So Targa 48 it is now!
- Thread starter Illusion
- Start date
jimmy_the_builder
Well-Known Member
Quick snap of the release article, copyright of Princess acknowledged.
Doesn't look like there is a three cabin version. Though nowhere near 48ft it is a smaller boat than the V52, and the V52 only squeezes in a 3rd cabin.
Comparison:
LOA V48 50ft 10in V52 54ft 6in
Beam V48 13ft 6in V52 14ft 7in
Disp V48 17.7t V52 21t
Power V48 IPS-435hp V52 D11-670hp
Have you been on the vino collapso again young man, compared to your normal Lichfieldian prowess with the iphone this one's a touch, um, blurry?
Cheers
Jimmy
kcrane
Well-Known Member
Have you been on the vino collapso again young man, compared to your normal Lichfieldian prowess with the iphone this one's a touch, um, blurry?
Cheers
Jimmy
Truth be told the answer is yes.
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
They NEVER will admit the 44 Targa was wrong with IPS, and I actually think it was not.
The problem with the 44 Targa GT IPS was that I think it was too expensive with the pods. Follow up two years later 2009, and a stern drive version is served with a decrease in starting price of 30% which made the models in Brokerage look expensive, redesign of the cockpit with less fluff, removal of that useless one Thin person like me sunpad aft, and an Open version is also offered.
Think it was a good decision for them.
44 Targa as far as I know is still in production, so the 48 should be ok considering it is a very different boat to the 50. Altough it will be surely in the works that the 50 will become a bigger boat 52/3 model.
A 50 Targa GT came here new this summer, and I admit I was dissapointed with it for its aft deck and its very low coamings. Makes a sport fish feel much safer....
I think the tender mechanism was a bit to much complicated for nothing considering you can drop the same with a passarelle in about the same time.
The problem with the 44 Targa GT IPS was that I think it was too expensive with the pods. Follow up two years later 2009, and a stern drive version is served with a decrease in starting price of 30% which made the models in Brokerage look expensive, redesign of the cockpit with less fluff, removal of that useless one Thin person like me sunpad aft, and an Open version is also offered.
Think it was a good decision for them.
44 Targa as far as I know is still in production, so the 48 should be ok considering it is a very different boat to the 50. Altough it will be surely in the works that the 50 will become a bigger boat 52/3 model.
A 50 Targa GT came here new this summer, and I admit I was dissapointed with it for its aft deck and its very low coamings. Makes a sport fish feel much safer....
I think the tender mechanism was a bit to much complicated for nothing considering you can drop the same with a passarelle in about the same time.
Illusion
Well-Known Member
I totally agree with you PYB, would you like to buy one!!!!
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
hehe thank you for the offer, but economics are tight and a 44 does not fit my current berth and more important my running bills ATM. So 10 meters it has to stay at the moment.
Question how many 44 did Fairline build so far with IPS and with stern drives. Considering Princess seem to sell quite a bit V45s and 42s....
Those weight are definilty on the high side IMO considering Princess went into Vacumm resin moulding, new lighter engines etc...
The old end nineties Princess V55 weighs less to 16t with half fuel and such and this with MAN 680 engines which are no light weight Volvos. And altough it is not the strongest boat out there they have a good record of structural integrity.
Question how many 44 did Fairline build so far with IPS and with stern drives. Considering Princess seem to sell quite a bit V45s and 42s....
Those weight are definilty on the high side IMO considering Princess went into Vacumm resin moulding, new lighter engines etc...
The old end nineties Princess V55 weighs less to 16t with half fuel and such and this with MAN 680 engines which are no light weight Volvos. And altough it is not the strongest boat out there they have a good record of structural integrity.
EME
Well-Known Member
Compared to what ? What value an 'aft deck anyways?
erggh compared to what in its class... and you may have noticed it isnt a Sportfisher
I love the Tender launch. Complicated = breaks down and I dont know one yet that has (touch wood) . Do you?
I suspect that Fairline are only 'removing' ( so the 50 will become a 54?) due to cost and a longer boat is synonymous with bigger and therefore better value for money ---- but that is just my cynical opinion!
About the same time? --- give or take 4 or 5 minutes -- and I've seen too many broken passarelles.
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
Notice it is not a sport fisher, it was a pulling the leg comment and that in a SF it has a sense to have low coaming to aft. Here it has no need.
But aft cockpit coaming are low in my books, if you compare it to a Princess V52. Even Sunseeker do actually better with the 52 or 53 Predator.
