Between a few Wind Horse projects, playing with our progeny, and ogling the Florida seascape and fauna, work on the FPB 115 has had competition, but going on none-the-less. We have been chatting with professional crews, visiting with vendors, even the recent derating of our engines relates.
It is relatively simple these days for us to predict smooth water power requirements. What is harder to calculate are rough water drags from wind and seas. We know from experience, based on fuel burn, with Wind Horse the average rough water drag increase is not more than 20%. But we don’t know the peak requirements, and not wanting to be caught short the tendency is to have a high margin of safety. With the FPB 83 we think with the engines now at M1, or 105 HP, still have sufficient grunt for adverse conditions. But only real world testing will tell us for certain. Wind Horse is essentially a half scale model of the FPB 115 (based on displacement) and so an excellent test vehicle. What we learn over the next few months about our derated performance will help dial in the FPB 115.
One of the details to be considered at this stage of the design cycle is storage and handling of dinghies and other watercraft. Towards this end we visited with US Submarine in Vero Beach, Florida. Their two person 1000foot/300m depth rated sub is the ideal vehicle for a quick tour around the bottom, if you can store, launch and retrieve it in less than perfect weather, and deal with the ancillary gear. Linda is shown above with a pallet of battery chargers, an oxygen generator, and assorted spares (blue tubs). We have some ideas for handling the three ton sub, and the gear will be easily absorbed.
The roll over models have been refined and we are still playing with various combinations of ballast, loading, and buoyancy. Shown here (and in the first image) is a volumetric model for heeled stability studies. We are seeing results which are in line with or better than the early assumptions. We are happy with where the design stands in this regard. There remains a final pass through the interior and hull shape to go, and then we are ready to wrap up this phase.
Now, before you start feeling sorry for the fact that we are working as we cruise a few photos follow from the local environs.
Posted by Steve Dashew (May 20, 2011)
May 23rd, 2011 at 1:32 am
Hi Steve,
Is a yellow submarine going to be standard equipment on the FPB112, or an optional extra?
May 23rd, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Howdy max:
The sub would have to be considered an option (one of the few).
May 24th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Oh Boy. A Sub-Dingy. I still can’t afford even a 64′ but now I see the reason for the 112′. 🙂
May 25th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
The 112 looks pretty good in 3D.
May 26th, 2011 at 2:37 am
Can’t wait to see what has got to be a huge update for the 112 coming up (layouts, options, etc….)
May 29th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
I understand the perfection this is designed towards in regards to stability, efficiency and comfort. However, would it be possible to re configure the superstructure so that this vessel could accommodate a small helicopter such as an R-44/Bell 206 or MD-500 variant? I would think the research utility of the vessel would vastly increase considering most customers looking to invest this much in the vessel certainly have other tools and resources as well.
May 29th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Hi Andrew:
We have not yet looked at helicopter operations, but I doubt seriously they are practical in such a small yacht. But that is just the comment of an ex-pilot (fixed wing) and we will eventually discuss this with someone expert in the field.
May 30th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Operating helicopters off boats is a dangerous thing. The smaller the more dangerous and 112 is considered very small for helio ops. The idea of “air cover” is very appealing even for private use. Consider an amphibious airplane with folding wings as a safer and much less expensive alternative. There are several Light Sport category aircraft that have folding wings. Check this web site. It is not as comprehensive as the title suggests and it does not list several established airplanes. http://www.lightsportaircrafthq.com/Amphibious-LSA.htm Another worth checking out: http://www.funplacestofly.com/blog.asp?ID=91
One may ask what do you do if the water is too rough to put the plane in the water… If that is the case it is too rough to fly.
May 31st, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Steve,
When you question the size are you referring to the displacement? There are many vessels smaller than this (length wise) operating helicopters. One I have witnessed in person was ‘Zembra III’, an Innace vessel retrofitted to accept a R-44. 112′ isn’t small in my book.
Daryl,
I am quite aware of the LSA phenomenon as a private fixed wing pilot myself however amphibious aircraft lack a lot of versatility as they either require an airport or a large stretch of calm open water and must abide by fixed wing regulations which here in the United states is far more suppressive than those for rotorcraft. LSA’s are also limited to 2 persons and slower than most helicopters.
an interesting subject for sure,
Andrew
June 1st, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Andrew,
The issue is the movement (pitch and roll, not vertical) of the landing pad. I have 27,000 hrs+ of fixed wing time (including float planes in Canada) but very little rotor wing experience. You should find an experienced Navy or Coast Guard pilot for the real scoop. The gist of the problem is gyroscopic precession of the main rotor blades. If you are on the deck with the rotor at flying rpm and get a roll or pitch that is beyond the articulation capabilities of the rotor head they tend to flop over on their side. There is a lot of energy at that point that is transferred rather violently to whatever is in the way…… My thought is that if it is too rough to launch a float plane helio ops would be dicey.
I read somewhere of a yacht designer (sorry I can’t remember who or when) that was building boats much bigger than 112 feet that didn’t like helipads on his boats due to the risks involved.
I’ve looked at this issue from the point of view of my 44ft. boat. I really don’t like aircraft that are controlled by weight shift but haven’t found a better solution than this so far. http://www.flying-boat.com/index.php Bombardier has something similar. I’m still looking but may settle for something similar. The main advantage of this type is that the flying surfaces can be folded up and put in a tube for storage on the boat.
June 3rd, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Daryl,
I don’t have 10% of your logged time, but I do fly the finest trike manufactured today, the French-made DTA Voyager — the main battle tank of the trike world, that has flown (unsupported by ground vehicles) 27,000 miles from the tip of South America up through the Americas, across the North Sea, down through Europe and to the tip of Africa. No compression strut in your field of view, and with a topless (no king post) wing (I fly under a Northwing 15 meter) it’s as gentle as a sleeping kitten. And you’re right, a trike could be stowed on the FPB112 almost as easily as a large motorcycle and would be far, far more fun than the latter. Same views, but from the air.
Of course, a trike carries one passenger whereas an R44 carries three. If either one (sans floats) goes down in the drink you have minimum one fatality and I agree, a chopper off the deck of a craft this small (the beam IS small, compared to what most megayacht helipads span) is asking for a fatality soon or late. Another thing that nixes flight ops off the FBP vessels is those flopper-stopper booms. I don’t know a rotary-wing pilot that would take the job even if a platform could be rigged. I don’t think the FPBs are that kind of vessel anyway, and Steve is wise to steer clear.
Then there’s the various national airspace regs; I think most cruisers have enough headaches just dealing with customs and immigration and harbormasters!
It will be interesting to see how the 2-man sub and its accoutrements lay out on deck and in the hold; I think that’s a much more natural operational scenario…but still not simple by a long shot.
June 3rd, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Daryl and DM,
Although the question of a helicopter is probably to be decided on a case by case basis, the main question I was intending to ask was is the superstructure configuration set in stone or could a customer with specific requirements have it modified without substantial reengineering?
June 4th, 2011 at 7:09 am
Andrew:
The basic superstructure could be modified slightly. But doubt there is space for a good sized dinghy and a helicopter.
June 13th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
As an architectural engineer, I deeply appreciate the exquisite aesthetics and refinement of the FPB series interiors, married to the bulletproof durability and total functionality of FPB exteriors. That perfect antithesis captured my interest in your work, and has retained my interest for years.
I have no business making the comments below; just two cents from the barnyard. I’m sure everyone that follows this blog appreciates your self-effacing way with the public (some of whom of course become customers and product-refiners) over the years. No other designer that I know of, is as forthcoming.
Now the two cents.
I know there must be good reasons (i.e. helm sightline in rough conditions) for the raised pilothouse design of the FPB112 versus the ‘great room’ simplicity (and attendant cameraderie) on the FPB83 and the 64 series. But as to sightlines over the much longer snout, raising the great room main deck by 30″ would give the same forward visibility as on the 64 series. The FPB design concept and onboard ‘culture’ — helm station at the fore end of the ‘great room’ and a plain flying bridge for threading through close-call waters — could be retained on the FPB flagship as on the others.
