Refitting job #1

[stillwaters]

Of course I will, what else could I do?
Otoh, when I tell her that something was suggested here in the asylum, she tends to care more than if it's just my view...

Who else is for bright pink then?

 

[Bouba]

http://gibcoflexmold.com/
Have a look at their 'how to videos'

 

[jfm]

v interesting Bouba - thanks

 

[MapisM]

v interesting Bouba - thanks

Positively +1, I was completely unaware of this type of "gelcoat-only" alternative.

Definitely VERY interesting for any repair of existing deck with non-slip gelcoat patterned surface.
I'm just wondering if it is the best choice for making a whole "new" deck.

Not later than today, I've seen an old Hatteras fisherman (30+ yo), whose deck is still the factory one, done with some sort of paint with grit, similarly to the previous Nordhavn and ORY.
Light beige on white gelcoat btw, and it looked nice.
But the most important thing is that it looked as good as new, and from a functional viewpoint it gave me the impression to give even more grip than patterned gelcoat, without getting unpleasant to bare feet.
So, I'm beginning to think that Hatt (and others) who choose to go for that solution also on new boats must have good reasons...

I would just love to know what sort of material is used as OEM stuff by these yards!

 

[Portofino]

Ŵ

I would just love to know what sort of material is used as OEM stuff by these yards!

Contact the XL marine factory ( old Itama pre Feretti ) in Roma .
They do refits all the time mostly these days as well as bespoke Itama clones the XL range .
Thing is its the same work force same techniques and stuff .
I tried googling them but it's an IT site -- you are best placed to communicate with them .
Ask them what they use
1- one new builds
2- returning refits .

Failing that the Alpha -Marine Yard --they too refit repaint Itama .
Nobody takes them back to Feretti ,even post 2005 modals .

One of these yards may be able to do it ,remove old teak , make good , refit deck ware to correct height ,prepare surface ,paint with the none slip .

What ever it is it's v low maintenance and seems not to collect dirt .

 

[lambohill]

Maybe look at this,

http://www.altro.co.uk/Altro-Nuvola-Stratus#technicaldata

I looked into it, for this very purpose, but didn't finish investigating it in marine UV. I have used it often enough in tough environs. Easy enough cleaned, and a neat finish

 

[BartW]

regarding the teak, (and the 10mm borders hidden behind)

have you considered leaving the teak in place and have it dried thorrowly,
and than cast it in a resin / epoxy ?

 

[vas]

regarding the teak, (and the 10mm borders hidden behind)

have you considered leaving the teak in place and have it dried thoroughly,
and than cast it in a resin / epoxy ?

odd idea Bart,
how would P solve the two problems that spring to mind:

UV protection
Antislip properties (whilst keeping the teak visible somehow...)

out of the box thinking, not sure it's viable though

cheers

V.

 

[BartW]

odd idea Bart,
how would P solve the two problems that spring to mind:

UV protection
Antislip properties (whilst keeping the teak visible somehow...)

out of the box thinking, not sure it's viable though

cheers

V.

I mean, put so much epoxy over it that you don't see the teak anymore,
(like epoxy floors for domestic, most of my office space are done with this stuff)

and than finsih with a extra layer gelcoat or , antslip or .... (as mentioned above)

 

[vas]

I mean, put so much epoxy over it that you don't see the teak anymore,
(like epoxy floors for domestic, most of my office space are done with this stuff)

and than finsih with a extra layer gelcoat or , antslip or .... (as mentioned above)

Ah,

OK, I thought you wanted to have the teak visible

makes sense although it adds a bit of weight and you can never be sure of the expansion coefficients and flexing of all that

V.

 

[Bouba]

I mean, put so much epoxy over it that you don't see the teak anymore,
(like epoxy floors for domestic, most of my office space are done with this stuff)

and than finsih with a extra layer gelcoat or , antslip or .... (as mentioned above)

That is actually quite clever, if the epoxy can be tinted. The wood should dry in the Italian summer and the weigh wouldn't matter as MapisM is a displacement boater so it would make him go faster. The only problem I see is that it is a one way street, you could never undo the job if you changed your mind.

