Would someone please explane to this

[Robby]

dummie what you consider to be blue water boats(power).Hatteras? Robby

[stormchaser]

Nope, well, maybe a Hatteras LRC, but most Hatteras' are NOT blue water boats. To be a blue water capable boat, it needs to be a full displacement hull with soft chines and a full keel and will LIKELY have a single screw or at the minimum will have two SMALL engines and a LARGE fuel tank. Range needs to be at least 2,000 miles to be considered truly blue water capable..3,000 would be better.

[REBrueckner]

I don't think "blue water" has any standard meaning....it's a nice marketing term...it's not in USCG nomenclature....coastal and ocean going or "long range" as storm described is a more standard nomenclature.

[stormchaser]

And in that case, I would call just about any Hatt "Near Coastal"...

[saltshaker]

I would consider most Hatteras blue water boats. Most can take more of a pounding than the crew and get you home safely. I've been caught in 10-12 footers with mine and she pulled through just fine. I'm sure others here have seen much worse in theirs. If you can run 100+ miles offshore, fish for a day or two and get back home with confidence, then I would call that blue water performance. Same goes for crossing the Gulf stream.

[REBrueckner]

Blue water does sometimes refer to offshore fishing... as in "blue water" fishing for big game fish.... meaning deep ocean depths...rather than shallow coastal bottom fishing

[stormchaser]

I would argue that a planing hull has no business 100 miles offshore, especially if it has a fuel range of less than 1000 miles. Many (most?) boats over 30ft can take more punishment than the crew can and survive...but that alone does not make for a blue water or offshore capable boat. Other things to consider:


- Center of Gravity (known as ballast stability)
- Center of Buoyancy (form stability)
- Displacement (effects static and dynamic stability)
- Moment of Inertia (dynamic stability)
The first three factors determine static stability. This is usually shown as a plot of "Righting Arm" VS "Heel Angle". The length of the righting arm is the horizontal distance between the buoyant force and the center of gravity. The "Restoring Moment", which represents stability, is simply the product of the righting arm and the displacement. The heel angle where the righting arm goes back to zero is referred to as the "Angle of Positive Stability". When that angle is exceeded, the boat capsizes.

Its popular to associate a large angle of positive stability with "good stability", but by itself, it is not a good indicator of stability. Since the actual restoring moment is the product of the righting arm and displacement, heavy boats are inherently more stable than light ones, all else being equal.

CG controlled stability is fairly straightforward. A heavy boat, with a low center of gravity, will normally exhibit high stability. In general, the wider the boat, the more form stability.

Dynamic stability controls how much a boat rolls in response to a wind gust or impact of a strong wave. A stable cruising boat will resist these dynamic forces long enough for them to pass safely by. Heavy displacement helps dynamic stability, but the most important factor is the boat’s roll moment of inertia. The roll moment of inertia is calculated by multiplying the weight of each piece of the boat by the square of its distance from the center of gravity. Deep draft, heavy displacement hulls, with long heavy masts will have the largest roll moment of inertia.



- DISP / LENGTH RATIO = disp/2240/(.01*lwl)^3

Probably the most used and best understood evaluation factor. Low numbers (resulting from lightweight and long waterlines) are associated with high performance. The general trend for new boats is towards lower ratios that favor higher performance. The trade off is that a light boat will have more violent motion in storms. The ratio decreases with boat length, since heavy boats need less ballast and will be lighter than smaller boats with the same stability. Acceptable values between 265 and 337.



ROLL PERIOD (T) = 2*PI*(I/(82.43*lwl*(.82*beam)^3))^.5

The roll period is based on the moment of inertia (MOMENT OF INERTIA (I) = disp^1.744/35.5). The term ".82*beam" has been substituted for the waterline beam due to lack of data. Simply stated, a boat’s roll period, in seconds, is inversely proportional to its stability. Unstable boats have long periods, stable boats have short periods. The roll period is very easy to determine, you simply grab a shroud and push / pull until the boat is rocking over a few degrees. Then count the number of full cycles in one minute, and divide into 60. The general rule of thumb is that boats with periods less than 4 seconds are stiff and periods greater than 8 seconds are tender. The template value of 4.05 is near the stiff end of the range, indicating good static stability.



