I would still be concerned about open crossings like Queen Charlotte Sound with the flat bottom, no? It sounds like there could be modifications to the basic hull as drawn to improve performance in seas.
I'd like to incorporate some fishing capabilities and a davit to the design to see what it would look like. Also I'm thinking a little larger… I'm going to search power scows and see what comes up.
Cc equals centre consol?
How does a big broad boat handle in the current? I'm guessing poorly.
Thanks for the idea.
kmorin
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
15
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: A question for you all.

#17

Post by kmorin »

ibeasquarepeg,

The (relatively large) flat bottom boats of this class traveled the open ocean for years, and they've worked the Gulf of Alaska and the Inside Passage too, so the ride may not be as gentle/easy/evenly moving as it would be in a deep keel sail boat; but it will be seaworthy. The large window areas can be 'shuttered' with large metal plates if the weather is going to be breaking aboard. As to the living space volume, I think you could envision stepping down into the main cabin sole (living area floor) and be just about standing on the water level and the hull reaching up to mid chest with a 3-4' ceiling overhead (deck house raised area). This lower level could be very easy to ride in because you're so close to the water's surface.

The raised helm shown in various models is at the stern because that is where the motion of the entire hull is least - main bow pitch (up and down motion as the bow rises over waves) being greatest at the forward end of the boat's deck. So the pilot house is usually aft, this also allows you a good view of the heading, the hull's overall steerage and the engine spaces are most often aft so the pilot house being over the engine spaces also allows this area of the hull to be more given over to the mechanical systems. This is not hard and fast, just an arrangement that has worked by trial and error over time, of course LOA is a main factor in my remarks; I'm thinking of 36-50' range and therefore a dedicated pilot house/bridge arrangement where I'd expect a captain's sea bunk and head.

Hull modifications for seaworthiness
The hull needs little or no modification to be seaworthy, not an ocean crossing boat but surely one that can run the coasts without risk of safety concerns. I'm not implying that the final hull design is formalized at this point in your planning/building/modifying/remodeling. I'm not enough of a marine architect to tell you if a slight V (shown in some of my sketches) or a dead flat (line from chine to chine) will perform any differently? Depending on the running gear/prop, rudder, pintle & shoe / skeg arrangement short 'keel' appendages could be added or built in (6" deep 10' long) to help with steerage (keeping a heading without wandering back and forth requiring excessive helm action) and that would make more difference in shape and seaworthiness than most shapes changes. That is an entire discussion in itself; one I'm more than willing to engage.

Beach combing skiff
Yes a 20' CC is a 20' center console where the next step up is to cover the helm/console with at least a windscreen and top then add sides... of course a smaller skiff would work too, 16'-18' would be much less expensive but won't haul the load and I tend to think of a 20' as the minimum to avoid to foam flotation regulations which stop at 20'LOA. It is a personal choice issue for me to avoid the foam inside chambers of a welded boat so the suggestion of a 20's skiff were a little 14' Lund would work fine for a beach skiff and for roaming the area around an anchorage.

Fishing in general
When you're in the S.Eastern Alaskan wasters fishing can mean rod and reel but it can mean pots too, maybe they permit some 'subsistence' long lining? I don't know. But in general you can fish off the scow deck(s) and especially aft, you can run pots off one of the skiff davits and a hanging (power) block or hand line the pots if the water is shallow enough. Both shrimp and crab can be taken with pots depending on season and locale.

Piloting a scow
Moving any boat in a current is more driving skill than moving in a still lake but, surprisingly, since the scow hull form is so shallow it's less work to maneuver than a deep keel power boat in the same water since the steerage way power is less involved with resistance of the keel.

Now, wind, that's an entire different thing! Since the boat has a large superstructure profile like a sail, its much more of a rodeo to move around in a wind than it is in a current due to the wind's 'working' area compared to the absence of the underwater keel form to help keep heading. Most planing power boats are similar in nature to this hull form, they have almost nothing of any keel form so docking in a wind can be a pain in the stern. But again, its been done for how long? and done with sail only boats too. So a powered scow will surely find a way to move around and worst case, put the skiff over the side as a 'push boat' or a tug to help get the scow into a berth!

I'm happy to provide more food for thoughts about enjoying that particular stretch of coast, its not that much different from the Sound of Prince William where I'd like to spend some time so its an idea that has always attracted me.

Please don't hesitate discussing any aspect of the potential project, I'd happy to show what conclusions I've come to, and they reach all the way down to some fairly trivial details of the build, assembly near the water and fit and finish, mechanical systems and other details.

