To A New Paradigm With FPB

FPB 115 – A New Paradigm

“…You’ll fall for this yacht the way a woodworker falls for his band saw.”
–Yachting Magazine

Our work flow on a new design goes through several phases the first of which we call the gestation period. There is a design target, often moving, and we try various combinations to see how the concept boat feels to us. With something totally different, like Beowulf, or Wind Horse, gestation can take years.

At some point – we are never sure of the schedule – things fall into place and we get what can only be described as an internal buzz. This is a sign, at the gut level, that the balance of design elements is right and the time has arrived to proceed with the next step in the cycle.

Even before Wind Horse was launched we had folks asking us for a larger version of the FPB 83. Although we declined invitations to proceed, we have been working towards a bigger design for the past five years. Spring of 2009 we finally felt the “buzz”, and started on the details. Wind Horse was approaching 5000 hours of sea time, and combined with data from the FPB 64, this real world experience data base has enabled the hydrostatics on the Big Sister to proceed quickly. Over the years we have had some designs where everything just naturally fell into place. The FPB 115 is one of those. She will cross oceans at 280 to 300 miles a day, burning the fuel that some large yachts use for their gensets alone. She has our usual scantlings, watertight bulkheads, and integral tanks forming a double bottom. The interior options are very flexible. She will be even more comfortable at sea than the FPB 64 or 83, and she does not have to worry about capsize in heavy weather. The FPB 115 will have the same quiet systems as the smaller FPBs, scaled up of course, that will allow her to sit at anchor for two or more days without running the genset. Dual engines, oversized rudders, proportional thrusters, integrated controls, coupled with six self-tailing deck winches, make for an easily- handled yacht, be it anchoring, maneuvering in a tight marina, or securing with shorefasts in a remote fjord. Finally, a standard feature (as with all our yachts) is minimized maintenance. Combine these features and you end up with the option of cruising on your own, without crew, or with minimal crew if you so choose. And if you prefer crew, or are a commercial operator, costs will be substantially reduced (as well as downtime due to maintenance issues). There is a standard package of structure, bulkheads, tankage, and systems, into which a variety of interior layouts fit. This approach creates substantial efficiencies in cost and build time, and allows us to deliver a yacht built to the highest standards at a reasonable price. As is our custom, these yachts come complete with all systems, spare parts, tools, and training.

So far we have developed three versions of the FPB 115:

  • One is owner operator where a husband and wife cruise the boat on their own, or with one hand or a couple aboard for help with watchstanding, maintenance and to look after the boat when the owners are away. Although this might seem like a big boat for a couple to handle, between twin engines, big rudders, a powerful thruster, and six electric deck winches controlled from the helm, we expect her to be more tractable than even the FPB 83 Wind Horse.
  • There is a fully-crewed version, with a layout that encourages separation of crew and owner’s party. We have had the input of a number of very experienced professionals on this layout, so they can do their job with maximum efficiency while having minimal impact on the enjoyment of the owners.
  • The third layout is a commercial build, suitable for charter, school ship duties, science projects, and survey work. The range, fuel burn, and sea keeping abilities are particularly suited to the latter two functions.

Now a few preliminary specifications (subject to change of course):

  • LOD 115.4’ / 35.2m
  • LWL 111.5’ / 34m
  • Beam Deck 21’ / 6.44m
  • Extreme Beam (edge of rub rails) 22.1 / 6.8m
  • Draft-half load Prop Skeg 5’ / 1.5m
  • Displacement Full Load 185,000 lbs /84,000 kg
  • Air Draft (top of masts-excluding whips) 36.5’ / 11.2m
  • Fuel Capacity 6000 US Gallons / 22,700 L
  • Fresh Water Capacity 2500 US Gallons /9,400 L
  • Minimum Range of Positive Stability 140 degrees (half fuel in one tank, full fresh water tanks)
  • Cruising Speed 12 knots
  • Top Speed 14.0 knots (Half Load)
  • Approximate Range 5000 NM @ 12 knots
  • Main Engines John Deere 6068SFM50 (265HP at 2500 RPM) x 2
  • Transmission ZF305 – 2.47:1 reduction
  • Gensets 27.5 kW 60Hz, 230VAC single phase x 2
  • Alternators Electrodyne 150A, 28VDC belt driven off engine PTO with remote diodes, x 2 per engine – total of 4
  • Stabilizers Active, 16 sq. ft. fins
  • Water makers Sea Recovery 230V 75 GPH with auto freshwater flush, soft-start, media filter, X 2

In terms of structure and security the basic allowance in our weight budget is for framing and plating to twice the Lloyds Special Service rule stiffness requirements, with 12mm bottom plate. There are three full and two partial watertight bulkheads, a double bottom throughout the interior, and a massive bow girder. As with all FPBs this design will right itself from a full capsize. Both prop shafts are faired into and supported by full propeller depth skegs.

Scale


Sometimes is helps to visualize the scale of a new yacht if you have known vessels for comparison. In the drawing above the FPB 64 (blue), FPB 83 (green) and FPB 115 (red) are shown in profile view.


Looking down here (plan view), the FPB 115 has over twice the volume and displacement of the FPB 83.


Pilot House


One of the design goals for the FPB 115 was to have a version optimized for those who preferred to cruise without crew, but might, on occasion, want one or two folks along on a semi-permanent basis. We’ll take a quick look at this layout first, starting with the pilot house. To give you a feel for the size of the pilot house we have included a couple of photos of the great room on the FPB 83, which is almost identical in size to the FPB 115 pilot house.


The volume in the FPB 115 pilot house is a bit greater than what you see here. There are a variety of pilot house layouts possible. We will start with an unconventional approach, one very much driven by our own experience with Wind Horse, and the suggestions of some very acute observers.

The goal in this layout is to create an area conducive to social interaction at sea and at anchor, but which also works in adverse conditions, perhaps with a big sea running. As an offshore layout, you are able to go from the protected top of the stairs to the command center in a couple of steps. You are then confined by the furniture, an ideal situation offshore. On the other hand, in more pleasant conditions the watchstander has several options for conning. You can work from the command area, or from one of the settees (offshore out of the shipping lanes), feet up, facing forward. A pop up screen behind the center seating section, would be a good spot for a radar and engine alarm repeater. There are many possibilities with this layout for family and guests as well. Rather than being behind the helm, they are located forward where they have a good view and can communicate easily with the watchstander. The adjacent aft extension could have seating, a wet locker (shown) and perhaps a table.

 

This photo of Wind Horse is taken from the forward starboard corner of the great room, looking towards the aft port corner. Imagine the command center where the aft edge of the table is positioned. The settee wraps around the forward windows.


Finally, there is a head shown, a cabinet with a fridge, icemaker, and microwave, and lots of storage space for books, and other equipment.


Main Deck


The aft end of the main deck and the interior are at the same level, allowing a layout which integrates inside and outside areas. The pilot house extension above covers what would normally be a lounging area, and there is space for two dinghies aft of the covered section of deck. The deck in this area is 16″/400mm below the deck edge increasing dinghy security while creating a sleeker profile.

Great Room

The volume in the great room is more than twice what you see in the photos of the FPB83. 360 degree views bring the outdoors into an intimate relationship, a wonderful experience in remote regions. The layouts shown maintain the feeling of openness yet offer physical constraint and convenient handholds for passaging.


There is a helm station forward, which can disappear in port. The banquette opposite the galley has an opening section to facilitate movement. Aft of the banquette a bar area is shown.


Lower Deck

The lower deck also has a variety of possibilities. This one has an enormous owner’s suite, situated forward where it is isolated from machinery noise aft, private, and by virtue of its location easily ventilated with fresh air through an array of deck hatches.


This layout is similar to that of the FPB 83, Wind Horse, of which the photo series below will give you a feel. The volume is on the order of two-and-a-half times that of Wind Horse. An interesting feature is the annex aft of the stateroom area. This is drawn as a combination dressing room and private office. A six foot (1.85m) couch is shown to port for napping, or having a private chat with someone. There is a makeup table to starboard.



The photo above is looking forward from the stairs on Wind Horse.

Looking forward from the port side (above).

 

And the view from the forward area aft.

 

The aft accommodations includes three staterooms, each with head/shower ensuite. The two forward cabins are shown with a queen-size bunk and a pair of singles. The aft starboard stateroom could be a crew cabin or for added family or guests. The space adjacent the stairs to the main deck contains a pantry/laundry area. There is room for the washer and drier, a large folding/ironing surface, and lots of storage. The fridge/freezer box is for long-term cruising inventory. Aft and port is an engineering annex with a small desk, electrical panels, and, storage for specialty items. Forward of this accommodation area is a systems space which is reserved for batteries, inverters, hot water cylinder, and stabilizer mechanisms. It can be used for stores, similar to the basements on the FPB 64 and 83. Full headroom makes access easier and improves storage volume.


Engine Room



We’ll just touch briefly on the engine room (a more detailed discussion will follow later). Our yachts have featured aft engine rooms for more than three decades. The location allows full headroom, noise isolation, and efficient exhaust systems. There is superb access to machinery, as you can see in the drawing.

Lazarette

From the swim step there is access for two lazarettes. To port is the flammable stores area. The much larger volume on the starboard side has many potential uses including dive gear and other water sports items.

Forepeak


The forepeak is isolated from the rest of the interior with a water tight bulkhead (there is another collision bulkhead forward of the chain bin). Access is via a three foot (90cm) deck hatch with a much larger hatch forward with a jib boom off the foremast for lifting heavy objects.


Now a few comments on the deck plan. The aft deck area, beyond the covered lounging area, has room for a pair of dinghies; perhaps a 19-foot/5.8m aluminum work boat and a 12-foot/3.7m RIB. These are quickly launched or retrieved with the booms. There are two large opening hatches over the engine room, another for the pilot house, two over the salon, and four in conjunction with the owner’s suite.

There is a large flying bridge, for which there are many layout possibilities.

Commercial Version


Switching now to the commercial layout, we will make just a few comments and come back to this later in more detail. We will start with the pilot-house level. Note that there are three helming positions; two facing aft and one forward. There are four work stations, and a large table for laying out charts or other documents. This makes up into a conference table as well.

The main deck is oriented around usage by up to 12 crew and passengers.


The lower deck has six cabins plus a crew lounge, which could also be employed as extra cabin(s) space.

The basement area has been shown empty, the assumption being this would be used for computer racks, stores, and perhaps a large fridge/freezer. The lounge area is open to port, and might be used for exercise equipment, or a pantry area. Aft of the settee is a washer and drier.

The four cabins aft each have their own head and shower, a desk, and substantial storage area for personal effects.

Additional Resources


There is lots of additional data on the FPB concept throughout the Dashew Offshore website. Videos of the FPB 83 and 64s showing how these yachts handle rough water are available here (64) and here (83) You can download a variety of drawings at our server located here.

The FPB 115 is a natural evolution of the the FPB concept. With exceptional comfort in offshore mode, heavy weather endurance beyond any other ocean crossing yacht, and minimized cost of ownership, the FPB 115 represents a break through for the owner who wishes to operate in less than ideal environments.

For more information contact ToddR@SetSail.com

Post script: for those wishing to play with interior layouts gridded plan views are available for download along with the other drawings. Grid spacing is two feet/600 mm.


“I’d love to try a passage on the 115 to see for myself. I’m sure that when we picked up our mooring in port and took the dinghy to shore, I would look longingly back at her. Function is beautiful.”

–Yachting Magazine

For more information on the FPB Series, e-mail ToddR@SetSail.com

 


Posted by Steve Dashew  (January 6, 2012)




48 Responses to “FPB 115 – A New Paradigm”

  1. Clay Newburn Says:
    Q: have you considered gyro stabilization and if so what is your current opinion?

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Clay: Yes. Lots of answers on this. Use the SetSail search function t dig them out.

    [Reply]


  2. Carl Nostrand Says:
    FPB 115. She offers serious beauty in form, efficiency, and function. She would deliver a new level of nautical economy connection our coastal communities in Alaska. Why is it that people in power have a learning disability when it comes to progressive boat design. THis vessel solves many transportation issues connecting remote coastal towns with technology, healthcare, sciences, and the renewable energies. THe FPB’s demonstrate there high level of economic value and practical nature what ever the maritime application. BRAVO! WU li wa Carl Nostrand

    [Reply]


  3. Scott Barnett Says:
    Steve, Have you had any thoughts on diesel electric drives for the FPB 115? Are diesel electric drives cost effective or cost prohibitive in an application such as this? I know that the electrical installation of D/E’s are rather complex, is this a contributing factor as to why I haven’t seen any entertaining comments from you on the subject? Still marvell at all of your designs. Regards, Scott M. Barnett

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Diesel electric must sound appealing because we keep getting this same question! The answer is in our size range and with our very efficient domestic systems these do not make sense.

    [Reply]

    Christian Jonasson Reply:

    Yes I think direct drive is best but with D/E or F/E (fuel cell) you can have modular system of power. That I think is more of the future, how knows.

    [Reply]


  4. George Williamson Says:
    Could you do some 3D renderings of the 115 like you have done on the 97? Do you have plans in the future to tweak the design of the 115 and the 64 to incorporate some of the features of the 97?

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    No plans to change them. The FPB 97 is a special concept unto i tself.

    [Reply]


  5. John Says:
    Given what you’ve done with the FPB 93, will you be “updating” the FPB 115?

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    No, the 115 is a totally different design.

    [Reply]

    Martin Reply:

    Not even the 97′s ventilation system? If not how are the guest cabins ventilated?

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Different concept here, Martin. A pressurized system is employed for the center and aft lower deck.

  6. Rod Manser Says:
    Is it possible to install more power to get more speed? I guess what I’m really asking about is the weight budget in order to get more power in the engine’s duty cycle required for cruising. I ask because the hull looks so efficient. But perhaps seakeeping becomes an issue if you try to make 20 kts in this design… I saw some Yanmar 6SY that weighed close to the Deeres you spec’d. Great design regardless Thanks,

    [Reply]

    Rod Manser Reply:

    Oops, I guess that was a total of 1,580 lbs heavier uninstalled, which is a 45% growth in weight and not sure about the ZF gears but I think they are within a total of 150 lbs. heavier. Perhaps a 6CX is weight is that critical, albiet lighter duty. Cheers,

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Hi Rod: You can indeed for speed into the equation, but at significant cost in comfort. Still, when the FPB 97 is sea trialed in light condition, she may surprise a few people in spite of her soft lines aft.

    [Reply]

    Rod Manser Reply:

    Do you know when/where that trial will take place? Thanks,

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    No dates yet.

  7. Martin Says:
    I still want one of these when I win the lottery, although I do like the way the Wicked owner’s cabin is laid out. It looks bigger though; is there enough room to do something similar on the 115?

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    The 115 layout is intended to show one of many possibilities. You could certainly do something similar to the FPB 97 with its owner’s suite.

    [Reply]


  8. John Says:
    I love these boats. The style, layout efficiency and ‘simplicity’ of the design are to be commended. I like the intended use as well. I have gone through each boat that you have listed and they are very impressive. Also, the amount of background research that has gone into systems, equipment and applications speaks volumes about your devotion to this concept. Forgive me but I am curious about the overall design. To me, (naive and ignorant of fine naval architectural principles) I see a potential for a triamarran adaptation of the 115. The long lines and fairly slender hull certainly seem capable as evidenced by the delivery videos on the web page but would the outer hulls would increase the stability as well as offer a significant long-term storage capability. I do foresee some potential issues about hull slap, slamming, rocking, etc. I worked for years on 39m aluminum catamaran ferries with MTU/Jets that had their moments with sea-keeping. I understand that weight, amongst other issues, would be a dictating factor but it seems as though it could offer an increased safety margin and or increased righting moments. Keep up the good work

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Multihull configurations, if kept light, can be very efficient. However, the very high stability makes them sub-optimal in the comfort department at sea, and in extreme weather, stable in am inverted position. So, from our perspective, a monohull makes the most sense for serious ocean voyaging.

    [Reply]


  9. Henry Says:
    I see that you specified a JD 6068SFM50 M4 engine. That engine has a recommended annual usage of only 800 hours. Would the JD 6068SFM75 M2 be an option, giving an annual usage of 3000 hours? This engine is slightly larger in foot print and adds 250 pounds, but seems more inline with the overall theme.

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    The engines are rated at 235HP but require less than 100hp at normal cruising speed, in the M1 range. A thousand or more hours per year is barely loafing.

    [Reply]


  10. Carl Nostrand Says:
    I know that a commercial 115 would work in Alaska. Caring bikes, kayaks, students, and active adventurers coast wise would be the cargo. I think that she could handle the Gulf of Alaska weather quite nicely. Connecting the Sea Weed Org’s (Grass root for land lovers) with a coastal cruiser like the 115 or the Wicked 97 would be, and is a technology goal well worth the trouble of bring about a vessel which will educate and and demonstrate too the public a new paradime of offshore ocean travel. She will be a greatly loved vessel, “M/V Sylvia Earl”.

    [Reply]


  11. James Masters Says:
    Such a thoroughly-thought-thru creation — as are all your designs. Thank you both, again, for having your experience-grounded wisdom available to all of us who respect and admire y’all so very, very much. This gem being on our Intended-Outcomes List, naturally has had me pouring thru this page with a fine-toothed comb — many, many times — personalizing it in my experience as part of our Creating-/Manifesting-process. In doing that today, i noticed that the pics under the “Main Deck”- and “Lower Deck”-headings somehow have gotten reversed. (Must’ve happened recently, because they weren’t before.) Your comments below each of the those pics, further corroborate this obviously-unintended “swap”. P.S. Thanks for allowing us to partner in proofreading this magnificent site. Happens naturally, given we check it every day. :)

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Thanks for the heads up.

    [Reply]


  12. Ryan Says:
    Would you be able to put a couple renders up with a photo background as you’ve done with the FPB 97 ? I use one of the 97 shots as my background but would love one of the 115 as I think she is a much nicer vessel. How big is the lounging area aft of the pilothouse? I imagine that area would get a ton of use, both underway as well as on passage.

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    When we are caught up with the work on the first 97 we’ll see about a few more 115 renders. But right now everyone is flat out on the boat under construction.

    [Reply]

    Ryan Reply:

    Fair enough; if I was building a boat I can’t really say I’d be thinking about much else either ;)

    [Reply]


  13. Steve Says:
    Another interesting development transitioning from the workboat environment to the yachting world – They developed the sea-axe hull form for oil resuppy vessels (mud boats) that need to operate in any weather and not beat up the relief crew for the rig too badly. They share some of your goals of efficiency, sea kindliness, and foul weather capability and end up with remarkably similar looking hulls to yours. The interesting thing is the bow form which is deepest right at the stem which they claim has hydrodynamic benefits, at least at the speeds they like to run. Might be worth looking at when you return to the 115 concept. They are building 37, 50 and 67 meter versions. I am not suggesting a change, just food for thought. Sadly they are using the hull for obscenely large support vessels to carry toys (launches, subs, jet skis etc.), spares, supplies for an even larger super yachts – as if the yachts can’t carry enough stuff.

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    The sea-axe bow has benefits and negatives. For example, they “bite” and bow steer going down wind at moderate speed, which disqualifies the concept for us right off the bat. There is also nothing new here, as these shapes were used in the early days of power on a variety of designs. That said, for going slowly, where steering control is not an issue, and where you are forced to live in the pointy end, they may make sense.

    [Reply]


  14. Ben Woodford Says:
    The lines of all your boats are wonderful, and I really like the fact that the interiors are not fitted out like some kind of rococo bordello. I am curious about how much space there is on the aft deck for tenders, RIBs and toys. What would the maximum length and beam of tender be for the space? Also, how much weight can the booms handle for loading and unloading?

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    The FPB 115 has space for an 18 foot RIB with booms rated to 1600 pounds.

    [Reply]


  15. Shannon Says:
    In another area I saw that you factored in diesel burned to heat the cabin. Do you use heat produced by the engines to heat the cabin while underway? If not,is there a reason why? I realize doing that would be more complex than heating a car but it seems to me that the fuel savings would be worth a little additional complexity,especially in cold climates. Diesels produce a great deal of heat & it kills me to see that heat go unused. Maybe it’s more complex or there are drawbacks than I am not figuring. I am picturing a heater core in the existing ducting so you could use heat from the drive engines,while underway, or a standard diesel heater while at anchor.

    [Reply]


  16. Shannon Says:
    I just wanted to say your designs take safety & efficiency into account far beyond any other builders. That’s why I was wondering how you heat the cabin areas.

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Heat is via a Kabola diesel boiler, pumping hot water to fan coils throughout the boat. There are heat exchangers on the engines into this circuit so waste heat is available for the interior, if desired, when underway.

    [Reply]


  17. Gary Roulston Says:
    My knowledge may be way out of date but doesn’t 115 foot ship require a Commercial Masters license to operate in US waters? I am intrigued by your designs and am looking to buy mid 2014 for a round the world tour. What are the current prices and availability?

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Hi Gary: We do not keep up to date with these regs. Perhaps other Setsailors have some knowledge on this subject and will comment. However, I’d be surprised is a private owner using the boat on his own would need a commercial ticket.

    [Reply]


  18. Jerry A. Lee Says:
    Could Z drive propulsion units be utilized on the FPB 115? It seems you could get more speed and maneuverability with these units.

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Z-drives are problematic in terms of impact resistance and ground loads, so we do not think the fit our needs.

    [Reply]


  19. Jerry A. Lee Says:
    What is the head room throughout the ship? I am 6’8″ tall and would be interested as to how comfortable it is.

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    The FPB has 2.05 meters headroom in the standard configuration, or six foot eight inches. This can be adjusted as much as 50mm/two inches higher if required without a huge amount of engineering. Todd Rickard can fill you in on the details.

    [Reply]


  20. Shannon Says:
    I was comparing this to Nordhavn designs. Weight wise the N64 is pretty close. The N64 gets about .5 mpg at 10.5. The FPB 115 gets .83 at 12.0 and the FPB has more room,lots more room both inside & out. The FPB is safer,more comfortable in heavy weather,more damage resistant in the event the worst happens and there is less maintenance. If you go up in the Nordhavn line to get similar space the efficiency numbers get even more skewed. They are very different boats & don’t lend themselves well to direct comparison but when you look at the weight being moved,the speed you are moving that weight & the space you get for a given weight the results are astounding. Not to mention safety,comfort and maintenance factors. Outstanding Steve (and team). If I ever have the money to seriously consider a large yacht there really is no other builder to consider.

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Thanks Shannon: In the world of going through the water efficiently nothing beats waterline length, or more properly put effective waterline length. So, we do have a big advantage over the trawler types in this regard. But a direct comparison as you have pointed out, is not really practical. Yes we are faster and more fuel efficient, but we don’t have the bulk (OK, volume) of comparably long trawlers. On the other hand, we have much greater range, better sea keeping capability (which comes naturally with a long, efficient hull shape), and more interior length in which to place engine rooms and forepeak storage.

    [Reply]

    Shannon Reply:

    I was thinking about efficiency again and,of course,I came back here. I noticed all your fuel charts start at a fairly high speed. I was wondering what kind of fuel burn you would expect in the 97 & the 115 if you cut the speed all the way back to a typical long range cruise speed of a similar displacement trawler? (8 or 9 knots)

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    The fuel burn is very low at slow speeds. However, in the real world, FPB owners never cross oceans slowly in their FPBs – it is more comfortable to go fast, in addition to reducing weather risk. So relying on slow speed fuel burn data would be misleading.

  21. Michael Says:
    Hi Steve and Linda, I wonder if it is practical to reduce forepeak weight by leading the anchor chain to a more midships location, thereby allowing better weight placement when traveling and at the same time, allowing more scope t be carried should it be needed, say for anchoring offshore islands with vey deep areas. On my Motor Sailor Ketch, used n the Marlborough Sounds in NZ, it carries 110 meters of Galvinised Chain with about 10 metres of that being Stainless Steel for above decks looks and weather proof maintanance. While the 110 metre / approx 350 ft length of the chain suits most places, If I had a larger boat, I would like the ability to anchor in deeper places with a longer scope. To cary more in the forepeak would add perhaps too much weight even in a bigger boat, so wondered if anyone had already looked at creating an anchor chain locker more midships say about 1/3rd of the way from the bow, and running the chain through a suitably lined / water flushed/ forced , air dried pipe. I haven’t seen such an idea used on the internet, so I guess it may be too impractical. I do think though that if it worked, it would add stability with the chain weight more central in the boat while moving and at anchor not affecting the trim so much like when a standard anchor locker is emptied in the front, of the chain. KInd Regards, Michael.

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Hi Michael: We have met many cruisers who bring their chain aft for better weight concentration. However, it is a pain, and we’ve put up with the weight in the bow rather than going through the chain aft process.

    [Reply]



Comments or Questions?