Outboard on CD 25D?

[Steve Laume]

I did the ICW in 1972 and returned in 73. I still remember those canals as being long and boring. Hours and hours of hand steering in a straight line with nothing to see but the trees on the banks. Dark tanen stained water and very little breeze. Unlike a forest path, the banks are far enough apart to allow enough sunlight for the vegetation to form a solid wall that doesn't even allow a glimpse of the interior. It is something that would be fun for an hour but lasts far too long, Steve.

[kerrydeare]

I don't actually expect anyone to read all this, and the chances that masses of readers will agree with all that's here are identical to those of my getting a job again But I just thought I'd rummage around during the Pandemic Era or what's left of it and ramble on while I can. Maybe by this time next year our wonderful country will have ridded itself of many of the scourges currently trying to "break" our Democracy. I for one think that breaking our precious democratic heritage is impossible, and I hope those who want to venture forth on the water, however they choose to do so, will get their wish next summer or sooner. Together, not apart, we can do this

Did they ever explain the outboard motor mount on the transom of their "engineless" boat?

... They had acquired an outboard motor and outboard bracket at some point ... it had long since ceased working and they didn't have the money to buy parts to repair it ...

I will try to address your comments and replies in some logical order. Note well please that since a number of authors have offered views and counter views on this long and sufficiently arcane subject, it sometimes gets a bit troublesome for useless old people like me to make proper attributions. Luckily I am currently without employment (some 30 years or so now and still counting), so I'll try. Wish me luck.

You originally praised, or perhaps only described, the efforts of a certain Russian crew to "sail the ICW" without an engine. No details defining "sail the ICW" were given, but it was later indicated that they may have entered the inside passage at Hatteras and tried their luck to reach the Bay that way. They were unable to do this without your assistance. It now appears that they did not originally intend to sail engineless as a "sport" (using your specific nomenclature), actually because they had neither the knowledge, skills, nor funds to repair the outboard engine already on the boat. This fact puts a complexion on "engineless sailing sport" at some variance with what you seem to advocate.

Although many details are missing, you implied they had considered the option of either entering (or was it leaving?) the inside route via Hatteras as required, all this without benefit of anything other than their compass and whatever sail inventory and mooring gear a vessel in this condition might somehow be able to acquire. If this is indeed a valid definition of "sport," it's quite obviously the sporting equivalent of the All Star Lunacy Bowling Team after a full evening on steroids. Hatteras is not the entry for strangers or starry-eyed ill-prepared individuals from far away. Morehead City for sure, and Ocracoke maybe (I've transited both, but in my youth), but definitely not Hatteras.

And if they did perhaps choose to enter at Hatteras, it's perfectly clear that the proper course for a yacht in those circumstances would have been to continue up to the entrance of the Bay well offshore and sufficiently distant from the many hazards the lurk in this region, and proceed safely inside. What a small engineless and ill-equipped vessel was doing this close to Hatteras in the first place is anyone's guess, as any number of long dead mariners would testify if they could.

Up here in Maine one of the largest industries is lobster fishing, and I have to tell you that to virtually every lobsterman I have talked to, no one "with a modicum of common sense" as you put it would sail. To them, any boat with a sail is just stupid. Get a powerboat and join the real world ...

Two quick points before my next pontification: Were any of these folks around when their ancestors lobstered under sail? And now that, thanks to folks like Sadi Carnot, a German named Rudolf, and many others, today's fishermen don't have to complicate their life in such a manner, would they freely choose to do so?

Sailors these days, and I am referring to cruising boat sailors, find themselves in the same situation. We are talking (at least I am and we should be if the discussion pertains to propulsion) about real life cruising sailboats, not Two Years Before the Mast stuff.

BTW many if not most lobstermen, particularly further Down East and in the Maritimes, have remnants of a sailing rig on their boats, usually on the transom. Check it out next chance you get, but of course don't get too close in an engineless boat and cause a problem. Most fishermen are sufficiently well armed to defend against both poachers, and against essentially senseless or confused "people from away."

Yes these are trivial additions to the discourse (itself not completely without trivial aspects), but we both seem to have quite a bit of time to engage in "essentially senseless" pursuits in one form or another. As a congenitally unemployed (and unemployable) individual I am speaking for myself of course and don't mean to assume upon another person's character or ability, but now back to the issues.

Over many decades I have cruised and visited all the main harbors (and most smaller harbors) along the Maine Coast from Kittery to Eastport and well beyond, including all the Canadian Maritimes. Not saying I'm Roger Duncan or that I edited Cruising Guide to the New England Coast or regularly attended tea at the Fessenden cottage or anything (although I did meet Duncan once and a more modest soul would be hard to find).

Pretty much without exception, I've never encountered a professional fisherman (as lobster fishermen use the term) who in any way holds himself or herself superior to any other mariner without just cause. In no circumstances has this "just cause" been related in any fashion to a particular type of vessel, type of propulsion, or other extenuating circumstance other than the judgment, performance, demeanor, and manners of the individual vessel operator involved. In fact I take any comment suggesting this attitude as an insult to my friends who still make their living setting and pulling traps. This is a "people from away" attitude that has little currency in Maine, and in particular, in the winter.

I can only conclude from your comments that you have been traveling in "yachting circles" where such ill-considered behavior is justly rewarded with the scorn it surely deserves.

... I think that sailing without an engine is a sport ... In sport we do things that are essentially pointless for no reason other than the challenge of it ...

Can I conclude from this comment that your Russian sailing companions whom you towed through the Dismal Swamp Canal were therefore some sort of sporting athletes. Actually I was headed in quite another direction with the exception of the "essentially pointless" part.

I have never suggested that sailing (which by definition does not require machinery other than brainpower and good equipment) is without merit. I sold my cruising sailboat just about a year ago but still maintain two sailing dinghies (both also for sale if you want perfect and completely and professionally restored examples of fully-equipped CD 10 or Dyer Midget boats), and I still try to keep my skills somewhat up-to-date. Further, I adamantly submit that there is no excuse for the owner of a cruising sailboat to not be able to handle his or her own vessel capably under sail in all circumstances or locations. No excuse, period.

But more to the point, I have only been addressing the needs of the typical cruising sailor who most likely reads these pages. Cape Dory owners over the years have become used to the idea that many consider these boats to be far removed from performance vessels (and frankly I think that is totally untrue, as my complete set of triradial spinnaker twing lines and barber haulers demonstrate). But to stretch the topic of cruising boat sailing and equipment into a discussion of the elegance of "sport" is to stretch the analysis well beyond breaking. If you want elegant "sport" in sailing, Wild Horses is once again on the market at Brooklin Boatyard, maybe right down the road from you on the Thorofare. The remainder of us mere mortals will have to do without.

... I didn't see any mention in this article about an engineless sailboat named Mollymawk ...

No, I don't think that article mentions anything about being engineless ...

I suspect you may by this time have concluded that you are dealing with an insane, old, cantankerous individual who thinks his opinions are quite important. In this case, three out of four of your conclusions may prove correct. I am old, and I am cantankerous, and perhaps even insane in some fashion, but I am old enough and sane enough to know that my opinions are just that, my own opinions, and are either valid or invalid as circumstances allow. But there is one request you can fulfill for me and it's important to me: please be gentle with the use of whatever time I have left and send this old soul off only with care to verify an assumption or statement.

You specifically directed me to an article in a magazine about a certain "engineless" vessel that had accomplished wonders. I read the article carefully, and re-read it several times, and found no reference to this mysterious "engineless" vessel in the piece. Finally you revised your assertion and admitted no such reference existed in the piece.

Listen, since I'm only saying this one time. I'll be 78 years old the day after Christmas, and if anyone thinks now is the time for me to chase shadows in old sailing magazines, we need to sit down and talk about it.

And soon, just in case.

[ghockaday]

"I don't actually expect anyone to read all this,"

I would not begin to try.
You can have the last word.
Dennis

[kerrydeare]

The contents of this post have been removed by the original author. The initial post was incorrectly addressed to one writer, but should have been directed to another. Thanks to the writer who pointed out this error.

[kerrydeare]

I did the ICW in 1972 and returned in 73. I still remember those canals as being long and boring. Hours and hours of hand steering in a straight line with nothing to see but the trees on the banks. Dark tanen stained water and very little breeze. Unlike a forest path, the banks are far enough apart to allow enough sunlight for the vegetation to form a solid wall that doesn't even allow a glimpse of the interior. It is something that would be fun for an hour but lasts far too long, Steve.

