What we fear most in the design cycle is getting so locked into a single concept that we miss a much better approach. That is why we drag out the preliminary end of the process, to try and make sure we look at all avenues. Although the previous riff on the FPB 115 was good, this is much better. And it is not just the aesthetics ( with which we are still fussing). Thanks are due to the previously mentioned prodder (can you imagine coming up with this after having started construction!) for asking the right questions in a timely manner.
Consider the following:
- The great room sole is now at the same level from the forward end through the aft deck and maintains the 360 degree views of the FPB 64 and 83.
- The pilot house is a bit roomier with far more layout options.
- The top level flying bridge has better sight lines and 360 degree views.
- Lower level accommodations run all the way from the engine room bulkhead to the forward end of the basement with full headroom.
- The aft deck is roughly 14″/350mm below hull edge which lowers dinghies (visual bonus) and provides a very cozy lounging area under the overhang.
We mentioned last week we’d let things cool down and then take another look. We are at that same point again, and will come back to this one more time after returning from New Zealand.
Posted by Steve Dashew (March 17, 2011)
March 17th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Hi Steve,
I’m glad to see the top level flying bridge back on top of the house.
I’ve seen you and Linda use it a lot coming into in bays and sightseeing; even in those colder climates.
I think the flying bridge of all the boats would be a terrific place to take it all in. (particularly when it’s calm!)
I liked the first version, and initially thought I’d miss the full height windows on the galley level, but now looking at them side by side I admit that this one does look more ‘right’.
Cheers,
Anthony
March 17th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Looks even better….I can’t wait to see the new interiors.
March 17th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Dear Steve,
As this is a group design effort (serious tongue in cheek) I have a few comments:
a. Big boat with lots of space – however, I am wondering if lengthening the pilot house / salon even more to encompass 30 to 35 percent of total deck length. It appears to be around 25 percent of overall length now. If it were mine and it’s not, I would be looking for more deckspace under hard cover also… Yes, I grew up in SE and the Seattle area so nice weather to me is light rain and 65 degrees. Table for 6 on aft deck…
b. Is there a steering station on the salon deck? I have spent a lot of time on a 120′ crabber and I know the 112 is stabilized, but when not moving or going slow, being down low is really really nice. On dads boat we had a simple steering lever (hyd) and autopilot at main deck level for when it was uncomfortable to be 40′ up.
c. verticle stem please… this is a bad habit of mine, I see one and try to buy the boat.
d. I am a big believer in driving with headlights on at night – lighting a 500 yard area is a wonderful thing when in growlers. And yes, the purist yachting crowd thinks I am weird this way.
e. I don’t know how to explain this, but the topping lift look ummm, weird or wrong or something…
f. All pilot house glass to have draft like front glass?
No response required. These are just ideas I needed to get out of my brain.
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:18 am
Howdy Cattledog:
Interesting comments. The bottom line is there are lots of ways to configure this design package. The house, for example, at 10M x 4,4M (33 x 14′) is huge. Does it need to be larger? Depends. Same applies to the aft deck overhang. If you want sun on nice days then what we have is ideal, and can always be extended with an awning.
There is indeed a steering station in the great room.
Stem angle is impacted by aesthetics, and the need to keep the anchor clear. These boats have so much waterline now that they do not need any more.
Re lighting forward, there will be a large bow spot as on the other FPBs.
Topping lifts are fine, but these are just roughs.
March 17th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Steve,
I will have to say that this version is by far the best.
I can see a Captain’s Cabin and day head in the pilot house,
along with the a built in settee or seating on the aft end
of the pilot house deck.
One other note of mention of how much the sheer line of the FPB 112 looks very much
the same as the Kingston class HMCS YELLOWKNIFE based out of Esquimalt B.C.
Which you may of seen in your travels on the west coast.
Keep up the good work and thank you for the updates that we all look forward too.
Tony
March 18th, 2011 at 12:47 am
what about the fore mast? Are you going back to the original Windhorse design vs the new open design?
