Princess 54 or...

[Portofino]

Back to the OP
Beam
Means greater planning area , carry more load ( rum in the 30 ,s ) greater lifting forces .
You needs bigger engines Hp wise - MAN ,s .
This means you can add more weight to counter balance the grater lifting force - so more solid superstructure, cabinets , glass area ,/ genys / water makers / Dom appliance bigger tanks all round etc etc .
Adds up to a better riding - arguable better wave crushing boat .
Hat 60 ,s are imho are the pick of the crop and very good VFM .
Sunseeker back up in terms of spares / support is excellent btw - a note worthy consideration when jumping in .
Easy to off load too .b
The marque carries a lot of gravitas especially with Brits

 

[MapisM]

Ah a bit of Lindsay Lord in the Mk 1 - centre the weight - ie mid the engines .
Obviously there’s commercial pressure of wow factor mid cabins @ boat shows which SL like most gave in .
Rowing with the naval Architect “ it’s either this ( mid cabin / V dr8ves ) or we are all out of a job next year “

My understanding is that the choice ain't so clear cut.
Aside from my DP, most Ferrettis with NO center master were designed specifically for V-drives: 165, 175, 185, 57, 620, 590 - and I'm sure to forget others.
You definitely can design a well performing P hull placing the engines astern - otherwise, all outdrives/outboards/Arneson boats would be lemons.
In order to keep the boat balanced, it's more important to have VARIABLE weights centered, i.e. tanks.
Besides, V-drives (at least some of them) allow builders to place the shafts closer to the keel and lower.
Which does make a difference, as staggered engines in high performance boats clearly showed.

 

[Portofino]

Bigger beam for a fixed L means greater aspect ratio .
Optimum is 3.5 north of this to 4 is Ok .
As the AR increases the centre of lift move sternwards ,thus greater latitude to shift ( if you want ) the engines back .
A pair of guests + ensuites or a master - same effect .
Be careful with shaft angle and V drives ,
Longer shaft - more parasitic drag and closer the wheel tip to the underside of the hull .
The nearer the blade tip is to the hull to more possibilities for vibrations , or go for a smaller dia prop .?
Ideal placement is to put the props as far back to min
Vibrations , and negative lift .
Negative lift means the tabs will be worked hard to maintain the optimal planing angle .

The greater distance of the CoG and CoL the more pitching .
This can mean the bow rarther than ( even if fine ) goes through a wave tends to rise over .
A flatter ride / wave crunching ride - you need max WL in the sea , fine fwd sections that actually part the wave , with the necessary K g s in the build .
As said it’s just about poss if you inc the ape to rario ( wide beam ) to have some leeway to shove the engines back .
I,am talking ultimate everyday seakeeping , relaxing runing in a typical sea when the wind is up - boat dead flat .No pitching and loadsa of dynamic roll stability from the rear hard chines .


Not some light weight rear engines sterndrive Cigarette 50 narow beam thingymijig running in a lake at @ zillion knots .
Which in any “ sea state “ big waves - bangs and crashes pitches up and down , plunging the bow and shaking the occupants to “ never again “
There’s no substitute for Kg,s ——- but you need the lift to carry those Kgs at planning speed and the bow finer sections to part the sea not take off and crash down .
So to stop the rotation place the CoG over the CoL .
You can,t do that in any sterndrive .

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

My understanding is that the choice ain't so clear cut.
Aside from my DP, most Ferrettis with NO center master were designed specifically for V-drives: 165, 175, 185, 57, 620, 590 - and I'm sure to forget others.
You definitely can design a well performing P hull placing the engines astern - otherwise, all outdrives/outboards/Arneson boats would be lemons.
In order to keep the boat balanced, it's more important to have VARIABLE weights centered, i.e. tanks.
Besides, V-drives (at least some of them) allow builders to place the shafts closer to the keel and lower.
Which does make a difference, as staggered engines in high performance boats clearly showed.

Ferretti 165, 57, 175 and 620 are incredible even at 15 knots they going straight as the horizon.
Ferretti never used them, with its first model to have prop tunnels being the 70 launched in 1996.

So far aft located V or U-drive engine one of the first tricks is not to use prop tunnels which besides all its benefits (less shaft angle, reduce prop drag) is made technically and theoretically speaking to have an important weight forward.

 

[Portofino]

Ferretti 165, 57, 175 and 620 are incredible even at 15 knots they going straight as the horizon.
Ferretti never used them, with its first model to have prop tunnels being the 70 launched in 1996.

So far aft located V or U-drive engine one of the first tricks is not to use prop tunnels which besides all its benefits (less shaft angle, reduce prop drag) is made technically and theoretically speaking to have an important weight forward.

Yup
Hull needs to move the sea more than the sea moves the hull

 

[Screwie]

Back to the OP
Beam
Means greater planning area , carry more load ( rum in the 30 ,s ) greater lifting forces .
You needs bigger engines Hp wise - MAN ,s .
This means you can add more weight to counter balance the grater lifting force - so more solid superstructure, cabinets , glass area ,/ genys / water makers / Dom appliance bigger tanks all round etc etc .
Adds up to a better riding - arguable better wave crushing boat .
Hat 60 ,s are imho are the pick of the crop and very good VFM .
Sunseeker back up in terms of spares / support is excellent btw - a note worthy consideration when jumping in .
Easy to off load too .b
The marque carries a lot of gravitas especially with Brits

Great, thanks for that, helpful. Good to know on the Sunseeker spares/support as well as resale possibility. The price has come down as well and it's really nicely in the budget while it seems to have everything we want... decision time...

 

[Truro Ex Pat]

Going back to the Man 60 I looked at it several times and just could not work with the internal layout, the upper saloon area with a couple of sofas either side made no sense to me at all and I have asked SS why did they did it and have never got a sensible reply as they don't know why it was done either?

 

[Nick_H]

You may be thinking of 56 Truro, 60 has u shaped saloon seats iirc. Biggest downside of the 60 for me is the distance between flybridge table and galley, including 2 flights of stairs. It’ll be a pain when you realise you’ve forgotten the balsamic, but everyones priorities are different.

 

[MapisM]

Biggest downside of the 60 for me is the distance between flybridge table and galley, including 2 flights of stairs.

Well, that's true for any galley down design, tbh. Your P57 included, IIRC?

 

[Nick_H]

Well, that's true for any galley down design, tbh. Your P57 included, IIRC?

Our galley is at saloon level and we have internal stair, so very easy to access from fly. Later P58 has similar layout to M60.

 

[MapisM]

Our galley is at saloon level

Your made me curious, because it's been a while since I've been onboard a P57, and I had in mind a galley down layout - which btw was typical of most boats of her size and age like the Fer57 and Sq58, to name but a couple.
So, I googled around a bit, and I only found the layout below, which is the one I had in mind, with the galley at lower level just behind the helm seats.
Was the P57 available also with an upper galley, like the AZ 55 or the Aicon 56 for instance? I never came across one.

PS: as an aside, if your point was that S/skr layouts in general are not very efficient, I couldn't agree more.
Aside from the 'Hattan 56 which I viewed in detail and is imho awful, I've yet to see a S/skr which doesn't scream "form over function" in many respects.

 

[MapisM]

Ferretti 165, 57, 175 and 620 are incredible even at 15 knots they going straight as the horizon.

Yup, and it's no coincidence that you're actually talking of just two hulls, the 165 and the 175, of which the 57 and the 620 respectively are just evolutions.
According to a surveyor who tried them all (and then some!), those remain to date the best hulls Ferretti ever built.
All designed for V-drives from the very beginning, as opposed to SL62 Mk2.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

My understanding is that the choice ain't so clear cut.
Aside from my DP, most Ferrettis with NO center master were designed specifically for V-drives: 165, 175, 185, 57, 620, 590 - and I'm sure to forget others.
You definitely can design a well performing P hull placing the engines astern - otherwise, all outdrives/outboards/Arneson boats would be lemons.
In order to keep the boat balanced, it's more important to have VARIABLE weights centered, i.e. tanks.
Besides, V-drives (at least some of them) allow builders to place the shafts closer to the keel and lower.
Which does make a difference, as staggered engines in high performance boats clearly showed.

