Are people generally happy with their bow thrusters. What is the factory installed unit? Is there enough power? Has anyone installed one after delivery? Again, what type model and power? Where is the best place to install the controls? Any other words of wisdom are greatly appreciated. Thanks Warren
- Status
more power....................
I had a "Sidepower" bow thruster installed on my h450 one year ago. We went with the T-75 which is the 6hp, the factory model is 4hp. After one years use I can tell you that the extra power is useful. The control we selected was the "joystick" which was mounted on the port side of the wheel mount(opposite the throttle) for optimal control. The sidepower company has some useful info on tunnel shape for optimal efficiency both for thruster use and minimal boat drag. For a boat this size it is a useful tool that would be missed. If you would like more info contact me. BCaptainBrian@aol.com
I had a "Sidepower" bow thruster installed on my h450 one year ago. We went with the T-75 which is the 6hp, the factory model is 4hp. After one years use I can tell you that the extra power is useful. The control we selected was the "joystick" which was mounted on the port side of the wheel mount(opposite the throttle) for optimal control. The sidepower company has some useful info on tunnel shape for optimal efficiency both for thruster use and minimal boat drag. For a boat this size it is a useful tool that would be missed. If you would like more info contact me. BCaptainBrian@aol.com
Bow Thrust
I have a 450 with 7 HP Sidepower Thruster. Works fine. It makes lif a lot easier in getting in and out slips. Power is ok. This was factory installation. I could not imangine owning a boat without it. Tale Winds Len Fagan
I have a 450 with 7 HP Sidepower Thruster. Works fine. It makes lif a lot easier in getting in and out slips. Power is ok. This was factory installation. I could not imangine owning a boat without it. Tale Winds Len Fagan
Just do it.
This past year I purchassed a Hunter 40 that had a Vetus 10hp bow thuster installed on it. This Hunter came with alot of bells and whistles, and the bow thruster was not at the top of the excitement list. But at the end of this summer I had fallen in love. It helps leaving and approching a slip or dock, turning in a tight spot, has gotten me off of a sand bar, and also helps when backing down to set an anchor. Randy
This past year I purchassed a Hunter 40 that had a Vetus 10hp bow thuster installed on it. This Hunter came with alot of bells and whistles, and the bow thruster was not at the top of the excitement list. But at the end of this summer I had fallen in love. It helps leaving and approching a slip or dock, turning in a tight spot, has gotten me off of a sand bar, and also helps when backing down to set an anchor. Randy
whos bow thrusters are better
By better, I refer to value, durability and performance. I have looked at the side power and the vetus web sites. The vetus site says there is no benefit to 2 bladed thrusters. Sidepower uses two blades. I do not know how the price of the sidepower compares to vetus. For a given thrust, Vetus appears significantly heavier. Vetus is much more technical in sizing a thruster as they provide formulae to calculate wind drag etc. Sidepower uses boat sizes to recommend an appropriate thruster. Any comments. Warren
By better, I refer to value, durability and performance. I have looked at the side power and the vetus web sites. The vetus site says there is no benefit to 2 bladed thrusters. Sidepower uses two blades. I do not know how the price of the sidepower compares to vetus. For a given thrust, Vetus appears significantly heavier. Vetus is much more technical in sizing a thruster as they provide formulae to calculate wind drag etc. Sidepower uses boat sizes to recommend an appropriate thruster. Any comments. Warren
Just say NO to bowthrusters for offshore plans
Some might say NO to Hunters and other medium-light built cruisers altogether for offshore use. I say: prepare vessel and crew well; stay out of the higher latitudes and the cyclone seasons and you will be fine. Even with the newest Kevlar collision mats, however, your vessel is not built to withstand collisions with floating containers and other hard objects. Reports of such collisions suggest you may only have a few minutes to get into your liferaft. That is simply one of the facts of life one has to accept when taking a relatively lightly built vessel offshore and sailing at considerable speeds. If you have ever occupied a bunk in the forward cabin while your vessel is barreling through a stormy night you are accutely aware of these facts. This is why we have a fully inflated Tinker tied up high on davits, directly below the solar panels. That is our get-away insurance in case of collision. ANYTHING that decreases the already short time left after a hard collision decreases that chance of survival. If properly installed (i.e. by systematically reinforcing the hull after cutting the hole but and before even glassing the bowthruster in) a bow thruster should not weaken the integrity of the forward hull when subjected to "normal" wave impact forces and might perhaps even strengthen it (no doubt, this is what the salesman will tell you). Nonetheless, any stiffening of FRP hull areas designed to flex will decrease your hull's ability to withstand strong flexing forces, e.g. from unusually strong wave action or collisons and other serious mishaps. This is what causes the frequently observed busting or popping of realtively small thru-hulls during collisions, let alone a giant thru-hull such as needed for a bow thruster. IMHO there is no avoiding the consideration that a hard collision, particularly a sideways blow, will greatly increase the chance of massive water influx. Therefore, unless you are also planning to install a watertight bulkhead and keep the forward cabin closed off during offshore passages, I would strongly advice against installing a bow thruster if you do have any future offshore sailing plans. Just tell your bowthruster salesman that you will be happy to have him/her install a bowthruster if he/she agrees to sleep a couple of nights in the forward cabin while your vessel is barreling along under autopilot at 7 or 8 knots............ See yah out there; Flying Dutchman "Rivendel II"
