• REMINDER - COVID-19

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as YBW, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health and liberty is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

    Users who are found to promulgate FAKE NEWS on the forum in regard to this issue, intentional or otherwise, may find their access terminated. It is your responsibility to provide references to bona fide sources.

    FAKE NEWS, in this regard, is that which is posited by organisations, media, etc., that is repeated on the forum, or used to support personal opinion/hypothesis posted by users - FAKE NEWS is not necessarily the personal opinion/hypothesis being posted in itself, any issues with such should be challenged respectfully.

  • Boats 2020 and MDL Ocean Village Show cancelled at last minute

    Last minute announcement as Southampton City Council pulls the plug on both shows on Thursday evening over increased Coronavirus numbers in UK

    Read more...

FERRETTI 430 - Experience and opinions

hkikis

Member
Joined
27 Nov 2019
Messages
75
Location
Athens-Greece
Anyone knows fuel consumption for 430 ?
It has 480 tamd 74p and it is quite heavy boat for 43ft. I think 17tn.

It has volvo electronic display. This meter show true fuel consumption?
 

Attachments

Portofino

Well-known member
Joined
10 Apr 2011
Messages
6,672
Location
Boat- Western Med
Rule of thumb divide the hp by 5 = burn at WOT in L / hr , then back off from there as you won,t be blasting about @wot .
So 96 less 20:% to take it to 80 = 77 L/hr each side .
ball park 150 L/hr .

The speed entirely depends on the drag , which as you say is basically weight .
A lighter boat will go faster burning the same .
 

Portofino

Well-known member
Joined
10 Apr 2011
Messages
6,672
Location
Boat- Western Med
So while I will be traveling the fuel rate that volvo display will show it will be accurate ?
Yes of course ....but the pic of the gauge you posted is not from your 2x480 Hp boat it’s from a 13 / hr engine estimate 75 Hp yacht engine ? running / cruising @80 % ish load .
 

PowerYachtBlog

Active member
Joined
21 May 2007
Messages
3,736
Location
Malta - Med Sea
I sold a Pershing 43 with the same engines and similar weight about 17 tones. Consumption is about 120 lph at 24 (2400 rpm) and 100 at 22 @ 2200 rpm.
So that makes it about 5 liters per mile give or take. The Pershing 43 should be a bit heavier and is also a bit bigger 45 feet loa and also has a deeper Vee hull.
All above numbers are clean hull and props.
My Italian friend though quotes consumption at about 5.5 liters per nm at 22 knots with his 430.
 

hkikis

Member
Joined
27 Nov 2019
Messages
75
Location
Athens-Greece
The owner says 160lph at 22... That is crazy for that boat haha
I ask him if this is what the display show? He told me me no... This is with my calculation in a travel.
I am sure that he is wrong.
5.5l per nm x 22 = 120lph
So this is more logical for this boat.
 

MapisM

Well-known member
Joined
11 Mar 2002
Messages
18,985
The owner says 160lph at 22... That is crazy for that boat haha
Agreed.
Just to put that in perspective, it's EXACTLY the fuel burn of my own boat, with 2x800hp engines pushing a 56' hull whose displacement is 27T (light).

BUT, the effect of a dirty bottom can be awful, on planing hulls. I wouldn't be surprised if the chap who told you the above actually experienced it in real world, maybe late in the season and with a somewhat fouled hull+sterngear.
 

mikef

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
60,765
Location
Broken Brexited Britain
The owner says 160lph at 22... That is crazy for that boat haha
Nope thats not crazy although it seems slightly high to me. Get used to it. I did mention this earlier but Ferrettis are big heavy boats for their length so dont expect frugal fuel consumption

FWIW here are the performance and fuel consumption figures for my F46 with Cat 3208 engines. The 430 will be faster and use a bit less fuel but not much

100%80%
RPMSPEEDLPHNMPGRANGERANGE
180011.9720.75
314​
251​
200015.1920.75
312​
249​
220018.61150.74
307​
246​
240020.81380.69
286​
229​
260023.21630.65
270​
216​
270024.11740.63
263​
211​
 

mikef

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
60,765
Location
Broken Brexited Britain
Actually the blinds work very well. Here is how they look from inside when closed.View attachment 90576
I find those blinds to be a PITA because they take forever to wind up and down and the rubber rings at the bottom fail regularly (I replace them with hydraulic O-rings). We wind the blinds up when we come to our boat and dont put them down again until we leave. They are also very difficult to keep clean as they seem to attract dust
 

MapisM

Well-known member
Joined
11 Mar 2002
Messages
18,985
FWIW here are the performance and fuel consumption figures for my F46 with Cat 3208 engines.
The 430 will be faster and use a bit less fuel but not much
Very different animal, M.
Based on the specs I've got, the 46 is one meter longer, almost one foot beamier, and most importantly almost 2T heavier than the 430.