STABILITY INDEX = T / (beam*.3048)

This is another empirical term relating period and beam to stability. Values less than 1.0 are considered stiff. Values greater than 1.5 are considered tender. I like this technique because its simple, and includes the hull form, the center of gravity, and the roll moment of inertia, all in one easy to use package.

A few other things you should consdier when determining if a baot is truely offshore ready:

- Aft seas keeping, broaching, can she take large waves over the stern without broaching? Very few hard chined boats with square sterns can.
- Water tight doors? Water tight bulkeds anywhere? Shatter resistant/proof glass?
- Skeg protected rudders and props?
- Hand holds so you can walk virtually anywhere and have something to hold onto.
- Galley with places to strap in? All galley appliances built in, not free standing?
- All access/inspection hatches have locking tabs to prevent them from coming loose in a roll?

There's a lot more to being offshore capable than simply having a heavy/strong hull. I love my Hatt for what it is...but I would not fool myself into believing it is as capable offshore as my old boat was, not nearly so...but then I don't need heavy offshore capabilities...the Hatt is perfect for me.

[saltshaker]

I would argue that a planing hull has no business 100 miles offshore, especially if it has a fuel range of less than 1000 miles. Many (most?) boats over 30ft can take more punishment than the crew can and survive...

Completely disagree. Most boats built today can't take the punishment. I have seen and read of lots of structural failures from poorly built boats. Not from Hatteras, but from lesser boats.
Can't say from experience but a fellow HOF'er, who has owned and run several Hatts, once told me you can't compare the sea keeping abilities of a Hatt MY and Hatt SF. The Sf are better heavy seas boats with a lower center of gravity. Hatteras gets their performance from big heavy engines, not by making light boats. I like having the power to get out of the way of bad weather. I also have the option of slowing down when things get real bad. My 46C originally had 8V71N's. could cruise around 16kts and top out around 19kts. In heavy seas I would typically run WOT. The boat fought better that way. I found it best to run wide open or slow right down to 8-9kts. The main reason for repowering was I felt I neede more muscle to help the boat do what worked best.
Take a ride offshore on a Hatt sf. Not as fast as an Ocean, Post, Egg Harbor etc. When the seas pick up on the way home, the others will slow down and follow you back.

[Bugsy]

But what is it that's being discussed? It's one thing to talk about an Atlantic crossing but "bluewater" per se does not connote such an undertaking. I went from Miami to Grenada on my 48 MY. The waters east of the Turks are "blue water"---nothing but Atlantic between you and Africa. It was NOT a major undertaking and always well within the operational range of a "near coastal" Hatteras. I was never more than 40 miles from land because the longest "ocean passage" was about 80 miles. That's a long trip and probably farther than most owners want to travel in a power boat, Hatteras or otherwise---but it is no Atlantic crossing---by a LONGGGGG shot!.

100 miles offshore requires a 1000 gals. of fuel? I don't agree. And if you're 100 miles off, where are you going? Presumably, you're fishing the canyons---and you wouldn't be out there doing that in a MY.

MOI indeed!

[stormchaser]

OK, even if that IS true...just because the boat's hull can take it, doe not mean it is a safe offshore boat for the other reason I posted above. Sure, you could go 100 miles offshore if you time your weather windows right, no problem...but then if you are timing weather windows anyway, you could do it in a Sea ray. It's when you get stuck in a Storm blow with 25 foot seas that are rolling and you are far offshore that you need a better offshore boat than a Hatt (with the exception of the LRCs).

How many of you have been offshore in a Storm? I have, it is NOT fun but also not at all dangerous in the RIGHT boat and I would not want to be caught dead out there without the right boat, I I know nothing I've seen from Hat (other than LRC) is that right boat. Most of us choose not to go out in more than a Fresh Breeze (17-21knots, 6' seas) and run for cover if it gets into Strong Breeze territory (22-27knot winds, 10' seas). It takes only a Near Gale (28-33knots) wind to create 14' seas...Storm winds (48-55 knots sustained) you can expect 28-30 foot seas. Storm Force winds are a very common occurrence on the open ocean, not even considered a big deal to real offshore boaters...more of a PITA rather than a real danger.

[REBrueckner]

"...a fellow HOF'er, who has owned and run several Hatts, once told me you can't compare the sea keeping abilities of a Hatt MY and Hatt SF. The Sf are better heavy seas boats with a lower center of gravity..."

Sure you can comapre them...there is little practical difference...freeboards at similar lengths are very close, for example...I'd agree a weakest link in a motoryacht is large glass windows forward and to a lesser extent sidewindows...that's one reason why sportfish sometimes glass in their windshield windows....(and also explains why most "trawlers" are NOT ocean going capable desite fuel range.)

While the MY profile IS higher it has limited effect on stability because the preponderance of weight is still low...maybe 95%??..anyway, running a MY from the flybridge does incur additional apparent motion especially relative to a lower flybridge sportfish...but that does NOT affect the seakeeping ability....

Are the underbodies of SF significantly different than MY?? I believe HAtts are still rather flat aft to reduce troll roll... If more deep vee, that could make some difference....but such deep vee boats rock and roll at slow speeds....

[sandspur1966]

I agree with Rob, the term "Blue Water" is subjective and descriptive but isn't part of any formal nomenclature and carries no objective definition.

For instance I, with decades of commercial offshore experience, could be expected to define Blue Water based on my history at sea in large tugs but would be no more legitimate than a fella taking a 30ft sailboat across the pacific or a guy shooting his Hatt out to the Canyon stalking tuna.

I just think it means away from coastal or inland waters and a boat that is "Blue Water" capable is one that is capable of that use by a reasonable master.

[Walter P]

Shawn, your post pretty much says it best. ANY vessel has limitations. During WWII Adm Bill Halsey lost a couple of ships in the Pacific to storms. These were war ships, not small boats, so as Shawn stated pretty much.. everything is relative.

By the way Stormy, your calculations pretty much define the Hatteras LRC's and the Series I MY's which have a similiar hull design, so I guess my 1982 48 MY qualifies as a "blue water" boat. Well it depends of other factors including but not limited to the size and material (preferably brass) of one's male appendages. I do agree with you however that for practical purposes, I would not run out 100 miles to the canyons in a MY. While some Hatts share running surfaces between MY's and SF's, there is no comparison with the ride of a SF Hatt to just about anything out there including MY Hatts. I own MY's because I don't fish and I like the living accomodations of a MY for my life style but I would not delude myself into believing that my MY even comes near a Hatteras SF for "blue water" cruising.

Walt

[Brian Degulis]

Round chine single engine full displacment is more about range than sea keeping ability. I think I'd take a 58' C Over a 58' LRC for comfort and sea keeping abilties any day of the week.

Brian

[Nonchalant1]

Isn't "Bluewater" more of a type of use than a type of boat? It means going out when the distance from land is farther than a day and the cruise plan is longer than good weather forecast accuracy. That means you can get caught in really bad conditions with no way to escape and just have to rely on your boat to make it through. With the exception of the big LRCs, most Hatts are not bluewater boats. We just went 175 miles across the gulf and were 70 miles from land in our 53MY, but I don't consider that bluewater at all. We waited for a good weather window and made the trip in 13 hours during daylight.

Doug

[stormchaser]

I whole heatedly disagree. iIt is about safety, and no planing hull is as safe as a well done displacement hull. In a real storm or worse, a 58 LRC is vastely superior to the 58C. What you may be talking about is COMFORT...displacement hulls are "rolley" which some may confuse with stability or safety. Some find the rolling of a displacement hull discomforting and mistakenly believe they are less safe in a storm...they could not be more mistaken. If you want comfort AND safety...get a displacement hull and add some birds or maybe active fins. But don't mistake the initial roll resistance of a planing or semi-displacement hull for overall stability or safety.. do the calculations (the formulas I provided before)...you can't really argue match & physics...comfort yes, but the actually seakeeping & safety is pure science.

[stormchaser]

Isn't "Bluewater" more of a type of use than a type of boat? It means going out when the distance from land is farther than a day and the cruise plan is longer than good weather forecast accuracy. That means you can get caught in really bad conditions with no way to escape and just have to rely on your boat to make it through. With the exception of the big LRCs, most Hatts are not bluewater boats. We just went 175 miles across the gulf and were 70 miles from land in our 53MY, but I don't consider that bluewater at all. We waited for a good weather window and made the trip in 13 hours during daylight.

Doug

I could definitely be convinced of that...and yes, I would agree...none of the Hatts (with exception of the LRCs) is truly a blue water cruiser. In very few really aer...for powerboats its pretty much limited to Kadey-Krogen, Willard, Nordhavn and a few others.

[Brian Degulis]

I whole heatedly disagree. iIt is about safety, and no planing hull is as safe as a well done displacement hull. In a real storm or worse, a 58 LRC is vastely superior to the 58C. What you may be talking about is COMFORT...displacement hulls are "rolley" which some may confuse with stability or safety. Some find the rolling of a displacement hull discomforting and mistakenly believe they are less safe in a storm...they could not be more mistaken. If you want comfort AND safety...get a displacement hull and add some birds or maybe active fins. But don't mistake the initial roll resistance of a planing or semi-displacement hull for overall stability or safety.. do the calculations (the formulas I provided before)...you can't really argue match & physics...comfort yes, but the actually seakeeping & safety is pure science.

I think if you ran the calculations you mention on both boats would would find them to be very close the 58C might even be better, There's a basic mis understanding with pleasure boaters in thinking that round chine full displacment in and of itself = good sea keeping ability it doesn't. It equals great range and minimul fuel consumption but not much more. Most bluewater comercial boats and ships are not round chine.

Many planning boats are not safe in the worst of conditions because there is simply to much flat section in the hull put there to provide lift. They're also very light with to much structure and not enough draft. The Hat convertables are the exact oposite. They've got lots of deadrise that's carried very far back. Along with lots of weight and not to much super structure. Yes give me a Hat convertible over a cored hull Krogen any day of the week not for comfort for safety.

Brian

[saltshaker]

I agree with Rob, the term "Blue Water" is subjective and descriptive but isn't part of any formal nomenclature and carries no objective definition.....I just think it means away from coastal or inland waters and a boat that is "Blue Water" capable is one that is capable of that use by a reasonable master.
I agree. If range is such a major determining factor, then the cheapest sailboat would be more blue water capable than any Hatt. Its a vague term. But I feel my Hatt is a blue water boat. Just because I don't plan on going out in strong winds and heavy seas, doesn't mean the boat isn't capable of handling it if and when I get stuck in it. Sure some boats are better suited for long range cruising, but that's just 1 type of blue water boating. At some point, all boats/ships can be inadequate for what the ocean is throwing at you.

[stormchaser]

There's a basic mis understanding with pleasure boaters in thinking that round chine full displacment in and of itself = good sea keeping ability it doesn't. It equals great range and minimul fuel consumption but not much more.

Brian

No, that we can agree on...but it's the lack of a ballasted keel that (IMHO) makes the Hatts less than what i would want for long term far offshore cruising. Will a 58C come back up after a full roll? I doubt it. For an occasional weather timed crossing...of course they are fine. But throw the aforementioned 25+ foot seas, and 50+ knots winds into the mix, and I'd rather be on a Krogen or Nordhavn than a Hatt. For inland or near coastal cruising, I don't think there is a better boat than a Hatt.

[Robby]

I'm learning here ,thank yall!If and when we get that boat a run out to the rigs(25 south of Mobile) to fish for maybe an overnite looks possiable if you do as any water or airpilot does .Watch the weather!!!!It still amazes me that alot of the stability comments apply to airplanes as well as boats.Robby

[Brian Degulis]

No, that we can agree on...but it's the lack of a ballasted keel that (IMHO) makes the Hatts less than what i would want for long term far offshore cruising. Will a 58C come back up after a full roll? I doubt it. For an occasional weather timed crossing...of course they are fine. But throw the aforementioned 25+ foot seas, and 50+ knots winds into the mix, and I'd rather be on a Krogen or Nordhavn than a Hatt. For inland or near coastal cruising, I don't think there is a better boat than a Hatt.

Well I don't have my book in front of me but I believe the 58 LRC is around 90,000 lbs and the 58 C is around 75,000 lbs So if there's ballast in the LRC it can't be much. Then if you look at the profiles of both boats the LRC has got a lot more structure and windage. Then the LRC has some pretty large windows forward and not much power.

I like the LRC's but I don't think there is anything magical about they're design that makes them any more sea worthy than a C. I think it's more about fuel economy range and apearance. I wouldn't make this argument in comparing a Nordhavn to a C. When you look at the Nordy it's designed more for weather tha a Hat LRC or A Hat C. The Nordy has the ballast you mention along with smaller sea going windows and doors with gaskets and dogs. You've got to consider everything before you label a boat "Blue Water"

Brian

Brian

[Walter P]

The 58 LRC has a 15,000 lb advantage in weight, which in my opinion is rather substantial for a 58 footer. Another thing to remember is that the LRC (as well as the 48 series I) carries it's fuel low in the very wide deep keel. While it's not permanent ballest like lead in the keel, since it is consumed, it does help when your tanks are fairly full. Contrary to an earlier post, I must disagree with the statement that large ships have hard chines. Most large ships have soft chines, including military vessels. I have crossed the Atlantic several times on commercial ships (passengers) and each ship was soft chines with fin stabelizers.

Walt

[saltshaker]

58 LRC weighs 90,000 lbs and the 58C weighs in at 92,000 lbs w/12v92TA's and 94,500 lbs w/16v92TA's.

[Brian Degulis]

The 58 LRC has a 15,000 lb advantage in weight, which in my opinion is rather substantial for a 58 footer. Another thing to remember is that the LRC (as well as the 48 series I) carries it's fuel low in the very wide deep keel. While it's not permanent ballest like lead in the keel, since it is consumed, it does help when your tanks are fairly full. Contrary to an earlier post, I must disagree with the statement that large ships have hard chines. Most large ships have soft chines, including military vessels. I have crossed the Atlantic several times on commercial ships (passengers) and each ship was soft chines with fin stabelizers.

Walt

That depends on where the weight is. It would apear that most of the aditional weight (if there is any) would be in the super structure of the LRC. That wouldn't be an advantage it would be a dis advantage. If you take a look at recent construction of ships the round chine has been disapearing. It may come back as concerns about fuel consumption become more important because it does offer an advantage there.

Look my point is this Whatever your going to label a boat. Just because it's got small engines big fuel tanks a round chine and it's full displacment doesn't mean it's going have better sea keeping abilities or be safer. You have to consider the whole boat and why certain things where done the way they were. A lot of what makes a boat an LRC is about making range I mean can you realy have a boat with sliding wood pilot house doors and 2'x3' forward windows and call it a blue water boat?

Brian

[Bugsy]

There are those who talk---and there are those who do.

Review the thread---separate the two.

