Thank you JFM!!!

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Congratulations. Delighted to see that you stayed with a British manufacturer. Interesting decision though. You say you want to travel at slow speeds some of the time but you've still gone with a planing hull, albeit with stabs. Did you consider SD hulled boats? Have Fairline designed hull in any way for D running?
You didn't mention the gold door handles; I take it they're refusing to change those?

 

[mjf]

Top stuff this.

Many congrats from me.

 

[Firefly625]

Congratulations JFM, obviously some hard graft has given you the opportunity to up-size considerably and I can only imagine what the new boat will be like.
Something very special indeed by the time you have finished....Oh, and why is it just when you spend a fortune on upgrades do we all then decide to sell our boats... My guess is we think the upgrades will enhance our boat so we are happy to keep it longer, alas in never seems to work!

Looking forward to seeing the pictorial build!

 

[jfm]

Congratulations. Delighted to see that you stayed with a British manufacturer. Interesting decision though. You say you want to travel at slow speeds some of the time but you've still gone with a planing hull, albeit with stabs. Did you consider SD hulled boats? Have Fairline designed hull in any way for D running?
You didn't mention the gold door handles; I take it they're refusing to change those?

Yes it's nice to stay British. To be fair to FL, the Sq78 is extraordinarily well built and imho is same build standard as Ferretti, say. And among the UK/£sterling builders there is nothing to touch it so far as customisation is concerned except Aquastar 80

I don't get this "hull types" stuff mike, never have. I want to do full D sometimes, say 10-11kts, for long range. With the planing hull and big fin stabs, I dont think that will be a much worse motion that a semi D, say an Aquastar 80. But I want to cruise fast as well, say 25kts, and I think a full planing FL hull will do that better than an arse-in-the-water semi D and will do it on less fuel. I just don't see what a semi D offers, given my (admittedly personal to me) brief. Semi D fuel burn is horrific. And if I really want to sprint, the Sq78 is 35kts with the Cat 1572hp x2, minus perhaps 1kt for the stabs, so that'll beat a lot of sportscruisers esp if there are some waves

 

[petem]

Well done JFM. Please can I have your old Squaddie this time!!!!! I assume you'll be buying through EBY again?

Pete

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Yes it's nice to stay British. To be fair to FL, the Sq78 is extraordinarily well built and imho is same build standard as Ferretti, say. And among the UK/£sterling builders there is nothing to touch it so far as customisation is concerned except Aquastar 80

I don't get this "hull types" stuff mike, never have. I want to do full D sometimes, say 10-11kts, for long range. With the planing hull and big fin stabs, I dont think that will be a much worse motion that a semi D, say an Aquastar 80. But I want to cruise fast as well, say 25kts, and I think a full planing FL hull will do that better than an arse-in-the-water semi D and will do it on less fuel. I just don't see what a semi D offers, given my (admittedly personal to me) brief. Semi D fuel burn is horrific. And if I really want to sprint, the Sq78 is 35kts with the Cat 1572hp x2, minus perhaps 1kt for the stabs, so that'll beat a lot of sportscruisers esp if there are some waves

Actually I don't have a very good opinion of Ferretti build quality these days!

I agree with you on hull types. You can't even define a SD hull anyway. Some eg Trader and later Grand Banks, even Fleming look to my untrained eye like shallow V hard chine planing hulls that happen to have a keel stuck on them. Then there is the Nelson type hull that Aquastar use which has round bilges. I've never really understood why any of these hulls should be better in terms of seakeeping and economy at D speeds than a planing hull but I think we had this argument with gludy many moons ago. About the only thing that I could say might favour the SD hull at D speeds is the keel which I guess might confer some lateral stability but then, every Trader I've ever been on has rolled like a pig at both D and SD speeds. As you say, at SD speeds, SD hulls consume an enormous amount of fuel.
IMHO SD has become almost a marketing term to differentiate those boats which the manufacturers are aiming at the rufty tufty longer distance cruising types rather a type of hull design in itself. For me, the most marked difference is between proper D hulls and SD/planing hulls. At Dusseldorf this year, there was a Nordhavn next to a Selene next to a Fleming. It was surprising to see just how much more volume of hull there is below the waterline in a Nordhavn hull compared to a Fleming or any other SD boat. To be fair to Fleming, they do not market their boats as blue water cruisers.
So it will be v interesting to see how you get on at D speeds in the Sq78 with the stabilizers on. I think the planing hull manufacturers are slightly missing a trick here. As I understand it, the long distance cruising boat market is one market which is growing and, at the moment, the likes of Fairline, Ferretti etc are just not on this market. It seems to me that with larger fuel tanks and stabilizers, there's no reason why a planing hulled boat shouldn't be considered as a long distance cruiser. Maybe it's time MBY or somebody did some comparative tests of SD and planing boats at D speeds to find out if SD boats are really better than planing hulls at D speeds. I suspect not

 

[Questor]

Yep, thirded by me, we've had the pleasure of JFM's hospitality on Braveheart, absolutely the best experience. But if you want a luxury Squadron 58 charter from Port Vauban, Antibes - then you can't do better than Braveheart. The South of France luxury experience at its best, really.

Cheers
Jimmy

And again vouched for by a friend of mine that's done it twice.

 

[benjenbav]

Then there is the Nelson type hull that Aquastar use which has round bilges. I've never really understood why any of these hulls should be better in terms of seakeeping and economy at D speeds than a planing hull

Of course, with a round bilge, so much water comes over the front upwind in, say, a F4 that you don't really notice when the wind and waves are cranked up a couple of notches, partly because you can't see anything anyway and partly because you're rolling so much from side to side that any additional discomfort is purely incidental.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Of course, with a round bilge, so much water comes over the front upwind in, say, a F4 that you don't really notice when the wind and waves are cranked up a couple of notches, partly because you can't see anything anyway and partly because you're rolling so much from side to side that any additional discomfort is purely incidental.

benjenbav, you have a round bilged SD craft. Any comment on how she handles a sea at D speed compared to a planing hull?

 

[MapisM]

I don't get this "hull types" stuff mike, never have. I want to do full D sometimes, say 10-11kts, for long range. With the planing hull and big fin stabs, I dont think that will be a much worse motion that a semi D, say an Aquastar 80. But I want to cruise fast as well, say 25kts, and I think a full planing FL hull will do that better than an arse-in-the-water semi D and will do it on less fuel. I just don't see what a semi D offers, given my (admittedly personal to me) brief. Semi D fuel burn is horrific. And if I really want to sprint, the Sq78 is 35kts with the Cat 1572hp x2, minus perhaps 1kt for the stabs, so that'll beat a lot of sportscruisers esp if there are some waves

Mmmm... That's a bit unfair J.
I mean, yes, of course SD vessels are less efficient at speed if compared to hulls specifically designed for speed.
"Elementary, my dear Watson" springs to mind.
But I must disagree (also with Deleted User) when you seem to imply that you're getting a boating experience at low speed comparable to SD boats also with a P hull. In fact, it's not just a matter of adding a keel and stabs, it's the overall construction and behaviour which is different.

Let me make an example based on the very recent experience of last saturday.
We had a sea force of what, 1.5 maybe?
But in spite of that, even while maneuvering and moving around at D speed, not only it was possible to hear the noise of the odd 1' waves hitting the bow, but I could also "sense" the boat reactions against them, even while anchored.
Now, I can assure you that in those conditions on my boat (which is some 5' shorter than yours) you couldn't have said if she was actually at sea or still tied to the dock, unless looking outside.
Besides, even some slight rolling was perceivable. Of course, that's something the stabs can take care of, but no stabs on earth can give a hull a bulky construction she's not designed with, in the first place.
Ok, my boat has a full D hull, and she's possibly a bit heavier than a comparably sized SD boat. All agreed. But in my experience SD boats behaviour is much nearer to D boats, if compared to any P boats.
And also the other Italian guy who was with us on saturday (who btw was as impressed as myself by your superb hospitality, and asked me to bring you his regards and thank you again for the very pleasant day) also commented with myself along the same lines, during our cruise.
In fact, he's seriously considering as his next boat an SD vessel.
A couple of meters shorter than the Sq78, but still heavier, and capable to carry almost twice the fuel, with a 4000nm range (yep, not a typo!) at D speed. Oceanic crossing is among his future cruising plans.
Something which is beyond any P boat possibility, even for a small ship like the Sq78, and even with the extended tanks you're speccing. Obviously, you're not interested in bluewater cruising non stop for 15 days - which is fine - but if you would, clearly you'd never even think to do that with a Sq78 and a couple of C32 spinning at just a tad more than idle 24/24.

See, for boaters interested not ONLY, but ALSO in this type of experiences, it doesn't matter one iota that the fuel burn at 15 kts would be lower on a P boat. And even less so the fact that they won't see speeds in the 30s in their whole life.
In fact, quite often their boats are fitted with small engines and are not even capable of more than 14 or 16 kts WOT.
Safety and comfort are their priorities. And many of them see the SD alternative just as a less restrictive (and possibly even more economical!) choice vs. full D boats.

