Interesting boats

[long-cours.62]

On the Australian Navy website you can find a resume of the life of this cat :
lot of problem all her life.
May be it is why she was decommissioned after only 13 year ?

 

[garbler]

In the early 90’s thru 1999 the USN built the Osprey class of Minehunters at about 185’ LOA. These were pretty radical designs and the first all fiberglass ship ever constructed by the Navy. Very difficult to manage weight as fiberglass is much heavier material to work with especially built to USN scantlings. When launched they were overweight by a substantial margin. Overall the ships were a disaster and by 2005-2006 were decom’d and sold to, guess who, China. It’s their problem now.

I was aboard several in Ingleside, Texas and one in Bahrain both were broke down mechanically. Like the Australian minehunter, which by the way, used many of our engineering data, all big machinery including propulsion, house and sweep gensets are isolated from the hull skin and hung from a tricked out deck mold. The theory being to reduce acoustic signature. The engines were housed in pods all made by the Italian firm of Isotta Fraschini and coupled to Voith-Schneider cycloidal drives. Even the most elementary mechanical tasks turned out to be giant time consuming nightmare as these fiberglass pods had to be disassembled to gain access. I understand the cycloidal drives worked great allowing these ships to turn around almost in their own length. You won’t hear much about the Osprey class as the Naval Sea Systems Command worked overtime sweeping it under the budget rugs.

Rick

 

[Northern Spy]

In the early 90’s thru 1999 the USN built the Osprey class of Minehunters at about 185’ LOA. These were pretty radical designs and the first all fiberglass ship ever constructed by the Navy. Very difficult to manage weight as fiberglass is much heavier material to work with especially built to USN scantlings. When launched they were overweight by a substantial margin. Overall the ships were a disaster and by 2005-2006 were decom’d and sold to, guess who, China. It’s their problem now.



I was aboard several in Ingleside, Texas and one in Bahrain both were broke down mechanically. Like the Australian minehunter, which by the way, used many of our engineering data, all big machinery including propulsion, house and sweep gensets are isolated from the hull skin and hung from a tricked out deck mold. The theory being to reduce acoustic signature. The engines were housed in pods all made by the Italian firm of Isotta Fraschini and coupled to Voith-Schneider cycloidal drives. Even the most elementary mechanical tasks turned out to be giant time consuming nightmare as these fiberglass pods had to be disassembled to gain access. I understand the cycloidal drives worked great allowing these ships to turn around almost in their own length. You won’t hear much about the Osprey class as the Naval Sea Systems Command worked overtime sweeping it under the budget rugs.



Rick

I briefly worked on one in Sasebo in the mid 90s. The crew complained about the cramped accommodations. As a submariner, I thought they were pretty spacious. They did incorporate some of the same acoustic dampening of piping systems that subs had.

 

[garbler]

I briefly worked on one in Sasebo in the mid 90s. The crew complained about the cramped accommodations. As a submariner, I thought they were pretty spacious. They did incorporate some of the same acoustic dampening of piping systems that subs had.

As a submariner you would think that way. I was in Sasebo several times in the early 90’s. SUPSHIP and NAVSEA hired me to put together a big repair on the USS Patriot MCM 7. She hit a ledge snooping around N Korea and was taking on quite a bit of water had three compartments shut off. Went in to Sasebo for a look see with divers but it was too big a job for their shipyard so she came in to Yokosuka and I was there overseeing repairs for 4 1/2 months. I liked Japan, the food and my Japanese Ship Repair shop crew.

Rick

 

[BruceK]

Just because it`s pretty, and it`s made of rare Huon Pine timber found only in Tasmania state. It`s is illegal to cut down a Huon Pine tree, timber can come from salvage, storage, or reclaimed from underwater where it will not degrade.

https://www.boatsonline.com.au/boats-for-sale/used/skiffs-dinghies-tinnies-inflatables/custom/274710

 

[Hippocampus]

It’s beautiful. I have a CF sliding seat Whitehall that I thought was pretty but it doesn’t hold a candle to that gem

 

[Kit_L]

This boat in down from me on A finger, in the Shellharbour Marina:

And all her details are here:

https://www.yatcoboss.com/forsale/p...c-eb01-4ff6-ac93-4ad1720a3da1&VesselId=302142

The new owner, Brett, brought her back from New York recently on her own bottom, arriving about two weeks ago, from what I hear. I keep going over to the boat, hoping to meet, but no luck yet.

