Looking for feedback on new 83' powerboat design

I notice there are several forums on boatdesign.net, which is the best place to get feedback on a new powerboat design I am having designed? this one, the powerboat forum? or some other place.

I am hoping to start construction in April, and thinking that some diverse feedback/input from all you all would be useful/fun.

 

Here is a basic rendering
- waterline length : 83.5 ft
- max beam : 20.5 ft
- draft : 4.8 ft (skeg)

 

I'd include hydrostatics and power, etc.

Outta my league to comment.

 

Re feedback on the actual design, I would think that this is the best forum to post in (rather than eg the Powerboats forum).

Please do tell us a bit more about your new boat - my first impression is that she looks very similar to Steve Dashew's Wind Horse.
SetSail FPB » Blog Archive » FPB 83 – Wind Horse https://setsail.com/fpb-83-wind-horse/

But with an enclosed flying bridge, rather like the FPB 78.
SetSail FPB » Blog Archive » FPB 78 The Dream Machine: Reality – Updated May 24, 2017 https://setsail.com/fpb-78-the-dream-machine-reality-updated-may-24-2017/

Are you at liberty to disclose who is the designer, and where you are planning on building the boat?

Maybe the Moderator could later change the title of this thread to more accurately reflect the topic?

 

power :
a) Twin Diesel inboard engine Scania 250 HP TYPE DI09 70M Marine Diesels
b) CPP Servo reduction gearbox NOGVA marine gearbox type HC-168 with reduction ratio 2,95:1.
c) CPP propeller; 4 blade NOGVA 4-blade controllable pitch propeller type N4-215 with propeller diameter 1000mm

cruise speed 10-11 knots at 50-60% engine load

 

>> a marine surveyor ! I would love to pick your brain

Please do tell us a bit more about your new boat - my first impression is that she looks very similar to Steve Dashew's Wind Horse.
SetSail FPB » Blog Archive » FPB 83 – Wind Horse https://setsail.com/fpb-83-wind-horse/
>> there is inspiration drawn from here for sure, also, my dad was in the Navy for 35+ years (abbot/halsey/enterprise/semmes/mississippi/longbeach) and I really like the no long/thing destroyer hull approach

But with an enclosed flying bridge, rather like the FPB 78.
SetSail FPB » Blog Archive » FPB 78 The Dream Machine: Reality – Updated May 24, 2017 https://setsail.com/fpb-78-the-dream-machine-reality-updated-may-24-2017/
>> the fly bridge is fully enclosed and watertight

Are you at liberty to disclose who is the designer, and where you are planning on building the boat?
>> sure thing, Dennis Harjamaa, I have been going back and forth with him for a while and finally "bit the bullet" ... he is also the designer of the Mobius boat that I suspect a lot of folks here follow and is launching very soon
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxJiiiXJdtpHSVJnoHIeN2Q/videos
Möbius World https://mobius.world/

Maybe the Moderator could later change the title of this thread to more accurately reflect the topic?
>> I regretted the title right away, then looked for a way to change the title to no avail ... will try to figure out how to ping the moderator

 

grabbed another angle

one thing I am debating is the tender handling, booms, crane (like a palfinger), davits, something else ... would love to get some thoughts/opinions here

 

and a fun profile

 

The render is very beautiful, what else can you say without any data? But that's not all in a boat.
It seems, and I repeat that it seems, that the length / beam ratio may have a very high value which would give rise, together with a CoG that is predictably very high, to a somewhat lower stability than would be desirable. Have you checked those aspects?. This is probably why you have provided active stabilizers.
Is there a technical aspect on which you are interested in obtaining opinions? Tell us what they are and give us information so we can give our opinion.

 

CoB and rough CoG are both calculated and good (full weight study is underway).

2 particular areas I am looking for interesting thoughts on are solar and tender.

On the tender (15ft rib with 50hp diesel, approx 950lbs) ... we have mocked up a crane approach (palfinger) and an aft davit approach (like the circa 24m) ... and looking for thoughts on pros/cons or other ideas.

On the solar, I have been toying with the idea of "double stacking" some of the panels. For example, for the panels on the top of the main pilot house ... actually have 2 layers of panels, bottom layer is covered and non functional underway ... but would be exposed when top layer folds out on a 4-bar-linkage while at anchor or port. The idea being max solar so that at port/anchor a genset would not be needed. There is complexity with mechanisms here, so more to break and go wrong, so I am not sold on the idea ... but at the same time trying to figure out how to be solar sufficient for as much time as possible.

 

Any suggestion on how to contact the moderator to change the title? I could not find a contact-moderator option anywhere, so "reported" this post hoping that the report goes to the moderator !

 

They will; just ask them here and give it a nice name.

 

@aktxyz I see you more concerned with aesthetic aspects and perhaps, that is what would concern me the most, not so much about naval architecture. But keep in mind that naval architecture results in safety and comfort for the passenger. An unstable ship, besides being dangerous, is uninhabitable.
I hope you will excuse me if I am wrong, but without data the only thing one can do is assume things thinking that, in any case, it would be convenient to check certain things.
CoB or CoG are not good or bad (I would never apply that adjective), they must be the ones that allow the ship to comply with everything it must comply with.

 

Let me know if you would like help with your https://www.boatscantling-iso-12215.net/ website, things are overlapped all over. Also the software downloads ask you to disable window UAC control ... and recommends a Pentium III or higher ... I can help with recommendations if you would like ... but without any data ... I can only assume that the software is unusable, dangerous, and uninhabitable.

 

It is good to have different opinions about our activities. My website is bad, I know, I am not able to improve it. Thank you for your opinion. The quality of my software is what it is and its users are the ones who will have to value it. Thanks again.
I have not criticized your ship, all I am saying is that the naval architecture aspects of a ship project are also important (well they seem that way to me) and that I would like, if you are not ashamed, have some information about it and to be able to help you, if you need it or, at least, as you have asked us, give my opinion.