[Walter P]

Brian, you're right - partially -. Well I'll change that to mostly because the term "Bluewater" is not an official term to describe the capabilities of a particular design. And just because a vessel has hard chines does not disqualify it from deep water passages. Soft chines while not necessarily an advantage in the manner that 99.9% of boaters use their boats will self right more reliably than a hard chine vessel do not of themselves make for a true "Bluewater" boat as we are discussing. Range is not necessarily a prerequisite to earn the title either, but I guess it helps. Sometimes the use of a term long enough makes it sound official while it really isn't. To call a boat a trawler just because it has a certain profile is not correct either. A case in point is Grand Banks and other hard chine boats. Somehow GB aquired a good reputation which I personally think it does not deserve. I have chartered GB's and in each case was very disappointed with them from workmanship to engineering. Not even close to a Hatteras. Nordhavn is a totally different story. They are built like small ships. The hardware as an example makes a joke out of the word "overbuilt". Everything about them is extra heavy duty. But....you pay for it rather handsomely. I wonder how many folks really use them for the purpose they were designed for. Just like most sportfisher boats that have large tuna towers rarely if ever put them to their intended use. My point with this long rant is that most of these "terms" etc have a very specific purpose - it's called bragging rights.

Of course everyone really knows what the difference is between a boat and a ship or a boat and a yacht - right? I'll bet not. For all intents and purpose, because of their high quality engineering and construction, I consider just about any Hatteras a "Bluewater" vessel.

Walt

[Maynard Rupp]

In this day and age of submersible yacht transport ships, I don't know why anyone would choose to cross major oceans in any little boat. I guess just to say you did it maybe. Mario will agree with me here. The reason they make big jet airplanes is for crossing oceans. Ship your Nordhaven, buy a cheap ticket and you will save money, wear and tear on the Nordy, and your stomach will thank you.:)

[Brian Degulis]

So much truth to what you say Manyard. I've spent most of my life building steel boats. In 1989 I built the only boat I ever built for myself. It was a 56' LRC a blue water boat by anyone's description. It had 2 small diesel wing engines and one single speed 125HP diesel electric in the center. The wing engines were used for maneuvering and short trips. For long trips the wing engines were shut down and the diesel electric was used. It was super efficient @ 8.5 kts and it held 3200 gals of fuel. But it's draft was just under 7' which made it completely impractical for coastal cruising. After owning it for a couple of years I realized I had neither the time or the desire to cross the pond. I sold it to a couple who were real blue water sailors that wanted to go power. They've crossed the pond 4 times in it. They enjoy the solitude and the challenge But there really aren't to many like them most enjoy dreaming of it but won't ever actually do it.

Brian

[sandspur1966]

Brian, couldn't agree more. I would though be interested in learning more about this LRC you built.

Im not about to go tripping across the pond anytime soon but I alwats enjoy hearing about interesting boats and the power configuration you mentioned sounds fascinating.

Any pictures?

[Brian Degulis]

It's such a pain to shrink them for this forum why don't you PM me an email address and I'll send to you directly.


Brian

[spartonboat1]

Just a quick, non-technical note. Passagemaker spun up a Dutch Yacht, around 45' that was certified to meet 'ocean' or some type of blue water standard. They went through the boat reporting on various features. My olde Hatt ('72 43'MY) met or exceeded all they reported. One of the tests was the degree of list that occurred when a weight of 'X' was applied to the gunnel; a resistance to listing you might say. My Hatt exceeded that simple test easily.

So in that sense only, many Hatts probably would meet some type of Blue Water standard, depending on how you define it.

[stormchaser]

I mean can you realy have a boat with sliding wood pilot house doors and 2'x3' forward windows and call it a blue water boat?

Brian

Nope. It needs real doors with seals and dogs. I'm not all that familiar with the LRC, which is why said with the POSSIBLE exception of the LRC...guess maybe Hatt doesn't make ANY truly offshore blue water capable boats (like a Nordhavn).

[thoward]

I would argue that a planing hull has no business 100 miles offshore, especially if it has a fuel range of less than 1000 miles. Many (most?) boats over 30ft can take more punishment than the crew can and survive...but that alone does not make for a blue water or offshore capable boat.

I think you have to redefine bluewater with the speed of todays boats and electronics. I do not not blink an eye at going 100 miles off in our 27CC. I have the speed for round trip in 5 hours. I can run out, fish and make it back before dark. Our old Egg with 671Ns would take 20 hours for the same 200 mile round trip without fishing time. The Hatt would have been 12 hours round trip. Most of the newer pocket fishers and larger CCs cruise 30-40+ knots and have a 500+ mile range. I think that changes bluewater somewhat.

Now, I do agree, if we are talking about old Hatts, are not bluewater boats. I was never impressed with the cockpit hatches or cockpit drainage on the 60C. It also tended to roll more than I would have liked. In a head sea she would take it like a champ, but I am not sure I would have wanted to be in steep 15'+ seas with her.

[stormchaser]

Well, at least for me...any boat that you have to time you weather windows carefully would not quality...certainly any open boat would not. For a quick run ut to fish...sure, with a good weather window and adequate fuel, you could safely do that in a 13 Boston Whaler.

But what I mean is how will you do when a storm comes up and you are dealing with 50+ knot winds and 25+ foot confused steep rolling seas and less than 10' of visibility. Now, take that for 36 hours straight....THAT is blue water cruising by my definition...and yes, I've done it...it SUCKED and I would never choose to do so, but having the right boat made it sucky but SAFE.

[thoward]

But what I mean is how will you do when a storm comes up and you are dealing with 50+ knot winds and 25+ foot confused steep rolling seas and less than 10' of visibility. Now, take that for 36 hours straight....THAT is blue water cruising by my definition...and yes, I've done it...it SUCKED and I would never choose to do so, but having the right boat made it sucky but SAFE.
That is my point, no reason to go out in 50 knot winds and 25' seas. Blow boaters and such can get caught in that stuff and there is not much they can do but there is little reason to get a modern recreational power boat in that kind of crap. We can make bluewater passage without risking life and limb. I like to listen to the stories of the old Navy salts and 25-50' seas rolling around the ocean but have little reason to try it myself.

I was talking to some blow boaters in Grand Cay last week, dang I just do not think I could lay around waiting on the wind to turn the right direction. I would be an alcoholic for sure :D

[Walter P]

When was the last time anyone saw a Hatteras, any Hatteras break up or whatever because of seas that any SANE person would be in to begin with. Lots of talk about bravado on the high seas, most of it is plain BS. I don't believe any of us really plan to do an ocean passage on most boats anyway, so it's all talk. Long distance cruising generally requires a boat with a lot of fuel capacity and heavy duty construction along with good prudent marine engineering. I believe a better term for them rather than "bluewater" boats would be as many of them already use...Passagemaker. Get real guys how many of us would like to pleasure cruise the Bering Sea or the Grand Banks with any boat? As I said in an earlier post, bragging rights sells more unnecessary equipment than actual needs. If that were not the case, we would all be on Nordhavns which are way overkill for most of our needs.

Walt

[stormchaser]

That is my point, no reason to go out in 50 knot winds and 25' seas. Blow boaters and such can get caught in that stuff and there is not much they can do but there is little reason to get a modern recreational power boat in that kind of crap. We can make bluewater passage without risking life and limb. I like to listen to the stories of the old Navy salts and 25-50' seas rolling around the ocean but have little reason to try it myself.

I was talking to some blow boaters in Grand Cay last week, dang I just do not think I could lay around waiting on the wind to turn the right direction. I would be an alcoholic for sure :D

No, you don't CHOOSE to go out in it, but you can get CAUGHT out in it on a long passage. Like I said, if you are willing to time the weather and hope you don't get surprised, any boat can be a blue water boat...but keep in mind that high seas forecasts are sometimes off by several Beaufort scale numbers...you expect the worst to be 25 knot winds and 10 foot seas, not a big deal for most boats...you get 50+ knots and 25+ foot seas an 10' visibility...that IS a big deal to most boats...being in the right boat means the difference between simply being uncomfortable versus having to call the CG for a rescue and putting not only your life at risk, but the lives of all involved in the rescue.

