Fleming or Marlow Yachts?

Consider outereef yachts. They are well built, great support and plenty of brokerage boats available. They are good sea keeping boats with excellent machinery access. Ask to speak to mike the president. He is a good person with honest answers. Owned their wide body 73 for 5 years and will build another boat with them when I finally have time to slow down.

Hatteras and Fleming you'll have to go older to fit in the price range of Marlow or Offshore. There are other boats to consider depending on the style boating you like. They would include Outer Reef, Horizon, Cheoy Lee, Ocean Alexander, Pacific Mariner (65'), Princess, Sunseeker, Ferretti.

Go shopping for features you want, not for brand, and you'll find many options. Then know enough to eliminate certain brands and models and favor others.

You are talking about shallow water effects on powerboat hulls. It goes away when it runs in deeper water. Many large planing/semi-planing boats have the same issue.

He knows what he's talking about and just saying it was worse than others he's run.

While many planing have the same issue, many also do not.

And what relevance does a 66’ Offshore have to a 54 Offshore, maybe you can elaborate on that ?

Anecdotal comments on models even from the same manufacturer have little value to the discussion when: they were designed by two different people, don’t share the same running surface or bottom loading or same running characteristics. And the price point and length are not even in the OP’s search criteria, so really, why bring it up?

It’s like implying that a Chevy Camaro will ride like a Chevy Malibu. The 54 Offshore is one of the few good choices that meets the OP’s requirements for a mid master s/r and price point in a true Pilothouse design. No need to knock the 54 based on a 66 for the above reasons.

http://www.offshoreyachts.net/overview.php?web_id=8

Perhaps it IS the same hull designer, I do not know. One of my customers brother also owned a 63' Offshore I believe.....mid 2000's, did lots of cruising on it, and both reported he couldn't do more than 7.5 knots (it would do it speed wise) on any inland waters because it started throwing a massive wake that carried on for a mile.

Most of the Asian hull designs/builders/builds are trial and error. One mold makes 3 different lengths.....and on and on. The hull is modified after hull #1 to correct something. Not to mention most Asian builders still haven't quite figured out weight distribution as I have stumbled across bunches of 50-60lb lead bars stuck somewhere to correct either a list or trim issue on many of them. The term Taiwanese tub, isn't so popular because it has no merit.

NO they do not.....and this is not shallow water hull effects, it's just a majorly screwed up hull..... ..I have never had an issue pushing any semi-displacement hull or planing hull faster than 7.3 knots in the ICW or inland waters in 15' of water. Most planing hulls actually run faster in water less than 10' deep.

The OP should also consider Hampton.

If you don’t know the Offshore design and build history just stop the speculation and generalization and the “perhaps”.

Read up before you make statements on shallow water effects because the research is clear for semi-displacement hulls or planing hulls running at low speeds. Water depth is a critical factor, Resistance increases , speeds are slower for the same power, draft increases underway, speed only increases at the high end of true planing craft.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a016682.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287925812_On_high_speed_monohulls_in_shallow_water

He should also look at an Ocean Alexander 54 that meets his requirements.

https://www.**************/boats/2000/ocean-alexander-548-pilothouse-3650328/

With all due respect. I have run 150 different yachts per year +/- each and every year, for the past 20 years. Do the math. NO other yacht I've run acted like this. The owner knew it, the broker knew it, and both warned me ahead of time.......etc. etc. Most yachts only exhibit shallow water traits with less than 3' under the bottom of the boat, NOT anything less than 10'. And, not have to slow down to THAT slow of speed......Very screwed up hull design and a very steep shaft angle. Several extremely knowledgable Captains have run the 66' and they all said the same thing about that boat. It was a mid 2000's boat, maybe they changed the design some (shaft angle etc.) to fix it since then.......

Speed increases in shallow water for planing hulls with a 25 knot cruise or more......HOW on earth, can you say that's the high end of true planing craft???????

BUT, we just throw 6' cockpit extension on it to fix it boss, make it 72', that fix it......yes, yes....... that fix it boss......ok, try that.......yes yes boss, we get plywood and extend mold boss........we throw 1,000 lbs of lead bars in stern to balance out added bouyancy boss........should we move the rudders and shafts boss.......No NO, that cost too much.........just use the plywood.