But I see your point of course. I've even heard arguments along your (and Deleted User) lines also from some Ferretti guys. It's funny because on one hand they try to enter in this segment of the market with boats like the Mochi LRC, but otoh they're worried by the loss of P boats customers toward SD boats because they're clearly not competitive with the offer of far east builders - and probably they never will.
So, they try to convince these customers that they can get the same experience also with P boats with gyros, etc.

It doesn't work, I'm afraid. The baby boomers are now approaching retirement, and the boaters among them already know what a P boat has to offer, and many are not interested anymore. That's why they're looking elsewhere.
And being experienced boaters, who can recognise and appreciate the seakeeping differences, I think it will be very hard for EU builders not to loose many of them just by adding stabs or tanks to P hulls. Our boating industry (as also other EU industries, sadly) has already missed the boat in this respect, so to speak.

All that said, I'm sure your new boat will be absolutely impressive, and I'm veeeery envious.
Besides, if there was also the odd spin at 35kts in your personal brief, obviously SD boats were not an option anyway.

I just wouldn't count on beating for instance a Magnum 80 in some serious sea. She's more likely to maintain a steady 40+ kts cruise where a Sq78 must get down to 15...

PS: with apologies to everyone for such a long post, I didn't realise that while typing!

 

[benjenbav]

benjenbav, you have a round bilged SD craft. Any comment on how she handles a sea at D speed compared to a planing hull?

Mike, I've only ever owned one hard-chined deep vee hull so my experience may well not be typical. The Aquastar has a rolly motion which doesn't change much as the conditions become more testing. I think that it might not be a motion which everybody would find comfortable but to me it feels safe. My previous boat was a Sunseeker Portofino and, in conditions where I felt that the crash-bang progress of staying on the plane was taking too much out of the crew or the boat, throttling back to D speed left a much more jerky sort of motion. It really felt like the hull had corners (which obviously it did) rather than curves.

 

[Nautical]

ah ha the old chestnut !

Well to put my slant on it and yes from a commercial view point but also from I hope from a fair perspective having just about sold all makes, types, configuration, age etc.

Displacement.

The only way to go if your criteria is load carrying, internal volume and trans oceananic capability that will (hopefully) survive the 'perfect storm'.

The downside is you have no choice but to go everywhere at 7.5 - 8.0 knots, doesn't matter your mother-in-law is about kick the bucket or you are late back for an appointment Monday morning, you are not going to get there any faster no matter if you hitched up a super tanker behind you and sucked it dry of fuel, that's your lot. Secondly, most are round bilge design and roll like a pig beam on and at rest in anything more than a couple of feet of up and down stuff they also roll. The current crop of 'designer' trawlers are becoming so tall are almost like a block of flats , up there 25' above the waterline can be a very unpleasant place to be parked up in your fav bay with a bit of a chop. Third, don't think that because displacement has a reputation for fuel economy that will be the case, a displacement hull of any significance displaces a lot more water than your average planing hull, the second you push past the optimum speed it will suck fuel, even at 70% power a single engine displacement hull burns 25% more fuel than a semi displacement with twin engines at the same speed (for the same speed both engines are running no more than 25% power).

In short a specific tool for a specific job but not a Jack of all trades by any stretch.


Planning.

The only possible way to go if speed is a consideration, no bones about it fuel efficiency wise in a different ball park than Semi D at the same 20 knt speed range. Planning can also be very efficient at displacement speed too more so at the top end of displacement speed range than even a displacement boat. In general you get some fantastic designs and choose carefully ala JFM and you get a beautifully executed piece of design and usability. Lovely light airy cabins and saloon, all the possible toys and luxury you could ever want. For short (sub 500 NM) trips, great entertaining spaces, great cabins and the big ticket killer upside ...St Trop to Monaco in under half a day, nothing else can achieve all that in one package. Even in the semi rough stuff a good one at displacement speed will handle herself with confidence.

Downsides, to get that 30+ Knots she is never going to be built as a bruiser, light weight is the ticket and powerful lightweight modern diesels. When it does get lumpy you do really have to back off or its bang, crash, wallop everywhere and lots of broken bits and probably broken people too. Internal volume for length doesn't quite match semi D (or at least the best designed semi D) , Overall they are not really designed with trouble free 50,000 hours of use and 50 years life span, the worst can be in the scraper at 15 years and at best fairly ropey by 25 years and if used heavily will be on its second set of motors and a couple of interior refits if you want her looking smart.

Semi Displacement.