I did it perhaps too many times (depending on one's point of view), but that's what happened back then and there's no changing that. I will suggest the the "result" of the ICW, that is the ultimate destinations, specific stops along the way, etc., kept me interested a very long time. In addition as you know one meets many fine folks along the way, and I have watched the children, and in one or two instances granchildren, of folks we met blossom into a fine adulthood.

One less than "treasured" incident was when I asked a certain USan (as we say) how long she had been playing volleyball at Stocking Island in Georgetown Exuma. She said: "We've been coming her 18 years and we love it." That set off a chorus of alarm bells and resulted in our "chasing the Maritimes" and well beyond.

[John Stone]

I think a more relevant comparison is to look at CD22 (stern-mounted OB) vs. the CD 22D (inboard diesel). The biggest difference is the prop on the diesel variant is lower than any outboard prop is going to be. This is real handy when the boat is pitching up and down in good-sized swells. Second, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to reach back over the stern lazarette locker and through the stern pulpit every time I needed to kick the outboard up and down while pitching and rolling in a sea. I had a 6HP 4-stroke (65 lbs) on my previous TY Senior which was plenty of power, but I would think that a 9.9 HP 4-stroke (110 lbs) would be a minimum size for a CD 25D which displaces 2000 lbs more - the closest comparison would be to look at what size OB CD 26 skippers are using since they are similar (5300 lb displacement). That's a significant amount of weight hanging off the stern plus aesthetically I'm not sure an OB on a 25D would work for me. Yes the diesel can be a PITA to work on, but I think one has to think long and hard about what kind of sailing they want to do and what is the safest engine option for that purpose when the weather chips are down. Not having to worry about the prop coming out of the water - priceless

I guess it's academic at this point, since the OP said the boat in question had sold, but for posterity there are a couple other points to factor in with the inboard/outboard decision that haven't been mentioned yet.

The first of these is that an inboard provides prop wash over the rudder for low-speed maneuvering but an outboard doesn't. The counterpoint is that (assuming you can reach the outboard while maneuvering) you can pivot a transom-hung outboard, turning it into a directional thruster. If reaching the outboard from the helm is impractical, I have seen people put extensions on their outboard's gearshift so they can actuate it from the cockpit and PVC pipes that extend the throttle for the same reason. You could also rig up a tiller rope with a couple of turning blocks to get it within easy reach to steer the outboard from the cockpit. Crabbers in the Chesapeake Bay do something like this with the rudders on their deadrise boats so they can steer from anywhere in the long cockpit.

The second thing is power generation. The alternator on a diesel can produce a lot of electricity; an outboard...not so much.

So it depends on what kind of cruising you intend to do and the particulars of the boat. For long-distance cruising where your priorities are engine power to get you out of trouble when it gets dicey and electrical power to live on, and boats where it is difficult to access a transom-hung outboard, it would probably be worth figuring out how to revive that dead diesel; for sailing close to home where you have to maneuver in and out of a tight marina slip every day, and you don't care about generating electricity, an outboard could be a better choice (as long as you can reach it).

Smooth sailing,

--Jim

Well, OK I guess. I mean I think those observations are generally accepted as true by many if not most people but, based on my own experience allow me to offer a different view.

My own 9.9 hp Power Thrust Honda at WOT pushed my 18,000 loaded boat at 6 kts on flat water. 3/4 throttle got me 5 kts. I never needed or wanted more speed. Mounted on the port quarter I had relatively easily thrust vector control by turning the handle of the outboard. I agree doing that over the stern would be more difficult. I had, however, much more maneuverability than any inboard on a full keel boat. But it is true that it was limited in a seaway. But, I did not use it that way. And, being on the port quarter vice over the stern it didn't cause the prop to clear the water. Yes, you could submerge it on starboard tack if you wanted to motor sail. But I only motor sailed one time and it was an experiment. And, my set up allowed me some flexibilty so that the engine did not have to be fully down to operate. I could pull it up about 1/4 of the way and still push along fine. Seriously, it worked pretty well. Not perfect though. Even though I think motoring up long skinny rivers or passing through the canals of Europe or say powering through NYC harbor on a windlass day would be much easier with an inboard than an outboard I would probably have kept the outboard if I could have improved the appearance. Don't forget I made off shore passages with it mounted on its bracket though it is true I never used it offshore or anytime there was wind. And we drifted for three days south of Bermuda in Dec 2015. A magical experience.

One more thing. My friend Ben Zartman has a Cape George 31 he built from a bare hull. It's got a gaff rig. About 20,000 displacement I think. I have sailed on it. Fantastic boat. No inboard. He has a 8hp Yamaha high thrust outboard over the stern on a transom bracket. He sailed his boat with wife and three girls from the central coast of Californian all the way down the west coat of Mexico, through the Panama Canal, to Columbia, beat up through the windward passage to FL and then sailed partly outside and motored partly through the ICW all the way to Maine. But wait, there is more. He sailed his boat with his family all the way to Maine to Canada and Newfoundland then down the St Lawrence via canals to the Hudson River and NYC. Then ultimately Rhode Island where he now resides. Heavy displacement boat. Offshore and inshore. Did it all. With skill and without mishap. Still has the boat and no plans for an inboard.

So, there are people out there doing it that way. That is not to say its better or worse. More limiting for sure if your idea is to use your engine when things get inconvenient. I agree it's not for everyone. But it is practical if you have the right mindset.

But here I am installing an inboard...for all the reasons I have mentioned on my engine installation thread. I hope it wasn't a mistake.

[kerrydeare]

... But here I am installing an inboard...

Q.E.D.

[John Stone]

... But here I am installing an inboard...

Q.E.D.

Hardly proof the argument is complete. Ask me in a couple years if it was the right choice.

And what is right for one person may not be right for another. And, certainly what is right for one person at a point in time may not be right for the same person at a different point in time.

[John Stone]

I suspect you may by this time have concluded that you are dealing with an insane, old, cantankerous individual who thinks his opinions are quite important.

I don't think being an insane old cantankerous individual who thinks his opinions are quite important is relevant even if it is true.

I think what is relevant is you are acting like a troll.

Listen, since I'm only saying this one time.

Promise?

[kerrydeare]

I suspect you may by this time have concluded that you are dealing with an insane, old, cantankerous individual who thinks his opinions are quite important.

I don't think being an insane old cantankerous individual who thinks his opinions are quite important is relevant even if it is true. I think what is relevant is you are acting like a troll ...

I don't remember making personal attacks against you or any other person on this board, and that goes back to the Board's origins well before your arrival. Maybe you're having a bad day at the boatyard or something, but if the best you can do is an an hominem attack out of the blue to a carefully detailed post on an important subject, then I guess that's the best you can do.

Are you absolutely sure that resorting to personal attacks on other writers is good for your image?

[John Stone]

I suspect you may by this time have concluded that you are dealing with an insane, old, cantankerous individual who thinks his opinions are quite important.

I don't think being an insane old cantankerous individual who thinks his opinions are quite important is relevant even if it is true. I think what is relevant is you are acting like a troll ...

I don't remember making personal attacks against you or any other person on this board, and that goes back to the Board's origins well before your arrival. Maybe you're having a bad day at the boatyard or something, but if the best you can do is an an hominem attack out of the blue to a carefully detailed post on an important subject, then I guess that's the best you can do.

Are you absolutely sure that resorting to personal attacks on other writers is good for your image?

I beg to differ Armond. When you characterize a fellow board member’s method of sailing as a stunt, that is a personal attack.

I think my image is just fine. You on the other hand might want to consider yours.

[John Stone]

In other words, if they hadn't had a tow from your power-driven boat, they would not have been able to continue south.

*North*. I can assure you that we really did have to talk them into letting us tow them through the Dismal Swamp Canal. They did not want to do it. I also am quite certain that, as resourceful as these people were, had we not towed them through the Dismal Swamp Canal they would have either sailed through the Albemarle & Chesapeake Canal, or, if for some reason they were unable to make it through the A&C Canal (because of, say, some bureaucratic prig of a bridgetender rather than a lack of ability), they would have back-tracked to Hatteras Inlet and sailed outside to the Chesapeake.

..people who try this are the very same people who, at some point and without exception, rely on other people with engines.

I have met people like that, too. These weren't those kind of people.

Did they ever explain the outboard motor mount on the transom of their "engineless" boat?

They did. They had acquired an outboard motor and outboard bracket at some point in their trip after leaving Russia, I'm not sure when or where, but it had long since ceased working and they didn't have the money to buy parts to repair it, so they just left the bracket there. Sort of like the original poster of this thread's desire to bolt an outboard bracket on his transom instead of fixing the diesel.

