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

That was exactly what I feel after 7 professionally done newbuilts, to my very idiotic specifications ( as named every time by so called specialists) I am the one to operate the vessel! My decision! My fun to loose or waste money!

 

The customer is always right...!

(So long as he pays!! )

 

goodness what bought that on, I admire your project, you are one angry man for sure Whoose arguing abt standards?
not once have I ever critisized your project Do you want us to ooh and ah? is this it, grow up and calm down I wished you well my mail, but you are so full of vitriole you dont even try to interpret what we are saying

 

You wanna spend 2 years on a build with this man?

Personally I don't want an ice breaker, I like palm trees and coconuts.

Bit much for Apex to understand that someone may think differently to him.

Pssst I don't like Hyabusa's either.

 

Daniel
Thanks for you words before, yes start with weight estimates beg borrow or steal some from a similar boat is a good start. Now about that particular design of yours....the green one


John couldn't agree more;

Occasionally there is a nice surprise but usually those entries of "Miscellaneous items" with a healthy weight allocation well up in the vessel get chewed up by the end.
This is where you will find Parametric design packages come into their own, all the framing is auto-regenerated along with changes to the hullform. Then you can fine tune the hullform to suit a heavier engine or greater bunkering or tweak GM all with instant hull material as CNC cut feeding straight back into the W&M sheet.

However Ive seen major screw-ups especially because people trust what comes out of the computer without double checking what went in.

 

Victoria and Albert III designed by William White was 430' in lenght, a beam of 50' 17' of draft and 5,500 tons displacement. She had a designed metacenter height of 2'. She was launched in 1899.
After her lauch, they started the fitting out as usual, and she started to list 8 degree, then slowly to 24 degree in the dock. they counter ballasted her and she came back to 10 degree list.
G.L. Watson was called and find out that they put 711 tons of outfitting not accounted in the plans, because everybody in the entourage of the queen wanted their own stuffs. You don't say no at that time, you just do it.
Well G.L. Watson tall the builder to get rid of 700 tons of marble, pianos, and other crap and the cost of that change was 10% of her total cost.
She finally had a metacentric height of 2.7' loaded and 1.5' light, and she went strong (although hes was not much used for long cruise offshore) for 55 years and was scrapped in 1955. Her hull was iron, sheathed with full planking of teck.
I thought it is an interresting story of miscommunications, ego, stupidity, and cowardise. Very rampant in the Victoria era. (I do not intent to insult England which I admire, just a personal assessment of this strange era full of contradiction)
After the plan are done, and calculation done , don't let any body make changes
By the way G.L. Watson was a very good man. After the great designer John Harvey (one of my favorite designer) came to retirement in total poverty, G.L Watson made a fund to pay him a mensuality until he die. The same sad retirement faith happened to the famous Dixon Kemp. Tough times.

Daniel

 

Mike
The problem with "...This is where you will find Parametric design packages come into their own, all the framing is auto-regenerated along with changes to the hullform..."...is that this covers, (reasonably well) just Group 1, that is the 'Hull Structure'.

There are 5 other major weight groups that require attention, non of which can be "computed" by a parametric program, only good old fashioned design-leg work!

(Incidentally, i still do my Group 1 weights by hand, always have always will...since the parametric programs need a complete hull to give you the weight....by which time, it is too late!!)

 

I may have misunderstood what you said? But I did not feel you adulterate the thread. Not you!

sometimes Stuart, only sometimes. And I could not find much constructive critics you made here. You know since ages I do not look for resale value. And what was the Al dispute good for?

Applause is not what I am seeking here. Constructive and well founded critics is the topic. (or a good joke?) Frosties was not a good one.......
A vessel with ice class has no obligation to navigate high latitude only. And I count 12 month to one year, not two.

Thank you Ad Hoc, Mike and Daniel!

Richard

 

Peace of mind to know you can allways run over pirats in a bulletproof vessel

 

When both boats are finished will you toss a coin for them or will yours be allocated at the keel laying ceremony. Just a thought.


Just one technical question, the wife wants to know if she will be able choose her own carpet? and will it have knives and forks because we got a load of spare ones in a box under the stairs.

 

Bulletproof, there was one, named "Van Triumph" , could withstand machine gun fire. Of course the ***** did not understand, that she did not cope well in seas. You could have had her at ten percent of construction price after one year. Way above the value...........

Peace of mind is: have no serious doubt about hitting a container, a whale or just the pier. Have a commercially built vessel that survives a unexpected contact with floating debris of any kind. (that is not possible, as we know, but has to be tried to achieve). Overbuilt...........
well, that is how a NA looks at it.....
I look from another angle. There is only one precious butt I have to take care about, mine.
Yes, too heavy scantlings have a serious disadvantage, performance....
and they have as serious advantage...ruggedness! Everyone may take his personal choice. I am better at sea with the most rugged and heaviest vessel than with a one, which does better going thru the annual bunkering invoice. If one cannot afford some 100 tonnes of fuel per annum, why is he building or buying a vessel, able to consume that?
What? 65.000$ of bunkers hurts?
Ahh, there are other ways to enjoy watersports. Frosty knows one! making 170 engine hours in three years! And argueing how crappy his engines are...
Mate, I do more on my wiper motors. (per annum).... edit: in 4 months

A good thought Frosty! When both are absolutely the same design, I have no prob to toss a coin.

We are talking a no nonsense vessel here, not a average yacht.

Regards
Richard

 

[Q?
Ahh, there are other ways to enjoy watersports. Frosty knows one! making 170 engine hours in three years! And argueing how crappy his engines are...
Mate, I do more on my wiper motors. (per annum).... edit: in 4 months

Actually Its 150 hours in 7 years. My boat is not an Ice breaker its an island hopper , I knew that when I bought it because thats what I wanted. I live in a tropical archipelagos with 100 islands to visit.

The engines are perfect,--(Yanmar says so) Yanmar perfect,-- its just that I have a German streak in me that wants absolutely perfect , I would have thought a man such as yourself would understand that.

As far as your wiper motors, I can not be held responsible for the German precipitation.

 

Oh Ok,-- I was just helping to lighten it up a bit ,-it was getting tense.

 

I do not see any need to lighten up. We are talking about a project, and it's interresting and also very helpfull and informative.
Yous should read the posts they are good (don't to worry I am not pading myself on the back) I am talking of the post of other contributors.
Perhaps as a mechanical wizzard give us more of your thoughts, not a load of so call lighten stuff. For that I rent a Charlie Chaplin movie.
Cheers
Daniel