Isabel’s untimely end

H

Hholt

New member
Hi All,

This is my first post here and I’d like to introduce myself and say thanks for letting me join the conversation.

I’m a retired university safety manager and incorrigible lifelong adventurer, and this past spring and summer I went on a 5,000 mile voyage in my 16’ center console skiff Isabel (powered with a 40hp Yamaha and a 2.5 Suzuki kicker) which sadly came to an untimely end in the Bay of Fundy off Nova Scotia.

I had started in St Louis on May 1st, made my first turnaround at the Dry Tortugas SW of Key West, and then after a run from Boca Chita to Bimini, I cruised the Atlantic coast as far as Grand Manan Island in the Bay of Fundy, and that is where my voyage came to an end on July24th in a welding shop, due to wear and tear cracks in Isabel’s aluminum hull.

So now I’m looking at a C-Dory as a replacement boat to resume my journey, and that’s what has brought me to C-Brats site looking for information. My first big question is how would you compare the handling and seaworthiness of the 22’ Cruiser and the 23’ Venture Sport. Is the difference in deadrise really noticeable? Also, has anyone out there powered a 23’ Venture with a 90hp and if so what was the fuel economy and top speed? I guess you could say those two issues are my priorities, boat handling in ocean conditions and fuel economy/range. Anyway those two models are on the top of my list and they both look like really nice boats, well suited for resuming my voyage!
 
Wow -- that's some trip in a 16'!

Did you cruise the ICW or off shore up the east coast?

We have a 22' C-Dory that we absolutely love -- bobs like a cork and can take far more than the captain.
 
I did a mix of both daninPA. Parts of the ICW are beautiful and off the beaten path, but other parts are congested with lots of boats and the occasional dangerous operator and long no-wake zones. I really liked the parts of the ICW along the southeast in Georgia and the Carolinas but I generally preferred runs in the ocean when conditions permitted.

Exploring the Everglades and my open water runs (Apalachacola to Steinhatchee, Middle Cape to Key West, Key West to the Dry Tortugas, crossing the Gulf Stream, and from the Hudson to Grand Manan) were my favorite parts of the voyage.

[url=https://freeimage.host/i/4XD8bt]https://freeimage.host/i/4XD8bt[/url]
[url=https://freeimage.host/i/4XDUzX]https://freeimage.host/i/4XDUzX[/url]
 
Welcome to the group. You sound like just the kind of guy who will benefit from and contribute to the collective experience of this place!

I had a 23 and absolutely loved it. I can't really comment on comparisons with a 22 since I've never owned one or spent any real time on one. You will find lots of discussions about the differences between the two if you do a little searching on the site.

I personally think you would find a 90 hp on a 23 to be a little under powered. I had twin 50's which were OK - fine, really. After a couple thousand hours on them I repowered with 70's. Performance and fuel efficiency both improved. I ran a very heavily loaded boat, mostly on long range cruises. Under widely varying conditions and at widely varying speeds I averaged somewhere around 3.5 statute mpg over many thousands of miles. Top speed was probably around 32 mph with the 50's and 35 with the 70's - again depending a lot on loading. Best planing cruise was around 22 mph at around 4400 rpm. I would strongly recommend a Permatrim foil, and especially if you go with a single, trim tabs.

Good luck with your search.
 
Was that 3.5 mpg for the twin 70s? That’s better than I would have thought on a heavily equipped 23’…..a range of just over 150 miles with the standard tanks? I do plan on packing a light boat when I continue up into the maritimes to increase my range and for handling the big Atlantic swell. Where I left off in the Isabel I was surfing up and down long-period 6-8 footers. I think those twin 50s are built on the same frame as the 40 I had on the Isabel and that’s a GREAT engine and pretty light.
 
Hholt":2vpt0at7 said:
Was that 3.5 mpg for the twin 70s? That’s better than I would have thought on a heavily equipped 23’…..a range of just over 150 miles with the standard tanks? . . .
Click to expand...

That's approximate overall average with the 70's. The 50's did slightly worse (3.3 +/- ?), but I made some beneficial refinements along the way, like adding Permatrims and slightly raising the mounting level of the engines. The 70's reaped the benefits. As I indicated, those are overall numbers, and some not insignificant percentage of my cruising was at hull speed, where mileage might be twice that average.

The boat came with two 30 gallon tanks. Out of the 60 total, I probably had about 58 useable given the impossibility of getting every last drop out. I carried a couple of 5 gallon cans - for the generator and as backup. I had to detour a couple of times to find fuel for long runs on the north BC coast when an expected fuel stop was out of fuel, but I never came seriously close to running out. When I knew I was facing a long run between fuel sources, I tended to run slow for more of the way, effectively giving me a couple hundred miles of range and still keeping to the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 rule (with the start of the second "1/3" being the point of no return, of course, on a one way trip). Bad conditions can shoot fuel mileage to hell even at slow speeds. Caution is the word.
 
My boat has 2 23 gallon tanks. It is a 22 with a single 90 on it. I plan using 3 mpg. This give 70 miles/tank. The actual mileage can be much better. At cruising speed with the usual load and good conditions the actual MPG is 3.3 at high speed (~20 mph). Slower speeds and lighter loads increase the mpg, but 3 is good for planning in my case. There have been occasions where the cruising mpg has been close to 5. Being in proper trim helps quite a bit too.
 
Congratulations on what you have done with a 16' open center console. Either of The 22 or 23 will seem like a cruise liner in comparison. Probably it would be easiest to retrofit more fuel to the 23. 'The 23 will perform slightly better in rougher seas--and perhaps slightly better when going over 30 mph. One of the members has been very impressed with dual 60 Hondas. Check out the threads of Jay and Jolee: See the post on twin 60;s and follow this threads by going to :Profile, and then click on the Alaska adventures thru the years. His running is in some ways similar to what you do and he carries extra fuel: See Jay in Hunky'Dory,

Do you have a blog site--I would love to read it. At times I had fantasized about doing the great loop in my 18' Caracal Cat--a very capable boat, but with only about 26 gallons of fuel. Thus one would have to markedly increase the fuel, since in looking at your track, you were on a plane most of the time.

Even the most efficient boat will never come close to the "efficiency" of the 16' light Center console!

For what you want, I would go with a 23, and add another 69 t0 100 gallons of fuel.
 
thataway":ifgp966v said:
... Do you have a blog site--I would love to read it. At times I had fantasized about doing the great loop in my 18' Caracal Cat--a very capable boat, but with only about 26 gallons of fuel. Thus one would have to markedly increase the fuel, since in looking at your track, you were on a plane most of the time. ....

For what you want, I would go with a 23, and add another 69 t0 100 gallons of fuel.
Click to expand...

According to the GLCA website, the longest leg on the Great Loop without fuel on the usual route (e.g. not going through NOLA) is 200 miles. For my 22 (single 90) I'd like to carry more fuel for this stretch, only 30 gallons extra is necessary for my cruising speed (~18 mph with loaded boat). Going at low speed and with the river current, I expect that there would be plenty of range on normal tankage. Having some fuel reserve is prudent though.
 
Hholt, you’ve done some extraordinary cruising & accomplished much in a 16 foot boat & as Bob said a 22/23 C-Dory would seem like a Yacht compared to your 16. I’ve spent time in a small open boat exploring & though they were good times, the comfort level can be dismal, compared to having a inclosed cabin with all the comforts of a mini home. Over the years, I’ve learned the CD22 & I imagine the 23 also does amazingly well in the open ocean with its bigger but further spaced swells. Where they don’t shine is going into very close spaced waves around 3 feet or more. I’ve spent many hours slugging into & trying to keep from pounding, while only making 2 to 4 mph & a Alaskan C-Brat here T.R. Bauer, said he has actually gone backwards at 2 mph trying to make headway in 4 to 6 foot closed spaced waves with eventually having to retreat. In comparison on the outer coast of SE Alaska this year, I was in 7 foot swells with 6 to 7 second time duration & winds of 15 to 20 mph & able to maintain boat speeds of 9 to 16 mph either into, with or parallel to the swells. And in past years, I have been in worse conditions with the boat doing well enough, that I was only concerned about possibly, the present conditions deteriorating more.

About adding range by carrying extra fuel, I also use displacement speed a good part of the time to increase it. I now carry 36 gal beyond my 46 gal main tanks capacity for about 79 gal of useable fuel. This year I averaged 5.9 mpg for the 2142 mile cruise. I use to carry 100 gal, but with the better fuel economy of the twin 60’s it’s not necessary. To do the kind of cruising I prefer in SE Alaska in rough numbers, I like to have a max range of 500 miles at displacement speed & still 400 miles at a 50/50 combination of displacement & on plane. Several times on this years cruise we made 350+ miles between fuelings & in the past over 400 miles. If I was to cruise entirely on plane, rough max range would be down to 300 miles with an extension of that with more fuel. The 1/3 out, 1/3 back & 1/3 reserve doesn’t apply to this style of cruising, but always knowing how much fuel you have left & the distance to a sure source does & I almost always have enough fuel left for another 100 miles+ at displacement speed, when taking on more fuel. WOT speed on the ocean with varying weight is between 30 & 35 mph, but 15 to 20 is a more realistic speed with most ocean conditions in a CD22 & at times much less.

As a follow up to Bob’s suggestion of checking out some of our travels with a CD22 here’s a couple quick links.

Past years Alaska.

http://www.c-brats.com/viewtopic.php?t=29167

This years Alaska

http://www.c-brats.com/viewtopic.php?t=30726

Jay
 
Back
Top