Fleming 58 video

[Portofino]

I've waited a very long time for someone to post a graph like that. What a fascinating insight into the boat, and, gives such a clear decision making ability.

Brilliant, right up my nerdy street.

You might like this below
Itama 55 same engines MAN 1360 Hp V 12 s as mikes factory sign off data .

Sure MapishM and JFM can pour all over them

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/te...fMxHh1eGY1B__5ac2rZZYU3vwh3VL0zwctVYp36xXhzvM

 

[Portofino]

Deleted , issues with copying stuff

 

[Piers]

Hi All. I've been a silent watcher so far, but here's my comment.

1) I believe classic boat shapes like the Fleming will far outlive the many 'modern' shapeless boats we're seeing on the new boat market
2) We cruise our Fleming 55 at 8kts, approx 1150 rpm from our twin Cummins 450c engines
3) At that displacement speed, we achieve just over 1.7nm to the UK gallon
4) Yes, there could be more internal space, but outside gangways are good and wide for easy access around the boat
5) Nordhavns sacrifice external walkways for internal space
6) Would I buy a Fleming or a Nordhavn? The latter is nowhere near as classic or beautiful, but I'm tempted towards a Nordhavn for other reasons
7) The stabs are excellent on our Play d'eau but we have nothing to cope with 'at anchor' and upgrading is hugely expensive - almost a complete new system

I remember asking Tony Fleming before I bough Play d'eau, if he would reduce the engine room space to allow for a central cabin. His answer was, 'No.' 'Why not?' I asked. "Engines are far more important than people.' was the reply.

As they say, all IMHO.

Piers

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I remember asking Tony Fleming before I bough Play d'eau, if he would reduce the engine room space to allow for a central cabin. His answer was, 'No.' 'Why not?' I asked. "Engines are far more important than people.' was the reply.

Typical Tony comment that Try telling that to my SWMBO

 

[Piers]

Typical Tony comment that Try telling that to my SWMBO

When I insisting that as a customer I wanted a single rather than twin engines, he replied, 'you may be the customer, but I'm the builder.' Nuff said....

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

'you may be the customer, but I'm the builder.' Nuff said....

He might say that in public but actually the 58 model was in direct response to customer demand for a midships master cabin which was always my SWMBO's complaint about the 55. So my SWMBO won in the end

 

[Piers]

I agree that the 58 looks to be a lovely and better vessel than the 55. I haven't been over one, but the pics seem to show that the twin helm seats (which we'd really love) are directly in line with the window struts which would surely obscure vision. Do you know if they are?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I agree that the 58 looks to be a lovely and better vessel than the 55. I haven't been over one, but the pics seem to show that the twin helm seats (which we'd really love) are directly in line with the window struts which would surely obscure vision. Do you know if they are?

Sorry. We looked at the 58 at SIBS last year and I cannot remember noticing that. In every respect she was a lovely boat, with attention to detail you seldom find on other boats, although the headroom in the engine bay was a bit restricted still but I understand why they have chosen to make that compromise. The price though is wallet busting but they seem to be selling every one they can make so who am I to comment on the price?

 

[Piers]

The price though is wallet busting but they seem to be selling every one they can make so who am I to comment on the price?

Flemings are just about the most popular trawler yacht in the States, only, I believe, second to Nordhavn.

 

[MapisM]

I agree that the 58 looks to be a lovely and better vessel than the 55. I haven't been over one, but the pics seem to show that the twin helm seats (which we'd really love) are directly in line with the window struts which would surely obscure vision. Do you know if they are?

I've never been onboard a 58 either, but the differences are bound to be way more relevant.
Based on the specs, the 58 is in fact much beamier, so I suppose it's built upon completely new moulds, as opposed to using the usual cut 'n shut trick which is so popular among mainstream boatbuilders...

 

[MapisM]

I've waited a very long time for someone to post a graph like that. What a fascinating insight into the boat, and, gives such a clear decision making ability.

Brilliant, right up my nerdy street.

It just popped to my mind that I did post something very similar here, when I bought the DP.
Actually, the table pic disappeared after I didn't pay the Photobucket ransom, but here it is again!
Sorry, no graphical version, and no data under 1000rpm - all other numbers are there, anyhow...

 

[jfm]

7) The stabs are excellent on our Play d'eau but we have nothing to cope with 'at anchor' and upgrading is hugely expensive - almost a complete new system

Delete the "almost" . You should do it. My brother just did on aquastar 74, including moving the fins, which you wont need to do because fleming will have located them correctly to begin with (unlike aquastar). Best upgrade you could make - your boat would then be officially perfect. Sleipner 0.7m sq fins on their rack and pinion actuators = £85k all in, give or take. Far far better than the Trac stuff both underway and at anchor

 

[jfm]

It just popped to my mind that I did post something very similar here, when I bought the DP.
Actually, the table pic disappeared after I didn't pay the Photobucket ransom, but here it is again!
Sorry, no graphical version, and no data under 1000rpm - all other numbers are there, anyhow...

What's the source of your lph data MapisM?

 

[MapisM]

What's the source of your lph data MapisM?

Haha, I'll forgive you for not having re-read my previous post which I linked!
The table is taken from the official DP brochure of the boat, which has always been built with the same (mechanical) engines.
As Mr.DP told me, fuel burn data were taken with additional instruments purposedly installed on hull #1 (fully loaded). I suppose they used Floscan gauges or similar - even himself didn't remember exactly what the MAN engineer installed before the seatrial, back in those days.
So, unless I will install something similar in the future (which is a possibility), atm I have no way to check the consistency of those numbers with my specific boat.
But as I mentioned in the other thread, I couldn't believe how accurate the correspondance between rpm/speed during the seatrial of my boat (also fully loaded) and those brochure data was: all within 0.1/0.2 kts, throughout the whole rpm range.
So, I have no reason to doubt that also fuel burn is accurate!

 

[Portofino]

It just popped to my mind that I did post something very similar here, when I bought the DP.
Actually, the table pic disappeared after I didn't pay the Photobucket ransom, but here it is again!
Sorry, no graphical version, and no data under 1000rpm - all other numbers are there, anyhow...

They are more believable , than Mikes .Mikes appear remarkably economically .
1800 rpm for me is about 90 per side but over 28 knots .
Mikes on 139 your data shows 156
All three will be up n off planning at 1800 .
The Itama 55 with identical engines as mikes @ 1800 rpm burns 135 , so that kinda validates Mikes Data - bit smaller hull smaller rudders ( drag )



Wonder if JFM can post his burn rate @ 180O ? :encouragement:

 

[MapisM]

They are more believable , than Mikes .Mikes appear remarkably economically .
1800 rpm for me is about 90 per side but over 28 knots .
Mikes on 139 your data shows 156

Careful, PF: according to Deleted User numbers, his F630 @1800 actually burns 278 lph - the 139 is in fact for each engine...!
Which stands to reason - my boat is somewhere in between the F53 and the F630, but much closer to the former than to the latter, both in terms of size and power.

PS: no idea about where you took the Itama 55 numbers, but if the boat really has the same V12/1224hp engines as the F630, there's simply no way that she can burn half at the same rpm, no matter how small her rudders can be!

 

[Portofino]

Careful, PF: according to Deleted User numbers, his F630 @1800 actually burns 278 lph - the 139 is in fact for each engine...!
Which stands to reason - my boat is somewhere in between the F53 and the F630, but much closer to the former than to the latter, both in terms of size and power.

PS: no idea about where you took the Itama 55 numbers, but if the boat really has the same V12/1224hp engines as the F630, there's simply no way that she can burn half at the same rpm, no matter how small her rudders can be!

Post #81 ^^^
Here it is again quite interesting for nerdy types
I thought yours are per side , my 90 per side -@ 1800 rpm so,s that’s 180 to compare with your twin 156 , @1800 ,
Which can’t be right ?
Actually the Itama 55 ave is 136..5 almost the same as Mikes — per side .


https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/te...fMxHh1eGY1B__5ac2rZZYU3vwh3VL0zwctVYp36xXhzvM

 

[Piers]

Based on the specs, the 58 is in fact much beamier, so I suppose it's built upon completely new moulds, as opposed to using the usual cut 'n shut trick which is so popular among mainstream boatbuilders...

Specs are here: http://www.flemingyachts.com/models.html

 

[Portofino]

Sorry Piers have you got any fuel burn data .

Your normal D speed and if poss and @1800 ,for our P comparison ?

just so we can get a handle on this eco point .

I know JFM ^^ said he could troll at 500 rpm ,for 6 knots buts that’s not realistic .
As my post above D for me is about 825rpm ( not 935 as screen shot ^^ ) — I burn 40 L/ h at about 9 point something knots or 10 miles / hr ave .

 

[MapisM]

Post #81 ^^^

Sorry L, I don't know why, but I missed your post #81 before.

Anyhow, also with those Itama 55 numbers (which btw are related to the more powerful version of the V12 which Deleted User has on his F630, though afaik it`s exactly the same engine with just a different software) you mixed up single with total: at 1800rpm, the total is 135+138 = 273.
This is the number to compare with Deleted User 278, your 180, and my 156.

And I don't see any major inconsistencies in them, because:
- the IT55 is obviously smaller than the F630, but burning the same amount of fuel and making 5 knots more is something that doesn't hurt my mental sanity check, fwiw.
- your boat is also smaller than mine, but even if the two engines are more different than the two previous V12 (yours being L6 and mine V8), their output is actually similar (700 vs. 800). And again, your boat makes 5 more knots at the same rpm. So, essentially, what your 180 and my 156 tell us is that your engines are running at a higher load than mine, at 1800rpm. Not something I would have expected, but again, not a difference that strikes me as necessarily wrong either...