Last time I spoke to mike he was president, if I recall correctly, Jeff is owner.

His price range and year, pretty much preclude that.

Have been reading a lot but this is the first thread published in a while. Looking to sell my 47 sb and moving to a 60 ish MY in the mid 2000 to mid 2010. Budget is 800 max. Can wait another 2 years before retiring and making buy. See where the prices go during and after Covid. For better stability and navigation i am considering an older SF modified to a regular cruiser.Of all the boats mentionned in the present thread, what would a wise choice be ?? Bhs and west Carib are the preferred cruising groud. East US is also in the mix. I can easily drive a 60sh motor yatch. Like MY not trawler unless can go at least 20 mph.thanks for your answers.

Not a bad idea to go with SF for speed and they are just as economical as any MY at slow speeds. Might want an Enclosed Bridge, maybe a 60 Hat EC. Those air-conditioned pilothouses sure are comfortable for cruising.

60' Hatt SF, 61' Viking. I'd go with something with newer electronic diesels versus old D.D.'s.

Thanks for the observations . Capt J on many of your threads your comments for MTU motors were multiple trouble units... Viking seems to be built mostly with them while Hatts seem to prefer Catts. I like the enclosed version on both boats. Inside stairs are convinient almost a must for the Admiral!! Seakeeper is a good idea . Do we really need it?? Do these boats have extra place for a second geny and an extra freezer for the long haul?? Before going shopping i need the borders to open up. Thats why i am asking all the questions. Any person and / brooker(reliable and trustworthy) to help me shop refered by this forum would be appreciated.l know prices listed are somewhat inflated and i need to know the true value of a boat that has not been beaten to death. I intend to keep the boat for many years. 3 to 6 months a year crusing the Bhs and Carib. Finally i need to tranfer the dingy to the back of the boat . Thanks in advance.

A lot of both boats were built with dual generators, so not an issue. The Viking favored the MTU's at the time, mainly because of the larger HP. MTU's have a lot more sensors and a lot of times issues with those extra sensors. I also don't know of any 3412's or C32's that flat out grenaded, but do know of a few 16v2000's that have. Both motors had major issues with the first 150 ish engines, both manufacturers stepped up to the plate in the first year or two and fixed them. The Hatteras is a better head sea boat, Viking is a better beam sea boat and perhaps a touch more stable on the troll and a touch faster. A 60' Hatt with C32 1650hp is a 32 knot cruise, the viking is a 34 knot cruise with the same power. Both are good boats. Hatteras is painted. Viking is gelcoat and did have the gelcoat cracking issue in the early 2000's which should long be remedied by now. Both should have the option of an extra freezer. I believe there was the option for one on the flybridge on both boats as well. They're both good boats, depends on what your interests are and what condition the ones you're looking at are in. I would NOT put a dinghy on the back of either boat. The bow would be fine.

Any person and /or broker reliable out there that has goog knowledge about these boats?

Very instructive comments on this thread. I currently run a planing 65 yacht. And have less than a third of the experience of Capt. J. I’m Capt in SE FL /rookie broker, and can tell you that listening to the requests of the prospective buyers here is the most important thing. I’m a super fan of those 45-60’s semi planing hulls.
How will the boat be use and if livability is important then concentrate on looking for the space you want. We will always try to avoid the weather but unfortunately a couple of times a year you’ll be in it. Both Marlow and Flemings are design for bad weather and the boats will take it and keep moving. Both have, or optioned, back ups for steering, water pumps, hydraulics if equipped, basically the redundancy of al main systems needed to get back home. So it comes down to mission profile. Both brands can sip fuel at low speeds and can get up and go if needed, although Marlow has the upper hand there. It comes down to sea trial the boat. After that walk the docks and approach both Marlow and Flemings’ owner and get their first hand experience as owner/operator in most cases. They will gladly spend a few min talking to you and maybe invite you on board for an espresso. At least that’s what I do after my owner gives me some free time after we arrive to marinas. Note: all boat will have flaws and things will break. But you can not go wrong with either of this two brands.
I’ll shut up now and keep reading. Thanks to all!