FPB64 or Fleming 58 or Buehler Ellemaid?

Discussion in 'Powerboats' started by decoguy, Dec 16, 2012.

  1. taniwha
    Joined: Sep 2003
    Posts: 205
    Likes: 9, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 150
    Location: Pattaya, Thailand

    taniwha Senior Member

    I fully agree. I have been a volunteer at sea rescue for over ten years and the most of our rescues are sailing yachts with engine troubles.
     
  2. goodwilltoall
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 821
    Likes: 22, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 31
    Location: nation of Ohio

    goodwilltoall Senior Member

    Buehler boats are OK for cruising, some are very beautiful. He is one of few people years ago designing for quickly built and affordable boats.

    Relooked at Dashews "windhorse" and fpb64. In cross section view, the 83' is very dory shaped (I like it) and now see why the parvanes are very necessary while anchored.

    Also like how he went with the shallow hull draft of 3.25' on an over 17' beam and only went deeper at aft end to 4.25' for the propeller needs. He designed very well and kept all fuel and water below the waterline without making the overall height to high, although much easier to do with a large 17' beam. Calculated the cost running at 9.0kts for 24hrs diesel $4.50 gal, comes to about $516 for fuel per day.
    The 64 is single screw.

    That boat sure would be a good basis to design another boat with more affordable materials, less complicated systems, longer hull proportiontly but same volume, and riding at VL of 1.0 possibly reducing the cost per mile in half or more. That would be real EVOLUTION.

    Peace.
     
  3. michael pierzga
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 4,862
    Likes: 115, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1180
    Location: spain

    michael pierzga Senior Member

    Im a sailor....I use none of that stuff.

    Im an energy conservation hard *** , but I still use huge amounts of energy... refrigeration.... perhaps radar turning all all night ... nav gear on 7 days a week, many times several 100 meter anchor pulls a day...high intensity anchor lights... big engine room blowers to evacuate heat...satcom c...laptop.....all devouring power and all things that are needed when you are having max fun. Perhaps 500 amp hours per day.

    Then add in the fresh water used. Again Im a a fanatic with waste but in fun mode count on 25 liters per day per person.

    Difficult for me to see how a gen set and extra large water tanks ,at the expense of fuel capacity, could be avoided.
     
  4. Tad
    Joined: Mar 2002
    Posts: 2,303
    Likes: 185, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 2281
    Location: Flattop Islands

    Tad Boat Designer

    Im (sic) a sailor......I use none of that stuff.

    I still use tiny amounts of energy....no refrigeration....no radar....no nav gear, no electric windlass....solar garden lights at anchor ($5 at Canadian Tire)....no engine blowers (no engine except on the dinghy)....no satcom....occasional laptop use charged by wind and solar.......none devouring power and none needed when you are having max fun....:p
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. michael pierzga
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 4,862
    Likes: 115, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1180
    Location: spain

    michael pierzga Senior Member

    Sounds great...if you stay on the mooring like a gypsy and pray for rainwater to wash the seagull poop off !!

    Id love to see the crew you have for pulling 100 meters of chain.....bet he eats alot.

    And careful with your Canadian Tire garden led anchor lights... minimum two mile visibility is the law...extremely hard for guys like me to see you when coming in on a stormy night .
     
  6. 805gregg
    Joined: Apr 2010
    Posts: 57
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 20
    Location: Ojai, Ca

    805gregg Junior Member

    Dashew, built and sailed many sailboats until in his older age he decided to go with fuel efficient power boats. Have you checked out Nordhavn?
     
  7. taniwha
    Joined: Sep 2003
    Posts: 205
    Likes: 9, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 150
    Location: Pattaya, Thailand

    taniwha Senior Member

    Nordhavn is not exactly a fuel efficient power boat.
     
  8. decoguy
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 18
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 39
    Location: Australia

    decoguy Junior Member

    I have been on a Nordhavn 55 for an extended trip, and with a 3000mile range would get to most places very comfortably. If you can afford a multi million dollar boat, then the fuel cost is not significant.
     
  9. taniwha
    Joined: Sep 2003
    Posts: 205
    Likes: 9, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 150
    Location: Pattaya, Thailand

    taniwha Senior Member

    I wonder why Mercedes is making their engines more fuel efficient? Sure if you can afford a Mercedes.......
     
  10. Landlubber
    Joined: Jun 2007
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 124, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1802
    Location: Brisbane

    Landlubber Senior Member

    decoguy,

    The three boats you have "chosen", are so different in their characteristics that I seriously doubt that you really know what you want.

    Certainly they can travel, some in far superior comfort than others, but to define which is best, I would have to discuss what really your intentions and expectations are.

    The first two can travel very fast, the last one is 20 ton heavier, and is a full displacement vessel.

    I currently work on a Fleming 55 in Brisbane, it is a superb boat, detailed beautifully by very experienced boatbuilders, it is in fact a luxury boat. The larger one is just a bit better in that the engine room has more head room, and head room there is greatly appreciated. If you want that sort of luxury and can afford it, then go for it.

    The displacement type boat (3) is a real traveller, it is in the water, not on the water, but it will be slow. The first boat is on the water and is fast. The 2nd boat is both, in the water at displacement speeds and on the water when doing over 20 knots sort of thing.

    In any size of sea, you cannot do high speed travelling unless you pick boat type 1 which is designed to do just that, but the fuel bill will be higher.

    If you really are nearly ready to buy any of these three boats, please private email me and I will happily discuss the pros and cons of each three designs to suit your personal needs.
     
  11. FAST FRED
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 4,519
    Likes: 109, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1009
    Location: Conn in summers , Ortona FL in winter , with big d

    FAST FRED Senior Member

    With all the endless money Steve Dashew dumps into his boats, he uses this approach and claims he can get 100 mile per day with a small simple sail (compared to boat). Almost any engine powered cruising boat can have a sail rigged to get home.

    The point to note is that a MS will cruise far better than a motorvessel with sails stuck on.

    While the racers will line the rail , a cruising MS can use window shade main & roller jib and would hardly notice the loss of speed.

    Cruisers will usually power at SL of about 1 , and a remarkably tiny amount of sail will duplicate that speed in any well designed MS.

    A 50 ft MS should be able to make 125- 150 miles a day , with little "sailing" effort.

    As always if youre in a hurry , bring many thousand extra , to build the boat , operate the boat and maintain the boat.



    MY ideal cruiser would be a MS with a very common worldwide engine (3-71 to 6-71 ) CPP , dual centerboards (Maurice Griffiths style) a self steering (Aries) an autopilot , and a strong set of sun covers.

    The Main sail, would be fully battened , under 400sq ft.

    The roller 2 Surface jib ( peal apart the clews for downwind) would have the luff sewn to a chain so it could be rolled up, and stuffed into any sail locker when not needed.

    Where is that Titanium chain that can be cheaply machine sewn to a luff?

    3 in crew allows 3 on 6 off , a true cruising vacation.

    And the volume of the vessel would not require 50% of the room for monster fuel tanks and fuel that grows bugs in port..

    The engine and noisemaker would share the fore peak, no one wants to be there anyway.

    Just "my way" for a cruiser , but I'm very lazy.
     
  12. longcours62
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 92
    Likes: 4, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 47
    Location: France

    longcours62 Junior Member

    Eh guys our lady is also for sale !

    :D
    And far cheaper than a Dashew 64' for same use...
    http://long-cours.62.over-blog.com/article-passagemaker-cherchez-l-erreur-77177400.html
    :rolleyes:
    If somebody , one day, buy our lady, we will built the next one , with some changes (listed here :http://long-cours.62.over-blog.com/article-evolutions-faites-ou-a-faire-si-n-2-103750751.html)
    We like the concept of Tad Robert design, but also the long light narrow boat for the minimum consumption.
    Some motor trimarans are very nice with good efficiency....if we stay far from harbor or marina !!
    But in any case we will going back to Vietnam for keept the price far below the Dashew 64' or even the Ellemaid 71'
     
  13. goodwilltoall
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 821
    Likes: 22, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 31
    Location: nation of Ohio

    goodwilltoall Senior Member

    Longcours,

    Looking at longcourse62 hull sectional lines - will cause tremendous drag with fat stern just plopped into water and dragging, not efficient at all.

    Pricewise - all about the same size, all about same price to build, only cost variances according to type of build method and accompaning systems, (give ellemaid advantage because of single chine/flat panels).
     
  14. longcours62
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 92
    Likes: 4, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 47
    Location: France

    longcours62 Junior Member

    It's why

    It is why one time we initiate a questions : "double ended vs transom for efficiency "and the answer was quite different, no one answer clearly .
    For exemple actualy with our "bad hull sectional" our consumption (in real world not on computer screen ) are :
    Speed and consumption at different rpm:

    - one engine running àt 1400 t/mn : 6,6 nds et consommation de 0,61 lt au mille.

    - '' at 1500 t/mn : 7 nds et consommation de 0,81 lt au mille.

    - " at 1600 t/mn : 7,4 nds et consommation de 0,92 lt au mille.

    - " at1800 t/mn : 8,3 nds et consommation de 1,46 lt au mille.

    - two engines running at780 t/mn : 8 nds et consommation de 1,14 lt au mille.

    - " at 1850 t/mn : 9,80 nds et consommation de 1,78 lt au mille.

    If someone could say how much we could save whit "good sectional" and no transom "drag in water" he is welcome (for our next boat !)
    First drawing proposed by designer was "narrow double ended" something like is own boat
    (Marguerite joubert) but like the initial project 20,50 X 4,25 m named LRMY (long rang motor yacht but nobody never built one boat like this drawing) finaly after few year with Marguerite "double ended" Joubert cut her and put a transom .
    And on some articles he said he don"t see the difference in terms of consumption but a lot in directional stability .
    Where s the true ?:confused:
    I have just front of me a drawing for the next one : long ,narrow, double ended .... but where is the true.:?: We is the benefit ? less consumption and less potential surfs ?
    How much we couls save with "good sectional " 5% or 0,5%
    Somewhere we can read 1 lt at s/l of 1,00 it is good we are already at 0,92 lt per nm at S/L 1,00 how much our "bad sectional" cost ?
    here you can see the second proposition 20,50X 5,25
    http://long-cours.62.over-blog.com/article-le-concept-77271358.html
    as soon as I can read the old floppy disk ( the concept is from 1993 !!!! I send the original 20,50X 4,25 to your perspicacity

    For the cost of biilding a hull it depend of where she is made for example quotation got 2 years ago : Vietnam 9 euros per kgs, Lituanie 15 euros per kgs and France (for more simple buiding process) 23 euros per kgs..... for one hull like our actual it 's mean price of the hull ranging from 135000 $ in Vietnam to 346000 $ in France ,for the buiding cost of the hull in France you can navigate with your boat in Vietnam ...
    If a great part of the trawler solds in USA are built in China it is not by hazard
     

  15. decoguy
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 18
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 39
    Location: Australia

    decoguy Junior Member

    I realise they are all totally different, hence the post as I am interested to hear people's opinions on them, and opinions on the good/bad/indifferent for all three. All three have long range ability but are very different concepts

    The Buehler Ellemaid is less than a $million which is significantly less than the other two. This price probably excludes many options on the other two boats, but these could be added. Anyway I like the look of this one and would have potential as a cruising live aboard vessel. I think only one has been built in Turkey and is for sale in Singapore.

    I like the concepts of the FPB64, but the boat to me seems to be designed for cold climates with very few shaded external spaces.

    I think the Fleming 58 would probably be the best compromise boat. In displacement mode you can go a long way, semi-displacement would be good for a quick day trip, say go a dive site say 40nm out, do a few dives, and come back home which you could not really do in a day at displacement speeds.

    Time to keep on saving and dreaming for now......
     
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.