# Micro Offshore Skiff



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Kind of different than most boats discussed on here, but I was wondering if anyone else would have any interest in a boat like this... 

Basically, I want a boat that I can run 5-50 miles offshore for bottom fishing and tuna fishing, but I don't want to spend a lot of bills on the boat, nor a lot of bills on the fuel. IMHO most of the used boats on the market are not fuel-efficient. Because they were once a new boat, and a guy spending $100k on a new boat, doesn't care about saving $20 in fuel. So boat design is driven mostly by people buying new boats. People with $$$

So I'm thinking a 25-30ft x 54-60" beam. 50hp outboard, t-top side-console. Semi-displacement hull. capable of 16-knot cruise. 24"+ gunnels. Self-bailing (self-rescuing). I'm thinking aluminum because it doesn't require a mold, and is cheaper than cold molding. 

To everyone in the developed world, this sounds like a crazy idea, excessively out of the ordinary. But many watermen of the developing world work every day on low horsepower canoe or panga style boats. To them, I think this would be the super deluxe model.


----------



## bryson (Jun 22, 2015)

Not a bad idea -- looks like a small pilot house on a Panga style skiff. 54-60" would likely feel pretty dang narrow on a boat like that. It's hard for me to think about how stable it would feel when adrift/anchored/trolling in heavy seas. It could be fine, but I don't have much to compare it to.

I also would think full planing hull would be more efficient, and you could get better speeds. 50 miles is an awfully long run at 16 knots.

I don't know how much of a market there is for a boat like that since it would be pretty specialized, but it would definitely be a cool project for a one-off.


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

Pacific or Indian Ocean. Not G of M or Atlantic.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

bryson said:


> Not a bad idea -- looks like a small pilot house on a Panga style skiff. 54-60" would likely feel pretty dang narrow on a boat like that. It's hard for me to think about how stable it would feel when adrift/anchored/trolling in heavy seas. It could be fine, but I don't have much to compare it to.
> 
> I also would think full planing hull would be more efficient, and you could get better speeds. 50 miles is an awfully long run at 16 knots.
> 
> I don't know how much of a market there is for a boat like that since it would be pretty specialized, but it would definitely be a cool project for a one-off.


I drew up a few models, the pilothouse version was the only one I could find on my laptop. 

It would definitely need some extra bits to feel stable. Rocker stoppers and or sea anchor at drift and maybe some z-wing downriggers at troll. And even with those, it would never be as comfortable as a boat with an 8ft beam, but that is a sacrifice you make to save some fuel. 

And a boat designed for semi-displacement will be 2-3 times more efficient than a planing hull. A planning hull driven at semi-displacement speeds will be less efficient than one at planning speeds. More than half of my offshore trips the boat can't be run faster than 16 knots because of the seas. (but that is on 25-30ft center consoles)


----------



## firecat1981 (Nov 27, 2007)

With that length to beam ratio and high gunnels, wouldn't it be very unstable in anything but calm conditions? It would certainly be very prone to wind, especially with the pilot house. And with only a 50hp motor you wouldn't be able to out run many storms.
Not to be a downer, but I think there's a reason we don't see many like this around here.


----------



## Flatsaholic (Apr 28, 2016)

Build it. I would be interested to see how that works with a 50hp outboard. All I know is I would be super seasick on that boat lol.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

firecat1981 said:


> With that length to beam ratio and high gunnels, wouldn't it be very unstable in anything but calm conditions? It would certainly be very prone to wind, especially with the pilot house. And with only a 50hp motor you wouldn't be able to out run many storms.
> Not to be a downer, but I think there's a reason we don't see many like this around here.


Yes and no. It would definitely be less stable. But what is the threshold of too unstable? I've paddled 20+ miles across the Delaware Bay on a 14ft x 23" paddleboard.

“If you never miss a plane, you’re spending too much time at the airport.” -George Stigler. In the same sense, if you've never flipped your boat, you could have gone narrower. I don't know anyone that has. I know it happens, but it's not so common that I can conclude 8'6" is the threshold for minimum stability.

Below is a commonly used boat in South America... Do you not see them because they don't work up here, or because we can afford more comfort?


----------



## firecat1981 (Nov 27, 2007)

fpjeepy said:


> In the same sense, if you've never flipped your boat, you could have gone narrower.


I can't even begin to quantify this thought process, and it's why we have safety standards in this country.
At 60" of beam you are talking maybe a 44-48" chine width max, meaning any wave taken broadside over a few feet puts it in danger without a huge counter balance which defeats the purpose.
But hey, I say do it! Pump a few hundred grand into setting up operations, then see what happens.


----------



## Sublime (Oct 9, 2015)

I have no experience on the Atlantic. But here on the Texas gulf coast we often have stacked, unorganized waves with very short periods. It will beat the snot out of you. Hence, I wouldn't be a fan of relatively flat and narrow boats here. Swells with long intervals yes, here no.


----------



## fjmaverick (Sep 18, 2015)

I've seen some Tolman skiffs do that but it will beat you up on rough days. They are really efficient too.


----------



## LowHydrogen (Dec 31, 2015)

Stern needs to be much higher, imo.

People in the N. Atlantic (notoriously nasty) fished small boats forever.

If it were me I would get away from that style boat all together and go with a proven self bailing Dory design modify to be more efficient and build it light. Preferably something with a motor well for the outboard. They have been making those boats the same way for centuries, it's a proven and safe design, will haul an exponentially large load compared to others, and still get you back to the dock.


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

50 miles offshore. Narrow boat. 50hp motor. Not in a million years would I do that. Seriously thats just a disaster waiting to happen. For the very few days when the weather would be flat perfect you could just charter and come out ahead.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

firecat1981 said:


> I can't even begin to quantify this thought process, and it's why we have safety standards in this country.
> At 60" of beam you are talking maybe a 44-48" chine width max, meaning any wave taken broadside over a few feet puts it in danger without a huge counter balance which defeats the purpose.
> But hey, I say do it! Pump a few hundred grand into setting up operations, then see what happens.


Why does it put it in danger? So if the beam was 50% more and the waves were 50% larger would that boat be in danger? Cause I've taken boats with an 8ft beam in 5-7ft seas. Was it fun, not really. Was I in danger, I didn't think so. 

I'm not talking about pumping $100K into anything. I got a quote for an aluminum build around $10k. +$2k for a used motor to try it out. 



Sublime said:


> I have no experience on the Atlantic. But here on the Texas gulf coast we often have stacked, unorganized waves with very short periods. It will beat the snot out of you. Hence, I wouldn't be a fan of relatively flat and narrow boats here. Swells with long intervals yes, here no.


IMHO narrow boats are better than wide boats in chop, if you are talking about pounding.


----------



## Sublime (Oct 9, 2015)

fpjeepy said:


> IMHO narrow boats are better than wide boats in chop, if you are talking about pounding.


Narrow isn't the problem, but flat bottom is and I don't see much of a vee? And if you put a deep vee on a long, narrow hull that requires a lot of power if you want planing.


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

Because you can do something doesn't mean you should.


----------



## Cut Runner (Jan 25, 2017)

I really appreciate your out of box (if you've never left the 48) thinking as I do the same.
The problem is there is no "free lunch" offshore, unless your in a sail boat. 
The closest thing to your model is a mexican 25ft panga. And there are quite a few with them that do far offshore trips. Granted they usually have 115hp at that size. I've explored the same ideas and ended up just finding an old 233formula and have been rebuilding that. I put a hull extension bracket on and a single 250 4 stroke putting it in the 3mpg average range. Not bad for a 25 foot boat that is super capable. I also built a similar pilot house which aids in the captain's and occupants comfort greatly, overall making the boat extremely capable and efficient for its size


----------



## eightwt (May 11, 2017)

I think there is a reason that offshore boats have dual power many times.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Sublime said:


> Narrow isn't the problem, but flat bottom is and I don't see much of a vee? And if you put a deep vee on a long, narrow hull that requires a lot of power if you want planing.


Narrow hulls require less power. And at 16 knots for 30ft is below planing. FnL≈ 0.9 ideal hull form would be double chine semi-displacement.


----------



## firecat1981 (Nov 27, 2007)

Your talking about taking it 50 miles offshore. If you don't understand the dangers involved there with such a narrow beam on a lightweight hull in open Atlantic waters then I doubt anything we point out will actually make an impact.
Good luck, I'd also be wary of the material specs on that 10k for the hull, no way is that for proper thickness and support. 
Narrow can move efficiently with less power, up to a point. You are still going to be pushing a lot of weight and friction at semi displacement. 

I get what your after, and we've all fished crazy ways in small boats at times. However if your looking to turn this into a business here, look at the market. How many panga companies have gone out of business? And that is a proven design.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

firecat1981 said:


> Your talking about taking it 50 miles offshore. If you don't understand the dangers involved there with such a narrow beam on a lightweight hull in open Atlantic waters then I doubt anything we point out will actually make an impact.


I ran a charter business out of new england for 4 years and first-mated on a number of boats for an additional 10. I have plenty of experience 100+ miles offshore. But I don't understand, so please enlighten me.



firecat1981 said:


> Good luck, I'd also be wary of the material specs on that 10k for the hull, no way is that for proper thickness and support.


 0.16" 5083 plate. What would you recommend?



firecat1981 said:


> Narrow can move efficiently with less power, up to a point. You are still going to be pushing a lot of weight and friction at semi displacement.


At what point does it change?



firecat1981 said:


> I get what your after, and we've all fished crazy ways in small boats at times. However if your looking to turn this into a business here, look at the market. How many panga companies have gone out of business? And that is a proven design.


Not really looking turning it into a business. More just for myself. But well-founded criticism can point out errors in a design that could save me some bills later. I have lots of ideas. Many of them have issues. I enjoy the criticism.


----------



## firecat1981 (Nov 27, 2007)

If you have all the answers and experience already then I say go for it, why not. 10k is nothing in terms of a boat. Just make sure to log the adventures on an appropriate site as it's clearly not a micro you're after.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

firecat1981 said:


> If you have all the answers and experience already then I say go for it, why not. 10k is nothing in terms of a boat. Just make sure to log the adventures on an appropriate site as it's clearly not a micro you're after.


I don't claim to have all the answers. If I did I'd already be fishing on it.

I will report back if I make it happen. I agree it's not a micro, but it's also not a full-size offshore center console. I thought people on this site might be agreeable to the idea because a lot of the micro skiffs are about trying to do more with less. Which is my goal. Having a cool boat is not fun if you can't afford to put fuel in it.


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

So you have a lot of experience offshore 100 miles. How many times did you do that in anything close to what you are thinking of using?


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

ifsteve said:


> So you have a lot of experience offshore 100 miles. How many times did you do that in anything close to what you are thinking of using?


What's close? I've been 100+ miles out in a 27 x 7.5ft center console with a single 225 Etec Does that count?


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

fpjeepy said:


> What's close? I've been 100+ miles out in a 27 x 7.5ft center console with a single 225 etc. Does that count?


I'd go offshore in that boat, but probably not 100 miles unless I was with another boat. But that at least is a offshore worthy boat. But the kind of boat you are talking about building isn't close to that at all IMO.

Have you calculated the rough weight of the hull you have laid out?


----------



## No Bait / Lures Only (Apr 10, 2011)

View uncle J's site, he builds a similar size aluminum boat. View crawfish skiff n others. Where u located?


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2019)

fpjeepy said:


> I don't claim to have all the answers. If I did I'd already be fishing on it.
> 
> I will report back if I make it happen. I agree it's not a micro, but it's also not a full-size offshore center console. I thought people on this site might be agreeable to the idea because a lot of the micro skiffs are about trying to do more with less. Which is my goal. Having a cool boat is now fun if you can't afford to put fuel in it.


I’d take the max beam out to 84” and bottom width astern to around 60”! Still skinny for a 25-30’ vessel but way more stable than your proposed beam! Also, if you start this endeavor we have a “big boat” bragging section and I’d like to see it!


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

look. If you think this is a good idea, then go for it and let us know the outcome. If you are not looking for a business then you should not care what others think.

Personally a design like this would never enter my mind.


----------



## Copahee Hound (Dec 21, 2017)

I don’t know anything about boat design, or building for that much, but I’m a HUGE fan of twins when I’m 20+ miles out! (I’m talking about big boats, not micros) In the event you were able to make your design, would it not be plausible to at least have the redundancy of 2 engines? 

I’m also curious about what your fuel capacity/ fuel burn would be if you did go the 50 miles out that you had mentioned. Then you trolled for a couple hours, may have to go around a storm or two, and then trek back possibly more than the 50 miles. Definitely keep us posted!


----------



## Fritz (Jan 17, 2017)

I love your thinking, and I think your crazy. Most people thought Orville and Wilbur were crazy... probably they were right but I’m grateful the Wright brothers didn’t pay their naysayers much attention.

My opinion, any skiff with less then 70hp is a Microskiff, like it or not there is no real definition and that’s all it takes to sell in the classifieds. A tiny offshore design with low horsepower, how is that not right up our alley?

You should seriously consider system redundancy, mostly I mean twins or at least a big enough back up motor, but every other important system needs a backup as well, two batteries, bilge pumps and radios for starters, maybe even an SSB even the fuel system might benefit here. You will be all alone out there, I doubt SeaTow will come for you, I think the Coast Guard might, but they will not tow your boat home.

Keep the CG low, that pilot house could be made of canvas. Flipping over would be bad, really bad actually, put a lot of thought into how to not do that. Maybe retractable sailboat style keel or skegs of some sort???

And you might think about designing your fishbox as a dual purpose life raft... just kidding... okay, not really kidding.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

No Bait / Lures Only said:


> View uncle J's site, he builds a similar size aluminum boat.


who's uncle J?


Boatbrains said:


> I’d take the max beam out to 84” and bottom width astern to around 60”! Still skinny for a 25-30’ vessel but way more stable than your proposed beam! Also, if you start this endeavor we have a “big boat” bragging section and I’d like to see it!


I'll be sure to document


Copahee Hound said:


> I don’t know anything about boat design, or building for that much, but I’m a HUGE fan of twins when I’m 20+ miles out! (I’m talking about big boats, not micros) In the event you were able to make your design, would it not be plausible to at least have the redundancy of 2 engines?
> 
> I’m also curious about what your fuel capacity/ fuel burn would be if you did go the 50 miles out that you had mentioned. Then you trolled for a couple hours, may have to go around a storm or two, and then trek back possibly more than the 50 miles. Definitely keep us posted!


Two engines would be nice, but I'm not sure it would work with this design.

And the goal would be 20mpg at cruise



Fritz said:


> I love your thinking, and I think your crazy. Most people thought Orville and Wilbur were crazy... probably they were right but I’m grateful the Wright brothers didn’t pay their naysayers much attention.
> 
> My opinion, any skiff with less then 70hp is a Microskiff, like it or not there is no real definition and that’s all it takes to sell in the classifieds. A tiny offshore design with low horsepower, how is that not right up our alley?
> 
> ...


Yes, redundancy is very comforting and can be very helpful if needed. I agree keeping CG low would be helpful. I think replacing aluminum sheet with honeycomb where possible could help. I thought of having an inflatable dome on the top of the top in case it flipped it would self right. The engine might be out of commission, but at least the boat would be upright. Worst case scenario, two guys could paddle that boat much easier than something larger, but any direction other than downwind would be difficult.


----------



## SKINNYDIPPIN’ (Jul 25, 2018)

This seems like a t*t thread to me. Awesome fun project for sure but most likely wrong audience. Will def follow the build if you do it though and wish you the best of luck


----------



## Cut Runner (Jan 25, 2017)

Ok I was kinda with you until the 20mpg thing. Your going to need a sail to get that kind of efficiency.


----------



## Ferrulewax (Mar 19, 2018)

Why not do a boat with 2 smaller outboards? That way at least when one dies on you you can limp home. Small catamarans with relatively small outboards were common offshore in Louisiana for a long time.


----------



## jlindsley (Nov 24, 2015)

20mpg? Highly doubt it on going offshore when fishing because of the weight load added to go fishing.

ICE/Cooler (200lbs). Gear. Fish. Probably want 3 ppl at least for crew including you..No 50 hp is going to pull that fuel mileage. 

I regularly go offshore and previously did on a 20ft center console and now have a 25ft WA with twin 150s. I have had an engine go down multiple times (fuel issues etc most of the time I can get back and running). I often think a smaller boat like I had before would be good but am reminded in bad weather why I moved up to what I have.

Trolling offshore 40-50 miles full day I burn 50 gallons of fuel ($50x2.6). Take 4 ppl and even split is $33 bucks (fuel only). Seems like you are creating something to save <$100 a trip.

If not buy an imemsa panga, carolina skiff or boston whaler and have at it!  I used to troll in my 1978 11' boston whaler off the keys. Could always see land and quite the adventure.

All of what you are mentioning seems like a lot to save less than $100 a trip and reduce normal cruise speed by 15+ miles an hour. MPG is often misleading when you add in all the factors of comfort, convenience, cost and safety.


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

in 3rd world countries where life is cheap there are a million guys who would jump at the chance to fish something like this offshore. when you have something to come home to not so much. we're a bunch of pussies. large pangas have proven themselves seaworthy if not comfortable. I'm not a boat designer but I think a little more beam would be prudent.


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

SKINNYDIPPIN’ said:


> This seems like a t*t thread to me. Awesome fun project for sure but most likely wrong audience. Will def follow the build if you do it though and wish you the best of luck


THT would be a blood bath.


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

devrep said:


> in 3rd world countries where life is cheap there are a million guys who would jump at the chance to fish something like this offshore. when you have something to come home to not so much. we're a bunch of pussies. large pangas have proven themselves seaworthy if not comfortable. I'm not a boat designer but I think a little more beam would be prudent.


Yes and how many of those "million guys" jump at a chance to go offshore in a less than safe boat and don't come home?

I'd like to see the expected weight of this boat as I am not sure a 50 would even get it on plane when actually loaded to fish. And 20mpg? Give me a break. OP can't be serious.


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

devrep said:


> THT would be a blood bath.


Yeah and probably deservedly so....lol


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

bring the beam out to 70" and put a 90 on it. I like the idea of a big panga type skiff. won't get 20mpg but will be a lot less to build and a lot less to operate that a typical offshore boat. not everyone needs to go fast and carry a ton of crap. If you're not comfortable with one engine put a small kicker on it to maintain steerage in an emergency.


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

seas aren't as big as stated but still...


----------



## jlindsley (Nov 24, 2015)

devrep said:


> bring the beam out to 70" and put a 90 on it. I like the idea of a big panga type skiff. won't get 20mpg but will be a lot less to build and a lot less to operate that a typical offshore boat. not everyone needs to go fast and carry a ton of crap. If you're not comfortable with one engine put a small kicker on it to maintain steerage in an emergency.


When you are fishing 50+ miles like the OP said going more than 15 mph has its perks. When you fish offshore you do need to carry a lot of "crap" Ice, gear etc. It is also not uncommon to bring home 100+ pounds of fish.

"in 3rd world countries where life is cheap there are a million guys who would jump at the chance to fish something like this offshore. when you have something to come home to not so much. we're a bunch of pussies. large pangas have proven themselves seaworthy if not comfortable. I'm not a boat designer but I think a little more beam would be prudent."
1. We don't live in a third world country
2. This is America 
3. Cheap and offshore really never mix when it comes to safety


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

I've been offshore with friends and the amount of crap they bring is ridiculous. a 90 will push a 23 to 25 ft panga way faster than 15 mph. you're thinking is still inside your box. ever been on a 222 or a 24 flatback with a smallish outboard? A panga is much lighter and a more efficient hull.


----------



## jlindsley (Nov 24, 2015)

He said he was looking to build a boat with a 16 knot cruise. 
Yes Panga is def much faster. Can buy the imemsas from a guy in sw Florida


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

jlindsley said:


> 20mpg? All of what you are mentioning seems like a lot to save less than $100 a trip and reduce normal cruise speed by 15+ miles an hour. MPG is often misleading when you add in all the factors of comfort, convenience, cost and safety.


I think it's just a difference of opinion. Saving $100 a trip for me is worth it. Additionaly, fuel might not be $3/gal forever. Lossing 15mph just means a little more time driving. MPG is not misleading. No one uses that as a measure of comfort, convenience, or safety. 

I'm not rich. Cutting costs in half means I can go fishing twice as often, and fuel is a big part of that cost. 



ifsteve said:


> Yes and how many of those "million guys" jump at a chance to go offshore in a less than safe boat and don't come home?
> 
> I'd like to see the expected weight of this boat as I am not sure a 50 would even get it on plane when actually loaded to fish. And 20mpg? Give me a break. OP can't be serious.


You are right. It's not intended to get on plane. 16 knots at 30ft is FnL =0.92 so below planing speed. 

20 mpg is a goal. Not saying it will hit that, just a target. Hull, motor, gear, ice, fuel, two guys (1000+430+150+50+150+370=) 2150lbs required Hp for 16 knots roughly 41hp. Fuel burn at 41hp roughly 1 gal/hr. 16*1.151/1=18.41 mpg. 

This is not a big boat, and will not carry what you carry on a big boat. I.e. less rods, less ice, less fish, less fuel, etc.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

No Bait / Lures Only said:


> View uncle J's site, he builds a similar size aluminum boat. View crawfish skiff n others. Where u located?


I found Uncle J. Nice looking boats. I'll reach out to him. Thanks


----------



## jlindsley (Nov 24, 2015)

"MPG is often misleading when you add in all the factors of comfort, convenience, cost and safety." 
Meaning is it worth saving $50 to jeopardize your crews lives in addition to yours. Most boaters are naive to what can actually occur out on the water.

You'll be wishing everyone threw an extra $20 in the cookie jar when a summer storm rolls off and the nearby boat hammers down at 40mph with a deep v and you're doing 7mph because the vessel is tossing around like a potato chip on the water(7 hour ride home). Aluminum boat with no flotation will find its way to the ocean floor as well.

Find an old 17 montauk or panga and go that route if you're trying to stay affordable and range.


----------



## No Bait / Lures Only (Apr 10, 2011)

Fai


fpjeepy said:


> I found Uncle J. Nice looking boats. I'll reach out to him. Thanks[/QU
> Fairly priced, n will build to ur specs.


----------



## Cut Runner (Jan 25, 2017)

I dont think a 50 hp 4 stroke can get 20 mpg bolted onto a canoe at dead idle in gear on a placid lake... those numbers are just super unrealistic. Trust me, I'm with you in spirit but im a realist and numbers on a paper sometimes dont mean squat in real scenarios 

I would focus more on a 25ft mexican panga with a 115 four stroke, maybe a little kicker for long trips. You can get a bare hull and build it out light and have a much more realistic and proven boat that's in the 6+mpg range.


----------



## texasag07 (Nov 11, 2014)

Just install a “sea keeper” in it and you will be fine.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

jlindsley said:


> "MPG is often misleading when you add in all the factors of comfort, convenience, cost and safety."
> Meaning is it worth saving $50 to jeopardize your crews lives in addition to yours. Most boaters are naive to what can actually occur out on the water.
> 
> You'll be wishing everyone threw an extra $20 in the cookie jar when a summer storm rolls off and the nearby boat hammers down at 40mph with a deep v and you're doing 7mph because the vessel is tossing around like a potato chip on the water(7 hour ride home). Aluminum boat with no flotation will find its way to the ocean floor as well.
> ...


For you speeding more money is the better solution. That doesn't mean it is the best solution for everyone. 

I never proposed having no floatation. I think foam-filled below decks and gunnels would be crucial. 

17 Montauk has a very low gunnel height and therefore much less stability than the boat I am proposing. Also, they are not self-bailing nor self-rescuing. 



Cut Runner said:


> I dont think a 50 hp 4 stroke can get 20 mpg bolted onto a canoe at dead idle in gear on a placid lake... those numbers are just super unrealistic. Trust me, I'm with you in spirit but im a realist and numbers on a paper sometimes dont mean squat in real scenarios
> 
> I would focus more on a 25ft mexican panga with a 115 four stroke, maybe a little kicker for long trips. You can get a bare hull and build it out light and have a much more realistic and proven boat that's in the 6+mpg range.


I don't see how your blind guess would be more accurate than my calculation. I'm not saying mine is correct, but you have no basis for yours other than your gut feeling. I need more than that. 

25 panga with a 115 four-stroke and a kicker would cost close to 2-3 times what I'm suggesting and more in fuel, maintenance, etc. What if I didn't have that money? Would you suggest I don't fish at all? 

It's like I'm suggesting I buy a motor scooter and you guys are saying it's a terrible idea I should get a Dodge 3500.


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

I like your idea but not sure how you come up with 20 mpg. I have one of the lightest HB Waterman made, its only 16 ft with a narrow beam and has a direct injected 50 hp tohatsu. I don't get anywhere near 20 mpg.


----------



## Cut Runner (Jan 25, 2017)

My gut feeling is based off my lifes experience in the marine industry and running skiffs, offshore center consoles, sportfishes etc. Bare bones 350lb 17ft skiffs cant get that kind of mileage.. yes that's on plane and your plans are for non planning hull but longer means more wetted surface and more friction. Wheres that in your calculations?? Also something that is riding on the edge of efficiency like that will see huge swings in fuel burn upon changing sea state conditions.
Like I said before , I'm completely with you in spirit but your expected fuel burn numbers are unrealistic.


----------



## jlindsley (Nov 24, 2015)

My flat bottom salt marsh 1656 with a 50 hour 4 stroke can probably get around 10 mpg so makes sense that a 25 flat bottom loaded for offshore will see 15 plus with a 50


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2019)

Throw a 3cyl perkins inboard in it!


----------



## Cut Runner (Jan 25, 2017)

Boatbrains said:


> Throw a 3cyl perkins inboard in it!


With an Arneson drive


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2019)

Cut Runner said:


> With an Arneson drive


And some propane!


----------



## Cut Runner (Jan 25, 2017)

Hydrofoils!!!!!


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

jlindsley said:


> My flat bottom salt marsh 1656 with a 50 hour 4 stroke can probably get around 10 mpg so makes sense that a 25 flat bottom loaded for offshore will see 15 plus with a 50


don't get it. sarcasm?


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Cut Runner said:


> My gut feeling is based off my lifes experience in the marine industry and running skiffs, offshore center consoles, sportfishes etc. Bare bones 350lb 17ft skiffs cant get that kind of mileage.. yes that's on plane and your plans are for non planning hull but longer means more wetted surface and more friction. Wheres that in your calculations?? Also something that is riding on the edge of efficiency like that will see huge swings in fuel burn upon changing sea state conditions.
> Like I said before , I'm completely with you in spirit but your expected fuel burn numbers are unrealistic.


Crude and rough calculator https://www.vicprop.com/displacement_size.php?action=calculate plug the numbers in yourself. I'm not making this stuff up. 

I agree 20 mpg might not be obtainable. But I don't think 15 is out of reach.


----------



## jlindsley (Nov 24, 2015)

devrep said:


> don't get it. sarcasm?


Yes


----------



## Half Shell (Jul 19, 2016)

If you're looking for fuel efficiency and something to take 50 miles offshore. You would be better off with a small single diesel engine. It would be ideal for a semi-displacement hull. 

I knew a custom boat like that built in Harkers Island once. It had a little more traditional dimensions at 28' long and I'm not sure of the beam but it trudged along at 25 knots barely burning any fuel.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Half Shell said:


> If you're looking for fuel efficiency and something to take 50 miles offshore. You would be better off with a small single diesel engine. It would be ideal for a semi-displacement hull.
> 
> I knew a custom boat like that built in Harkers Island once. It had a little more traditional dimensions at 28' long and I'm not sure of the beam but it trudged along at 25 knots barely burning any fuel.


Yeah, you are right. A small diesel in full displacement would be the most efficient. But even the small diesels aren't cheap. And shafts, struts, rudders complicate the build a little and raise the cost as well. But it would be a simple solution to what I'm looking for.


----------



## bryson (Jun 22, 2015)

Look at the initial cost of an outboard and a diesel. Now look at the service life of each. Now think about how long you plan to own the boat. Then think about cost of ownership of each. Then think about if resale value is important.

The initial cost is definitely something to consider, but it's only part of a much larger equation. The longer you plan to own the boat, the less important it becomes.

Edit to add:
If you are just building it because you enjoy the process, then some of that goes out the window. You're the only one that can put a value to that. Sounds like you want the outboard for the fun in building something different. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, believe me. But it's important to realize your goals initially and be honest with yourself as to what they are, so that you don't lose sight of them.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

bryson said:


> Look at the initial cost of an outboard and a diesel. Now look at the service life of each. Now think about how long you plan to own the boat. Then think about cost of ownership of each. Then think about if resale value is important.
> 
> The initial cost is definitely something to consider, but it's only part of a much larger equation. The longer you plan to own the boat, the less important it becomes.
> 
> ...


I should just ask the builder what the price difference would be with inboard vs outboard. If he is confident in doing it, and the price is comparable, I could shop around for a small used diesel. Getting it so you could walk around it or over it in such a narrow boat might be an issue. But CG would be better for semi-displacement. 

I also contemplated the flat 2-cylinder gas jet engines they are putting in the Chinese motorized kayaks. I think they are 17hp each, so twins would be 34hp WOT and they would fit under the sole. I've never been a big fan of jet, and I prefer diesel over gas, but it might be a simple solution. And they are cheap.


----------



## Salt of the Water (Feb 26, 2018)

https://houston.craigslist.org/boa/d/kemah-center-console-panga-25/6942010502.html

Some people don't like em, but the lines on the imemsa 25 do it for me.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Salt of the Water said:


> https://houston.craigslist.org/boa/d/kemah-center-console-panga-25/6942010502.html
> 
> Some people don't like em, but the lines on the imemsa 25 do it for me.


I do love the pangas


----------



## Tautog166 (Jul 7, 2018)

Just my opinion, but offshore and cheap just don’t go together. 

Pangas generally don’t have a long run to get to blue water. If you have to run 50 miles to reach whatever you’re reaching for, a low hp single engine outboard wouldn’t be my choice. 

But it ain’t my money or life. Go for it if you think you could do it. 

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Best of luck.


----------



## jay.bush1434 (Dec 27, 2014)

I think it is a very cool idea. While my gut tells me to run twins offshore, there are way more folks running offshore with a single engine than twins or trips. Heck, I've made trips 40 miles out in a single engine boat and even been 16 miles out in my Vantage. I've fished with my buddy in his 25 Panga with a 115 Merc 4stroke and it is comfortable and efficient to run. I would certainly consider some V in the bottom but then you need more power to make up for the loss of effective planing surface or just lose some efficiency in trade for comfort.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Walter Lee said:


> Just my opinion, but offshore and cheap just don’t go together.


I feel like that is kind of a depressing outlook unless you have money. And it's an easy way out. Saying it can't be done means you don't have to put any effort into thinking about it. Asking how can it be done is much more difficult.




jay.bush1434 said:


> I think it is a very cool idea. While my gut tells me to run twins offshore, there are way more folks running offshore with a single engine than twins or trips. Heck, I've made trips 40 miles out in a single engine boat and even been 16 miles out in my Vantage. I've fished with my buddy in his 25 Panga with a 115 Merc 4stroke and it is comfortable and efficient to run. I would certainly consider some V in the bottom but then you need more power to make up for the loss of effective planing surface or just lose some efficiency in trade for comfort.


Redundancy is awesome when you can afford it. If this design doesn't allow for it I think there are other ways to build in some more safety... Being long, narrow and lightweight actually means with a set of oars or paddles you could probably make some headway. Not something I would want to do, but in a worst-case scenario it could be life-saving. Additionally, narrow boats can roll easier, but again worst case scenario they are also easier to get right side up if capsized. Or consideration can be given to designing the vessel self-righting.

immersion suits, quality PFDs, tethers leashes, sea-anchors, emergency beacons, buddy vessels, etc all should be given careful consideration on any offshore trip. I almost think going on a smaller boat would be safer in the sense that everyone is going to be very conscious of all these things, whereas on a larger boat "We're fine we got two engines" might be used to cover up some negligence.

Not entirely related. I found that there is an annual race around Bermuda the is limited to old Seagull outboards (6hp max) Some of these guys are doing 20+ mph in 1-2ft seas with 6hp. probably more fun to watch that to actually be there.




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1823276841043763


----------



## GullsGoneWild (Dec 16, 2014)

just move to a place where the blue stuff isn't 50 miles away. Problem solved. What do I win?


----------



## GullsGoneWild (Dec 16, 2014)

jlindsley said:


> My flat bottom salt marsh 1656 with a 50 hour 4 stroke can probably get around 10 mpg so makes sense that a 25 flat bottom loaded for offshore will see 15 plus with a 50


I see similar numbers on my ECC Caimen LITE with a 40Hp Tohat. What would be interesting to know- would be what the MPG would be if you ran it all day at 16MPH. Isnt that what the OP said he'd be running at? I run at WOT and still get 10MPG. I'm assuming your numbers are based off WOT as well


----------



## Battfisher (Jan 18, 2016)

fpjeepy said:


> I feel like that is kind of a depressing outlook unless you have money. And it's an easy way out. Saying it can't be done means you don't have to put any effort into thinking about it. Asking how can it be done is much more difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Plumb bow!


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

Well sorry OP but what little credibility you have went out the window with the "actually means with a set of oars or paddles you could probably make some headway." Have you ever rowed a boat in your life? There is zero way in any kind of seas where you are making any kind of headway on oars or paddling that suggested boat. What you doing is actually a disservice to inexperienced boaters who might actually try such a hair brained idea. SMDH


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

ifsteve said:


> Well sorry OP but what little credibility you have went out the window with the "actually means with a set of oars or paddles you could probably make some headway." Have you ever rowed a boat in your life? There is zero way in any kind of seas where you are making any kind of headway on oars or paddling that suggested boat. What you doing is actually a disservice to inexperienced boaters who might actually try such a hair brained idea. SMDH


I paddle competitively. I train daily. You should try it sometime. 

By "headway" I mean more than 0 knot in the intended direction. 1 knot gets you 50 miles in a couple of days. Nothing that anyone should plan for, but much better than death. I'm not suggesting anyone takes their kayak 50 miles offshore to go tuna fishing. I am saying, preparing for worst-case-scienerios while at sea can save your life. And if you are having trouble deciding whether or not to bring paddles, it is better to have them and not need them, than have left them at home because a retired guy on the internet said they wouldn't work.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Battfisher said:


> Plumb bow!


I noticed the same thing. Most of the boats had a plumb bow and a highly warped bottom... I assume there is good reason.


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

fpjeepy said:


> I paddle competitively. I train daily. You should try it sometime.
> 
> By "headway" I mean more than 0 knot in the intended direction. 1 knot gets you 50 miles in a couple of days. Nothing that anyone should plan for, but much better than death. I'm not suggesting anyone takes their kayak 50 miles offshore to go tuna fishing. I am saying, preparing for worst-case-scienerios while at sea can save your life. And if you are having trouble deciding whether or not to bring paddles, it is better to have them and not need them, than have left them at home because a retired guy on the internet said they wouldn't work.


If you think something just north of 0 knots in the intended direction is preparing for worst case scenarios then you are even crazier than I thought. Any and I mean any kind of blow up weather and you are not going to even be able to keep that craft into the seas with oars or paddles and I dont' give a hoot if you are an olympic rower. 

And for the record I have oared a ton of miles on rivers. Done with this idiotic thread.


----------



## jlindsley (Nov 24, 2015)

fpjeepy said:


> I paddle competitively. I train daily. You should try it sometime.
> 1 knot gets you 50 miles in a couple of days. Nothing that anyone should plan for, but much better than death. I'm not suggesting anyone takes their kayak 50 miles offshore to go tuna fishing. I am saying, preparing for worst-case-scienerios while at sea can save your life. And if you are having trouble deciding whether or not to bring paddles, it is better to have them and not need them, than have left them at home because a retired guy on the internet said they wouldn't work.


That would be 25 hours of paddling at 2’mph. 

Maybe get locking oars and go Ben-hur style. I can sit up front and bang the drum for pace. Ramming speed!

Seriously get out of la la land on paddling. Call coast guard/epirb and/or seatow depending on situation.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

ifsteve said:


> If you think something just north of 0 knots in the intended direction is preparing for worst case scenarios then you are even crazier than I thought. Any and I mean any kind of blow up weather and you are not going to even be able to keep that craft into the seas with oars or paddles and I dont' give a hoot if you are an olympic rower.
> 
> And for the record I have oared a ton of miles on rivers. Done with this idiotic thread.


If the weather is bad throw out a sea anchor and wait it out. If you didn't see the storm checking the weather before you left chances are it's not going to be a large system. 

I don't know why you are so insistent on fear-mongering. All it can possibly accomplish is taking the joy away from people who want to fish out there. You provide nothing helpful, other there "take a big boat" or "hire a charter" 



jlindsley said:


> That would be 25 hours of paddling at 2’mph.
> 
> Maybe get locking oars and go Ben-hur style. I can sit up front and bang the drum for pace. Ramming speed!
> 
> Seriously get out of la la land on paddling. Call coast guard/epirb and/or seatow depending on situation.


The purpose of me detailing worst-case scenarios is to try to settle fear mongers like Steve. "Fear Setting" is what Tim Ferriss calls it. Basically, you define your nightmare, then what you would do to repair the situation if it were to happen. 

So Steve's nightmare is he is 50 miles offshore, the engine breaks down, and he loses all electronics, his epirb and ResQlink aren't working, an unforeseen storm rolls in with 60 mph winds, coast guard after getting reports of his boat missing can't find him, and he is stranded at sea. 

The point here is, that situation is 1:1,000,000,000 none the less this is why Steve won't go fishing with me. But if we think about it, after the storm rolls over, I'll get the paddles out and I'll start paddling. I can drink ice water from the bait cooler, and I have fat reserves on my body that will power me to paddle 1 knot for at least a week. With a hand held compass I can get to shore even if the storm blew me an extra 100 miles. Therefore even if I experience Steve's nightmare, worst case I miss some work, lose a few pounds and have a cool story to tell. Therefore I can take that risk.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2019)

Build it! Just put a dragon head on the bow please!

Seriously, if this is something you wish to build for yourself and are willing to be the guinea pig then by all means go for it! Don’t let us monkeys “and I am quoting @anytide here” deter you. Everyones concerns are very real, I have been pinned down out there in some very bad stuff in large vessels and can tell you I wouldn’t want to be on a smaller boat in those scenarios! At the same time, it is your vision, your life, and so I say build it and share with us! Even if it has to go in the big boat bragging spot!​


----------



## Copahee Hound (Dec 21, 2017)

@fpjeepy Its clear that you have struck some nerves, ruffled a few feathers, and stirred some curiosity.

I assume your like me and don’t have a rich friend with a 40’+ Freeman with quads. A bay boat scratches my itch for bigger water, it doesn’t have to be nice, or new, just a reliable engine. An epirb or plb is a must though, don’t forget that! 

My question... where are you located? Do you have closer articial reefs than 50 miles one way? Or is your main goal to troll the ledge and not bottom fish? If your design will not incorporate small twin engines, what about a 9.9 hp kicker? Even though a paddle is mandatory, why not have a “cheap back up” engine? Food for thought, maybe?


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

just about any summer florida thunderstorm can have 60 mph winds. probably not fun.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Boatbrains said:


> Seriously, if this is something you wish to build for yourself and are willing to be the guinea pig then by all means go for it! Don’t let us monkeys “and I am quoting @anytide here” deter you. Everyones concerns are very real, I have been pinned down out there in some very bad stuff in large vessels and can tell you I wouldn’t want to be on a smaller boat in those scenarios! At the same time, it is your vision, your life, and so I say build it and share with us! Even if it has to go in the big boat bragging spot!​


I appreciate the support. I'm going to get something soonish. If I don't commission this to get built I'll get a panga instead. Time will tell. 



Copahee Hound said:


> @fpjeepy Its clear that you have struck some nerves, ruffled a few feathers, and stirred some curiosity.
> 
> I assume your like me and don’t have a rich friend with a 40’+ Freeman with quads. A bay boat scratches my itch for bigger water, it doesn’t have to be nice, or new, just a reliable engine. An epirb or plb is a must though, don’t forget that!
> 
> My question... where are you located? Do you have closer articial reefs than 50 miles one way? Or is your main goal to troll the ledge and not bottom fish? If your design will not incorporate small twin engines, what about a 9.9 hp kicker? Even though a paddle is mandatory, why not have a “cheap back up” engine? Food for thought, maybe?


I grew up in SE Connecticut. 12-14 miles to Montauk and 67 to Fishtales canyon from there. Offshore fishing was always a long haul. Moving to NC coast in a few days. I understand things are a lot closer there. It would be smart for me to learn more before I jump into anything, but I never claimed to be smart. Just in my experience the further away a spot was the fewer people that fish it the better the fishing. 

I'm happy to stay closer and do sea bass, snappers, triggers, etc, but I'd like to run out for tiles, and snowy grouper as well. 

Definitely worth considering a kicker. 



devrep said:


> just about any summer florida thunderstorm can have 60 mph winds. probably not fun.


No not fun, you want to avoid those if possible. But I'm not gonna refuse to fish, because there is a chance it can happen.


----------



## jlindsley (Nov 24, 2015)

fpjeepy said:


> an unforeseen storm rolls in with 60 mph winds, coast guard after getting reports of his boat missing can't find him, and he is stranded at sea.
> 
> The point here is, that situation is 1:1,000,000,000 none the less this is why Steve won't go fishing with me. But if we think about it, after the storm rolls over, I'll get the paddles out and I'll start paddling. I can drink ice water from the bait cooler, and I have fat reserves on my body that will power me to paddle 1 knot for at least a week. With a hand held compass I can get to shore even if the storm blew me an extra 100 miles. Therefore even if I experience Steve's nightmare, worst case I miss some work, lose a few pounds and have a cool story to tell. Therefore I can take that risk.


That scenario is probably 25plus percent after June 1st in Florida. Actually a reason I sold my 20ft and went to 25ft. 

During those waves your cooler will most likely be gone. You won’t be able to paddle for 7 days but let’s just say you did going 1 mph westward. Often forgotten the gulfstream pulls about 4 mph north so after 2 days you’d be back to you’re old stomping grounds!

Hoping all of what you are saying is joking? Steve isn’t Off on what he is saying. I regularly fish offshore 50’ miles and have been in almost every lousy scenario. Safety is the utmost importance which you will learn one day.

Build it . Start new thread


----------



## Battfisher (Jan 18, 2016)

The OP seems to be smarter than most - he writes very well and expresses himself clearly. I think he came here actually looking for "criticism" (or input and suggestions), but got b**** slapped a few times. I've managed people for about 30 years, and only fairly recently has it been popularized that people respond better to positive reinforcement rather than getting kicked in the privates. But the private kickers don't really care about that. I know nothing about boat design and construction (which will be evident when I post the mods I did to my '79 Gheenoe), but I do like seeing the ideas and projects you guys come up with.

The popcorn eating gifs posted by @Boatbrains were genius.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

jlindsley said:


> That scenario is probably 25plus percent after June 1st in Florida. Actually a reason I sold my 20ft and went to 25ft.
> 
> During those waves your cooler will most likely be gone. You won’t be able to paddle for 7 days but let’s just say you did going 1 mph westward. Often forgotten the gulfstream pulls about 4 mph north so after 2 days you’d be back to you’re old stomping grounds!
> 
> ...


So one out of four trips after June 1st in Florida guys fish 50 miles offshore, their engine breaks down, and they loses all electronics, their epirb and ResQlink don't work, an unforeseen storm rolls in with 60 mph winds, coast guard after getting reports of their boat missing can't find them, and they are stranded at sea. 

Where do you fish? I'll be sure to avoid that area. I don't know how any of you are still alive. 

How far into the stream do you fish? Up north we are rarely more than a few miles into it. Paddling 1mph westward will get you out the stream even if you started in the middle within a day. That means the stream would push you (4 x 24 =) 96 miles north. My old stomping grounds are about 1500 miles north. 

But wait, you are joking right?


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Battfisher said:


> The OP seems to be smarter than most - he writes very well and expresses himself clearly. I think he came here actually looking for "criticism" (or input and suggestions), but got b**** slapped a few times. I've managed people for about 30 years, and only fairly recently has it been popularized that people respond better to positive reinforcement rather than getting kicked in the privates. But the private kickers don't really care about that. I know nothing about boat design and construction (which will be evident when I post the mods I did to my '79 Gheenoe), but I do like seeing the ideas and projects you guys come up with.
> 
> The popcorn eating gifs posted by @Boatbrains were genius.


Thank you. There has been a sparse amount of constructive criticism mixed in, so you gotta take the good with the bad. 

Yeah, maybe I can buy everyone on here a copy of Dale Carnegie's _How to Win Friends and Influence People _


----------



## jlindsley (Nov 24, 2015)

fpjeepy said:


> So one out of four trips after June 1st in Florida guys fish 50 miles offshore, their engine breaks down, and they loses all electronics, their epirb and ResQlink don't work, an unforeseen storm rolls in with 60 mph winds, coast guard after getting reports of their boat missing can't find them, and they are stranded at sea.
> 
> Where do you fish? I'll be sure to avoid that area. I don't know how any of you are still alive.
> 
> ...


Referring to summer storms rolling off the coast. Good luck paddling. I'll look for you on THT in a few years.

But seriously, start a build thread and send pics of progress and the adventures.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

jlindsley said:


> Referring to summer storms rolling off the coast. Good luck paddling. I'll look for you on THT in a few years.
> 
> But seriously, start a build thread and send pics of progress and the adventures.


Will do. Not sure if you want me to build the project to see it fail or not, but I'll take the support either way.


----------



## jlindsley (Nov 24, 2015)

I would love to see an offshore boat capable of 15 mpg that is a safe platform. I do not think it is realistic but prove me wrong.


----------



## Cut Runner (Jan 25, 2017)

I love this thread. I've spent alot of time fishing my skiff offshore since I live 7 miles from the stream. I'm young, and fit. Let me be the first to tell you after a day or two on a small tippy boat all day out there you just get beat down tired. I'm not saying you cant do it, but after a while you'll be moving up in size, that I'll bet on


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Cut Runner said:


> I love this thread. I've spent alot of time fishing my skiff offshore since I live 7 miles from the stream. I'm young, and fit. Let me be the first to tell you after a day or two on a small tippy boat all day out there you just get beat down tired. I'm not saying you cant do it, but after a while you'll be moving up in size, that I'll bet on


I'm not gonna say you are wrong. Small boats do wear on us. But spending more money on luxury isn't in my DNA. I still drive my '84 Toyota pickup (with no AC), cause I'm too cheap to buy a newer one. But who knows. I'm getting older


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

GullsGoneWild said:


> just move to a place where the blue stuff isn't 50 miles away. Problem solved. What do I win?


Yeah, the guys that fish two miles out in Hawaii and Austalia make me very jealous. I wish I could, but that is a far way from home. And the whole work thing doesn't help.


----------



## Tautog166 (Jul 7, 2018)

Battfisher said:


> ...and only fairly recently has it been popularized that people respond better to positive reinforcement rather than getting kicked in the privates. But the private kickers don't really care about that.


Gotta agree with you. People are proud of participation trophies that are handed out like Basspro catalogs.


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

fpjeepy said:


> So one out of four trips after June 1st in Florida guys fish 50 miles offshore, their engine breaks down, and they loses all electronics, their epirb and ResQlink don't work, an unforeseen storm rolls in with 60 mph winds, coast guard after getting reports of their boat missing can't find them, and they are stranded at sea.
> 
> Where do you fish? I'll be sure to avoid that area. I don't know how any of you are still alive.
> 
> ...


look you obviously don't know florida weather in the summer, esp the gulf. every single summer day has a chance of large afternoon pop up thunder and lighting storms. every single summer day. they are formed quickly and they move quickly. it can be all blue sky and within a short time there is a huge grey or black cloud over you moving very quickly if you aren't paying attention. they can be hard to outrun with a fast boat and they can come from the direction you need to run to get back to safety. its not a joke. do some research. again, I like your ideas but you need to be open minded about what people are telling you.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

devrep said:


> look you obviously don't know florida weather in the summer, esp the gulf. every single summer day has a chance of large afternoon pop up thunder and lighting storms. every single summer day. they are formed quickly and they move quickly. it can be all blue sky and within a short time there is a huge grey or black cloud over you moving very quickly if you aren't paying attention. they can be hard to outrun with a fast boat and they can come from the direction you need to run to get back to safety. its not a joke. do some research. again, I like your ideas but you need to be open minded about what people are telling you.


You are right. I've only ever fished the Keys in the winter. 

I'm not saying its not a risk. But reading things online about safety from a lightning strike; It does say aluminum boats are safer than fiberglass. 
Some are tips listed; Don't go out if there are reports of lightning, watch reports on phone regularly if you are in cell service, use your boat radar to track storms, watch for anvil clouds, stay low and inside the cabin if possible, check your lightning protection system regularly, store an EPIRB, extra VHF and/or cell in a faraday cage (ammo box), turn off your guess switches, set out anchor, drop antennas, don't touch two conductors with two hands, plugs, collision mats, crash valves, and others. 

If you are already doing all of those things, then getting a fast boat is one more step that can help. IMO If you are not prepared otherwise, a fast boat is not a cure-all. In the same sense not buying a particular boat, because it's not fast enough to outrun lightning storms is only a good reason if you are trying to convince your wife that you need a faster boat.


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

jlindsley said:


> When you are fishing 50+ miles like the OP said going more than 15 mph has its perks. When you fish offshore you do need to carry a lot of "crap" Ice, gear etc. It is also not uncommon to bring home 100+ pounds of fish.
> 
> "in 3rd world countries where life is cheap there are a million guys who would jump at the chance to fish something like this offshore. when you have something to come home to not so much. we're a bunch of pussies. large pangas have proven themselves seaworthy if not comfortable. I'm not a boat designer but I think a little more beam would be prudent."
> 1. We don't live in a third world country
> ...


HAHAHA!


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

GullsGoneWild said:


> just move to a place where the blue stuff isn't 50 miles away. Problem solved. What do I win?


Australian build. Formosa Tomahawk "Offshore" 480 (15'9")


----------



## eightwt (May 11, 2017)

There ya go. Have fun.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

eightwt said:


> There ya go. Have fun.


Only problem is it requires me to move to Australia


----------



## eightwt (May 11, 2017)

fpjeepy said:


> Only problem is it requires me to move to Australia


That's why they make freighters, they bring it to you!


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

eightwt said:


> That's why they make freighters, they bring it to you!


But I don't want to fish that boat here. 50 mile runs in that would kill me. Over there its 2 mile runs to the fishing grounds.


----------



## RogueTribe (Apr 14, 2019)

I keep coming back to the Caribiana Skiff and the Tahiti Offshore Skiff. Not sure if they have quite as skinny of a beam as you're talking. Problem with a skinny boat offshore is they get awfully tipsy and in trailing seas I cant think would be very fun to control. 50 miles off with one engine, no radio contact, a small boat in any sort of rough conditions is a little reckless. Get a whaler and repower...


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

RogueTribe said:


> I keep coming back to the Caribiana Skiff and the Tahiti Offshore Skiff. Not sure if they have quite as skinny of a beam as you're talking. Problem with a skinny boat offshore is they get awfully tipsy and in trailing seas I cant think would be very fun to control. 50 miles off with one engine, no radio contact, a small boat in any sort of rough conditions is a little reckless. Get a whaler and repower...


Caribiana looks efficient at 30mph w/ 70hp. I don't care for the lower gunnels, and it would need some work to be set up for fishing. 
Tahiti offshore 177 Surf Skiff? I like the higher gunnels. I don't care for cathedral hulls, and 17ft just seems too small. 
Narrow does mean tippy, but we don't know if that means undoable. Following seas are tough. Stern shape can play a big role in this. The old drake tails and, round sterns were for low horsepower boats that had to surf through the inlets. Big flat transoms give the waves a lot of area to push on, which isn't fun to try to overcome.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

You have 50 different people warning you about this adventure. You have 4 that say do it (but with a disclaimer warning) and ZERO that say this is the single greatest offshore boat ever conceived.

I don't like this, I don't like that (the two boats referenced) - then design it, build it and go for it. When you are through with it don't you dare sell it to anyone. You haul it ti the scrapyard for recycling.

The argument narrative is getting old fast. Smart people have spoken and you just want to argue with them or call them names. Just stop.

You posted a video of some guys running a craft similar to a canoe at 20 mph - a F'ing Gheenoe will do that. These guys are probably a couple hundred yards off land but I bet you missed the chase boat in the video. It is there for a reason. The reason is not to capture live footage, it is to save a life a few yards from shore.

It is your life. Do what you want but don't selfishly endanger other peoples lives by being stupid. That includes the Coast Guard personnel when you activate your epirb or taking other people on this craft.

I find it striking that you somehow think you are smarter than the naval architects and are the only person who thinks this is a great idea. You have been told NO so many times you have not even changed your thought process to include safety into the equation.

If your goal is to get offshore cheap and that is what you state your goal is. Build a safe boat with normal propulsion to get you to open water, unfurl the sail and let the hydrofoils do their job. There, I just invented your cheap thrill ride with items that already have proven themselves.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

DuckNut said:


> You have 50 different people warning you about this adventure. You have 4 that say do it (but with a disclaimer warning) and ZERO that say this is the single greatest offshore boat ever conceived.
> 
> I don't like this, I don't like that (the two boats referenced) - then design it, build it and go for it. When you are through with it don't you dare sell it to anyone. You haul it ti the scrapyard for recycling.
> 
> ...


✌


----------



## GullsGoneWild (Dec 16, 2014)

fpjeepy said:


> Australian build. Formosa Tomahawk "Offshore" 480 (15'9")


Latin America would be less expensive


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

Well said Duck Nut.

I have no problem with a person doing some crazy thing (at least crazy to me) if they are bearing the risk all themselves. But the problem is that they aren't. Even if they go alone the minute they hit the distress button they are impacting other people not to mention wasting my tax dollars.

Should be a way to do crazy things like they do for climbing Mt. Denali. The climbers have to buy a permit. The permit funds operation of the rescue group. No tax dollars involved. Only other mountain climbers involved. So its essentially a closed loop system. I am all for that kind of approach.


----------



## MatthewAbbott (Feb 25, 2017)

ifsteve said:


> Well said Duck Nut.
> 
> I have no problem with a person doing some crazy thing (at least crazy to me) if they are bearing the risk all themselves. But the problem is that they aren't. Even if they go alone the minute they hit the distress button they are impacting other people not to mention wasting my tax dollars.
> 
> Should be a way to do crazy things like they do for climbing Mt. Denali. The climbers have to buy a permit. The permit funds operation of the rescue group. No tax dollars involved. Only other mountain climbers involved. So its essentially a closed loop system. I am all for that kind of approach.


Unfortunately the tax would be tied to either boat registration or fishing license. Either way we would still be footing the bill for knuckleheads delusion. 

I’ve followed this entire thread and there is only two possible reasons for it:
1: The OP is trolling everybody and is doing a damn fine job. Hats off to you if this is the case. Your doing the lords work. Keep it up. 

2: He is seriously considering building this boat. Judging by his responses to all the concerns and questions brought up by people his mind is already made up and has the “It is what it is” mentality. In which case he should just go build the boat because, that’s what he’s going to do anyways. 

Anywho, back to the normally scheduled program.


----------



## RogueTribe (Apr 14, 2019)

fpjeepy said:


> Caribiana looks efficient at 30mph w/ 70hp. I don't care for the lower gunnels, and it would need some work to be set up for fishing.
> Tahiti offshore 177 Surf Skiff? I like the higher gunnels. I don't care for cathedral hulls, and 17ft just seems too small.
> Narrow does mean tippy, but we don't know if that means undoable. Following seas are tough. Stern shape can play a big role in this. The old drake tails and, round sterns were for low horsepower boats that had to surf through the inlets. Big flat transoms give the waves a lot of area to push on, which isn't fun to try to overcome.


I was mainly stating those for design considerations when you build yours. I would start by researching their dimensions and hull shapes. Round transom is all the rage again, planning to do it on my next poling skiff just for the fun of it.

Good luck and put an extra kicker motor on the back just to keep you into the wave when you main goes down and help is hours away...


----------



## SomaliPirate (Feb 5, 2016)

I say go for it. Should be interesting if nothing else.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

ifsteve said:


> Well said Duck Nut.
> 
> I have no problem with a person doing some crazy thing (at least crazy to me) if they are bearing the risk all themselves. But the problem is that they aren't. Even if they go alone the minute they hit the distress button they are impacting other people not to mention wasting my tax dollars.
> 
> Should be a way to do crazy things like they do for climbing Mt. Denali. The climbers have to buy a permit. The permit funds operation of the rescue group. No tax dollars involved. Only other mountain climbers involved. So its essentially a closed loop system. I am all for that kind of approach.


Who foots the bill is not important to me. Lives lost during a rescue is.

He should be prohibited from purchasing an epirb when using this thing so he does not endanger a single life.


----------



## Tautog166 (Jul 7, 2018)

DuckNut said:


> Who foots the bill is not important to me. Lives lost during a rescue is.
> 
> He should be prohibited from purchasing an epirb when using this thing so he does not endanger a single life.


Really don’t think he gives a rat’s ass.


----------



## Str8-Six (Jul 6, 2015)

My only question: “Will it have a poling platform?”


----------



## Tautog166 (Jul 7, 2018)

Str8-Six said:


> My only question: “Will it have a poling platform?”


No, only oarlocks... maybe radar... and an epirb...


----------



## jonrconner (May 20, 2015)

I think if this design had a scintilla of promise Chris Morejohn would have chimed in.
JC


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2019)

jonrconner said:


> I think if this design had a scintilla of promise Chris Morejohn would have chimed in.
> JC


He’s sailing and has no internet at the moment. The length to width is way off though. A 25’ hull with a 4or 5’ beam is asking for trouble in all honesty.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Boatbrains said:


> He’s sailing and has no internet at the moment. The length to width is way off though. A 25’ hull with a 4or 5’ beam is asking for trouble in all honesty.


I wasn't going to reply, because I don't want to keep this discussion going. It's served its purpose. I got want I wanted out of it. But I'm in a hotel for work travel with nothing else to do...

Boatbrains, I don't mean to pick on you, but length to beam ratios are not directly related to safety. A 55 gallon drum has a L/B ratio of 1:1 and a container ship has a L/B of 20:1. Which is safer? Restoring force, max heel angle, and the area under the curve of those plotted against each other are more important.
Beam is an important factor in this. So is gunnel height, and vertical center of gravity (VCG). A combination of narrow beam and low VCG can contribute to what is called secondary stability

He is an example. Take a 16' 2x12" . Put 24" "gunnels" on it with plywood and bolt a keel to the bottom of it. This would be a crude-looking boat. Now take 8 of the same 16' 2x12" and glue them edge to edge. Put 6'2" plywood sides on it (I'm 6' and don't want to hit my head.) And then put a second floor up top to stand on. On a flat calm day, the wide boat is going to be much more comfortable; It won't rock nearly as much. But which one do you want to take out in 4ft chop?

I'm guessing around 90% of recreational boats have a beam of 8'6". Do you think that is because that is the threshold for stability and safety? Maybe. But personally, I think it has more to do with the fact that its the largest load that can be carried across state roads without a permit...

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I just want misinformation to be corrected in case someone reads this in the future.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2019)

Well that is an interesting way “not to pick” but comparing a container ship to a lightweight low hp skiff just don’t jive! I still say build it brother, all it takes is time and money!


----------



## firecat1981 (Nov 27, 2007)

There is a huge difference between googling a bunch of design terms and trying to use internet calculators, and actual successful boat design. How about you just let this one die cause you are not making a convincing argument at all.

Either that or make a similar post on boatdesign.net and post a link here so we can all watch and be entertained.


----------



## RogueTribe (Apr 14, 2019)

8'6 is probably popular bc in Florida at least it's the widest you can trailer without a permit


----------



## Gatorgrizz27 (Apr 4, 2015)

There are several issues at play here besides it just being a bad idea. The first is whether you understand how narrow a 60” beam and presumably 48” chine width actually is. My boat has those dimensions but is only 18’ long. The USCG rating for it will be 30 hp, length doesn’t play a factor in the calculations. 

Edit: Boat brains let me know I was incorrect with this statement. Length is taken into account, I had done my research/math with the hard chine/tiller formula. Moving from an 18’ to 25’ boat would increase the hp rating from 30 hp to 35 hp. 

The second issue is a boat that long and narrow will actually be LESS seaworthy than a shorter one. It will be too long to follow the troughs in waves, and won’t have the reserve buoyancy to ride up the crest of the one in front of it. The boat will simply spear into the wave and then sink. Third, you won’t gain any speed or fuel efficiency at planing speeds, as the front portion of the boat will be out of the water. Once that happens it doesn’t matter if the boat is 10’ or 100’, it’s based on what’s making contact with the water surface.

I’m all for out of the box ideas, trust me, but I don’t see the benefit to spending $10k (likely double that out of aluminum and using a newer, fuel efficient motor) on building a boat that will save you $10-$20 each time you go fishing.

The reasonable options IMO, are #1 build a semi-displacement cruiser with an inboard diesel. It will be very efficient and seaworthy, you’ll just take much longer getting in and out. #2 buy a whaler, panga, Hobie power skiff, etc, and run at an efficient speed. #3 find somebody to fish with and split the fuel cost. Running 100 miles at 5 mpg fuel burn is only $50 worth of gas. If you’re retired and do it every day, sure that could be expensive, but split between 2-3 guys a couple times a week shouldn’t break anybody’s budget.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

fpjeepy said:


> He is an example. Take a 16' 2x12" . Put 24" "gunnels" on it with plywood and bolt a keel to the bottom of it. This would be a crude-looking boat. Now take 8 of the same 16' 2x12" and glue them edge to edge. Put 6'2" plywood sides on it (I'm 6' and don't want to hit my head.) And then put a second floor up top to stand on. On a flat calm day, the wide boat is going to be much more comfortable; It won't rock nearly as much. But which one do you want to take out in 4ft chop?


The second crude boat you describes would tip over before you climb up to the second story.

Also, your other example about the barrel is also wrong. A barrel is 3:2 but if you cut it in half to make it a boat it comes to 6:2 or 3:1 however you want to define it.

You have wore this topic out and your previous post proves you have no understanding of what you are doing. Please stop the nonsense before you endanger someone, including yourself.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Gatorgrizz27 said:


> The second issue is a boat that long and narrow will actually be LESS seaworthy than a shorter one. It will be too long to follow the troughs in waves, and won’t have the reserve buoyancy to ride up the crest of the one in front of it. The boat will simply spear into the wave and then sink. Third, you won’t gain any speed or fuel efficiency at planing speeds, as the front portion of the boat will be out of the water. Once that happens it doesn’t matter if the boat is 10’ or 100’, it’s based on what’s making contact with the water surface.
> 
> I’m all for out of the box ideas, trust me, but I don’t see the benefit to spending $10k (likely double that out of aluminum and using a newer, fuel efficient motor) on building a boat that will save you $10-$20 each time you go fishing.
> 
> The reasonable options IMO, are #1 build a semi-displacement cruiser with an inboard diesel. It will be very efficient and seaworthy, you’ll just take much longer getting in and out. #2 buy a whaler, panga, Hobie power skiff, etc, and run at an efficient speed. #3 find somebody to fish with and split the fuel cost. Running 100 miles at 5 mpg fuel burn is only $50 worth of gas. If you’re retired and do it every day, sure that could be expensive, but split between 2-3 guys a couple times a week shouldn’t break anybody’s budget.











That was the best thing I've read all day!!!



DuckNut said:


> The second crude boat you describes would tip over before you climb up to the second story.
> 
> Also, your other example about the barrel is also wrong. A barrel is 3:2 but if you cut it in half to make it a boat it comes to 6:2 or 3:1 however you want to define it.
> 
> You have wore this topic out and your previous post proves you have no understanding of what you are doing. Please stop the nonsense before you endanger someone, including yourself.


Barrels are round... Like a circle. Circles are the same width as they are length... 1:1

But you are right I'll stop my nonsense before I kill thousands of people with my death boat. lol


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2019)

Build it! But if you didn’t want opinions or critique, why start a thread asking for it? Many experienced folk on here have tried to help you and you have pretty much laughed in our faces! Now, I have bit my tongue for most of the thread but dude! Seriously, if you don’t want opinions then don’t fn ask for them!


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2019)

Here is a basic example of what happens when a boat can not keep up with a following sea! And trust me, a low horsepower displacement hull is not gonna get the job done here!


----------



## Gatorgrizz27 (Apr 4, 2015)

fpjeepy said:


> That was the best thing I've read all day!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Never mind then, you’ll be fine. Go for it. 3:00 is the best example of what I’m talking about.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

fpjeepy said:


> That was the best thing I've read all day!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok dipshit here is a lesson for you. Circles are NOT 1:1! Circles are flat and have a circumference that is equal to the diameter times pi. Round balls would be 1:1 as you implied.

Barrels are NOT balls, they are cylinders. The diameter of a 55 gallon drum is roughly 22" and their length is roughly 33". This is NOT a circle and also is NOT a ball. A cylinder.

Since you have proven your naval architect abilities just go and build this thing and prove us wrong.

Something tells me you won't build it, you won't even start it let alone draw it out on a bar napkin. You just came on here to troll.

This idea has as much merit as that ******* who puts his boat on his absolutely useless POS truck bed hauler invention of his.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Gatorgrizz27 said:


> Never mind then, you’ll be fine. Go for it. 3:00 is the best example of what I’m talking about.


This ships are completely sealed and are also self righting should they go over. 

But the above described atrocity will jus fill up, capsize, and turtle. Most likely even sink.

Hey, but then there would be a new reef.


----------



## Tautog166 (Jul 7, 2018)

Do it since you’re still fighting so hard. I dare you.


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

so you didn't get the praise and validation you hoped tp get on microskiff. if you build this boat I am certain you will be able to successfully make many trips offshore. there will come a time when you encounter a sea state that will either scare the shit out of you or it will kill you. either way, think of this thread as you're fighting for survival. natural selection at work.


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

DuckNut I was wondering when somebody would let the OP know that a barrel is a cylinder and not a circle or a sphere.....lol Maybe he missed geometry.....


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

do yourself a favor and read this. not the whole thing, just the original post. transpose 34 ft Cape Horn for 25 ft canoe. then transpose very experienced captain for inexperienced captain.
https://www.thehulltruth.com/boating-forum/404268-i-survived-one-hell-ordeal-offshore-weekend.html


----------



## FlyBy (Jul 12, 2013)

He gone.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

FlyBy said:


> He gone.


Sank???


----------



## FlyBy (Jul 12, 2013)

DuckNut said:


> Sank???


That's my guess.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

ifsteve said:


> DuckNut I was wondering when somebody would let the OP know that a barrel is a cylinder and not a circle or a sphere.....lol Maybe he missed geometry.....


Re-read what I wrote. 

“Barrels are round... Like a circle. Circles are the same width as they are length... 1:1”










Length and beam are measured in plan view. In plan view a barrel is a circle. Length to beam is 1:1. 



devrep said:


> so you didn't get the praise and validation you hoped tp get on microskiff.


Came looking for criticism. Got plenty. Tried to share some knowledge. Found a bunch of retired sallys that get butt hurt when someone doesn’t accept their unbacked opinions as facts. 

I am thankful to the people who provided legitimate criticism and suggestions.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Do us a solid, would you?

Go on Craigslist and buy a barrel and do like the picture you posted. Please take video of you climbing in the barrel as shown.

For the second time a barrel is NOT the same diameter as its height. I am posting a picture for you so get out your ruler and measure. Then come back and tell us how you come up with a 1:1 ratio.

View attachment 87332


Nobody is butt hurt here. The only thing anyone is trying to tell you is your described build is dangerous. There is one person who is not accepting facts and that is you.

Just build the thing and prove us wrong. After all, a barrel is as wide as it is tall, right. Easy Peary.


----------



## TX_Brad (Jun 8, 2018)

DuckNut said:


> Do us a solid, would you?
> 
> Go on Craigslist and buy a barrel and do like the picture you posted. Please take video of you climbing in the barrel as shown.
> 
> ...


To be fair, he did say plan view. i.e. looking down from top, where a circle has the same width and length(not height). Which would be a 1:1, or else it wouldn’t be a circle it’d be an egg. Your looking at the barrel from an elevation view.


----------



## firecat1981 (Nov 27, 2007)

Like I said before, go post this same thread on https://www.boatdesign.net/forums/
Then post the link here so we can see the results. Many of the guys who post there are actual designers and naval architects.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Dude is in mom’s basement trolling the shit out of y’all because people on Facebook are too retarded to argue and are too interested in mindless arguments about the dress being blue or grey. I vote to make him a guest and thin out some of the nonsense trolls so big boys can discuss fishing and boats without weeding through bullshit. 
Try 2CoolFishing, these days they are about the level of folks you’re looking for.


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

like trying to talk sense into a 14 year old.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Bolting 2x12’s together for a hull...GTFO


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

TX_Brad said:


> To be fair, he did say plan view. i.e. looking down from top, where a circle has the same width and length(not height). Which would be a 1:1, or else it wouldn’t be a circle it’d be an egg. Your looking at the barrel from an elevation view.


Great news...he figured out how to tun a flat object into a watercraft.

If that was his intention why would he post the picture he did.

But the true definition of plan view is when you project an image onto a flat surface. The barrel I posted is plan view as well.

He's been warned and has now we're encouraging him to prove the world wrong.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Why are we arguing about floating offshore in a barrel with some googan?


----------



## anytide (Jul 30, 2009)

book a charter.





wayyy offshore.


----------



## BB FL (Aug 3, 2019)

I have found with these types the best course is not to egg them on with replys.


----------



## anytide (Jul 30, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Bolting 2x12’s together for a hull...GTFO


rigid.


----------



## anytide (Jul 30, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Why are we arguing about floating offshore in a barrel with some googan?


new signature line right there...


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Why are we arguing about floating offshore in a barrel with some googan?


Shiz Smack...I am outta my mind. There is that one guy who survived Niagra Falls without a barrel.


----------



## permitchaser (Aug 26, 2013)

Ive had to go back to the first post to try to figure this out
first 50 miles out is a long way from shore and it might be nice going out then crap coming back. In my son in laws boat 30' Grady,2,300 Yamahas, it takes 1 hour 40 minutes to go 30 miles at a decent clip. So a small boat may take longer with calm seas
What will it take in 3' seas.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

permitchaser said:


> What will it take in 3' seas.


A F'ing miracle


----------



## TX_Brad (Jun 8, 2018)

DuckNut said:


> Great news...he figured out how to tun a flat object into a watercraft.
> 
> If that was his intention why would he post the picture he did.
> 
> ...


I’m not agreeing with him that I think this is a good idea or one that will work, but you’re definition is incorrect of a plan view.


----------



## anytide (Jul 30, 2009)

"Basically, I want a boat that I can run 5-50 miles offshore for bottom fishing and tuna fishing, but I don't want to spend a lot of bills on the boat, nor a lot of bills on the fuel"

i found the problem.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

TX_Brad said:


> I’m not agreeing with him that I think this is a good idea or one that will work, but you’re definition is incorrect of a plan view.


Nope. Not wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_(drawing)


----------



## TX_Brad (Jun 8, 2018)

DuckNut said:


> Nope. Not wrong.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_(drawing)


https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_view

Taken from your link.


----------



## firecat1981 (Nov 27, 2007)

TX_Brad said:


> https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_view
> 
> Taken from your link.


You guys are really arguing over this? Lol.

I'll just say I'm with DN on this one, cause any of us who have actually floated a barrel knows it's natural position of buoyancy is on its side, not upright. So the view would be from above in that position. Would you try to assess a boats stability while it's upright on its transom?


----------



## Backcountry 16 (Mar 15, 2016)

Look what this troll did to you guys. You fell right into his trap.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

DuckNut said:


> Nope. Not wrong.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_(drawing)













Backcountry 16 said:


> Look what this troll did to you guys. You fell right into his trap.


Wasn’t meant to be a trap. Just trying to provide a simple example for how L/B is not directly related to lateral stability. A more accurate ratio would be B^2/VCG. That’s not a perfect ratio, but it’s closer than L/B .


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

fpjeepy said:


> Wasn’t meant to be a trap. Just trying to provide a simple example for how L/B is not directly related to lateral stability. A more accurate ratio would be B^2/VCG. That’s not a perfect ratio, but it’s closer than L/B .


If this is a rendition of what you are thinking...it is quite similar to a hobbie cat sailboat - but only one side. Not stable at all.

Unless you are carrying the weight below water level this will tip ove in the wind.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Take it out 80 miles


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2019)

Fl middle grounds! Sounds like it’d be an affordable trip!


----------



## Tautog166 (Jul 7, 2018)

Backcountry 16 said:


> Look what this troll did to you guys. You fell right into his trap.


How true. He will never build it anyway. Doesn’t have the balls or the cash to do it. He values his life and is sitting on his xbox and laptop in the basement of his parents house.


----------



## eightwt (May 11, 2017)

Wonder if he has seen the news of the fireman not returning to Port Canaveral? Might change perspective.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Just get a 16’ 2x12 and mount a trolling motor and 24 volt solar charged battery system on her.


----------



## eightwt (May 11, 2017)

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/fisherman-catches-first-grander-of-year-1000-pound-marlin


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

eightwt said:


> https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/fisherman-catches-first-grander-of-year-1000-pound-marlin


seems a shame to kill that beautiful fish.


----------



## firecat1981 (Nov 27, 2007)

devrep said:


> seems a shame to kill that beautiful fish.


I was thinking the same thing, what a waste, especially for just a $1000 prize.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

devrep said:


> seems a shame to kill that beautiful fish.


“It was like a dream come true” so I killed it for money and social media likes...


----------



## SomaliPirate (Feb 5, 2016)




----------



## Half Shell (Jul 19, 2016)

devrep said:


> seems a shame to kill that beautiful fish.


Eating marlin is not uncommon in that part of the world, so let's hope the meat is donated for that purpose. I hear it's pretty good smoked.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Half Shell said:


> Eating marlin is not uncommon in that part of the world, so let's hope the meat is donated for that purpose. I hear it's pretty good smoked.


That’s not a good excuse


----------



## GullsGoneWild (Dec 16, 2014)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> That’s not a good excuse


The article said the fish died during the fight. No need to judge


----------



## zthomas (Jan 14, 2014)

Recently completed ( June 2019) this 25’ Panga Style skiff was built w several intentions... FUEL ECONOMY averaging 13mpg with a load / EASY to Freedive / Spearfish from, OCEAN WORTHY since completion it has crossed to the Bahamas and logged 800 miles of island travel , and SHALLOW DRAFT floats in 5-6” of water and motors in less than 12”. 

It’s a fun skiff that turns heads... super fun, cruises at 13mph and tops out around 15-16mph with a newer 4 stroke Mercury 20 hp.

https://miami.craigslist.org/pbc/boa/d/jensen-beach-25-custom-skiff/6960641647.html


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

GullsGoneWild said:


> The article said the fish died during the fight. No need to judge


I read the whole article. It was a weigh in right? They aren’t keeping 1000 pound blue marlin in livewells, weighing them in and releasing them at the boat ramp like idiots do here with trout.


----------



## GullsGoneWild (Dec 16, 2014)

the fish died on the line..... During the fight..... What do you expect them to do?

Thorp, a part-time skipper of Akura Fishing Charters in Rarotonga, battled the huge marlin for five hours, according to the New Zealand Herald and a post by Thorp’s brother on their Fishing Rarotonga Facebook page. For the last two hours, Thorp was pulling in dead weight as the fish had died during the fight, as sometimes happens.


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

they would have brought it in for weigh in even if it hadn't died.


----------



## GullsGoneWild (Dec 16, 2014)

Maybe, maybe not


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

devrep said:


> they would have brought it in for weigh in even if it hadn't died.


What I was alluding to, not being sarcastic or a tree hugger. Forget it, I hope they kill em all and make dog food and fertilizer out of them.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

zthomas said:


> View attachment 89334
> 
> Recently completed ( June 2019) this 25’ Panga Style skiff was built w several intentions... FUEL ECONOMY averaging 13mpg with a load / EASY to Freedive / Spearfish from, OCEAN WORTHY since completion it has crossed to the Bahamas and logged 800 miles of island travel , and SHALLOW DRAFT floats in 5-6” of water and motors in less than 12”.
> 
> ...


My apologies, but the "experts" on this forum have already concluded 13mpg is impossible. Additionally, it is unlawful to use that boat in the ocean, and you will be convinced of attempted manslaughter if you sell that boat. You have been warned.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

fpjeepy said:


> My apologies, but that "experts" on this forum have already concluded 13mpg is impossible. Additionally, it is unlawful to use that boat in the ocean, and you will be convinced of attempted manslaughter if you sell that boat. You have been warned.


How many volts will you burn if you put a MinnKota 80 on a 55 gallon poly barrel? You’ll probably need wet cells in the bottom so it’s not too tippy. You may need wet cell batteries in the floor to keep the center of gravity low.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> How many volts will you burn if you put a MinnKota 80 on a 55 gallon poly barrel? You’ll probably need wet cells in the bottom so it’s not too tippy. You may need wet cell batteries in the floor to keep the center of gravity low.


Fuel burns, batteries discharge. Why are you putting a trolling motor on a poly barrel?


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

fpjeepy said:


> Fuel burns, batteries discharge. Why are you putting a trolling motor on a poly barrel?


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=is this guy for real


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

DuckNut said:


> Ok dipshit here is a lesson for you. Circles are NOT 1:1! Circles are flat and have a circumference that is equal to the diameter times pi. Round balls would be 1:1 as you implied.
> 
> Barrels are NOT balls, they are cylinders. The diameter of a 55 gallon drum is roughly 22" and their length is roughly 33". This is NOT a circle and also is NOT a ball. A cylinder.
> 
> ...


Just elaborating on one of your posts in this thread.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Just elaborating on one of your posts in this thread.


That is a post by Ducknut.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

fpjeepy said:


> That was the best thing I've read all day!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here it is


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)

Build it!


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

So just to confirm...



Smackdaddy53 said:


> How many volts will you burn if you put a MinnKota 80 on a 55 gallon poly barrel? You’ll probably need wet cells in the bottom so it’s not too tippy. You may need wet cell batteries in the floor to keep the center of gravity low.


is an elaboration on



fpjeepy said:


> Barrels are round... Like a circle. Circles are the same width as they are length... 1:1


Is this guy for real?


----------



## Tautog166 (Jul 7, 2018)

Boatbrains said:


> Build it!


Yes, build it! Prove everybody wrong. 















Still don’t think you have the money or the balls. Please though, would love a pictorial thread on the whole process.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

And leave the epirb in the truck so you are not endangering our first responders.


----------



## BB FL (Aug 3, 2019)

Y'all done scared him to my favorite boat building forum! Can't you keep the riffraff in the bilge?


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

BB FL said:


> Y'all done scared him to my favorite boat building forum! Can't you keep the riffraff in the bilge?


I think I saw him in the yard giving it hell yesterday.


----------



## firecat1981 (Nov 27, 2007)

BB FL said:


> Y'all done scared him to my favorite boat building forum! Can't you keep the riffraff in the bilge?


Which one? Lots of em around, and lots of riffraff.


----------



## MatthewAbbott (Feb 25, 2017)

BB FL said:


> Y'all done scared him to my favorite boat building forum! Can't you keep the riffraff in the bilge?


Link?


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

BB FL said:


> Y'all done scared him to my favorite boat building forum! Can't you keep the riffraff in the bilge?


You can keep him.


----------



## eightwt (May 11, 2017)

https://abc7.com/travel/man-paddleboards-from-sf-to-hawaii-in-76-days/5493656/

Another option for OP


----------



## TX_Brad (Jun 8, 2018)

How's the build coming?


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

I bought an engine. But otherwise still in the design phase.


----------



## TX_Brad (Jun 8, 2018)

fpjeepy said:


> I bought an engine. But otherwise still in the design phase.


Best of luck, interested to see how it works out.


----------



## Travisc454 (5 mo ago)

Dug this one up to show you guys this design. Sort of fits what he was wanting. 30 knots. 90hp.










https://metalboatkits.com/product/kunghit-29/


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

that has an 8ft 5in beam. I think he was going on about a 30 ft boat with a 5 ft beam or something. I forgot all about this thread,


----------



## TX_Brad (Jun 8, 2018)

devrep said:


> that has an 8ft 5in beam. I think he was going on about a 30 ft boat with a 5 ft beam or something. I forgot all about this thread,


Or was it 50’ x 3’? I remember it was really skinny for the length.


----------



## Travisc454 (5 mo ago)

devrep said:


> that has an 8ft 5in beam. I think he was going on about a 30 ft boat with a 5 ft beam or something. I forgot all about this thread,


I dont know anything, I just thought of this thread when I saw these plans. 
I actually bought the study plans.
Says hull weight is 2k. Definitely blowing his 10k budget. 
rated max 150hp 40 knots.


----------



## fpjeepy (Jun 24, 2016)

Travisc454 said:


> I dont know anything, I just thought of this thread when I saw these plans.
> I actually bought the study plans.
> Says hull weight is 2k. Definitely blowing his 10k budget.
> rated max 150hp 40 knots.
> View attachment 214232


4'11" chine beam?!? Don't tell Ducknut or ifsteve. They'll call the cops.

I enjoyed re-reading some of this. My idea of 41hp burning 1 g/hp was off. Probably closer to 2.0 for diesel and 2.9 for gas. 41hp at the prop + 10%.

Also having a standing height console was a bad choice. Almost as bad as the double-side window idea. lol A seated helm would be better. 

I've done a lot more research and a little more designing. Anyone interested in that stuff DM me, I don't wanna post anything here for fear of starting another battle. I still have a 43hp diesel in storage. Not sure if I'll put it to use. 

Ironically, I'm currently running a 20mpg skiff. But it's pretty far from offshore ready. Ducknut and ifsteve will be happy to hear I don't go more than 3 miles offshore. (10 miles in the backcountry) 16ft Scott Deep Duckboat w/ 9.9hp Tohatsu. 19 mph WOT 12 mph cruise. Anything more than 1ft chop I'm down to about 6 mph. A lot of fun.


----------

