Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-13-2016, 07:06 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
stornoway7's Avatar
 
City: Hobart
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Theresa
Vessel Model: Cheoy Lee 66 LRMY
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 106
Add one more vote from me for the Watson 72 or even a 48 if I have to.
Wifey says something made by Boeing or Airbus for her.
Might even knock the Nordhavn 62 of it's perch,being steel and all that.
Tough choice.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1_big.jpg
Views:	154
Size:	69.2 KB
ID:	50696   Click image for larger version

Name:	seabird.jpg
Views:	314
Size:	80.0 KB
ID:	50697  
__________________
Advertisement

stornoway7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 07:29 AM   #22
Guru
 
menzies's Avatar
 
City: Jacksonville
Country: USA
Vessel Name: SONAS
Vessel Model: Grand Alaskan 53
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,200
Nordhavns of all sizes do these crossing frequently.
__________________

menzies is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 08:07 AM   #23
Guru
 
Capt.Bill11's Avatar
 
City: Sarasota/Ft. Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 5,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Catcher Jim View Post
What choice would you make if you were going to simply go wherever you wanted to go.

Would you pick steel or glass ?

Under 50 feet or larger ?

Fin stablizers or gyro type stablizers.

Talking long range and power
Looking forward to the replies
Jim

Steel

Larger, much.

Either. As long as the fins were of the active at anchor type at well.
Capt.Bill11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 09:55 AM   #24
Guru
 
MurrayM's Avatar
 
City: Kitimat, North Coast BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Badger
Vessel Model: 30' Sundowner Tug
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,321
I'd want something which allowed sneaking into shallow waters like smaller inlets, lagoons, rivers, or canals once having crossed an ocean.

Gerr's 50-foot (15.3 m) aluminum Sea Bright skiff ocean voyaging motorcruiser with 3,500 mile range that's beachable on a Sea Bright skiff box keel, with 4 foot 3 inch (1.3 m) draft would be near the top of my list;

IMPOSSIBLE DREAM
__________________
"The most interesting path between two points is not a straight line" Murray Minchin
MurrayM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 10:14 AM   #25
Guru
 
City: Fort Myers
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 954
Norhavn 60+ would certainly fit the bill (and proven many times) and my personal favorite is the Fleming.
Marlinmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 10:28 AM   #26
Guru
 
MurrayM's Avatar
 
City: Kitimat, North Coast BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Badger
Vessel Model: 30' Sundowner Tug
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurrayM View Post
I'd want something which allowed sneaking into shallow waters like smaller inlets, lagoons, rivers, or canals once having crossed an ocean.
Tad Robert's Passagemaker Lite 46 or 56 (with paravanes) would also be on my list;

"I've drawn Passagemaker Lite in lengths from 38' to 80' (11.6m to 24.4m), but let's focus on the PL 46 and 56. Common features for the boats include a forward pilothouse with an upper outside bridge aft over the main living area, which is low in the boat, with the cabin sole at approximately a foot (304.8mm) below the waterline, minimizing motion\u2014a welcome feature for the cook trying to work at sea. Another feature the boats have in common is the aft engineroom; there is no having to live around, or on top of, engines. The main machinery is completely isolated by a full-height watertight bulkhead. Fire, flood, noise, heat, and vibration all are kept apart from the living quarters. We rely on video equipment and alarm systems to continuously monitor the machinery. Access is down a ladder from the afterdeck, but a watertight door/window could be installed from the main saloon to the engine space.

Interior arrangements for the 46 and 56 include the single head and sleeping cabins forward. These accommodations are intended for a couple to live aboard long-term, with occasional guests or crew on board for passages. During a passage, the off-watch will sleep on the seat in the wheelhouse or in the saloon aft. Coastal cruising or at anchor, the owner\u2019s cabin forward provides privacy from guests sleeping aft.

The deck layout of these two boats is very similar, differing only in the size of particular areas. Boarding is from the stern, via a swim step and up a few stairs to the after well-deck. Here, there is seating on the engineroom trunk, which opens to provide full access to the engine area. You can change out or rebuild an engine or generator without disturbing the liveaboards. From the well-deck, there are stairs starboard up to the boat or bridge deck, and port down into the saloon. The boat deck stretches from rail to rail, with room to store a good-sized hard-bottom inflatable. At the forward end is a mast with boom to handle the dinghy, along with stabilizer poles port and starboard.

The bridge deck is forward of the boat-storage area on both the 46 and 56, and holds the outside controls, seating, and dining area, sheltered from the elements by a windshield and canvas soft top. The enclosing half walls have sliding gates port and starboard; access to the wheelhouse is down a sliding hatch to starboard. What's important about this setup is that the helmsman is only a couple of steps away from line handling when docking the boat. All the way forward is another well deck, this one for safety while handling ground tackle.

Moving the machinery aft shortens shaft runs and minimizes noise and vibration in the living areas of the boat. It also frees up space under the wheelhouse and saloon to place tankage directly over the center of flotation. This means trim changes little as the fuel burns and water gets consumed. Fuel and water loads are the largest single weight aboard these boats, so centralizing and keeping it low, again, reduces pitching and rolling moments.

Why twin engines? Unquestionably, a bigger engine with a single large-diameter propeller would be more efficient. But, a single large prop would mean more draft, even with a propeller pocket. The two here are in pockets behind substantial skegs, which will protect them and hold the ship upright when it takes the ground. In looking at moderately sized, serious offshore yachts, I note two, three, or even four engines aboard. Most owners of single-engine vessels opt for the security of a wing engine, with a generator or two for backup. I suggest that two small engines on Passagemaker Lite could serve as redundant propulsion systems, and be belted or coupled via PTO (power takeoff) to generators. Thus, these two (excluding the dinghy's outboard) would be the sole engines aboard.

The payoff for lighter displacement and a longer waterline is more speed with the same or less power. For example, the Nordhavn 46 crosses oceans at a speed/length ratio of about 1.2, which translates to 7.4 knots. The PL 46 design has a speed/length ratio of 1.2 and travels at 8 knots. And, for the PL 56, it is 8.8 knots. On a long voyage, such as the 2,200 nautical miles from southern California to Hawaii, this can make a difference of days. Two thousand two hundred miles at 7.4 knots is 297 hours, while at 8 knots it is 275 hours, and at 8.8 knots it is 250 hours. The PL 56 would take about two days less than the Nordhavn 46 on the same passage.

To obtain greater speed from the short and fat trawlers, builders are going to ever-larger engines. But, it's expensive to push long, high-displacement hulls fast. It is also true that as displacement/length ratios drop, speed/length can increase. Short heavy boats with a displacement/length of 350 will be limited to a speed/length ratio of about 1.4, maximum. My longer, lighter designs will run up to a speed/length ratio of 1.6 and beyond. This is possible with modest power; the PL 56 will achieve 12 knots with a pair of 105-hp engines; twin 150-hp engines push it up over 14 knots."

PassagemakerLite 56 fast, seaworthy, fuel-efficient long-range ocean cruiser ~ Power Boat Designs by Tad Roberts
__________________
"The most interesting path between two points is not a straight line" Murray Minchin
MurrayM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 11:00 AM   #27
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
When you get through discussing Watson and Dashew read Voyaging Under Power. Some vessels featured in this early "bible" of passagemaking are readily available but most are custom builds. There isa story about a more or less home made one-off FB hull made w/o a mould (Mona Mona). And the N46 is fully featured in this book.
Krogens, Seatons and numerous other passage makers are discussed along w most every other passage making issue.