[Brian Degulis]

Blue water for me means there is no way to get acurate weather info for the duration you will be out. So your hundreds or maybe even a thousand miles from harbor of safe refuge you have to be on a boat designed to survive conditions that are expected at sea and very few are.

My origanal point was simply that boats labeled LRC's including Hats are more about range and apearance. Aside from that they don't do much that a Hat C can't do and probably do with more safty and comfort than the so called blue water boats.

Brian

[stormchaser]

Blue water for me means there is no way to get acurate weather info for the duration you will be out. So your hundreds or maybe even a thousand miles from harbor of safe refuge you have to be on a boat designed to survive conditions that are expected at sea and very few are.

My origanal point was simply that boats labeled LRC's including Hats are more about range and apearance. Aside from that they don't do much that a Hat C can't do and probably do with more safty and comfort than the so called blue water boats.

Brian

Absolutely true...and VERY few "trawlers" are really meant for that and certainly Hats were never intended for that. And that was my point too. :) I totally agree with whoever said Grand Banks isn't a real trawler and is unimpressive. If caught in a blow out at sea, I doubt it would do any better than my Hatt.

[sgharford]

Quote :
"Nope. It needs real doors with seals and dogs. I'm not all that familiar with the LRC, which is why said with the POSSIBLE exception of the LRC...guess maybe Hatt doesn't make ANY truly offshore blue water capable boats (like a Nordhavn)."


What are "dogs"?

[stormchaser]

individual fasteners that put pressure on the hatch to maintain the seal with the hatch coaming.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/dogHatch.jpg

[Walter P]

Dave, It was me that made the reference to GB boats. I had chartered them in the past and was very un-impressed with engineering/construction/layout. Not only are they not real trawlers, they certainly are IMO not even close to Hatteras in quality or design. The use of space was horrible, you keep bumping into everything. Maybe if I was closer to normal size I would feel different (I'm 6'6" and weigh 260 lbs) but I seem to fit the Hatts pretty well, both in design and everything else. We seem to agree with that.

The description of the boat that you built with the ctr diesel/elect and two wing engines sounds like a true Passagemaker/Bluewater cruiser. What we are arguing here is purely definitions relating to use. You have to ask yourself just what is there about your 53 that makes it unsuitable for the purpose for which it was designed. Now compare that to all other boats, including Nordy's and tell me what they will do for you given the purpose for which you bought it in the first place.

Walt

[stormchaser]

Oh, my Hat is moer than capable of what it was intended to do and what I intend to do with it. Coastal and near coastal cruising and living aboard full time... :D

[Walter P]

Dave, Exactly and a damn good job of it. Have fun........

Walt

[Brian Degulis]

Quote :
"Nope. It needs real doors with seals and dogs. I'm not all that familiar with the LRC, which is why said with the POSSIBLE exception of the LRC...guess maybe Hatt doesn't make ANY truly offshore blue water capable boats (like a Nordhavn)."


What are "dogs"?

Sorry It's just the child in me

Brian

[mobilemn1]

Now that's a dog,,,,,,I guess he could stand a 15 or 20 knot wind ok...LOL

Good show and tell

[nyrussell]

Okay, there are 3 boats out there besides the LRC's which definitely qualify! And I am surprised no one mentioned them. The Hatteras Motorsailers. Only 3 built most have gone around. One was for sale awhile back on yw too.

So A Hatt can go around under its own power!!!

Now, how can I put some rags on me vessel....

[stormchaser]

You mean the 65 Sail Yacht? Absolutely! Wonder how much they sell for? They certainly have an offshoer friendly interior..look at the proper handrails on the cieling...very nice...

http://www.hatterasowners.com/Brochures/65SY/65SYB-0083/img/65SYB-0083_4_1.jpg

[sgharford]

Thanks Dave for explanation, and Brian - I had it coming (Cute pic by the way).

[nyrussell]

yes I do. Too bad we had our Hatt by then LOL