MapisM
Well-Known Member
What are those outlets under the hull astern meant for, if you don't mind me asking?
That aside, in your boots I'd consider sandblasting the hull.
Mangusta 70 - 80ft (1996 - 2004) Advice
- Thread starter SageMaster
- Start date
That aside, in your boots I'd consider sandblasting the hull.
Chris H
Well-Known Member
Croftie
Well-Known Member
Why? Isn't that dimple effect to create vortices to aid lift
Portofino
Well-Known Member
En-suite sink and toilet TT H fittings .The toilet can be on tank or exit .
It achieved 38 knots on the gps at a little over rated rpm ( 2200 ) about 3 months after its annual last summer .
So any motivation wearing my old yacht racing skipper hat to get a super smooth hull to gain a race winning 0.2 of knot extra ( remember sailboat single digits ) has evaporated.Considered and dismissed .I will keep the factory gel coat integrity thank you .
You would have thought 20 odd yr old motors , such a dimpled dare I say it golf ball effect looking surface , 3 months of something growing on the props its magazine article speed and rpms would be wishful .Having said that the under surfaces are not as rough as the WL hull sides you identify in the pic .
Aside it’s booked in for a above the WL paint job this spring .
Why do you think such a scabby hull hasn’t diminished its performance?
Although if you have carefully following the early posts I did say it seems to lift up more and more the faster you go .
PYB s reported fuel efficiency of Itama .Those lifting strakes which are very wide , deep and pronounced on my boat do reduced drag by introducing more air under the hull .
I mean I think those scabby sides at the stern are probably mostly out of the water anyhow at 30 knots or hardly in anyhow .
Bottom line it’s not as if I have lost any performance.
Having read various threads on here on under performance , in all sorts of guises folks suspecting turbos , phaffing with propping , over loading weight wise , enquiring if it’s” ok to reach a few 100 rpm under rated “ etc etc .
Then guys running round with massive amounts of tab down , and or bow high……..I am grateful just to read about this stuff and not experience it P .
Last edited:
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Basic law of supply and demand .Because owners know better than anyone else that selling those boats for as little as buyers are willing to pay is preferable to keep feeding a bottomless pit!
Ok, you can say that of all pleasure boats, arguably. But for the ones you seem attracted from, more than for many others...!
Mangusta + leopards = huge oversupply and the because as mentioned the running costs are the same arguably greater( more repair + replacement needed ) in a 17 y old 80 ftr with a asking price of £350-400 K , as a new one around £3 -4 million .
This kills the demand side ,
They are orphan boats .Hard to find a home after a certain age ,
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
n three years cruising mainly in Summer.
tbh I do not agree. Like in many yachts of this size they are not easy to find in good condition, and maintenance in this size can cost you 100k plus very easy.
The Mangusta 72 if kept well can he sold at a good premium. A couple of years ago I had a 72 for sale with Man 1550hp, 2007, and it eventually sold 100k more to the asking price of 950k.
It sold well cause of its good maintenance. If they are with Man or MTU 1500hp and are maintained well they will sell as good as any motor yacht in its size.
The ones with the small Man 24 liter 1300 always suffer a bit....
I had a client who gave a full offer after starting with 900k.
It is all about how they are maintained, and if you start dealing in them you could see a big scissors of differences in prices which is most of time in condition.
At the end depends who you are, you can buy the cheap one and spend 200k plus easy, or buy the perfect one at one million. It depends what you want.
The 80 you enter in another game, mostly they are hard sellers because the first 90s has a registered length of over 24 meter and fall into the small ship side.
You can re-measure her and then do survey report. Another problem with the 80 is that many today do not want an open boat of 24 meters, though I can see its positive.
Never feeling hot is one of them.
There is 27 Mangusta 72 on YW (some of them might be double listings) the cheapest one is at 430k, that after this they are all at 590k.
It is the same ball park as a good liveaboard (as many say) Sanlorenzo 72. 28 available on YW cheapest one at 380k.
We can start putting the British builders here and the number would be the same, but unfortunately they where not very active in the market in this 20 to 25 meter size before 2010.
Nonetheless I know most of Sunseeker 75 Yachts 2005 which sold around the half a million Euro number. A yacht which Sunseeker made like fifteen units.
And the same can be said of the Princess 23m.
These are real numbers on YW without someone putting some sunglasses on, and because they do not have one say they are money pit.
They are, but its the same to any boat in its size. The maintenance of the surface drives once you do twenty plus odd hours at fast cruise pays itself. Again real mathematical numbers.
Then surely if you do not want to move, possibly buy a condo. It costs less then any yacht and boat and if you sell when the market is up you might still make some money....
tbh I do not agree. Like in many yachts of this size they are not easy to find in good condition, and maintenance in this size can cost you 100k plus very easy.
The Mangusta 72 if kept well can he sold at a good premium. A couple of years ago I had a 72 for sale with Man 1550hp, 2007, and it eventually sold 100k more to the asking price of 950k.
It sold well cause of its good maintenance. If they are with Man or MTU 1500hp and are maintained well they will sell as good as any motor yacht in its size.
The ones with the small Man 24 liter 1300 always suffer a bit....
I had a client who gave a full offer after starting with 900k.
It is all about how they are maintained, and if you start dealing in them you could see a big scissors of differences in prices which is most of time in condition.
At the end depends who you are, you can buy the cheap one and spend 200k plus easy, or buy the perfect one at one million. It depends what you want.
The 80 you enter in another game, mostly they are hard sellers because the first 90s has a registered length of over 24 meter and fall into the small ship side.
You can re-measure her and then do survey report. Another problem with the 80 is that many today do not want an open boat of 24 meters, though I can see its positive.
Never feeling hot is one of them.
There is 27 Mangusta 72 on YW (some of them might be double listings) the cheapest one is at 430k, that after this they are all at 590k.
It is the same ball park as a good liveaboard (as many say) Sanlorenzo 72. 28 available on YW cheapest one at 380k.
We can start putting the British builders here and the number would be the same, but unfortunately they where not very active in the market in this 20 to 25 meter size before 2010.
Nonetheless I know most of Sunseeker 75 Yachts 2005 which sold around the half a million Euro number. A yacht which Sunseeker made like fifteen units.
And the same can be said of the Princess 23m.
These are real numbers on YW without someone putting some sunglasses on, and because they do not have one say they are money pit.
They are, but its the same to any boat in its size. The maintenance of the surface drives once you do twenty plus odd hours at fast cruise pays itself. Again real mathematical numbers.
Then surely if you do not want to move, possibly buy a condo. It costs less then any yacht and boat and if you sell when the market is up you might still make some money....
Portofino
Well-Known Member
You are wrong ploughing you own furrow
Lift
go to 1,34 if time poor
Go to 3.4 if time poor .
Come up a shread of evidence suggesting they do NOT create lift .
Elessar
Well-Known Member
You can find anything on the internet if you look hard enough.
And this took you a while.
Now I can quote some dodgy you tubers with a minority view or JFM. Guess what.
I won’t quote the you tuber.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Porto I need to end this because I’m talking to a guy who asked where the headroom in his shore power went so frankly it’s a waste of time.
You are mixing up two different things. Both those you tubes referred only to the Newtonian lift effect that occurs when a spray rail deflects spray at the bow. That isn’t even the point under discussion here. I tried (but in your case failed) to make the distinction above (and in the past) - see above discussion including especially where I mentioned hull designers who use reverse angle spray rails. This Newtonian effect at the bow ( paid for in diesel) where the strip deflects the spray has never been in dispute in our discussions and it’s obvious that it occurs, as a by product of a device made to reduce pumping losses.
However, neither of your YouTubers supports your incorrect theory that in the submerged part of the hull spray rails create lift. Because they don’t.
I’m talking about, for example, that flat rail in your itama picture above that you were praising for being quite wide and running all the way to the transom and creating lift . That strip whether wide or narrow doesn’t create lift as a matter of physics and neither of your you tubes said it did. Indeed neither YouTube boat even bothered with such a thing: neither took its spray rails aft of amidships, apart from the rail very close to the chine (which is there for a different reason that isn’t part of this discussion).
I’m not criticising the itama hull for having that wide strip taken to the transom. It serves a useful purpose (that’s obvious to anyone who understands it) but that purpose is not the creation of lift. It can’t be, as a matter of physics, and its designer isn’t even trying to make lift.
You are mixing up two different things. Both those you tubes referred only to the Newtonian lift effect that occurs when a spray rail deflects spray at the bow. That isn’t even the point under discussion here. I tried (but in your case failed) to make the distinction above (and in the past) - see above discussion including especially where I mentioned hull designers who use reverse angle spray rails. This Newtonian effect at the bow ( paid for in diesel) where the strip deflects the spray has never been in dispute in our discussions and it’s obvious that it occurs, as a by product of a device made to reduce pumping losses.
However, neither of your YouTubers supports your incorrect theory that in the submerged part of the hull spray rails create lift. Because they don’t.
I’m talking about, for example, that flat rail in your itama picture above that you were praising for being quite wide and running all the way to the transom and creating lift . That strip whether wide or narrow doesn’t create lift as a matter of physics and neither of your you tubes said it did. Indeed neither YouTube boat even bothered with such a thing: neither took its spray rails aft of amidships, apart from the rail very close to the chine (which is there for a different reason that isn’t part of this discussion).
I’m not criticising the itama hull for having that wide strip taken to the transom. It serves a useful purpose (that’s obvious to anyone who understands it) but that purpose is not the creation of lift. It can’t be, as a matter of physics, and its designer isn’t even trying to make lift.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Wasn’t looking just stumbled across them .
Bit disrespectful to claim they are dodgy btw .
Portofino
Well-Known Member
The discussion is about lifting strips , indeed the submerged aft running part of a forward spray rail that started at the bow .
lets stick to the topic . Wether they do in certain circumstances create lift and reduce trim submerged ?
Not in every case as the GW Sorensen designer illustrated even spray rails forward in some “ competitors “ are just cosmetic .
This study proves my point .
They used a axe wave piecing bow flat ish low deadrise and round chines to eliminate any other effect(s) .if you like a control .So they could concentrate on the effect( s) of lifting strakes taken aft under water .
... to see if the change the flow direction on the hull bottom and provided additional lift force on the stern. The rails were placed from the longitudinal CG of the hull to AP. They were parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the hull.
The result was they created stern lift reduced trim angle , “increasing the CoG rise “ was there term .Amongst other benefits .
The results page for ease of convenience.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...e-piercing_high-speed_vessel_with_spray_rails
I know you are not critiquing the Itama hull , and neither am I pushing it ,just happens obviously I have a readily accessible picture resource .Yes those strakes on my boat pics are very pronounced and the higher one placed close to the chine submerged is indeed to subject we are discussing .It does indeed run all the way back .They are not there solely to create lift , but some lift it does create . Sure well documented disadvantages of exaggeration .But let’s just focus of the lift side …….in certain circumstances “if placed correctly “
Not wanting to complicate this lifting strip discussion further but think double chine effect .
Sorensons the GW guys Goldilocks pudding is imho the way to deal with hull form and it’s appendages.They are the sum of the ingredients.
Takes no time at all to find this seconds In fact .Hardly time wasting imho .
jfm
Well-Known Member
The study doesn’t prove your point; it proves my point. But you can’t see it.
We covered all this above. Best to leave it here imho.
We covered all this above. Best to leave it here imho.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Rubbish it’s there for all to see .Again .
You haven’t given any references supporting your point saying that in the submerged part of the hull spray rails create don’t produce lift in certain circumstances.The name itself says a lot often referred to as ……Lifting strips !
I have made multiple points , references from naval architecture papers , and quoted various great and the good in the mobo world .You have brought nothing into this discussion .Anyhow if as said you are ploughing your own furrow .
Happy to leave it here .
SageMaster
Active Member
I started investigating smaller sized boats from the great feedback in this feed. What are your thoughts and experience on the Pershing 54 early 2000 models. Thanks
SageMaster
Active Member
I started investigating smaller-sized boats from the great feedback in this feed. What are your thoughts and experience on the Pershing 54 early 2000 models. Thanks
SageMaster
Active Member
I started investigating smaller sized boats from the great feedback in this feed. What are your thoughts and experience on the Pershing 54 early 2000 models. Thanks Port
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Great boats. ChrisH on here has one or very similar Pershing .Hopefully he will chime in .
I did not want surface drives and the wife a cherry wood laminated varnished interior .
All I will say go for the biggest engine ( HP ) option as the huge pitched propellers are hard on motors .
SageMaster
Active Member
I started investigating smaller sized boats from the great feedback in this feed. What are your thoughts and experience on the Pershing 54 early 2000 models. Thanks MapisM
jfm
Well-Known Member
I don’t have specific experience of that boat.
Very generically, it’s a high quality boat with strong brand image. It’s great for getting places fast. Not an obvious live aboard: small, bit of a cave downstairs, fast roll period, etc. All covered above.
As a reminder if you’re budgeting $ 500k, you will spend ballpark 20% of that getting this boat from Europe to Aus. Therefore makes sense to find one locally.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Not sure of why you are thanking me after I recommended to steer clear of ALL the boats you mentioned so far, for a liveaboard boat - and even more so surface drives.
But, hey-ho. Thanks to you for your appreciation anyway!
Ref. your question, I have no first hand experience on the P54, but it's widely regarded as one of the more balanced and performing boats ever built by Pershing.
So, I think it would be a great choice, if that's what you really want/need.
But, is it? 'Fiuaskme, in any boat where you want to spend a lot of time onboard, it's essential to have a proper door enclosing the main deck, as opposed to the fully open layout which you might prefer for day boating.
This way, you can leave all your sh!t (notebook, camera, wallet, whatever) in the upper deck, which is a much more pleasant place to stay compared to the sailboat-like lower deck, and just close the door whenever you leave the boat. Or you can enjoy staying on the upper deck without needing to go down, whenever weather requires airco.
So, if I really should make the mistake of using a Pershing for living aboard, the smaller I'd consider is the 62, which IIRC was built either with or without the cockpit door, and obviously I'd look for one with it.
But you get that also in all larger models, obviously - which BTW says a lot about whether it makes sense to have that layout or not...
Last edited: