Whaler as a Trawler - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Whaler as a Trawler

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Whaler as a Trawler

JOHN W MAYO posted 01-10-2009 01:36 AM ET (US)
Considering many factors, is it reasonable to operate a Bosotn Whaler boat with low power and excellent fuel efficiency as a trawler type vessel? I borrowed two 9.9-HP engines to test [this concept].
I took a 1976 Revenge 19, installed a 9.9-HP long shaft on it. The REVENGE 19 would go (as I recall) 8.6-MPH at wide open and 7.5-HP at three-quarter throttle. No large motor was installed. Testing was done in a lake.
I then installed another 9.9 as a twin. Speed was only 10.6-MPH with both motors at full throttle.
I understand hull displacement. Is this enough power to use in the ocean off North Carolina on a good day? Although this is less than 20-HP, the second engine seemed to increase the torque a lot and seemed like putting a truck in four wheel drive. A lot more power or gearing but no more speed.
I did get a lot funny looks from the guys with the 225 hp bass boat, but no comments. I just told them, "there was a fuel crunch." I am sure I burned less in couple of hours as they did in one short run.
A couple of boaters about broke their neck watching the Boston Whaler powering through their wake. Fuel consumption was minimal.
With the Whaler not getting on plane, but going along at a constant slow speed, would this not be acting and performing much as a trawler would do? Small engine, large fuel supply, slow speed, great fuel efficiency. The water line would be much less than most trawlers. This would easily give you good speed for trolling. It just would take awhile to get there and back to the fishing grounds. Would that be enough power to get you through the current?
number9 posted 01-10-2009 03:33 AM ET (US)
Depends upon the current's speed and how slow your comfortable with. Others may have better information on the Whaler's slow speed handling characteristics which may be encountered. Not having 500 lbs. hanging on the stern would seem to be a plus in many situations. It's not a displacement hull so you wouldn't get the full benefits of the under powering. Currently have a Yamaha High Thrust 50hp four stoke weighing under 250 lbs. on my 18' Outrage and easily stays on plane at less than half throttle.
BlueMax posted 01-10-2009 08:52 AM ET (US)
Hmmm... using a sail to catch the wind to propel your boat.... how "innovative". Why has man never thought of this before in the history of boating?
(although their sail looks more like a parachute or sport para-sail, but still).
Geez.
Jefecinco posted 01-10-2009 10:14 AM ET (US)
In a boat that is small, capsizeable, and has no cabin it is unwise to venture into the ocean without sufficient power to manage directional control when dealing with large swells.
Great morings often turn into dreadful afternoons.
Not me, thanks.
Butch
jimh posted 01-10-2009 10:52 AM ET (US)
Many boats operate in the ocean at speeds of less than 10-MPH. I do not see speed as the determining factor for being able to operate in the ocean.
Kingsteven18 posted 01-10-2009 11:18 AM ET (US)
It was my plan to do exactly that with a 25' Revenge that I was supposed to get until the SOB backed out. I have several Yamaha 9.9 4 Stroke High Thrusts to tinker with. I now have an old 21' Revenge that I might try it on as well as a 23' 'Brand X' WAC that I would like to find a mid-size Yamaha High Thrust or Mercury Bigfoot for. Anybody know of any?
http://s189.photobucket.com/albums/z84/kingsteven18/ 21%20Boston%20Whaler%20Revenge%20Project/
http://s189.photobucket.com/albums/z84/kingsteven18/23%20Neptune%20230/
filthypit posted 01-10-2009 12:49 PM ET (US)
we have a '72 Outrage (21ft/ that was being used to trawl shrimp in fla w/ a 200hp motor. my experience in the gulf, in large trawlers (+75ft) has been; they don't trawl w/ the throttle wide-open, so why use small-twin hp motors maxed out?
Kingsteven18 posted 01-10-2009 12:55 PM ET (US)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_trawler
This kind of trawler as opposed to a commercial fishing trawler, I assume.
crabby posted 01-10-2009 01:07 PM ET (US)
Have fun going thru an inlet against wind and tide, or maybe worse, against the tide _with_ the wind dealing with swells and breaking water.
Many boats that run at displacement speeds were designed to be displacement boats with heavy hulls, deep keels, rounded bilges, and plenty of power to move the rig. A light planing boat can be operated at displacement speeds but it was not designed to operate optimally under those conditions.
