Out She Comes!
- Thread starter MYAG
- Start date
Nautical
Well-Known Member
Sorry to interject on a brilliant thread, just on the matter of SD over planing and the relative pros and cons etc. Agree that a Planing hull can do as much in displacement mode as any SD or D hull. The difference comes in my view is when the going gets a bit hairy, a fine entry SD hull is going to give a better ride and be more comfortable in less than ideal conditions, secondly the SD is in most cases a much heavier build and as the old saying goes 'there's no replacement for displacement' when it gets a bit serious.
On another point several well designed SD yachts do have more internal volume and additionally a much bigger flybridge that reaches from over the pilothouse all the way aft over the aft cockpit and out over P&S side decks. On an 80 of a certain builder the flybridge is just enormous compared 80 planing yacht. Other points to note are full stand up engine room (like 6'8") , larger crew cabins and up to 4000 gallons of fuel giving 5000 NM range (trans atlantic etc).
Nevertheless, I agree a good planing hull such as JFM's and MYAG can do pretty much all one would want and I do think that many more buyers are looking at using planing hulls but at 50% displacement and 50% planing speed rather than charging around at full chat everywhere. Stabs on larger planing yachts will be the norm in the next couple of years.
Spot on with what has been said but I don't think for the serious long distance cruiser that needs to tackle some serious weather at times you can discount a SD hull.
On another point several well designed SD yachts do have more internal volume and additionally a much bigger flybridge that reaches from over the pilothouse all the way aft over the aft cockpit and out over P&S side decks. On an 80 of a certain builder the flybridge is just enormous compared 80 planing yacht. Other points to note are full stand up engine room (like 6'8") , larger crew cabins and up to 4000 gallons of fuel giving 5000 NM range (trans atlantic etc).
Nevertheless, I agree a good planing hull such as JFM's and MYAG can do pretty much all one would want and I do think that many more buyers are looking at using planing hulls but at 50% displacement and 50% planing speed rather than charging around at full chat everywhere. Stabs on larger planing yachts will be the norm in the next couple of years.
Spot on with what has been said but I don't think for the serious long distance cruiser that needs to tackle some serious weather at times you can discount a SD hull.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Really? I'd have sweared that both CAT and MTU are more expensive than MAN for any given power & rating.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Spot on. And long passages are THE occasion when comfort really matters. Frinstance, I couldn't care less of stabs when island hopping in the Croatian archipelago, mostly sheltered by its long islands. But crossing Biscay or going from Malta to Crete, that's a different story.
On top of that, with P boats you must pay both the installation and the maintenance of engines 3 times bigger (and usually lower rated) than those you'd have on any long range cruiser. Not to mention that you're not using them properly, when cruising at D speed.
That said, as we all know, any boat is a compromise.
For anyone thinking to use a boat 50/50 between D speed and 25 kts cruise, it's not even worth debating whether a P boat is good enough or not, because there's simply no alternative.
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
All good points but to be fair, I did mention that weight was one possible advantage of a sd boat. Actually I dont totally agree with you on internal volume. One boat we've looked at pretty hard over the last few years is the Fleming 55 which is the archetypal sd boat and another is the Aquastar 57. In both cases, especially the Fleming, the saloon is relatively small. In fact, we measured it and its smaller than our previous 46 footer. I think the saloon is the major problem with some boats that are designed and sold as long distance cruising boats because they're invariably too small for long term living on board, at least in our view. Compare the saloon size of something like the Fairline Sq58 with the Fleming 55, which have about the same hull length, and there's no comparison. There are good reasons for that, such as wide side decks and a proper galley but it seems to us that the planing boat manufacturers are better at eking out every square inch of space for living and thats a big draw for some peeps. I'm sure you're going to tell me the OR 58 is different
Yup, fuel capacity is usually a big difference between sd boats and p boats but then some of that advantage is negated by the fact that at sd/p speeds, the sd boat will consume more fuel. Agree with your last point totally. If I was caught out on a long passage by rough weather and I didnt have the range to outrun it at sd/p speeds, then yes, of course, I'd rather be in a heavier boat per se
MYAG
Well-Known Member
You could be right in this particular respect, I wouldn't know. I was just stating that there were lower cost engine options I could have chosen, albeit engines with lower outputs. As I said, I chose MAN because I am familiar with them.
