The following is a compilation of the comments and dialogue we have received from various posts on the new FPB 78 Dream Machine:
Kent Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Can’t wait.
Peter Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Hi Steve & Linda Great news for all concerned, I know that all the staff here at Circa are really looking forward to starting this exciting new project.
Kevin C Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Yay! More justification to keep checking your site every day!
Neo Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 3:45 pm
I was convinced the 97 was for you.
Phil Hack Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 4:35 pm
I, like Neo, had assumed that you and Linda were the “very experienced” cruising couple who had commissioned the 97. Hard to believe you are going with a smaller boat AND planning for crew.
Scott Evangelista Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Steve, Why back to the single mast on the bow? and when are you starting to build it 
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 12:56 am
Howdy Scott: We are scheduled to begin cutting metal in September. That single mast is structural, and designed as part of a heavy weather rig, and will carry what in effect is a storm trysail to help hold the bow down balancing some of the windage aft).
James Masters Reply:
June 1st, 2013 at 4:01 am
Is the storm-trysail an insight from the Gulf-Stream storm encountered on the trip with Cory for him to see how Wind Horse handled heavy-weather…? If it’s not a breach of Confidentiality, is Cory the one who bought Wind Horse, or was he acting as an agent for another…? Do you know Wind Horse’s new name? I’ve been wondering where she went….
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 1st, 2013 at 9:48 am
Cory went along as a friend. The trysail idea – and we will need to test it to see if it works – is based on the windage aft on the FPB 78. Wind Horse still has her original name, and is at present in North Carolina. As to the new boat’s name, that will stay a family project.
David Guest Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Great move!!!! reminds me of my late uncle, a great sailor. For years he sailed a 60 schooner, then as he grew older he knew he needed help but still needed the sea… so he moved to a 75 foot motor ketch … I think the length is great and can’t wait to see what you have done with the design… all the best
Wolff Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Wow – looking forward to your future chapters in this new book of the sea
Bert Laacks Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Hi Linda and Steve; Great to hear you are building a new boat. We can never be done with the sea. Good luck and best regards, Bert
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 12:53 am
Thanks Bert: We really thought we were ready to try something else, and we did work at it, but the call of this boat is too strong. Had to go another cycle.
Chasm Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 5:37 pm
I’ve thought the same. But then it makes sense admit that crew may very well be necessary in the future and to design it into the next ship before you you are forced to make changes later. Another paradigm shift. 
The renders look like a chopped down version of the 97. (shorter, no mast) The ventilation system intakes were moved up a level. (less water) No solar panels on the fly-bridge, so I guess fabric roof instead of aluminum. Why 78? Is 78 feet / 24 meter yet another length at which addition legal regulations kick in? Or “just” reminisce to the last Beowulf which was also that length?
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 12:52 am
24 meters/80 feet – is a regulatory threshold so 23,99m or less is desirable, if you can do the job at that length.
James Masters Reply:
June 1st, 2013 at 4:31 am
Is the “80ft”-reg-threshold worldwide, or only because Alaska would be encountered on a NW-passage? I remember your mentioning that-rule (re requiring pilots on non-U.S. flagged-vessels) on your B.C-Alaska trip-notes. Will the “NW-passage”-trip be East-to-West from Anchorage? Given Circa’s in NZ, will your 1st-trip from there, be to explore some of Antarctica (plenty of ice there, for sure) …? Have you already picked a name for your 78 — or will you engage us as you did with naming the Matrix Deck, lol …?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 1st, 2013 at 9:45 am
24M/80 foot is an issue world wide. Above this in many places you are considered a ship.
Réanne & Don Douglass Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 6:15 pm
Waiting for more—especially where you plan to cruise. We miss Baidarka, but we have scads of projects to keep us busy. Cheers to you both! R & D
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 12:49 am
Hi Reanne and Don: When you see the structure – plate thickness, and framing – it won’t take long to figure out what is in our heads.
Scotto Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 6:30 pm
I’m excited! Another exquisite build to follow! Thankyou
Troy Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Phil , it is hard to believe , but what an internship for the chosen crew , Skip and Linda are wonderful folks with knowledge beyond what most could learn in a lifetime . Skip I want more info on the position , can I send a resume ?
Steve Bellamy Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Interesting A frame support at the forward end of the house. Central roof support with clear line of vision for a central steering position?
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 12:47 am
More on the internal A-frame in a few days. It is highly efficient structurally for developing lateral support. The entire front coaming is integrated with a large kneed web frame, from which those angled mullions extend.
Don Joyce Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 8:19 pm
The aft deck is gone?
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 12:45 am
Aft deck is still there, Don, just a little abbreviated.
Rob Baker Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Look forward to seeing the designs and reading about the new technology. I do enjoy keeping up on the the cutting edge.