For me, the ultimate vessel: luxury, toughness, redundancy, and efficiency. Nothing not to like, apart from her price.

 

[Art]

Good range. Seams it might develop handling trouble in big following sea.

 

[Kit_L]

All the owners of the 15 FPBs that have been built report no problems in following seas—these vessels instead surf down the waves under these conditions and have increased SOG significantly as a result. Steve Dashew has a number of very entertaining videos on this very subject. I would have to say though, Art, the first time it happens must be pretty exciting!

 

[Mako]

That stern platform looks like it was an add-on - I would be surprised if the naval architect designed it like that from the drawing board.

 

[Kit_L]

According to the details of the ad I linked to, it is an add-on (bolt-on, apparently)—one that increases efficiency (8%, they say) and reduces pitching and technically does not count on the LOA. Our boat code inspectors here would 'beg to differ' I'm sure.

 

[Mako]

If it increases the waterline length without adding significant weight, then it does increase the efficiency at the same speed.

Regarding to pitching, I'm not so sure. The NA would have optimized the design - he would not have designed in with inefficiencies and handling issues. Adding too much added buoyancy aft could actually increase hobby-horsing if not done right, especially in following seas.

It certainly adds a huge leverage arm for breaking waves to impact against.

Aesthetics is another matter. Good thing is that it is bolted on, so you could go to sea, unbolt it, and donate it to the fishes as an artificial reef.

 

[twistedtree]

To me, these boats have their priorities all backwards, heavily optimized for the <5% time at sea that even the most traveled boats spend, and heavily compromised for the >95% time at anchor, coastal cruising, and in port.


The sailboat hull and lightweight build definitely gives improved speed and much better fuel economy and subsequent range. That's very attractive. But in nearly every other way, I would make different choices on the boat.


I have never understood the "great room" design, especially considering the boat's mission of ocean crossing. For any night operation, it seems essential to me that the piloting location be separate from the living spaces. This is why we have pilot houses, so they can be kept dark at night without plunging the whole boat into darkness. The great room seems more suited for a coastal cruising boat that seldom sees night operation.


A master stateroom on a 65' boat that doesn't have a separate head? Really? The sink is in the stateroom, and you step directly from the stateroom into/out of the shower? Thankfully there is a separate toilet room. And the guest bathroom is a wet head? I would expect dry heads in anything over about 40'.


The staterooms are all dark, with at most one overhead hatch. It's living in the cave of a sailboat. Add some port lights.


It looks like the only way to board the boat comfortably e.g. at a floating dock level is on the extension platform. It looks like anywhere else you will need a ladder or steps. This is why trawlers have companionways and boarding gates.


I can tell you first hand that these boats are very rolly with a round hull, shallow draft, and no keel. I helped Steve Dashew reposition Cochese and he made a maneuvering turn at slow speed and the boat rolled enough to dump a bunch of stuff off the galley counter.


And I see desks in the middle of hall ways, etc. etc.


If it were Water World and we lived our lives circling the seas, I would get it, but for how most everyone uses a boat, it seems backwards. Pleasure power boats have evolved from sailboats over the past 50 years, and this seems like watching that movie all over again.

 

[Rickized]

Dashews web site. https://setsail.com
The boats are incredible, read Steves bio. Steve is a speed junky, and all of His boats surf straight as an arrow. Read about Beowoulf. We sea trailed Wind Horse, every sea state and direction was great. Had hull 2 (FPB 64) under contract for a build, still unhappy about not following through.
Rick

 

[mvweebles]

To me, these boats have their priorities all backwards, heavily optimized for the <5% time at sea that even the most traveled boats spend, and heavily compromised for the >95% time at anchor, coastal cruising, and in port.


The sailboat hull and lightweight build definitely gives improved speed and much better fuel economy and subsequent range. That's very attractive. But in nearly every other way, I would make different choices on the boat.


I have never understood the "great room" design, especially considering the boat's mission of ocean crossing. For any night operation, it seems essential to me that the piloting location be separate from the living spaces. This is why we have pilot houses, so they can be kept dark at night without plunging the whole boat into darkness. The great room seems more suited for a coastal cruising boat that seldom sees night operation.


A master stateroom on a 65' boat that doesn't have a separate head? Really? The sink is in the stateroom, and you step directly from the stateroom into/out of the shower? Thankfully there is a separate toilet room. And the guest bathroom is a wet head? I would expect dry heads in anything over about 40'.


The staterooms are all dark, with at most one overhead hatch. It's living in the cave of a sailboat. Add some port lights.