The other route (Route One) to Ablemarle involves a lock and several stretches barely as wide as the boat is long, including several timed bridges whose tenders are as likely to delay their bridge as provide a free lunch with showers. Also if done at normal sailboat speeds it's impossible to carry a fair tide at all points of the route.

In my experience, it's pretty well impossible to carry a fair tide at all points on any route on the ICW. If the wind isn't strong enough to overcome the current, you anchor. If the ditch is very narrow and the wind isn't fair for sailing, you wait until it is.

I don't however believe you are suggesting that this sort of thing makes practical sense for a typical reader of this board or for that matter most people who have a modicum of common sense and aren't completely destitute. I am prepared to repeat the claim that sailing a modern cruising boat without propulsion is at best a stunt, and at times even illegal. Daysailing on the Chesapeake, particularly from a mooring, is however not only possible but very likely a lot of fun. Just be sure to make it back to the mooring that afternoon early enough to avoid the daily thunderstorm.

I think it's true that people who have jobs and have to be back to work on Monday morning simply don't have the time required to wait for conditions to be fair to sail everywhere. For those of us who are retired and have the leisure of our time, it's another matter. If you are talking about "practical sense", you should give up sailing altogether. Sailing in any form, with our without an engine, doesn't make any sense. Up here in Maine one of the largest industries is lobster fishing, and I have to tell you that to virtually every lobsterman I have talked to, no one "with a modicum of common sense" as you put it would sail. To them, any boat with a sail is just stupid. Get a powerboat and join the real world.

As to sailing without an engine being a "stunt", then I suppose you also think that tossing a 9.5 inch round ball through an 18 inch circle from 50 feet away is a "stunt" or putting a 1.68 inch ball into a 4-1/4 inch hole 367 yards away using a stick is a "stunt" or putting a 8.66 inch ball through a 24x8 foot rectangle without using your hands is a "stunt". Personally I think that sailing without an engine is a sport, just like basketball, golf, or soccer is. In sport we do things that are essentially pointless for no reason other than the challenge of it. To me a "stunt" is crossing Niagara Falls on a tight rope, though I suppose the tight rope walker might consider what he does a sport. I think you will find that a great many sailors consider sailing without an engine a sport rather than a stunt.

So it's all how you look at it. Feel free to consider sailing without an engine a "stunt" if you like. I consider it a sport. Those lobstermen think we're all a bunch of idiots anyway.

I'll read it once more to be sure, but I didn't see any mention in this article about an englneless sailboat named Mollymawk.

No, I don't think that article mentions anything about being engineless. Try here: https://www.oceannavigator.com/new-crui ... -veterans/

Smooth sailing,

--Jim

Copy all Jim. Well said. Bravo Zulu.

[wikakaru]

My own 9.9 hp Power Thrust Honda at WOT pushed my 18,000 loaded boat at 6 kts on flat water. 3/4 throttle got me 5 kts. I never needed or wanted more speed. Mounted on the port quarter I had relatively easily thrust vector control by turning the handle of the outboard. I agree doing that over the stern would be more difficult. I had, however, much more maneuverability than any inboard on a full keel boat. But it is true that it was limited in a seaway. But, I did not use it that way. And, being on the port quarter vice over the stern it didn't cause the prop to clear the water. Yes, you could submerge it on starboard tack if you wanted to motor sail. But I only motor sailed one time and it was an experiment. And, my set up allowed me some flexibilty so that the engine did not have to be fully down to operate. I could pull it up about 1/4 of the way and still push along fine. Seriously, it worked pretty well. Not perfect though. Even though I think motoring up long skinny rivers or passing through the canals of Europe or say powering through NYC harbor on a windlass day would be much easier with an inboard than an outboard I would probably have kept the outboard if I could have improved the appearance. Don't forget I made off shore passages with it mounted on its bracket though it is true I never used it offshore or anytime there was wind. And we drifted for three days south of Bermuda in Dec 2015. A magical experience.

I rather liked your outboard setup on Far Reach, despite its limitations, John. I always keep my eyes open for propulsion ideas that don't interfere with the underwater profile while sailing and don't interfere with the looks of the boat at any time. I've often thought that if the Cape Dorys that had the outboard in the lazarette--like the Typhoon Senior--had a mechanism to pull the outboard up out of the water and plug the hole, they'd be just about the perfect setup.

Here are a couple of installations I've run across that you might find interesting. I know it's too late for you, John, now that you're putting in a diesel, but you might appreciate the ingenuity of some of the solutions anyway.

I'm sure you're aware of AtomVoyage's outboard (https://www.atomvoyages.com/articles/im ... -well.html) (I think someone mentioned it earlier in this thread). That huge gap in the transom when the outboard is down and the lower unit sticking out of the transom when the outboard is up kind of ruins it for me.

Have you seen the setup on the Harbor 20? It's stowed in the lazarette out of the water and out of sight, and swings out on a bracket. You could only pull this off with an electric motor, but it's still a neat idea.
https://youtu.be/Yyw54qjwTtQ?t=362

Here's a neat build on a Com-Pac SunCat with a Torqeedo that almost fits the bill: https://www.magzter.com/article/Boating ... Propulsion

This is a horse of a different color--the Navigaflex: https://plugboats.com/e-motor-is-inboar ... rotatable/

Too bad that so many of these options are electric because the commensurate solar panels required to charge the batteries would ruin the lines of a classic beauty like Far Reach.

I'd be interested in seeing any other solutions people have come up with for outboard mounting that don't ruin the lines of the boat and don't interfere with the underwater hydrodynamics of sailing. Maybe I should start this as a new thread...this thread has already been hijacked and held hostage for too long...

Smooth sailing,

--Jim

[John Stone]

My own 9.9 hp Power Thrust Honda at WOT pushed my 18,000 loaded boat at 6 kts on flat water. 3/4 throttle got me 5 kts. I never needed or wanted more speed. Mounted on the port quarter I had relatively easily thrust vector control by turning the handle of the outboard. I agree doing that over the stern would be more difficult. I had, however, much more maneuverability than any inboard on a full keel boat. But it is true that it was limited in a seaway. But, I did not use it that way. And, being on the port quarter vice over the stern it didn't cause the prop to clear the water. Yes, you could submerge it on starboard tack if you wanted to motor sail. But I only motor sailed one time and it was an experiment. And, my set up allowed me some flexibilty so that the engine did not have to be fully down to operate. I could pull it up about 1/4 of the way and still push along fine. Seriously, it worked pretty well. Not perfect though. Even though I think motoring up long skinny rivers or passing through the canals of Europe or say powering through NYC harbor on a windlass day would be much easier with an inboard than an outboard I would probably have kept the outboard if I could have improved the appearance. Don't forget I made off shore passages with it mounted on its bracket though it is true I never used it offshore or anytime there was wind. And we drifted for three days south of Bermuda in Dec 2015. A magical experience.

I rather liked your outboard setup on Far Reach, despite its limitations, John. I always keep my eyes open for propulsion ideas that don't interfere with the underwater profile while sailing and don't interfere with the looks of the boat at any time. I've often thought that if the Cape Dorys that had the outboard in the lazarette--like the Typhoon Senior--had a mechanism to pull the outboard up out of the water and plug the hole, they'd be just about the perfect setup.

Here are a couple of installations I've run across that you might find interesting. I know it's too late for you, John, now that you're putting in a diesel, but you might appreciate the ingenuity of some of the solutions anyway.

I'm sure you're aware of AtomVoyage's outboard (https://www.atomvoyages.com/articles/im ... -well.html) (I think someone mentioned it earlier in this thread). That huge gap in the transom when the outboard is down and the lower unit sticking out of the transom when the outboard is up kind of ruins it for me.

Have you seen the setup on the Harbor 20? It's stowed in the lazarette out of the water and out of sight, and swings out on a bracket. You could only pull this off with an electric motor, but it's still a neat idea.
https://youtu.be/Yyw54qjwTtQ?t=362

Here's a neat build on a Com-Pac SunCat with a Torqeedo that almost fits the bill: https://www.magzter.com/article/Boating ... Propulsion

This is a horse of a different color--the Navigaflex: https://plugboats.com/e-motor-is-inboar ... rotatable/

Too bad that so many of these options are electric because the commensurate solar panels required to charge the batteries would ruin the lines of a classic beauty like Far Reach.

I'd be interested in seeing any other solutions people have come up with for outboard mounting that don't ruin the lines of the boat and don't interfere with the underwater hydrodynamics of sailing. Maybe I should start this as a new thread...this thread has already been hijacked and held hostage for too long...

Smooth sailing,

--Jim

Outstanding links Jim. You should consider listing them on a separate thread for propulsion options so they don’t get buried in what has become a thread of questionable utility.

James Baldwin and I had an email exchange about his transom modification installation last summer 2019. I think it’s brilliant. I drew it all out for the FR. It has so many advantages. It required a redesign of the propane locker and probably a switch to a fully externally mounted windvane like a monitor. I already had the right outboard engine. But in the end I just couldn’t chop the hole in the boat and I didn’t want to give up my Cape shorn windvane. I also didn’t want to see the kicked up outboard shaft. I also have entertained the idea of some difficult non standard offshore passages and I wondered about keeping big following seas from making a mess in that compartment though not water tight around the keyhole has to be completely air tight from the rest of the boat. It wasn’t right for me. I think it’s a superior design to an inboard diesel install overall though. He has continued to refine the design and I admire what he has done. It’s s great option for many people. A different boat at a different time I might have done it.

I thought about ways to remove the engine and store in a dedicated box in the cockpit and reinstall it for specific reasons. But the extra long shaft exceeded the length of the cockpit. Could it be done? I think so but it seemed to big a compromise.

I looked hard at all the systems Torqueedo offered but could not figure out how to make it work. I’m just not smart enough electronically to design a system that met all my requirements. I looked into electric drives but it required shore power or massive solar array or questionable regenerative charging which meant dragging a propeller through the water which was a no-go. I did entertain the idea another member of the forum talked about using a Honda generator to extend the range of an electric drive which I think has merit but I couldn’t figure out how to do it with a folding propeller.

The simplest way to deal with it was to use a dinghy with outboard as a yawl boat, which I have done. It’s very effective. But to make it work better I needed to mount the outboard on a stern pulpit rack and or have the dinghy in davits—but once again it altered the lines. It’s a proven technique though certainly has some limitations. It’s the same approach the Zydlers used with Mollymawk. Kevin Boothby uses the same technique on his gaff rigged Southern Cross 31.

For my boat on which I worked hard to achieve a certain clean look I just couldn’t find the sweet spot. Probably the dinghy with small outboard like a 4 hp would be the most ideal solution. But, the inboard offered the most for selling the boat which will happen some day. I think it’s also the most reliable though it’s the most complex, expensive, and takes up the most space. I think we are kinda trapped because it’s the industry standard and the time and energy have not been devoted to better options.

Anyway, I like all those design you listed. Another one I think is very cool and meets the comment you made about retracting into a hole that is covered is the Presto 30. It has a trunk that comes up into the cockpit that houses a vertically mounted Yamaha 9.9 four stroke on a hoist all contained within the trunk. There is a cover plate on the skeg and when the engine is hoisted up the skeg plate fits into the hole in the hull and the engine box is sealed. She then has a fair bottom. Beautiful. I played with that idea during the rebuild but at the time it seemed to daunting to tackle and I could not find a presto 30 to examine and see how it worked. But I think that’s how I would do it if I designed my own boat. I think it could work on a boat up to maybe 40’.

Anyway, as mentioned, the decision to install a diesel was complicated and a big compromise. It remains to be seen if the juice was worth the squeeze.

I absolutely support engineless sailing as the ultimate test of seamanship. It’s hard work, can be unpleasant at times, but is hugely rewarding and provides an interesting amalgam of self sufficiency, exhilaration, and tranquillity.

[n5ama]

I know of a CD27 that did this as a temporary measure just to get by one season until he saved up enough for the re-power. So, the answer is yes, it can be done. I should say though, that he didn't have wind against current to deal with, and he was on a private mooring, so didn't have other boats to contend with. If you are in a crowded marina you may want to think twice because you will have restricted mobility. You have reach a long way back to put an outboard in neutral.

I have some experience with a O/B on a Catalina 25 and it’s somewhat miserable getting into a tight slip when you have to reach down off the stern to not only steer but engine speed and shifting forward to reverse while simultaneously looking around the cabin and bow to determine where you are relative to the slip. The O/B controls are well below the edge of the stern and reaching down gives you moments of excitement.

Kind of the “one arm paper hanger” syndrome. It would be better if I had 6’ arms and a mast mounted camera for the boat position in the slip. I modified the O/B for cockpit control of the shift and motor speed and that helps.