Fair to it someone mentioned this when they visited the 50 Squadron at Sibs last year for both aft deck and flybridge. 50 Targa and Squadron should be same in this area altough different in other areas in superstructure.
My Opacmare Passrelle which is like 10 years old has given no trouble so far, and use it quite a lot, and many people in my pontoon who have them have little trouble with them. A friend had the internal ribbon go this year on the pontoon for a telescopic model which goes inside and becomes invisible, this is for a 2006 14 meter boat.
That is what I know of in 2012....
I drop my 40kg 2.3 rib with outboard and fuel tank included in 2 mins in a bad day, including safety ropes removal....
*Note Never used the Tender Launch system but being used to the Passarelle system I see it as trying to reinvent the wheel for noting, may be that is why I see it complicated....
Agree about the 50 becoming larger to have more value looking into it, and also being more able to have a larger tender
But aft cockpit coaming are low in my books, if you compare it to a Princess V52. Even Sunseeker do actually better with the 52 or 53 Predator.
Fair to it someone mentioned this when they visited the 50 Squadron at Sibs last year for both aft deck and flybridge. 50 Targa and Squadron should be same in this area altough different in other areas in superstructure.
My Opacmare Passrelle which is like 10 years old has given no trouble so far, and use it quite a lot, and many people in my pontoon who have them have little trouble with them. A friend had the internal ribbon go this year on the pontoon for a telescopic model which goes inside and becomes invisible, this is for a 2006 14 meter boat.
That is what I know of in 2012....
I drop my 40kg 2.3 rib with outboard and fuel tank included in 2 mins in a bad day, including safety ropes removal....
*Note Never used the Tender Launch system but being used to the Passarelle system I see it as trying to reinvent the wheel for noting, may be that is why I see it complicated....
Agree about the 50 becoming larger to have more value looking into it, and also being more able to have a larger tender
Last edited:
EME
Well-Known Member
Not sure whose a certain quality Italian manufacturer fit but the Antibes-based boats seem to have problems 'rather a lot'.
I reckon 3 British Olympic rowers can do it 24.8 seconds
MMhhh .. I think the passarelle will get in the way and a bigger tender wont be an option. We have a Williams 325 on ours.. and. yes, a tight 'bespoke' fit.
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
I'm more interested in how Fairline have modified their hull to accept IPS drives because AFAIK, no builder has actually come out and said that they are building special hulls to suit IPS. If you believe the magazine reports, some IPS installations don't seem to give any performance/fuel efficiency advantages over their shaftdrive equivalents. I'm wondering whether Fairline have moved the game on and come up with a hull that optimises IPS in such a way that it really has the performance/efficiency advantages that were initially claimed for it.I don't think they actually admitted that
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Forget the claims, those have always been meant to get IPS "pulled" by the final client. In this respect, VP did achieve some results, but mainly thanks to the joystick trick, rather than performance, fuel savings, etc.
Otoh, the KSF towards the real VP customers - i.e. shipyards - are completely different: first and foremost, lower total installation costs. And secondly, space optimization.
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Yes I know all that but don't forget how VP first marketed IPS. It was supposed to be a game change in terms of propulsion efficiency and so far, that claim hasn't proved to be 100% true because some IPS boats seem to give good results and others seem to be no more efficient than the shaftdrive equivalent. For me, the joystick control is just a toy because you always have to know how to manouvre your boat on the throttles anyway because one day, probably sooner rather than later, the joystick will break down. As for space optimisation, yes IPS allows more lower deck accomodation space compared to a normal shaftdrive set up but not compared to a shaftdrive set up with V gearboxes and not against sterndrives. As for installation costs, I would like to know more on this because the installation savings can only be small compared to the total cost of the boat.
So we go back to what is supposed to be the big advantage of IPS and that is improved fuel efficiency which is why I was wondering whether Fairline think they've really cracked it with this special hull for IPS
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
I think it is hard to say how much fuel are you really saving with IPS. I'd say in real terms about 15% in a very similar set up, if ever there exists one.
It is always a bit difficult to make comparisons with a boat built lighter today to what an additional shaft drive boat used built 10 years ago. If you go this route Volvo marketing gurus got the 30%+ figures correct.
An other note that Volvo since its launch has changesd hull design requests saying flatter Vees from mid section to aft less to 15 degrees.