Drooling over ultra top end stuff has it's lure but when back on earth passage makers range from 20' plywood to Watson like boats. No budget is required for drooling or forum discussion but if you're a doer like Matt in Oz there's much more to passagemaking than Watson and Dashew.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 11:08 AM   #28
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
Murray wrote;
"Why twin engines? Unquestionably, a bigger engine with a single large-diameter propeller would be more efficient."

I don't think it's "unquestionable" A case can be made for either but objectivity is scarce on this question. I'm just questioning the "unquestionable" position on this issue and wish no further comment or thread hijacking. There's lots in the archives but most is very slanted. My point is that IMO twin or single is probably not an issue or even close to a must have of either choice.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 12:15 PM   #29
Guru
 
healhustler's Avatar
 
City: Longboat Key, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bucky
Vessel Model: Krogen Manatee 36 North Sea
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
My point is that IMO twin or single is probably not an issue or even close to a must have of either choice.
Agree. I can think of numerous vessels I'd consider for the purpose but the number of engines are way down the list, perhaps not on the list. ..most likely because a center keel, skeg and protected prop is near the top and easier to find than twin keels and skegs. Exceptions exist, of course.
__________________
Larry

"I'd rather be happy than dignified".
healhustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 03:46 PM   #30
Guru
 
MurrayM's Avatar
 
City: Kitimat, North Coast BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Badger
Vessel Model: 30' Sundowner Tug
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Murray wrote;
"Why twin engines? Unquestionably, a bigger engine with a single large-diameter propeller would be more efficient."

I don't think it's "unquestionable" A case can be made for either but objectivity is scarce on this question. I'm just questioning the "unquestionable" position on this issue and wish no further comment or thread hijacking. There's lots in the archives but most is very slanted. My point is that IMO twin or single is probably not an issue or even close to a must have of either choice.
Hey, take it up with Tad...it's his quote

I quoted the text from Tad's article because I thought the points about his boats being half the weight and half the cost of a Nordhavn, using smaller engine(s) can get to Hawaii 2 days faster on much less fuel are worth consideration.
__________________
"The most interesting path between two points is not a straight line" Murray Minchin
MurrayM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 04:46 PM   #31
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
Murray I'm sorry,
So many words to read I flashed over the quote marks. Take it as a compliment. I'd be flattered if someone thought something I wrote was actually said by a NA .. especially TAD.

But to TAD's credit most existing twin engined trawlers are very much less efficient than single engined trawlers. But a twin engined boat of the same displacement and powered w the same amount of power (as in hp) w all other elements of design being about the same little if any difference will be found. That's my opinion but TAD's opinion carries MUCH more weight than mine. But real comparable boats are almost impossible to find.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 06:21 PM   #32
Guru
 
City: Hotel, CA
Country: Fried
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,328
Eric, go back to post 2 and click on the Watson 72 link. Then look for the 58' project they are working on and look up its propulsion options, Watson offers 3 options for all its boats. Option 3 is twin engines half the size of the single and they are showing as 60.5% efficient as opposed to the single being about 55% efficient.

I actually thought about our conversations last night while I was reading those specs.
__________________
Craig

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled - Mark Twain
CPseudonym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 07:43 PM   #33
Guru
 
Insequent's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Insequent
Vessel Model: Ocean Alexander 50 Mk I
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPseudonym View Post
Eric, go back to post 2 and click on the Watson 72 link. Then look for the 58' project they are working on and look up its propulsion options, Watson offers 3 options for all its boats. Option 3 is twin engines half the size of the single and they are showing as 60.5% efficient as opposed to the single being about 55% efficient.

I actually thought about our conversations last night while I was reading those specs.
Craig, you are suffering from 4'-itis. It is the W54 Project. But thanks for highlighting the article. Quite informative.

What I don't like about the W72 is the 3m draft. Hell, even with 1.5m draft I have found myself touching bottom in the south end of Moreton Bay the last couple of times I have been out. Now I know that the OP is talking about crossing oceans, but if you are in tropical waters at either end of the journey then a 3m draft just isn't going to cut it.
__________________
Brian
Insequent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 08:33 PM   #34
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
Craig,
Thank you much. The Watson site is very good reading, informative and about the most objective presentation of design and marketing from a single source.

It will take me more time to take away what's availible from the Watson site. I'll be interested to see if they use ballast and how much. And to read their thoughts on seaworthyness.

Thanks for pointing this out Craig as I may have missed it otherwise. I frequently pass over these guru-like sources that are most often full of self worship.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 09:12 PM   #35
Guru
 
City: Hotel, CA
Country: Fried
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,328
You're welcome Eric. I found it interesting that he would prefer a 6:1 transmission but cannot buy except slightly under 5:1 without the expense of custom built.

Sorry for the confusion there Brian, but what's 4 feet amongst friends?
__________________
Craig

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled - Mark Twain
CPseudonym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 11:44 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
City: Green Country
Country: US
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 111


Is there anyone who does engineering spaces better than Pacific Motor Yachts nee Watson? This one is of the 72..

This one the 48..



Having spent many years on ships with propulsion plants from HP steam to diesels, to gas turbines these are simply art. Well designed, noteworthy access, planned for maintenance and replacement as required.

It's clear they are building small ships vice some of the many alternatives.


PS - I think this may have be hashed over in a very similar thread several years ago. Not surprisingly, it appears to be reaching a similar conclusion.
MRRiley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2016, 12:23 AM   #37
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,134
Ok, I'm going to limit my answer here to trawler type boats and brands often discussed here. Fleming would be my first choice in the under 100' range. A Fleming 65 would be good, but a 78 better.

I'd consider something from the Cheoy Lee Serenity line to be worthy. The 68' or the 90'.

Nordhavn 78 or 86'.

I think of steel as the more logical material, but don't think of any particularly ocean transiting steel boats under 100'. I would want something proven so that eliminates boats like the larger Bering's and the Seahorse Super Duck.
BandB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2016, 12:52 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
City: Green Country
Country: US
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 111
You don't find the various Dashew FPB's particularly appealing in the range?

While a definitely niche design, they are certainly developing a significant user base with great reviews and of course the Dashew's have decades of ocean cruising experience to apply in their design process.

In my military mind, cost being no object, it would be tough to improve on their design philosophy and execution with Circa.

Here's the latest. I think this at 78ft is reaching the "no crew" limit personally.....









http://www.setsail.com/fpb-78-the-dream-machine-new/

The link for the whole story...
MRRiley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2016, 04:17 AM   #39
Guru
 
Rustybarge's Avatar
 
City: I need a bigger boat!
Country: Ireland
Vessel Model: Cheetah 25' Powercat.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRRiley View Post
You don't find the various Dashew FPB's particularly appealing in the range?

While a definitely niche design, they are certainly developing a significant user base with great reviews and of course the Dashew's have decades of ocean cruising experience to apply in their design process.

In my military mind, cost being no object, it would be tough to improve on their design philosophy and execution with Circa.

Here's the latest. I think this at 78ft is reaching the "no crew" limit personally.....









SetSail » Blog Archive » FPB 78: The Dream Machine

The link for the whole story...
I think the problem with the Dashew hull is that its a sailboat shape; fat in the middle and slim at both ends.....this of course produces massive pitching in a head sea as the hull rotates around the all that volume midships, and the thin bow/stern plunge up and down like a seesaw.....
__________________
Peter.
Rustybarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2016, 07:02 AM   #40
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,518
"I think the problem with the Dashew hull is that its a sailboat shape; fat in the middle and slim at both ends.....this of course produces massive pitching in a head sea as the hull rotates around the all that volume midships, and the thin bow/stern plunge up and down like a seesaw.."

Perhaps if the D boats were ferro cement , at 15lbs Sq Ft of hull

but with modern construction I believe they will simply rise up on the wave , not pitch into it.

Esp if moving fast.
__________________

FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012