Re: [PCW] Lagoon 43 Powercat (was New member introduction)
Larger engines can result in slightly lower fuel consumption because they
run slower for a given power output. Back in 2005, at their delivery
flotilla, PDQ delivered 14 boats, half with 75-HP engines, the other half with
100-HP's. All the boats traveled together (at the same speed) and at the end
of at the week, they fueled up. The 100-HP boats took on 10-15% less fuel
than the 75-HP boats. (That's why we chose the 100-HP engines on Sno'
Dog.)
In the real world however, the 100-HP boats probably end up burning more
fuel - because we tend to cruise faster than the 75-HP boats.
The big Lagoons do go fast. Last year, after a Lagoon 43 passed us on the
ICW, we speeded up to clock him. He was cruising at 18.5 knots. Later
when we spoke, he said he averages about 1 nautical mile per gallon at that
speed. Not too shabby - but only 1/3 of our PDQ's mileage.
Henry
www.snodoglog.com
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Clark brucerclark@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't really understand the concept that the
boat would be "underpowered" with the 200 hp engines.
Interesting! We just like to poke along (although 8 knots is too slow,
hence our need to exceed hull speed on our monohull), and I'm just concerned
that we find an engine that can run for long periods at relatively low
speeds without being damaged. I suppose I could learn to cruise faster, but
that would sort of defeat the purpose...
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: power-catamaran-bounces+brucerclark=gmail.com@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:power-catamaran-bounces+brucerclark=gmail.com@lists.samurai.com] On
Behalf Of HClews@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 6:12 AM
To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Subject: Re: [PCW] Lagoon 43 Powercat (was New member introduction)
Larger engines can result in slightly lower fuel consumption because they
run slower for a given power output. Back in 2005, at their delivery
flotilla, PDQ delivered 14 boats, half with 75-HP engines, the other half
with
100-HP's. All the boats traveled together (at the same speed) and at the
end
of at the week, they fueled up. The 100-HP boats took on 10-15% less fuel
than the 75-HP boats. (That's why we chose the 100-HP engines on Sno'
Dog.)
In the real world however, the 100-HP boats probably end up burning more
fuel - because we tend to cruise faster than the 75-HP boats.
The big Lagoons do go fast. Last year, after a Lagoon 43 passed us on the
ICW, we speeded up to clock him. He was cruising at 18.5 knots. Later
when we spoke, he said he averages about 1 nautical mile per gallon at that
speed. Not too shabby - but only 1/3 of our PDQ's mileage.
Henry
www.snodoglog.com
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Clark brucerclark@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't really understand the concept that the
boat would be "underpowered" with the 200 hp engines.
Power-Catamaran Mailing List
If you want to cruise efficiently in a power cat in the 10-12 knot range, it
will need to be at least 48 ft. long with fine hulls.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Clarkmailto:brucerclark@gmail.com
To: 'Power Catamaran List'mailto:power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [PCW] Lagoon 43 Powercat (was New member introduction)
Interesting! We just like to poke along (although 8 knots is too slow,
hence our need to exceed hull speed on our monohull), and I'm just
concerned
that we find an engine that can run for long periods at relatively low
speeds without being damaged. I suppose I could learn to cruise faster,
but
that would sort of defeat the purpose...
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From:
power-catamaran-bounces+brucerclark=gmail.com@lists.samurai.com<mailto:power-
catamaran-bounces+brucerclark=gmail.com@lists.samurai.com>
[mailto:power-catamaran-bounces+brucerclark=gmail.com@lists.samurai.com] On
Behalf Of HClews@aol.commailto:HClews@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 6:12 AM
To:
power-catamaran@lists.samurai.commailto:power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Subject: Re: [PCW] Lagoon 43 Powercat (was New member introduction)
Larger engines can result in slightly lower fuel consumption because they
run slower for a given power output. Back in 2005, at their delivery
flotilla, PDQ delivered 14 boats, half with 75-HP engines, the other half
with
100-HP's. All the boats traveled together (at the same speed) and at the
end
of at the week, they fueled up. The 100-HP boats took on 10-15% less fuel
than the 75-HP boats. (That's why we chose the 100-HP engines on Sno'
Dog.)
In the real world however, the 100-HP boats probably end up burning more
fuel - because we tend to cruise faster than the 75-HP boats.
The big Lagoons do go fast. Last year, after a Lagoon 43 passed us on the
ICW, we speeded up to clock him. He was cruising at 18.5 knots. Later
when we spoke, he said he averages about 1 nautical mile per gallon at that
speed. Not too shabby - but only 1/3 of our PDQ's mileage.
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Clark
wrote:
I don't really understand the concept that the
boat would be "underpowered" with the 200 hp engines.
Power-Catamaran Mailing List
Power-Catamaran Mailing List
I'll bet I can learn to speed up just a bit. Do the new common rail diesels have a broader range of safe-operating rpms than the older diesels? Is it ok to run them at 50% of full power instead of 70% for long periods?
Bruce
Sent on the Sprint. Now Network from my BlackBerry.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Pat Reischmann" preischmann@msn.com
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 21:07:24
To: Power Catamaran Listpower-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Subject: Re: [PCW] Lagoon 43 Powercat (was New member introduction)
If you want to cruise efficiently in a power cat in the 10-12 knot range, it
will need to be at least 48 ft. long with fine hulls.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Clarkmailto:brucerclark@gmail.com
To: 'Power Catamaran List'mailto:power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [PCW] Lagoon 43 Powercat (was New member introduction)
Interesting! We just like to poke along (although 8 knots is too slow,
hence our need to exceed hull speed on our monohull), and I'm just
concerned
that we find an engine that can run for long periods at relatively low
speeds without being damaged. I suppose I could learn to cruise faster,
but
that would sort of defeat the purpose...
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From:
power-catamaran-bounces+brucerclark=gmail.com@lists.samurai.com<mailto:power-
catamaran-bounces+brucerclark=gmail.com@lists.samurai.com>
[mailto:power-catamaran-bounces+brucerclark=gmail.com@lists.samurai.com] On
Behalf Of HClews@aol.commailto:HClews@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 6:12 AM
To:
power-catamaran@lists.samurai.commailto:power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Subject: Re: [PCW] Lagoon 43 Powercat (was New member introduction)
Larger engines can result in slightly lower fuel consumption because they
run slower for a given power output. Back in 2005, at their delivery
flotilla, PDQ delivered 14 boats, half with 75-HP engines, the other half
with
100-HP's. All the boats traveled together (at the same speed) and at the
end
of at the week, they fueled up. The 100-HP boats took on 10-15% less fuel
than the 75-HP boats. (That's why we chose the 100-HP engines on Sno'
Dog.)
In the real world however, the 100-HP boats probably end up burning more
fuel - because we tend to cruise faster than the 75-HP boats.
The big Lagoons do go fast. Last year, after a Lagoon 43 passed us on the
ICW, we speeded up to clock him. He was cruising at 18.5 knots. Later
when we spoke, he said he averages about 1 nautical mile per gallon at that
speed. Not too shabby - but only 1/3 of our PDQ's mileage.
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Clark
wrote:
I don't really understand the concept that the
boat would be "underpowered" with the 200 hp engines.
Power-Catamaran Mailing List
Power-Catamaran Mailing List
Power-Catamaran Mailing List
Well Henry (Sno Dog MV34):
I suppose that Sno Dog won't be getting passed by any more Lagoons after the
numbers you posted with your new 4 blade props on Sno Dog Log. I still find
the speed benefit of more prop hard to justify, but then again, I was wrong
about the Soviet Backfire Bomber too .