New 41 Footer launched in SF

[Poly]

Originally Posted by quaoar

Why bother if his comparison on fuel consumption is sky high compared to what I'm experiencing. It was he who asked for some numbers, which for me implies that he actually believed there to be some similiarities with the numbers he presented. *shrug*

Because if you had bothered you would see that Alan has indeed owned several diesel inboard powered craft used for seriously long trips. Whilst I am sure there are various reasons for that choice fuel efficiency is probably one of the factors. The factors affecting the choice don't seem to have changed since his latest project is also diesel powered.

My point was that there is a usage for inboard diesel engines, because they are cheap compared to petrol outboards when it comes to paying for fuel.

Yes, although compared to total cost of ownership (including the original purchase price/depreciation) the difference may not be so compelling. The compelling reason to me is dockside availability of fuel - and therefore versatility in where you go.

I might be misinterpretting what Alan was questioning - but I think it was possibly this claim...

No outboard in existance today, will match my Goldfish with diesel engine at fuel consumption at cruising speed.

You are claiming 1L/NM fuel economy - which is actually what almost everyone on here claims as their cruising consumption regardless of the engine type.

[Alan Priddy]

Originally Posted by John Kennett

But he's used diesel RIBs and not outboards for all his major jaunts.

Al, are you confusing the 50 gallons an hour that the Beast drinks with 50 litres an hour for a diesel RIB? Just asking

JK, I am old but not daft. I just have a problem with the figures that are being put about. I am guessing that the fuel burn per mile per hour is not based on a loaded boat. I accept that if the craft is kept light then it may use the figures posted but I would be interested to know the actual fuel burn with a full load so these boats can go 400 miles with out fueling + kit and crew. I think their figures may well alter. Glad to see you finaly got to use a Redbay 11. I have just had two days being beat up in Cushendall myself Alan P

[Bigmuz7]

Originally Posted by Alan Priddy

Glad to see you finaly got to use a Redbay 11. I have just had two days being beat up in Cushendall myself Alan P

Was that because you told willk that even after a nice cream tea, some whisky and a bit of training in one ,.. you still werent buying one ?

[Alan Priddy]

Never say never! I might buy one for a tender to the new boat Alan P

[Robbie Diesel]

quaroar, what type of out-drive/propellers are fitted on your goldfish? The numbers are VERY impressive! Diesels for sure have a place, and are easy 1/3rd more fuel efficient, not no mention the price diff in the fuel. The drives seem to be the weak point tho.... The way petrol prices are going diesel certainly appeals more & more to me..

[joakimhansson]

Back to the Protector.

may not be as effective to mount the engines as far apart????

[willk]

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

Was that because you told willk that even after a nice cream tea, some whisky and a bit of training in one ,.. you still werent buying one ?

Sign!





Nah, I'm not allowed to meet the REALLY IMPORTANT guests!

[PhatFrank]

Just thought I'd add that we did not have a single issue with our Goldfish 29 (w/DMAX) in RB08, and we averaged 1.1 liters of diesel per nm over the entire race. I reckon you understand that this was not at cruising speed

For comparison, I raced a Goldfish 36 with twin DMAXes here this summer over a 75 nm course (with quite rough conditions for most parts of the distance), and we averaged just below 2 liters per nm at a 65 knot average.

[skisailralph]

In response to #26, we have mounted some together but the fuel efficiency remained quite similar. We feel the usefulness of the swim platform was better to have at the end of the day. It is rare to get that kind of access to the water with outboards.

Cheers,

[joakimhansson]

Originally Posted by skisailralph

In response to #26, we have mounted some together but the fuel efficiency remained quite similar. We feel the usefulness of the swim platform was better to have at the end of the day. It is rare to get that kind of access to the water with outboards.

Cheers,

Thx, any difference in topspeed?

[skisailralph]

No, top speed on both was about 48 MPH. There is about a foot wide flat "shoe" that runs 12 or so feet forward on the bottom. So the boat rides on that in calm seas. The hull is over 1 1/2" of solid glass.

Ralph