Engine Installation on the Far Reach

[John Stone]

I am developing a plan to install an inboard engine in the Far Reach. This is not a done deal. Still investigating if it is worthwhile given what I have to give up--space, some simplicity, a bit of self-sufficiency. I do not plan to open the aperture up so it's a custom design similar to the one Hal Roth used on his boat Whisper.

Anyway, curious if there is interest in the project being documented here on the forum. Since it is not likely to be replicated (most people want to keep the propeller in the aperture) perhaps there not much interest in it. I usually document on my website but in general I like to also document Cape Dory projects on the forum too. Is this a topic that would generate much interest?

Initial plan is to cut a few inches off top of rudder to allow offset shaft to be faired in to hull above rudder. Small Beta Diesel would turn a flex O Fold two blade folding prop. Major issue to resolve is how deep does the propeller have to be to avoid ventilating.

Thoughts or ideas for documentation?

[SVFayaway]

I would be very interested in watching this project! Very cool and unique idea, and I'd enjoy watching how you tackle it.

[tjr818]

I would think that you have already explored this, but what about a propeller shaft offset to one side of the rudder? Sail drives seem to have few problems being offset from the centerline. I would love to follow this topic and watch your methods.

[John Stone]

I would think that you have already explored this, but what about a propeller shaft offset to one side of the rudder? Sail drives seem to have few problems being offset from the centerline. I would love to follow this topic and watch your methods.

Hi Tim. I did look into it. For the prop to clear the rudder the engine has to move further forward than I have space available. Not saying it can’t work...I am sure it could. But there is also more drag due to the required P strut and it is more likely to get fouled on lobster/crab pots and sargasso than Roth’s design.

I also looked into to an electric inboard. I even joined a forum dedicated to electric marine engines to learn more. But it’s more expensive than you think (unless you scrounge everything) and has limited range unless you go with a diesel electric. In which case why not just install a diesel. If I relied on the spinning prop to regenerate electricity then I can’t use a two blade folding and sailing performance suffers. Or I clobber the boat with many solar panels and arches and it cost more and detracts from the simple clean lines I enjoy seeing. I am sure it could work but I am just not smart enough to figure out exactly what to do to get exactly what I want. There would be a lot of trial and error I think.

The diesel I am looking at is a 20hp Beta. 3 cylinder. 200 lbs. I need 12 hp to get 5 kts in flat water according to the online calculators I have used. The beta 20 will in theory give me 12 HP at 2100 rpm turning a two blade prop. Projected fuel consumption at that rpm is a liter an hour. An 18 gallon tank with 15 usable gallons would give us about 250 nm range. Call it 200 miles. I don’t expect to use it much so a smaller tank allows the fuel to turn over quicker and would be less likely to go bad. And a smaller tank can be filled more easily with a single 5 gallons jug. So maybe a 15 gallon tank would be even better. At least that’s my thinking.

The 12 hp projection for 5 knots seems about right to me given the Honda 9.9 gives me almost 6 knots on flat water at 5000 rpm and 5 knots at 3500 (estimated) rpm. So with the Beta 20, with a goal of 5 knots on flat water achieved at 12 HP (2100 rpm) that leaves me a reserve of 8 hp or 35ish percent. Seems like it would work. And the smaller Beta will give me decent room to actually work on the engine and have access to the stuffing box. Plus I get a streamline install and a folding two blade propeller.

But I have to be able to make Roth’s design work on the Far Reach and that is not a sure thing at this point. Anyway, that is my thinking. But the more I think about it the more I lean towards keeping what I have. Except for that 114lb turmor on her ass...I mean stern quarter.

Compromises.

[tjr818]

Nigel Calder has a nice article on hybrid electric in the Sept. issue of SAIL. I know that if our diesel ever dies it will be replaced with electric, but knowing Yanmar I will probably die before the trusty YSM8. We mainly daysail and the engine mostly used just to get in and out of the harbor.

[John Stone]

Nigel Calder has a nice article on hybrid electric in the Sept. issue of SAIL. I know that if our diesel ever dies it will be replaced with electric, but knowing Yanmar I will probably die before the trusty YSM8. We mainly daysail and the engine mostly used just to get in and out of the harbor.

Nigel Calder is a smart guy. I have his book. It’s a good resource. But I think he relies an awful lot on technology. I read an article by him recently on an advanced alternator he helped design and being sold by Triskel Marine. It’s got a black box computer maximizing engine/alternator efficiency throughout the power band. But who is going to fix it when it breaks? The marine electricians I have met out cruising are not exactly rocket scientist...and for many things they don’t have to be. The alternator Calder is pushing is very complex and costs a fortune. What do you do if you have a lot of electronics relying on this marvel of technology and it fails? Who can afford to carry a spare? How long does it take to get parts? In the picture of him with the alternator being tested he wearing a lab coat. That’s the last thing I want on my boat—something designed by a guy wearing a lab coat.

A simple electric drive for known performance requirements should be very effective. I like the idea. I think of a golf cart for golf or trips of short duration when you know you have the capability and capacity to charge it. They have proven to be very reliable. That kind of technology would seem reliable and easy to maintain on a sailboat used within the right parameters where it works well. Certainly less complicated than an internal combustion engine. But, they seem a stretch on a cruising boat...and this from a guy who almost never turns on an engine.

My sculling oar never failed me. Neither did the outboard. But their operating capabilities are very small. Options. Compromises. I’m still undecided.

[Tod Mills]

If you had an inboard, would you still have an outboard for the dinghy? As it is now, could the outboard be used for the dinghy (especially if it were easy to swap it back and forth between boats)? Many people go long distances with their dinghies and like having enough power to plane.

[John Stone]

If you had an inboard, would you still have an outboard for the dinghy? As it is now, could the outboard be used for the dinghy (especially if it were easy to swap it back and forth between boats)? Many people go long distances with their dinghies and like having enough power to plane.

That’s a great question Tod. We thought about that. On our first trip to the Virgin Islands we took an inflatable and a 10hp two stroke. But the inflatable required a 15” shaft and the Far Reach required 25” shaft. They are not compatible. Wish they were. That would have been my preferred solution. We did use the inflatable and 10hp two stroke as a yawl boat on occasion.

We use only the hard dinghy (fatty knees) now. Sold the inflatable. We do have a 3.5hp for the hard dinghy but seldom use it as we mostly row. And while it might push the Far Reach when used as a yawl boat it would only work under the most ideal conditions.

There is just no perfect solution for my criteria. It seems if I can live with a very small diesel and avoid the complexity spiral that comes with modern technology I might be able to skirt most of the things that annoy me.

We will probably carry the little 3.5 hp for the hard dink. Gayle is making a padded canvas bag for it so it will be stowed below in a cockpit locker.

[Tod Mills]

Kevin Boothby's solution for his engineless Southern Cross 31 (Gillmer design full keel) and Fatty Knees hard dink is to just use an outboard on the dink to hip-tow. He also has a sculling oar. I'm not sure how long he's been doing it, but evidently a while, as he has a circumnavigation under his belt.

[John Stone]

Kevin Boothby's solution for his engineless Southern Cross 31 (Gillmer design full keel) and Fatty Knees hard dink is to just use an outboard on the dink to hip-tow. He also has a sculling oar. I'm not sure how long he's been doing it, but evidently a while, as he has a circumnavigation under his belt.

I met Kevin a couple years ago in the BVI. Very interesting guy. We had some fantastic late night conversations. We talked a fair amount about engineless sailing. But a Southern Cross 31 is a smaller boat than a CD 36. I think he has a PhD in physics from University if Chicago. He also does not have a wife. Savvy?

[Tod Mills]

He also does not have a wife. Savvy?

Ah, gotcha. ::wink, wink::

[John Stone]

Went by Beta Marina again today. Looked at the 20HP and 25 hp. Different block but almost the same size dimensionally. 25 has a little longer stroke and a tiny bit bigger bore. Wights 30 more lbs. both 3 cylinder.

Building a template this week to see what kind of space will be required and what the impact will be on remaining under cockpit storage and my very convenient anchor storage locker.

Both will easily push the boat at my desired 5 kts (1900-2200 RPM depending on which engine) and burn about a liter an hour. Either engine with 2.6:1 reduction.

Flexofold says I can swap the two blade folding prop out no charge to get correct pitch as long as it is not damaged, painted, or in the water more than a week.

No decision yet. More information required.

[Jim Walsh]

All things being equal (30 lbs. is negligible) I would go for the 25 hp unit. I’m still waiting for the day someone says they wish they had gone for the lower horsepower auxiliary when they have gone through the anguish and expense of a replacement.

[wikakaru]

Oh John, please say this is an "August Fools" joke! Far Reach with an engine? It just can't be! After you spent all that time and effort closing up the prop aperture. I realize that Far Reach is a really big boat to move with an oar, or even your auxiliary outboard, but I hate to see you make the change. It is the engineless aspect of your sailing that makes it so much more interesting.

That said, I have to admit that there were many times when I was cruising that I really appreciated having an inboard diesel, so I understand why you would want to have one. My engineless sailing these days is just daysails and occasional overnight trips on a little Typhoon in coastal Maine, and it is definitely not the same as what you are doing with Far Reach.

By the way, sorry for the long delay in responding to your initial post--I've spent the last two weeks sailing a "new" (to me) 1980 CD22 from near Boston to mid-coast Maine and have been out of touch. The engine problems were the worst part of the trip (and were the reason why it took TWO weeks). A pair of oars is looking pretty good by comparison right now...

Smooth sailing,

Jim

[John Stone]

Oh John, please say this is an "August Fools" joke! Far Reach with an engine? It just can't be! It is the engineless aspect of your sailing that makes it so much more interesting.
Jim

Jim
I feel the same way. About a week ago I woke up from a dream I had where the Far Reach and I had beat up through a tricky inlet in Ireland double reefed in a rising wind, tacked through a mooring field, and anchored under sail. Then, I woke up. I thought to myself “Engine? Nah, not today Zurg!”

But then, damn, I changed my mind back and fourth a half dozen times over the next two days. So, I have done nothing. I just decided I can’t decide right now and I have other stuff to do so let’s not make a decision till I have to.

I feel uneasy. But, as is my way, it’ll come to me when I am ready to decide.