scubaman
Well-Known Member
That's a nice mix of focal lenghts and fast lenses, you have pretty much all bases covered. The 18 mm of Samyang is a nice addition, especially on a boat.
Under way, eventually (a 1200+ Nm cruise around Italy)
- Thread starter MapisM
- Start date
That's a nice mix of focal lenghts and fast lenses, you have pretty much all bases covered. The 18 mm of Samyang is a nice addition, especially on a boat.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
I suppose you're getting those numbers from your engines displays, which are usually pretty accurate.
If so, well, ignorance is bliss!
At the moment, I can only go by the builder's data (which for me is practically impossible to check exactly, but according to other DP owners, also of models with electronic engines, are rather accurate), I should burn much less than that: 156 l/h @ 1800rpm (both sides).
And the difference is even more impressive at 27kts, which I can make at 2000rpm burning 207 l/h.
Otoh, your numbers failed my sanity check by heart, so I just had a look at MAN specs for your engines.
Now, according to MAN prop demand curves, you should actually burn 75 l/h @ 1800.
Fwiw, the same number for my engines is 82 l/h, so not much different.
Now, we all know that prop demand curves are generic, and I guess it's reasonable to expect your hull to "pay" her other nice features with a somewhat poor efficiency, but while MAN numbers are reasonably consistent with the builder numbers in my boat, 33% more in yours sounds like a helluva difference...
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Porto, just another thougth.
This morning I was trying to do some math based on the hours I made so far.
Eventually I gave up, 'cause I have way too little hours to draw any remotely meaningful conclusions.
But while cross checking my hours and tanks level with the MAN curves, your post popped to my mind.
Your engines should burn 140 litres at max rpm and full load, according to MAN.
Mine should burn another 20 litres on top of that, to produce an additional 100hp (which makes perfect sense, bearing in mind the old rule of thumb of 0.2 liter/hp).
Now, when you mentioned the numbers I quoted above, were you referring to the readings of your MMDS displays?
If so, either you have something wrong in the ECU, or you are burning way too much.
In your boat, you simply shouldn't be able to burn more than 280 l/h overall at WOT, regardless of how loaded and how fast you are.
As I said, it's too early for being able to post some decent estimates of my fuel burn, but I thought to mention this because it's yours that doesn't seem right...
Portofino
Well-Known Member
P “ so yours ——- “ should be 300 twixt 350 —— not mine
Agree your calcs in post #43 .Yes MMDS info
Apology for the poor image quality
https://imgur.com/a/5JNCslr
Summary 2000 rpm -118 L/h
1900rpm - 103 L/h
1780:rpm 88 , so about 90
1800 ish
So for YOU in your boat extrapolaing - @ 1800 is gonna be approx 100 L H
And 2000 rpm if mine are near 120 then yours bit more ( extra 100 Hp ) mid 130,s
Speeds will be different of course 1780rpm is over 28 knots for me .- normal cruise speed burns less than 90 L / h
1900 which burns 103 L/h gives 31 knots .
All per side for the benefit of readers btw
You have the benefit of a smother bottom too which I guess the extra speed means less throttle needed so a fuel saving in there somewhere?
Agree your calcs in post #43 .Yes MMDS info
Apology for the poor image quality
https://imgur.com/a/5JNCslr
Summary 2000 rpm -118 L/h
1900rpm - 103 L/h
1780:rpm 88 , so about 90
1800 ish So for YOU in your boat extrapolaing - @ 1800 is gonna be approx 100 L H
And 2000 rpm if mine are near 120 then yours bit more ( extra 100 Hp ) mid 130,s
Speeds will be different of course 1780rpm is over 28 knots for me .- normal cruise speed burns less than 90 L / h
1900 which burns 103 L/h gives 31 knots .
All per side for the benefit of readers btw
You have the benefit of a smother bottom too which I guess the extra speed means less throttle needed so a fuel saving in there somewhere?
benjenbav
Well-Known Member
Thanks for adding the chart. I am shamefully ignorant of the geography east of Italy. Helped put the pix into perspective. I wish you fair winds and smooth seas.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Ok folks, as it happens Deleted User was correct - unsurprisingly.
The mobile coverage in HR is indeed much better compared to when I spent 10 days in a row anchored right in this bay, exactly in the middle of nowhere, with zero houses all around.
Back then, when my mobile was normally melting by the end of the day, also during holidays, the excuse of having no coverage at all was a proper bliss.
But now, it's nice to keep in touch with the whole world, if and when I fancy.
So, here I am, for an update!
While checking the weather forecast this morning, we realized that the Bura (NE wind typical of HR, which was blowing since yesterday) was predicted to slow down a bit this afternoon, before strengthening again for some days in a row.
And our next leg had to be across the Kvarner Gulf, which ain't that large but has a dreadful reputation with Bura, also because it makes a perfect beam sea with short waves. So, off we went, hoping that they got the short window right.
As it turned out, we were hoping in vain, and the sea was definitely worse than I expected, but the DP took it in her stride at 20+ kts.
No way to prepare drinks and snacks or have a shower while on the way, as the old lady would have allowed us, but a decent stability and smoothness overall.
In fact, I'm very much beginning to think that the concept of a stabilized P boat to get "the best of both words", cruising also at one digit speed, is a nonsense.
I mean, yeah, it might possibly work with large and heavy P boats, let's say 70' at the very least, 80+ better.
But other than that, I have a suggestion for those who are considering a sub-60' P boat and are thinking to use her often at D speed: think again.
P boats are, well, P boats. If you wish to make extended cruises comfortably and economically, buy a D boat - it's that simple.
The difference is day and night, and while the idea of all-trick pony is nice theoretically, it just doesn't work in practice.
I tried to slow down during the crossing, just for the sake of it, but the boat was thrown all over the place and became even hard to control.
Of course stabs would have improved a bit, but there's no way they could have made her anywhere near the "cut through water" attitude of a D boat.
Anyway, enough of technical digression. This thread is supposed to be about places, not boats.
And all is well what ends well: we are now anchored in dead calm waters, after going round the NE part of Unje, the almost desert island which is now kindly sheltering us to perfection.
Tomorrow we are thinking to launch and test also the tender, going around for a few pics.
In the meantime, here's our today's leg, which brought us exactly in the Google Maps spot that I linked at the beginning of this post...
The mobile coverage in HR is indeed much better compared to when I spent 10 days in a row anchored right in this bay, exactly in the middle of nowhere, with zero houses all around.
Back then, when my mobile was normally melting by the end of the day, also during holidays, the excuse of having no coverage at all was a proper bliss.
But now, it's nice to keep in touch with the whole world, if and when I fancy.
So, here I am, for an update!
While checking the weather forecast this morning, we realized that the Bura (NE wind typical of HR, which was blowing since yesterday) was predicted to slow down a bit this afternoon, before strengthening again for some days in a row.
And our next leg had to be across the Kvarner Gulf, which ain't that large but has a dreadful reputation with Bura, also because it makes a perfect beam sea with short waves. So, off we went, hoping that they got the short window right.
As it turned out, we were hoping in vain, and the sea was definitely worse than I expected, but the DP took it in her stride at 20+ kts.
No way to prepare drinks and snacks or have a shower while on the way, as the old lady would have allowed us, but a decent stability and smoothness overall.
In fact, I'm very much beginning to think that the concept of a stabilized P boat to get "the best of both words", cruising also at one digit speed, is a nonsense.
I mean, yeah, it might possibly work with large and heavy P boats, let's say 70' at the very least, 80+ better.
But other than that, I have a suggestion for those who are considering a sub-60' P boat and are thinking to use her often at D speed: think again.
P boats are, well, P boats. If you wish to make extended cruises comfortably and economically, buy a D boat - it's that simple.