You may not need speed but you still need reserve power. If you want to know the answer to your question play in the bay with your setup and get _real_ comfortable with it before playing in the inlets or the ocean. Go out on windy days and mess around in the currents. Maybe carry a spare motor with you (like a third 9.9 or even a 20 hp) just in case you need the extra push to get back to safety.
Jefecinco posted 01-10-2009 06:44 PM ET (US)
Jim,
Speed is not the issue. Power to pull your boat through swells, breaking swells and strong current is the issue. Inlets provide particular challenges.
Trawlers generally have full and somewhat deep keels to maintain directional stability in dirty conditions. The keels are aften weighted to lower the trawler's COG and thus to help to avoid capsize. Some trawlers are self righting. Virtually all trawlers have cabins in which to take shelter in bad conditions. All have fully decked hulls to avoid taking on massive amounts of water which will break over the bow when conditions turn bad. A small Whaler full of water with only a few HP available in snotty conditions will be in great trouble.
A small open Whaler with insufficient power to push through dirty stuff and maintain directional stability should not be on the ocean. It's a given that the boat will broach, IMO.
However, not to say some intrepid soul should not prove me wrong.
Butch
JOHN W MAYO posted 01-11-2009 12:38 PM ET (US)
These are some great tips and idea's to look at. I am experimenting just in lakes at the moment, but will try the salt water latter.
I like the idea of the sail, "testing the use of giant kites as auxiliary power - a kind of hybrid wind/fossil-fuels system".
If I kept the main tank full, that would provide 40 gallons of weight, about 240 lbs, to help keep the center of gravity lower in the water.

Thanks for the ideas and input, keep it going.
JOHN W MAYO posted 01-11-2009 12:45 PM ET (US)
number9
That is good info on your Whaler, "Yamaha High Thrust 50hp four stoke weighing under 250 lbs. on my 18' Outrage and easily stays on plane at less than half throttle."
I did not think that small of motor would have that type of handling characteristic with an 18' Whaler.
What is the weight of your Whaler? about 1500 lbs?
pglein posted 01-11-2009 07:54 PM ET (US)
The amount of power has nothing to do with the how the boat will handle particular conditions. It's all about the speed. Generally, I've found that, as the conditions get worse, it is safer to reduce speed. Other than losing the ability to outrun weather, I see no reason that this would be any different than running around with a larger engine at low speed.
You can't compare a 19' open boat to a 40'+ trawler as far as how it will handle the weather. The 19' will handle the weather exactly the same with a 9.9hp engine at 7 knots, as it would with a 150hp engine at 7 knots. No one's saying it will handle it like a 40 trawler. The only difference is that you may be more likely to get caught out in that weather. The large reverse-chines, and unsinkable design will still be major benefits.
It's not like you're the first person to think of this. On the inland lakes, you'll see huge pontoon boats powered by tiny outboards all the time.
Another reasonable solution is to have boath. I, for one, use my Yamaha 9.9 four-stroke kicker whenever I'm running slow. It's quieter, cleaner, and more fuel efficient than my big 150hp Johnson two-stroke. And, with the cost of fuel last summer, I found myself cruising around at 5 knots on the kicker quite a bit.
JOHN W MAYO posted 01-11-2009 09:52 PM ET (US)
One reason I am looking at this is to see if it is feasibility to use a small motor or motors on the ocean safely and be able to maneuver in and out of the channels with the minimal speed that they produce effectively against the currents and wind, etc.
In lakes this seems to work fine.
I understand that sail boats do this, but they usually have a longer water line and center of gravity.
I agree that that it does not matter if you get the speed from a 9.9 or a 150 hp if the speed is the same of 7 or 8 kts.
The fuel consumption is almost nothing at 1/2 to 3/4 power with a 9.9.
The idea of have both a large 150 hp and a 9.9 is probably best, but would the smaller motor with the design of the
whaler get the job done, just slower?
Jefecinco posted 01-12-2009 09:56 AM ET (US)
John,
The Whaler hull is designed for sufficient power to operate on plane or to go slowly when that is desireable. But our wonderful boats are not designed to operate on oceans with little power in snotty conditions.
Sail boats on the other hand are designed to operate at low speed with minimal power. Those that are designed for use in the ocean are special designs with keels and very low CGs (relative to a Whaler) and slack bilges. They are also generally fully decked to keep water coming over the hull sides from entering the hull.
Your experiments are interesting. But if you want a small power boat to serve as a trawler an already proven concept is the conversion of a small sail boat into a power boat. A fully decked model with an enclosed cabin would be a good point of departure. If fishing is the foremost planned use of the small trawler an unsinkable small open sail boat could serve. Did not Whaler make such a boat for a few years? Was it a Squall(sp)? Was it foam filled and unsinkable?
There are also many small, open, slow, purpose built ocean going power boats suitable for use by experienced mariners at sea. The reason they are purpose built is that centuries of experience has shown us what hull types and shapes are up to the rigors of the sea.
Butch
Tohsgib posted 01-12-2009 12:05 PM ET (US)
A 9.9 will burn roughly a GPH at WOT. My 70 Suzuki 4 stroke would burn less than a quart an hour at 1000rpms which pushed my boat to about 6mph....are you really saving anything? My 115 Suzuki on my 19 revenge will burn less than a half gallon at an hour at 6mph...again are you really saving anything? 1000 rpm swinging a 22" prop is pretty equiv to a 9.9 running 4k swinging a 6" sail prop.
Tohsgib posted 01-12-2009 12:10 PM ET (US)
PS...I average less than 3gph per tank with my 115. Top end is 40, cruise is 25ish at 4000 or so rpm which I burn somewhere around 4.5gph at cruise. My 70 Suzuki on my Newtauk averaged less than 2gph per tank. Cruise and WOT were almost identical and cruise burned 2-2.5gph. My 40 Suzuki on 13 sport I don't have GPS numbers yet but I do know it averaged 0.5gph per tank. Sure running a 9.9 on my 13 might improve my mileage somewhat but how much would it really improve while sacrificing the fun factor of a 40hp when I want it?
andygere posted 01-13-2009 01:38 PM ET (US)
It seems to me that powering the boat with a moderate hp outboard, say 90 to 115, would be more prudent. You can choose to operate it at displacement speeds whenever you want to, but will have reserve power for climbing steep waves and overcoming wind and current when need be. I've used the 15 hp kicker on my Outrage 22 Cuddy to travel 8 miles back to the harbor when my big motor blew, but it was in pristine weather conditions. Had it been the typical 15-20 knot wind on top of 4-8 foot swell, things would have been a lot less pleasant. Also, after the first mile or so, it was really boring. To me, it's much more enjoyable to cruise along even at a slow plane, say 15-16 mph than slog at displacement speeds.
Also, consider that maneuvering in tight spaces like marinas is difficult with undersized (10-15 hp) motors. Planing hulls like our Whalers are more easily handled with quick burst of thrust which are hard to generate with tiny motors, even those with low pitch props. One of the most difficult situations I have dealt with was loading the Outrage on the trailer in a strong cross wind with a big swell running using only the 15 hp. The kicker just did not have the instant thrust needed to quickly correct for current, wind and wave. I vote no on this experiment. If slow speed, small engine cruising is what you enjoy, put a kicker on the transom next to the bigger motor, but have that big one when you need it.
HAPPYJIM posted 01-13-2009 02:46 PM ET (US)
Knowing what it is like going out of both Oregon and Hatteras Inlet, I would not feel safe trying it in a 19 foot Revenge with only 10 hp pushing me. Both of those inlets are hazardous enough with proper engines but I think it would be cheating death at best with minimum HP. Once through the inlets, 10 HP would be fine for putting around. As many times as I've been through Oregon Inlet, I'm still running with white knuckles until past that point where ocean meets sound water. Lakes would be an entirely different story.
Plotman posted 01-13-2009 03:38 PM ET (US)
If you do something like this, turn a large prop slowly (or a larger prop with very little pitch, not a little prop fast.
You can easily end up in a situation where the little prop will get overpowered. A little prop is going to show a ridiculous slip factor - you will lose a lot of efficiency that way.
WT posted 01-13-2009 04:45 PM ET (US)
If I purposely under power my Boston Whaler and my Whaler capsizes in the ocean due to lack of power, will my insurance company pay for any potential lawsuits/losses?
Just wondering,
Warren
JOHN W MAYO posted 01-13-2009 08:16 PM ET (US)
Some very good points made.
andygere,
You are probably correct about the moderate power, I was just looking at some options I have, with what I have access to.