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
Thanks. I hadn't thought of the "No straps" line. In fact, I'm not sure what it means but if it encourages girls to remove their bikini tops it must be a good thing
Next question: are you having it just in English or in Turkish too? I was thinking of French and English, but not sure. you wouldn't want a swimmer to sue you and say you were negligent in not making the warning in Turkish, and claiming the fact you had the warning in English = proof that you knew the warning ought to be made, Bit of a Wall St lawyer approach but you never know what craap you might have to deal with and they'll asume deep pockets of course
You could always use a graphic sign..
http://www.watersafety.com/facility-equipment/images/0020gNo%20Swimming%20Flag.jpg
Nautical
Well-Known Member
Mike, Good points too and I would accept that some older designed SD Hulls are a bit short on space.
The F55 actually started out as a 50' and has added an extra 5' on the cockpit over the years but that does not add anything to the interior volume. Secondly it has low bulwarks/ topsides which makes it difficult to get lots of interior space. Having said that I love the Fleming, beautifully engineered and a very pretty yacht.
The picture below gives an idea of the difference between a voluminous SD hull and the lower topside/bulwark design. You can see there is no way to achieve any reasonable internal space aft in the later design. OK the OR is a bigger boat but you get the principle.
As far as the OR 58 well yes it is a very big 58' yacht, you get full standing engine room, full beam master, crew cabin (decent size), large pilot house and a monster flybridge for 58 '.
There are peeps that have the 58/63 series that regularly spend months on board and cruise from Alaska - West Coast US - Panama - Keys- and back up the east coast in one season.
The F55 actually started out as a 50' and has added an extra 5' on the cockpit over the years but that does not add anything to the interior volume. Secondly it has low bulwarks/ topsides which makes it difficult to get lots of interior space. Having said that I love the Fleming, beautifully engineered and a very pretty yacht.
The picture below gives an idea of the difference between a voluminous SD hull and the lower topside/bulwark design. You can see there is no way to achieve any reasonable internal space aft in the later design. OK the OR is a bigger boat but you get the principle.
As far as the OR 58
well yes it is a very big 58' yacht, you get full standing engine room, full beam master, crew cabin (decent size), large pilot house and a monster flybridge for 58 '.There are peeps that have the 58/63 series that regularly spend months on board and cruise from Alaska - West Coast US - Panama - Keys- and back up the east coast in one season.
Last edited:
petem
Well-Known Member
Do the stabs really cause a danger to swimmers or is it that you don't want someone standing on them?
MYAG
Well-Known Member
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Out in the Med you get quite a few snorkel'ers swimming close around the boat for a nose and I've even seen them go under and come up the other side for fun! When the stabs move, they move quite quickly, I wouldn't want to be in their way when they do. Better safe than sorry, that was my initial reason.
petem
Well-Known Member
You could do something like the attached I guess.
Pete
Pete
MapisM
Well-Known Member
You bet. Just think about it: at zero speed, they are designed to move quickly and widely enough to counteract the rolling motion of a 60T boat. I'd rather have a bottle of wine broken on my head than be hit on the nose by such kind of force...
petem
Well-Known Member
Interesting, I'd assumed that they would take a few seconds to move up or down.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
That's true while under way. The higher the boat speed, the less angle/speed of the fin it takes to stabilize the boat.
But at rest, they must move a lot, and damn fast.
In fact, for any given size of boat/stabs, the zero speed version is much more expensive.
But at rest, they must move a lot, and damn fast.
In fact, for any given size of boat/stabs, the zero speed version is much more expensive.
Hurricane
Well-Known Member
Sorry, cant agree with you
My experiences are with a smaller craft but still well over 40 tons.
The attitude to cruising in the Med is completely different.
If the weather isnt up to it - you simply dont go.
And if it does blow up - you get to where you are going as quick as poss.
As a result, you never get to test your point there's no replacement for displacement' when it gets a bit serious
So IMO, its better to have a boat that CAN get somewhere fast when you actually want to.
I've read the performance stats for fuel consumption for SD/Planing boats of similar sizes and there isnt enough in it.
Like all planing boats, our range is considerably increased at displacement speeds. It seems to me that few people on this forum understand HOW MUCH the saving is at displacement speeds.
So, for pure cruising, IMHO, you cant beat a planing hull.
As to stabilisers, it would be interesting to hear how good they are at anchor because (as mentioned above) the actual cruising isnt important - if the weather/sea is bad - you dont go.
I dont think I'd fit stabs for displacement cruising - now that we've got into the Med style of cruising, our boat is very stable when under way. However, at anchor we would benefit form less roll.
BTW - MYAG
Good to see another G Series installed - really pleased with mine.
Last edited:
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Blimey, pure cruising and P hull, now that's an oxymoron, if I've ever seen one.
I've yet to see a cruise ship, a sailboat, or even a megayacht for that matter, with other than a D hull. Maybe I'm just not getting what you mean by "pure cruising"...?
Hurricane
Well-Known Member
OK - wrong words
By "pure cruising" I meant the way that we cruise from one place to another.
For me, in the Med it doent matter if the boat is a planing boat or displacement - both are comfortable for the job - its just that a planing boat also has to option of getting there sooner. If I were to be "stuck at sea" that would be a different matter - but, as I say, if the weather is bad - we just dont go.
MYAG
Well-Known Member
Yup, twin glass bridge 17" on the lower and twin 15" on the fly, plus just about every option available..... just love gadgets and then some.
I know many on here have migrated to the Garmin products. I had a play with them at SIBS and thought they were very nice and pleasant to use but I stuck with Raymarine because that is what I have always had and have never had any problems with them. I had the E series before so I am looiking forward to using the G series, especially the remote capability. Glad you are pleased with yours.
Hurricane
Well-Known Member
Yup, twin glass bridge 17" on the lower and twin 15" on the fly, plus just about every option available..... just love gadgets and then some.
I know many on here have migrated to the Garmin products. I had a play with them at SIBS and thought they were very nice and pleasant to use but I stuck with Raymarine because that is what I have always had and have never had any problems with them. I had the E series before so I am looiking forward to using the G series, especially the remote capability. Glad you are pleased with yours.
My initial motivation to fit the G Series was that I wanted to feed a PC into the system but the kit has been very reliable as well. I have two systems linked on a common network. Consisting of 2 GPM processors, a DSM sounder module, 4 screens (monitors) and a couple of keyboards - all fed from the usual sensors digital radar, gps and data from Seatalk instruments etc.
You may know that because everything is networked, you can set it up however you like. I think the solution for a flybridge boat is obvious really but mine is set up so that each GPM processor feeds to one monitor in the lower helm and one on the upper helm. All my keyboards are wireless and set up so that each one controls its associated GPM.
I chose wirelss mainly because I just didnt have any dash space for them but under way, the Nav system is the most used bit of kit and operating it with a wireless keyboard on your lap is much easier than stretching over the dash to press a button.
I specifically didnt have the video module installed but instead opted for separate wiring to each of the monitors. This means that each monitor can display any of the feeds (GPMs, PC, Sat TV or any of the cameras) with a single press of a button. I'm also really pleased that I integrated the PC. It provides a full backup Nav system and a very good method of passage planning etc as well as providing all the services that you expect of a PC. I built a very low power Mini ITX PC - not particularly fast but with a low power consumption so that it can operate at anchor without seriously draining the batteries - under 2 amps at 12v when measured. I control the PC using a wireless keyboard and an "air mouse" - both of which work throughout the boat.
The PC connects to a NMEA output from one of the GPMs so navigation data is constantly fed to it and routes etc are uploaded to the Raymarine kit. The result is that Raymarine drive the boat and the PC "watches/monitors" its progress and then provides a useful log afterwards.
We are now moving into our third season but the nav kits has turned out to be a really robust and reliable system.
Last edited:
Nautical
Well-Known Member
Hurricane , I can fully understand where you are coming from but the key issue I think is the way you describe ' cruising in the Med' , sure if that is the limit to your cruising then Bob's your Uncle. However, if you intend to do longer passages in Northern Europe, Western France / Bay of Biscay, out to the Azores, Outer reaches of Scottish Isles Scandinavia then you have a different set of criteria. You can not just decide I'll throw the trottles down and be home in time for tea and ahead of the weather, you will be out of fuel within a few hundred miles (assuming you have burnt a lump of fuel already to get to where you are). Half way to the Azores, Maderia, Canaries, Iceland, Faroes even North Sea and the weather turns you have to stick it out and take what comes. Secondly, weather bound because its blowing a 6-7 etc for days on end is a bit of a pain if your Planing hulled cruiser is not really up to 24 hours of pounding to move on to your next destination or even head home. On a heavy SD , just set 10-12 knots, stabs on, auto pilot on and have a cuppa tea and watch some TV.