Tunnel-hull question

Post by **Redbelly** » November 5th, 2004, 9:14 pm

In my search for a boat for my forty-hoss Nissan I have read some opinions on tunnel hulls from folks what said they'd never go back oncet they had'em a tunnel hull.

I know the shallows they rull, but how will one perform in the chop at the flats?

Anybody got some knowledge you'd like to share?

Post by **wevans** » November 5th, 2004, 9:17 pm

Only knowledge I have on em is riding in Mullet boat tunnles

and they had no problem in 2 ta 3 footers, much less a chop

Post by **Fish Masterson** » November 5th, 2004, 10:56 pm

I hear that tunnels are great, but that they take a good bit more horse power to run at the same performance as a regular flat bottom. Just something to think about, if your gonna use that fourty

.
Fish Masterson

Post by **Chalk** » November 6th, 2004, 8:21 am

As far as running chop...regular chop should make no difference...If you get into nasty stuff and the motor is mounted "high"...You could experience blow out......

Poorly designed tunnels can create problems i.e vacuums, poor performance and and have heard of heat build up in the tunnel causing delamination.....

Tunnels are like four wheel drive...it can get you into trouble and not back out.....I like four wheel drive

Post by **tin can** » November 6th, 2004, 9:57 am

As Chalk said, tunnels have their problems. It goes right back to the "There is no one perfect boat" thing. Tunnels are very good for what they're designed for. If ya wanna fish real skinny water, a tunnel is the way to go. Most of the time it will work fine on the flats. Keep in mind there are well designed tunnels, and all the rest of the tunnels.

Good luck in your search.

BKTomblin Jr · Post by **BKTomblin Jr** » November 6th, 2004, 11:38 am

I believe its true, they r great! But, as tin can stated "their are no perfect boats"

unfortunitley, this too is true.

Good-luck

Post by **Redbelly** » November 7th, 2004, 9:16 am

So what is the "good" tunnel boat? What brand is the "bad"?

Website · Post by **rev** » November 10th, 2004, 12:01 pm

Maverick HPX-T, Pathfinder, & Hells Bay = Good. Savage Creek = Bad. I'm sure there are many more, but those are the first to pop in my mind.

Post by **RHTFISH** » November 10th, 2004, 1:20 pm

Just my 0.02 worth!

My first tunnel was an 88 model 19' FishnSki Barge and I learned to love the shallow water capabilities of tunnels. I'm currently in a rebuilt
17' version of the same boat. I do love it for shallow water especially
with jackplate and 4 blade prop. Otherwise it is essentially a skiff
and can be rough in choppy water. Neat thing is that it will plane
easily at 11-12 mph against a chop. Running with a chop is no problem.
As others have so well pointed out, there is no "perfect" boat.
If I ever change boats again it will probably be for a 19'
catamaran simply for the smoother ride and therefore less wear and tear on my old back and knees. Another observation is that the shallow
water capability of a tunnel can make one (me mostly) a little too
inclined to dare shallow conditions.

DWilliams · Post by **DWilliams** » November 10th, 2004, 1:48 pm

I've got a 16' alumacraft tunnel with a 50hp honda tiller to beat around the bay. It works good for shallow water. doesn't back up good unless the motor is tilted down. Next years plan is to go with a 4-blade chopper prop and a jack plate and trim tabs. The boat is rough and wet in a chop. It is perfect for slick calm days and skinny water.

Post by **mjsigns** » November 10th, 2004, 6:47 pm

A tunnel hull requires more horsepower to push than a standard hull. You likely consume 20-30% more fuel in the process. Your new 40 might do well if it's mounted on a jack plate. Thats my 2 cents.

Post by **Redbelly** » November 10th, 2004, 7:09 pm

Thanks for the info guys.

I guess the tunnel idea may be more $ than I want to spend to do it right.

I am close to deciding between a DLX16 or 17 footer by Carolina Skiff, the "unsinkable', I like that aspect.

Post by **Chalk** » November 10th, 2004, 7:37 pm

mjsigns wrote:A tunnel hull requires more horsepower to push than a standard hull. You likely consume 20-30% more fuel in the process. Your new 40 might do well if it's mounted on a jack plate. Thats my 2 cents.

I disagree

...A jet drive requires more horsepower and uses more fuel.....Tell me why a cavity elevated above the planing surface requires more horsepower.....

The boat below will do 25 mph with a 25 hp...I have a 16 ft lancer with a 40 hp on it that will do 29 (GPS clocked) with a fishing load and no tunnel.....

This is where the tunnel is clearly superior. Not only does the water coming out of the tunnel rise higher than along the hull sides but it is compressed by the tunnel shape: the prop will cavitate much less than between the cat hulls.
The correct name for our type of tunnel is pocket drive. The theory is well known: the forward part of the tunnel is higher than the exit and the aerated water is compressed before it reaches the prop. At the transom, the water makes a hump and that is the level of the cavitation plate at planing speeds. For the hole shot, the prop must be deeper but once the pocket drive is "primed" the engine can rise on a jack plate allowing the boat to run in 4 or 5" of water.

Post by **rocket** » November 10th, 2004, 8:08 pm

I had a 17' Pathfinder w/ a tunnel. GREAT for skinny water, NO GOOD for ride

. From my experience a tunnel will get you places other boats will not. Don't know about the fuel consumption difference, I would tend to think there would be none.
If your trying to outfit a 40 hp, tiller steering motor, I would suggest an aluminum tunnel hull. There are several brands to choose from, and most claim to be unsinkable.
I have a friend who fishes a Carolina Skiff, and he LOVES it, but it's only a matter of time before he finds the right rock. How it hasn't happened yet, I don't know.
If you plan on fishing skinny water, and you plan on fishing around oyster bars, and rocks, and you're trying to be economical, then get yourself an aluminum boat w/ a tunnel hull. Just not a G-3. I'll let Wevans explain that one to you.

.
Just my .02c

Post by **wevans** » November 10th, 2004, 8:12 pm

Don't go dragin me into this one