Similar Ships to LRC 58

[ChristineKling]

Can you guys give me the names of any motor vessels built in the past similar to the LRC 58's priorities of efficiency low maintenance and safety?

As you have learned here, there really aren't very many vessels of this type that have been built as Dashew came the closest to any kind of production, and even he had very few takers. His later 70 and 78-footers went mostly to people who had owned earlier boats of his. Another boat that I have always admired is this one designed by Dave Gerr: https://gerrmarine.com/IMAGINE.html The profile looks different, but the principles were similar.

We have been living on MÖBIUS, also designed by Dennis Harjamaa of Artnautica, for about 9 months now, and though we have not done very much traveling, she is quite tender compared to the many different sailboats I've lived on. Granted at the moment, we are not anywhere close to fully loaded with fuel which will change things a bit. I have also been aboard BROADSWORD, LRC58 hull #2, as well as Dennis's own boat KOTI, and that design was similarly tender. Neither Wayne nor I get seasick, and we don't mind the motion, but that might be something for you to consider. These boats have been designed like the FPB's to be self righting. Regular trawlers are designed with a great deal of initial stability, therefore they resist rolling initially, but the cost is that when they reach a certain point, they will not return upright. To design a boat that will be self-righting, you give up some initial stability. Physics says you can't have both. Long narrow boats designed to be more efficient are going to roll more. We have chosen to go with passive stabilization in part because that gives us the gear to hang flopper stoppers while at anchor.

Good luck with your search.

 

[long-cours.62]

What is

As you have learned here, there really aren't

Good luck with your search.

the roll period of your boat ?
If at "full speed" ( say 11 kts) if you put the wheel full in one side how many degree of heel you reach during this short turn ?
sorry for my "English" :-(

 

[North Baltic sea]

The boat is my design -- more information at Michael Porter, Marine Design. She was built by Lyman-Morse to the stage where she was driveable, then I finished off the interior.

Hi,

Thanks for sharing a really interesting site about your boat and trips, pictures and story. It is nice to read stories about sea subjects for real sailors, when here we have the sea is covered in ice.

NBs

 

[DaveGibson]

I can't answer your question, but I would like to add this. Look for a boat with stabilizers. My Cheoy Lee 46 LRC had them and they were great. I actually took wakes, such as from large speeding sportfisherman, on the beam instead of quartering because the boat would not rock side to side but merely bob up and down.

Mine were made by Niad.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N2d83Iblj1g/UTqMAjDLVnI/AAAAAAAAI18/hceayIS10uU/s1600/20100307+037.jpg

 

[Whodgins]

the roll period of your boat ?
If at "full speed" ( say 11 kts) if you put the wheel full in one side how many degree of heel you reach during this short turn ?
sorry for my "English" :-(

With all the other boat projects I have on the go I’m not getting much time to keep up with things over here on the TF the past few months but Christine brought this discussion and questions to my attention so I have read over this thread just now and will do my best to answer as best I can.

Re the question that Perriot / long-cours.62 asks about the roll period of our boat Möbius, unfortunately all my time is being consumed with other boat jobs so I have not yet had the time and opportunity to do a proper set of real world roll/stability tests and we are still very lightly loaded with liquids with less than 1500 of the 15,000 L of fuel and just enough water for daily liveaboard life right now. However I'm happy to provide you with the data we do have from the computer simulated testing of the fully detailed model using Orca3D and other plug-ins in Rhino.

During the design of XPM78-01 Möbius, Dennis and I found that Dave Gerr's work on stability of powerboat hulls was the most useful and real world based and matched up best with our mutual experiences. For reference and more details, you can refer to one of Dave's papers “Basic Criteria for Powerboat Stability” HERE. https://www.gerrmarine.com/Articles/PowerboatStability.pdf It was published in 2007 but is still an “oldie but a goodie” IMO.

We used these guidelines to adjust the design of the hull and placement of all the equipment, tanks, etc. to optimize the roll period for best safety and comfort. As per the details you can read in Gerr’s paper, optimal roll in this context is defined as being between 1.0 to 1.1 times the boat’s beam overall (in meters). Thus with our overall Beam being 5.1m we agreed that the “Goldilocks” roll time for Möbius should be between 5.1 and 5.3 seconds which would put us in what we think is the sweet spot of safety & comfort, of 1.0 to 1.04 x Beam. As we built the 3D model, we spent a LOT of time putting in the weights and the XYZ location of every possible bit of kit, equipment, stores, wiring, plumbing, right on through personal gear and clothing, dishes, provisions and so on, such that we could end up with a 3D model that was as close as possible to what the real world finished boat would be and give us the best results in the stability calculations on this model. In the interest of safety and given that it is relatively easy to raise (slow) the roll period and very difficult to lower (increase) it once the boat is in the water, I had Dennis purposely design Möbius to have just a bit less than 1.0 times Beam so that I could fine tune this once the actual boat was built and we had the actual boat and real world data to work with and adjust.

I should also note that because we carry a very large volume of fuel (15,000L) and water (7300L) the displacement varies between start and end of passage displacements and so we also needed to pay attention to these ranges as we designed for the optimal roll periods. We mitigate the variation in displacement by adding water from the large watermaker as the diesel fuel is consumed and we also have the ability to transfer fuel and water from tank to tank for best trim and comfort in different sea conditions.

Given the vagaries and my poor track record of estimating time it takes to complete boat jobs I’m not quite sure when I will get to conducting the actual tests and measurements of roll and other performance tests but I can assure you that I am extremely anxious to do so and will share all of this and publish on the Mobius.World blog as soon as I have it. Weather and sea conditions typically improve here in southern Turkey around March so I would hope to be able to do this testing then.

Hope this helps to provide you with at least some sense of the stability and roll characteristics of our boat and answers some of your questions and I will do my best to keep up with this thread and contribute anything more that would be of value.

Thanks, Wayne

 

[long-cours.62]

Thanks for your answer

5 to 5.5" it is a "slow" motion probably comfortable.
When I "discuss" with Dashew he don't want say exactly how much was the roll period only said below 4"
Our Lonc-Cours 62' at the beginning she was only...2", after years and more weight up she was around2.7" small change but with the "damping" of mast and "wing chine" (as wrote on another post) she become more comfortable and continue to do short turn at 11kts and stay "flat" on the water.
Our actual is around 3.5"

It will be very interesting to made a "shortest " turn at, say, 11 kts.

 

[Hippocampus]

Have wondered if it makes any sense to put both a gyro and fins on the long and thin boats. The fins possibly being the better option to have when on passage in large waves ( as being done with Hammerhead) and gyros the better to handle wind waves, chop and smaller stuff with short periods. My limited understanding is gyros will proceed to their stops then no longer work and not have as much benefit with sustained list such as a long period low acceleration big swell. Where as fins will continue to work and have even more effect at faster hull speeds. Hence, other than the weight penalty of a gyro given the different mechanism of actions get a benefit that speaks to the strength of each. Of course recent fin design is said to work at rest but suspect gyros are the most effective option abet at a energy penalty compared to dedicated flopperstoppers. Still you pay back that penalty using fish when underway.
Could you please explain why you went with fish instead of Magnus, fish or fins?

 

[CruiserhHeart]

That’s a very cool design to be sure. Not exactly fast, but 168nm a day isn’t bad at 1.5 gallons an hour. With today’s engines it would probably be less. Our Yanmar 55 runs about a gallon an hour at 2,200rpm.

Thank you for sharing- it’s another custom one-off, but I will keep eyes and ears open.

I have not seen any mention of "Idlewild". She is 55', 30,000# displacement, 1000 gallons of fuel, gave 5,000 mile range. 11' beam draft of 42", 1.3 gallon an hour at 6.5 knots, (7.5 mph). http://https://georgebuehler.com/55-idelwild/. She did a successful circumnavigation from West to East in 329 days.