The difference is day and night, and while the idea of all-trick pony is nice theoretically, it just doesn't work in practice.
I tried to slow down during the crossing, just for the sake of it, but the boat was thrown all over the place and became even hard to control.
Of course stabs would have improved a bit, but there's no way they could have made her anywhere near the "cut through water" attitude of a D boat.
Anyway, enough of technical digression. This thread is supposed to be about places, not boats.
And all is well what ends well: we are now anchored in dead calm waters, after going round the NE part of Unje, the almost desert island which is now kindly sheltering us to perfection.
Tomorrow we are thinking to launch and test also the tender, going around for a few pics.
In the meantime, here's our today's leg, which brought us exactly in the Google Maps spot that I linked at the beginning of this post...
Last edited:
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Not that I had reasons to complain about how the trip went so far, but only this evening we are beginning to enjoy the Croatian Archipelago the way God intended - which nicely matches what we had in mind, btw.
A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say. Taken just a few minutes ago...
...and if it doesn't remind you of the Lérins Islands during a weekend, it's because it isn't! 
A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say. Taken just a few minutes ago...
...and if it doesn't remind you of the Lérins Islands during a weekend, it's because it isn't!
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Yeah thats my abiding memory of Croatia. Some popular anchorages are crowded but if you get off the beaten path a bit you can always find a secluded anchorage even in high season. And because the coast generally faces west, the sunsets from many anchorages can be fabulous.
The Kvarner channel is a serious bit of water in a Bora wind. When we were in Novigrad, we saw a motorboat limp into port with a smashed windscreen and looking very sorry for itself. The German owner had thought he knew better than the weather forecast and crossed the channel in a heavy Bora. Actually the Bora is usually very well forecast in Croatia so there's no excuse for not being tied up to something concrete when it hits
AndieMac
Well-Known Member
Not that I had reasons to complain about how the trip went so far, but only this evening we are beginning to enjoy the Croatian Archipelago the way God intended - which nicely matches what we had in mind, btw.
A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say. Taken just a few minutes ago...
...and if it doesn't remind you of the Lérins Islands during a weekend, it's because it isn't!
Impressive pic P, all the essential ingredients, boat, moon, bird in flight and calm conditions.
The map links and chart info is really great as well, really adds another dimension to the report. Nice work skipper!
AndieMac
Well-Known Member
Just checking out the Novigrad port Mike, looks like it's been a lake with a causeway cut into the adjacent land. Would have been a well sheltered Marina, with plenty of nearby sheltered anchorages?
AndieMac
Well-Known Member
How are you going as far as fuel useage is concerned P, will you refill at Zadar or perhaps Split?
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Not sure youre looking at the right Novigrad! Novigrad literally means New Town in Croatian so there are a few places called Novigrad in Croatia. The Novigrad I'm referring to is in Istria and the marina is here http://nauticahotels.com/marina-2/
AndieMac
Well-Known Member
Yep, wrong Novigrad for sure, I thought your reference was to the area where MM was heading to, instead of where he had already past. I saw the Novigrad just east of Zadar. Should have known better, it's like the many Starigrads around HR and Tarbets on the west coast of Scotland
BartW
Well-Known Member
yes that is the one,
that town quay on Port side, is used for local transit boats, but is available for guests after 16h iirc (info is in the 999harbours ), just space for 2 or 3 boats, we made sure we were there right in time,
must have pics somewhere ...
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Good question. Next...?
One of the reason why we didn't mind rolling back the years to boats that burn fuel like there's no tomorrow is that in our typical usage, with plenty of nice anchorages round the corner from the marina, fuel is neither here nor there among boat ownership costs.
But boys, this summer the fuel bill is going to hurt! :ambivalence:
I filled up in the HR port of entry (Umag), because even if rather expensive at almost €1.4/liter, diesel is still a bit cheaper than in IT.
And since then, we only made some 70Nm.
Now, unfortunately (or luckily...) the engines aren't electronically controlled, so I have no real time indications and I can only go by experience - of which obviously I don't have enough yet. The first impression (but it's way too early to tell for sure) is that the builder curves, which are VERY good for a P boat of this size/weight, are not that far from the truth.
Which is something I would be more than happy to subscribe, since a friend of mine whose boat is powered by engines with exactly the same power but electronically controlled (Cat 3406), when he saw the curves of mine, asked me if they were meant as total or just one side...!
That said, burning 150 rather than 15 l/h does hurt, when you have more than a thousand miles to go!
In fact, the rule of thumb I'm using with these calculation is 3 times the speed, 10 times the fuel burn.
Ref. Zadar or Split, actually there's no need to reach the mainland to refill, because you can find fuel also in the major islands.
For instance, at the moment we are just a short hop away from Mali Losinj, which does have a fuel pump.
Anyway, by and large we should be able to make it down to Split with no refill in between.
But we'll see as we go - keeping a close eye on the sight gauges, of course...!
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Aicon 56, by chance?
I'm asking because we saw three of them during our search: one had a hairline crack in one of the glasses, and the second already had one replaced.
God only knows for how long the third was going to last...
Obviously a construction fault, at a guess due to excess flexing of the superstructure.
In fact, while I fully agree that Kvarner can be nasty, it's hard to imagine that poor chap taking a lot of green water over the bow, because it's rather a matter of short breaking waves, which definitely can shake the boat badly and make the crossing VERY unpleasant, but not the type of sea where it's easy to go submarine with the bow...
Unless they made it with storm force winds, but that would have been total madness!
MapisM
Well-Known Member
You're more than welcome to post them, B.
And the same goes for anyone else, of course! :encouragement:
AndieMac
Well-Known Member
......" this summer's fuel bill is going to hurt"... for sure it will, but the trade-off of lower maintenance, better galley lay-out for your lovely first mate's culinary delights and the need for speed when required will make it all worth while in the end.
Besides for the next month or Dalmation Coast segment, waiting for calm conditions and "pootling" in between the islands will go a long way to reducing the fuel bill.
It will be interesting to hear how the realtime fuel consumption works out over the length of the cruise.
Nothing has been mentioned about generator useage, how is this boat compared to last regarding internal heat, are you running the genset 24/7 for AC, for example?
Besides for the next month or Dalmation Coast segment, waiting for calm conditions and "pootling" in between the islands will go a long way to reducing the fuel bill.
It will be interesting to hear how the realtime fuel consumption works out over the length of the cruise.
Nothing has been mentioned about generator useage, how is this boat compared to last regarding internal heat, are you running the genset 24/7 for AC, for example?
AndieMac
Well-Known Member
MM, I've seen the answer to the question regarding consumption in your genset post
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Yup, that was the idea, together with a much better guests accommodation. I'm sure A & A will appreciate that!
Anyway, time will tell... I had 17 years to appreciate each and every pros of the old lady, but she did have her cons too, as any boat does.
Otoh, memory tends to forget them and to focus on the positive sides, over time...!
Ref. A/C, the thermal insulation is definitely much better with timber boats, and in fact we very rarely used it, with the old lady.
With the DP, we never used it during the trip so far, because believe it or not we never had temperatures above the low 20s.
But we did try it, also last year, during our stay in NE Italy, and it works much better (and silently) compared to the old lady, so hopefully that will compensate the need to run it a bit more frequently compared to timber boats.
These days, while anchored, we are running the genset anyway on a daily basis, usually after waking up in the morning and around dinner time, but that's just to avoid hurting the batteries too much, and recharge mobiles etc.
For cooking, we have gas hobs anyway - the connoisseur choice, if I may add!
But don't tell any Brit that I said this, they would think I'm mad...
...though the setup was approved also from Y insurance, so maybe also in the UK it's a more popular arrangement than it appears from this MoBo forum!