Sam's is your source for Hatteras and Cabo Yacht parts.

Enter a part description OR part number to search the Hatteras/Cabo parts catalog:

Email Sam's or call 1-800-678-9230 to order parts.

fuel consumption 41c

  • Thread starter Thread starter johngalt
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 16
  • Views Views 4,412

johngalt

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
248
Status
  1. CAPTAIN
Hatteras Model
52' CONVERTIBLE (1983 - 1990)
Does anyone have any knowledge on the fuel consumption of 8v53's at varying rpms? My 41c usually burns about 24 gal per/hour at 2250 rpm for a cruise speed of 16 knots. My question is : what kind of savings can I get by cutting the cruise speed down to around 10 knots ? Any one have any experience in slower cruise speeds ? Thanks , Bruce
 
Closer to 8/hr at troll in the stream. I believe I got 8@7-8 Kts and 23 at 16 kts for comparison.

This should get me motivated to take a few trips and see.
 
Hey Bruce!

We will be trolling alot this season! 8gph @7-8kts gets you much further than 23gph @16kts on a gallon.
 
Hello Scott, is that 8 gal/per a number that you have experienced or just an estimate? How are you Nick? Looks like my trips will be more like sailing this season with diesel at or above 5.00 per/gal. Bruce
 
That was an estimate as I do not have flowscans. I ran out about 2 hours, trolled and drifted for a few more, Ran to 2 other spots between and ran 2 1/2 hours home. 168 galls total over a 13 hour period. No generator at the time.
 
My 41'tc with 8v53's gets just about the same numbers. 23/24gph @ 16 and a gallon a mile or a little better at hull speed. I do find that at the lower speeds she tends to wallow around quite a bit if there is any sea running compared to how she handles the same seas at higher cruising speeds. Everything has it's trade offs I guess.
Fred
 
My next trip is still a bit off as I have too much to do but I plan to run out about 30 miles than trool to the stream and then south on its edge. I will drift back in it and return home between trolling and the last 25 miles on plane.
 
Hey Bruce
I hear ya about sailboat speed. Pretty much all boats are most efficient at hull speed there is a simple calculation just don't remember it. For are boats its around 8 kts. Like posted above we will roll more at slow speeds then trawlers and sail boats so the best bet is go slow on those nice days. Chris goes nuts after a while if we are going slow so I just plan on doing parts of any trips slow to break it up. As for 10 kts you will be squatting around that speed and are better up getting it up on plane.
From trolling Offshore I know I burn a little over 3 gals@hr at 8 kts getting 2.5 miles per gal which is double the mileage then on plane. So If I can do 1/3 of my cruise at 8 kts It will cost the same as last year!!!! So know all I have to do is Slow down!!!!! This is not going to be easy ;)
 
I did a trip a couple of years ago and trolled along at 7-8kts off Montauk while waiting for a friend to get an at sea repair done. We had slight seas aft. I almost had a mutiny. Hope they don't remember it this year!

I think I'll do as Dan and break it up speed wise as soon as the "whining" (not wine drinking )starts!
 
Nice to hear from you Dan & Nick. I have never really varied my cruise speed unless it was because of rough weather conditions , however , if I want to do my usual cruising this year , I anticipate trying to economize on the fuel consumption. I do not care for sailing speed , but to get the most for my dollars I guess that I will give it a try. My big concern is the extra amounts of " ARE WE THERE YET " from the kids. I have to do something in order to still do the trveling that we are all accustomed to. Bruce
 
" ARE WE THERE YET " , my standard response in the car or on the boat is "10 minutes"
 
If i remember right, the formula for hull speed is sqaure root of LWL x 1.34 or something close to that.
 
If i remember right, the formula for hull speed is sqaure root of LWL x 1.34 or something close to that.[/QUOTE


I cant reach that 50 mph hull speed. Must be a problem with the props. Nor'easter could the decimal be in the wrong place?
 
No, I just checked it. Perhaps I worded it poorly.
1.34 x square root of LWL
Maybe you read LWL squared?
 
Or I read one thing and thought another.

My guess is the LWL is about 39 feet so that comes out to about 8.4.
 
Hull speed is indeed the square root of the waterline X 1.34. The trick is to calculate the actual power required to move the boat at hull speed. A very good book to give you some background on this is "Skene's Elements of Yacht Design" by Francis S. Kenny. He has offers a very good explination of how to calculate power needed to move a yacht at hull speed. Another book on yacht design by Dave Gerr also discusses this.

Power need is a function of hull shape, prop size, and some other element. On also allows for a reserve. There is great deal of difference between power needed in flat water and that needed if powering into a headsea or tide/ current.

You will be quite surprised to see how little power one needs to move a Hatt 53 at theroetical Hull speed which is about 9.4 knots. My guess is 250 HP would be more than adequate. Take a look at some of the old British Steel displacement yachts built in the 1960s. I was on board one that was 106 feet, powered by a pair of 200 HP engines and was only burning about 14 gallons per hour at 11 knots.

Dave Gerr has designed some interesting yachts with low resistance hulls that are easily driven. He presents one in his book that is around 15 feet in beam, 85 feet in overall length, and cruises at 12 knots with a 340HP engine.

I think if we really put our minds to it, a Hatt 53 could be repowered with a set of efficient smaller eingines that generate power at lower rpm and might really enhance the ability of owners to use the boats more efficiently at today's higher fuel prices.

Engines such as the John Deere / Lugger with the proper reduction gear and prop would be a good start.
 
Engines such as the John Deere / Lugger with the proper reduction gear and prop would be a good start.


Everytime this idea get brought up, it is hooted down with the refrain "it's cheaper/smarter to just de-rate and re-prop your existing equipment". They are probably right, but I would still like to see someone try the small/modern engine approach. Real-world numbers would be very helpful and might be surprising.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
38,154
Messages
448,708
Members
12,482
Latest member
UnaVida

Latest Posts

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom