Van der Valk 23M in build

[Yoeri]

Goodmorning all,

First of all, sorry for the radio silence of the last time! The past week was very busy with a number of deliveries and shows.

The Van der Valk 23M has just returned from our spray booth. Probably I have already mentioned that the hull color will be gold. The owner has decided to leave a part of the bulwarks white.

For this reason the ship initially is completely sprayed in white. In the next two weeks the hull will undergo her final painting process to gold metallic and some final details (inside spraying of the fender storages for instance).
In the meantime, we have started the preparation of the initial installation and plumbing.

I have added a series of photo's of the process so far.

Fender storages

Preparations of the initial installation and plumbing

Yoeri

 

[Imperial One]

I was on this boat last weekend - the owner has had an extra 1m added to the beam so the interior volume is simply huge. Now the paint is on them, the curves are amazing up close and as the final colour has been decided on, I suspect it will be quite a head turner when finished.
Happy Easter one and all and to those of you putting the boats in the water this weekend, have fun and keep warm!

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I was on this boat last weekend - the owner has had an extra 1m added to the beam so the interior volume is simply huge.

Mmm, you make it sound very easy. Did VdV's naval architect have an input into that? Was it tank tested prior to build as most new hulls are? Can you just add 1m to the beam of a boat without affecting other stuff like trim and power requirement

 

[Yoeri]

@Imperial One: The hull was not increased with 1m but with 60cm Mike

You are absolutely right Deleted User. It all seems very easy, but it is not.

I've just spoken our naval architect, these are a few of his words:
It is not just stretching / widen the 3D model of the hull in proportion to the intended beam. A whole new underwater hull is designed and calculated for this type of ship.

And yes, it will affect the stability (positive), weight, speed, tank volume and location etc. Also the deadrise angle is slightly more moderate.
Minimum motorization for this particular extra wide hull is 3x Volvo Penta IPS-1050, unlike a regular 23M (which has a 5.60m beam) wherein 3x Volvo Penta IPS 800 sufficient is (obviously conventional propulsion from any manufacturer is possible).

Yoeri

 

[acbruce]

It is very interesting to compare this thread with JFMs. What has become clear is how much slower the build process is at VdV. This thread started with pics of some aluminium in August 2012 and we are now at the painting stage with a vast amount of interior fit to do. By contrast JFMs thread started in October 2012 and his boat is very nearly complete / being delivered.

Is there a delivery date for this boat? What is the total time from signing a contract to receiving the boat, assuming no queuing issues?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

It is very interesting to compare this thread with JFMs. What has become clear is how much slower the build process is at VdV. This thread started with pics of some aluminium in August 2012 and we are now at the painting stage with a vast amount of interior fit to do. By contrast JFMs thread started in October 2012 and his boat is very nearly complete / being delivered.

I guess thats why the vast majority of production builders make their boats out of grp rather than aluminium and I guess that's reflected in a lower build cost. Having said that, the VdV production process does seem inordinately slow. Perhaps Yoeri could tell us whether this sort of build time is typical for VdV and aluminium boats in general or whether there have been delays in the production process

 

[Yoeri]

Hi acbruce,

You are right! I watch JFM's thread too with all respect and satisfaction! Wonderful to see! And just what you say, they make a lot of progress in short time!

With our construction method the hull construction and painting process are the most labor intensive. For these we need about 5/6 months.

Generally the installation, plumbing and carpentry go much faster!

Usually we can build a regular CII 23 meter (beam of 5.60m) in approximately 11 to 13 months (from deposit to delivery). The widebody version takes a bit longer.
Unfortunately, in this project there already is a delay which is related to additional needs (extraordinary interior design, shape of the bulwarks, hardtop, etc.) that the owner wanted to implement during the construction period.

The expected completion in August.

