Under way, eventually (a 1200+ Nm cruise around Italy)

petem said:
P, how do you get that track info onto your PC? I guess you created all your WP's etc offline too?
Click to expand...
It's actually the opposite, sort of: I use Garmin SW on the PC for planning (either Mapsource or Homeport), and after making up my mind, I key into the Raymarine plotter the actual leg of the day.
So, yes, there is a double input, but I'm not aware of any easy/efficient way to transfer routes between the PC and the Raymarine plotter - at least not with the oldish components that I've got.
And it's no big deal, really. On top of being fast and easy, using the PC for route planning also allows you to organize a routes database very efficiently.
Which btw comes in handy when you change the boat, as it was the case for me now... :encouragement:
 
MapisM said:
It's actually the opposite, sort of: I use Garmin SW on the PC for planning (either Mapsource or Homeport), and after making up my mind, I key into the Raymarine plotter the actual leg of the day.
So, yes, there is a double input, but I'm not aware of any easy/efficient way to transfer routes between the PC and the Raymarine plotter - at least not with the oldish components that I've got.
And it's no big deal, really. On top of being fast and easy, using the PC for route planning also allows you to organize a routes database very efficiently.
Which btw comes in handy when you change the boat, as it was the case for me now... :encouragement:
Click to expand...

There is a way - I used to do it on our old RL70/RL80 Pathfinders.
IIRC, you upload the routes/waypoints to a blank memory card (similar to the CMAP card placed in the plotter) using a PC program and a USB CMAP plugin device.
Then upload the routes/waypoints to the RL70/RL80 and replace the CMAP card.
All a bit long winded.
But if you are somewhere like CF, you could upload lots of waypoints of the area that don't need updating.

These days, I upload my routes using the serial/NMEA 0183 directly from the PC.
The process is:-
Create a set of waypoints/rooutes using OpenCPN
Then on one of the plotters, select "Upload using NMEA".
Then on the PC, click "Send to GPS"
After a couple of seconds, the routes/waypoints then appear on the Raymarine system.
The two systems (PC and Raymarine) then follow each other.
The Raymarine system controls the autopilot but the PC could control it if required.
 
Great thread and thanks for the effort in reporting your mini cruise ;)

your consumption figures are really impressive, we didn't get much better than that, (5.5 average), with our wafer thin 16 ton 15m, IPS boat - so someone has designed a pretty good hull and set up there. Just imagine how much better the figures would be without the Auto-helm in constant use ;)

I wonder how you feel about, 'the old girl', now that you have a good few miles and half a season under your belt, in your new mistress - are you happy with the transition and how much do you miss her? Hopefully you'll be cruising the Almafi coast when we go full circle in around 5 years so that we can exchange dits in the flesh, or maybe you'll come find us next time you're stateside. In the meantime, keep the stories coming and we look forward to reading about your continued adventures.
 
Welcome back. Glad the trip concluded without issue.

I am burning 9-10 per nm at present. Bum etc not bad but not just done and I would expect 8-9 when all redone.

As a warning Re dirty props my crossing to Ibiza was 13 per nm - solved with a scraper for 20 mins. I didn’t look before I left as they had been cleaned by diver 4 weeks prior !
 
Nigelpickin said:
I wonder how you feel about, 'the old girl', now that you have a good few miles and half a season under your belt, in your new mistress - are you happy with the transition and how much do you miss her?
Click to expand...
That's a very good question indeed, worth a thread in itself.
The short answer is that for going places, the old lady was superior in each and every way, period. Bar speed, obviously.
BUT, I don't actually miss her that much.
Both myself and swmbo feel that the LB (just to call her by her name "Lido Blu", as can be seen in the last pic I posted) suits most of our needs better (internal spaces, practicality, easiness of maintenance, etc.).
And as a P hull of her size, I don't think they can get much better.
The decent (by P boat standards...) fuel burn has already been mentioned, but another advantage is the stability at anchor, which is vastly superior to the old lady (whose stabs were not zero speed).
Otoh, slapping noise is a bit annoying compared to timber hull, where it was practically non-existant.
But I've been on some P boats which were worse - I suppose that the all-wooden internal construction help reducing resonances.
So, we are happy with our choice, so far.
Otoh, if you ask me if I would have rather preferred a Nordhavn or a Northern Marine of similar size, the answer is positively yes.
If they weren't ridiculously overpriced, that is...
 
jrudge said:
Bum etc not bad but not just done
Click to expand...
For the records, my very first Coppercoat experience so far has been great, with the hull which is practically still as clean as when we started.
We kept moving almost daily in the last weeks, though. The real test will start now, and I'm looking fwd to check if the CC behavior will match what Hurricane reported after his stay in CF, i.e. that it worked very well!
Otoh, the Trilux on the u/w gear flaked in places, along the road. But as we all know, there's no magic wand for that... :nonchalance:
 
MapisM said:
I just reviewed the detailed log which I kept during the trip.
Practically, we made the whole trip at cruise speeds anywhere from 20 to 24kts.
It's a bit tricky to check exactly the fuel burn difference within this speed range, because between refills we made some legs a bit slower and some others a bit faster. But surely the difference is neither here nor there, in terms of Nm per liter.
Obviously, single digit speed is what would have made a big difference, but we never made more than very short hops at D speed, for all the reasons previously explained. So, I still have no clue about how large the exact difference could be, in a long passage.
That's a bit academic anyway, 'cause I would have made a completely wrong boat choice, if I had long distance cruising in mind - this delivery trip being pretty much an exception.