Matt L Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Just when I thought the FPB 64 was a touch to small and the the FPB97 to big and Windhorse too…”prototypee” (for lack of a better word) along comes this….The question is, will I sleep tonight?
Matt L Reply:
May 30th, 2013 at 9:55 pm
…too excited to spell too consistently…which is mildly embarrassing…
Earl Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 9:51 pm
The dream continues! “The present is big with the future”
Steve B Says:
May 30th, 2013 at 10:53 pm
Is ventilation to the great room via the intake ducts forward of the matrix deck? Looks like a good solution.
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 12:44 am
That is partly it, Steve, with more intakes under the forward roof overhang. More details on this in a few days.
Steve B Says:
May 31st, 2013 at 1:21 am
I think I see a NW Passage coming on!
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 11:10 am
Lets just hope it doesn’t get too easy.
Justin Says:
May 31st, 2013 at 1:54 am
Do I smell ice?
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 11:09 am
Lots of it!
Jenny Says:
May 31st, 2013 at 2:15 am
Holy Moly!!!!! How exciting!!!!!!! More dreams for me.
Simon Says:
May 31st, 2013 at 7:00 am
Hello Steve and Linda Looks incredible! I’m really looking forward too see what beautiful design details you thought of this time. I find myself already envious of who ever gets the chance to crew for you. Any chance you would consider taking on someone who is more or less a novice?
Anton Dichtl Says:
May 31st, 2013 at 8:14 am
Dear Dashews, Virgin Islands or Balearics with this machine? Even without knowing numbers about plate thickness or framing, I guess you are planning the Northwest Passage!
Jim Backus Says:
May 31st, 2013 at 8:55 am
The design looks great overall though I wonder about the side decks going forward. The side decks appear to be narrow and the house side windows seem to be angled out. Is there enough deck width to walk forward normally or do you have to go angled? Also,is the design being ballasted to compensate for the weight aloft? I’m thinking she might want to roll because of the height/beam ratio. Any info here? Overall, I appreciate the appearance and simplicity of your designs. The 64 looks about as good as it gets for going north and south between Maine and Florida.
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 11:08 am
Jim: Side decks and angled windows are a trade off with interior space and sun loading, and subject of much family debate not to mention testing of mockups. Bottom line, although tight, we think it works fine for the traffic pattern, light as it is, coupled with the fact that this design has a large storage area aft so there will be less hauling of items to the aft deck from the forepeak.
George Says:
May 31st, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Steve, Design looks superficially like the Norfhavn 62. Did that design influence you at all?
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 12:56 pm
You are kidding, right?
Matt L Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Superficially, the angled minions make the Great Room look like the bridge of a Star Destroyer (Google Star Destroyer bridge image and see). The FPB 97 does look like a Star Destroyer. The FPB 78 looks like pocket Star Destroyer. How long has Darth Vader influenced your designs?
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 11:41 pm
We want to be sure the force is with, and not against us. In other words, minimize drag, maximize efficiency, and let the sea dictate our design course, rather than fashion. That said, while we are not devotees of that Darth Dude, we have some younger family members who can sing chapter and verse from the Star Wars hymnal.
Dave Wyman Says:
May 31st, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Cool, Skip. Gonna berth it in Ventura?
Steve Dashew Reply:
May 31st, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Hi Dave: Not sure where the new boat will end up, and hopefully no specific location for more than a few months.
captaincees Says:
June 1st, 2013 at 2:40 am
Another escape machine ! wanna tell something about specs/price range? -I like the large glass surfaces.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 1st, 2013 at 9:49 am
We will have specs up on the website towards the end next week.
Arthur Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 3:25 am
Can we have scale drawings and comparative specs of all 5 boats, spreadsheet style, on a single page, please.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 4:30 pm
A comparison between the FPB 64, the Wicked FPB 97, and the new FPB 78 will be up in a few days.
quoc Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 11:37 am
I was wondering when will there be a follow on to FPB83 that would not exceed the 24 meters requirement. Great design as usual.
Ward Says:
June 4th, 2013 at 5:47 pm
Not sure this is the most relevant post to make this comment on, but since there’s the (weird) earlier comment about similarity to a Nordhavn (????), I thought it made sense: Comparison of FPB’s to a nice-looking Australian Navy vessel: http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/general-yachting-discussion/20483-what-defines-expedition-yacht-22.html#post174296
John Says:
June 20th, 2013 at 5:48 pm
Even though I have the honor of having suggested the name Matrix Deck and I really see its benefit, I miss the long, low look of the FPB 83 before the Matrix Deck.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 20th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
We agree. But we also like what this configuration allows us to do. Life is full of hard choices….
