Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: 22' ocean boat vs 24'

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default 22' ocean boat vs 24'

    Other than some $$, which is immaterial to the filthy rich, and a little bit of weight (500 lbs or so), is there any practical reason to not buy a 24' aluminum ocean boat over the same company's 22'? I've only run a 21' RHIB (for sale, btw.... cheap shot, I know) and am curious about the differences launching a larger, heavier boat off boat launches and beaches. Fuel consumption is an issue, too (but minimal for the filthy rich....) I can't imagine it is much different, but.... different enough to get worried about? Available amenities (the reason to sell my RHIB) are a draw for the 24'. Am looking at Wooldridge, Sea Raider, etc; the normal ones easily available. Thanks for any opinions. john

  2. #2
    Supporting Member Hoyt-Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Mat-Su Valley
    Posts
    449

    Default

    If the extra 2 ft is fishing deck, it's worth it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If you think you're free, there's no escape possible.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    The 22's with an extended transom make the deck so much more usable. That outboard hanging on the back without the extension is almost as bad as a doghouse on an IO.

    With the extended transoms, also look to make sure the bottom of the extended transom goes all the way across the boat instead of just a sliver like on an armstrong extension bracket, that way your bottom is the same as a 24 footer, and that does make a difference in the ride.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default

    thanks, hoyt. that is what i figure. there is just not that much more weight or "leverage" against you when you have to wrestle it around, as best as i can reason. catch it: good to know. thanks.

  5. #5

    Default

    I posted on this very subject about a month ago; I own & run a 24' Searunner all year long and friends rented a 22' Ocean Pro for a week and were gracious enough to take me fishing. Completely different boat considering only a 2' difference. Ride was more abrupt & jarring in the chop, boat was much more difficult to dial in on balance between motor trim, trim tabs & overall speed.
    It's not just boat length that should be considered but where you intend to use it.
    By that I mean sea state; short steep chop and open ocean swells are completely 2 different critters. That's where the length factor comes in and in this case longer is always better (insert comments here the more length of your hull on the water the more the boat spans the waves and thus will result in a better ride, fuel use & speed in most cases.
    I used to run and work on various charter & small commercial boats on Kauai for years and there we had large open ocean swells and often a wind chop on top of that but overall you could fish much smaller boats (16-20') on a daily basis vs the steep chop produced by typical SW day breeze here in Homer during the summer. Hope all this makes sense!
    And whatever you do, go with WAY more power than you think you'll need. I'd max it out.
    Check out Quickwater Adventure water taxi/transport services: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Quick...37553606260978

  6. #6
    Member Alaska Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    4,925

    Default

    I had the same issue and ended up going with a 26ft over a 24. I'm so glad I did. The 2ft. extra has made a hue difference in comfort.
    I have added a extra long cabin to my boat. so that 2ft went to the cabin. On camping trips and when traveling it gives us more room to move around in the cabin. Also storage space is a plus with the extra room. In the end I was glad to have the room and not need it then to need the room and not have it.
    Living the Alaskan Dream
    Gary Keller
    Anchorage, AK

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default

    Jim and Gray: thanks for the info. Man, going from a 21' RHIB to a 24' will be a jump, but may be well worth it for ride. When I bought my 21', I was vacillating between a 19' and 21', having been using a 16' Zodiac and figuring either would be fantastic. The shop owner said he'd never had a person trade-in for a smaller boat; good point. And yes, plenty of motor is worth it; I always ran a 15 hp on a Grumman 19' and a large in-board in river boats. Looking at performance sheets, some boats run more efficiently with a larger motor. I considered twins when my 150 Honda went boobs up 20 miles out of Homer, but I think I'll stick w/ a single; too much fuel usage w/ twins. Well, I guess I better dig deeper into my savings account. Life.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage and Seward
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Buy any boat and you'll want one 2 feet bigger. It's called 2 footitis!

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default

    roger that. same concept with shops and skid steers.... and guns....

  10. #10
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    The difference between launching a 22' and a 24' is negligible. It's really a no-brainier, go with the 24...I doubt you'll ever wish your boat was 2 feet shorter.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default

    glad you guys are so eager to spend my money.... i'll start including 24 footers in the mix.

  12. #12
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jklingel View Post
    glad you guys are so eager to spend my money.... i'll start including 24 footers in the mix.
    Good point, it's way easier to spend your money! To be honest, I was going to say that if 24' footers are one of your options, then the question is, 24' or 26'!

  13. #13
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,839

    Default

    Either way - put max power on it. You'll spend more up front (a lot potentially) but you will have wave riding torque and get the same or better fuel mileage.

    I put a 250 on a hewes 220OP and I am getting 3mpg average over 92 hours. For the long runs we sometimes make I want to go 30mph or so. To push a 150 that speed I'd have her running 5K+ rpm. I cruise at 4100rpm at 30mph with the 250.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default

    Then it becomes 26 or 28..... QE II? Yes, as mentioned above, a larger outboard will get better fuel economy than a stressed smaller one. Most engines run the most efficient at 3/4 throttle, or very slow, regardless of make, type, etc. Putting your foot in the tank is spendy.

  15. #15
    Member spoiled one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jklingel View Post
    Then it becomes 26 or 28..... QE II?
    Yup, and then you start thinking about an 8.5' versus a 10' beam. It's amazing the room that more beam affords. It's just money. I have yet to see a hearse trailering a u-haul...
    Spending my kids' inheritance with them, one adventure at a time.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default

    i will not surpass the magic 102" beam, P, EOS. no, hearses don't drag trailers, but one needs to eat, too, and aluminum is not that good.

  17. #17
    Supporting Member Old John's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,481

    Default

    [QUOTE= mI considered twins when my 150 Honda went boobs up 20 miles out of Homer, but I think I'll stick w/ a single; too much fuel usage w/ twins. Well, I guess I better dig deeper into my savings account. Life.[/QUOTE]


    When you one good engine craps out and you spend a couple days trying to beg someone to pull you home will probably change your mind on a single vs twins...

  18. #18
    Supporting Member Hoyt-Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Mat-Su Valley
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old John View Post
    When you one good engine craps out and you spend a couple days trying to beg someone to pull you home will probably change your mind on a single vs twins...
    That discussion has been hammered here many times with both sides having valid points. As long as you have a descent kicker when running a single motor, it becomes personal preference.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If you think you're free, there's no escape possible.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default

    yes. i've fought the single-twin war many times during sleepless nights. twins...single...twins....single. i've flip-flopped more times than hillary. there is no doubt about the safety issue.

  20. #20
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old John View Post
    When you one good engine craps out and you spend a couple days trying to beg someone to pull you home will probably change your mind on a single vs twins...
    or I will just start my kicker and go in at 6 mph.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •