Lancer 44 Motor

BetsieBay · Feb 26, 2016

We have had one for about 2 years now. Our twin 50's let us cruise at about 7.5 kts under power alone, and fuel consumption is not bad. The Perkins diesels are 35 years old though, and we're having them rebuilt this winter. Compression was low on all cylinders and really bad on two, so it's time. We may get a bit better speed with the engines back up to specs.

Hayabusa · Apr 19, 2017

Hi future Lancer owner,
How did you go with your trip north from Hobart?
I've been looking for one of these Lancer 44s for a couple of months. Coincidentally I'm in Hobart myself. Wondering how you're finding the boat.
M

MS Mystic Haven · Sep 14, 2022

Hello all, I just bought a Lancer 44. I would be very appreciative if someone could tell me, or even better send a pic of how the main sail is attached to the traveler. There were no sails for the boat when I bought it. It has no boom.
I love the boat.
Thank you

kappykaplan · Sep 15, 2022

Welcome to the forum, @MS Mystic Haven ! None of the previous posters have been active for a long time. Do you have any photos of your new-to-you Lancer 44? :beer:

MS Mystic Haven · Sep 15, 2022

jssailem · Sep 15, 2022

Welcome to the SBO forum. I was just up in Anacortes at Cap Sante last Sunday.
Congrats on your new to you boat. The Lancer 44 is reported to be a good coastal cruiser. No boom is not consistent with the data on the boat or the draft images.

I suppose one could rig the main to fly without a boom, like a second jib, but managing the sail would be complicated. You might do ok, off the wind ( beam reach) but not a great sail to windward. There is that saying “Gentlemen don’t sail to windward “.

MS Mystic Haven · Sep 15, 2022

Thank you for the reply. Most of the 44s did not have booms. They came with behind the mast furlers. They were rigged with the clew of the main sheet to a traverler that is at the back of the cabin top, yes basically two jobs.
They are actually known to go quite well up wind, but not as good down wind.

jssailem · Sep 17, 2022

I'll look for you on the water, next time I am in Anacortes. Would love to see how she sails.

CapnCrunch · Jan 19, 2023

I have a 1983 Lancer 44 that has two Perkins 85 hp motors and an unusual flybridge. When I bought her in 2015, the 52' mast was down and having been berthed in Little Rock, Arkansas, we kept it laid along the port catwalk in order to clear river bridges on the way to the Gulf. We left Little Rock this past June, heading for the Keys > Bahamas > Caribbean and have since discovered that she gets pretty good fuel mileage and, since stepping the mast and redoing the rigging would cost over $5k, we decided to forego sailing and got rid of the mast. At any rate, this boat was set up with a boomless rig and her main traveller was located at the back of the flybridge.

One thing that has puzzled me is that these boats are described as being able to reach planing speeds, but my engines running at 1500 rpm only reach @ 7.5mph in slack water.

I do have one question, though. Since she now lacks a mast, the heavy keel seems to cause her to roll excessively. I'm wondering if its feasible/advisable to shorten the keel by a couple of feet. She currently draws 6' which has caused us untold aggravation.

jssailem · Jan 20, 2023

CapnCrunch said:
the heavy keel seems to cause her to roll excessively. I'm wondering if its feasible/advisable to shorten the keel by a couple of feet.

Not sure your cause and effect are connected. Before breaking out the sawsall I’d chat with a marine engineer about the boat hull dynamics.

Your hull has a bit of a rounded bottom and what look to be soft chines. This would contribute to rolling in a bad seaway. The keel would act to maintain a straight course and minimize the boat slipping sideways. This in combination with the rudder maintain course under power. Your rolling experience would be affected by the amount of surface area and mass you have above the water line. Sure you are missing the sails and mast, but the cabin top and deck height are significantly captures of wind. The keel balance’s those forces.

I suspect a marine engineer may provide some reduction in depth but the calculations for ballast will mean attaching the lead from the bottom of the keel to the remaining stub or the boat will capsize in foul weather.

An interesting project. Keep us appraised of your progress.

CapnCrunch · Jan 20, 2023

From another forum: "I do know that the motion on a sailboat, with no mast, is miserable. It was originally engineered to have the weight of the mast and keel fighting each other and creating a balance of sorts. Perhaps think about it this way. A wave pushes the boat over a bit, which lifts the keel. The keel wants to return to it's lowest point. With the mast in place, the keel must also lift the weight of the mast, which is way out on a lever. Therefore, the mast weight slows the motion of the keel. No mast and the keel snaps back and forth."

jssailem · Jan 20, 2023

That ignores the dampening effect of the water when the boat goes to right itself. With a mast the capsize point is about 95-105 degrees. Mast goes under boat turtles. With out mast boat lays on it side. Keel with weight on end (6feet out) boat sits back right side up. As the keel try’s to right the boat, the water slows the progress yet the keel with 8000lbs of ballast on the end rights the boat. Try to move a kid on one end of a teeter totter.

SkyWanderer · Jun 7, 2023

CapnCrunch said:
I have a 1983 Lancer 44 that has two Perkins 85 hp motors and an unusual flybridge. When I bought her in 2015, the 52' mast was down and having been berthed in Little Rock, Arkansas, we kept it laid along the port catwalk in order to clear river bridges on the way to the Gulf. We left Little Rock this past June, heading for the Keys > Bahamas > Caribbean and have since discovered that she gets pretty good fuel mileage and, since stepping the mast and redoing the rigging would cost over $5k, we decided to forego sailing and got rid of the mast. At any rate, this boat was set up with a boomless rig and her main traveller was located at the back of the flybridge.

One thing that has puzzled me is that these boats are described as being able to reach planing speeds, but my engines running at 1500 rpm only reach @ 7.5mph in slack water.

I do have one question, though. Since she now lacks a mast, the heavy keel seems to cause her to roll excessively. I'm wondering if its feasible/advisable to shorten the keel by a couple of feet. She currently draws 6' which has caused us untold aggravation.
View attachment 212314

Hi CapnCrunch! We have the same type vessel (standing rigging & flybridge)!! I have also owned mine since 2015 and have never seen anyone else with a similar layout! I LOVE my boat! This initial post was made by a potential future Lancer owner several years ago, but I’m excited to see other Lancer 44 owners here. I bought mine in San Diego and motored up to SF 7 years ago. Also have twin Perkins 85 hp 4.236 engines. I’ve been slowly renovating her all over, and now heading back to San Diego (June 2023). My next/last big project is redoing the standing rigging, as it’s time. I love putting out the sails and cutting the engines and have achieved 5 kts. On average I cruise under power at around 7.5-8+ kts. Yes, she has a tendency to roll sideways more than other boats in certain conditions, but moreover is really such a comfy boat. I think it is because of the large rounded hull design. And we both deal with a lot of freeboard in windy conditions which can be challenging for docking in certain circumstances.
My desire is eventually to continue south along Baja, and ideally through the Panama Canal and onto the Caribbean.

jssailem · Jun 7, 2023

WELCOME @SkyWanderer to the SBO forum. An interesting boat...

SkyWanderer · Jun 7, 2023

jssailem said:
WELCOME @SkyWanderer to the SBO forum. An interesting boat...

Thank you.

SkyWanderer · Jun 7, 2023

CapnCrunch said:
I have a 1983 Lancer 44 that has two Perkins 85 hp motors and an unusual flybridge. When I bought her in 2015, the 52' mast was down and having been berthed in Little Rock, Arkansas, we kept it laid along the port catwalk in order to clear river bridges on the way to the Gulf. We left Little Rock this past June, heading for the Keys > Bahamas > Caribbean and have since discovered that she gets pretty good fuel mileage and, since stepping the mast and redoing the rigging would cost over $5k, we decided to forego sailing and got rid of the mast. At any rate, this boat was set up with a boomless rig and her main traveller was located at the back of the flybridge.

One thing that has puzzled me is that these boats are described as being able to reach planing speeds, but my engines running at 1500 rpm only reach @ 7.5mph in slack water.

I do have one question, though. Since she now lacks a mast, the heavy keel seems to cause her to roll excessively. I'm wondering if its feasible/advisable to shorten the keel by a couple of feet. She currently draws 6' which has caused us untold aggravation.
View attachment 212314

Max hull speed of these models is about 9 kts. And with these twin 85 hp engines at max thrust you may be able to achieve that, but at about 28,000 lbs and with this hull design, I can’t seee ever getting up on a planing speed. I saw one that had twin 200 hp engines, and was going about 15 kts, but the diminishing returns against it beyond max hull speed wasn’t getting it up in a planing position but rather just pushing more water in front of it and spending more fuel to do so

captkiddsrevenge · Jul 23, 2023

depends on what you call "planing"

the Lancer 44 was designed to plane under enough power, dare I say this was the point of the boat. In fact the nearly identical Lancer 45 is the same boat simply without the option of sails. here some things I saved over the years looking at and thinking about the Lancer, they are not mine

Lancer 44 Motor

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Attachments

.

.

.

.

Attachments