Game Changing 42 ft Flybridge Concept? Opinions appreciated!

[Hugin]

I guess my question might sound rude

Not at all and it's in fact an interesting question..... at least from my POV.

Some folks who spent decades actually building boats always explained me that boat design, particularly for P boats, must start from the hull and its propulsion requirements (power/transmission/weight distribution). In turn, that defines the e/r requirements and its bulkheads. Eventually, whatever is left can be used as appropriate.

In principle I'd agree.... this is the sensible way to do it. It will lead to the optimal propulsion system and ideally laid out ER.

But in truth I don't think anyone follows this recipe.... at least not to the letter. I believe there are several reasons why an almost reverse approach is finding favor.

First, boat buyers in general do not care much about ideally laid our ERs. They care about accommodations; in recent years the often mentioned full-beam midships master cabin, but on smaller boats it could be an extra quarter berth or a bigger storage/lazarette making the difference for the buyers/users. Where do we find the space to accommodate costumer demands? We reduce/move the ER, of course, what else? Ever noticed how Volvo markets IPS on it's ability to free up engine space in favor of accommodation?........ the argumentation (USP) supporting sales takes precedence. IMHO, that is a good thing in the bigger scheme of things.

Another thing is that there is not just one ideally correct starting point and one optimal final destination. There are different paths, with different starting points and different destinations, which must all be considered "correct" given different contexts. Assuming the builder is indifferent to the issue then there are - quite apart from the issue of single or twin engine - at least three principally different systems to consider for a boat of this size. Stern drive (also called "out-drive" ; shafts or pods. They have very different characteristics, different cost, weight, complexity and space requirements. From an optimization POV you'd end up with very different ERs and hulls, depending what system you decided for. Center of gravity would ATEBE certainly not be the same for these different choices.

Then again; there are always opportunities to shift weight around within the restraints of the design. And weight is shifted around to such a degree that e.g. Galeon 420 Fly is offered with conventional twin shafts OR stern drives OR pods...... all in the exact same hull (AFAIK). So there certainly is some scope for manipulating things to accommodate the needs of different systems.

In our case it was relatively early decided to optimize for a single engine (for many reasons mentioned elsewhere) and limit the choices to a not further defined shaft solution. That was even before we settled for the exact size and therefore also before the power requirement was known. It was also before the deck layouts were settled. My first layout attempts actually planned for a long straight shaft and the engine moved so far forward it was bordering on the unconventional. An engine moved far forward is not necessarily a problem; whoever designs and calculates the CoG, stability etcetera can add buoyancy forward by extending the waterline forward, adding beam or depth certain places... or a combination of these. Our current layout has the engine placed about 7ft. further towards the stern.... quite a lot, actually....... but now it is well within the totally mainstream - pretty much exactly where many IPS equipped boats would have their twin engine set up; the engines just pointing the other way obviously.

I composed a list of possible engines once the expected displacement as well as the desired speed regime of the boat were settled. That in turn defined the power requirement. That's the list mentioned in the previous post, except I dropped the Cummins QSB 6.7L w. 550hp..... a bit to the low side re. the power needs.

My question obviously assumes that you are still interested in getting a properly powered, balanced and overall well performing boat, without which any other advantage is useless.

I certainly want all of that...... but I rely on an expert to provide all these things when the actual hull is designed/engineered. That is beyond my expertise.

If you think the average mobo design process is governed by the concerns you listed - I sometimes hesitate considering it a "process" - then I recommend you to read this piece written by Eric Sorensen http://www.soundingsonline.com/features/technical/237792-planing-hull-efficiency Many of his other articles are also worth a read, but this one is an eye-opener.

 

[jfm]

Hugin I wish you well but I am concerned about 8 people on 43 feet. Sounds like hell to me. But if enough people want to do it then ok. I have cruised with 8 many times (most summers in fact) and you need 1000 litres water and a lot of fridge/freezer/food storage/2ovens/60cm dishwasher

 

[petem]

Hugin I wish you well but I am concerned about 8 people on 43 feet. Sounds like hell to me. But if enough people want to do it then ok. I have cruised with 8 many times (most summers in fact) and you need 1000 litres water and a lot of fridge/freezer/food storage/2ovens/60cm dishwasher

You must have been reading my mind, I was going to post the same. If unable to carry that much water then a watermaker might be an option but yet more expense. I do think that to spend more than a night at anchor you will need a generator. Make sure your holding tank can take the 'discharge' from 8 people too.

 

[MapisM]

Many of his other articles are also worth a read, but this one is an eye-opener.

Mmm... If this is the brighter of his articles, frankly speaking I'll rather give a miss to the rest.
Maybe I read it too quickly, after the very uninspiring first sentence: "the displacement hull is limited to the speed of an open-ocean wave of the same length", which not only doesn't make sense, but even if translated in what he actually meant (at least, I hope he did!), i.e. that the hull speed is reached when the length of the boat wave is the same of the boat length, it's still incorrect to say that D hulls are "limited" to that.
Anyway, based on your suggestion, I managed to read the whole article, and also leaving aside a few other points I could argue with, I honestly couldn't find any eye-opening statements.
I mean, I learned much more from some threads here in the asylum!
If you don't mind me asking, which of Mr.Sorensen comments did you find particularly enlightening, exactly?

 

[Hurricane]

Hugin I wish you well but I am concerned about 8 people on 43 feet. Sounds like hell to me. But if enough people want to do it then ok. I have cruised with 8 many times (most summers in fact) and you need 1000 litres water and a lot of fridge/freezer/food storage/2ovens/60cm dishwasher

And an icemaker

 

[Lloydroberts]

Hugin I wish you well but I am concerned about 8 people on 43 feet. Sounds like hell to me. But if enough people want to do it then ok. I have cruised with 8 many times (most summers in fact) and you need 1000 litres water and a lot of fridge/freezer/food storage/2ovens/60cm dishwasher

You have(potentially)8 dishwashers.
2 ovens, only if you have a menu to choose from. One big pan of hotpot is all that's needed.
Daily pit-stops for water?

8 on a boat of any size would be a nightmare for me, but I'm antisocial

 

[petem]

So you can have 8 people on board providing at anchor they're happy to live off spagetting bolognese, do their own washing up, pee over the side, don't use hair dryers (that's OK because there won't be enough water for showers) and drink warm beer?

I think I've just invented Yachting!

 

[jfm]

You have(potentially)8 dishwashers.
2 ovens, only if you have a menu to choose from. One big pan of hotpot is all that's needed.
Daily pit-stops for water?

8 on a boat of any size would be a nightmare for me, but I'm antisocial

Kinda depends what experience you are trying to create for you and guests. Sure, you can wash up by hand and have a cauldron of hotpot on the go, if that's what you want.
Daily water pit-stops are ok if you don't mind giving up your stunning anchorage in a busy spot, and perhaps steaming 10 miles that you didn't want to. Unless the fridges are good we're possibly talking daily food stops, which is harder in a busy place because you cannot just touch into the fuel dock as you normally can if you only want water. I would want the boat to provide 3 nights without a port visit, and the challenge there isn't just cramming in loads of cabins (which is relatively easy)

 

[benjenbav]

Hugin I wish you well but I am concerned about 8 people on 43 feet. Sounds like hell to me. But if enough people want to do it then ok. ...

I guess you'd need at least 8

 

[Lloydroberts]

So you can have 8 people on board providing at anchor they're happy to live off spagetting bolognese, do their own washing up, pee over the side, don't use hair dryers (that's OK because there won't be enough water for showers) and drink warm beer?

I think I've just invented Yachting!

Hey, It's my invention, you just supplied a name for it.

My reply was very much tongue in cheek.

If I were to spend £350k+ I'd want some of the extras mentioned by jfm, though I'd still not want 8 people on a boat whether it be 14m or 23m. Too much like hard work catering for so many needs especially on a smaller boat..

 

[petem]

My reply was partly tongue in cheek too but the point I was making, is valid (as others have stated too).

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

My reply was partly tongue in cheek too but the point I was making, is valid (as others have stated too).

Very valid statement, Pete. My observation of yotties is that if it ain't uncomfortable and it ain't hurting, its not yotting. Of course with we moboers its the reverse. The OP is trying to make a yacht out of a mobo which is why it probably won't work

 

[Anders_P42]

As someone who owns a 33" boat that can sleep six crammed in, I'd much prefer a 43" boat that sleeps six more comfortably than move up a size and still feel crammed because it can sleep 8 people once in a blue moon.

Do make sure you engineer in space for a stern thruster, I'm sure a single large prop for circa 600hp engine will walk all over the place when you're reversing. And will the one engine have enough power to cope with mid season fouling? Other 43" Flys often have twin 370hp (740hp total).

Anders

 

[wakeup]

I think I've just invented Yachting!

LOL

 

[BruceK]

I've been reading this somewhat bemused. I have a little 34 footer, well at waterline, if I want to big myself up it's 37 foot topside. Either way it's much, much, smaller than any 42 footer. It's also a express cruiser with a caravan interior. Most I have had on her is 5 adults over 4 days, but she has bed space for 7 if you go yottie. 2 forward berth, two dinette conversion, two aft berth and billy no mates gets the sunlounger under canvas. You can get away with it precisely because it is caravan interior so space seems augmented, with curtain partitioning. Why do I bring this up? I don't get to see the big selling point of 8 or how it's a game changer. If you are going to slum it there are cheaper options available. If it's 3 generations, caravan is just cosy. And no, 5 was the max I'd try again. For me it was the rationing of hot water showers and rate the head was being used that was the limiting factor. The rest was comfortably cosy. The whole idea of cabins under the 44 foot mark imo just makes everything appear claustrophobic

 

[rwoofer]

As someone with an almost entirely yachtie background, I have done numerous trips with at least 8 on board boats less than 40 foot. As a teenager I remember sailing with family with a total of 9 (5 teenagers, 4 adults) on a 36 foot sailing boat for a week - a real hoot. It works on yachts because everyone chips in, so the owner doesn't feel like they are doing a job hosting people.

I think that comes from the fact that to sail a boat there are plenty of jobs to do anyway, so cooking/cleaning etc. is just an extension of that. Maybe people going on a motorboat expect to be entertained, cause there isn't much else to do?

Just a thought.

On my only motorboat, a 21ft Merry Fisher 645, we sleep the whole family of 5. I get to use the camp-bed out in the cockpit, whilst the women take all the berths inside!

 

[Hugin]

I am to some extent a little puzzled by the focus of almost all comments in this thread. When I opened the thread I listed up 5 characteristics - or Unique Selling Propositions (USPs) - which I believe would or could be relevant to potential boat buyers. In my eyes these 5 USPs are equally important..... I think this should be kept in mind. Some are important to Peter, others are important to Pierre....... but on aggregate it is unlikely that all 5 would be important for any single person, let alone equally important.

I guess this comment is a generic reply to the many posters who have been very critical of the idea that 8 people could, should or would be accommodated overnight on a boat displacing barely 11 tons. I will try to navigate this issue into a more balanced context, because it seems context got lost somewhere along the route.

If you are in the market for a sports cruiser this could have, say, 2x400 hp enabling a speed of 38 knots. If you consider buying this boat you very well know you are not going to run around at that speed all the time. That except for the occasional sprint a good number of those horses are not really needed. But it's nice to have when you try to impress your guests 2x10 minutes each season. And if you are absolutely certain you have no need for 38 knots nor any wish to impress guests then you might save some money and go instead for the version with 2x300 hp good for 34 knots.

I suggest the provision of up to 8 sleeping spaces in 5 separate cabins should be seen in exactly the same light. Almost all the time the boat will be a 42-43 ft boat with 6 sleeping spaces offering comfort, privacy and a sense of spaciousness at least on par with comparable boats with the same number of sleeping places ; the only slightly unusual thing being that 2 of the sleeping spaces are in two single cabins - the last thing will be highly appreciated for the Boys' Weekend out occasion.