Some might say NO to Hunters and other medium-light built cruisers altogether for offshore use. I say: prepare vessel and crew well; stay out of the higher latitudes and the cyclone seasons and you will be fine. Even with the newest Kevlar collision mats, however, your vessel is not built to withstand collisions with floating containers and other hard objects. Reports of such collisions suggest you may only have a few minutes to get into your liferaft. That is simply one of the facts of life one has to accept when taking a relatively lightly built vessel offshore and sailing at considerable speeds. If you have ever occupied a bunk in the forward cabin while your vessel is barreling through a stormy night you are accutely aware of these facts. This is why we have a fully inflated Tinker tied up high on davits, directly below the solar panels. That is our get-away insurance in case of collision. ANYTHING that decreases the already short time left after a hard collision decreases that chance of survival. If properly installed (i.e. by systematically reinforcing the hull after cutting the hole but and before even glassing the bowthruster in) a bow thruster should not weaken the integrity of the forward hull when subjected to "normal" wave impact forces and might perhaps even strengthen it (no doubt, this is what the salesman will tell you). Nonetheless, any stiffening of FRP hull areas designed to flex will decrease your hull's ability to withstand strong flexing forces, e.g. from unusually strong wave action or collisons and other serious mishaps. This is what causes the frequently observed busting or popping of realtively small thru-hulls during collisions, let alone a giant thru-hull such as needed for a bow thruster. IMHO there is no avoiding the consideration that a hard collision, particularly a sideways blow, will greatly increase the chance of massive water influx. Therefore, unless you are also planning to install a watertight bulkhead and keep the forward cabin closed off during offshore passages, I would strongly advice against installing a bow thruster if you do have any future offshore sailing plans. Just tell your bowthruster salesman that you will be happy to have him/her install a bowthruster if he/she agrees to sleep a couple of nights in the forward cabin while your vessel is barreling along under autopilot at 7 or 8 knots............ See yah out there; Flying Dutchman "Rivendel II"
He Who Say's No To A Bow Thruster .....
Is one who has never owned a bow thruster. I will NEVER own another boat that does not have one. We ordered the standard Hunter option (4 hp Side Power) on our 2000 450. It works great!!! That said, there is nothing left to be said.
Is one who has never owned a bow thruster. I will NEVER own another boat that does not have one. We ordered the standard Hunter option (4 hp Side Power) on our 2000 450. It works great!!! That said, there is nothing left to be said.
Gordon, I fail to see any disagreement....
between your post and mine. Perhaps you missed the part of the title that said "offshore"? Although we did weather some of the worst thunderstorms we ever encountered on the Chesapeake I would still not call that offshore sailing (nor a trip down the ICW). Consequently, I would see no reason not to mount a bow thruster. Also, a factory-installed bow thruster is undoubtedly as strong as they get. That said, however, we rarely see bow thrusters on offshore cruising vessels in the Pacific, unless we are talking about 60-footers and up. Quite a few of the really large vessels, however, do have twin engines which make the use of a bow thruster unnecessary. Flying Dutchman
between your post and mine. Perhaps you missed the part of the title that said "offshore"? Although we did weather some of the worst thunderstorms we ever encountered on the Chesapeake I would still not call that offshore sailing (nor a trip down the ICW). Consequently, I would see no reason not to mount a bow thruster. Also, a factory-installed bow thruster is undoubtedly as strong as they get. That said, however, we rarely see bow thrusters on offshore cruising vessels in the Pacific, unless we are talking about 60-footers and up. Quite a few of the really large vessels, however, do have twin engines which make the use of a bow thruster unnecessary. Flying Dutchman
the offshore argument is interesting
Offshore is so far into the horizon, I have to assume it will be done with a different boat. However, why not install a water tight bulkhead prior to going offshore and sleep well at night. In any case, bow thruster or not, the V berth is a difficult place to sleep even if sailing onshore (opposite of offshore) or nearshore. Some suggested that the 4hp sidepower installed by hunter is underpowered. Any comments. I do not expect to hold the bow to windward in a gale force blow. Warren Feldstein
Offshore is so far into the horizon, I have to assume it will be done with a different boat. However, why not install a water tight bulkhead prior to going offshore and sleep well at night. In any case, bow thruster or not, the V berth is a difficult place to sleep even if sailing onshore (opposite of offshore) or nearshore. Some suggested that the 4hp sidepower installed by hunter is underpowered. Any comments. I do not expect to hold the bow to windward in a gale force blow. Warren Feldstein
get real.........................................
Having a background in aviation(Airline-Captain and aeronautical engineer) this argument that a bowthruster weakens the boat is borderline absurd! It reminds me of the old argumets about the fact that" a proper airplane must have two wings" or that "roller-furling sail is unsafe". As most of us know both are silly. If you look at the relative size of the bowthruster tunnel to the boat itself the degradation of the vetical and lateral structure is approaching zero. Indeed, in many applications round holes are made in structures to save weight with minimal loss of strenght. Most of my sailing is off-shore. It's funny that most of the "experts" stay in protected waters. In short, get a bowthruster, reduce your marina stress, and go out and have some fun. Let the "experts" have another beer at the marina.
Having a background in aviation(Airline-Captain and aeronautical engineer) this argument that a bowthruster weakens the boat is borderline absurd! It reminds me of the old argumets about the fact that" a proper airplane must have two wings" or that "roller-furling sail is unsafe". As most of us know both are silly. If you look at the relative size of the bowthruster tunnel to the boat itself the degradation of the vetical and lateral structure is approaching zero. Indeed, in many applications round holes are made in structures to save weight with minimal loss of strenght. Most of my sailing is off-shore. It's funny that most of the "experts" stay in protected waters. In short, get a bowthruster, reduce your marina stress, and go out and have some fun. Let the "experts" have another beer at the marina.
I understand that if properly installed, almost no
penalty. The side-power web site has adobe copies of the installation manuals. It suggests that the back end of the hole has to be ground back or the front end built up. The purpose is to eliminate any surface that the water will bang into as the boat moves forward. What do others say about the penalty in their real worl experience.
penalty. The side-power web site has adobe copies of the installation manuals. It suggests that the back end of the hole has to be ground back or the front end built up. The purpose is to eliminate any surface that the water will bang into as the boat moves forward. What do others say about the penalty in their real worl experience.
What is it with these bowthruster guys?
They appear ready to fly off the handle after reading only half of my posts!! Is it because of latent guilt feelings? Pleeeze ....., I am NOT criticizing anyone for installing a bow thruster and I certainly do not want to get into testosterone-fueled battles over who is the more experienced offshore sailor or has the most credible background in various related fields of engineering. If we can agree about the fact that EVERY hull opening below the waterline carries a certain risk for being breached during collisions (this is why modern-design, upscale cruising vessels now tend to combine nearly all U/W hull openings into a single manifolded thru-hull fitiing) and that installation of a bow thruster requires cutting of two VERY LARGE holes, then we can perhaps find some common ground for a reasoned discussion. Furthermore, I have already stated that factory-designed bowthruster installations are probably as strong as they come and may well produce a stronger hull than without the installation (that is: if only static forces are being considered that do not require the hull to flex as a major force dissipation mechanism). However, our Hunters are relatively lightly built and in many dynamic impact situations the fiberglass hull needs to be able to flex in order to escape major structural damage (this is a characteristic property of fiberglass and similar composite materials and can therefore not be directly compared to the behavior of aluminum airplane components). In fact, the often discussed "oil canning" of some of the lighter Hunter bows, scary as it may seem to some, is not necessarily bad from a structural point of view and adding more fiberglass layers may actually increase the chance of crack development (compare how many times you can fold a thin and a thick sheet of fiberglass without cracking it). Stiffening the bows by installing a bowthruster tunnel is likely to focus the force of a dynamic impact on the most rigid part of the junction between the two, rather than letting it dissipate through hull flexing (unless that junction is extremely carefully engineered to minimize the focussing effect). Flying Dutchman
They appear ready to fly off the handle after reading only half of my posts!! Is it because of latent guilt feelings? Pleeeze ....., I am NOT criticizing anyone for installing a bow thruster and I certainly do not want to get into testosterone-fueled battles over who is the more experienced offshore sailor or has the most credible background in various related fields of engineering. If we can agree about the fact that EVERY hull opening below the waterline carries a certain risk for being breached during collisions (this is why modern-design, upscale cruising vessels now tend to combine nearly all U/W hull openings into a single manifolded thru-hull fitiing) and that installation of a bow thruster requires cutting of two VERY LARGE holes, then we can perhaps find some common ground for a reasoned discussion. Furthermore, I have already stated that factory-designed bowthruster installations are probably as strong as they come and may well produce a stronger hull than without the installation (that is: if only static forces are being considered that do not require the hull to flex as a major force dissipation mechanism). However, our Hunters are relatively lightly built and in many dynamic impact situations the fiberglass hull needs to be able to flex in order to escape major structural damage (this is a characteristic property of fiberglass and similar composite materials and can therefore not be directly compared to the behavior of aluminum airplane components). In fact, the often discussed "oil canning" of some of the lighter Hunter bows, scary as it may seem to some, is not necessarily bad from a structural point of view and adding more fiberglass layers may actually increase the chance of crack development (compare how many times you can fold a thin and a thick sheet of fiberglass without cracking it). Stiffening the bows by installing a bowthruster tunnel is likely to focus the force of a dynamic impact on the most rigid part of the junction between the two, rather than letting it dissipate through hull flexing (unless that junction is extremely carefully engineered to minimize the focussing effect). Flying Dutchman
Speed Penalty - Ya Can't See It.
Mathematically there is a penalty in speed, for the tunnel of a bow thruster. But then mathematically, a bumble bee can't fly. A Hunter 450 with a 75 hp engine, 3 bladed Max-Prop
Mathematically there is a penalty in speed, for the tunnel of a bow thruster. But then mathematically, a bumble bee can't fly. A Hunter 450 with a 75 hp engine, 3 bladed Max-Prop
Gordon, fatalism
I understand where you are coming from and on my vessel nothing is completely perfect either. However, I already have my hands full solving problems inherent to the design of the boat and have no particular desire to add more potential problems to it. The KISS principle is what helps you get into bluewater sailing fast; if that is your goal. On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing wrong with coastal cruising (which is more risky and challenging than bluewater sailing anyhow). Once we make it back out of the S. Pacific in five years or so, my wife and I hope to graduate to coastal sailing again, perhaps even with a fullkeeled, teak-decked crab crusher (which may need a bowthruster to simply tack through the wind)
) See yah out there (or in here) one day Flying Dutchman
I understand where you are coming from and on my vessel nothing is completely perfect either. However, I already have my hands full solving problems inherent to the design of the boat and have no particular desire to add more potential problems to it. The KISS principle is what helps you get into bluewater sailing fast; if that is your goal. On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing wrong with coastal cruising (which is more risky and challenging than bluewater sailing anyhow). Once we make it back out of the S. Pacific in five years or so, my wife and I hope to graduate to coastal sailing again, perhaps even with a fullkeeled, teak-decked crab crusher (which may need a bowthruster to simply tack through the wind)
) See yah out there (or in here) one day Flying DutchmanOne More Critical Point
After reading everyone's reply, I noticed one issue that was only touched on, briefly. Lower stress levels and kinder dockings with your "signifcant other" as crew. I'm not saying we never have our flair ups, but I know for a fact that the bow thruster on our 450 has stopped many of them from ever coming up in the first place. Just being able to dramatically change how our vessel is moving at very slow speeds has eliminated a lot of stress. When there's no stress it seems it is much easier to talk to each other in a more normal tone of voice. That alone is worth every penny spent on it. Mike Pilolla s/v Carolina
After reading everyone's reply, I noticed one issue that was only touched on, briefly. Lower stress levels and kinder dockings with your "signifcant other" as crew. I'm not saying we never have our flair ups, but I know for a fact that the bow thruster on our 450 has stopped many of them from ever coming up in the first place. Just being able to dramatically change how our vessel is moving at very slow speeds has eliminated a lot of stress. When there's no stress it seems it is much easier to talk to each other in a more normal tone of voice. That alone is worth every penny spent on it. Mike Pilolla s/v Carolina
Lots of Freeboard and Little Keel
One of the problems with Hunters design is they have a lot of freeboard and very little keel, hence a lot of windage. Trying to dock in a tight situation with a crosswind and possibly an adverse current can be difficult. Add to that the distance from the deck to the dock due to the high freeboard and things can get really difficult. The cost when things go crunch, especially when it's not yours, can be very expensive. If you're sailing in areas where it's crowded a bow thruster could be a good backup for when things aren't as good as you'd like them. On the other hand, it can be said that a four-wheel drive vehicle just gets you more stuck! The analogy can be made for bow thrusters too. If it was on my boat, my concern would be for the thruster to hull joint and that it is structurally not compromised. The person installing this thing probably just wants to get it over so quality assurance is going to be key. One of the new ads show a bow thruster that projects downward. In it's retracted position there is a fairly flush surface and also, there is only one hole penetration and the location being at the bottom of the bilge might allow for a better structural seal during installation. Although the installation instructions should cover everything it wouldn't be a bad idea to check with an engineer-type at the manufacturer about what important items to look out for.
One of the problems with Hunters design is they have a lot of freeboard and very little keel, hence a lot of windage. Trying to dock in a tight situation with a crosswind and possibly an adverse current can be difficult. Add to that the distance from the deck to the dock due to the high freeboard and things can get really difficult. The cost when things go crunch, especially when it's not yours, can be very expensive. If you're sailing in areas where it's crowded a bow thruster could be a good backup for when things aren't as good as you'd like them. On the other hand, it can be said that a four-wheel drive vehicle just gets you more stuck! The analogy can be made for bow thrusters too. If it was on my boat, my concern would be for the thruster to hull joint and that it is structurally not compromised. The person installing this thing probably just wants to get it over so quality assurance is going to be key. One of the new ads show a bow thruster that projects downward. In it's retracted position there is a fairly flush surface and also, there is only one hole penetration and the location being at the bottom of the bilge might allow for a better structural seal during installation. Although the installation instructions should cover everything it wouldn't be a bad idea to check with an engineer-type at the manufacturer about what important items to look out for.
Interested in Your Offshore Experiences
Henk After I retire from the Air Force, I plan to take up the life of cruising. If you are cruising in a Hunter, I'd like to hear more. I'm currently in a 380 and may upgrade to a 460 in the future. If you have the time, please contact me at the attached email address. john.day@langley.af.mil or ddays@earthlink.net
Henk After I retire from the Air Force, I plan to take up the life of cruising. If you are cruising in a Hunter, I'd like to hear more. I'm currently in a 380 and may upgrade to a 460 in the future. If you have the time, please contact me at the attached email address. john.day@langley.af.mil or ddays@earthlink.net
Answer to John Day (and question for Phil)
Welcome to the club! When will that be (roughly) and where would you see yourself go? Any information you can give will make it easier for me, as well as for other cruisers, to provide useful input. I am not sure how much of the HOW archives has been lost but, in principle, you should be able to get a pretty good picture of our own experiences and boat preparations from past discussions. Also, there are plenty of other Hunter owners who have taken their vessels on challenging offshore voyages while later chronicling their experiences on this board. However, I have had trouble retrieving some of the older HOW posts and kind of suspect that everything older than 1.5 to 2 years is pretty much lost (Phil, can you give us some direction here?). If that is the case, I do promise to post a specific vessel preparation checklist for people wanting to take some of the larger Hunters into the blue yonder. However, it may take a couple of weeks before I can find the time for that. See yah out there! Flying Dutchman
Welcome to the club! When will that be (roughly) and where would you see yourself go? Any information you can give will make it easier for me, as well as for other cruisers, to provide useful input. I am not sure how much of the HOW archives has been lost but, in principle, you should be able to get a pretty good picture of our own experiences and boat preparations from past discussions. Also, there are plenty of other Hunter owners who have taken their vessels on challenging offshore voyages while later chronicling their experiences on this board. However, I have had trouble retrieving some of the older HOW posts and kind of suspect that everything older than 1.5 to 2 years is pretty much lost (Phil, can you give us some direction here?). If that is the case, I do promise to post a specific vessel preparation checklist for people wanting to take some of the larger Hunters into the blue yonder. However, it may take a couple of weeks before I can find the time for that. See yah out there! Flying Dutchman
Archives
Archives go back to mid '99, so about 2-1/2 year's worth. Posts prior to that time were on a different system that is not compatible with what we use now. that said, there is still _plenty_ of data in the archives!
Archives go back to mid '99, so about 2-1/2 year's worth. Posts prior to that time were on a different system that is not compatible with what we use now. that said, there is still _plenty_ of data in the archives!
- Status