One for Magnum Sunseeker P72
- Thread starter SteveE
- Start date
epervier
Well-Known Member
there's something about owning a smaller sunseeker that has it's appeal!
12.000 litres of fuel in 60 hours!!!
that's about six years worth for me! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
12.000 litres of fuel in 60 hours!!!
that's about six years worth for me! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Weird, at displacement speed she rolls and pitches like a bucking bronco, in a sea which doesn't seem that bad.
She's not made for that kind of speed of course, but I'd expect something better from a 72' anyway...
She's not made for that kind of speed of course, but I'd expect something better from a 72' anyway...
jfm
Well-Known Member
I'm sure magnum will be able to burn more than 12000litres in 60hours (pah!). His has the 1675hp mtus (sheesh!)
Here is that boat at the 2007 monaco GP, just beyond the Baglietto Blue Princess in this shot (taken from a nice vantage point - guess where?). It seems a bit of a mission, sailing 60hours/12000 litres Gib to Monaco, only to park in a berth in the yacht club side a long way from the race. Might as well have watched it on tv!
Pity there was no video of her leaving monaco the next day in the F8 westerlies/massive seas....
Here is that boat at the 2007 monaco GP, just beyond the Baglietto Blue Princess in this shot (taken from a nice vantage point - guess where?). It seems a bit of a mission, sailing 60hours/12000 litres Gib to Monaco, only to park in a berth in the yacht club side a long way from the race. Might as well have watched it on tv!
Pity there was no video of her leaving monaco the next day in the F8 westerlies/massive seas....
SteveE
Well-Known Member
Nice looking boat, but that does seem very strange... another 12000 litres on the way home too... I am sure they stayed the extra day, rather than face F8's...
Magnum
RIP
That Predator 72 is named "Splash", has MAN 1550HP engines and their max fuel burn is 313L/HR each flat out. She has the large tender garage option with bigger sunpad at the expense of cockpit space. We've chosen the large cockpit option with smaller tender garage but still big enough for the new 4-stroke Avon Jetrib.
jfm is right about our engine power but they are CAT C32 1675HP - only the second 72 ever to have these engines fitted. Fuel burn is only slightly worse at 327L/HR, if one can use the word "slightly" regarding such statistics.
Actually I'm OK with the fuel burn because she'll do 42.5 knots at that. Whilst I'll certainly drop the hammer fairly often I'll settle for 30-35 as a fast cruise but fully expect I'll turn into a plodder like jfm after a while. Nice to have the option though /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
jfm is right about our engine power but they are CAT C32 1675HP - only the second 72 ever to have these engines fitted. Fuel burn is only slightly worse at 327L/HR, if one can use the word "slightly" regarding such statistics.
Actually I'm OK with the fuel burn because she'll do 42.5 knots at that. Whilst I'll certainly drop the hammer fairly often I'll settle for 30-35 as a fast cruise but fully expect I'll turn into a plodder like jfm after a while. Nice to have the option though /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
MapisM
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure magnum will be able to burn more
[/ QUOTE ]Well, 200 lph is already a nice level of fuel waste anyway, particularly considering that some 800 NM in 60 hrs means an average of 13kts or so!?!
Probably my trawler would have been faster, considering that she wouldn't have needed any fuel stop - not to mention that I would have burned one third of that for the return trip...
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I'm sure magnum will be able to burn more
[/ QUOTE ]Well, 200 lph is already a nice level of fuel waste anyway, particularly considering that some 800 NM in 60 hrs means an average of 13kts or so!?!
Probably my trawler would have been faster, considering that she wouldn't have needed any fuel stop - not to mention that I would have burned one third of that for the return trip...
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
KCook
Well-Known Member
"800 NM in 60 hrs means an average of 13kts or so!?!"
Err, thank you for doing the math MapisM. I wus wondering why a nice Sunseeker would need 2.5 days to hop from Gib to Monaco ???
Lost Kelly
Err, thank you for doing the math MapisM. I wus wondering why a nice Sunseeker would need 2.5 days to hop from Gib to Monaco ???
Lost Kelly
RogerRat
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Actually I'm OK with 42.5 knots at that. Whilst I'll certainly drop the hammer fairly often I'll settle for 30-35 as a fast cruise/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif Love it! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
The new (to me) Rat boat is on it's way (2-3 weeks) with similar performance, can't see me cruising at over 30 knots though. (sensible mode) /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I think they're just having a little wind up, your new predator is the muts! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Enjoy it while you can. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Actually I'm OK with 42.5 knots at that. Whilst I'll certainly drop the hammer fairly often I'll settle for 30-35 as a fast cruise/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif Love it! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
The new (to me) Rat boat is on it's way (2-3 weeks) with similar performance, can't see me cruising at over 30 knots though. (sensible mode) /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I think they're just having a little wind up, your new predator is the muts! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Enjoy it while you can. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
I dont know whats the problem here
if you buy a 72 Predator for 3 mill EU, I am sure that a 12000 EU of fuel bill want make such a big difference
still I am sure that at cruising speeds of - 30 knots with the MTU, the 72 Predator will give a repsectable minus 200 LPH
that is very good considering the dimensions and speed of such a boat
if you buy a 72 Predator for 3 mill EU, I am sure that a 12000 EU of fuel bill want make such a big difference
still I am sure that at cruising speeds of - 30 knots with the MTU, the 72 Predator will give a repsectable minus 200 LPH
that is very good considering the dimensions and speed of such a boat
Nautical
Well-Known Member
Remember that Baglietto from last summer, nice but the paint in some areas didn't look top dollar, still if you want to make an impression............
MapisM
Well-Known Member
I agree that 200 litres for 30 miles with such boat would be reasonable.
But considering the average speed we're talking about here, I can't understand why you call it a good result.
But considering the average speed we're talking about here, I can't understand why you call it a good result.
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
I think if you consider the engines and there improvement in the last 10/20 years it is an amazing result
if you consider the hull design improvement it is much or most the same from most builders, for the efficency and speed limits
if you consider the hull design improvement it is much or most the same from most builders, for the efficency and speed limits
MapisM
Well-Known Member
You're probably missing my point, did you read the previous posts?
Apparently she burnt 200 lph at an average speed of 13kts, not 30! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
That's just my rough calculation based on the Gib-Monaco distance, but unless they circumnavigated Sardinia before heading to Monaco (!), they surely didn't cruise for 60 hrs at 30kts....
Apparently she burnt 200 lph at an average speed of 13kts, not 30! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
That's just my rough calculation based on the Gib-Monaco distance, but unless they circumnavigated Sardinia before heading to Monaco (!), they surely didn't cruise for 60 hrs at 30kts....
Magnum
RIP
I think the only explanation is that whilst the trip took 60 hours in total they were not under way for a large chunk of that time.
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I think the only explanation is that whilst the trip took 60 hours in total they were not under way for a large chunk of that time.
[/ QUOTE ]
agree totally, I think most of the time they where in harbour and it also shows that they are planning on the video, so that is definitly the case
I think the only explanation is that whilst the trip took 60 hours in total they were not under way for a large chunk of that time.
[/ QUOTE ]
agree totally, I think most of the time they where in harbour and it also shows that they are planning on the video, so that is definitly the case
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Yup, that's most likely the case.
Which goes to prove that 200 lph average can't be regarded as a good result, can it?
Take your future C32 beasts for example.
They're supposed to burn 11 (eleven!) lph each, at minimum rpm.
If they spent say half of that time trolling around harbours, just do the math and see how much they should have burned when under way...
Which goes to prove that 200 lph average can't be regarded as a good result, can it?
Take your future C32 beasts for example.
They're supposed to burn 11 (eleven!) lph each, at minimum rpm.
If they spent say half of that time trolling around harbours, just do the math and see how much they should have burned when under way...
Lozzer
Well-Known Member
I think the point about fuel efficiency is made.....
Lets face it boats are not efficient, aeroplanes have a better fuel economy (even big ones).
It would probably be cheaper to fly a jumbo from Gib to Monaco but it wouldnt be half as much fun.
I would have thougth that the boat could have pressed on a bit in that sea given its size, but then again why rush and break something.
Lets face it boats are not efficient, aeroplanes have a better fuel economy (even big ones).
It would probably be cheaper to fly a jumbo from Gib to Monaco but it wouldnt be half as much fun.
I would have thougth that the boat could have pressed on a bit in that sea given its size, but then again why rush and break something.
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
sure that a plane is much more efficient!
water is 10 times more dense then air, add to that planning boats are always going uphill and you have the result
I also think that hull efficiency has really stopped in the last 50 years since Hunt and Bertram invented there hull
the improvement on this hull has been minimum to say the least
materials have come and gone but still boating is still much of it traditional
water is 10 times more dense then air, add to that planning boats are always going uphill and you have the result
I also think that hull efficiency has really stopped in the last 50 years since Hunt and Bertram invented there hull
the improvement on this hull has been minimum to say the least
materials have come and gone but still boating is still much of it traditional
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Hulls vs. wings
Absolutely.
When it comes to having fun, a 747 can't compare with a SS (or any other boat, for that matter).
But try a Sukhoi 31 if you have the opportunity, and you'll tell me about it! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Absolutely.
When it comes to having fun, a 747 can't compare with a SS (or any other boat, for that matter).
But try a Sukhoi 31 if you have the opportunity, and you'll tell me about it! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