 

[MapisM]

regarding the teak, (and the 10mm borders hidden behind)
have you considered leaving the teak in place and have it dried thorrowly,
and than cast it in a resin / epoxy ?

Actually nope, I didn't, B.
But after years of talks with several folks who know a thing or three about the use of wood in boatbuilding, I came to the conclusion that it would have been a very bad idea to do that on my old tub, and at least some of the reasons would be valid also for encapsulated wood on top of a plastic deck.
Btw, I'm afraid that based on what I'm told, it would be an equally bad idea also for the main deck and F/B of BA, which afaik are both structurally wooden built (wooden beams covered with plywood panels, plus teak planks on top), as they are in my old tub - just in case you would be considering that option.
Besides, so far my impression/hope is that stripping the teak and making a non-skid finishing on the bare GRP could produce a great final result, on par if not even better to the typical diamonds pattern of GRP boats originally built with no teak on top...
Stay tuned, time will tell! :encouragement:

 

[MapisM]

weigh wouldn't matter as MapisM is a displacement boater

Oi, that was the past.
For the future, after stripping the teak and tuning the props, I might consider challenging Portofino and his Itama in a rough sea race, as next step...!

 

[Bouba]

Oi, that was the past.
For the future, after stripping the teak and tuning the props, I might consider challenging Portofino and his Itama in a rough sea race, as next step...!

Be careful, I heard he has a really good hull

 

[Portofino]

Oi, that was the past.
For the future, after stripping the teak and tuning the props, I might consider challenging Portofino and his Itama in a rough sea race, as next step...!

Well I would be worried -- this is why -- pic is a bigger DP

Note the triangle wedges --- taken back to the transom ---- hmm looks familiar -- Assuming the same guy /team penned MapishM ,s 56

Fraid so I call them lifting strips Allways have .They sure are not spray rails or bits of "Tolberone " stuck on
IMHO they add back lift lost by the deeper V inc deadrise -- and in this case the prop tunnels .
Itama don,t do prop tunnels ( true mid engines ) they shove the props to the very edge of the transome or even further under the swim platform ,so not to knacker the V effect redarding parting sea .

From this pic alone of a bigger DP I can tell it will give me run for my money .There's a nice landing pad bell shaped between the rudders and look at the V about 1/3 in from the stern ,the strike area --nice n sharp

You it's got the Ray Hunt esq deep V planning boat --smooth riding high speed features .

Ps don,t let JFM catch you in a yard -- he will have you filling them off
If you do that your boat will go slower -sit lower @ a given rpm = more drag and roll more @ anchor -loose a little static roll resistance ( not to be confused with dynamic ) .

Waiting for some jucy real pics ps MapishM.

What sort of cruise speed /rpm does it do ?
Say a comfy 1750 rpm

 

[MapisM]

Mmm... R U positive that it's a DP hull, that one?
If it is, it can only be the 80', because I'm pretty sure that none of the smaller ones, up to the 72', have tunnels - a solution I don't like on a P hull in principle, but that's me.
Anyhow, fwiw, the 56 has 3 rails each side of the keel, and while the 2 closer to the keel are interrupted about in front of the shaft exit (to minimize the water flow interference in front of the props, I guess), the most external rail goes all the way to the transom.

Anyway, no need to be worried, PF.
I wasn't seriously throwing down the gauntlet to an Itama in rough conditions.
Yep, DP hulls are widely recognized as very good (down here in IT, at least), but the 56 still remains a f/b boat, and a pretty beamy one at that: one inch more than the Ferretti 57, which was already beamier than all the Brits of the same vintage, bar none: P57, SS56, Sq58, T60. So, not even remotely meant to compete with Itamas/Magnums/Baias/whatever...

Ref, your last question, I can do better than tell you the speed @1750.
Below is a table taken from the original DP56 brochure, which my seatrial matched AMAZINGLY.
I mean, within 0.1/0.2 knots, believe it or not!
I'm just talking of rpm/speed of course - I had no way to check the real time fuel burn with mechanical engines.
The brochure data were taken with some additional tools like the Floscan, I suppose.
But considering the rpm/speed accuracy, I'm rather confident that also the fuel burn numbers are pretty reliable.

