Boat in build pics (Squadron 78)

[jfm]

She's looking fab JFM, if there was a major engine problem and one had to come out, how easy is it to lift out?

IIRC one of the MAN's in TCM's Leopard had to come out while he had the boat here in the UK, I recall a cockpit hatch above the motor so it was a relatively easy job to get out.

Never easy on a flybr. You have to remove patio doors, saloon floor, and take them out with a big cherry picker. Some boats (but not this one) have a hatch in the flybridge floor and you take them out thru the roof. Either way, not easy.

In contrast the Leopard 23 has engines right aft on V drives so they come up vertically after you remove just the aft deck sunbed. Pretty easy.

 

[jfm]

Is the athwartships mounted fuel tank arrangement a new thing for Fairline? Apart from the stability advantage, one big plus compared to an outboard fuel tank arrangement is the ability to get round to the outboard side of the engines. Do Fairline fit sight tubes to the tanks because they're definitely worth having?

No, they did it on Sq58. It eats up 1.5 meters of accom so doesn't sell boats at boatshows, but as you say makes for great engine access. And generally bigger tanks. And great sound insulation for master cabin. So I'm a big fan of the idea. Sight gauges are standard, and just nice to have

 

[MapisM]

It seems odd to me too...

That's not all, Mike.
Let's take the 1470hp, which surely doesn't need larger anything and would probably mean what, 31 or 32 rather than 34kts at WOT? Practically meaningless, anyhow.
Otoh, you would have a boat capable to sustain a usage at rated load and rated speed up to 50% of the time, or 6 hours out of 12, with cyclical load and speed (20% to 80% load factor), as opposed to rated load and rated speed up to 8% of the time, or 1/2 hour out of 6, (up to 30% load factor).
Now, that is a no-brainer.

 

[jfm]

Whilst I fully agree on the brand, if given a choice between Cat and Man, I'm actually surprised by FL recommendation of the 1572hp version. In fact, I had a doubt which I just checked on the Cat selection guide:
The 1572hp is the non-Acert version, E rated, RCD compliant.
Nothing wrong about it, but they also offer these alternatives:
1470hp, C rated
1622hp, D rated
Now, having the same block in a higher power/higher rating and a lower power/lower rating version, that's something which already raises the question of why they're still producing the latter.
But what's even more important is that the two above alternatives are both Acert, IW/CC2 compliant, and WOSR capable.
On paper, that's a perfect fit for such vessel, considering also the usage jfm has in mind...
I'm really interested to hear what the rationale behind FL "strong recommendation" was.

I spotted the E/C/D thing when researching engines. I took the view there must be some spin going on. It's the same block, so 1622 D rated and 1572 E rated just makes no sense. I frankly don't believe that the 1622 can do more hours than the 1572!

The ACERT/non ACERT also doesn't stnad up to scrutiny when you dig deeper. I reasearched this and talked to Finning (the UK cat importer). The normal ACERT (an earth movers) is an advanced version of the C32 engine with variable valve timing etc (but same block). Some commentators report engineering concerns and breakdowns with the valve gear. But the marine ACERTs do not have the variable valve timing stuff and the ACERT denomination is a bit misleading, and many describe it as the non ACERT engine with the fuel etc remapped just to squirt in more fuel and get more power.

I don't know the full truth and would be delighted to hear more if anyone knows but I took a view that the 1572 is ok. I wont be running it anywhere near WOT most of the time. I'll mainly be pulling 800hp out of each one, so I'm in effect C rated approximately, anyhow.

 

[DougH]

In contrast the Leopard 23 has engines right aft on V drives so they come up vertically after you remove just the aft deck sunbed. Pretty easy.

Very similar to the Manhattan 60 which uses V drives. The entire aft cockpit sole is removable (still a big job) but the rest of the boat remains untouched.

Fuel tank (only one, 3000 litres) lies inline with the boat and is situated at the lowest point in the hull under the Master Cabin Bed.

As has been said silencers for the engine are not fitted but the exhausts exit below the water and makes for a very quiet boat indeed. At 30 knots you can talk in all cabins, saloon etc without raising your voice what so ever. It is immpressive.

When on the aft cockpit the engine noise is more distinct but still very quiet making it a popular place to sit for many visitors.

On the flybrige the engines are still very quiet but of course the the wind noise is the main issue.

I can only speak for the Manhattan 60 (New 2009) as I do not have experience of other Sunseekers

 

[jfm]

That's not all, Mike.
Let's take the 1470hp, which surely doesn't need larger anything and would probably mean what, 31 or 32 rather than 34kts at WOT? Practically meaningless, anyhow.
Otoh, you would have a boat capable to sustain a usage at rated load and rated speed up to 50% of the time, or 6 hours out of 12, with cyclical load and speed (20% to 80% load factor), as opposed to rated load and rated speed up to 8% of the time, or 1/2 hour out of 6, (up to 30% load factor).
Now, that is a no-brainer.

But do you really believe it Maips? That a 1470 can do WOT 50% of the time but a 1572 can do WOT only 8% of the time, when it's the same engine?

There is no way I will ever pull 1470 from the engines, let alone 1572, for any more than 1% of the time, let alone 8% or 50% so the difference is academic

 

[MapisM]

I don't know the full truth and would be delighted to hear more if anyone knows

This is the result of a quick search on Boatdiesel, if you're interested, but it doesn't give really detailed tech insights.
I know an engineer at Cat Italy which surely knows more than myself, I can give him a call if you wish.
...though I'm not sure I'd want to know, if I had already bought the engines!
Just from my personal (amateur) viewpoint, there must be a reason why all but the E rated C32s in their range are classified "Acert" and are tier 2 complaint. Sounds like they're progressively phasing out all the non-Acerts, maybe another good reason for those £50k less, on top of the exchange rate?

 

[MapisM]

But do you really believe it Maips? That a 1470 can do WOT 50% of the time but a 1572 can do WOT only 8% of the time, when it's the same engine?

It doesn't really matter if I believe it or not (though I actually do, to some extent).
The point is, if you are in Bonifacio and want to rush back to Antibes for any reason, with the C rating engines you could make it at 30kts all the way, remaining within its rated usage, whilst with the E rating engines you could risk objections that the warranty is void, if anything happen.
Btw, obviously "anything" could happen in both cases, and I don't think it's more likely to happen with the E engines, but the potential consequences costwise are not academic...

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Just from my personal (amateur) viewpoint, there must be a reason why all but the E rated C32s in their range are classified "Acert" and are tier 2 complaint. Sounds like they're progressively phasing out all the non-Acerts, maybe another good reason for those £50k less, on top of the exchange rate?

Presumably the ACERT technology allows the engines to be designed to comply with Tier 3 and the future Tier 4 emissions regulations so that is why non ACERT engines may be phased out. FWIW, in my business, we are finding that the latest generation of Tier 3 compliant engines are generally less reliable than older engines, mainly because they now have so many sensors on them and any malfunction of a sensor causes the engine to go into limp mode. Of course, the manufacturers dont allow end users to touch then otherwise the warranty is voided. I am told that Tier 4 engines will run a lot hotter than previous engines in order to meet the yet more stringent emissions targets which may further reduce reliability and engine life
If jfm's engines are non ACERT, its probably a good thing

 

[MapisM]

If jfm's engines are non ACERT, its probably a good thing

I wish him it is, of course. And I'm pretty sure that his engines will do their job perfectly, anyway.
But as also jfm said, I don't think it's appropriate to assume that earth moving engines are so similar to marine ones.
Aside from the obvious "marinization" requirements, also the tiers are different, frinstance.
If you look at the official Cat "Marine Engine Selection Guide" (which is dowloadable but requires a registration - I can forward you the PDF if you're interested), you'll see that ALL the C32 blocks classified for commercial operation are ACERT, bar none.
Up to the A rated ones, good for 5 to 8 thousands hours per year of unrestricted continuous usage.
I don't think they would sell many of these to tugboat builders and the likes, if they weren't highly reliable...?
Anyhow, I remain curious about FL reasons for their recommendation.
I really can't see why rule out the C and D rated ACERT versions, AOTBE.

 

[jfm]

This is the result of a quick search on Boatdiesel, if you're interested, but it doesn't give really detailed tech insights.
I know an engineer at Cat Italy which surely knows more than myself, I can give him a call if you wish.
...though I'm not sure I'd want to know, if I had already bought the engines!

I am happy to know, even having bought the engines . Really, I spent a lot of time researching this and couldn't find consistent information on the 'net or by talking to people. The boatdiesle pice sheds no light (I researched on Boatdiesel, obviously!) Feel free to ask your Cat guy and report back. But bear in mind I have asked lots of "Cat guys" and each has a somewhat different explanation, so there is no way of knowing if he is the source of definitive correct info

Ref your other post, I cannot imagine any scenario where I would drive a Sq78 at 30knots from Bonifacio to Antibes. If I'm in a hurry there are perfectly good planes, and even private planes are probably cheaper than my C32x2 fuel bill . I have spent the last 7 years crusing the Med at 18-21 knots, and oftentimes 10-11, and have no plans to change. So the concern you mention is valid in some scenarios, but not for me. And I still see no engineering explanation for a 1622 ACERT being D and a 1572 being A.

Also I have searched the net for reports of unreliability in non ACERT C32s and cannot find any

If anyone does understand the ACERT/non ACERT thing better, please post

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I wish him it is, of course. And I'm pretty sure that his engines will do their job perfectly, anyway.
But as also jfm said, I don't think it's appropriate to assume that earth moving engines are so similar to marine ones.
Aside from the obvious "marinization" requirements, also the tiers are different, frinstance.
If you look at the official Cat "Marine Engine Selection Guide" (which is dowloadable but requires a registration - I can forward you the PDF if you're interested), you'll see that ALL the C32 blocks classified for commercial operation are ACERT, bar none.
Up to the A rated ones, good for 5 to 8 thousands hours per year of unrestricted continuous usage.
I don't think they would sell many of these to tugboat builders and the likes, if they weren't highly reliable...?
Anyhow, I remain curious about FL reasons for their recommendation.
I really can't see why rule out the C and D rated ACERT versions, AOTBE.

No engine manufacturer is going to develop a different series of engines just for the marine market which is tiny compared to the vehicle, construction and industrial engine markets. Marine engines are generally very similar to engines sold into these markets. The fact that ACERT engines are sold into the commercial marine market is probably due to the need to comply with emissions regulations in that market. Having said that, Cat engines generally have a v good reputation so if they say an engine is good for 8k hours per year of continuous usage, its probably believable

 

[jfm]

The fact that ACERT engines are sold into the commercial marine market ...

Mike, Finnings (the big UK Cat importer) told me marine ACERTs are not the same as non marine ACERTs, and are really much closer to the non ACERT engines. No idea of the exact specifics or if any of this is true. Feel free to ask any Cat insiders you know

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Mike, Finnings (the big UK Cat importer) told me marine ACERTs are not the same as non marine ACERTs, and are really much closer to the non ACERT engines. No idea of the exact specifics or if any of this is true. Feel free to ask any Cat insiders you know

OK but I still think that the major components will be the same. The marine engines I see at boat shows look pretty much like the ones you find in construction equipment except for a few ancillaries

 

[jimduncan1]

Great Pic's, nice to see what's separating the salubrious bits you'll see inside from the water below, and happily in your case it looks very reassuring! Looking forward to the next stage(s) of build.

 

[newWave]

Caterpillar Diesel Engine Rating Definitions

After reading the discussion on the engine ratings I found the following link that might be usefull http://www.petersonpower.com/docs/Ind_Ratings_Guide-LECH3874-06.pdf

 

[jfm]

Thanks newwave. That was a useful read, though as ever with this stuff it's a bit lightweight on information on the underlying engineering and the engineering differences between the A-E engines. Indeed, some of the difference between an A and B engine (say) isn't engineering at all; it's to do with the increased probablility of the B engine going wrong more expensively and the warranty cost of repairing it, compared with the extra margin obtained from selling it. Ie the ratings are partly a financial issue

Anyway, my engines are nailed in and the deck was attached to the hull this week, so I'm settled on the Cat C32 1572hp version

 

[itspaul]

Help Missing my fix when is the next installment please

 

[wakeup]

Help Missing my fix when is the next installment please

DITTO

 

[tinkicker0]

Hmm all this talk of engines. Some peeps do like to make life complicated. If I was lucky enough to buy a boat like that, a quick conversation.

TK: What engines do you recommend?

Boat Propulsion DESIGN engineer: CAT V16 TBDERTERD.

TK: CAT V16 what?

Design engineer: I know you are a diesel engineer by trade, so i'll spell it out in a technical manner; its a bloody big engine that'll do the job creditably well.

TK fair nuff, why that one?

Design engineer: Cos the CAT sales engineer and I have seen who can piss up the wall furthest and we think it will make it all work for a long time and drink less fuel than the alternative. In fact I am guaranteeing it.

TK: Fair enough. I'll have those then.