It looks like the only way to board the boat comfortably e.g. at a floating dock level is on the extension platform. It looks like anywhere else you will need a ladder or steps. This is why trawlers have companionways and boarding gates.


I can tell you first hand that these boats are very rolly with a round hull, shallow draft, and no keel. I helped Steve Dashew reposition Cochese and he made a maneuvering turn at slow speed and the boat rolled enough to dump a bunch of stuff off the galley counter.


And I see desks in the middle of hall ways, etc. etc.


If it were Water World and we lived our lives circling the seas, I would get it, but for how most everyone uses a boat, it seems backwards. Pleasure power boats have evolved from sailboats over the past 50 years, and this seems like watching that movie all over again.

This is an incredibly insightful post and brings up points I had never considered from the bleachers. While I'm not a big boat guy, I have always admired the utility and brute force of the FPB series. But I had never considered some of these attributes - comments on Great Room are particularly good.

Thanks TT. I learn a lot from your contributions.

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

I think some of those limitations are part of why they didn't exactly build a lot of FPBs. They're definitely optimized for the use case of wanting to go everywhere and probably not staying in one place for long periods.

 

[Art]

According to the details of the ad I linked to, it is an add-on (bolt-on, apparently)—one that increases efficiency (8%, they say) and reduces pitching and technically does not count on the LOA. Our boat code inspectors here would 'beg to differ' I'm sure.

Your post made me revisit the ad and look closely into photos at ad bottom.

https://www.yatcoboss.com/forsale/p...c-eb01-4ff6-ac93-4ad1720a3da1&VesselId=302142

I found that looking at the following list of photos the stern "extension" does not look "bolted on"... but rather quite permanently affixed. Item that seems odd is placement of rudder?? The rudder seems to come out from under the extension area. Makes me wonder two items. 1. When extension was placed did they move the rudder too far away from prop's waterflow. At slow speeds that might constrict maneuverability and at higher speeds interfere with boat heading-control in rough seas. 1. Prior to extension placement was the rudder darn near touching the prop? Per the "layout" drawings... it does appear the stern extension was not originally planned for by the NA.

Photos:

fpb-64-42
fpb-64-43
fpb-64-55
fpb-64-60
fpb-64-62

And
fpb-64-Layout-2
fpb-64-Layoout-3

 

[hollywood8118]

To me, these boats have their priorities all backwards, heavily optimized for the <5% time at sea that even the most traveled boats spend, and heavily compromised for the >95% time at anchor, coastal cruising, and in port.


The sailboat hull and lightweight build definitely gives improved speed and much better fuel economy and subsequent range. That's very attractive. But in nearly every other way, I would make different choices on the boat.


I have never understood the "great room" design, especially considering the boat's mission of ocean crossing. For any night operation, it seems essential to me that the piloting location be separate from the living spaces. This is why we have pilot houses, so they can be kept dark at night without plunging the whole boat into darkness. The great room seems more suited for a coastal cruising boat that seldom sees night operation.


A master stateroom on a 65' boat that doesn't have a separate head? Really? The sink is in the stateroom, and you step directly from the stateroom into/out of the shower? Thankfully there is a separate toilet room. And the guest bathroom is a wet head? I would expect dry heads in anything over about 40'.


The staterooms are all dark, with at most one overhead hatch. It's living in the cave of a sailboat. Add some port lights.


It looks like the only way to board the boat comfortably e.g. at a floating dock level is on the extension platform. It looks like anywhere else you will need a ladder or steps. This is why trawlers have companionways and boarding gates.


I can tell you first hand that these boats are very rolly with a round hull, shallow draft, and no keel. I helped Steve Dashew reposition Cochese and he made a maneuvering turn at slow speed and the boat rolled enough to dump a bunch of stuff off the galley counter.


And I see desks in the middle of hall ways, etc. etc.


If it were Water World and we lived our lives circling the seas, I would get it, but for how most everyone uses a boat, it seems backwards. Pleasure power boats have evolved from sailboats over the past 50 years, and this seems like watching that movie all over again.

TT,
Excellent post!
There is a cool ,military destroyer factor to the FPB boats but TT has pointed out exactly some of my sentiments which I have posted before

( and got crapped on for) He is a informed owner of a traditional passage making trawler and can see the misgivings of the FPB style.