–raj
March 18th, 2011 at 7:16 am
Hello Raj:
The forward mast will have a jib boom for lifting heavy gear from the forepeak, so we will probably be staying with the center mast. But we have to look at the loads and spans before we tie this down.
March 18th, 2011 at 1:36 am
Much nicer and with a one level great room like WH. Also can’t wait to see the new interiors
Carlos
March 18th, 2011 at 5:38 am
Hi Steve,
I think your “prodder” has asked the right questions indeed.
Maintaining 360º view on both levels is nothing short of the same genius that led you during your previous designs.
Nicely done.
Alberto
March 18th, 2011 at 7:13 am
Thank you for the kind words Alberto:
However, it was not our “genius”, but the push of someone else, that initiated the process which lead to this happy state of affairs. We should also mention Todd Rickard’s input and that of Steve Davis with whom we have worked for 25 years or more.
March 18th, 2011 at 7:14 am
Steve,
Will paravanes be even possible as backup on a boat with this much mass? The booms will certainly be helpful, but I would imagine the “fish” would be huge and the corresponding loads would be massive. The design has progressed beautifully. Looking forward to more as always
Best
Scott
March 18th, 2011 at 9:36 am
Hi Scott:
We look at paravanes as something to attenuate roll, slow it down, more than stop it. Our experience when testing Wind Horse is that the motion without the NAIADs is tolerable enough that if we were starting a trans-ocean passage and lost t he stabilizer system, we’d continue. As a result we reduced our fish size from 80 pounds to 22. The 112 has roughly twice the stability of the 83, so using the same logic 45 pound fish would be carried.
March 18th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Steve:
I do like the tradeoffs you made between v2 and v1 and like v2 better. Sorry though, still saving sheckels for a 64 let alone a 112. Did you consider a version without the pilothouse – one laid out like the 83 and 64? Would make setting awnigs easier, provide more flying bridge space, lower CG, simplify, and, in my opinion, look better.
The tradeoff would obviously be more demands on great room space. However, in looking at the 83 and the room you have, it looks like you could still comfortably fit 6-8 in the 112 with ample room. I suppose the qestion is, how often will you have crew (and do you want separation) and do you even want to split your family/guests – me reading quietly in the pilothouse sipping a nice wine while the kids battle it out in the great room?
I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Best of luck,
G
March 20th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Hi Giles:
The pilot house has been in the design from the beginning. You need the height for good sight lines as the bow is higher with more shear than the FPB 83. That said, we would be happy to do a pilothouseless version for you. Iw would indeed be sleek looking!
March 18th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Hi Steve,
Looking fantastic! Have you considered extending the upper deck back further and locating the dingies on top? On a boat this size, I don’t think would detract aesthetically and it would provide an enormous amount of valuable deck space and shading to the lower deck. How much would locating that mass up higher detract from the stability? Especially in tropical climates I believe shading is absolutely critical and is one of the (very few) draw backs I can see with the FPB64.
If this was my boat I would use it for diving/surfing expeditions starting in the Pacific (and then work our way round the world). We do a lot of technical decompression diving (eg with 4 tanks per person per dive or more) and it amazing how much space is required once half a dozen or more divers are on board.
Marco
March 20th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Hi Marco:
Dinghies on the upper deck are much harder to handle (dangerous) in a rolling anchorage, and raise the VCG. The aft overhang can be easily augmented with a retractable awning.
March 20th, 2011 at 1:07 am
…and an extended swim platform too?
Steve
March 20th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Howdy Steve:
There will be a swim step projection, accomplished by pulling the topsides forward.
March 20th, 2011 at 7:46 am
Hi Steve:
Wouldn’t it be practical to have a side deck beside the pilot house?
If I look at your previous cross section, a levelling of the outside ‘deck’ of the pilot house as well as vertical windows on the sides, could make it possible to easily walk between flybridge and foredeck, and if you add side doors to the pilot house also getting from the pilot house out to the sides and to the foredeck. Should help short-handed docking etc.
Will
March 20th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Hello Will:
A side deck for the pilot house cost volume inside and has a negative impact on inverted stability. The real issue is cleaning the windows and we’ll have enough of a ledge for that. The forward windows are easily accessed.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Hi Steve,
As you mentioned this remod is even more aesthetically pleasing. Might you consider a portugese bridge?
And the bow is big enough to incorporate a flying kite/assist sail unit maybe!
Looking forward to viewing the final specs.
Best
Graham
March 20th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Hi Graham:
I d on’t think a Portuguese bridge will work out for many reasons, including the need for all doors to be watertight when inverted.
March 21st, 2011 at 12:32 am
Hi Steve,
Having a pilothouse on the commercial version works well, but on the “couples” version raises some questions.
Would meals be delivered “upstairs” while underway? Or would you take turns to eat “downstairs”?
Would being underway be as enjoyable with most communication being done on an intercom?
What happened the advantages of the “great room”?
Do a couple really want a trideck + flybridge? (Lots of steps to climb.)
I do like that the deckhouse is now on deck. You don’t need to be a catholic (used to being on their knees) or a leprechaun to use the storeroom. Sidedecks can now be permanently covered. (No need to rig awnings.)
Why not float a drawing of a double decker (no half decks, full standing headroom everywhere)+ flybridge and see what response you get?
Cheers
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:08 am
Hi Max:
The standard version will have a set of controls in the great room, as with the other FPBs. So, where you do not need the full array of electronics, watch standing could be done other than in the pilot house. If you were so inclined, an extra radar monitor could installed at this level as well.
March 26th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Would raising the great room, say 4-5 feet, eliminate the need for a pilot house while improving line of sight and increasing the height in the basement room without the need to lower the tank tops? My guess is without a pilot house, the overall structure is probably more rigid and stability potentially better or same?
March 29th, 2011 at 12:52 am
Hi Quoc:
The interior level below the Great Room has full headroom throughout and this includes the basement. So, there is no need to raise the Great Room. Rigidity of the structure is the same with or without the pilot house, although the pilot house does require more metal in the transverse support structure.
April 5th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
When do we start seeing floor plans? I am imagining that the one level will make for a MUCH more elegant layout than the previous ranch-burger. Love it all.
April 5th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Howdy Passagemaker:
We are a couple of weeks away from a revised set of interior and exterior drawings. Stay tuned…
April 6th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Have you thought about a kite sail?:
April 7th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Hi Elliiot:
We have followed the kite sail development closely. At some point, we will give it a try. With t he bow fairlead the FPBs are ideally suited for this
April 24th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Hello again,
Any thoughts of a diesel / electric version?
Also, any room and electrical excess left over for a gyroscopic stabilizer(s) instead of fins?
Would recessing the lower forward windows similarly to the upper windows make for a safer design in case of hitting something while occasionally submerged taking a breaking wave?
Can the hull be built entirely double hulled?
Also like the kite powered idea.
Rough estimate of the final cost of the FPB 112?
Thanks,
Kiy
April 25th, 2011 at 10:48 am
Hello Kiy:
Re your questions:
1-Diesel electric is not reliable enough in the smaller sizes for this application.
2-Forward windows are a multiple in terms of safety from what Lloyd’s requires, and the overhang has pressure relief panels.
3-Only the hull between fwd and aft watertights is double bottom. This is not an option for the engine room, but could be done in the forepeak.
June 20th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Dinghy Launching/retention. May I suggest a Davit or two…(Dinghy still retained inboard). Easier launch/retrieval?
With twin engines the need for the booms is negated. Could make more of the rear deck space available for other uses. Could make for a more interesting look.
June 20th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Hi Pau;”
The booms do many things along with dinghy launching. They are easier to use, safer, and far more reliable than hydro cranes/davits.