Here is a history of the shakedown and voyage, including trucking to Alberta and down the Peace River to the Arctic Ocean, Bering sea and NorthWest Passage, and around. http://http://northwestpassage2014.blogspot.com/2014/06/i-remember-mv-idlewild-2005nwp-on.html. There is a book available on the entire voyage. That information used to be on the Internet, but I. believe it has been taken down.

There was another similar boat, which was narrower beam, and used a single Westerbeke 4 108. Also aluminum construction. She was trailered to Pensacola where she was launched. Then went up the East Coast, and crossed to Sweden. There was a second 4-108 sitting in its crate as a "back up" engine. The owner claimed 6 miles per gallon at 6 knots.

I agree with those who feel that in order to resolve your wife's sea sickness issues you probably will need gyro stabilization. My observation is the type of hull may be a major factor in the susceptibility to Mal de Mar. Some are affected by a snappy motion, others by a slow roll.

 

[Simi 60]

That’s a very cool design to be sure. Not exactly fast, but 168nm a day isn’t bad at 1.5 gallons an hour. With today’s engines it would probably be less. Our Yanmar 55 runs about a gallon an hour at 2,200rpm.

Thank you for sharing- it’s another custom one-off, but I will keep eyes and ears open.

Hulls on Idlewild are so skinny you could almost weld 2 together and call it a cat

 

[Large Marge]

That Steadysailer motorsailor is so interesting...

https://www.chuckpaine.com/pdf/58STEADYSAILER58.pdf

.
Years ago, we toured Ed Joy's RANGER 58 in a yard.
With the central engine, the interior is a bizarrely-cramped labyrinth.
Although we did not start the engine while the boat was on stands, we could easily imagine no escape from the drone.

 

[cardude01]

.

Years ago, we toured Ed Joy's RANGER 58 in a yard.

With the central engine, the interior is a bizarrely-cramped labyrinth.

Although we did not start the engine while the boat was on stands, we could easily imagine no escape from the drone.

Is the engine not down in an engine room?I don’t understand.

 

[rslifkin]

Is the engine not down in an engine room?I don’t understand.

I'm betting on sailboat type engine box to avoid having to raise a portion of the interior above engine height.

 

[cardude01]

I'm betting on sailboat type engine box to avoid having to raise a portion of the interior above engine height.

Ahh yeah, that makes sense. The boat has a pretty shallow draft at 4.5’ or so, and much of that is the keel, so prob not room for an engine room.

That being said, I don’t think I would mind an engine setup like that if the “box” around the the engine could be fully removed for good access to everything. My current boat has an engine compartment kind of like that, but the box is not removable so access is not very good. My engine is noisy above 2k rpm, but I have mitigated that somewhat with heavy Soundown insulation, and I try to run it under 2k when possible. After awhile I get accustomed to the noise on long passages.

 

[Mako]

My engine is noisy above 2k rpm, but I have mitigated that somewhat with heavy Soundown insulation, and I try to run it under 2k when possible. After awhile I get accustomed to the noise on long passages.

I’d be curious to know how many db’s you are reading.

On a previous boat with Jimmies I found myself suffering from noise fatigue on weeklong trips. I couldn’t understand how the previous owner cross the Pacific like that.

My present boat reads 58db at the helm at cruise and I have to wear ear plugs.

 

[cardude01]

I did some DB readings years ago but can’t remember what they were. Here’s a video inside the PH underway. Not sure of the RPM, but this was before I installed the mast and sail rig, so probably about 2000-2200. After installing the mast and with the sails up I started to pull the rpm back to 1800 or so, and if enough wind the speed is about the same.

https://youtu.be/i0W8voGm9yQ

 

[Mako]

That’s a nice and civilized noise level. I would guess about 50db

 

[DDW]

On the Ranger 58 isn't the engine down in the keel? That's what the referenced article suggests - it has huge keel volume. Would keep it out of the way, but would not make access very good.

 

[CruiserhHeart]

I did some DB readings years ago but can’t remember what they were. Here’s a video inside the PH underway. Not sure of the RPM, but this was before I installed the mast and sail rig, so probably about 2000-2200. After installing the mast and with the sails up I started to pull the rpm back to 1800 or so, and if enough wind the speed is about the same.

https://youtu.be/i0W8voGm9yQ

All I heard was music..