If a couple just wants to blast around the world they could make some sense, but I totally agree with TT on the negative open concept of the saloon and the cave aspect of the rest.
Often times designers step out and try something out of the conventional to fill a specific need.. or to make a statement or name for themselves. I think the FPB boats are a combination of both.
Hollywood

 

[DDW]

To me, these boats have their priorities all backwards, heavily optimized for the <5% time at sea that even the most traveled boats spend, and heavily compromised for the >95% time at anchor, coastal cruising, and in port.

To my eye, they are also sinfully ugly. Dashew's sailboats were similarly odd, and controversial in the sailboat world. I give him credit for explaining all of his rationale in print though.

 

[cfr]

i met Toccata in Bari Italy 3 years ago, def. a mile maker, they had a relaxed atlantic crossing at 9.6 kn .....not too bad, in the Med their cruising was 10.5 kn at 15-20 liter/hr.

 

[twistedtree]

I give him credit for explaining all of his rationale in print though.

As do I. I REALLY admire all the thought that goes into everything in Steve's boats. Everything is well considered and intentional, where so many builders seem to just "do stuff" and throw things together. I just don't agree with a lot of the priorities that are inputs to the decisions. Steve has also probably contributed more to cruising than anyone else on the planet. So although his boats are very far off from anything that would suit my needs, I greatly admire him and what he has done.

 

[MV Alchemy]

Hi Twistedtree - i tend to agree with everything you’ve said about FPBs but I wondered what you think about long-range powercats. These are fast and efficient but also spacious, light and optimised for spending a lot of time at anchor. They have simple/quick tender deployment, stability at anchor, no need for active stabilisation and plenty of surface area for solar panels. How would you compare a 60ft powercat with 3000nm range with a conventional trawler (e.g. Nordhavn) for long term international cruising?

 

[long-cours.62]

Dashew

That stern platform looks like it was an add-on - I would be surprised if the naval architect designed it like that from the drawing board.

design it and say "bolted" to stay under the 20m limit

 

[Mako]

A few years ago I had toyed with the idea of building a very economical cruiser (long/skinny) from the molds of a Chinese fishing boat. 70' long x 14' beam @ 55 m-tons.

The interior was basically a 40ft sailboat. We worked through a concept plan, cost proposal and such. Very economical to build - that was the big advantage. It probably would have worked as long as I kept it moored/anchored full time and didn't spend money on marinas. It was never intended to be a full time home, just a fun toy for cruising the world.

Covid took off and that idea drifted away.

 

[long-cours.62]

If it is just to play

I think the TF contributor Boatgm do the max with his light trimaran
Few month ago he send me a message concerning his next project an extreme boat very long and narrow boat , but no more news from him ?


But some people like to play with much more hp like

Mary Slim
the same one with far less hp could be also economic, but you must find an "equilibriste" to go on the bow

 

[long-cours.62]

Long

As do I. I REALLY admire all the thought that goes into everything in Steve's boats. Everything is well considered and intentional, where so many builders seem to just "do stuff" and throw things together. I just don't agree with a lot of the priorities that are inputs to the decisions. Steve has also probably contributed more to cruising than anyone else on the planet. So although his boats are very far off from anything that would suit my needs, I greatly admire him and what he has done.

Long, narrow, alloy boat with great efficiency Joubert/Nivelt design that 33 years ago, nothing new under the sun

 

[twistedtree]

Hi Twistedtree - i tend to agree with everything you’ve said about FPBs but I wondered what you think about long-range powercats. These are fast and efficient but also spacious, light and optimised for spending a lot of time at anchor. They have simple/quick tender deployment, stability at anchor, no need for active stabilisation and plenty of surface area for solar panels. How would you compare a 60ft powercat with 3000nm range with a conventional trawler (e.g. Nordhavn) for long term international cruising?

Interesting question, but I have no idea. I don't think I've even been on such a boat, let alone look into one in any detail. I've seen sailing catamarans, but only superficially. But it seems to me like another step on the way to a trawler. Like the FPBs, they are fast, and to the extent that's a primary goal, they beat a trawler hands down.


What I've heard expressed by owners as the key benefits other than speed are more level operation underway, and above the waterline living space. Both are key attributes of more common power boat designs, and clearly what people want. With a power cat you get those same benefits, but the space is spread wide rather than deep, with the challenges that come with a very wide boat.


I also suspect that the ride is superior in some situations, and not so great in others. Like a planing hull, a cat will follow the water surface from pontoon to pontoon. If you have beam shorter than the width of the boat I would expect it to ride pretty level. But if the side seas are wider than the boat, then I'd expect it to track the faces of the waves, and in certain situations get pretty rolly. I think it's easier to keep a rounded hull upright with stabilizers in such a situation.