The other thing (I mentioned this earlier) is possible integration of the helm, to what would seem to be “FPB standard” of elegant simplicity, rather than the hodgepodge of control heads, gauges, etc. As former pilots, you and I can appreciate the aesthetic and ergonomic difference between, say, a stock 1956 Cessna Skyhawk IFR panel and a 2010 Cessna Corvallis panel. Both planes are 4-place IFR capable; same manufacturer. Without disparaging any manufacturer’s product on any early series FPB helm, I think a Palladium Technologies (or similar) glass bridge would change the aspect entirely. I know that Palladium also has their SiMON 2 system, designed around the iPad and you appear to be a real whale on Apple products. Just a thought.
I may very well be missing some operational considerations in using all the various proprietary GUI and control head assemblies; no dependence on a single system, for instance. Or perhaps the cost of the Palladium Glass Bridge is much higher, but in the FPB112 price range I boubt that will be a major factor.
With a raised pilothouse, I can see a different culture kick in. A professional captain doesn’t care about aesthetics; mostly durability and function. I know that function is all-important in the FPBs; as I said earlier, I love that all systems and components in the ER aren’t hidden by white wall and ceiling panels but left open for easy monitoring and maintenance.
Again, I’m totally unqualified to kibbitz about these things. As I’ve said before, the FPB series are in my view the finest human creations on thew surface of the sea. I just had to ask.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Hi David:
Most of the users of the FPB 112 will want a separate wheelhouse. These include commercial operators and those with full time crew. For our traditional client, couples, there are advantages as well. Foremost are the sightlines in ice and debris. Where this advantage would be offset by motion penalties in smaller designs, the 112 will be able to deliver the comfort at sea we have grown to admire even at the elevated position.
That said, the standard spec includes a pilot control, engine controls, and a set of nav gear in the great room, so you have the option of standing watch from either local.
As to control integration, I am personally gun shy about putting everything into a single system. The concern is one of those black swan events which wipes you out. Think lightening strike, voltage spike from something gone awry, or maybe a leak from a broken plumbing fitting. That t his happens in Tierra del Fuego, Irian Jaya, or Greenland is a given. In the aircraft things happen a little faster and you are normally not far from help.
June 15th, 2011 at 11:57 am
All very rational, Steve. Thanks for taking the time to address a neophyte taking potshots at your fascinating work.
So back to personal *desiderata*: is Circa set up to replicate the 83 with the refinements found in the 64s? With the swim platform extension as on FPB64-3, the fish cleaning station as on FPB64-4, and some a space concession* made for a SCUBA station — a mini-lazarette aft end of the ER — a couple and their occasional visitor friends, kids, and grandkids would have the best of all possible FPB worlds and even could accomodate crew in the ‘out years’.
David
*I could see the extra ER space coming from switching to a single propulsor as on the 64s and most of the world’s commercial fleet.
June 15th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Hi David:
Circa have their hands full with current projects as do we. There are no plans for more 83s at present.
June 19th, 2011 at 7:28 am
“As to control integration, I am personally gun shy about putting everything into a single system. The concern is one of those black swan events which wipes you out.”
For my two cents, absolutely stay gun shy. There are yoo many cases where a failure or an unanticipated interaction in or between integrated programs or components brought down the whole system.
There is another advantage to your approach, you can by choice shut down individual systems to control info overload under various conditions.
June 19th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Aircraft. The most fun, easy to fly and with least restrictions is probably a Trike (weight shift aircraft). A Float Trike based on something like Airborne, http://www.airborne.com.au, would store on and be easily launched from, the FPB 112. This type of Aircraft is useable worldwide with very few restrictions, as they fall within the Sport Light Aircraft (SLA) category in most countries. To me well worth a consideration as a “flight device” for a fpb. Go here http://www.fpna.com/wgtshift.htm for floats on trikes (weight shift) aircraft.