Glen-L.com

Has anyone ever heard of a Yanmar diesel Sail Drive? From what I understand it is like an Inboard/outboard arrangement. I wonder if it would be easier to install then a standard inboard engine but with the advantages of a diesel. I thought about maybe planning a Sweet 16 tug or even a Tugalong. I also think it would work out great in a Hercules. What do you guys think?

Just to thro a curve into the mix, I read somewhere last year about a father and son ( I think in Florida ) who had developed and had some excepitional performance results on a diesel outboard. Anybody?
Doug

there has already been diesel outboards in Asia, I think it was a Yanmar, perhaps Yamaha.
I took a dive trip on a boat with one of them.

_________________
God Bless our Troops; especially our Snipers

here you go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pu4RJme ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh8yxFmi ... re=related
Here is a yamaha i/o unit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5VWg6Ki ... re=related

Here is listing
http://www.yanmar.com.au/marine.htm

_________________
Don't be afraid to attempt anything. You might surprise your self in the attempt.
http://www.facebook.com/Home.Made.Boat.Building
Modified Jubilee-"Wild Flower" 40' house boat
14' Mr John-Wild Flower 2
32' Supper Huck- Wild flower 3

Rod H

I was looking at a listing for a diesel outboard within the past couple of weeks - it was over 20K USED (can't remember the horsepower but it wasn't a big engine - remember that much). I can buy a brand new gas outboard and about 10K worth of gas at that rate.

If a 100 horse gas engine burns 10 gal/hr max a 100 horse diesel would typically burn about 6 gal/hr, assuming both motors are running at peak efficiency. So if you run 100 hours a year the diesel could save you 400 gallons of fuel. With fuel prices fairly close you would save maybe $1200 to $1600 a year (assuming gas/diesel in the $3-4 a gallon range depending where you live). So in my example above it could take upwards of 8 years before you "realized" the savings from running a diesel. If you put significantly less than 100 hours per year on your boat then diesel is definately not for you - if you put more, then it is well worth it in the long run.

Of course, there are numerous other factors you would have to consider, but that's always the big one for me..

_________________
Graham

Yes, Plywood is "real" wood

A "professional" is someone who gets paid for their work - it doesn't necessarily mean they are good at it

Raymacke- My engine is a inboard- outboard , so the engine weight is right at the stern and my fuel tank is under the cockpit just aft of the cabin bulkhead. If I did it again I would put the tank under the cabin sole , like you did. My water tank is up forward under the cabin sole. Do you have trim tabs, at my cruise speed I use my trim tabs just a little. At 8 knots I don't need them , but I have a 3 foot swim grid and I put pods on each side of the leg ( I'll try to find a picture of them) and I angled the bottom of the pods 3/4 " at the stern , acting as a trim tab. I should have gained a bit more speed with the longer waterline but it's hard to tell because I have more hp now. But when I added on to the hull , I tried to keep it as light as I could and the stern came up about 1". My gph measurements came from my engine display .

Triple-d - I really appreciate the input. I have a feeling that adding the 3/4" "hook" to the extensions was an excellent idea and is helping you a lot. No, I don't have trim tabs. I was not sure they would be effective at the speeds I operate but it seems you have confirmed they are effective when needed. They look like Bennett's is that correct? Do you happen to remember what size they are?

I have considered fabricating some very large manual adjust plates that would fill the space area beside my engine mount box/bracket and the transom - it would be very similar to you extensions only just a flat plate. But having the ability to adjust from the helm would be nice and help get only the lift needed and not creating drag when not needed. Might allow me to run a mile per hour or two faster but wonder if it would ever save a enough fuel to offset the $550 (approx) cost?

_________________
So Many Rivers,
So Little Time....

Okay, just to kind of summerize what I've gathered from this thread.

1. The Coastal Cruiser 25 and Hercules are of the same hull form and the Coastal Cruiser can be powered by an engine of lower hp range for added economy at the cost of speed.

2. The True Grit and Coastal Cruiser are the same hulls and seem to be sensetive to weight distribution (ballance).

3. Inboard, sterndrive, and outboard options are available. Each has pro's and con's. But one is not decidedly better than the others. It depends on availability, cost, efficiency, ease of maintenance and intended use of the craft.

One question that still lingers is for cruising the loop in a trailerable efficient craft, am I looking at the right boats?

Clay Korn – As they often seem to do, this thread sort of morphed into a “power” discussion rather than the design discussion I think you were wanting. Welcome to the world of people that are passionate about boat building. We have a lot of trouble staying on point but still almost always have interesting discussions.

As to the choice of a design for you intended use I personally think you are on the right track. Seven years ago I began the search for boat that was Loop capable and affordable. I actually started with used factory boats (couldn’t afford new). I wanted something trailerable without permits that would operate efficiently at displacement speeds. At the time I could find NO factory boats I thought acceptable.

I then started searching for plans. I decided I wanted it from 26’ to 29’ as I deemed this a tolerable living size but still within the limit I wanted to tow. Just didn’t want to haul over that length. Ideally I wanted a full displacement hull. And again I found little. I did find some hulls in that range but most all were far heavier boats than I wanted to haul. I wanted to stay under 10,000 lbs. for boat, motor and trailer and 9000 lbs would be much better.

I then made the compromise and moved to semi-displacement hulls. Here I found several I felt workable and finally settled on the True Grit. As I have mentioned before I personally like the looks of the Coastal Cruised more but it was going to be too tall to build in my shop. So, that all to common boat building term came up again – COMPROMISE!

Personally I feel either of the designs will work for you. I don’t know if you have ran onto my page where I offer my personal thoughts on why I decided on the TG rather than the CC or Hercules. Here is the link - http://www.egyptian.net/~raymacke/TG/WhyTheTG.html It might be of interest but again this is just my thoughts for my situation and preference.

Also, I think you originally ask about possible problems building in you garage. We still need to address that if your interested.

_________________
So Many Rivers,
So Little Time....

I'd like to add my thoughts on the subject. To me, there are two thought here. Do you want to "do" the loop, or do you want to "cruise" the loop? If the goal is just to be able to say "we did the loop" then go for the speed. However, if the goal is to cruise the loop, enjoying the sights, sounds, food, history, and all the characters you'll see and meet along the way, then take the slow route.

I've mentioned this here before, but my wife and I went down the Intracoastal and eastern seaboard from Ontario to winter in the Abacos and back at 6 knots max, and loved every minute of the experience. The people were fantastic and the sights and scenery were terrific.

Just my take on the choices.

Doug

Raymacke,
I've been reading over your site with great interest. Like you did, I'm weighing the compromises of the different boats I'm looking at building. The Coastal Cruiser seems to pack the most accomidations in a small boat than any other design I've looked at. But, that seems to come at the cost of build complexity, higher power requirements, and greater overall height compared to the other design I'm considering; Redwing 26 by Stambaugh with the box keel option.

http://www.cmdboats.com/rw26.htm?cart_i ... 2b8a195cf6

As far as the garage, I have a 20 x 30 garage with 7' high doors. The plan was tp build the hull and as much of the interior as I could there, then move to another location (rented space) in order to finish the superstructure. The thought being that I could get more done in "spare moments" when it was at my home than if it was 15 miles away.

I agree, the intent is ti "cruise" the loop.

Clay Korn – I looked closely at the Redwing 26 as I did like it’s simplistic approach and it appeared it might be a little easier build. But the closer I looked the more concerns I had for our type of cruising. One problem I saw was the lack of below the deck storage. I wanted ample tankage for both fuel and water. I ended up with 80 gallons of each but honestly would like to have had more fuel. I can't see that you can get anywhere near that in the RW 26 but I could be wrong. Because we don’t have an engine there I still have a lot of available storage down there and hope to keep our rolled inflatable dingy and maybe a couple of folding bikes.

The new box keel version of the RW 26 might help improve this but I am thinking the space will be chopped up by the frames reducing the usable area for tanks - a bunch of small tanks might work but hardly worth the effort. Again I could be wrong here.

The next thing was lack of standing headroom in the berth. Look at the photo of the berth mattress – it is almost on the floor. Check out the door height entering the berth – level with the top of the instrument panel. It appears to me it will more or less be a squat in/squat out if not a full crawl. My wife was adamant she was not going to crawl in a berth and try to deal with bedding on her hands and knees. She wanted to be able to stand and I have to agree. For us it might be OK for a night or two but not the long haul.

If I went with either of the RWs I would want to extend the cabin for more living space including a shower/head. With the box keel version the engine hump for the inboard is going to cause a real restriction on interior layout (not to mention the noise). I spent hours and hours working at the drawing board to try to sort through the layout we wanted in the TG. For me it would be much harder with the engine box sitting dead center.

And unless they have a transom O/B mount option with the STD version you have already lost 2’+ off the hull with the interior engine mount. Along with the interior features we wanted we also were set on a table outside in the cockpit. Our visions are of sunny mornings having breakfast while sitting outside in the breeze watching the boat traffic wander by. This space was important for that and bulk storage lockers. I know we were asking a lot out of a 27' hull but with ample planning I managed to work it out reasonably well.

The final thought was the hull design itself. It looks to me like a sharpie which means it is a fairly flat bottom (from side to side). From what I have read these are efficient hulls when it comes to fuel BUT they have a tendency to pound when the waves start to roughen up a bit. In fact, they kind of confirm the when on the box keel version they state, “Reduces bow slamming, better than a shallow Vee”.

Another interesting plan they had was the Trailer Trawler 28. Had a lot going for it until I got to the weight 11,000 lbs without the trailer - twice the weight of the TG/CC.

Anyway, just my thoughts again. And still haven't got to the garage situation.

Why do my post always get so long? Maybe I need a sail boat as it appears I blow a lot of wind.

_________________
So Many Rivers,
So Little Time....

Yes, I agree that the RW 26 would also have compromises. From the study plans, there seems to be sufficient space inder the raised cockpit sole for tanks. The reduced headroom in the berth area is a sticking point for me too. As for the Trailer Trawler 28, plans are not currently available due to it being built as a FG production boat.

I had forgot about the sale of the design. You have to love marketing though - they took an boat designed to run displacement speeds of 8 kts on 40 HP, convert it to semi-displacement, install a 150 HP engine so they can kick the speed up to 14 kts. So the HP is almost 400% to increase the speed about 75%. Sounds reasonable....................

_________________
So Many Rivers,
So Little Time....

ClayKorn wrote:
"Okay, just to kind of summerize what I've gathered from this thread.

1. The Coastal Cruiser 25 and Hercules are of the same hull form and the Coastal Cruiser can be powered by an engine of lower hp range for added economy at the cost of speed.
"
Did I miss something here.? Hercules and Coastal Cruiser are 2 entirely different things.?

_________________
God Bless our Troops; especially our Snipers