Van der Valk 23M in build

[Yoeri]

Dear all,

I have made a few new pictures to show the progress that has been made last week.

The casco builders are working on the bow part and the stern part of the ship at this moment.
On a few pictures you can already see the entrance stairs from the bathingplatform to the cockpit take shape.

Yoeri

 

[erik_plus8]

Truly fascinating! Thanks!

 

[wakeup]

Are there no bulkheads required in this hull for structural integrity or are they added last?

 

[rafiki_]

Are there no bulkheads required in this hull for structural integrity or are they added last?

When this post was started, Yeori stated that one of the advantages of the aluminium build was that bulkheads are not needed, giving much more scope for customisation for the owner.

 

[wakeup]

When this post was started, Yeori stated that one of the advantages of the aluminium build was that bulkheads are not needed, giving much more scope for customisation for the owner.

OK, I must keep up at the back.

 

[MapisM]

Yeori stated that one of the advantages of the aluminium build was that bulkheads are not needed

I believe he said that b/heads position is not fixed, rather than completely unnecessary.
Who would want a boat with no w/tight compartments at all, anyway?

 

[wakeup]

I believe he said that b/heads position is not fixed, rather than completely unnecessary.
Who would want a boat with no w/tight compartments at all, anyway?

That is why I queried it.

 

[rafiki_]

That is why I queried it.

Check post no 1 on this thread, there is a note on bulkheads.

 

[wakeup]

Check post no 1 on this thread, there is a note on bulkheads.

OK I am a dumbass.

 

[rafiki_]

OK I am a dumbass.

Not at all. With long threads like this, if I miss the start, then I go straight to the last page. I guess you did the same. Life is too short for anything else

 

[Yoeri]

Dear all,

Rafiki, you are right indeed. Fixed bulkheads are not necessary.
Keep in mind the assembled interior will always operate as reinforcement.

But there are always at least 2 bulkheads present:

- Anchor storage area
- To seperate the engineroom from the rest of the lowerdeck (rather more for isolation reasons than anything else)

For the remainder solid reinforcements/bulkheads are not necessary because the hull and superstructure are already stiff enough.

Yoeri

 

[MapisM]

But there are always at least 2 bulkheads present:
- Anchor storage area
- To seperate the engineroom from the rest of the lowerdeck (rather more for isolation reasons than anything else)

Do you mean that a boat like this could have only two w/tight compartments?
Without even a bulhkead between the stern section and the e/r?
Here goes VdV off my short list...

PS: I'm not considering the anchor locker 'cause I can imagine it's not big enough to deserve to be called a w/tight compartment.
It might even be completely above the w/line, I suppose?

 

[Yoeri]

Do you mean that a boat like this could have only two w/tight compartments?
Without even a bulhkead between the stern section and the e/r?
Here goes VdV off my short list...

PS: I'm not considering the anchor locker 'cause I can imagine it's not big enough to deserve to be called a w/tight compartment.
It might even be completely above the w/line, I suppose?

Haha, i mean it in the following way MapisM :

I have uploaded a better example:

For instance:
You can see the structural bulhead that are fixed (which are the most left one near the machine room and the one near the anchor storage).
You can also see 3 more red lines which are bulkheads made regarding this particular layout (not specificly necessary) but regarding this layout we were able to make them so we did.

And indeed, the lower (most underwater part) of the ship is used by the fuel/fresh water / black water tanks (almost over the complete lenght of the ship) which are divided in several w/tight compartments. Where the floor of the lower deck starts close to the waterline.

Yoeri

 

[MapisM]

Haha, i mean it in the following way MapisM

Aha, thanks for the clarification.
I mentioned the stern section of the boat 'cause I didn't think of IPS, with the consequent E/R placement fully astern.
Which unfortunately means that an unrecoverable water ingress in the E/R would sink the boat anyway, right?
Besides, I suppose that also in the layout you posted there are only two fully w/tight compartment: the E/R and the rest of the boat (the anchor locker being actually a third w/tight compartment, but not really meaningful).
Or are you fitting w/tight doors in all the internal bulkheads shown with the red lines?
That would be a very nice feature, but I've not seen it on many pleasure boats.

PS: from the drawing, it looks like the E/R is only accessible through the master cabin and its bathroom, which seems weird.
No entrance from anywhere else?

 

[Yoeri]

Hi MapisM,

You are right!
Lowest part of the ship is always the IPS drive which will break of during a massive collision / crash and leave the foundation on the ship. This ensures that there is at least the ship will not make any water.

You are also right about the second thing: There are indeed 3 w/tight compartments in most of our ships (if you wish more, you can obtain more of them). We do not fit a watertight door in the midpart of the ship (only the inside machineroom door) but it can easily be done ofcoures You have a very good point! Definately something to discuss!


Yoeri

Ps. E/R is accesessible through a large hydraulic hatch on the bathing platform which can also be used to get a tender inside

 

[MapisM]

IPS drive which will break of during a massive collision / crash and leave the foundation on the ship. This ensures that there is at least the ship will not make any water.

Yeah, I know that this is VP theory.
But you'll forgive me if I'd trust more some properly sized w/tight compartments, rather than take VP word for it...
...also because there are pics around the web of lower IPS ripped off, which actually left wide holes behind them.

 

[Yoeri]

Dear MapisM,

You are right about this!
It totally depends on the local strength ofcourse and naturally the total force of the collision. This naturally varies from situation to situation.

Yoeri

 

[rafiki_]

I would guess that the alu hull would be better in IPS collision than GRP, as alu will flex, not shatter?

 

[wakeup]

I would guess that the alu hull would be better in IPS collision than GRP, as alu will flex, not shatter?

That is a bit of an assumption. It surely depends upon many factors of thickness and lay up of grp vs the thickness of the alu hull and the fitting of the ips to the hull. This should be very stiff here otherwise the ips units will flex the hull when being driven wot. One could also assume that aluminium could tear around the IPS fitting and create just as big a whole if the engineers haven't got their sums right. I would argue that this is not any safer than GRP, perhaps the alu hull is easier to pierce in a grounding than grp for the same hull thickness?

 

[henryf]

Lots of interesting things so far and posted up some wonderful photos.

Slightly off topic. I have to ask about the picture in your profile. A facelift GT3 cup car by the look of things.

Henry