HAPPYJIM,
I would not try Oregon Inlet,......I have seen it as calm as a lake but I am well aware of how deceiving that area can be and all the stories I have heard of it. I would not try Hatteras Inlet either, I have been out of there also, maybe possible Morehead.
Plotman,
Very good on the props. The ones that I have used were designed for the 9.9 long shaft, and for sail boats. I think you are very correct.
WT,
Thats a good question and I would have to look further into it, I know there is a max. hp, just never heard or thought there might be a minimum but it makes sense that there might be.
Good comments and thoughts from the forum members here.
Austin Whaler posted 01-13-2009 08:53 PM ET (US)
The minimum hp for that hull is 65 hp, but that was back in the 70's when the motors were power head rated. A modern high thrust 50 like JOHN W MOYO has should work it is a very efficient hull.
ChiTown Cetacean posted 01-13-2009 10:28 PM ET (US)
Austin is right. I've done the 50 HP thing on my '73 Outrage 19 (same hull as '76 Revenge) with a 2003 Johnson 50. The boat would plane after getting up a head of steam. But it was as exciting as watching paint dry. Replaced the 50 with a Johnson 150 Oceanrunner mounted on a jack plate and zoom, zoom...
17 bodega posted 01-14-2009 01:34 AM ET (US)
Interesting thread. I would come down in the neighborhood of andygere's assessment of 75-100 horsepower to make the boat safe. However, I like the idea of number9 having the 50 horse 4 stroke on a boat the size of the 18 outrage. Enough to get you on plane with half throttle would be safe with a good captain in most cases. I would love to see a picture of that boat! I would guess the revenge 19 to be lighter in weight than the outrage 18 if it was an older classic.
This inlet in Depoe Bay Oregon requires the captain to surge in quickly in rough weather. This video was taken in docile conditions in this hairy little passageway lined with deadly rocks.
[url]I would love to see a picture of that boat![/url]
17 bodega posted 01-14-2009 01:35 AM ET (US)
Uh, ahemmm, I mean this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWBlc-eRYoQ&feature=related
kglinz posted 01-14-2009 08:11 AM ET (US)
I've had breakfast in the restaurant on the side of the channel and watched several boats go through. I don't think I'd try it at low tide. They do have the greatest little harbor in the inside.
Mobjack posted 01-14-2009 11:13 AM ET (US)
For many of the reasons already stated, I concur that if you run that boat/power combo in the ocean off NC enough, you are going to get into trouble, possibly serious trouble, and possibly sooner rather than later....
Tohsgib posted 01-14-2009 12:11 PM ET (US)
From what has been said about the 1250lb rating of a 18 Outrage, the 19 Outrage is close in weight at 1500lbs. The revenge adds another 100. My father had a 1972 100hp on his revenge and she scooted pretty good considering that was about 85-90hp in todays ratings.
sternorama posted 01-14-2009 01:02 PM ET (US)
As center of gravity was mentioned, I'd like to point out the difference between having a full tank on the floor of your whaler vs. having a ballasted keel on a proper trawler or monohull sailboat.
Consider the relationship of the vessel's center of gravity with relation to its center of bouyancy. A typical whaler will have a center of gravity that is above the center of bouyancy. This is relatively unstable when compared to a ballasted boat with a center of gravity that is BELOW the center of bouyancy (with a tendancy to self-right). Think of the "weebles woble but they don't fall down" scenario.
And the situation for the whaler gets instantly much worse with decks awash.
JOHN W MAYO posted 01-14-2009 07:09 PM ET (US)
sternorama
Very good point taken bout the center of gravity that is above the center of buoyancy.
Also, I am not sure if the small 9.9 motors could pull from the center in hull fuel tank. I have heard of possible problems with the low fuel pressure, but I am not sure that would be a problem. Up till now, the engines were operated on small single tanks.
Anyone know if there is a problem operating a small 9.9 engine off the mail 40 gallon fuel tank?
filthypit posted 01-15-2009 11:11 AM ET (US)
be advised:
the inlet @ beaufort/morehead city is just as fun as hatteras and/or oregon inlets. hatteras is by & far the most hazardous, but the others aren't too far behind.
i've seen many shocking scenes going to/from ocracoke re: ppl in inappropriate vessels. but you won't need to leave the sound if you're trawling. and i believe the trawling grounds in the vicinity of cedar island are preferred by the local guys. it can get real scary, real quick in the open waters of the sound(s).
good luck!

