IFish Fishing Forum banner

Thinking Of My Next Build For Off Shore to Replace the Grady

10K views 51 replies 20 participants last post by  tomictime 
#1 · (Edited)
Looking for opinion's on building a 28' Great Alaskan to replace my 30' Grady 10"9' beam. The Grady MIGHT be a bit more sea worthy but I would not want to be out fishing in any conditions that would be too much for the GA. The main reason I am considering this is the Grady gets at best 1.25 mpg the GA should get in at least the 4 mpg range, specks call for 5 mpg.
Close inshore fishing this would not be a big deal but chasing tuna 15 days a year up 100 miles per trip and halibut 10 or so days a year nets out to about $8,000 dollars in fuel savings. :doh: The GA is about 6000 pounds lighter loaded up with all the same goodies as the Grady other than having one 225 Yamaha rather than two on the Grady.
This weight difference does not take into account full fuel on the Grady is 310 gallons 1860 lb for a max range of 387 miles versus 100 gallons for a max range of 450 miles at 600 lb saves another 1260 pounds. Again I say:doh:
Let me hear your thoughts pro's/con's. Thanks I need a little nudge here building this boat would be a lot of work but well worth it money wise and very, very rewarding. This would make a heck of a kit boat

ADDED COMMENT
Running heavy as for Tuna the millage would drop, I'm sure the mpg speck is calculated like any other rig car or boat running at its best not loaded. Something I should have added was a comment about expecting the mileage to drop on tuna runs (my oversight) As well as the mileage my Grady is currently getting 1.25 is pretty much at its best also and will drop (hope it does not drop to 3/4 mpg) . I have only had the boat barely one year and haven run it real heavy yet other than holding of a lot of fuel. We have only done short runs sturgeon & salmon fishing in and out of the CR bar and you don't need much gear for that (sometimes you need guts for that bar that's when I sturgeon fish). I would say 3 mpg running a GA heavy is pretty close. Beats the heck out of 3/4 mpg but that is yet to be determined on both boats.
 
See less See more
#40 ·
Eric,

When I start picking better powerball numbers, I will look you up.

My dream tuna boat is a Carolina 38' flybridge express (I don't know why only Ocean makes open flybridge boats) with a single diesel. Big, fast, and not horrible on fuel. I have seen a couple of these used as out banks charters and I really want one.

Mike C
 
#52 ·
Just got back from there, frnd has a 34' Jarrett Bay ;) Cold Molded has pros and cons like any choice you make.

My very LIGHT Yellowfin 24 never sees 5 MPG with a 250 Yami..the 5 MPG claim is inflated..wildly...Baxters big ride has the best NMPG numbers and the Styer will set you back up front but over long haul is a wise choice.

I was able to coax high 2 mpg numnbers out of the Almar combat loaded.

Run the Grady fishing tuna for a season and every trip write down what worked well and what did not, also keep a design notebook of features younvalue. WRITE them down as they emerge or as you encounter problems.

Finally, some hulls to a point really do run better the harder ya push em, previous to owning the stepped YF i would not have held this belief, even after significant hours running a Moppie..but the YF hull is that boat..so far, so perhaps..justvperhaps nAlu,s comment taken somewhat out lf context..

BTW Oregon Inlet was FUN....
 
#42 ·
when you consider power don't forget to look at a D series Volvo diesel with an outdrive. Very economical fuel wise, though the upfront an maintenance costs could wash out the fuel savings.

Good luck, and be sure to post a build thread! :cheers:
 
#43 · (Edited)
Hey Nalu. No offense but we go by an old addage. There are old sailors and there are bold sailors but there are no old bold sailors. Put her in low gear and head for home. The thing about people is we all have different styles. Some guys ask for a date some hit her on the head and drag her in the bushes. I personaly do not like the "as conditions detiorate I accelerate" type of skipper so I own my own boat and operate accordingly.
 
#47 · (Edited)
I love posts like this..... "No offense, but now I'm going to put forth an anecdote intended to insult your method of operation" LOL Too funny.

I'll retort simply by saying that safety and comfort of my paying passengers is of paramount importance, and that is one of the specific reasons that I have the boat that I do. On the particular day I noted, I had return customers that continue to book with me every year, not just because I catch fish, but because the know how I operate. In this instance we cut the day short and headed for home several hours early because I told them it was going to get nasty. I value my customers and want them to be comfortable, so for that reason alone I do my very best to eliminate an uncomfortable ride. My ride in on that day was in no way uncomfortable, not to mention, even remotely "bold" or unsafe. Most often people depart from my trips saying that they have never been on a boat that rides as nice as mine. Their words, again, and again, and again.

Back to the topic at hand..differences in boats. It is most unfortunate that some would assume all boats are created equal, and if someone goes faster in rough weather it must be because they have a heavy hand and just want to "go for it". The truth of the matter is that actual boat design has something to do with how fast a boat can operate safely and comfortably in given conditions. Therein lies many tradeoffs.

Grady White, for example, utilizes C Raymond Hunt Designs Naval Architects to design their hulls for specific criteria of seaworthiness, speed and comfort. Ray Hunt is the originator of the deep vee hull and the designer of the legendary Bertram 31, the pioneer of rough water, offshore speed hulls. Other North Carolina manufacturers such as Regulator and Carolina Classic build similar deep vee, sharp entry, and flared bow vessels designed for running to the gulf stream many miles offshore with speed and at the same time, comfort and seakeeping. Grinding out a 100 mile run is not in the cards, and neither is getting the tar beat out of you. For me, I simply would not operate a NW design boat for tuna for customers as my body would not handle the punishment 3 or 4 or 5 days tuna fishing in a row. Others do, and that is great for them, but I simply cannot handle the ride. I have a 12 hour window, which means comfortable speed is important.

The steep entry angle, and deeper vee allow the bow to be pushed down cutting through the waves while throwing water to the side. They'll be a wet ride due to spray sometimes, but the flare keeps the bow up when pushing through and recovering from hitting a tall wave. This deep entry allows for greater speed while maintaining the ride.

Another thing that is a tradeoff is helm position and seating. Where most NW boats have a forward helm, Grady and other place the helm amidship. By having the helm 4-5 feet further back than most NW designed boats, the amount of pounding is significantly reduced since the captain is not up front where all the pitching is. In my boat, everyone save myself and perhaps one other person is actual sitting either in the rear third of the vessel, or on the transom seat just forward of the motors. On the identical boat, sitting 5 or 6 feet from the bow, or sitting at the stern the ride is not even comparable. If you look at every center console offshore fishing boat you will notice the helm is typically back from midship, as is the main seating for crew. No coincidence, it is because that's where the best ride is. From a safety standpoint, the helm of a Grady is raised at least 3 feet higher than the helm on most NW boats. This raised helm area also gives greater vision all around.

By properly trimming and operating a vessel truly designed for rough water seakeeping, reasonable speeds can be attained without sacrificing safety or comfort.

The tradeoffs are pretty apparent. Fuel economy is not as good since a deep vee has to have higher power to maintain speeds. I have twin 225's on mine and average between 1.25 and 1.5 nmpg. I expect to burn between 65-90 gallons on a tuna trip. In addition, the cockpit of my boat is nowhere near as large as the cockpit of a NW designed boat, some aluminum boats of similar length might have 30% larger cockpits. The seating is more open to the elements, and you do not have the ability to shut a door and completely get out of the elements. Of course 3 people can fish off the bow of my boat, so that's a plus....of course even more can fish off a center console.

That is why up front I said that this is apples and oranges. NW designed boats are fabulous and there is no knock on them, or on a wood boat, or any other boat that is purpose built. A dory is a great boat and has been proven, can slay many tuna, with cost efficiency and at the same time being a safe dependable craft. Just because it takes someone twice as long to get home is not in any way a negative on the craft, it simply "is what it is".

My boat goes faster than many others in rough water while maintaining a comfortable and safe ride. Other boats, can go faster yet, while still maintaining a comfortable, safe ride. Some here would do well to understand that just because their vessel of choice operates a certain way they would be wiser not to assume that others operate the same. No offense, but you know what they say about assumptions.:whistle:
 
#44 ·
Wasn't the point that he could trim her and cut the waves w/o sacrificing ssafety or a pounding ride? My first trip out on a messy day I was surprised at how you could trim the bow down a little bit and quarter the SW slop for a smooth ride back East to port. That said, I started out following Wayne's biigger/faster boat and eventually watched him dissapear into the horizon, also presumably safely. Relativity.
 
#46 ·
I have that site bookmarked I looked at a lot of thier designs when I was looking for a boat to build then Someone on this site sudgested a Tolman sure glad they did. I'm enjoying that build very close to flipping it and stating the inside.
 
#48 ·
Great post, Nalu. A terrific explanation of why you have chosen the boat you have. As a charter operator, you have some very good reasons for your choices. One really valid point is the fact that you have to do it day in and day out- you have to be able to scoot, and do so in comfort, or you won't be in bidness. As for me, I need an economical boat or I just can't go. No way I can afford 100 gallons a day. We all have to recognize that our individual situations will dictate what we operate. As long as we stay safe it's all good.
 
#49 ·
I think a point left out of this discussion is that all boats are a series of compromises, and each of us chooses which points we will concede to get other features we prefer. For example:

Fuel economy requires shallow deadrise, the CG (center of gravity) and CB (center of buoyancy) further forward, and lighter weight.

Smooth ride in choppy seas at speed require deep (25° or more) deadrise at the transom, deeper at the stem (often 50° or more), and the CG well aft. Wayne's boat is a prime example.

Each boat has a set of parameters to which it is best suited. Nalu's boat would not be happy running at slower speeds in a 3 foot chop because the designer specifically designed her to move fast in big chop. His safest operating speed is planing, period.

I've ridden in a 55' Paul Mann and can tell you she wallows worse than Tailgunner when trolling, yet we blasted through a 6 foot wind wave in 40 kt winds in the Gulf of Mexico like it was a pond. That's what they are suited for.

To say someone is safe or not safe must take into account what the hull is drawn to do.

E
 
#50 · (Edited)
You're absolutely right Eric.

A year or two into owning my first Grady I was talking to a long time Grady owner and telling him that I was disappointed in the ride of my boat, and that I thought it should be better in rough water, especially when returning from halibut fishing. With all seriousness he told me I probably wasn't going fast enough. I was trying to grind out a decent ride at 12-14 knots and was in a no mans land on and off throttles trying to stay on plane, and at the same time getting tossed back and forth. His words of wisdom "Speed up".

Next trip out and back I headed his advice and pushed the throttles forward to a speed that I thought was "too fast". Lo and behold the boat settled into a groove, the ride smoothed out, the fuel consumption dropped, and I got home significantly quicker than I had before. Now the challenge on rough water days is to find the optimum planing speed to get into the groove. Non planing speed is a very poor choice.

The "go faster for a better ride" is totally counter intuitive, but it works if the boat is designed for it. As noted, the compromise is fuel efficiency, and even deck space.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top