Hurricane
regular
Reged: 11/11/2005
Posts: 1669
Loc: Sant Carles de la Rąpita
|
|
Try comparing it to a Princess 54 or 58
Much more practical and the midd cabin is equally as good as an aft one.
|
mikef
regular
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 9211
Loc: chesham, bucks and palma,major...
|
|
Good point. Home from home = clobber and aft cab boats can't store things like pushbikes, wakeboards, doughnuts, golf clubs etc. All essential stuff in the mikef household
|
mikef
regular
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 9211
Loc: chesham, bucks and palma,major...
|
|
You're right about the slapping in the fwd cabin. It drives me nuts on our current boat.
The F43 is a good compromise. I had a 410 in the past. I found the door to the aft cab a bit of a squeeze and it's a bit tight for head/shoulder room in the aft cab but, overall, it's worth it to have the cockpit seating above. I think a lot of peeps thought the same because it's been on the market since 1993 (originally the 390) and it's been one of Sealine's best selling boats which makes me wonder why nobody else copied the concept (which is not new in itself as many saily boats are designed like this)
|
mikef
regular
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 9211
Loc: chesham, bucks and palma,major...
|
|
To be fair jfm, between the fixed seating and individual chairs you could seat 8 for lunch on the aft deck of the Pearl 60 and all shaded by the overhead roof but you'd have a prob doing that on other aft cab boats
|
mikef
regular
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 9211
Loc: chesham, bucks and palma,major...
|
|
Pearl are a small outfit and I don't think they're capable of building more than a handful of boats per year even though I understand they're moulding hulls in Turkey now. I don't think that 150lph is too bad for a 55-60ft boat. I don't know what speed the pic was taken at but at 25kts that would be 0.76mpg or at 20kts 0.6mpg which is about par for the course for this size of boat. Also the Pearl seems to be built quite heavily. I had a ride on a Pearl 48 (which begat the 50) once and I was impressed with how solid it felt at sea
|
OceanFroggie
regular
Reged: 21/08/2006
Posts: 2243
Loc: Wicklow mountains
|
|
Quote:
To be fair jfm, between the fixed seating and individual chairs you could seat 8 for lunch on the aft deck of the Pearl 60 and all shaded by the overhead roof but you'd have a prob doing that on other aft cab boats
You can sit 8 comfy here, but not suitable for hot med, only damp grey drissely home like the past 2 weeks of exceptional rainfall 
But for uk climate more internal space per ft lol than similar length fb or ht. Personally I'd prefer the fb overhang if it's hot. It's a simple choice - an extra outside aft saloon or an internal cabin. I'd guess a large market segment may reverse the trend in upsizing and instead go for clever compact design and useable space - smaller engines too!
--------------------
Ocean Froggie 
|
longjohnsilver
regular
Reged: 30/05/2001
Posts: 7277
Loc: Devon
|
|
Mike, surely that's 150 litres per engne? So 300 litres per hour = 66 gallons so at 25kts = 0.37mpg.
|
mikef
regular
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 9211
Loc: chesham, bucks and palma,major...
|
|
Mmm, you could be right, ljs, in which case the fuel consumption is indeed wallet frightening but it seems strange that each engine should be consuming exactly the same lph ie 151. Surely you'd expect to see a couple of lph difference even at the same indicated rpm?
|
mikef
regular
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 9211
Loc: chesham, bucks and palma,major...
|
|
Yup, OF, that's the one I'd have in the UK but maybe the 450
|
MapisM
regular
Reged: 11/03/2002
Posts: 3083
Loc: Italy
|
|
Absolutely. The engines in the pic are spinning at 20 rpm more than their max rating (!), so 150 lph per engine is not that bad after all.
The only difference vs. your calculations is that, according to Pearl, this should mean 32kts.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