The last cabin with the 7th and 8th sleeping space is only needed for the rare occasion where you have many guests aboard - probably for several nights. And if you are absolutely certain you'd never be in that situation then you simply don't check the box on the list of options when you buy the boat..... even without the option you'd still be able to offer the 7th and 8th person a place to sleep, but without the comforts and privacy of an enclosed cabin, of course!

The crucial thing here is that the option of the occasional two extra sleeping spaces in a comfy cabin in no way detracts from the comforts, spaciousness, utility, sense of luxury or any other quality of the boat when the extra capacity is not needed/used. The assumption this option has an inherent downside compromising other aspects of the boat is simply wrong. We sometimes are told there is no such thing as a free lunch..... well, in this case it certainly resembles a free lunch. Unless someone can tell me how and where the hidden costs arise.....

So having attempted to straighten some of the misconceptions and false assumptions are there any opinions regarding the desirability of an 18 sq.m. indoor salon? That's almost twice as big as in a Cranchi 43 (~9.6 sq.m), a good 70% bigger than in a Bavaria Virtess 420 (~10.4 sq.m) and more than a third larger than the class leader, Prestige 450 (~13.2 sq.m.). The Prestige is arguably one class larger, but vacuum infusion means it has comparable displacement.

All the competitors offer only one seating group in their salons and it appears unlikely more than 6 people can be accommodated for a meal in any reasonable degree comfort. My proposal provides 2 separate seating groups (a glass partition is even possible) which allows up to 12 people to comfortably dine together...... and the work area at the galley is kept free even with that many people seated. That's USP #3 in case you missed it

 

[Hugin]

Do make sure you engineer in space for a stern thruster

You needn't worry I can't possibly imagine this propulsive set up hitting the market without both a bow and a stern thruster joined with engine control to provide the sacred Joystick (yes, I want one too!). The sacred Joystick has sold thousands of boats with IPS so trying to skimp on this feature is just not a viable option. The size and expected price of this boat makes the cost to Joystick trivial in the bigger scheme of things.

And will the one engine have enough power to cope with mid season fouling? Other 43" Flys often have twin 370hp (740hp total).

It will have almost 53hp/ton (dry displacmeent). The comparable figures for a standard Sealine F530 and a Galeon 420 Fly are 52 hp/ton and 43 hp/ton respectively. There are many similar sized boats with both higher and lower power-to-weight ratios, so we are pretty much in mainstream waters with 53 hp/ton.

 

[Anders_P42]

You needn't worry I can't possibly imagine this propulsive set up hitting the market without both a bow and a stern thruster joined with engine control to provide the sacred Joystick (yes, I want one too!). The sacred Joystick has sold thousands of boats with IPS so trying to skimp on this feature is just not a viable option. The size and expected price of this boat makes the cost to Joystick trivial in the bigger scheme of things.



It will have almost 53hp/ton (dry displacmeent). The comparable figures for a standard Sealine F530 and a Galeon 420 Fly are 52 hp/ton and 43 hp/ton respectively. There are many similar sized boats with both higher and lower power-to-weight ratios, so we are pretty much in mainstream waters with 53 hp/ton.

I can survive without joystick control, it's easy to control single prop boat with bow and stern thruster at close quarters. I'd spend cash on genny or larger Nav screens given the choice.

I'll bow to your knowledge on power to weight ratios. My reference point was Sealine F43 which has same dry weight but came with twin 370hp. Just make sure it can cruise at 20-22 knots fully loaded with mid-season growth without overloading engine.

 

[Greg2]

Only just found the time to read all of this thread but it has been interesting!

I agree with Hugin that the number of people onboard thing seems to have been taken a bit out of context. No need to ever have 8 aboard if you don't want to but if you do on the odd occasion then you can. Now I, for one, find that an attractive proposition, particularly because the extra berths weren't languishing in wasted space in a cabin.

As for the design overall I am very much liking the sound of it. To be fair I don't tend to be bound by what is generally seen to be the norm and I am very happy to 'do different' if I think it will work. So, drawings pending, this sounds like a very interesting proposition