Cruising on Erie Canal

C

cracker39

New member
I'm considering a 22' Cruiser with a single 90 hp Honda. The speed on the Erie Canal is limited to 10 mph (kts?) - or essentially "no wake." How would this rig perform with these restrictions? I plan to do the entire 500 plus miles.
I'm also considering the Ranger 21EC - but subsequent usage would be on the coastal waters of Maine where I'm certain the 22' C-dory would be the better choice.
 
The 90 hp idles down well, and that should not be a problem. However, I do like to bring an engine up to speed occasionally, and you want to be sure that the engine is at operating temperature.

10 mph (or Knots) is certainly not a "no wake" speed. Most boats will have a significant wake at that speed, including the C Dory and Ranger 21.

However: these are often posted speed limits--and those who live there and frequent the canal can verify what the limits are:

The speed limits for the Erie Canal except in the vicinity of the locks and unless otherwise posted is as Follows: Between Lock #E-2 and lock #E-6 - 4.3 knots (5 mph). Between Lock #E-6 and lock #E-12 - 39.1 knots (45 mph). Between Lock #E-12 and lock #E-16 - 26.0 knots (30 mph).
Click to expand...

Yes, for Maine, the C Dory 22 is a far better choice. I consider the Ranger 21 to be more of a "cocktail" cruiser and day boat….but several have done the inland passage to AK, so they can be cruising boats. Look at the bunk in the Ranger 21--it is too small for many people. Also the galley, if you are serious about cruising.
 
thataway":1uk8z39g said:
However, I do like to bring an engine up to speed occasionally, and you want to be sure that the engine is at operating temperature.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the point of the thermostat in the cooling system (provided it is working), to maintain the engine at the correct temp?
 
From Hull Speed (about 5 knots) up to about 10 knots a C-22 is climbing up on "plane." I consider that a "no go" zone for my boat as it wastes fuel and does not handle well. The first "sweet spot" is about 12+ knots and I like 17-18 better when the water is calm. So for the restricted parts of the Eire Canal I do hull speed and let other boats go by me. You see more that way.

My Suzuki idles at 600 rpm and it takes 1,900-2,100 rpm for hull speed, and 4,200 rpm for the 17 knot sweet spot. I doubt there is much problem running all day at 2,000 rpm, but I do like to run it up and "blow it out" at least once a day. Perhaps that's old thinking, but then so am I.
 
While much of the Erie Canal is a 10 mph speed limit, there are also parts of it where the speed is not restricted. We did the Erie Canal, Hudson River, and the Trent-Severn Waterway in the summer of 2009. Our C-Dory was a great boat for that trip.

The Erie Canal is a treasure; not something to be done at a high rate of speed, even if there weren't speed restrictions. It is all the interesting towns and people you'll meet along the way that make it special.

Jim B.

Here's a link to where our time on the Erie started...

http://captnjim.blogspot.com/2009/07/ba ... ruise.html
 
thataway":3hxug8us said:
SNIP
10 mph (or Knots) is certainly not a "no wake" speed. Most boats will have a significant wake at that speed, ....SNIP
Click to expand...

We (myself and 2 buddies) tried this logic in the Erie Canal between Amsterdam, NY and Rome, NY in the late 70's.
We were in a 29' Scarab with V8 I/Os. Honestly that boat had less wake at 50 mph than 10 mph.

This was politely explained to several lock operators and later to the Sheriff. Well, they didn't buy it.

Further, we were told if caught again, the boat would be hauled and shipped to our destination
(Traverse City, MI) all at our expense. That registered and slowed us down to idle and "no wake".

Aye.

PS: 10 mph is 8.695 knots
 
The comment about a 5 kt hull speed is interesting - and makes the boat more to my liking. My previous 29' Prairie trawler - with a true displacement hull - would get up to right about an 8 to 9 kt hull speed before throwing much wake. I realize that most all planing hulls - and many semi-displacement hulls can throw a wicked wake at any speed off-plane. I can certainly live with (---even "enjoy") 5 kts, with an occasional burst to let the engine breathe. I would considered a 10 hp "no row" auxilliary - provided it could be controlled alongside the main engine while the latter is raised clear of the water. I think I've seen this setup - but I'm not really that knowlegeable about rigging outboards.
 
It is very common to have a "kicker" on the C Dory, next to a single engine. Some use 8 hp high thrust outboards, which are probably the best engine for this use. Others use 6 to 10 hp outboards. Some use a separate mount, and some mount the aux motor on the transom. Many use an articulating bar to link the two engines to gather. Actually the main engine will act as a rudder at low speeds, with the "kicker" fixed--but not for tight quarter maneuvering. I use a 3.5 hp 2 stroke, which is my dinghy motor, and it will give 3 to 4 mph. I have also used a Toqeedo electric outboard as a dinghy motor and a "low speed" kicker on the C Dory 22. It does not take much hp to move a boat several knots--as long as you stay well below the theoretical hull speed--which is pretty close to 1.34 x the sq root of LWL of the individual boat.
 
In "Two Bears" post it was suggested that a Suzuki running at around 2000 rpm would take the boat up to hull speed. Would that be about the same for a 90 Hp Honda? What about the use of a "trolling plate" attached to the motor to permit somewhat higher rpm's? Kindly keep in mind that these questions are from the perspective of a sailor, diesel trawler owner, and small fishing motor owner - not someone familiar with larger horsepower outboards.
 
My understanding is a vessel's "hull speed" is mostly determined by it's hull
length at the waterline and the hull shape, not the auxiliary power; relatively little
horsepower can propel a large vessel to reach it's hull speed. Although there
may be an equation or formula for this to find what power is needed in a specific
size planing, displacement or semi-displacement hull, in my mind it's all relative.

KISS requires
1. Little power to obtain hull speed
Ex: 18 hp to propel a 40' sailbote 6 knots
2. Much more power to obtain planing speed
Ex: 90 hp to propel a 26' CD Venture 12 mph
3. Exponentially more power to go "real fast"
Ex: 830 hp to propel a 28' deep V 80 mph

Been thar', done that.

Aye.
 
Correction to above;

1. Little power to obtain hull speed
Ex: 18 hp to propel a 40' sailbote 8 knots
(40' LOA, 36' WLL : 1.35 x 36 sq rt = 1.35 x 6 = 8.1)


Aye.

Grandma used to say, "The devil is in the details."
 
The Erie canal meets the Hudson River at Troy New York. At some point you might want to go north on the Hudson and do the Champlain canal and on up into Lake Champlain. Plenty to see and Lake Champlain has plenty to offer in the way of marinas and towns. The folks in upstate New York are the best. Check out this website on both canals and more. WWW.tug44.org
D.D.
 
Cracker39 asked about Honda power for hull speed. I suspect that the two motors, both being modern computer controlled electronic ignition, get about the same efficiency/ economy.

My setting of 1,900 -2,100 for hull speed in Two Bears is just from experience/ practice. If anything I may be pushing it above hull speed a bit. If I keep the speed down I get about 7 miles per gallon. When I push it above 6 kts to the 12 knot or higher range the fuel use increases (mpg reduces) to about 3.5 miles per gallon. That 50% reduction in miles per gallon occurs in the 6 to 12 knot range. After you get on plane at about 12 kts I don't think fuel economy is too greatly affected by speed. I (think) I get about 3.5 mpg at 12 kts and 3.0 at 18 kts.

Chuck
 
The Suzuki engines have a different gear ratio, and swing different props, so there may be some difference in RPM Vs speed.

A trolling plate, is to slow the boat down--I don't think you would need one for the Erie canal. (There are some outboards which if run at low idle will not come up to operating temps in cold water--ref a comment made about thermostats above. This is why I made the comment that you want an engine up to operating temp...

We keep going back to boat test.com, because these are often quoted, but optimistic figures: This is with a Honda 90 on a 22:

RPM MPH Knots GPHMPG NMPGRange S. Miles
670.. 2.3 2.0 0.5 4.6 4.0
1000 3.9 3.3 0.5 7.7 6.7 ...558
1500 5.2 4.5 0.8 6.9 6.0 …505
2000 6.6 5.7 1.1 6.0 5.2 …435
2500 7.5 6.5 1.9 4.1 3.5 …295
3000 9.4 8.1 2.2 4.4 3.8 …315
3500 14.2 12.3 3.2 4.5 3.9 …327

Note that although it is still efficient at 6.6 mph (5.7knots), it is definitely dropping. The lowest speed is probably super efficient, but the flow meters don't work well at less than .5 gal per hour. 5.2 mph, 1500 RPM is going to be a good balance for long range, and some speed. The range is very telling about the various efficiencies--but again--these are light boat, and not realistic for a cruising boat.
 
Bob mentioned this earlier. I'll paraphrase in my own words.

For you "putterers" who enjoy long lazy days in protected waters at hull speed
while enjoying the local scenery:

Extended running at low rpms is NG (read not good) for your engine.*

If I enjoyed such, I would opt for having an undersized engine that I could run
at operating speed (well above idle but somewhere below 80% of max rpm).
This could be the "kicker" on single main engine vessels. NG for a twin engine
guy.

On twin engine vessels, it's more of a problem unless you can alternate engines
(one in, one out) with the "in" engine running above 3,000 rpm. This is not a
great solution and may cause other problems since the working engine will be
over propped. It all goes back to the bold face above.

And, there goes all the fuel savings many seem so concerned about.

Aye

__________________________________________________

*2014 Honda Owner's Manual BF90, Pg. 80

"Running the engine below 3,000 rpm for more
than 30% of the time so the engine does not
warm up."
Results in
"Water condenses in the engine and mixes
with the oil, resulting in a milky appearance."
and
"The engine oil deteriorates, becomes less
efficient as a lubricant, and causes engine
deterioration."
 
In the summer the water temps in the Erie Canal are probably 70 - 80 degrees. Running along at 5 mph I would think the engine would not have a problem getting up to temperature and to even open the thermostat/s. We have 150 Yamaha and have done a fair amount of cruising at low speeds. Never saw any milky oil yet. Since the water pump spins according to the RPM I would not see this as a problem unless you were running in very cold water. But if the manual says it. It must be right.
D.D.
 
Yup.

Bank the money you save on fuel by puttering all day.
(who actually reads those manuals anyway...)

You may need it, sooner or later, for pricey engine repair.

But then, you might beat the odds.

Aye.

Grandma used to say, "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

Grandpa used to say, "You can't have it both ways."

Uncle Al said, "No matter if you believe it or not, you're right."
 
Foggy":2mytbi32 said:
Bob mentioned this earlier. I'll paraphrase in my own words.

For you "putterers" who enjoy long lazy days in protected waters at hull speed
while enjoying the local scenery:

Extended running at low rpms is NG (read not good) for your engine.*

If I enjoyed such, I would opt for having an undersized engine that I could run
at operating speed (well above idle but somewhere below 80% of max rpm).
This could be the "kicker" on single main engine vessels. NG for a twin engine
guy.

On twin engine vessels, it's more of a problem unless you can alternate engines
(one in, one out) with the "in" engine running above 3,000 rpm. This is not a
great solution and may cause other problems since the working engine will be
over propped. It all goes back to the bold face above.

And, there goes all the fuel savings many seem so concerned about.

Aye

__________________________________________________

*2014 Honda Owner's Manual BF90, Pg. 80

"Running the engine below 3,000 rpm for more
than 30% of the time so the engine does not
warm up."
Results in
"Water condenses in the engine and mixes
with the oil, resulting in a milky appearance."
and
"The engine oil deteriorates, becomes less
efficient as a lubricant, and causes engine
deterioration."
Click to expand...
If your manual info on the Honda 90 is also applicable to the Honda 40 then your bad news for twins turned out to be good news for mine. They are twin Honda 40's, propped with 10 pitch x 12 inches, which with running one as a single produces just under 7 mph at 3000 rpm, so in the ball park of where I need to be. When running the single twin my concern has been more about lugging or overheating the motor when a desired speed for conditions is above displacement, but below plane. My rule of thumb is to run both motors if more than 1/4 hour at 3400 rpm or above is needed on one motor to maintain desired speed.

Your information does make me a bit more inclined to now maintain 3000 rpm on the extended displacement speed runs in the cold waters we normally cruise, which will reduce slightly fuel mpg over lessor rpm, but still at least 5 to 6 mpg vs 3 to 3.5 mpg with our very heavily loaded boat on plane operating on both motors. We both very much enjoy the savings of fuel & relaxed extended view of displacement speed cruising, but also love the C-Dory's ability to increase speed to match comfort to sea conditions or just the plain ability to get where ever quicker if desired.

Jay
 
Back
Top