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Whaler as a Trawler
JOHN W MAYO	posted 01-10-2009 01:36 AM ET (US) Considering many factors, is it reasonable to operate a Bosotn Whaler boat with low power and excellent fuel efficiency as a trawler type vessel? I borrowed two 9.9-HP engines to test [this concept]. I took a 1976 Revenge 19, installed a 9.9-HP long shaft on it. The REVENGE 19 would go (as I recall) 8.6-MPH at wide open and 7.5-HP at three-quarter throttle. No large motor was installed. Testing was done in a lake. I then installed another 9.9 as a twin. Speed was only 10.6-MPH with both motors at full throttle. I understand hull displacement. Is this enough power to use in the ocean off North Carolina on a good day? Although this is less than 20-HP, the second engine seemed to increase the torque a lot and seemed like putting a truck in four wheel drive. A lot more power or gearing but no more speed. I did get a lot funny looks from the guys with the 225 hp bass boat, but no comments. I just told them, "there was a fuel crunch." I am sure I burned less in couple of hours as they did in one short run. A couple of boaters about broke their neck watching the Boston Whaler powering through their wake. Fuel consumption was minimal. With the Whaler not getting on plane, but going along at a constant slow speed, would this not be acting and performing much as a trawler would do? Small engine, large fuel supply, slow speed, great fuel efficiency. The water line would be much less than most trawlers. This would easily give you good speed for trolling. It just would take awhile to get there and back to the fishing grounds. Would that be enough power to get you through the current?
number9	posted 01-10-2009 03:33 AM ET (US) Depends upon the current's speed and how slow your comfortable with. Others may have better information on the Whaler's slow speed handling characteristics which may be encountered. Not having 500 lbs. hanging on the stern would seem to be a plus in many situations. It's not a displacement hull so you wouldn't get the full benefits of the under powering. Currently have a Yamaha High Thrust 50hp four stoke weighing under 250 lbs. on my 18' Outrage and easily stays on plane at less than half throttle.
BlueMax	posted 01-10-2009 08:52 AM ET (US) Hmmm... using a sail to catch the wind to propel your boat.... how "innovative". Why has man never thought of this before in the history of boating? (although their sail looks more like a parachute or sport para-sail, but still). Geez.
Jefecinco	posted 01-10-2009 10:14 AM ET (US) In a boat that is small, capsizeable, and has no cabin it is unwise to venture into the ocean without sufficient power to manage directional control when dealing with large swells. Great morings often turn into dreadful afternoons. Not me, thanks. Butch
jimh	posted 01-10-2009 10:52 AM ET (US) Many boats operate in the ocean at speeds of less than 10-MPH. I do not see speed as the determining factor for being able to operate in the ocean.
Kingsteven18	posted 01-10-2009 11:18 AM ET (US) It was my plan to do exactly that with a 25' Revenge that I was supposed to get until the SOB backed out. I have several Yamaha 9.9 4 Stroke High Thrusts to tinker with. I now have an old 21' Revenge that I might try it on as well as a 23' 'Brand X' WAC that I would like to find a mid-size Yamaha High Thrust or Mercury Bigfoot for. Anybody know of any? http://s189.photobucket.com/albums/z84/kingsteven18/ 21%20Boston%20Whaler%20Revenge%20Project/ http://s189.photobucket.com/albums/z84/kingsteven18/23%20Neptune%20230/
filthypit	posted 01-10-2009 12:49 PM ET (US) we have a '72 Outrage (21ft/ that was being used to trawl shrimp in fla w/ a 200hp motor. my experience in the gulf, in large trawlers (+75ft) has been; they don't trawl w/ the throttle wide-open, so why use small-twin hp motors maxed out?
Kingsteven18	posted 01-10-2009 12:55 PM ET (US) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_trawler This kind of trawler as opposed to a commercial fishing trawler, I assume.
crabby	posted 01-10-2009 01:07 PM ET (US) Have fun going thru an inlet against wind and tide, or maybe worse, against the tide _with_ the wind dealing with swells and breaking water. Many boats that run at displacement speeds were designed to be displacement boats with heavy hulls, deep keels, rounded bilges, and plenty of power to move the rig. A light planing boat can be operated at displacement speeds but it was not designed to operate optimally under those conditions. You may not need speed but you still need reserve power. If you want to know the answer to your question play in the bay with your setup and get _real_ comfortable with it before playing in the inlets or the ocean. Go out on windy days and mess around in the currents. Maybe carry a spare motor with you (like a third 9.9 or even a 20 hp) just in case you need the extra push to get back to safety.