It is also a question of engine Volvo D6 435hp for example is much lighter then the Tamd 43 or 42 430hp a decade earlier which has also has no electrical management.
If you put two identical boats both with Volvo D6 one on shafts and another with IPS you can still get it not perfect. What if the hull was made for the shaft drive boat, or the opposite way round.
See when you make comparisons I think it is like opening a Can of Worms....
Personally I like a lot the ZF pods, as those forward looking IPS give the nightmares. Apart for the fact that in actual facts ZF developed 60% of the pod for Volvo inside, and I think at a certain HP size Volvo becomes not my first choice. ZF also requests no Vee shape change accept two include tunnel drives, which most British designs actually have. I am still surprised how so little ZF pods are still being used IMO, considering most boats gearboxes are made by them.
It is always a bit difficult to make comparisons with a boat built lighter today to what an additional shaft drive boat used built 10 years ago. If you go this route Volvo marketing gurus got the 30%+ figures correct.
An other note that Volvo since its launch has changesd hull design requests saying flatter Vees from mid section to aft less to 15 degrees.
It is also a question of engine Volvo D6 435hp for example is much lighter then the Tamd 43 or 42 430hp a decade earlier which has also has no electrical management.
If you put two identical boats both with Volvo D6 one on shafts and another with IPS you can still get it not perfect. What if the hull was made for the shaft drive boat, or the opposite way round.
See when you make comparisons I think it is like opening a Can of Worms....
Personally I like a lot the ZF pods, as those forward looking IPS give the nightmares. Apart for the fact that in actual facts ZF developed 60% of the pod for Volvo inside, and I think at a certain HP size Volvo becomes not my first choice. ZF also requests no Vee shape change accept two include tunnel drives, which most British designs actually have. I am still surprised how so little ZF pods are still being used IMO, considering most boats gearboxes are made by them.
Last edited:
PowerYachtBlog
Well-Known Member
I reckon 3 British Olympic rowers can do it 24.8 seconds
MMhhh .. I think the passarelle will get in the way and a bigger tender wont be an option. We have a Williams 325 on ours.. and. yes, a tight 'bespoke' fit.
I will try to time it sometime may be I get a medal
Yes Atlantis 48 of a friend had that problem he could fit only a Williams 285 tender. But I think Fairline will go 58 to 62 Targa GT route offering a tender garage with sun-pad plus hi-lo bathing platform.
erik_plus8
Well-Known Member
Sorry, that is simply not true.
_If_ that was true, why would it take ZF 3-4 years more to the market introduction of their Zeus pods...?
Yes, I'm Swedish and proud of the products we develop in this country, but it's important to get the facts right
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Thats easy. Because VP may have had an exclusivity agreement with ZF which has now expired leaving ZF free to market the technology to other engine manufacturers after a specified period of time. A common agreement when a manufacturer is developing new technology for a particular customer
kcrane
Well-Known Member
IIRC that is exactly what happened.
Illusion
Well-Known Member
I can only speak from my experience having now run on IPS for 3 seasons. We currently deliver broadly the same MPG on our larger, heavier Targa 44 as we did on our previous Phantom 40 on shafts.
Interesting both were new boats 2007 & 2010 respectively; both have the same levels of kit on board, both run D6 370's and both subject to my anal MPG logs and calculations!
To me this demonstrates IPS does deliver some economy benefit although I guess not to the level originally claimed by VP?
I believe as well as the claimed fuel savings and superb close quarter control are all good, but the key reason more manufactures are turning to IPS is they are now a simple plug in installation for manufacturers and they also allow the engines to be pushed aft as far as possible so in turn bulkheads go further back and accommodation is maximised - isn't this the name of the game at the moment?
You should see the mid cabin on a T44, its huge. Let’s hope they don't push things too much a compromise the looks of the boats, both in beam and draft.
Last edited:
erik_plus8
Well-Known Member
I was trying to prove a point with my hypothetical question but I realize I failed miserably...
Still, it is simply not true that ZF was involved in the development of the IPS. Maybe someone got that mixed up because ZF is in fact a supplier to VP, but ONLY conventional reverse gears. Nothing to do at all with IPS. It's an in-house developed product.
P430
Member
From what I was told is that the T44 is a shortened T47 hull adapted to take IPS. The new 48 seems to be a hull designed specifically for IPS. Will there be a noticible difference in handling - I don't know - we will have to wait and see.
PS Phill you should try the T47 !!!
Neil
PS Phill you should try the T47 !!!
Neil