New Dashew FPB 78

For those interested...SetSail Dashew Logs

I like the FPB series but got to say the FPB78 just does not look right to me.

Am sure it will perform great but the superstructure looks too large and out of proportion, and the rear deck seems small. Also not sure of having a plastic clears on the upper deck for a supposedly all weather tank of the seas!

As the OP states the design was for Dashew himself, I would not get to caught up with his personal preferences, and in my opinion, the loa accepts the deckhouse just fine.

I am sure he has an idea or two about what is suitable for cruising in heavy weather.........

exactly what I thought when first seeing the renderings ....

Sure looks that way but I think it's because of the straight lines and lack of curves and slope. In actuality, it's no taller than other yachts it size and I doubt the amount or proportion of superstructure is much different. But at first glance it reminds me of my cousin's homemade boat that flipped the first time her used it.

I read with interest their search for a better way to launch and retrieve a dinghy, so wonder if they did come up with a way. I saw some of their prototypes.

She will roll at anchor I think with that added weight up top, plus she seems to have a skinny waterline too. Cheers

Far

Have you run the righting-arm curves? How much more added weight have you figured than would be acceptable? You need more technical data in-hand before you make that kind of speculative statement, pure conjecture on your part............

I'll cop that Pac, as I don't have any figures to back up my statement, but your not saying I'm wrong ...

Just looking at some of her renders and hull characteristics - the vessel does in fact have a large beam around 2/3's aft of the bow (typical yacht hull)... BUT she has a fine entry, and fines back out in her stern section... she has a round bilge, alloy hull and superstructure - light weight, and so won't have a deep displacement, plus they are building the flybridge outwards - beyound the cabins boundary - not tapered back in like usual practice. Plus those Stabs really only work when water is going over them.

This vessel was based on efficiency... good one too, and no hassel paint work... and clearly looks was left off the list .

I was talking to the engineer off Exuma late last year about her performance, as this boat is a similar design... she is very efficient, even has titanium hand rails... But she rolls her guts out, even under way, and would have a better CG than the boat in question. Just liturally talking to a Nav Arch for a second opinion, who with more experience then anyone on this forum has hands down - said it will roll on wet grass.

Not a hater of this concept, just an observer. Cheers

Far

This reminds me why I'm conservative. All the design criteria and engineering in the world ultimately are theoretical until real world applications verify or contradict. Perhaps this yacht meets what the owner wanted very well, but then you wonder about all the elements. You can tell a purchaser we can achieve A, B and C but have to warn you it's going to not be good in area D. But one doesn't know what not be good is until they experience it. I may not have the latest and greatest new concepts but I at least hope to get something that I can be pretty sure I know what I'm getting because it's not much different than those already manufactured and even those I've been on. I remember years ago when purchased a 30' boat for lake use, someone trying to sell me another brand with it's new styling and features, brand new model and design. I resisted but a friend didn't. His boat was faster than mine but on busy days he couldn't stand to use it as its ride in rough water was horrible. All I know about the boat in this thread is I don't personally like the appearance but that's just personal taste and inconsequential to it's quality. On the other hand I also know I'd be very reluctant to purchase it even if I did like the appearance unless or until I both rode on it and talked to someone I trusted who had used it in various conditions.

The Dashews use the stabilizer booms and what they call "flopper-stoppers" while at anchor. The FPB 83 section has a description and some pictures of them. Apparently they are pretty effective. While underway the FPBs use stabilizers which according to their testing pretty much eliminates rolling while underway.

Just a matter of taste, but the bridge has what appears to be a small bulb for a steering mechanism. I'm a bit old-fashioned, but I prefer a wheel as it's a bit more tactilely more fulfilling.

There are videos of the 64 and the 83 on youtube underway in less then good weather.

Go watch them if you want to see how they handle, the 78 might be diffrent but anyway...

So people are buying them to experience the joy of rolling at rest/anchor/underway or even on some wet grass

It's a wonder they ever built a second vessel! Maybe we should all reserve comments and let some one who has some sea time on them chime in..........

I did so and read the review. What I see is a very unique boat for an owner who matches well to it. There is no question it is well thought out and designed. It becomes just a matter of individual taste.

Before commenting at all on what I saw ride wise and the conditions I would love to hear comments from those far more experienced on such vessels who watched the video and perhaps read the review.

And other orders are already in the que. What a great mind and yachting risk taker he is.