Jefecinco	posted 01-10-2009 06:44 PM ET (US) Jim, Speed is not the issue. Power to pull your boat through swells, breaking swells and strong current is the issue. Inlets provide particular challenges. Trawlers generally have full and somewhat deep keels to maintain directional stability in dirty conditions. The keels are aften weighted to lower the trawler's COG and thus to help to avoid capsize. Some trawlers are self righting. Virtually all trawlers have cabins in which to take shelter in bad conditions. All have fully decked hulls to avoid taking on massive amounts of water which will break over the bow when conditions turn bad. A small Whaler full of water with only a few HP available in snotty conditions will be in great trouble. A small open Whaler with insufficient power to push through dirty stuff and maintain directional stability should not be on the ocean. It's a given that the boat will broach, IMO. However, not to say some intrepid soul should not prove me wrong. Butch
JOHN W MAYO	posted 01-11-2009 12:38 PM ET (US) These are some great tips and idea's to look at. I am experimenting just in lakes at the moment, but will try the salt water latter. I like the idea of the sail, "testing the use of giant kites as auxiliary power - a kind of hybrid wind/fossil-fuels system". If I kept the main tank full, that would provide 40 gallons of weight, about 240 lbs, to help keep the center of gravity lower in the water. Thanks for the ideas and input, keep it going.
JOHN W MAYO	posted 01-11-2009 12:45 PM ET (US) number9 That is good info on your Whaler, "Yamaha High Thrust 50hp four stoke weighing under 250 lbs. on my 18' Outrage and easily stays on plane at less than half throttle." I did not think that small of motor would have that type of handling characteristic with an 18' Whaler. What is the weight of your Whaler? about 1500 lbs?
pglein	posted 01-11-2009 07:54 PM ET (US) The amount of power has nothing to do with the how the boat will handle particular conditions. It's all about the speed. Generally, I've found that, as the conditions get worse, it is safer to reduce speed. Other than losing the ability to outrun weather, I see no reason that this would be any different than running around with a larger engine at low speed. You can't compare a 19' open boat to a 40'+ trawler as far as how it will handle the weather. The 19' will handle the weather exactly the same with a 9.9hp engine at 7 knots, as it would with a 150hp engine at 7 knots. No one's saying it will handle it like a 40 trawler. The only difference is that you may be more likely to get caught out in that weather. The large reverse-chines, and unsinkable design will still be major benefits. It's not like you're the first person to think of this. On the inland lakes, you'll see huge pontoon boats powered by tiny outboards all the time. Another reasonable solution is to have boath. I, for one, use my Yamaha 9.9 four-stroke kicker whenever I'm running slow. It's quieter, cleaner, and more fuel efficient than my big 150hp Johnson two-stroke. And, with the cost of fuel last summer, I found myself cruising around at 5 knots on the kicker quite a bit.
JOHN W MAYO	posted 01-11-2009 09:52 PM ET (US) One reason I am looking at this is to see if it is feasibility to use a small motor or motors on the ocean safely and be able to maneuver in and out of the channels with the minimal speed that they produce effectively against the currents and wind, etc. In lakes this seems to work fine. I understand that sail boats do this, but they usually have a longer water line and center of gravity. I agree that that it does not matter if you get the speed from a 9.9 or a 150 hp if the speed is the same of 7 or 8 kts. The fuel consumption is almost nothing at 1/2 to 3/4 power with a 9.9. The idea of have both a large 150 hp and a 9.9 is probably best, but would the smaller motor with the design of the whaler get the job done, just slower?
