Offer: true go anywhere Trawler to build "side by side"

Offer: true Passagemaker or go anywhere Trawler 88´to build "side by side"

As many of you know, I am in the final concept phase for my own (ultimate?) passagemaker.
The vessel will be of a rugged, commercial appearence and by no means a "fashionable" boat. All systems will be of commercial grade and at least double redundant (except for the engine there´s only one, a "real" one). My NA just informed me that the hull was originally designed for twin engines, then converted for me to single. Means twin is a option.

Target figures are:
LOA 27,5 m
LWL 25.5 m
BWL 5.6 m
Draught 2.2 m
Range 5.500 nm @ 11.2 kn
Endurance 90 days
Cruising 11.5 kn
Max. 14 kn.

The boat will be build in either Steel/Al or Al/Al (final decision is not made yet). Both options are designed, and cost is almost the same anyway. Ice Class is the question. Not for the high lat. only, but having also floating containers in mind.

Yes, you are right. The wood / Epoxy man is going metal!?! Yahh, for a reason, Wood is not as good on icebreaking or hammering on a reef for hours, as metal. And it happens, no matter how careful or skilled we are. I know from experience. So, whats a perfect choice for a holiday cruise in the Med. must not be the best choice for 20 years of circumnavigating (I hope i have 20 left).

Now, before I start boring the audience, I thought about building a second vessel "side by side", that would save about 12-15% of cost. A wide range of customization of the accommodation is still possible for the second vessel.

I offer anyone here, interested in a custom newbuild to get his one built at the same time, same yard, same cost. We will end up at about 2 million each, due to the fact, that there is no profit, broker or overhead cost. Euro of course. Thats about half the common market price, or about the price of a tiny 64ft plastic boat from a well known US company, not ice (container) capable of course, plastic.

The vessels will be build under my fulltime supervision and survey, classed +100 A5, E2, to IACS. Build will be fully insured against yards bancrupcy, payments will be handled through escrow account of a Swiss notary of your choice.
Estimated building time is 12 month, laying keels is possible within 3-4 month from now.

Yes I will post plans and pictures, but not before construction is underway. My avatar does NOT show any similarity!

Further terms and conditions as personal requests in a private conversation please. Just send me a mail (click my name).

Kindest regards
Richard

So then, lookup your wallet or invite Granny for a night at the Bronx...........

 

Apex

If you're 'thinking' about ice, then Aluminium is the winner...temperature has no effect on the notch toughness (not in the temp range you'll be operating at!), unlike steel. Also ally doesn't rust, so very low maintenance too, not to mention saving weight which can be offset in with either reduced powering, or more payload.

Quite a 'beamy' boat for its length, so no doubt plenty of room for accommodation and general outfitting. But may well affect your powering and roll motions beyond your expectations, but all depends upon the hull shape to an extent and the CoG's?

Twin engine would be better, you then have redundancy, which is essential if your endurance/range is 5500nm.

If you need a second opinion on the design/construction just ask.

Nice project, good luck

 

Thank you John,

but do you really call that beamy?

 

Only in the sense that for motions and powering, it is rather low L/B ratio. It is understable since i assume the NA is constrained by length (price) so increases the beam to fit more outfit/accommodation space etc.....this is why many small motor yachts have low L/B ratios too...keep the length short to save money, or so is the idea. But Increasing the length, keeping everything else the same doesn't really add that much..as it is just 'structure'.

It does also depend on the hull shape and where the CoG is which also effects the motions such as roll period....like all things in design too many disciplines cross over into others, so just check.

If you can increase the length, but keeping everything else the same, it would be preferable. Assuming she meets the stability criterion too.

Assume you're going to tank test the hull??

 

I went already from 24,5 to above 27m leaving all accommodation untouched, and it may happen I go a bit further that way, it´ll cost not much more than another Radar to give her another meter. But my goal was downsizing to get rid of crew and not to maintain a surface as large as a soccer stadium.
And believe me, it is not easy to design your own boat when you know too much! A amateur is much easier underway, he has a dream or a wishlist and the rest is not his problem. I am pregnant with this boat in my third year now.

To the steel or alu question, the boat is not a icebreaker, just icegoing. I do´nt plan to visit the poles on own keel. And I made my tickets on icebreakers in the Baltic, they were of steel. But I am completely open, when I find a "Partner" as mentioned above we can discuss that freely.

John
I do´nt agree on the double engine issue. The main reason for failure is fuel related, that effects both engines (not mine, I use fuel polishing). The second is prop related (ropes or nets in prop), there the single prop is much better to protect than a twin prop installation. The same is valid for ice protection. And I do´nt fear engine failure, a perfect serviced, beefy marine diesel is hard to kill. You know...

The present hull is already tank tested (Wageningen).

Regards
Richard

 

This is a real good price. Not that 2 millions Euros is not a lot of money, but for what you discrive, this price is really good, no doubt about that.
I know exatly what 2 millions Euros can offer you here on production boat, not much in reality.
I know here some horror show floating looking like a melting wedding cake priced over 2 millions euro, with all the little gadget you can find on earth.
Tided to the marina for ever.
Also some plastic passagemakers with the help of expensive marketing are selling for that price and up here, even if they are built in China. Go figure, or China is expensive (wal-Mart think the contrary) or the customer is taken for a ride.
Your proposition is real good, price wise, and surely quality.
Daniel

 

Richard

I realise that it is just ice going, not an ice breaker. But unless you use good quality steel, i would recommend ally, always. By good quality steel I'm refer to EH36 or similar. Standard Grade A is not suitable. Despite what is often said about grade A and its ice credentials. Even the new to be released LR winteriastion rules don't really go far enough, when put into context of failures that have occurred owing to poor notch toughness in low temperatures.

Yes, designing your own boat is never easy when you know a bit more than you should. You do need someone who will take an objective look and ensure that the SOR is fixed before going further...otherwise you'll end up with a huge bill and endless over runs. Personal projects become just that, very personal, not a business contract!

If you're happy with single engine, despite the points i made, then debate closed.

 

Thank you for your positive reply Daniel.

 

Richard

As is often the case, what you want and what you can can get, are two different things. This is all part of the compromises one must make and understand when designing/building. If you're happy with this compromise and understand the limitations (if any), again, no further debate required.

 

Well John, as mentioned earlier I am still open and much depends on the further discussions with a building "Partner"

To the single or twin engine question let me say, the boat will go well over 13kn due to the hefty 500kw engine. Lugger 23ltr. 1450 rpm or Mitsubishi 25ltr. 1350rpm, both 6cyl. and 500kw. Yes I know..............................
But with my philosophy I was right in the past decades and I will not change anything.
For seakeeping qualities I prefer full displacement boats, so I am limited in speed. A common yacht that size would have about 2x 250 hp and would be fine with that. But almost 85% of the time only 150 horses will work, the rest produces ineffieciency and heat. Since more than 20 years Im a advocat of CPP installations and I have seen waht is possible with them.
In this case I can turn a rather large wheel at about 450rpm full throttle, thats 190 at idle, thats quiet and smooth. With the CPP I can run the engine all week long at a tad above idle without doing any harm or being out of efficient consumption range (thats impossible with a gearbox fixed prop as you know). When in a hurry (escape a weather front, or go with a high pressure system) I have allways the power I need. When we go in ice we need the power anyway. Being underpowered in drift ice is not a good situation. (and underpowered vessels do´nt get Ice classed)
Thoughts?

Regards
Richard

 

Richard

If you have a set of RAOs for your boat from the tank test, that will go a long way to ascertaining the seakeeping and what your criteria for "seakeeping" actually is too. But, it depends upon the spectrum used for the RAOs.

 

No, I meant thoughts on the engine / drivetrain.

Of course, but you know we cannot make a real "cover all" tank test setup (testing another bulbous bow for example), just because RAO for the Baltic is nothing in the south Pacific. And a "true go anywhere" boat goes........................???
Right

 

LWL 25.5 m
BWL 5.6 m

I think by having a ratio beam of 4.55 will make a very efficient hull. Most of the other "passagemaker" have 3 to 3.8 which give a good bathroom inside but not a very good boat.
As for the bulbous bow, I have not a good opinion of it on vessel smaller that a tanker.
They foul the anchor chain, I am not sure they reduce pitching, since very often they have to be ballasted to compensate the addition of buyancy, and they are in and out of the water by rough sea.
They are efficient at speed of 0.8 to 0.9, and so their spectrum of real efficiency is small.
About ballast, since the very high range of the vessel, do you intent to put compensating salt water tank?
For the construction I will be going for good steel. Steel in the only material which can be roughfly repared or patched in any port in the world. You always find a mechanic with a welding machine of some sort, and they love to weld!
I will never be completly safe on a aluminum boat which has to operate in a large spectrum of temperature, and has to be able to hit a floating container at let say 7 knots. And with aluminum, the emergency repair, I am not sure. The electrolysis problem, even if now is well understood, remain a problem down the life of the boat, if maintenance is not done first class, mostly in the engine room, and on hidden place of the bilge.
As for the engine, Mitsubishi in a heart beat. Again can be repaired in any port. Lugger, and that I can be wrong, seams to marinize propulsion engine, althought their generators are the best in the world.
Do you think to have tube welded under the deck to have the hot water running, keeping the formation of ice at a minimum on deck in case a customer decide to explore the cold area, or just cruise year round in Maine? To be able to use a vessel like that year round must be a treat.
Daniel

 

I wont get into the ally v steel debate, as it shall take over the thread. But suffice to say, aluminium's notch toughness is unaffected by temperature whereas steel is very much affected, very poor characteristics indeed in low temperatures. More evidence on this than you can shake a stick at...hence wont go into details, unless requested.

Interesting point about the ballast tanks....worth taking note Richard. As for the b.bows, these are usually effective in the .25~.55Fn range, roughly. But so many caveats....so it is in my opinion more a matter of personal choice. Since unless you're running at the exact speed for some 90% of the time, is it worth it?

I think the L/B ratio is too low to be a good sea kindly boat at speed....at slow speeds she'll just wallow, but if the CoG is located favorably, then she could be nice and tender.

Don't know enough about those engines dskira to really make much of a comment I'm afraid. But it all depends upon the budget. Some 30%-ish of the capitol shall be for engines alone....so how much bang can you get for your buck?!