super yachts 60million+

[dudleybloke]

Any guesses on how much fuel "World Is Not Enough" drinks at full chat?

[p1stonhead]

dudleybloke said:

Any guesses on how much fuel "World Is Not Enough" drinks at full chat?

Is that the really really fast one?

[dudleybloke]

p1stonhead said:

Is that the really really fast one?

Yes. 70kn top end.

[Burwood]

p1stonhead said:

dudleybloke said:

Any guesses on how much fuel "World Is Not Enough" drinks at full chat?

Is that the really really fast one?

It is but it isn’t as fast as claimed. About 4,000 L -per hour at full chat

[p1stonhead]

dudleybloke said:

p1stonhead said:

Is that the really really fast one?

Yes. 70kn top end.

That’s ridiculous!

[Burwood]

p1stonhead said:

dudleybloke said:

p1stonhead said:

Is that the really really fast one?

Yes. 70kn top end.

That’s ridiculous!

It’s quick but 60 is the max. In reality it’s wholly inappropriate and unstable at those speeds. In NZ they built one fir an Arab just as quick with turbines. I fint see the point. You can drain the tank in 200 miles lol

[gwm]

Love it or hate it, it's striking.



I use the car analogy all the time to explain it to non industry friends.

[The3rdDukeofB]

a bit O/T, but to you guys in the game: have you much experience with zero speed stabilisers ?

I am looking at applying these to commercial uses and I know they are used extensively in the Superyacht and Military world. (both I imagine are tight lipped in discussing)

Keen to know some real world experience - in performance and reliability.

Do they really "Keep the olive in the Martini glass" ?

stuff like this for example, and / or MagLifts:

[swanny71]

All this chat about fuel consumption brings to mind memories nightmares of running on 2 x Olympus at full chat back in my navy days.

120 litres per minute per engine sticks in the mind, so about 14,400 litres or 11.5 tonnes per hour.

Had to call extra guys onto watch just to help look after fuel transfers and additional fuel sep. Stressful when on watch but fkin spectacular stood on the quarterdeck.

[Burwood]

swanny71 said:

All this chat about fuel consumption brings to mind memories nightmares of running on 2 x Olympus at full chat back in my navy days.

120 litres per minute per engine sticks in the mind, so about 14,400 litres or 11.5 tonnes per hour.

Had to call extra guys onto watch just to help look after fuel transfers and additional fuel sep. Stressful when on watch but fkin spectacular stood on the quarterdeck.

The Wally 118 can be specified with 3 X 5500hp each gas turbines plus 2 x small auxiliary diesels for close quarter use. Apparently the main engines are a tad ‘fierce’ . Fuel consumption is approx 300L per mile So at 60mph that’s 18,000 per hour. fking mental .

[paulguitar]

Burwood said:

The Wally 118

Seems such an inappropriate name for something so mighty!

[Burwood]

paulguitar said:

Burwood said:

The Wally 118

Seems such an inappropriate name for something so mighty!

The article was off. Wally states 300 mile range from 22000L. Which translates to 4-5000 lph.

[LimaDelta]

The3rdDukeofB said:

a bit O/T, but to you guys in the game: have you much experience with zero speed stabilisers ?

I am looking at applying these to commercial uses and I know they are used extensively in the Superyacht and Military world. (both I imagine are tight lipped in discussing)

Keen to know some real world experience - in performance and reliability.

It depends what you are trying to achieve. In a steady cyclic swell they do a good job at eliminating roll. However it is possible for them to run out of travel, which limits the sea states in which they are effective. Another problem arises when some knobber in a Mangusta powers through an anchorage at 30kts and the out of rhythm wake hits, which can be difficult to counter as the fins are out of sync with the motion.

Normally they do a good job of masking the conditions from the guests though.

We've had a few issues with our Rolls Royce installation over the years, but they are generally reliable.

I guess in summary I would much rather have them, than not.

Side note - During the sea trials of a large cruise ship we had just completed, one of the checks was to swap the output from the stabiliser gyro to simulate a 'worst case' failure of the fins, so rather than countering the roll they compounded it instead. We then did a hard-over turn at 24kts. Which was 'interesting' to say the least. The roll was great enough for half of the control room monitors to fall out of their housings. Both terrifying and reassuring at the same time.

[p1stonhead]

Burwood said:

swanny71 said:

All this chat about fuel consumption brings to mind memories nightmares of running on 2 x Olympus at full chat back in my navy days.

120 litres per minute per engine sticks in the mind, so about 14,400 litres or 11.5 tonnes per hour.

Had to call extra guys onto watch just to help look after fuel transfers and additional fuel sep. Stressful when on watch but fkin spectacular stood on the quarterdeck.

The Wally 118 can be specified with 3 X 5500hp each gas turbines plus 2 x small auxiliary diesels for close quarter use. Apparently the main engines are a tad ‘fierce’ . Fuel consumption is approx 300L per mile So at 60mph that’s 18,000 per hour. fking mental .

So give or take £20k an HOUR?!

[LimaDelta]

p1stonhead said:

Burwood said:

swanny71 said:

All this chat about fuel consumption brings to mind memories nightmares of running on 2 x Olympus at full chat back in my navy days.

120 litres per minute per engine sticks in the mind, so about 14,400 litres or 11.5 tonnes per hour.

Had to call extra guys onto watch just to help look after fuel transfers and additional fuel sep. Stressful when on watch but fkin spectacular stood on the quarterdeck.

The Wally 118 can be specified with 3 X 5500hp each gas turbines plus 2 x small auxiliary diesels for close quarter use. Apparently the main engines are a tad ‘fierce’ . Fuel consumption is approx 300L per mile So at 60mph that’s 18,000 per hour. fking mental .

So give or take £20k an HOUR?!

Don't worry, with only 22,000 litres on board at that speed you'll run out of fuel long before you run out of money.

Also, 60kts is closer to 70mph.

[swanny71]

LimaDelta said:

The3rdDukeofB said:

a bit O/T, but to you guys in the game: have you much experience with zero speed stabilisers ?

I am looking at applying these to commercial uses and I know they are used extensively in the Superyacht and Military world. (both I imagine are tight lipped in discussing)

Keen to know some real world experience - in performance and reliability.

It depends what you are trying to achieve. In a steady cyclic swell they do a good job at eliminating roll. However it is possible for them to run out of travel, which limits the sea states in which they are effective. Another problem arises when some knobber in a Mangusta powers through an anchorage at 30kts and the out of rhythm wake hits, which can be difficult to counter as the fins are out of sync with the motion.

Normally they do a good job of masking the conditions from the guests though.

We've had a few issues with our Rolls Royce installation over the years, but they are generally reliable.

I guess in summary I would much rather have them, than not.

Side note - During the sea trials of a large cruise ship we had just completed, one of the checks was to swap the output from the stabiliser gyro to simulate a 'worst case' failure of the fins, so rather than countering the roll they compounded it instead. We then did a hard-over turn at 24kts. Which was 'interesting' to say the least. The roll was great enough for half of the control room monitors to fall out of their housings. Both terrifying and reassuring at the same time.

Similar experiences with RR and Naiad systems, absolutely essential for crew and guest comfort especially on the larger classic yachts I’m involved with (narrow, long hull shapes) but they can’t work miracles.
Very little experience with gyroscopic stabilizers but seemed to work OK at rest on a smaller boat.

[The3rdDukeofB]

swanny71 said:

LimaDelta said:

The3rdDukeofB said:

a bit O/T, but to you guys in the game: have you much experience with zero speed stabilisers ?

I am looking at applying these to commercial uses and I know they are used extensively in the Superyacht and Military world. (both I imagine are tight lipped in discussing)

Keen to know some real world experience - in performance and reliability.

It depends what you are trying to achieve. In a steady cyclic swell they do a good job at eliminating roll. However it is possible for them to run out of travel, which limits the sea states in which they are effective. Another problem arises when some knobber in a Mangusta powers through an anchorage at 30kts and the out of rhythm wake hits, which can be difficult to counter as the fins are out of sync with the motion.

Normally they do a good job of masking the conditions from the guests though.

We've had a few issues with our Rolls Royce installation over the years, but they are generally reliable.

I guess in summary I would much rather have them, than not.

Side note - During the sea trials of a large cruise ship we had just completed, one of the checks was to swap the output from the stabiliser gyro to simulate a 'worst case' failure of the fins, so rather than countering the roll they compounded it instead. We then did a hard-over turn at 24kts. Which was 'interesting' to say the least. The roll was great enough for half of the control room monitors to fall out of their housings. Both terrifying and reassuring at the same time.

Similar experiences with RR and Naiad systems, absolutely essential for crew and guest comfort especially on the larger classic yachts I’m involved with (narrow, long hull shapes) but they can’t work miracles.
Very little experience with gyroscopic stabilizers but seemed to work OK at rest on a smaller boat.

Thanks guys... and Quantum?
Are they buggers for maintaining? Dry dock coincides with the hours or is it an addittional headache ?
Maybe i'll message you

[LimaDelta]

The3rdDukeofB said:

swanny71 said:

LimaDelta said:

The3rdDukeofB said:

a bit O/T, but to you guys in the game: have you much experience with zero speed stabilisers ?

I am looking at applying these to commercial uses and I know they are used extensively in the Superyacht and Military world. (both I imagine are tight lipped in discussing)

Keen to know some real world experience - in performance and reliability.

It depends what you are trying to achieve. In a steady cyclic swell they do a good job at eliminating roll. However it is possible for them to run out of travel, which limits the sea states in which they are effective. Another problem arises when some knobber in a Mangusta powers through an anchorage at 30kts and the out of rhythm wake hits, which can be difficult to counter as the fins are out of sync with the motion.

Normally they do a good job of masking the conditions from the guests though.

We've had a few issues with our Rolls Royce installation over the years, but they are generally reliable.

I guess in summary I would much rather have them, than not.

Side note - During the sea trials of a large cruise ship we had just completed, one of the checks was to swap the output from the stabiliser gyro to simulate a 'worst case' failure of the fins, so rather than countering the roll they compounded it instead. We then did a hard-over turn at 24kts. Which was 'interesting' to say the least. The roll was great enough for half of the control room monitors to fall out of their housings. Both terrifying and reassuring at the same time.

Similar experiences with RR and Naiad systems, absolutely essential for crew and guest comfort especially on the larger classic yachts I’m involved with (narrow, long hull shapes) but they can’t work miracles.
Very little experience with gyroscopic stabilizers but seemed to work OK at rest on a smaller boat.

Thanks guys... and Quantum?
Are they buggers for maintaining? Dry dock coincides with the hours or is it an addittional headache ?
Maybe i'll message you

Not much experience of Quantum personally.

Maintenance tends to be based around the HPP within the vessel rather than the fins themselves, so no need for extra dry-docking unless you have an issue with crux bearings or seals.

Like anything though it will depend greatly on duty cycles and usage.

[WCZ]

LimaDelta said:

Don't worry, with only 22,000 litres on board at that speed you'll run out of fuel long before you run out of money.

Also, 60kts is closer to 70mph.

£3.3m to travel to the south pacific from the uk in fuel alone, absolutely nuts

[LimaDelta]

WCZ said:

LimaDelta said:

Don't worry, with only 22,000 litres on board at that speed you'll run out of fuel long before you run out of money.

Also, 60kts is closer to 70mph.

£3.3m to travel to the south pacific from the uk in fuel alone, absolutely nuts

In reality, it is unlikely you would ever take a boat like that on such a long voyage, and even less likely that you would attempt to do the journey at 60kts.

Apart from the fact you would have to stop for fuel every hour or so, the boat would have pretty much destroyed itself by the time you made it to the Pacific. It's a day boat, not a world-cruiser.