Jefecinco	posted 01-12-2009 09:56 AM ET (US) John, The Whaler hull is designed for sufficient power to operate on plane or to go slowly when that is desireable. But our wonderful boats are not designed to operate on oceans with little power in snotty conditions. Sail boats on the other hand are designed to operate at low speed with minimal power. Those that are designed for use in the ocean are special designs with keels and very low CGs (relative to a Whaler) and slack bilges. They are also generally fully decked to keep water coming over the hull sides from entering the hull. Your experiments are interesting. But if you want a small power boat to serve as a trawler an already proven concept is the conversion of a small sail boat into a power boat. A fully decked model with an enclosed cabin would be a good point of departure. If fishing is the foremost planned use of the small trawler an unsinkable small open sail boat could serve. Did not Whaler make such a boat for a few years? Was it a Squall(sp)? Was it foam filled and unsinkable? There are also many small, open, slow, purpose built ocean going power boats suitable for use by experienced mariners at sea. The reason they are purpose built is that centuries of experience has shown us what hull types and shapes are up to the rigors of the sea. Butch
Tohsgib	posted 01-12-2009 12:05 PM ET (US) A 9.9 will burn roughly a GPH at WOT. My 70 Suzuki 4 stroke would burn less than a quart an hour at 1000rpms which pushed my boat to about 6mph....are you really saving anything? My 115 Suzuki on my 19 revenge will burn less than a half gallon at an hour at 6mph...again are you really saving anything? 1000 rpm swinging a 22" prop is pretty equiv to a 9.9 running 4k swinging a 6" sail prop.
Tohsgib	posted 01-12-2009 12:10 PM ET (US) PS...I average less than 3gph per tank with my 115. Top end is 40, cruise is 25ish at 4000 or so rpm which I burn somewhere around 4.5gph at cruise. My 70 Suzuki on my Newtauk averaged less than 2gph per tank. Cruise and WOT were almost identical and cruise burned 2-2.5gph. My 40 Suzuki on 13 sport I don't have GPS numbers yet but I do know it averaged 0.5gph per tank. Sure running a 9.9 on my 13 might improve my mileage somewhat but how much would it really improve while sacrificing the fun factor of a 40hp when I want it?
andygere	posted 01-13-2009 01:38 PM ET (US) It seems to me that powering the boat with a moderate hp outboard, say 90 to 115, would be more prudent. You can choose to operate it at displacement speeds whenever you want to, but will have reserve power for climbing steep waves and overcoming wind and current when need be. I've used the 15 hp kicker on my Outrage 22 Cuddy to travel 8 miles back to the harbor when my big motor blew, but it was in pristine weather conditions. Had it been the typical 15-20 knot wind on top of 4-8 foot swell, things would have been a lot less pleasant. Also, after the first mile or so, it was really boring. To me, it's much more enjoyable to cruise along even at a slow plane, say 15-16 mph than slog at displacement speeds. Also, consider that maneuvering in tight spaces like marinas is difficult with undersized (10-15 hp) motors. Planing hulls like our Whalers are more easily handled with quick burst of thrust which are hard to generate with tiny motors, even those with low pitch props. One of the most difficult situations I have dealt with was loading the Outrage on the trailer in a strong cross wind with a big swell running using only the 15 hp. The kicker just did not have the instant thrust needed to quickly correct for current, wind and wave. I vote no on this experiment. If slow speed, small engine cruising is what you enjoy, put a kicker on the transom next to the bigger motor, but have that big one when you need it.
HAPPYJIM	posted 01-13-2009 02:46 PM ET (US) Knowing what it is like going out of both Oregon and Hatteras Inlet, I would not feel safe trying it in a 19 foot Revenge with only 10 hp pushing me. Both of those inlets are hazardous enough with proper engines but I think it would be cheating death at best with minimum HP. Once through the inlets, 10 HP would be fine for putting around. As many times as I've been through Oregon Inlet, I'm still running with white knuckles until past that point where ocean meets sound water. Lakes would be an entirely different story.
Plotman	posted 01-13-2009 03:38 PM ET (US) If you do something like this, turn a large prop slowly (or a larger prop with very little pitch, not a little prop fast. You can easily end up in a situation where the little prop will get overpowered. A little prop is going to show a ridiculous slip factor - you will lose a lot of efficiency that way.