A few people here have power cats and can surely comment with much more authority. I think a lot of this comes down to how important speed is to you, and what you are willing to give up. With the FPB, it's space. With a planing hull, it's fuel economy and range.

 

[Kit_L]

@TT wrote:

To me, these boats have their priorities all backwards, heavily optimized for the <5% time at sea that even the most traveled boats spend, and heavily compromised for the >95% time at anchor, coastal cruising, and in port.

Personally, I agree (and why I have a power cat), but Steve and Linda do seem to spend 95% of their time at sea travelling long distances and 5% at anchor/dock, so I imagine the design reflects these choices.

I agree completely re. your point about needing a dark pilothouse (and I don't see any overhead hand holds which large spaces like the 'great room' need when offshore, but they might be there), but WRT the cabins, they are for sleeping, so smallish, dark, and no portholes is a plus for me. The great room would be a practical work area, if you work from home on computers as my wife and I do.

I know these vessels are extremely stable (in a rolling sense) when under way, as all his videos show, and I was surprised to hear your story about how much it rolled when repositioning it (stabilisers off then, we assume).

Probably what I like the most about Toccata is her system redundancy.

 

[Kit_L]

Our cat has a 16.5' beam for a 40' length. People do talk about the flatter ride, but it's completely sea-state dependent. In the wrong seas, the vertical accelerations can be lively. We try not to travel if the seas are over 2.5m or really confused. Ours works well going into a head sea (and the cushioning effect of the air between the hulls is a real thing when you launch off a wave). But each vessel has its optimum weather window, it seems to me, and if I were going to cross oceans (which I have not done so far) then a monohull trawler design is what I'd want for the reasons you give.

Re. speed: ours has two, in practise: 1,900 rpm at 8kn, and 3,250 at 15–16kn. Fuel consumption is ~12l/hr at 8kn, and 70l/hr at 15kn—so we go pretty much everywhere at 8kn.

 

[klee wyck]

Hi Twistedtree - i tend to agree with everything you’ve said about FPBs but I wondered what you think about long-range powercats. These are fast and efficient but also spacious, light and optimised for spending a lot of time at anchor. They have simple/quick tender deployment, stability at anchor, no need for active stabilisation and plenty of surface area for solar panels. How would you compare a 60ft powercat with 3000nm range with a conventional trawler (e.g. Nordhavn) for long term international cruising?

I was waiting for TT to weigh in here before making a comment myself. I view his response as rational.
The short answer is that I think world cruising capability comes in at least these three forms (FPB, long range ocean cat, and the stabilized heavy deep footed displacement monohull). I think the differences from there may get to be pretty personal and not such that you can say with any authority that one of these is better.
There is one of these FPB 64s in my marina in La Paz at the moment and she takes my breath away. I actually love the aesthetic from a distance and her capability to cruise far, fast, and safely with serious redundancies is beyond reproach.
I would not own one for the reasons that TT expressed but I admire them deeply.
My cat can cover more miles at higher speed, and on less fuel in similar comfort and safety. And, when I get to my destination, she is much more livable and fun.
Similarly, there is a good case to be made for the heavy slow boats. I own one of these as well and like it though it is not on the order of an N68. I love the aesthetic of the 62 based on the same principles but much more pleasing to my personal eye.
While I own both for now, the day is coming when I will choose.
I will not choose the slow heavy boat for reasons that are likely personal.
There is too much of this water world that I would like to see and lack the time to see it at that speed. Not needing to time any tidal rapids that I can imagine transiting is quite appealing. I have 24 knots available. I actually think more bar conditions may be accessible in the cat. And, while the truth is that fuel use really doesn't matter that much unless range is as issue, the cat is more efficient than either the FPB or the monohull and has the range of the FPB. If having the helm station dark while others aboard want light is your most important criteria, well then you better buy a pilot house. This matters none to me 99% of the time that I am cruising/anchoring so it will not make the list of criteria of significance.
And, let's just admit that I am cheap. I was able to access this kind of capability in the cat that I own for 1/4 the initial cost of the other two on the same day. WIN. I give up total interior space for sure. The cat is really a 52 foot boat that sits on 130 feet of hull. There is primarily two of us, so this is way more than adequate. Guest quarters are spartan to put it kindly. There is enough storage to go off grid for literally years. For the record, I have two stand-up engine rooms.
Everything is a compromise. The well proven world cruising cat is mine.