PS: Apropos, is anyone aware of builders who published tables like this in their official brochures?
I'm not swearing that DP was the only one, but I can't honestly think of any others...

 

[Portofino]

Yes it's an 80 ,the pic only one I could find .
The data looks fine for D speed -1000 rpm or so for 9-10 knots .
Fuel consumption looks a bit optimistic .-see the pic
Surprisingly it is beamy too 4.9 M rest of the field lower .

Sorry re pic quality
1715 rpm
84 L/H ------------- x2 for both = 168 LH ---which is greater than your 156 LH @ 1800 ??
Load 75 %

Speed is around 27 knots ---my nice Eco and safe cruise

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

PS: Apropos, is anyone aware of builders who published tables like this in their official brochures?

The fuel consumption figures sound about right because they are roughly midway between the figures I get with my current F630 and those that I got with my previous F53, both of course similar kinds of boats. I'm guessing that the main reason for other manufacturers not openly publishing speed/consumption figures in their literature is that they are leaving themselves open to legal action in trigger happy markets like the USA. You can imagine some redneck American loading his boat up with fuel, beer, bbq food and several of his fat friends, not achieving the stated speed and consumption figures and taking the dealer that sold him the boat to court for millions of USD in damages. In any case there is enough info out there in boat tests and engine manufacturers' literature to make an educated guess about the fuel consumption of most boats. All the same it is impressive that your boat as near as dammit still achieves the speeds that DP said it should and on that basis you'd expect the fuel consumption figures to be pretty accurate as well

 

[MapisM]

Fuel consumption looks a bit optimistic .-see the pic
Surprisingly it is beamy too 4.9 M rest of the field lower.

I'm afraid that with regard to rpm/fuel burn I will never be able to tell you for sure if the above figures are optimistic or not, because to do so I should install a fuel meter, and I don't think it's worth.
The boat already has a very extensive set of instruments, and the only additional gauges I'm considering are for EGT.

Ref 4.9m beam, you are not talking of your Itama, or are you?
By googling around, most specs sheets mention 4.5m, which is still rather beamy for her size, but 40cm more/less make a helluva difference, when talking of width rather than length...

PS: anyway (fwiw), a MAN folk assured me that their later mechanical engines actually burn a bit LESS fuel than their earlier, pre-common rail electronical ones, at any given output.
He didn't give me any numbers, but he seemed convinced that there is a meaningful difference - though plain common sense suggest that it can't be a BIG difference...

 

[Portofino]

No 4.9 m I referring to your DP 56 ,the broker on the add states -- ok not super reliable .
Mines 4.16 for a 13 .something Hull -14.55 inc the above water swim platform . 42 and 48 share the same hull
700 hp for ball park 17000 kg ,s - un laiden so guess 20-21 K fully laiden .
Yours according to the selling broker is 29000 kg fully laiden .

2876 6 Cylinder 12.8 L. 700 hp At this out put 35.6 G/h *
2848. V8 14.6 L. 800 hp. at this out put. 41.7 G/h * Weighs 200kg more /side *

Not many folks go around at or near WOT so if you on a curve ish graph go down a few hp to
1800 rpm or 1750 then I assume proportionate decrease in Consumption which seems reasonable .

Just can,t see your table and my real time screen shot @1716 rpm being compatible --- ones wrong
I,ve got 4 less cylinders ,3.6 L less swept vol , 74 cm less beam ,and approx 8-9000 less kg,s may be more ?-that's a conservative fig .

* from the MAN website

Its the 46 that's the beamy one with 4.46 M with the same engines as the DP 56 the 800 MAN,s 2848 13.somthing hull .

Btw there is 2848 v8 same block rated @ 680 hp which at this hp consumes 36.1 G/h that's near my 12.8 L @35.6 G/h for 700 hp .No surprises as 2 extra cylinders ,

The engines have a riveted ID plate on .
It states the Hp in Kw,s and derivative ie for you 2848 le 403 as well as serial No,s , - date etc .

Might be worth having a look . It's the only way to tell exactly which version you have .

Any how it's all academic --just a geeky observation from me .

When is the hand over ? Exciting times .