One last remark, not to ignore scows but to mention in case this has escaped your current explorations? There was and may remain in place a commercial fishing 'buy back' program along the West Coast where the government bought comm. fishing boats and retired them out of the fisheries... (not sure if this still exists?) so that meant there were decent sized commercial fishing boats that could no longer work or be used for their design intent. As a result, there may be a lower cost (compared to building that size boat), fully seaworthy fishing boat that could fit your needs? I admit that remodeling the fish hold into a great cabin would likely be a decent sized project... but... this avenue may be open? I'd suggest checking with the boat brokers who would be most informed about this potential for a boat of the class you're envisioning. Not saying they still exist? Just mentioning the relative low cost to buy since those boats were all purpose built and then retired so they have not comm. value and only conversion would make sense.

Goatram, Chaps, and others living around Puget's Sound will be much more informed than I am about this potential, and they may also know brokers with wide experience that they can suggest to you?

Cheers,
Kevin Morin
Kenai, AK
kmorin
kmorin
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
15
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: A question for you all.

#18

Post by kmorin »

ibeasquarepeg,
Something has occurred to me that needs to be mentioned and that is costs of boats as a generic topic. When I say generic I mean that these estimates are not hard and fast but are approximate and they may help you to make decisions when considering the overall topic in your original question about boats to cruise the Alaskan/Canadian Pacific Coast.

These remarks are about live aboard boats because open skiffs or even pilot house models have much larger percentage of the finished product as just metal work; mainly because there are so few items in the other categories included. However, in a live aboard boat the finished systems are actually more work and cost than the metalwork when compared to a 20' open CC with a bolt-on engine, no head or galley and no shower or bunks.

In new construction of fully finished live aboard boats; the hull in most metal boats is only 20% of the entire value. This varies up and down because the level of finish can be changed in overall cost by the electronics alone. For example, a 32' cabin boat may have $80,000 in metal work so if it were launched 'bare cabin' that could be a larger percentage of the overall cost than if there were 40,000$ worth of electronics added to that same bare boat. That is radical cost percentage change and so all of my remarks here are to ask you to explore the comparisons of percentages of different stages of the construction not to attempt to show some fixed number. IF the interior were fitted out completely on our 80k$ hull, that could add another 50-75k$; again each large dollar item added makes the original metal's final percentage of the project drop.

The propulsion and steering systems is another 20% (including labor) and the fit and finish of the cabin and accommodations another 50% of the cost, (all joinery, plumbing, wiring, fixtures, appliances, tankage rigging ....) leaving 10% for decking rigging, ground tackle, anchor gear, and hardware not fixed to the hull. Why are some of these percentages useful to your considerations of either buying ready to cruise, remodeling or building from scratch? I think exploring (into) some of their details can help you see more clearly how hull shape or class can contribute to costs.

Lots of owners are astounded to learn that full interior cabinetry will cost almost as much as the hull!! Why is that? The reason is that the pieces very often have to fit to the hull and fitting boxes (inside faces of cabinets) to outer hull curves is time consuming. Not all boats use NC cabinet cutting and building to streamline this labor category so some interior design bids will seem incredibly high. Next in the same category is the sequence of build. If you allow the entire metal work project to be done, blasted, painted, and insulated, AND THEN put in the joinery? all the finish work has to come in through the cabin doors (passageway) and the work space is small, all the tooling is outside on deck or worse in the cabinet shop, and so on..... What has happened is the build/remodel/fit and finish sequence has made a 20minute cabinet shop task into a 2 hour or four hour painfully slow job inside the cabin.

Chaps has given several good reasons to consider outboard power; the difference between the two types, inboard and outboard is not just the inboard engines' original costs. The labor to fit and weld a keel and rudder boat is quite a bit higher compared to making a bracket to bolt on and outboard where you get steering built in and engine controls are somewhat less work as well. Skeg's, rudders, shaft logs and all the metal materials does add to the costs difference but the labor to do all that metal work is the biggest factor; and the labor to rig an inboard is the same kind of increase over the outboard. Again, the 20% figure allotted to the drive systems can be much higher in inboards and much lower in outboards, the rule of thumb 20% of finished value is merely a place holder.

I'm trying to bring up the idea that as you explore the idea of acquiring the best suited cruiser for your use, some of the costs will hinge on various items' circumstances that are not intuitively obvious to those new owners who may not have been involved in live aboard boats before. If there are three general choices- #1 buy existing and use #2 buy and remodel and #3 build from scratch, then each will have costs for any given category of the overall boat that are not equal between the three choices. Seeing these differences for their potential cost can help you see the overall boat more clearly and evaluate where to spend the most effective dollar.

Cheers,
Kevin Morin
Kenai, AK
kmorin
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic