Fuel Cells

[Rocky]

http://www.atlinc.com/marine2.htm

[ 01-22-2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

http://www.atlinc.com/marine2.htm

[ 01-22-2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

http://www.atlinc.com/marine2.htm

[ 01-22-2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[mmd]

Yeah, I can live with those. Check with the manufacturer for their advice on proper installation. I thought that you were referring to those overgrown hot water bottles that Vetus and others sell for storing fresh water on a sailboat.

[mmd]

Yeah, I can live with those. Check with the manufacturer for their advice on proper installation. I thought that you were referring to those overgrown hot water bottles that Vetus and others sell for storing fresh water on a sailboat.

[mmd]

Yeah, I can live with those. Check with the manufacturer for their advice on proper installation. I thought that you were referring to those overgrown hot water bottles that Vetus and others sell for storing fresh water on a sailboat.

[Rocky]

http://www.collapsibletanks.com

They must be stronger than they look!

[Rocky]

http://www.collapsibletanks.com

They must be stronger than they look!

[Rocky]

http://www.collapsibletanks.com

They must be stronger than they look!

[John E Hardiman]

Buster, do not think thay you are gaining in terms of space and weight by going to a bladder. Bladders still require a dedicated tank, smooth on the inside, vapor tight, and strong enough to handle the G loads, to reside in. Sole purpose of the bladder, as pointed out in the first website you posted, is as a safety measure to limit the possibility of a fuel exposion during an accident or action. So the same reasons a Formula 1 car and a HUMV have fuel cells and your car does not, so it goes for boats.

BTW, with all these questions recently, are you sure your not thinking of a design for the "small package trade". ;)

[John E Hardiman]

Buster, do not think thay you are gaining in terms of space and weight by going to a bladder. Bladders still require a dedicated tank, smooth on the inside, vapor tight, and strong enough to handle the G loads, to reside in. Sole purpose of the bladder, as pointed out in the first website you posted, is as a safety measure to limit the possibility of a fuel exposion during an accident or action. So the same reasons a Formula 1 car and a HUMV have fuel cells and your car does not, so it goes for boats.

BTW, with all these questions recently, are you sure your not thinking of a design for the "small package trade". ;)

[John E Hardiman]

Buster, do not think thay you are gaining in terms of space and weight by going to a bladder. Bladders still require a dedicated tank, smooth on the inside, vapor tight, and strong enough to handle the G loads, to reside in. Sole purpose of the bladder, as pointed out in the first website you posted, is as a safety measure to limit the possibility of a fuel exposion during an accident or action. So the same reasons a Formula 1 car and a HUMV have fuel cells and your car does not, so it goes for boats.

BTW, with all these questions recently, are you sure your not thinking of a design for the "small package trade". ;)

[Rocky]

I'd like to have my fuel in the bow if it could be put there safely, because it is unused space that would open up the stern, where I spend most of my time away from the wheel; and partly because I have the notion it would encourage planing, which I thought was the lifting of the stern. I know I'm lecturing about music to the Julliard professor again saying this to you, but it's something I'd like to try. I must confess this forum is my main source of amusement these days. In the discussion of PT boats, from whence this thread derived, mmd mentioned the bow sliced through the water "with impunity" leaving the after portions of the hull to absorb the brunt of the impact. I wouldn't go so far as to say my bow goes through a wave with impunity, but supposedly it does so with less impact; hence having the weight of the fuel there might reduce stress on the rest of the hull, no? And a strong, well-secured fuel cell might even impart some rigidity to the bow. Besides, three 6-gallon tanks rattling around in the stern is not exactly the epitome of safety either.

[ 01-22-2003, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

I'd like to have my fuel in the bow if it could be put there safely, because it is unused space that would open up the stern, where I spend most of my time away from the wheel; and partly because I have the notion it would encourage planing, which I thought was the lifting of the stern. I know I'm lecturing about music to the Julliard professor again saying this to you, but it's something I'd like to try. I must confess this forum is my main source of amusement these days. In the discussion of PT boats, from whence this thread derived, mmd mentioned the bow sliced through the water "with impunity" leaving the after portions of the hull to absorb the brunt of the impact. I wouldn't go so far as to say my bow goes through a wave with impunity, but supposedly it does so with less impact; hence having the weight of the fuel there might reduce stress on the rest of the hull, no? And a strong, well-secured fuel cell might even impart some rigidity to the bow. Besides, three 6-gallon tanks rattling around in the stern is not exactly the epitome of safety either.

[ 01-22-2003, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

I'd like to have my fuel in the bow if it could be put there safely, because it is unused space that would open up the stern, where I spend most of my time away from the wheel; and partly because I have the notion it would encourage planing, which I thought was the lifting of the stern. I know I'm lecturing about music to the Julliard professor again saying this to you, but it's something I'd like to try. I must confess this forum is my main source of amusement these days. In the discussion of PT boats, from whence this thread derived, mmd mentioned the bow sliced through the water "with impunity" leaving the after portions of the hull to absorb the brunt of the impact. I wouldn't go so far as to say my bow goes through a wave with impunity, but supposedly it does so with less impact; hence having the weight of the fuel there might reduce stress on the rest of the hull, no? And a strong, well-secured fuel cell might even impart some rigidity to the bow. Besides, three 6-gallon tanks rattling around in the stern is not exactly the epitome of safety either.

[ 01-22-2003, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[John E Hardiman]

Go ahead and put your tank up there, just remember there will be some problems with it. If the advantages outweigh the problems, then you look like a genius. :D

To summarize why I wouldn't recommend it:
1)The loads in the bow are much higher than the stern in a planing boat, this will tend to require increased tank/structure weight, place more fatigue on the fittings, and aireate the fuel.
2) The run of the fuel line is longer, and through the middle of the hull. This is a maintence problem and fire hazard as the vibration could cause wear through of the line and fuel or fumes could collect anywhere in the boat. It would be best to have the run in a single piece with only fittings at the ends and fully isolated hangers so that the line touches nothing but the hangers. Check with Coast Guard regs.
3) For most planing type hulls, weight in the bow decreases maximum flat water speed by lowering the trim angle which decreases lift and increases wetted surface. This may be traded off against increased sea speed due to ride or hull characteristics, hard to tell without doing some trials.

[John E Hardiman]

Go ahead and put your tank up there, just remember there will be some problems with it. If the advantages outweigh the problems, then you look like a genius. :D

To summarize why I wouldn't recommend it:
1)The loads in the bow are much higher than the stern in a planing boat, this will tend to require increased tank/structure weight, place more fatigue on the fittings, and aireate the fuel.
2) The run of the fuel line is longer, and through the middle of the hull. This is a maintence problem and fire hazard as the vibration could cause wear through of the line and fuel or fumes could collect anywhere in the boat. It would be best to have the run in a single piece with only fittings at the ends and fully isolated hangers so that the line touches nothing but the hangers. Check with Coast Guard regs.
3) For most planing type hulls, weight in the bow decreases maximum flat water speed by lowering the trim angle which decreases lift and increases wetted surface. This may be traded off against increased sea speed due to ride or hull characteristics, hard to tell without doing some trials.

[John E Hardiman]

Go ahead and put your tank up there, just remember there will be some problems with it. If the advantages outweigh the problems, then you look like a genius. :D

To summarize why I wouldn't recommend it:
1)The loads in the bow are much higher than the stern in a planing boat, this will tend to require increased tank/structure weight, place more fatigue on the fittings, and aireate the fuel.
2) The run of the fuel line is longer, and through the middle of the hull. This is a maintence problem and fire hazard as the vibration could cause wear through of the line and fuel or fumes could collect anywhere in the boat. It would be best to have the run in a single piece with only fittings at the ends and fully isolated hangers so that the line touches nothing but the hangers. Check with Coast Guard regs.
3) For most planing type hulls, weight in the bow decreases maximum flat water speed by lowering the trim angle which decreases lift and increases wetted surface. This may be traded off against increased sea speed due to ride or hull characteristics, hard to tell without doing some trials.

[Rocky]

Well at least that wasn't a total no! I'm not trying to look like a genuis, I guess I just have some Hoosier in me.

[Rocky]

Well at least that wasn't a total no! I'm not trying to look like a genuis, I guess I just have some Hoosier in me.

[Rocky]

Well at least that wasn't a total no! I'm not trying to look like a genuis, I guess I just have some Hoosier in me.

[John E Hardiman]

Originally posted by Buster:
In the discussion of PT boats, from whence this thread derived, mmd mentioned the bow sliced through the water "with impunity" leaving the after portions of the hull to absorb the brunt of the impact. I wouldn't go so far as to say my bow goes through a wave with impunity, but supposedly it does so with less impact; hence having the weight of the fuel there might reduce stress on the rest of the hull, no? And a strong, well-secured fuel cell might even impart some rigidity to the bow. Don't confuse impact load with total dynamic load. A long topic to get into, but MMD was refering to the peak panel pressure on the bottom, not the loads that would be in the bow caused by rigid body motion and/or hull whipping. Think of it this way: hold a fishing rod at its CG and then move it rapidly up and down. Notice how the ends flex? Now do the same thing, but with a weight on the tip. The hull behaves the same way, and loads are introduced into hull just by having the weight up there.

[John E Hardiman]

Originally posted by Buster:
In the discussion of PT boats, from whence this thread derived, mmd mentioned the bow sliced through the water "with impunity" leaving the after portions of the hull to absorb the brunt of the impact. I wouldn't go so far as to say my bow goes through a wave with impunity, but supposedly it does so with less impact; hence having the weight of the fuel there might reduce stress on the rest of the hull, no? And a strong, well-secured fuel cell might even impart some rigidity to the bow. Don't confuse impact load with total dynamic load. A long topic to get into, but MMD was refering to the peak panel pressure on the bottom, not the loads that would be in the bow caused by rigid body motion and/or hull whipping. Think of it this way: hold a fishing rod at its CG and then move it rapidly up and down. Notice how the ends flex? Now do the same thing, but with a weight on the tip. The hull behaves the same way, and loads are introduced into hull just by having the weight up there.

[John E Hardiman]

Originally posted by Buster:
In the discussion of PT boats, from whence this thread derived, mmd mentioned the bow sliced through the water "with impunity" leaving the after portions of the hull to absorb the brunt of the impact. I wouldn't go so far as to say my bow goes through a wave with impunity, but supposedly it does so with less impact; hence having the weight of the fuel there might reduce stress on the rest of the hull, no? And a strong, well-secured fuel cell might even impart some rigidity to the bow. Don't confuse impact load with total dynamic load. A long topic to get into, but MMD was refering to the peak panel pressure on the bottom, not the loads that would be in the bow caused by rigid body motion and/or hull whipping. Think of it this way: hold a fishing rod at its CG and then move it rapidly up and down. Notice how the ends flex? Now do the same thing, but with a weight on the tip. The hull behaves the same way, and loads are introduced into hull just by having the weight up there.

[John E Hardiman]

As an afterthought to my previous two posts, another reason not to put a fuel tank in the bow is that it is usually the first thing to hit something. :(

[ 01-22-2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: John E Hardiman ]

[John E Hardiman]

As an afterthought to my previous two posts, another reason not to put a fuel tank in the bow is that it is usually the first thing to hit something. :(

[ 01-22-2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: John E Hardiman ]

[John E Hardiman]

As an afterthought to my previous two posts, another reason not to put a fuel tank in the bow is that it is usually the first thing to hit something. :(

[ 01-22-2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: John E Hardiman ]

[Rocky]

Alright then, ideally where should it be? All the weight's in the stern now.

[ 01-22-2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

Alright then, ideally where should it be? All the weight's in the stern now.

[ 01-22-2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

Alright then, ideally where should it be? All the weight's in the stern now.

[ 01-22-2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[leakyboat]

Buster..I am also looking for fuel bladders. I'm of same mind concerning the military. They test these things to the limits in various conditions. If its good enought for them...its good for what I want them for. If you get a lead..let me know. ill do likewise. regards..... hollandj@excite.com

[leakyboat]

Buster..I am also looking for fuel bladders. I'm of same mind concerning the military. They test these things to the limits in various conditions. If its good enought for them...its good for what I want them for. If you get a lead..let me know. ill do likewise. regards..... hollandj@excite.com

[leakyboat]

Buster..I am also looking for fuel bladders. I'm of same mind concerning the military. They test these things to the limits in various conditions. If its good enought for them...its good for what I want them for. If you get a lead..let me know. ill do likewise. regards..... hollandj@excite.com

[mmd]

You misinterpreted my PT boat post, Buster. Slicing through waves with impunity only to slam the hull hard farther aft is not a good thing. That is why that hull form is no longer in vogue. Yes, there is wasted space up forward, but there is nothing up there because we designers know that weight in the bow of a planing hull is bad practice. Hundreds, if not thousands, of planing boat designs have their fuel tanks in the after third of the hull for a reason, it ain't by accident or bad habit. Sorry to be gruff with you, and we encourage you to try experiments with sandbags or whatever, but with twenty years of personal experience and over half a century of published data to draw from, I know that the results that you are looking for are not going to happen with the methods that you are proposing. Both John Hardiman's and my concern is for the safety of you and your family, as what you are proposing can be extremely dangerous - an out-of-control powerboat at speed or a cup of gasoline in the bilge under the console is a really serious problem.

(edited for clarity - mmd)

[ 01-22-2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: mmd ]

[mmd]

You misinterpreted my PT boat post, Buster. Slicing through waves with impunity only to slam the hull hard farther aft is not a good thing. That is why that hull form is no longer in vogue. Yes, there is wasted space up forward, but there is nothing up there because we designers know that weight in the bow of a planing hull is bad practice. Hundreds, if not thousands, of planing boat designs have their fuel tanks in the after third of the hull for a reason, it ain't by accident or bad habit. Sorry to be gruff with you, and we encourage you to try experiments with sandbags or whatever, but with twenty years of personal experience and over half a century of published data to draw from, I know that the results that you are looking for are not going to happen with the methods that you are proposing. Both John Hardiman's and my concern is for the safety of you and your family, as what you are proposing can be extremely dangerous - an out-of-control powerboat at speed or a cup of gasoline in the bilge under the console is a really serious problem.

(edited for clarity - mmd)

[ 01-22-2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: mmd ]

[mmd]

You misinterpreted my PT boat post, Buster. Slicing through waves with impunity only to slam the hull hard farther aft is not a good thing. That is why that hull form is no longer in vogue. Yes, there is wasted space up forward, but there is nothing up there because we designers know that weight in the bow of a planing hull is bad practice. Hundreds, if not thousands, of planing boat designs have their fuel tanks in the after third of the hull for a reason, it ain't by accident or bad habit. Sorry to be gruff with you, and we encourage you to try experiments with sandbags or whatever, but with twenty years of personal experience and over half a century of published data to draw from, I know that the results that you are looking for are not going to happen with the methods that you are proposing. Both John Hardiman's and my concern is for the safety of you and your family, as what you are proposing can be extremely dangerous - an out-of-control powerboat at speed or a cup of gasoline in the bilge under the console is a really serious problem.

(edited for clarity - mmd)

[ 01-22-2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: mmd ]

[Rocky]

Don't worry about my safety, I've had plenty of spills before with these &^%$ cans! I'm wondering about stress on the hull, which is 19' long and weighs only 650 pounds. So the weight should all be aft?

[ 01-22-2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

Don't worry about my safety, I've had plenty of spills before with these &^%$ cans! I'm wondering about stress on the hull, which is 19' long and weighs only 650 pounds. So the weight should all be aft?

[ 01-22-2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

Don't worry about my safety, I've had plenty of spills before with these &^%$ cans! I'm wondering about stress on the hull, which is 19' long and weighs only 650 pounds. So the weight should all be aft?

[ 01-22-2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[John E Hardiman]

Use the search feature and find this Topic: "Experience with hull wedges??" in the Misc non- boat section. Its from last July. It has a good explaination of the whys of planing CG location.
The proper place for weight in a planing boat is all the way aft.

As for the loads in the bow, what are the scantlings up there? I would use 2-3 Gs (so a 10 gal tank is ~(10*8+20)*3=300 lb load) as a starting point for design loads for small boats as slamming loads are easily that. I figure that its better to have the crew thrown out than it is to have something come adrift and hit somebody.

[John E Hardiman]

Use the search feature and find this Topic: "Experience with hull wedges??" in the Misc non- boat section. Its from last July. It has a good explaination of the whys of planing CG location.
The proper place for weight in a planing boat is all the way aft.

As for the loads in the bow, what are the scantlings up there? I would use 2-3 Gs (so a 10 gal tank is ~(10*8+20)*3=300 lb load) as a starting point for design loads for small boats as slamming loads are easily that. I figure that its better to have the crew thrown out than it is to have something come adrift and hit somebody.

[John E Hardiman]

Use the search feature and find this Topic: "Experience with hull wedges??" in the Misc non- boat section. Its from last July. It has a good explaination of the whys of planing CG location.
The proper place for weight in a planing boat is all the way aft.

As for the loads in the bow, what are the scantlings up there? I would use 2-3 Gs (so a 10 gal tank is ~(10*8+20)*3=300 lb load) as a starting point for design loads for small boats as slamming loads are easily that. I figure that its better to have the crew thrown out than it is to have something come adrift and hit somebody.

[Rocky]

Alright, I'll take this advice. I just thought it was all back there for convenience, not by design. Having that much weight in front would stress the entire hull, ic, whch is not very strong to begin with. I need a better dictionary to keep up with you guys.

[ 01-22-2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

Alright, I'll take this advice. I just thought it was all back there for convenience, not by design. Having that much weight in front would stress the entire hull, ic, whch is not very strong to begin with. I need a better dictionary to keep up with you guys.

[ 01-22-2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

Alright, I'll take this advice. I just thought it was all back there for convenience, not by design. Having that much weight in front would stress the entire hull, ic, whch is not very strong to begin with. I need a better dictionary to keep up with you guys.

[ 01-22-2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[mmd]

As both John H. (I hope I can presume to speak for you, John) and I are in a profession that abhors guesses and presumptions for both ethical and legal reasons, we are both dancing around the issue of giving you specific advice on a possibly dangerous subject for a boat that we have never seen. As can be gathered from your misinterpretation of my comments on the PT boat thread (utterly un-relatable to your boat), we are concerned that any specific advice given can be mis-applied to your detriment and our possible liability.

Without implying any specific instructions to you as to where and how to place your fuel tanks on your boat, the general practices of doing so are as follows:

1.) Major weights in planing hulls are usually place between the transom and a line between one-third to one-half of the LWL of the hull as measured from the transom.

2.) All fuel systems - including fuel lines - are to be seperated from accomodations areas by gas-tight bulkheads.

3.) All compartments containing gasoline tanks and/or plumbing need to be positively ventilated by a spark-proof powered ventilating system, which is to be operated for five minutes prior to starting the motor(s).

4.) All built-in gasoline fuel systems - including tanks - are required to be pressure tested to American Boat & Yacht Council (ABYC) standards.

5.) Portable fuel tanks are to have means of securing on board to prevent movement in all conditions expected to be encountered during normal operation of the boat.

6.) Provision is to be made to prevent spilled fuel from escaping overboard.

For further information on the proper and legal methods of installing fuel tanks, contact your local Coast Guard or get the appropriate documentation from ABYC. And I implore you to be thorough and knowledgeable about installing gasoline fuel systems. I have seen first-hand the results of a fuel explosion and fire on a small boat operated by supposedly knowlegable boaters.

[mmd]

As both John H. (I hope I can presume to speak for you, John) and I are in a profession that abhors guesses and presumptions for both ethical and legal reasons, we are both dancing around the issue of giving you specific advice on a possibly dangerous subject for a boat that we have never seen. As can be gathered from your misinterpretation of my comments on the PT boat thread (utterly un-relatable to your boat), we are concerned that any specific advice given can be mis-applied to your detriment and our possible liability.

Without implying any specific instructions to you as to where and how to place your fuel tanks on your boat, the general practices of doing so are as follows:

1.) Major weights in planing hulls are usually place between the transom and a line between one-third to one-half of the LWL of the hull as measured from the transom.

2.) All fuel systems - including fuel lines - are to be seperated from accomodations areas by gas-tight bulkheads.

3.) All compartments containing gasoline tanks and/or plumbing need to be positively ventilated by a spark-proof powered ventilating system, which is to be operated for five minutes prior to starting the motor(s).

4.) All built-in gasoline fuel systems - including tanks - are required to be pressure tested to American Boat & Yacht Council (ABYC) standards.

5.) Portable fuel tanks are to have means of securing on board to prevent movement in all conditions expected to be encountered during normal operation of the boat.

6.) Provision is to be made to prevent spilled fuel from escaping overboard.

For further information on the proper and legal methods of installing fuel tanks, contact your local Coast Guard or get the appropriate documentation from ABYC. And I implore you to be thorough and knowledgeable about installing gasoline fuel systems. I have seen first-hand the results of a fuel explosion and fire on a small boat operated by supposedly knowlegable boaters.

[mmd]

As both John H. (I hope I can presume to speak for you, John) and I are in a profession that abhors guesses and presumptions for both ethical and legal reasons, we are both dancing around the issue of giving you specific advice on a possibly dangerous subject for a boat that we have never seen. As can be gathered from your misinterpretation of my comments on the PT boat thread (utterly un-relatable to your boat), we are concerned that any specific advice given can be mis-applied to your detriment and our possible liability.

Without implying any specific instructions to you as to where and how to place your fuel tanks on your boat, the general practices of doing so are as follows:

1.) Major weights in planing hulls are usually place between the transom and a line between one-third to one-half of the LWL of the hull as measured from the transom.

2.) All fuel systems - including fuel lines - are to be seperated from accomodations areas by gas-tight bulkheads.

3.) All compartments containing gasoline tanks and/or plumbing need to be positively ventilated by a spark-proof powered ventilating system, which is to be operated for five minutes prior to starting the motor(s).

4.) All built-in gasoline fuel systems - including tanks - are required to be pressure tested to American Boat & Yacht Council (ABYC) standards.

5.) Portable fuel tanks are to have means of securing on board to prevent movement in all conditions expected to be encountered during normal operation of the boat.

6.) Provision is to be made to prevent spilled fuel from escaping overboard.

For further information on the proper and legal methods of installing fuel tanks, contact your local Coast Guard or get the appropriate documentation from ABYC. And I implore you to be thorough and knowledgeable about installing gasoline fuel systems. I have seen first-hand the results of a fuel explosion and fire on a small boat operated by supposedly knowlegable boaters.

[Rocky]

So even in a big hull like that Huckins you wouldn't put the fuel tanks in the bow?

[Rocky]

So even in a big hull like that Huckins you wouldn't put the fuel tanks in the bow?

[Rocky]

So even in a big hull like that Huckins you wouldn't put the fuel tanks in the bow?

[Gary E]

Buster,
For a one word answer ......NO....
Now from what little I can read here about YOUR boat, it's <<<the hull, which is 19' long and weighs only 650 pounds.>>> what engine? an inboard? outboard? inboardoutdrive?..good heavens, eveyone has given you PLENTY of GOOD reasons to not put the tank in the bow.. why do YOU want it there? Are you planing an extensive cruse? to some far away place?.. I sugest if you need balast up there, get a bigger anchor for the front deck.

Now for a true story, friend of mine had a 34 or maybe it was 36 Huckins.. 2 ford Diesels in her, he wanted to go way out to the where the really big marlin and tuna play, so he filled the water tank which is under the V berth with Diesel fuel, as it worked out they had enough fuel in the regular tanks for the trip, now had to remove that fuel and try cleaning that mess from the water tank.. never mind with water, real guys drink beer.

If you need a lot of gas, make some saddle tanks, place them mid ships. or not.

G

[Gary E]

Buster,
For a one word answer ......NO....
Now from what little I can read here about YOUR boat, it's <<<the hull, which is 19' long and weighs only 650 pounds.>>> what engine? an inboard? outboard? inboardoutdrive?..good heavens, eveyone has given you PLENTY of GOOD reasons to not put the tank in the bow.. why do YOU want it there? Are you planing an extensive cruse? to some far away place?.. I sugest if you need balast up there, get a bigger anchor for the front deck.

Now for a true story, friend of mine had a 34 or maybe it was 36 Huckins.. 2 ford Diesels in her, he wanted to go way out to the where the really big marlin and tuna play, so he filled the water tank which is under the V berth with Diesel fuel, as it worked out they had enough fuel in the regular tanks for the trip, now had to remove that fuel and try cleaning that mess from the water tank.. never mind with water, real guys drink beer.

If you need a lot of gas, make some saddle tanks, place them mid ships. or not.

G

[Gary E]

Buster,
For a one word answer ......NO....
Now from what little I can read here about YOUR boat, it's <<<the hull, which is 19' long and weighs only 650 pounds.>>> what engine? an inboard? outboard? inboardoutdrive?..good heavens, eveyone has given you PLENTY of GOOD reasons to not put the tank in the bow.. why do YOU want it there? Are you planing an extensive cruse? to some far away place?.. I sugest if you need balast up there, get a bigger anchor for the front deck.

Now for a true story, friend of mine had a 34 or maybe it was 36 Huckins.. 2 ford Diesels in her, he wanted to go way out to the where the really big marlin and tuna play, so he filled the water tank which is under the V berth with Diesel fuel, as it worked out they had enough fuel in the regular tanks for the trip, now had to remove that fuel and try cleaning that mess from the water tank.. never mind with water, real guys drink beer.

If you need a lot of gas, make some saddle tanks, place them mid ships. or not.

G

[Rocky]

Don't get worked up about it Gary, I'll repeat the question, could you put the fuel tanks in the bow of a big hull like the Huckins? Your vehemence makes me suspect what I'm really being told is "that's not the way we do things around here." I figure the whole rig weighs about 1000 pounds with outboard motor and fuel. 30% of that weight is right at the transom. I'm talking putting 10% of the boat's weight at the stem, leaving 20% at the stern, which would change the center of gravity somewhat and should encourage a level ride; although it will at the same time introduce certain flexing stresses, I don't think it's anything the hull couldn't handle. I'm not exactly blasting through heavy water. In a big cruiser the possibility of fuel leakage in the bilges would be a factor, but not in this boat which is open from stem to stern, covered only with flooring which is easily lifted.

[ 01-23-2003, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

Don't get worked up about it Gary, I'll repeat the question, could you put the fuel tanks in the bow of a big hull like the Huckins? Your vehemence makes me suspect what I'm really being told is "that's not the way we do things around here." I figure the whole rig weighs about 1000 pounds with outboard motor and fuel. 30% of that weight is right at the transom. I'm talking putting 10% of the boat's weight at the stem, leaving 20% at the stern, which would change the center of gravity somewhat and should encourage a level ride; although it will at the same time introduce certain flexing stresses, I don't think it's anything the hull couldn't handle. I'm not exactly blasting through heavy water. In a big cruiser the possibility of fuel leakage in the bilges would be a factor, but not in this boat which is open from stem to stern, covered only with flooring which is easily lifted.

[ 01-23-2003, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

Don't get worked up about it Gary, I'll repeat the question, could you put the fuel tanks in the bow of a big hull like the Huckins? Your vehemence makes me suspect what I'm really being told is "that's not the way we do things around here." I figure the whole rig weighs about 1000 pounds with outboard motor and fuel. 30% of that weight is right at the transom. I'm talking putting 10% of the boat's weight at the stem, leaving 20% at the stern, which would change the center of gravity somewhat and should encourage a level ride; although it will at the same time introduce certain flexing stresses, I don't think it's anything the hull couldn't handle. I'm not exactly blasting through heavy water. In a big cruiser the possibility of fuel leakage in the bilges would be a factor, but not in this boat which is open from stem to stern, covered only with flooring which is easily lifted.

[ 01-23-2003, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[TomRobb]

Can you? - sure, it is your boat after all. But professional opinion is don't.

[TomRobb]

Can you? - sure, it is your boat after all. But professional opinion is don't.

[TomRobb]

Can you? - sure, it is your boat after all. But professional opinion is don't.

[Rocky]

Well I guess if I do it and it has the desired effect and doesn't sink that makes me a genius. Sooner or later I'll be swimming ashore saying Wow, what a great boat that was, let's go get another one!

[Rocky]

Well I guess if I do it and it has the desired effect and doesn't sink that makes me a genius. Sooner or later I'll be swimming ashore saying Wow, what a great boat that was, let's go get another one!

[Rocky]

Well I guess if I do it and it has the desired effect and doesn't sink that makes me a genius. Sooner or later I'll be swimming ashore saying Wow, what a great boat that was, let's go get another one!

[Gary E]

Buster,
I and many others think it's bad idea, but if you insist... well...go right ahead..

Here's one....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2401009618&category=26451

[Gary E]

Buster,
I and many others think it's bad idea, but if you insist... well...go right ahead..

Here's one....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2401009618&category=26451

[Gary E]

Buster,
I and many others think it's bad idea, but if you insist... well...go right ahead..

Here's one....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2401009618&category=26451

[htom]

Buster -- in a word, I wouldn't, and I wouldn't buy a boat that was so designed.

[htom]

Buster -- in a word, I wouldn't, and I wouldn't buy a boat that was so designed.

[htom]

Buster -- in a word, I wouldn't, and I wouldn't buy a boat that was so designed.

[bromleigh]

These things look great. Somebody,,,Anybody , want to tell me what "OEM" , as described in their literature, stands for????
curious.....

[bromleigh]

These things look great. Somebody,,,Anybody , want to tell me what "OEM" , as described in their literature, stands for????
curious.....

[bromleigh]

These things look great. Somebody,,,Anybody , want to tell me what "OEM" , as described in their literature, stands for????
curious.....

[Rocky]

Original Equipment Manufacturer

[Rocky]

Original Equipment Manufacturer

[Rocky]

Original Equipment Manufacturer

[steve sparhawk]

Buster, the planing hull, as described in another reply, has it's entire mass balanced on a point somewhat aft of the midpoint of the LWL. Whatever weight placed in the bow has that lever going for it when it takes a 2-3G hit on any wave. Can you guess the vertical forces applied on the hull somewhere aft of midships--both in the bow hitting the wave or when the midships waterplane hits it? I'd guess that 10% of your fuel placed there would not matter too much but whqt a lot of funny business for little advantage. You said your boat was a open nineteen footer. Why not fasten a box seat somewhere near the midpoint of the boat and place your tankage inside? Keeps the thing from sliding around. If you just use it as spare, non-connected fuel storage, you need no lines to keep track of. Otherwise, One can place anything anywhere but be prepared to learn from it.

[steve sparhawk]

Buster, the planing hull, as described in another reply, has it's entire mass balanced on a point somewhat aft of the midpoint of the LWL. Whatever weight placed in the bow has that lever going for it when it takes a 2-3G hit on any wave. Can you guess the vertical forces applied on the hull somewhere aft of midships--both in the bow hitting the wave or when the midships waterplane hits it? I'd guess that 10% of your fuel placed there would not matter too much but whqt a lot of funny business for little advantage. You said your boat was a open nineteen footer. Why not fasten a box seat somewhere near the midpoint of the boat and place your tankage inside? Keeps the thing from sliding around. If you just use it as spare, non-connected fuel storage, you need no lines to keep track of. Otherwise, One can place anything anywhere but be prepared to learn from it.

[steve sparhawk]

Buster, the planing hull, as described in another reply, has it's entire mass balanced on a point somewhat aft of the midpoint of the LWL. Whatever weight placed in the bow has that lever going for it when it takes a 2-3G hit on any wave. Can you guess the vertical forces applied on the hull somewhere aft of midships--both in the bow hitting the wave or when the midships waterplane hits it? I'd guess that 10% of your fuel placed there would not matter too much but whqt a lot of funny business for little advantage. You said your boat was a open nineteen footer. Why not fasten a box seat somewhere near the midpoint of the boat and place your tankage inside? Keeps the thing from sliding around. If you just use it as spare, non-connected fuel storage, you need no lines to keep track of. Otherwise, One can place anything anywhere but be prepared to learn from it.

[Rocky]

I always hated those *&^%$ tanks in the stern. Even the newest ones are prone to leakage of fuel and vapors, and they take up space I could use. I'd like to get fuel cells because they're better tanks. The question is where to put them. The idea of putting one in the bow was to reduce stress at the stern, which not only carries most of the weight but also takes most of the wave impact. I really don't understand why standard practice is to put 75% of the stress and 30% of the weight on 25% of the hull, so to speak.

Maybe I don't understand what planing is. The bow is riding over the bow wave, yes, but is it not also a lifting of the stern? A boat running around with its nose in the air has got to have more drag at the stern than one riding level, but on the other hand a high bow also means less total surface area in contact with the water, I guess.

As you suggested, I'll put an unconnected tank under each seat amidships as a test, but as far as fire hazard goes, better to have it all in one place and all at one end! Six gallons of gasoline weighs about 35 pounds, is that right?

[ 01-25-2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

I always hated those *&^%$ tanks in the stern. Even the newest ones are prone to leakage of fuel and vapors, and they take up space I could use. I'd like to get fuel cells because they're better tanks. The question is where to put them. The idea of putting one in the bow was to reduce stress at the stern, which not only carries most of the weight but also takes most of the wave impact. I really don't understand why standard practice is to put 75% of the stress and 30% of the weight on 25% of the hull, so to speak.

Maybe I don't understand what planing is. The bow is riding over the bow wave, yes, but is it not also a lifting of the stern? A boat running around with its nose in the air has got to have more drag at the stern than one riding level, but on the other hand a high bow also means less total surface area in contact with the water, I guess.

As you suggested, I'll put an unconnected tank under each seat amidships as a test, but as far as fire hazard goes, better to have it all in one place and all at one end! Six gallons of gasoline weighs about 35 pounds, is that right?

[ 01-25-2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

I always hated those *&^%$ tanks in the stern. Even the newest ones are prone to leakage of fuel and vapors, and they take up space I could use. I'd like to get fuel cells because they're better tanks. The question is where to put them. The idea of putting one in the bow was to reduce stress at the stern, which not only carries most of the weight but also takes most of the wave impact. I really don't understand why standard practice is to put 75% of the stress and 30% of the weight on 25% of the hull, so to speak.

Maybe I don't understand what planing is. The bow is riding over the bow wave, yes, but is it not also a lifting of the stern? A boat running around with its nose in the air has got to have more drag at the stern than one riding level, but on the other hand a high bow also means less total surface area in contact with the water, I guess.

As you suggested, I'll put an unconnected tank under each seat amidships as a test, but as far as fire hazard goes, better to have it all in one place and all at one end! Six gallons of gasoline weighs about 35 pounds, is that right?

[ 01-25-2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Buster ]

[Rocky]

The biggest problem with a bow tank would be the temptation to put a really big one in there!

[Rocky]

The biggest problem with a bow tank would be the temptation to put a really big one in there!

[Rocky]

The biggest problem with a bow tank would be the temptation to put a really big one in there!

[Barnacle Bob]

The West Marine Catalogue has bow tanks made of polyethylene for inflatibles. They are shaped like the bow and have long fuel lines and carry gasoline. I've been thinking of getting one myself as it would free up space being taken by the tank near the outboard. My boat right now, rides with a high bow and I figure the tank would help bring it down... so, how about bow tanks for inflatibles? What's the verdict?

[Barnacle Bob]

The West Marine Catalogue has bow tanks made of polyethylene for inflatibles. They are shaped like the bow and have long fuel lines and carry gasoline. I've been thinking of getting one myself as it would free up space being taken by the tank near the outboard. My boat right now, rides with a high bow and I figure the tank would help bring it down... so, how about bow tanks for inflatibles? What's the verdict?

[Barnacle Bob]

The West Marine Catalogue has bow tanks made of polyethylene for inflatibles. They are shaped like the bow and have long fuel lines and carry gasoline. I've been thinking of getting one myself as it would free up space being taken by the tank near the outboard. My boat right now, rides with a high bow and I figure the tank would help bring it down... so, how about bow tanks for inflatibles? What's the verdict?