Adding a wing engine. Could use some guidance.

[Mako]

You can't be serious? My displacement is 48 tons plus maybe another 5 when I have 2000 gallons of fuel and 1,100 gallons of fresh water aboard.

Curious what your water use/resupply preference is. Do you drain the 1100g down to empty-ish, then bulk refill via water maker/dock? Or just drain little then continuously keep it topped up?

 

[OldDan1943]

I am not in favor of sail drives ——. Snagging
I am not in favor of a gas engine except a small one for the tender.
The above are just my opinion.

 

[mvweebles]

I am not in favor of sail drives ——. Snagging
I am not in favor of a gas engine except a small one for the tender.
The above are just my opinion.

As TT said, there is no perfect solution. Saildrive would definitely ease install, a big benefit on a rereofit. I do think that if cross ocean is desired, a twin engine boat such as the newer Nordhavn series or the Defevers start to make sense if risk aversion is a strong concern.

Peter

 

[Gdavid]

You mention adding a stern thruster for this trip. Would it make sense to install a steerable hydraulic thruster driven via generator pto and use this as your back up means of propulsion? I would expect it to be very limiting in speed but could be a straightforward approach, especially if you already have hydraulics bowthuster, windlass, etc onboard.

 

[cafesport]

I remember having a conversation with Richard from dauntless about this years ago. The OP may want to revisit some of Richard’s postings from then as it was a big concern for a while til it wasn’t.

Bottom line wether you have two or one engine/ props somebody has to go underwater to clear it if it becomes fouled.

Steve Seaton designed the OP’s boat in the era of Bebe as a reliable sturdy PassageMaker ie no need for a secondary engine. Dauntless and many others have crossed the pond successfully on one.

 

[twistedtree]

Whatever approach you take, I know many of us would love to follow the project, so please keep posting about it, especially when you get going with the refit.

 

[sunchaser]

When I was younger one of my offshore assignments was to go overboard to clear props and shafts of the inevitable. Assuming the main engine, drive and spare parts are A-1 I’d place the onboard ability of these skills on par or above a get home system.

 

[OldDan1943]

As TT said, there is no perfect solution. Saildrive would definitely ease install, a big benefit on a rereofit. I do think that if cross ocean is desired, a twin engine boat such as the newer Nordhavn series or the Defevers start to make sense if risk aversion is a strong concern.

Peter

We are all forgetting there were/are many single engine/single shaft ocean-going commercial carriers ply the ocean today.

 

[bkcorwin]

If that 4k price is legit seems like a no brainer to go that route. You cant even buy a 20kw Northern lights generator for twice that.

Sail drive yanmar with a big alternator mounted on it for charging the house bank and exercising the engine.

Seems great.

 

[Fletcher500]

I remember having a conversation with Richard from dauntless about this years ago. The OP may want to revisit some of Richard’s postings from then as it was a big concern for a while til it wasn’t.

Bottom line wether you have two or one engine/ props somebody has to go underwater to clear it if it becomes fouled.

Steve Seaton designed the OP’s boat in the era of Bebe as a reliable sturdy PassageMaker ie no need for a secondary engine. Dauntless and many others have crossed the pond successfully on one.

With the amount of floating junk in the water including long line fishing gear and nets, going in the water with a serrated knife should be part of an ocean crossers plan as a last resort. I believe there are a couple accounts of rec boaters doing this in the middle of oceans in the Power Passage Making Book.

I was thinking of my earlier posts regarding wing entanglement.

Scenario - main prop gets wrapped up tight, and operator either won't go in the water because they are not up for it, or the conditions won't allow it. A swim step on the down pitch can knock you out cold so I am not making light of any of this and the seriousness involved with a water entry.

Main:
-Try the reverse manuever.
-Try to clear as much of the junk from the swim step with a boat hook. Pull, cut...repeat.
No luck with main: switching to a folded Wing.

Wing:
-If possible, at least go in the water at the side of the boat and see if it's clear and if possible try to clear it. Depending on how it's mounted, it should be easier to access than the main. Another option is a go pro on a stick.
-If no water entry possible or just dont want to go in, try the boat hook method again. I still think a folded prop that was not rotating during the initial line/net/mess encounter may not be wrapped up tightly. It's the spinning prop that pulls everything tight and makes it more difficult to remove.
-The wing may be useable, but the main is still wrapped, but if it was possible to remove the bulk of the junk off the main, the wing may have a clear pocket of water to operate in.

I realize I am making a lot of assumptions here, just throwing some ideas out.

 

[KnotYet]

Well, it weights 528 LBS. I'm to store this in a lazarette and deploy it at sea if I need it? I don't think that is practical.

Simplest approach would be to mount such an outboard on a permanent bracket
that can lower it into position when wanted/needed. A straightforward fabrication.
This rig would only be installed for a passage and then stored or sold afterward.

Rather then this newfangled and no doubt costly Mercury, Yanmar made some great
40 HP diesel outboards intended for displacement boat use which can still be found.
One or perhaps two of those would move your 50+ tons.

Several advantages come to mind. The ability to raise and lower an outboard solves
two of the weaknesses of the wing engine: the need to haul out to install and the
shared potential for entanglement/damage that disabled the main engine.

There is more: no need for an inefficient folding prop and the ability to use the
outboard's vectored thrust to steer in the event of damage or failure of the rudder.

 

[Mako]

There are several threads about this Indonesian supplier on CruisersForum. Due diligence time!

 

[Benthic2]

You can't be serious? My displacement is 48 tons plus maybe another 5 when I have 2000 gallons of fuel and 1,100 gallons of fresh water aboard.

In the original post you were suggesting a 40hp sail drave, the link below is to a 50 hp engine that weighs 385 pounds. Isn't a sail drive just an outboard mounted a little further forward? I figured a dingy crane would be able to get it out of the lazarette and onto the bracket. The advantage here is that it would not have to be a permanent part of the boat after the crossing, and you are not putting a big hole in your hull.

https://www.yanmar.com/marine/wp-co...38_50_930_2021_01_13_dtorque_datasheet_en.pdf

 

[MOJO]

I've never had any desire to cross an ocean - 95% boredom and 5% terror! For the money you're contemplating, unless you're dead set on crossing on your own bottom, I'd look into shipping the boat to the med...

 

[OldDan1943]

I've never had any desire to cross an ocean - 95% boredom and 5% terror! For the money you're contemplating, unless you're dead set on crossing on your own bottom, I'd look into shipping the boat to the med...

He is running away from home and taking his boat/home with him?
Remember, you can run further in a boat than you can in a RV

 

[Mako]

In the original post you were suggesting a 40hp sail drave, the link below is to a 50 hp engine that weighs 385 pounds. Isn't a sail drive just an outboard mounted a little further forward? I figured a dingy crane would be able to get it out of the lazarette and onto the bracket. The advantage here is that it would not have to be a permanent part of the boat after the crossing, and you are not putting a big hole in your hull.



https://www.yanmar.com/marine/wp-co...38_50_930_2021_01_13_dtorque_datasheet_en.pdf

At least you’re being creative!

Another thought, if this is a one time trip, is to find someone (trawler) to buddy boat with you and offer to pay for his fuel. Incentivize. $10k of fuel is less than $40+k of expenses plus ongoing maintenance and a more restricted machinery space.

 

[Benthic2]

At least you’re being creative!

if you want creative......

 

[BruceK]

Benthic2 may be onto something. There is a threshold issue to confront.

Whenever 1 vs 2 engines is discussed on TF single engine exponents post that more than one = decreased reliability/increased risk of engine failure. I don`t get it, but I think the basis is lessened maintenance due to the perceived comfort of redundancy.

If "they" are right, adding the wing engine lessens reliability though personally, I think "they" may be smoking something other than tobacco.

 

[rslifkin]

Benthic2 may be onto something. There is a threshold issue to confront.

Whenever 1 vs 2 engines is discussed on TF single engine exponents post that more than one = decreased reliability/increased risk of engine failure. I don`t get it, but I think the basis is lessened maintenance due to the perceived comfort of redundancy.

If "they" are right, adding the wing engine lessens reliability though personally, I think "they" may be smoking something other than tobacco.

Having more engines means you have a higher chance of a failure (as each engine still has the same chance of failing). But the chances of losing all engines and being stranded is lower.

 

[Simi 60]

if you want creative......

AAPT one of the Sydney Hobart boats tried this many years ago
Had success of sorts using two symmetrical Spinnakers stitched together across the foot.

Have pics somewhere.

Here we go: $26,000
Second hand kites would cost a hell of a lot less

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/kite-flying-is-just-that-say-rival-skippers-20041208-gdk9rn.html

 

[OldDan1943]

if you want creative......

Down wind, perhaps but, tacking must be bear.

 

[Benthic2]

Down wind, perhaps but, tacking must be bear.

Given the super low probability of needing auxiliary propulsion, any propulsion is additive to a positive outcome. Also, assuming prudent route planning, there will only be one long leg that puts you out of range of shore based communication. If that leg is 1,500 miles you are almosts certain to not need aux propulsion. For example, lets say the average cruiser puts 1000 hours per year on their boat. At 8 knots we have 8,000 nautical miles per year. Is the average boater calling Sea Tow once ever 2 years ? 3 years ? Lets say 2.5 years. So now we have a towing need 1 time every 20,000 miles. Also, lets give a little credit for increased diligence for an ocean crosser over the guy that goes to the dockside bar on Friday night and the sandbar on Saturday, so 1 towing need every 25,000 miles. If the longest leg on the journey is 1.5k miles, we have a probability of towing need of 6%. If our auxiliary system is only 75% effective we have increased our odds of success from 94% to 98.5%. We regularly assume the risk of a death by heart attack, gun shot or car accident without even a second thought. The average Americans risk of death by all preventable causes of death is 5%.

Bottom line: You don't need auxilliary propulsion. You need a sat phone and a high credit limit. Anything you do to increase your odds of success will be a positive.

Dollars invested/increased odds of survival, is a personal decision that only you can make.

Your best bet may be a call to Lloyd's of London.

 

[BruceK]

..
Bottom line: You don't need auxilliary(sic) propulsion... .

Except when you do. And when you do, you really really need it.

 

[OldDan1943]

I vote for the Sat phone

 

[Benthic2]

Sometimes planning for the 1 in a million event can really ruin the 1 in 100 event.

 

[mvweebles]

Having more engines means you have a higher chance of a failure (as each engine still has the same chance of failing). But the chances of losing all engines and being stranded is lower.

Succinctly, with twins, chance of losing an engine is higher. Chance of losing propulsion is lower.

Peter

 

[mvweebles]

Bottom line: You don't need auxilliary propulsion. You need a sat phone and a high credit limit. Anything you do to increase your odds of success will be a positive.

In many cases availability of a tow is a credible solution. I believe it's Psneeld who, when commenting on the topic of twins vs singles, says the further you venture from help, the stronger the case for twins. Psneeld is an ex SeaTow operator (plus his sea recovery training/career),so its tough to argue against. And of course TT adds that there is no perfect redundancy plan – they all have holes, some are bigger than others. My view is there comes a distance where tow/rescue is impossible/impractical and becomes a pressure cooker choice between self-recovery or abandonment/SAR.

I run a single and I consider my mechanical skills average at best. This topic is near/dear to me. I think there's a huge psychological gulf between theory and reality. I know the arguments well - 'Most of the world's fishing fleets are singles....' True, but tough to find solace in comparing to one of the planet's most dangerous occupations! Realize most commercial fishermen are good mechanics and have onboard machine shops. Their ingenuity and resourcefulness make McGyver look like he's in diapers.

[B]HERE[/B] is a good USCG report on commercial fishing casualties (1903 vessels lost) in the 15-years between 1992-2007. A couple graphics attached below. 25% of the vessels lost - 458 boats - were lost due to mechanical failure (failure of hull, propulsion, steerage, etc.).

Until you've actually contemplated a trip like the OP is considering - actually thinking through failure scenarios with you and your loved one(s) aboard, arguing a single/twin engine is a fanciful table-top exercise. The probability odds are infinitesimal. But the impact could be extreme - possibly terminal, not just expensive. Imagine for a moment being dead in the water 1000 nms away from land with heavy weather approaching. Imagine knowing your decision put your spouse's life in danger. How much is it worth? Suddenly, $40k ($80k???) sounds cheap.....

This is not a decision to take lightly. The OP's choice is not the one I have made for myself, but I totally respect his opinion and appetite for risk.

Peter

 

[sunchaser]

Good research Peter.

Quite simply, the OP has a mission capable boat. As evidenced by their popularity, millions of $ are spent on Nordhavns etc to cross an ocean. The OP indicates he has the funds and wants to cross oceans with a suitable backup means of propulsion. And for a lot less money than a Nordhavn.

I say go for it. Ignore the do it cheap crowd but heed the do it right voices.

 

[Mako]

I believe the OP already made his decision, so no harm in exploring a bit more of the creative solutions.

To the guys suggesting a kite sail as emergency backup. Quick Google search indicates about 5hp being generated in 15-20kt winds. Per Gerr, that should propel OP’s heavy trawler at about 2.5 knots.

That’s knot bad (get it - ha!).

Like George Buehler used to say… 1 knot downwind is better than sitting dead in the water.

The majority here would poo-poo the idea, but some in this thread have expressed a very high risk tolerance.

 

[Snapdragon III]

I like the OP's plan, other than the Indonesian engine that I worry is a scam. But for the sake of the never ending Single vs. twins discussion, I will throw out the following. I think many of us are mischaracterizing the "risk" of a single crapping out where no help is available. In the vast majority of cases, in the vast majority of places, the risk is not that you are going to die alone in the ocean if your powertrain quits. The risk is that you will need to get rescued and abandon your boat. If you are well insured this might not really be that bad. Just the fact that insurance companies are willing to write policies on single screw boats says a lot about the chances of them needing to be abandoned mid ocean. Different story if you are heading to the arctic or something where there is nobody around to rescue you.