Often thought of as the jack of all trades but not really master of any. Things have changed though and is probably the biggest area of interest currently. The current crop of new designs are showing the way for some mainstream builders and indeed a couple already have models launched or in the pipeline. The great advantage of SD is the ability to knock the displacement hull off its fuel economy perch yet still give a planning hull a run for its money if necessary and pretty much cut it in the worst that mother nature can throw at it. If your criteria is (depending in the builder) huge overall construction, Ocean going capability and range, fuel economy at displacement speed, ability to get home quick if needed, sea bashing ability in the really rough stuff, the displacement to load to the gunwales with everything from 10,000 litres of fuel, 3000 litres of water to tons of toys and gear. Then walk in engine rooms, big crew quarters and if you choose the right builder very swish interiors and in general (because most t the moment are semi custom builders), a choice of pretty much anything you want in layout, interiors, machinery, AV, electronics etc etc.

Downsides, cost, all that ability and build comes at a price although not as bad as you might think compared to the very top end planning boat builders. You won't be flavour of the month with the greenies if you charge around at 20 knots all the time though. Not as nimble as a planing hull at speed either, not as glamorous as the planning brigade if that's your thing and you will have a sudo saily boat image by some and almost mandatory to fly the blue ensign!.

 

[MapisM]

and almost mandatory to fly the blue ensign!.

Really?!? Heck, I was considering an Outer Reef 80' as my next boat, but I just loooove my naval ensign with the maritime republics...
Oh well, I'll stick to my current boat!

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Mapism, your example of your own boat in 1.5m seas is not really valid to the argument. Correct me if I'm wrong but your boat is a heavily built D hulled boat for D speeds only. I already said in my post that there was a bigger difference between D boats and SD boats than between SD and P boats. I acknowledge that a purpose designed D hull is always going to be better at D speeds than a SD or P hull.
My point really concerns those SD boats that are marketed as offshore boats which are more seaworthy than P boats. In this category, I would put the likes of Trader, some modern Grand Banks boats and even, Fleming because they all have a hull form which to my untrained eye, looks like a hard chine planing hull, albeit with a keel attached. So my question is whether these types of boats are really better than P boats at D speeds, either in terms of economy or in terms of comfort, and, if so why?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

The great advantage of SD is the ability to knock the displacement hull off its fuel economy perch yet still give a planning hull a run for its money if necessary and pretty much cut it in the worst that mother nature can throw at it.

I don't doubt that the average SD hull is more economical than a D hull at D speeds. It would be very odd if it wasn't because generally SD hulls are significantly lighter and displace less water than D hulls. I also don't doubt that if you put enough horsepower in a SD hull, you can make it go as fast as a P hull. But you could make the same kind of statement about a P hull. You could say for example that P hulls have the ability to knock D hulls off their economy perch at D speeds and deliver faster speeds and better economy than SD hulls at P speeds.
The nub of the matter is really that SD builders either claim or subtly suggest that their SD hulls are better sea boats than P boats at either D speeds or P speeds. I'm trying to understand why because most SD hulls look to me like hard chine planing hulls with a keel attached. So what is it that makes as SD boat better in a seaway than a P boat, either at D or P speeds? Is it something about the hull design or is it just weight?

 

[Nick_H]

Well i'm no expert on hull shapes, but aren't SD boats narrower in the fwd sections, which reduces lift and restricts them from planing. They certainly appear to be when you see them out of the water. If that's correct, then it follows they'll generally be better sea boats regardless of weight, as a narrower point of entry into the waves will reduce slamming. The weight is bound to help as well of course.

 

[Nautical]

Nick, pretty close to the mark there, can only speak for our yachts but they have a vey fine entry forward which contines for about 1/3 of the hull and then rounds out to a deep bilge and about a 2 1/2 ' heavy keel. Sort of slices through the water rather than try and flatten it. Length for length also much heavier, the model below at around 60' weighs in at around 10 tons or more against a similar length planing hull. that extra weight is made up in lamination thickness, bulkheads and solid joinery which considering they are of similar length indicates a vey heafty build.

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

Well i'm no expert on hull shapes, but aren't SD boats narrower in the fwd sections, which reduces lift and restricts them from planing. They certainly appear to be when you see them out of the water. If that's correct, then it follows they'll generally be better sea boats regardless of weight, as a narrower point of entry into the waves will reduce slamming. The weight is bound to help as well of course.

Yes I agree with this. A semi displacement has its advantage over many planning boats altough when sizes gets large and the vee aft is less sharp the difference gets even smaller. Surely a semi displacement hull efficiceny is best at about 15 - 20 knots. Still this hull design SD is evolving and may be some new designs in the future might show a different way. Personally I like the Magellano concept.
Mike I think Ferretti Group and Azimut are getting into this medium long range thing one with the Mochi 23M Long Range and the other with its 74 Magellano. I see you are critizing Ferrettis? Did you change for the 53 or are you still with the 46.

I like all of JFM ideas my only argument against his visions is for the exterior (fast) fin stabilizers, as I spoke to a few captains who had them fitted to Elegance and Sunseekers and they where not very praisful of them especially once the boats gets over the 20 knots mark.
A captain also told me that with them you loose about 25% of the usuall speed in similar RPM. He told me the owner got blind when hearing anchor stabilization. Still many captains are never praisful of anything and you can also hear them argue how Gyro stabilizers are a pain.
Stabilization will be an important part of flybridge boats in todays world with their super structure getting bigger, and rolling get to double to what a boat would have done a few years ago.
Then I follow this with how much design work will be going from Fairline into making these so perfect, seeing that a moving an engine 1 inch most times can change how a hull behaves, imagine having two fins dragging below. Ah the faster it goes the trickier it gets.

 

[sailorman]

Gosh thanks chaps. It was a pleasure having you all aboard. Anytime you're nearby just call. And yup I do like good food at sea

Anyway, as MapisM hinted, the Sq58 will be for sale sooner than I expected. New boat ordered, deposit paid last week, delivery early 2011. It would be too dull to tell you what it is straight off, so try guessing from this: close to 80 feet LOA; hybrid range between planing boat and trawler yacht in that the builder is adding an extra fuel tank midships in the keel to give me 900 ish miles range; fin stabilisers at anchor and under way; internal staircase to fly deck (of course!); nice machinery room with Cat engines/twin gensets/watermaker etc; in addition to the usual RIB tender it will carry a Laser sailing dinghy on the top deck with a crane to launch it; fab kitchen so we can have better food (!); contemporary interior in light oak.

A Trader from Tarquin

 

[jfm]

I like all of JFM ideas my only argument against his visions is for the exterior (fast) fin stabilizers, as I spoke to a few captains who had them fitted to Elegance and Sunseekers and they where not very praisful of them especially once the boats gets over the 20 knots mark.
A captain also told me that with them you loose about 25% of the usuall speed in similar RPM. He told me the owner got blind when hearing anchor stabilization. Still many captains are never praisful of anything and you can also hear them argue how Gyro stabilizers are a pain.
Stabilization will be an important part of flybridge boats in todays world with their super structure getting bigger, and rolling get to double to what a boat would have done a few years ago.
Then I follow this with how much design work will be going from Fairline into making these so perfect, seeing that a moving an engine 1 inch most times can change how a hull behaves, imagine having two fins dragging below. Ah the faster it goes the trickier it gets.

PYB, yes the stabilisers must be right on a fast boat. For starters, the fins need to be smaller, and that makes them less good at zero speed. I am dealing with (as well as the Fairline folks) the CEO and owner of Side-Power on this (a very nice guy) and he has candidly warned me that the zero speed function will work well but not as good as on a slower boat. Reason is that my fins will be (approx) 1metre long x 60cm tall. On a slower boat they would be bigger.

Side-Power have fitted the same stabs already to hull #4 of the Princess 78, which is launched. Amazingly the boat still does 32 knots. They are reported to work well, no weird handling or vibrations, though Side-Power are tweaking the software to improve. Mr CEO has assured me that I will have decent software but they will keep it under review and tweak it as needed, and keep me updated with best software they have. One good thing is that their electornics is bang up to date and users can install new software very easily

I note what you say about other captain's reports. I'm not tarring all with same brush and there are some smart captains around including those who post on this forum. But there are some thick ones too, and I frankly would attach minimal importance to a bar room report of a random sleection of captains using stabilisers from 5 years ago when computers were not as powerful. There is intuitively no doubt that a fin stab *can* work; the only challenge is whether you have the hydraulics, sensors and software to make it move correctly. The world has moved on much in the last 5 years on that aspect, so it isn't sensible to compare brand new stabs against older gear.

Fairline are doing a proper job on this. Their engineers are smart and dont cut corners. The increased grp lay up and mounts for the stabs are being designed with Bernard Olesinski on the team.

If they are no good I'll take them off and GRP over the holes . So this mod is actually reversible. I dont expect to do that of course! Bottom line is that everything is a compromise in boats as we all know, but I have to make a decision to have fins, gyros or nothing and I reckon fins is the smart choice out of those 3 options.