test rode a procat and up coming race.

starcrafttom

Saturday after fishing I went for a test ride on a 28ft procat. Why?? well they were having demo days for the local dealer giving free rides, what more reason do I need? Great riding boat by the way, leans to the out side a little but you can correct by giving the out side motor more gas. do the tom cats have this same problem? The boat will do about 48 mph and still planes all the way back down to 17 mph. very little bow rise. While on the ride I thought I new the guy driving. He and his dad were on the dock at uclulet last year with there twin vee cat while susan and I stayed there. Small world some times.

The dealer told me something that I think you all may find interesting. This next summer he plans to hold a cat race to ketchican and back in three days. The rules are simple you can only use 500gallons of fuel and you have to be first back. Any tom cat owners interested?? The guy is trying to get free publicity. He thinks he'll win with the time and the gas limits. the gas limits rules out all the big of shore race boats. Does any one know what the current record for the run is???

Alok · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject:

A lightly loaded Tomcat with twin 150s should run at about 47-48 mph at WOT and will go on plane at 17-18 mph.

My fully loaded Tomcat- full tanks (150 gallons), full water, 4 passengers, and bottom paint consistently hits 44.5 mph at WOT.

Gas consumption at 28 mph in smooth waters is about 2.2 mpg.

What's the round trip distance for the "race"?

drjohn71a · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject:

'Seems like floating logs and wind would be the big "deciders" on a trip like that. How could you look for logs going that fast at night?

John

starcrafttom · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject:

never said it was a good idea , just interesting. I saw a lot of night vision devices at the boat show this year.

Bob Cat · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject:

Hi, Alok

What engines do you have and what props? I'd love to get those kind of numbers, especially fully loaded, and I only carry 130 gals!

Bob Cat

Sea Wolf · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject:

It would be really foolish to run through that course at night!

The course ought to be raced in daily legs during daylight hours with a common start time on each leg. Boats would finish at the end of each leg with their finish recorded and elapsed time calculated. The winner is the boat with the lowest total elapsed time.

Joe.

Hunkydory · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject:

There may be a few that have taken more risk doing adventures things than me on this site, but the number would have to be small to still be alive. BUT THE RACE IDEA IN THIS AREA IS WAY BEYOUND FOOLISH.

Not meant as a put down to anyone. Just my opinion.

Jay

starcrafttom · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject:

Stop shouting and stop shooting the messnger. Iam just passing on what I was told. I always think races are good ideas. This cant be the first race that has been done in this area. As far as logs are concern, make be slowing down and taking it easy as night is part of the challange.

Pat Anderson · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject:

Second the foolish to run at night part...also the original notion of the race assumes everyone can just run flat out the whole way without being concerned about wind, currents, seas, fog or whatever...so the guy who takes foolish chances is either the winner or ends up dead?

Hunkydory · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject:

TyBoo · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject:

Hunkydory · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject:

Mike---Your're right no editing. The jokes on me and I'am still laughing!!!!

Jay

TyBoo · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:45 pm Post subject:

OK Jay, that's good of you. Now let's get back to beatin' the crap out of Tom. He might not deserve it for this, but there have been plenty of things he didn't get caught for. Tom - you damn fool - keep that boat in the living room where it belongs and do not enter this race!!

Larry H · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject:

Tom,

Another 10 page thread?? LOL

for those whose brains are already running on this, here are some numbers:

Seattle to Ketchikan; 660 nautical miles one way or 1320 miles round trip
Five days x 24 hrs= 120 hours available
Only running in mostly daylight; 12hours/day x 5=60 hours
Overall average speed needed 1320 divided by 120=11 knots
Overall daylight average speed needed 1320 divided by 60=22knots
So, first day run 12hrs x 22=264 miles
second day 264
1/2 of third day 132
total miles 660
Fuel economy required 1320 miles divided by 500 gallons=2.64nautical miles per gallon.

Questions Can any boat achieve 2,64 mpg while AVERAGING 22 knots?

I assume that the night time hours would be used to refuel, sleep, etc.

If the boat touches land, anchors, or hovers with another vessel(refueling at sea) then they must clear customs into Canada, then into Alaska at Ketchikan, and back into Canada somewhere.

Can the boats carry extra fuel to avoid refueling enroute? If so, that would help a lot.

This race may be possible without running at night, and if the boat carries 250 gallons, without refueling enroute.
If the run continued at a very reduced speed at night(like 5-6 knots)on a kicker, then no Customs check-ins would be required and fuel would be saved.

A Nascar style refueling team could meet the boat at Ketchikan and refuel them and they could head south immediately.

That would be something to tell your grandkids!!

thataway · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject:

To answer Bob Searle's questions--yes I get the same numbers as Alok--actually slightly better on mileage on fill up to fill up--running at a constant mid 20's speed (2.3 to 2.4 mpg best runs in ideal condtions).
We really haven't experimented much with 18 to 20 knots, because the boat runs so well at 24 to 25 knots. We can keep it on a plane down to 16, and if we get Permitrims, may get a little lower planing speed???

We have the Suzuki 150's counter rotating, set so they run with the cavitation plate right on the surface at planing speeds. We also got in the high 40's before we put on all of the "stuff".

The Tom Cat is one of the few cats which do not have the outward lean on sharp turns. This is because the Tom Cat is definately right up on a plane.

But, running to Ketchican is not ideal conditions. I think you would have to check into Canada--you will have to fuel--and probably twice on the way up and twice on the way back--This also will add both time and distance if you go to a dock. The ProKat (I believe this is the correct spelling) 28 carries 252 gallons of gas--vs 150 (or 130) for the Tom Cat.
The ProKat normally runs on 200 to 250 hp vs 150hp engines on the Tom Cat. Even according to the ProKat web site the best mileage on the 28 is 2.17 mpg on a light boat (twin 225 Yahami's)--I would be very surprised if you got 2 miles a gallon on a rigged boat with fuel etc.
The 26 with twin 200's didn't do any better. The ProKats are planing boats. Even though they are built in Alabama, I did not consider the ProKat's based on what I had read on The Hull Truth. I had examined an older boat--and it did not age well.

I don't think that the ProKat can do the run on one tank--and so there is no major advantage. I don't know if the ProKat can run faster into a chop than the Tom Cat--of course, if the racer didn't care about banging up the boat and his body--I suspect that both the Tom Cat and ProKat would be close to the same speed into a chop.