Yoeri


Edit:
Thanks for mentioning Mike. I think my reply partly answers your question too. Production of aluminium hull is much more labor-entensive and requires many hours. However, in this case, the ship should have been fully painted and ready for installation and interior work at the end of February (as expected). Unfortunately, the owner was unable to make his final decision about the hull colour which caused a 4 week delay (together with some special requests of the owner).

Yoeri

 

[Imperial One]

Sorry Yoeri - my mistake, it was only 60cm wider put it down to my age!
I was getting confused with the other boat under contract discussion where the owner had asked for an extra 1m on the wheelhouse length.

 

[MapisM]

I've just spoken our naval architect, these are a few of his words:
It is not just stretching / widen the 3D model of the hull in proportion to the intended beam. A whole new underwater hull is designed and calculated for this type of ship.

And yes, it will affect the stability (positive), weight, speed, tank volume and location etc. Also the deadrise angle is slightly more moderate.
Minimum motorization for this particular extra wide hull is 3x Volvo Penta IPS-1050, unlike a regular 23M (which has a 5.60m beam) wherein 3x Volvo Penta IPS 800 sufficient is (obviously conventional propulsion from any manufacturer is possible).

Wow, 33% more power (2400 vs. 1800 HPs) for a 10% wider hull?
That's a massive difference. Or did the client require also a somewhat higher speed?

I would be very curious to hear how the 6.2 vs. 5.6 beam affects also the stabilisers choice.
It surely does, but how much? And in which manner? Just the fins, or also different equipment?

As an aside, I'm surprised to hear that IPS is so popular among your clients.
I would have thought that most people interested in alu custom boats wouldn't want to touch IPS with a barge pole, but obviously each to their own...!

 

[MapisM]

Production of aluminium hull is much more labor-entensive and requires many hours.

LOL, why don't you try timber construction instead?
You could ask Vas for some suggestions on how to streamline the build process...

 

[PCUK]

I guess the extra time taken is the difference between a production line clone and a hand built yacht.

 

[Yoeri]

Wow, 33% more power (2400 vs. 1800 HPs) for a 10% wider hull?
That's a massive difference. Or did the client require also a somewhat higher speed?

I would be very curious to hear how the 6.2 vs. 5.6 beam affects also the stabilisers choice.
It surely does, but how much? And in which manner? Just the fins, or also different equipment?

As an aside, I'm surprised to hear that IPS is so popular among your clients.
I would have thought that most people interested in alu custom boats wouldn't want to touch IPS with a barge pole, but obviously each to their own...!

Hi MapisM,
Miniumum engine power
In fact it would be possible with a triple IPS-800 stack according to Volvo. However, then this type of hull would have a speed of less than 20 knots. You can see it as a quick displacer. 3 IPS-900 engines would not be possible because the ship is too heavy for these engines to reach the minimum required revs.

Stabilizing
This hull is wider and will inherently provide a more stable and calmer behavior. In this case the widebody hull will be fitted with a GYRO system where the weight has the main issue. In case fin-stabilisation (which is also possible) would be implemented, the extra weight will also lead to larger fins. I'll ask our naval architect, if he has some more information about the overall stabilization in comparison with the regular 5.6m hull.

In case our considers zero speed stabilization we implement almost only GYRO's because generally external zero-speed fins are considerably larger than standard underway fins as they must actively move large volumes of water to stabilize the vessel the hydraulic power required to move the fins is much greater than the electrical power to spin the GYRO. These oversized external appendages result in significantly more drag and must be compensated by increasing engine horsepower or acceptance of a slower speed. Moreover, external fins negatively affect fuel efficiency due to the additional drag and there is a risk of cavitation at higher speeds.


IPS
Many of our clients are almost immediately convinced when they have made ​​a sea trial. Generally they are very pleased with the ease of use of the whole system, interesting fuel consumption, rapid acceleration and low noise.
But I can honestly say that we have been regularly quoting with MTU and CAT lately.

LOL, why don't you try timber construction instead?
You could ask Vas for some suggestions on how to streamline the build process...

True, MapisM! I typed my reply again to quickly.
During construction, the building of an aluminium hull and painting it is very labor intensive. Of course, in the making of the mold (behind the scenes) in advance for a fiberglass hull was most of the work.
I can say that for us to build the aluminium hull + painting represents about 50% of the entire construction period.


And indeed PCUK, customisation brings a lot of extra work (every component is fitted piece by piece).


Yoeri

 

[MapisM]

I'll ask our naval architect, if he has some more information about the overall stabilization in comparison with the regular 5.6m hull.

Thanks in advance, that'll be interesting!

In case our considers zero speed stabilization we implement almost only GYRO's because generally external zero-speed fins are considerably larger than standard underway fins as they must actively move large volumes of water to stabilize the vessel the hydraulic power required to move the fins is much greater than the electrical power to spin the GYRO. These oversized external appendages result in significantly more drag and must be compensated by increasing engine horsepower or acceptance of a slower speed. Moreover, external fins negatively affect fuel efficiency due to the additional drag and there is a risk of cavitation at higher speeds.

Funny you mention it, because I've always thought that gyros are a very good compromise, for anything afloat capable of 20+ knots cruise speed.
I reckon that fins are getting increasingly popular also in the 24m/30kts boats segment, though.
Could you give us any numbers on the differences you mention? I mean, like speed loss/fuel burn increase, for any given power?
I'm sure also others would be interested to hear more about that.

 

[Yoeri]

Funny you mention it, because I've always thought that gyros are a very good compromise, for anything afloat capable of 20+ knots cruise speed.
I reckon that fins are getting increasingly popular also in the 24m/30kts boats segment, though.
Could you give us any numbers on the differences you mention? I mean, like speed loss/fuel burn increase, for any given power?
I'm sure also others would be interested to hear more about that.

I must admit that we have started working with zero-speed stabilization about 2 years ago. Simply because there was almost no demand for it before. Now almost all our clients want a zero speed stabilization.

Last year we have delivered a Continental II 23.00 x 5.60 (powered by 3x IPS-1050) which had zero-speed fins. When the fins were not mounted she reached a top speed of approx. 29/30 knots. After mounting the zero-speed fins her top speed was reduced to approx 26/26.5 knots. In this case the fins resulted in a top speed decrease of approx. 3 knots. This may also have to deal (for a small part) with the fact that IPS probably slightly more sensitive to a disturbed inflow.

I do not have exact numbers of the extra fuel consumption but when her top speed drops with approx. 3 knots this means her efficiency drops with about 10%.

Ever since, the preference of most of our customers is a GYRO. But since we have delivered only 1 ship with zero-speed fins I (personally) find it difficult to judge (with only 1 reference which in our case was slightly negative).

But for now our main reasons for a GYRO would be:

- No moving parts fitted to the hull (which could cause cavitation)
- No speed loss
- No loss of fuel
- Does not effect on the inflow for the props
- No danger while swimming close to the ship
- No noise of hydraulics.
- Low power consumption (GYRO can even run on battery pack with inverter) (GYRO consumes about 1.5 kW and zero-speed fins sometimes 20-30kW depending on the size)
- Less maintenance


Yoeri

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I must admit that we have started working with zero-speed stabilization about 2 years ago. Simply because there was almost no demand for it before. Now almost all our clients want a zero speed stabilization.

Last year we have delivered a Continental II 23.00 x 5.60 (powered by 3x IPS-1050) which had zero-speed fins. When the fins were not mounted she reached a top speed of approx. 29/30 knots. After mounting the zero-speed fins her top speed was reduced to approx 26/26.5 knots. In this case the fins resulted in a top speed decrease of approx. 3 knots. This may also have to deal (for a small part) with the fact that IPS probably slightly more sensitive to a disturbed inflow.

I do not have exact numbers of the extra fuel consumption but when her top speed drops with approx. 3 knots this means her efficiency drops with about 10%.

Ever since, the preference of most of our customers is a GYRO. But since we have delivered only 1 ship with zero-speed fins I (personally) find it difficult to judge (with only 1 reference which in our case was slightly negative).

But for now our main reasons for a GYRO would be:

- No moving parts fitted to the hull (which could cause cavitation)
- No speed loss
- No loss of fuel
- Does not effect on the inflow for the props
- No danger while swimming close to the ship
- No noise of hydraulics.
- Low power consumption (GYRO can even run on battery pack with inverter) (GYRO consumes about 1.5 kW and zero-speed fins sometimes 20-30kW depending on the size)
- Less maintenance


Yoeri

Thats all interesting stuff although I think somebody might be taking issue with you shortly on the relative power consumption! When VdV fits stabilizers how do the fins compare to the gyros on cost?

 

[Yoeri]

Hi Deleted User,

Agree with you. I've just been told 20 - 30kW hydraulic power, but have just checked what type op Power Pack was used and it appeared to be a 12kW power pack for the regular CII 23.00 x 5.60.

Price-wise the differences are roughly: €120.000 for the zero-speed fins and €225.000 for the GYRO (for a ship with a displacement of let's say approx 50/60 tons). For boats up to 35 tons is a small GYRO available for about €95.000 I believe.

Yoeri

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Hi Deleted User,

Agree with you. I've just been told 20 - 30kW hydraulic power, but have just checked what type op Power Pack was used and it appeared to be a 12kW power pack for the regular CII 23.00 x 5.60.

Price-wise the differences are roughly: €120.000 for the zero-speed fins and €225.000 for the GYRO (for a ship with a displacement of let's say approx 50/60 tons). For boats up to 35 tons is a small GYRO available for about €95.000 I believe.

Yoeri

Sort of confirms what I was thinking already in that gyros seem to be nearly twice as expensive as fins. Whilst this may not be a factor on large boats, its certainly a consideration on smaller ones although I hear what you say about the fuel penalty

 

[Nick_H]

Sort of confirms what I was thinking already in that gyros seem to be nearly twice as expensive as fins. Whilst this may not be a factor on large boats, its certainly a consideration on smaller ones although I hear what you say about the fuel penalty

I don't think it's that simple Mike. A gyro for your boat would be about £50k to buy and £10k to retrofit, and hydraulic zero speed fins wouldn't be any less, though I don't know pricing on the electric type. As you go bigger though, gyro cost rises at least proportionately to boat weight, but fins seem to scale up at lower cost, so the bigger the boat, the greater the saving by using fins.

 

[Imperial One]

There is now another player in the stabiliser market as well.
If you look in MBY this month Dave Marsh has an article about Rotor Swing Stabilisers and how effective these are. I have seen them in Holland recently and have to say that they do seem very good. there is a video on their website which is quite amazing where they induce a roll on a Linssen and then turn it off by switching the system on to rotate the correct way. I spoke to the distributor and when you know who it is that designed them and which company he owned before you understand the pedigree. I know that they are fitted to Roman Abramovitchs current yacht and they have been most successful.
Incidentally, Dave Marsh has now "retired" from MBY although I believe he will be doing the testing times column and the odd boat report for them. I am surprised that it has not been mentioned on the forum already but then again maybe I have missed it!

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I don't think it's that simple Mike. A gyro for your boat would be about £50k to buy and £10k to retrofit, and hydraulic zero speed fins wouldn't be any less, though I don't know pricing on the electric type. As you go bigger though, gyro cost rises at least proportionately to boat weight, but fins seem to scale up at lower cost, so the bigger the boat, the greater the saving by using fins.

Thanks. Its interesting to watch the market develop at the moment with new entrants in the form of electrically powered stabilisers and the rotating stabilisers featured in this months MBY. It seems like the market has woken up to the fact that we're probably all going to be going slower in the future!