WT	posted 01-13-2009 04:45 PM ET (US) If I purposely under power my Boston Whaler and my Whaler capsizes in the ocean due to lack of power, will my insurance company pay for any potential lawsuits/losses? Just wondering, Warren
JOHN W MAYO	posted 01-13-2009 08:16 PM ET (US) Some very good points made. andygere, You are probably correct about the moderate power, I was just looking at some options I have, with what I have access to. HAPPYJIM, I would not try Oregon Inlet,......I have seen it as calm as a lake but I am well aware of how deceiving that area can be and all the stories I have heard of it. I would not try Hatteras Inlet either, I have been out of there also, maybe possible Morehead. Plotman, Very good on the props. The ones that I have used were designed for the 9.9 long shaft, and for sail boats. I think you are very correct. WT, Thats a good question and I would have to look further into it, I know there is a max. hp, just never heard or thought there might be a minimum but it makes sense that there might be. Good comments and thoughts from the forum members here.
Austin Whaler	posted 01-13-2009 08:53 PM ET (US) The minimum hp for that hull is 65 hp, but that was back in the 70's when the motors were power head rated. A modern high thrust 50 like JOHN W MOYO has should work it is a very efficient hull.
ChiTown Cetacean	posted 01-13-2009 10:28 PM ET (US) Austin is right. I've done the 50 HP thing on my '73 Outrage 19 (same hull as '76 Revenge) with a 2003 Johnson 50. The boat would plane after getting up a head of steam. But it was as exciting as watching paint dry. Replaced the 50 with a Johnson 150 Oceanrunner mounted on a jack plate and zoom, zoom...
17 bodega	posted 01-14-2009 01:34 AM ET (US) Interesting thread. I would come down in the neighborhood of andygere's assessment of 75-100 horsepower to make the boat safe. However, I like the idea of number9 having the 50 horse 4 stroke on a boat the size of the 18 outrage. Enough to get you on plane with half throttle would be safe with a good captain in most cases. I would love to see a picture of that boat! I would guess the revenge 19 to be lighter in weight than the outrage 18 if it was an older classic. This inlet in Depoe Bay Oregon requires the captain to surge in quickly in rough weather. This video was taken in docile conditions in this hairy little passageway lined with deadly rocks. [url]I would love to see a picture of that boat![/url]
17 bodega	posted 01-14-2009 01:35 AM ET (US) Uh, ahemmm, I mean this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWBlc-eRYoQ&feature=related
kglinz	posted 01-14-2009 08:11 AM ET (US) I've had breakfast in the restaurant on the side of the channel and watched several boats go through. I don't think I'd try it at low tide. They do have the greatest little harbor in the inside.
Mobjack	posted 01-14-2009 11:13 AM ET (US) For many of the reasons already stated, I concur that if you run that boat/power combo in the ocean off NC enough, you are going to get into trouble, possibly serious trouble, and possibly sooner rather than later....
Tohsgib	posted 01-14-2009 12:11 PM ET (US) From what has been said about the 1250lb rating of a 18 Outrage, the 19 Outrage is close in weight at 1500lbs. The revenge adds another 100. My father had a 1972 100hp on his revenge and she scooted pretty good considering that was about 85-90hp in todays ratings.
sternorama	posted 01-14-2009 01:02 PM ET (US) As center of gravity was mentioned, I'd like to point out the difference between having a full tank on the floor of your whaler vs. having a ballasted keel on a proper trawler or monohull sailboat. Consider the relationship of the vessel's center of gravity with relation to its center of bouyancy. A typical whaler will have a center of gravity that is above the center of bouyancy. This is relatively unstable when compared to a ballasted boat with a center of gravity that is BELOW the center of bouyancy (with a tendancy to self-right). Think of the "weebles woble but they don't fall down" scenario. And the situation for the whaler gets instantly much worse with decks awash.
JOHN W MAYO	posted 01-14-2009 07:09 PM ET (US) sternorama Very good point taken bout the center of gravity that is above the center of buoyancy. Also, I am not sure if the small 9.9 motors could pull from the center in hull fuel tank. I have heard of possible problems with the low fuel pressure, but I am not sure that would be a problem. Up till now, the engines were operated on small single tanks. Anyone know if there is a problem operating a small 9.9 engine off the mail 40 gallon fuel tank?
filthypit	posted 01-15-2009 11:11 AM ET (US) be advised: the inlet @ beaufort/morehead city is just as fun as hatteras and/or oregon inlets. hatteras is by & far the most hazardous, but the others aren't too far behind. i've seen many shocking scenes going to/from ocracoke re: ppl in inappropriate vessels. but you won't need to leave the sound if you're trawling. and i believe the trawling grounds in the vicinity of cedar island are preferred by the local guys. it can get real scary, real quick in the open waters of the sound(s). good luck!