Over the years I've seen very little written about fuel economy in
boats. If anyone has good data I would like to see it. I am particularly
concerned with optimal speeds for planing hulls. Is it in the
displacement range? Or on the plane? Does it increase monotonically with
decreasing speed? Not in gallons per hour, but in miles per gallon. If
one has a twin screw boat, does fuel economy increase or decrease in
running only one prop? Is diesel always more economical than gas? And
anything else that bears on the problem.
Bob Swarts
tomdownard - 23 Jun 2007 17:11 GMT
> Over the years I've seen very little written about fuel economy in
> boats. If anyone has good data I would like to see it. I am particularly
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Bob Swarts
When I sold boats for Bayliner at Olympic Boat Center I was taught
that their hull was supposed to adjust itself to the most efficient
plane for the amount of throttle given to the prop. Sounded to me like
a bunch of sales talk.
I have crossed the Gulf of Alaska around 80 times in many types of
vessels and have found 8 knots to be the most economical speed to run.
I can monitor the day tank and measure gallons per day and nautical
miles covered.
Diesel is always more economical than gasoline all things being the
same. Load, distance, same boat etc.
Also, all the new fuel technology is for diesel engines, because
diesel engines can run on many different things. Rudolf Diesel even
tried to run coal dust, but he had too much trouble metering it and
injecting it. The diesel engine can even run on peanut oil. I haven't
tried it yet, but as soon as I buy an old diesel car I am going to try
it. You can buy vegatable oil from discount grocery stores cheaper
than Diesel fuel. I would like to see if it can be mixed! I have heard
that just adjusting the pump is the only modification required.
dazed and confuzzed - 23 Jun 2007 23:32 GMT
>>Over the years I've seen very little written about fuel economy in
>>boats. If anyone has good data I would like to see it. I am particularly
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> than Diesel fuel. I would like to see if it can be mixed! I have heard
> that just adjusting the pump is the only modification required.
You can run a diesel on a mix of veggie and diesel. My dodge ram runs on
a mix of 70% veggie and 30% diesel in the summer.
Doesn't work well at any mix if the ambient temp is below 40 deg F.
But above that, mixes up to 70 percent work well.
I have more than 50K miles on mixes...

Signature
“TANSTAAFL”
____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
____________________________________________________________________________
tomdownard - 23 Jun 2007 17:19 GMT
> Over the years I've seen very little written about fuel economy in
> boats. If anyone has good data I would like to see it. I am particularly
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Bob Swarts
The reason we measure boats in gallons per hour and not miles per
hour? Wind and current make miles per hour impractical. With the
current against you, the engine can be running at 6000 RPM for an hour
and you have only covered two miles. I have seen that in the Inside
Passage around the Fraiser River. Too big of a veriable there. RPM's
and fuel used can be realistically monitored.
R Swarts - 23 Jun 2007 23:35 GMT
Tom, the trouble with using gallons per hour is that it doesn't measure
fuel economy. If I burn twice the gallons per hour, but go three times
as fast, then burning at the higher rate yields greater economy.
I will grant that if you are comparing identical boats at identical
speeds then gallons per hour would give the desired result.
BS
> The reason we measure boats in gallons per hour and not miles per
> hour? Wind and current make miles per hour impractical. With the
> current against you, the engine can be running at 6000 RPM for an hour
> and you have only covered two miles. I have seen that in the Inside
> Passage around the Fraiser River. Too big of a veriable there. RPM's
> and fuel used can be realistically monitored.
Terry K - 19 Jul 2007 21:22 GMT
The only measure that makes sense is miles per gallon, drift, tide,
wind effects excluded, your choice of units..
Calculated against dollers per hour time on vacations aboard (what
price freedom?)
I calculate time at 10 bucks an hour for me, shopping for bargains,
whatever. The guests can do as they please.
Terry K
cavelamb himself - 20 Jul 2007 00:22 GMT
> The only measure that makes sense is miles per gallon, drift, tide,
> wind effects excluded, your choice of units..
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Terry K
Someone receintly said that as long as gas cost less than designer
water nobody was ging to worry about it.
Now there's a place in NYC selling water for over $50 a quart.
And people are buying it!!!
Richard
peter.hendra@gmail.com - 20 Jul 2007 08:12 GMT
If
>one has a twin screw boat, does fuel economy increase or decrease in
>running only one prop?
>
>Bob Swarts
Hi Bob,
I sail a keeler but last year in my job I was aboard a planing hulled
launch powered by two 1250 HP turbo charged MTU diesels, each driving
its own propellor.
I don't know the physics of it, but I experienced a situation where a
single engine used far more diesel than twins.
We went at speed (about 45 to 50 knots) over a shallow patch and
somehow a stone got sucked into one of the two water intakes, smashing
the perspex (later replaced with polycarbonate) cap plate.
Unfortunately this was placed directly under the air intake for the
turbocharger which sucked the intake water directly into the starboard
engine cyclinders. Result - instant stoppage on that engine.
It was decided to slowly motor with one engine back to our home base
where repairs could more easily be done. We originally had more than
sufficient fuel to get back home uinder two engines and then some. We
ran out of fuel about two thirds of the way and had to be towed into
port. As I said, don't understand why.
For my keelboat, I normally calculate useage by the rule of thumb - a
tenth of a litre per horsepower per hour. Mine develops 37.5 HP at
full revs of about 3,000. According to the fuel usage curve in the
supplied manual, the best efficiency is at about 1800 revs which is
what I usually run it at - developing a lot less than 37 HP - probably
25 as I use about 2.5 litres per hour at those revs.
Hope this helps
Peter
Richard Casady - 20 Jul 2007 19:15 GMT
> Result - instant stoppage on that engine.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>ran out of fuel about two thirds of the way and had to be towed into
>port. As I said, don't understand why.
For one thing, the off center thrust will push the hull through the
water sideways, even with rudder keeping the thing headed in a
straight line. Also on plane is more effecient than going too fast at
displacement speeds.
Casady
Terry K - 31 Jul 2007 21:22 GMT
Stepped hydroplanes? Aeronautical work on flying boats and multi-
stepped hulls suggest power economy concerns at takeoff speed and some
intermediate speed transitions.
The hull speed equation is only one indicator.
Hull shape is important. A displacement hull will likely go faster,
further and cheaper than a planing hull at certain speed / power
combinations. it's finesse, I think, as opposed to fine-nese, though
hobie owners report incredible speeds with knife shaped hulls. It's
all about pushing an equal mass of water aside while climbing on top
of it before it can move. It's delta-vee, rocket science versus
frictional area, versus disturbances in the water (wakes) left behind
by hurried boaters.
Think about a nice sailing boat bumkin sliding down a pushing wave as
opposed to a water sucking vacuum behind a square transom. It costs
gas to keep a hole in the water charmed for a long time.
Include ball bearings made of air in there, and you are coming to
grips with most of the problem. The transition to wing in ram air
ground effect is particularly interesting, hovercraft like.
I'd like to see exhaust gas used as friction reduction near the
planing surface of a waterfoil wing almost airborne, almost
cavitating, in ground effect.
A water jet intake at the front could effect certain things, like
elimination of wake in a steady speed submarine. Would leaving a
bubbly, cavitated wake be more stealthy to a satellite looking for
large area reflective patterns on clear days?
Take a look at power / weight / speed curves with reference across all
hull forms at the surface.
Terry K