So, in a nutshell, we made 1170Nm overall, burning 8300 liters of fuel, which means an average of 7.1 Nm per liter.
That's inclusive of about 50 hours of genset usage, and actually also the engines clocked more hours than those spent at cruising speed - almost 80, overall.
Obviously, the average speed calculated on engine hours basis is much lower (14.6 kts), with a hourly fuel burn of "just" 104 liters.
But that includes lead times upon maneuvering and very short hops at D speed, which are meaningless.
Actual mile crunching was never done at less than 20kts solid, with most of the longer legs in the 22kts ballpark - which btw is also a technical sweet spot for the engines, a hair under 1800rpm, right at the peak of torque curve, according to MAN specs.
Therefore, assuming an average cruising speed of 22kts (hence 53 of the 80 hours spent at or around that speed), the actual fuel burn has been 156 lph (calculated in excess, as if the rest of the hours and the genset would have burned nothing).
And by sheer coincidence, that's exactly the value reported in the builder's specs, at 1800rpm/23 kts.
In other words, my first estimate of post #182 proved to be spot on, eventually (actual fuel burn=builder's specs minus 1 knot).

In the future, after some time of our more typical cruising around CF, with short day trips which make D speed much more acceptable also in a boat not designed for that, I will possibly be able to update the above numbers including slower cruising, but don't hold your breath: I expect/hope that it will take me years to burn another 8k liters, from now on! :D

For the records, I'm also attaching an overview of the actual route, which was eventually a bit different and shorter from what we originally planned, for several contingent reasons.
I made each cruising day/leg in alternated colors, for my planning convenience.
We never made any night passages, because I don't fancy the idea of being unable to see and avoid floating stuff at 20+ kts…
RsD3ortU_o.jpg
Click to expand...

First off, that's a pretty decent distance covered, a proper shake down for sure. Also the longer crossings must have been quite demanding, especially in the conditions you posted the vid of earlier. Must have felt good to tie up at the other end and enjoy a cold drink.

Regarding the consumption; those numbers are pretty impressive indeed, esp. considering that they include the D speed cruising and running the genny. In relation to the boat weight, it's much better to what I get (no in absolute terms, but still). A great opportunity for some man maths :).

Congratulations once more for completing the trip, well done the both of you :).
 
scubaman said:
Also the longer crossings must have been quite demanding, especially in the conditions you posted the vid of earlier. Must have felt good to tie up at the other end and enjoy a cold drink.
Click to expand...
I suppose you are referring to the video which I actually posted in this other thread.
I'm re-linking it also here just for the records:

Anyway, actually that Adriatic crossing was the only leg a bit demanding.
For all others, particularly the longer one from Sicily to Sardinia, we've been able to pick some gorgeous weather and flat sea conditions.
The major challenge has been that we ran out of sun protection cream... :rolleyes:
But yes, definitely mooring at "home" felt good anyway, as well as the cold drinks - and the plural is NOT a typo! :cool:
 
Great video clip. Sea state doesn't look entirely unpleasant but I'm fully aware videos often don't show the actual sea state experienced and as witnessed by human eyes. Our windscreen wiper washers were U/S on our trip so it was a bit of a pain timing wiper usage to when there was enough sea water on the windscreen to avoid the dreaded dry salt opaque windscreen. I had to keep a small water bottle at hand to occasionally pour on the windscreen when this happened which was a pain. Must get our washer motor repaired before next cruise.

Btw, really enjoyed your cruise blogs and congrats at completing the trip. There is a great sense of joy arriving at home port after such a wonderful and lengthy adventure.
 
Happy to hear that you enjoyed the thread! :encouragement:

Ref...
oceanfroggie said:
Must get our washer motor repaired before next cruise.
Click to expand...
...are you sure to have a motor for the washer? I can't remember to have seen any boat with such setup.
The typical installation is with an electrical valve opening/closing a pipe connected to the boat fresh water circuit, which is kept pressurized by the fresh water pump. Maybe you just have a stuck valve?
 
MapisM said:
Happy to hear that you enjoyed the thread! :encouragement:

Ref...

...are you sure to have a motor for the washer? I can't remember to have seen any boat with such setup.
The typical installation is with an electrical valve opening/closing a pipe connected to the boat fresh water circuit, which is kept pressurized by the fresh water pump. Maybe you just have a stuck valve?
Click to expand...

No bizarrely, just like a car there is a separate 4 litre windscreen washer bottle with an integrated motor pump in one of the cockpit lockers, piped to the windscreen wipers. Presume this was to enable wash additive to be mixed with the water. Agree it would have made more sense to have had it piped to the boats domestic fresh water system.
 
oceanfroggie said:
No bizarrely, just like a car there is a separate 4 litre windscreen washer bottle with an integrated motor pump in one of the cockpit lockers, piped to the windscreen wipers. Presume this was to enable wash additive to be mixed with the water. Agree it would have made more sense to have had it piped to the boats domestic fresh water system.
Click to expand...

probably cheaper to rewire the thing now, rather than messing with yet another pump :rolleyes:

cheers

V.
 
Hi Mapism, sorry but if you do 7.1nm per ltr your doing better than my saily boat. Surely thats 7.1 ltr per Nm, which may I say is still very impressive. My boat 13m 72hp cruising on engine =5Nm per hour @5 ltr per hr= 1ltr per Nm.
 
Well spotted, but Cheery already won the virtual cigar.
As I told him in post #284, 'twas a typo meant to check the readers attention... :o :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top