Regardless, your table shows a remarkably high fuel burn also considering these differences.
In the 18.6/23.2 range, she made from 6.2 to 7 lpm, which is pretty close to my fuel burn with the DP.
Out of curiosity, did you keep a similar table also for the 53?
 

mikef

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
60,765
Location
Broken Brexited Britain
Very different animal, M.
Based on the specs I've got, the 46 is one meter longer, almost one foot beamier, and most importantly almost 2T heavier than the 430.

Regardless, your table shows a remarkably high fuel burn also considering these differences.
In the 18.6/23.2 range, she made from 6.2 to 7 lpm, which is pretty close to my fuel burn with the DP.
Out of curiosity, did you keep a similar table also for the 53?
Thats why I said this!

The 430 will be faster and use a bit less fuel but not much
I bet the 430 will not be more than 10-15% more fuel efficient. Yes I did keep a similar table for the 53 but I cant find it!
 

MapisM

Well-known member
Joined
11 Mar 2002
Messages
18,985
No worries, 'twas just idle curiosity.
The Fer model that I would actually be more interested in, for an almost perfect comparison with my boat, is the 57.
Almost identical size, with my boat slightly heavier when unloaded and the Fer slightly heavier when loaded, due to her huge fuel tank.
But VERY similar anyhow - even in the deadrise!
Otoh, the only F57 test that I found on the web, made by a US magazine, shows just the speeds through the rpm range but not the fuel burn... :-/
 

mikef

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
60,765
Location
Broken Brexited Britain
No worries, 'twas just idle curiosity.
The Fer model that I would actually be more interested in, for an almost perfect comparison with my boat, is the 57.
Almost identical size, with my boat slightly heavier when unloaded and the Fer slightly heavier when loaded, due to her huge fuel tank.
But VERY similar anyhow - even in the deadrise!
Otoh, the only F57 test that I found on the web, made by a US magazine, shows just the speeds through the rpm range but not the fuel burn... :-/
In the end what does it matter? We get fixated on fuel consumption with boats (like cars) but the reality is that there are far higher costs in boating than fuel such as depreciation, maintenance, berthing and, now, insurance. Not only that but fuel use is discretionary to some degree unlike some of the other costs. Basically if youre worried about fuel, go slower :)
 

Portofino

Well-known member
Joined
10 Apr 2011
Messages
6,672
Location
Boat- Western Med
P I have the test figure from a IT mag for my boat and there numbers are identical even after all theses years and god knows how thick ( read rough ) the AF is ,
Unfortunately I have the MAN engine blurb at the time which shows fuel burn .The too don’t match exactly.
The bare engine sat n a test bed in Germany burns about 10 % ish less .

So that’s why I have previously questioned you figures a pair of 800 s pushing 27 T , with a bigger wet area cant burn less than my 700 s anything between 17 to 20 T with a smaller wetted area .

Also that fuel burn rule of thumb I have nicked from you ....you used it eloquently on another forum to educate our American cousins ( well cousins to Brits :) ) .

Divide the Hp by 5 for WOT so for real world just slip down what ever % used a not unreasonable 20 to get 77 x2 154 which is in line with the owners called 160 .....bit of seasonal growth etc .

Do that for yours using your formula 800 / 5 = 160 @wot , knock off even 30 % for cruise ( generously for 27 T ) 160-48 = 112 x2 = ..... 244 L/hr . Which is a million miles away from your 160 you posted ^^^^ .

which sits correctly with my 190 / 200lhr for 18/1900 rpm @30 knots ....but only faster because of smaller 19T ave and substantial reduced wetted area .

Anyhow speed is irrelevant ....that’s just a function of what the oil burners are screwed into ....it’s the fuel burn physics that’s constant .
 
Last edited:

MapisM

Well-known member
Joined
11 Mar 2002
Messages
18,985
In the end what does it matter? We get fixated on fuel consumption with boats (like cars) but the reality is that there are far higher costs in boating than fuel such as depreciation, maintenance, berthing and, now, insurance. Not only that but fuel use is discretionary to some degree unlike some of the other costs. Basically if youre worried about fuel, go slower :)
Yeah, actually you are 'kinda teaching grandma to suck eggs, M.
After 17 years of single digit speed, I perfectly see what you mean, and of course the answer to your initial question is no.

And interestingly, when I reverted (or as I usually say, downgraded!) to a P boat, I thought of using her mostly at D speed.
But it only took me a few hours to realize how better she goes when planing, anywhere from 18/19 kts all the way up to 26/27.
As opposed to D speed, where she's a pita when compared with the old lady, which was akin to a sailboat instead.
Bottom line, I'm now cruising at P speed 90% of the time.
But the good news is that in spite of this, the answer to your question is still no.
I mean, it has been yes (and boys did it hurt the wallet!) when I made almost 12 hundreds Nm in the delivery trip from Venice to CF at P speed.
Otoh, nowadays, with a choice of anchorages within less than half an hour at P speed, the higher fuel bill is neither here nor there, in the grand scheme.
And I must admit that sometimes it's nice to enjoy a bay a bit longer, knowing that the return trip takes one third of the time I was used to, if not even less... :cool:
 

MapisM

Well-known member
Joined
11 Mar 2002
Messages
18,985
So that’s why I have previously questioned you figures a pair of 800 s pushing 27 T with a bigger wet area cant burn less than my 700 s anything between 17 to 20 T with a smaller wetted area.
Yep, I remember that we already debated this in the past.
And we can speculate about the reasons till the cows come home, but my numbers are based on empirical evidence, anyhow.
As you know, you can only have a real time fuel burn through either electronic engines displays or flow meters, and I have neither.
But the delivery trip that I previously mentioned was a fantastic opportunity for checking fuel burn numbers VERY accurately, for two reasons:
Firstly, the long distance (with the outrageous overall amount of fuel used!), and secondly the sight gauges on tanks, whose movements I could trace to the millimeter.
Btw, that trip was before I pressure checked and tuned the injectors, replacing also their nozzles.
A job after which I never had the opportunity to make a comparably accurate fuel burn measurement.
Not that I expected miracles, anyhow. But I did experience a noticeable reduction in exhaust soot after the job, so I think it's safe to assume that if there was any effect on fuel burn, it wasn't for the worse.

Interestingly, the results of my empirical measurements were so close to the numbers in the builder's brochure, that I didn't even bother making my own table just for very minor differences.
I think to have already posted it in the past, but I'm re-attaching it below, in case you would like to re-check it.
And under that first table, I am also attaching an abstract from MAN original specs sheet.
As you can see, they are remarkably aligned, so it's not like they had a magic wand, at DP.

Otoh, I did come across several P boats whose fuel burn was significantly higher than the prop demand curves of their engines.
But that ain't a surprise either, because those curves are just theoretical, and in principle closer to the behavior of D boats.
My personal inference is that weight aside (which remains a big factor of course, but with pros and cons), there must be other more subtle ways to optimize the efficiency of a P hull, through hydrodynamic lines, propulsion design, weight balance, whatever.
And on top of that, there must be also other factors involved, when comparing radically different things like a flybridge and a boat like yours.
For instance, surely fuel efficiency has never been one of the good reasons why most builders of fast open boats typically go for a deep V bottom.

But as I said at the beginning, when it comes to the reasons for these difference, we can only make armchair speculations.
And rather useless too (academic interest aside), because as mikef said, it doesn't really matter, at the end of the day. :)



 

Portofino

Well-known member
Joined
10 Apr 2011
Messages
6,672
Location
Boat- Western Med
Yes the charts are good . The WOT figure complies with the Hp / 5 calcs for reference .
So we are on the same hymn sheet .

Only explanation is dead rise even a few degrees more has a disproportionate effect on drag in terms of displacing water and wake creation .Perhaps the faster I go with a deeper V it takes more energy to shift the water sideways
This eats Hp .
How ever if I was to go the same cruise speed as you 22/23 my consumption drops to around 60 to 65 Lhr making my 120 /130 Lhr which now fits as expected under your 156 / 160 L/hr ,
So at the same planning speeds not surprisingly yours burns more .
If you raise your cruise to my near 30 knots your charts indicate 2180 rpm and 215 L hr .For my 1950 rpm 190/200 L hr
correct pecking order is maintained .
The discrepancy between the boats consumption I highlighted in previous posts was because I erroneously compared our boats at different speeds .Doh ! :)

So back to the Op your bigger + heavier DP 58 boat with 2x800 Hp MANs uses the same fuel 160 Lhr @22 knots ish as the Ops proposed F43 with VP 480 ,s
Both boats fit in with the Hp / 5 consumption rule ....so you can,t blame VP for being a bad engine .......so your DP hull must be remarkably efficient @ 22 knots which you have been saying .....now I agree. (y)
 
Top