Correct. My F46 had V drives but no midships master cabin. IMHO Ferretti used V drives in their boats for 2 reasons. First, as you say, it allows the shaft angle to be shallower but it also allows the fuel tanks to be located forward of the engines which again IMHO has major benefits over outboard tanks either side of the engines. First it allows far more space outboard of the engines for maintenance and to locate ancillary components, second the fuel load is carried much lower in the boat for better lateral stability and it puts the fuel tank right over the CoG of the boat which means, as you say, that changing fuel load does not affect the trim of the boat

If you look at the layout of a Ferretti, the fact that it has V drives and fuel tanks forward of the engines means that the volume of the boat given over to the engines and tanks is about the same as straight shafted boat with outboard tanks so there is no real benefit to the accommodation. If Ferrettis do appear to have palatial midships cabins it is because they are generally more beamy than other boats and are generally longer than their model designation although having said that, I have noticed that the very latest Ferrettis are relatively more narrow beamed and like other builders have LOAs which are the same as the model designation. Maybe Ferretti have realised that wider beam and longer length dont actually sell boats at boat shows especially when that translates into higher prices and thats a shame IMHO

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Aside from the 'Hattan 56 which I viewed in detail and is imho awful, I've yet to see a S/skr which doesn't scream "form over function" in many respects.

Or as in the latest boats cost over form over function. The latest Manhattans are finished no better than some of the French manufacturers IMHO and certainly Princesses are finished better these days although I think they are priced higher

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Ferretti 165, 57, 175 and 620 are incredible even at 15 knots they going straight as the horizon. .

That has been one big surprise for me over the years of owning my 3 Ferrettis, 2 of which have had V drives. I thought the V drive boats would stick their bows in the air at slow planing speeds because of the weight of the engines well aft but actually it is quite the opposite. As you say they run very flat even though they usually need plenty of trim tab to optimise the speed

 

[MapisM]

as you say, it allows the shaft angle to be shallower

All agreed, but in hindsight, considering your comment above and also the previous reply from PYB, I understand that I wasn't clear enough when I said that some V-drives allow builders to place the shafts "closer to the keel and lower". In fact, I did mean the keel, i.e. the boat centerline, not the hull.
With some V-drives like the BPM ones that I've got in my boat and were widely used also in Ferrettis (but not in your 630, which has the reversed shaft flange integrated with the gearbox), the prop shafts are NOT aligned with the engine shaft, but are inbound of it - as shown in the drawing below from BPM website.
To achieve the same result without the V-drives, the whole engines should be placed closer together, making accessibility problematic.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

All agreed, but in hindsight, considering your comment above and also the previous reply from PYB, I understand that I wasn't clear enough when I said that some V-drives allow builders to place the shafts "closer to the keel and lower". In fact, I did mean the keel, i.e. the boat centerline, not the hull.
With some V-drives like the BPM ones that I've got in my boat and were widely used also in Ferrettis (but not in your 630, which has the reversed shaft flange integrated with the gearbox), the prop shafts are NOT aligned with the engine shaft, but are inbound of it - as shown in the drawing below from BPM website.
To achieve the same result without the V-drives, the whole engines should be placed closer together, making accessibility problematic.

Yeah youre right and as you may remember, I had BPM V drive boxes on my F46 and youre right, the outputs are closer to the centre line than the inputs

 

[Whitelighter]

My understanding is that the choice ain't so clear cut.
Aside from my DP, most Ferrettis with NO center master were designed specifically for V-drives: 165, 175, 185, 57, 620, 590 - and I'm sure to forget others.
You definitely can design a well performing P hull placing the engines astern - otherwise, all outdrives/outboards/Arneson boats would be lemons.
In order to keep the boat balanced, it's more important to have VARIABLE weights centered, i.e. tanks.
Besides, V-drives (at least some of them) allow builders to place the shafts closer to the keel and lower.
Which does make a difference, as staggered engines in high performance boats clearly showed.

dont forget the baby 150

 

[MapisM]

dont forget the baby 150

LOL, didn't I say that I was forgetting others?
I guess it has something to see with the fact that I've seen all of the previous ones (several of them, for some models), but never a 150.
Any chances to see yours in CF this summer, possibly with anyone else from SCM?
It would nice to see our respective new(ish) toys!

 

[markc]

I agree mine runs very flat, and it does feel that they were generous with machinery space. Everything is easy to get to although the internal height of the engine room isn't great. Another advantage is that the whole aft cockpit deck unbolts as a compete section and lifts out giving the opportunity to crane everything out with minimal effort and without disturbing the interior.