Peolpe are buying the boats bacause they are great for the long distance. I did see the Y/T clip and it did look stable... it wasn't the biggest following sea. Dashew has gone down the path of efficiency and has done a excellent job at it, no questions there. Just his latest design is a good question in the top heavy department, if he has conquered that, good on him, another great boat.

The wet grass comment was just an ozzie thing, and I'm sure those outriggers would help a lot at anchor, just another bolt-on app in my view.
I was thinking of putting them on the Bertram as it's rubbish at troll and at anchor, a ton of roll - deep V and high chines, she just keeps searching. But that's massive loads on the side.

As for sea time Pac, I was doing ocean races at the age of 14, skippering 100' private vessels at the age of 28 (still am), will be a Nav Arch in 12months, and designing boats beyond my paycheck... Pac, I've always respected your views and comments, but your touching on personal criticism there Pac. Cheers

Far

Sorry, I wasn't calling you out on your own experience, see my PM.

Real-world FPB experience

Hi, just noticed this thread and since I have cruised on two different FPBs, I decided to sign up to Yacht Forums and share my experience. Have been on Windhorse, the original FBP 83, several times as guests of Steve and Linda Dashew. Cruising grounds there were the Med and the US Northeast. Have also briefly been on the FPB-64 in heavy weather in Whangarei, NZ during an open house event put on by Dashew and Circa Marine.

Comments about the rolling/stability questions asked above are these:

1. Steve came from a sailboat/keel design background and his first FPB did have a shallow ballasted keel. It was also longer/thinner than the 64, which is a little fuller in center section than Windhorse. The two hulls differ in ride, though they are similar. The 83 has very high longitudinal stability and resists pitching. In a wave-piercing concept, this leads to a wetter foredeck, less pitching, but quicker motion in pitch. The 64 has a softer ride; it pitches a little more (though vastly less than typical fat trawlers) than the 83, but her motion in the pitch is slower in both rise and fall. It is probably a wash, but between them, the feel of the motion on the 64 has a slight advantage.

2. Questions about rolling. Barges and catamarans conform to the surface with high initial stability, but in turn are less able to "average out" energies from the sea. A typical monohull boat of any kind, round-bilged or other, has the usually good independence to roll at its designed frequency, but, as we also know, this can be bad if the natural roll is amplified by ill-timed wave motions. The question is not "if boat X rolls", since they all do. (You can rock them at the dock by hand up to surprisingly heavy displacement) The engineering question is, "what do you plan to do about it." The FPB approach has two aspects as mentioned above, the first is oversized fin stabilizers and actuators that are extremely effective in a seaway for several reasons: boat rolls easily and that actually makes the fins work better even if they must work more, hull is efficient enough to take the drag of one or two size larger fins than the manufacturer recommends, and the speed of the FPBs, especially in heavy weather and rough seas, is quicker than typical. In fact, FPB owners speed up rather than slow down in the cases that make some other hull designs need to take great care. This is important for roll-reduction since the power of the fins has a super-linear enhancement with speed. My judgement of the comfort level and roll minimization underway is that this is the one of the most stable small boats I've ever been on, and certainly the most comfortable.

3. Roll at rest. I've been on Windhorse at anchor in a number of places and the flopper-stoppers were generally deployed. The booms are permanently rigged, stout, and assisted with sailboat-style line handling chocks. I've deployed them myself and it takes maybe five minutes to do both sides. The effect is remarkable! I recommend them for any (small) boat. Not only do they reduce the total angle of roll from side to side, but they also have an inherent
eased-curve of effect. That is, because of the speed-related drag of the plates in the water, the start of roll rate is gentle and then slows in what is basically a natural critically-damped system. The feeling of this is nice but hard to explain. The alternatives are easy to imagine, though. On the one hand you'd have too little roll-resistance and the boat would slowly but unstoppably go a full range to the limits port and starboard. On the other, you'd have too much power to stop the roll, and be pushed back toward the starting lean, then would push the other way, and the opposite way, and an ever decreasing series of pushes. This "ringing" is something you could feel and do feel in some stabilization at rest systems. The relative perfection of the simple, low-tech, and strangely named "flopper stoppers" is amazing.

My summary is that the comfort (lateral roll and longitudinal pitch) of the 84 and 83 FPBs is unmatched in my experience, both underway and at rest. We'll have to wait to see how the 97 and 78 perform in similar circumstances. I'm not concerned, though, as the 64 was the challenging one being small and the other two longer designs are simpler to get right in these ways, not to mention the advantage of being later in the learning cycle.

Hope this helps,
Ept (as opposed to inept)