 

[CruiserhHeart]

.
Years ago, we toured Ed Joy's RANGER 58 in a yard.
With the central engine, the interior is a bizarrely-cramped labyrinth.
Although we did not start the engine while the boat was on stands, we could easily imagine no escape from the drone.

From Ed Joy Design website:

"A true motorsailer, Ranger is normally operated with the engine running and the compact sailing rig providing both an assist to propulsion as well as effective roll stabilization. The long NACA section keel provides lift and has room to fit the main engine and several tanks, keeping the amount of ballast to a minimum."


Very curios about his engine box.. Standing headroom?

 

[DDW]

I think the problem with the engine in the keel isn't headroom so much as foot room and knee room. I would want to get down beside the engine with sufficient space to sit comfortably. That means the keel box has to be like 8' wide minimum. Otherwise you will be hanging head down working on it. That is what happens on catamarans.

 

[Snapdragon III]

The boat I bought about a year ago checks off some of your boxes. It is a custom one off 56' trawler based on a slightly modified Scookum 5? sailboat hull mold. It has full keel with a huge amount of lead at the bottom of it. It has twin 82hp Perkins engines, hand has 3500 NM+ range. The boat was built in Washington state and has been to the South Pacific twice. I bought it last year in Fiji, and brought it home to Washington state via Hawaii. I have not had very much opportunity to cruse it locally, as I have been mostly working on it since I got it home last summer, but hope to head up to Alaska this summer. I will list some observations I have had since buying it that might be relevant to your search.

- The big full keel feels really reassuring when the weather goes to heck. We got beat up pretty bad the first week coming out of Hawaii but despite the pretty huge sea state on our front quarter, there was zero worry that she was going to roll over, and not come back up. the downside is that it sucks the rest of the time. She has a very deep draft for a power boat, is pretty slow, and hard to maneuver in the marina.

-The active fin stabilizers are great, but not quite as sweet as you would think on a long ocean passage. There were two issues. The first was that they slow you down. Turning them up on high knocked about .8 kn off our speed. Close to home that is a non issue, I will just go a little slower, or crank the engines a little harder, but on a long passage you start doing the math and -.8kn adds a lot of time to the trip, and adding a bunch of fuel burn sucks too. The other issue is that we were traveling at the slow end of the boats speed range, and the fins just don't work as well when the boat is moving slowly. There is not as much resistance of moving water for them to bite into. I did experiment with speeding the boat up, and they did work better, but again for such a long trip that would have led to unacceptable fuel burn. We ended up having them set at about 10% gain for most of the tip, which provided some stabilization, but didn't slow us down as much. One really nice thing about them was you could crank the gain up to 100% with just the touch of a button when you needed to do something like open the fridge, or make a sandwich. Cooking was by far the worst part of being in very rough weather, and it was well worth it to give up a little speed when you were trying to move around the kitchen. I would not count on active fin stabilizers to stop sea sickness on an ocean passage. At least on a full displacement boat, they make life way more comfortable, but there is still a ton of motion when the weather is bad.

- Getting on and off this boat is way harder than I thought it would be in a marina. the stern is very tapered, so the only part of the boat that is near the dock is the middle of it, and it is a long ways down from the boat deck to the dock. It is not the best situation for my tiny wife to try and jump off as we are coming in to help with dock lines. I think we will be fine for now as we are still fairly young and agile, but I could see it being a big issue as we get older. I feel like the FPB's would have similar issues. It would be easier if we had bow and stern thrusters, so I could bring it in, then have my wife hold it perfectly against the dock while I got down and did the lines.

-There are a lot of compromises with getting a boat that is capable of crossing oceans. To be completely honest I am still grappling whether it is worth it for me. I do not have any near term plans to go back to the South Pacific, and this boat is pretty overkill in a lot of ways for the trips we will likely take in the next 10 years. My old 40' aluminum trawler I sold, (And have considerable sellers remorse about) could have easily done the same trips I have planned, and in many ways would have been more practical. My 2 cents of advice to you is think really hard about if you really want to do the South Pacific? And if so, is there a path where you do it in your current boat first? Then sell in Australia, and buy a powerboat for the next adventure?

- Getting insurance for an offshore passage in a power boat is no joke! It was way harder and way more expensive than I though it would be.

- I have spent may hundreds of hours dreaming and lusting after the FPB's, and similar dream boats, but the reality I have realized personally is that they mostly appeal to my fantasy of what I would do with them, not my actually use case. There is no way I am going to convince my wife to head off for the arctic, and I have zero interest in doing it without her. I still might try and buy one for the fantasy one of these days if the stock market treats me well.

 

[socalrider]

-There are a lot of compromises with getting a boat that is capable of crossing oceans. To be completely honest I am still grappling whether it is worth it for me. I do not have any near term plans to go back to the South Pacific, and this boat is pretty overkill in a lot of ways for the trips we will likely take in the next 10 years. My old 40' aluminum trawler I sold, (And have considerable sellers remorse about) could have easily done the same trips I have planned, and in many ways would have been more practical. My 2 cents of advice to you is think really hard about if you really want to do the South Pacific? And if so, is there a path where you do it in your current boat first? Then sell in Australia, and buy a powerboat for the next adventure?

Thanks so much for sharing this - it's a very helpful & grounding perspective.

When we started looking to replace our First 405 sailboat I desperately wanted a bluewater capable 50' sailboat - came close to buying a Stevens 49 (similar to Hylas). Lots of honest conversations with the rest of the family made it clear that the capabilities of this vessel would never be used, and we'd end up with boat that was less fun to daysail than the First 405, much more expensive to keep, and with far less useable space than the 41' trawler we ended up buying.

Like you I still harbor the fantasy of having such a capable vessel, as though having it brings me closer to doing it (which it doesn't, really). Maybe the same reason you see these pristine lifted 4x4's in the mall parking lot that would immediately get taken to the detailer if driven through a puddle.

 

[darkside]

-There are a lot of compromises with getting a boat that is capable of crossing oceans. To be completely honest I am still grappling whether it is worth it for me. I do not have any near term plans to go back to the South Pacific, and this boat is pretty overkill in a lot of ways for the trips we will likely take in the next 10 years.
.

Great summary. After looking at lots of larger offshore capable craft we decided to build a 40'. If I want to the Pacific again I'll ship to Tahiti and "hop" across to Australia. Should be launched in three months. Most of the time it will be fit for purpose for our current needs.

 

[cfr]

comming back to the topic here 2 designs i missed so far and they are built already....


https://www.deepwateryachts.com/our-yachts/korvet-14-clr/


one version just crossed the atlantic


and a famous sailboat yard switched to power boats too


https://www.kmy.nl/view-models/motoryacht/
besteavear



boats getting smaller and maybe a little bit cheaper but we still talk about 1 mio EUR ......


Artnautica 65 is under construction now so all choices are out there but ofcourse you need some decent money to buy them.


FPB means functional power boat not fuc.....

 

[dannc]

comming back to the topic here 2 designs i missed so far and they are built already....


https://www.deepwateryachts.com/our-yachts/korvet-14-clr/


one version just crossed the atlantic


and a famous sailboat yard switched to power boats too


https://www.kmy.nl/view-models/motoryacht/
besteavear



boats getting smaller and maybe a little bit cheaper but we still talk about 1 mio EUR ......


Artnautica 65 is under construction now so all choices are out there but ofcourse you need some decent money to buy them.


FPB means functional power boat not fuc.....

Those two boats are nice but not really similar to an LRC. The LRC is a full displacement boat and the other two are semi displacement. Compare the engine size and maximum speed of the boats. Those two boats would be really good for coastal cruising, especially in Europe with the rivers and canals.

The politically correct definition of FPB is Functional Power Boat, but the Dashew's were long time sailors, and they used a different F word for Functional when they were developing the FPB design.

Later,
Dan

 

[cfr]

your right BUT both boats were designed to have their sweet spot at 10 knots for cruising. Yes more power will get some 15 knots, but its more for marketing. a real interesting coastal boat.


anyway in 5 years i will be in the market for a secondhand fpb 64.....

 

[Hippocampus]

Much wisdom in snapdragons post. Came off a blue water sailboat wanting to do a blue water powerboat . To achieve the build quality required to do blue water requires $$$. Our sailboat was roughly twice the cost of the same size series production boat. Both rated “A”. But one is “A” at first splash (and possibly for a short time there after) and the other will stay blue water capable for decades to come.
Same in power. Even with two boats meeting ABYC there’s a variance in quality of construction. This is true for A and B boats. So question remains do you want to pay for that hidden but key quality. The casual observer won’t see that quality. To my eye there’s a difference in the current leading 3 Al boats marketed as blue water.
Denis’s artnautica is a true blue water lrc. And it pays the penalties of that purpose built design. Less usable space for living but more for storage and to facilitate service/maintenance. Being narrower less form stability so more roll. Having less weight per reserve buoyancy faster heave. But a safer more efficient boat and likely more self sufficient. If I was crossing oceans it would be my choice.
Anything out of K&M is a work of beauty. Their sailboats are magnificent. The pinnacle of execution in all regards. Strong, detailed and aesthetically outstanding. Everything Bristol fashion. Suspect their powerboats would be too.
I’m sure the Deep Water boats and the K&M would be up to the task of blue water but believe the focus on blue water isn’t as sharp as with the Artnautica.
Transitioning from sail to power initially wanted a BWB but like Snap astutely said there’s too many compromises you must make to have a true durable BWB at any size. Think the divid between BW power and near coastal is greater in power than in sail. Think the spectrum of quality in all boats is as well. Unlike Snap gave up the “dream”. Have the memories but still miss those nights mid ocean and lazy times off watch. However less than 3% of sail ever does oceanic passages and suspect it’s even less for power. So went SD this time.

 

[dannc]

your right BUT both boats were designed to have their sweet spot at 10 knots for cruising. Yes more power will get some 15 knots, but its more for marketing. a real interesting coastal boat.
...

It is not just cruising speed though. The hull form is completely different to reach the designed speeds. There is a tradeoff between speed and seakindlyness. Then there is the difference in the engines. The higher speeds require more HP which is either going to require a larger, heavier engine, or a smaller engine run at higher RPMs. Most of the HP required to go fast will not be needed at cruising speed so one is paying a very high cost if one is just running cruising speeds.

One is "paying" for the design choice to go fast with engine and hull requirements. The question is, will one actually go fast and how often, if so, will they be willing to pay the high fuel cost?

These boats are for a different use case than an LRC. Does not make them better or worse, just different. We have looked closely at both them, not in person, though we would have, if the pandemic had not canceled our plans.

Later,
Dan

 

[GoneDiving]

Not a "sexy" solution but has the OP considered a converted commercial vessel? Lots here in the ~55ft range. Typically very large fuel capacity and range. ~50t provides a lot of interior volume. Very simple to operate and maintain equipment. Built for reliability, seaworthyness and dependability.

Don't underestimate the effort involved in completing a conversion so personalising an existing private vessel is far easier than starting with a decommissioned commercial one.

 

[Snapdragon III]

While a motorsailor, and not a trawler, this boat might tick a lot of your boxes. You could take this boat most anywhere in the world without ever putting up the sails if you wanted to, and if you want to go to the South Pacific the sails would be sweet. It is certainly cheaper than most any trawler that is capable of crossing oceans. The big downside as I see it is the interior is tight, and optimized for passage making, not living at anchor. If it was on the West Coast, and I hadn't just bought a new boat, I would be very tempted by this one. My last boat was a 40' aluminum trawler designed by Ted Brewer, and I am a fan of his designs, and of aluminum boats.

https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/1985-custom-ted-brewer-ketch-8165384/