Robert Says:
June 28th, 2013 at 11:50 am
Congratulations Steve, the FPB78 looks great! Like you said, “Life is full of hard choices…” I believe the FPB78 will appeal to a greater audience, it certainly did to me. You see, I am not the type of person who drives a Hummer. Don’t take me wrong, I can appreciate its capabilities, but I am more of a BMW-type-of-person — capable, agile and room for comfort. For its length, I like the fact that the FPB78 has comfortable quarters for family and friends, and a ‘Matrix Deck’ with lots of possibilities. With the FPB78 you have captured my attention and consideration. I can’t keep from wondering what would be the fruit of your next design cycle. Congratulations!
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 28th, 2013 at 3:23 pm
Thanks Bob: Once this FPB 78 is put to bed it will be a long time before we have the band width for another! Besides, with the FPB 64, 78, 97, and 115 we have enough in the pipeline for a long time.
Steve B Says:
June 1st, 2013 at 12:18 am
Does the bottom of the stair fold up to access the stabiliser coffer dam?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 1st, 2013 at 12:48 am
Yes for the starboard side. Port side coffer dam lid is in the open.
Michael Seng Says:
June 1st, 2013 at 6:17 am
Underway, and in rolling conditions, how much noise does the stabilizing system generate? On Windhorse the cofferdams were in the basement (if I remember correctly) and now they are adjacent to staterooms. Granted they are electric and not that large but, meshed gears and general load induced “creaks” would be rather nearby? Just curious.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 1st, 2013 at 9:40 am
Stabilizers are hydraulic, no gears, just cylinders, and in general are silent, even when watching them with the coffer dam lids open.
david Says:
June 1st, 2013 at 9:11 am
Appears to be much more beam than the 83. Also, less “lounging/bbq” space on the back deck. In practice do you find yourself on the top deck while at anchor? Beautiful design – can’t wait to follow the progress!
ron Says:
June 1st, 2013 at 10:50 am
hi steve,im guessing 20.4 ft.beam…and chines reduce draft at full load and add some form stability…is swim step a bolt on???
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 1st, 2013 at 11:36 am
Swim step is a permanent part of the boat. Beam at deck is 20 feet, plus rub strakes (belting).
Glenn Says:
June 1st, 2013 at 11:15 am
Could the stairway to the upper deck (matrix?) be enclosed? I am assuming the matrix entry pout has a locking door. So, that means locking two (2) door at night in port. With the matrix stairway enclosed there is only one locking door and more security in port.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 1st, 2013 at 11:34 am
We have not gotten into the security aspects of the Matrix deck yet. But if we think this is warranted, it will be relatively simple to secure the stairs.
Paul Says:
June 1st, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Ok…. I waited until this morning to check. Please can we see the matrix deck now? Pretty please?
Fishwife Says:
June 1st, 2013 at 6:03 pm
I’d guess that I’m not the only one who’d like to know. Will this be a design that is built just for you or will there be subsequent builds offered to eager buyers?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 1st, 2013 at 7:15 pm
That is a good question, Paige. She started out just for us, but Todd is in the process of discussing sisters with several folks. We will just have to see what happens.
Matt L Says:
June 1st, 2013 at 6:47 pm
Is the small room between the queen guest cabin and the owners suite where the washer and dryer would go?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 1st, 2013 at 7:12 pm
If you are referring to the port side, this is a systems room where the fresh water pump, hydraulic damage control pump, associated manifolds, plus fuel distribution manifold and heater valves all live. The washer and drier are stacked and will be opposite the galley.
Alex F Says:
June 1st, 2013 at 8:34 pm
Hi Steve, Linda I was wondering what is the headroom in the lower deck? Rgds Alex
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 2nd, 2013 at 12:51 am
Headroom on lower deck and the great room is nominally 6’8″/2.05m
Evan Says:
June 2nd, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Any worry about the stairwell’s breaker panel LED reflections in the windows? Otherwise it’s a nice spot to get it out of the way.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 2nd, 2013 at 8:06 pm
With the windows tilted outboard and the electrical panels below the window level level, we don’t see reflection from the LEDs a problem. If it is, we’ll switch to tinted plastic.
Matt L Says:
June 2nd, 2013 at 10:17 pm
The square portholes used plentifully in the hull of FPB 97 and Beowulf, sparingly on Wind Horse, are absent on the FPB 78. Is this because of the “heavy ice” plans or is there some other technical/design philosophy reason they are not included on the FPB 78?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 2nd, 2013 at 11:04 pm
On Wind Horse the window shades were down most of the time, either due to privacy issues, or too much outside light. As the windows are heavy, expensive, and ultimately, a weak point vis a vis impact with ice, the logical decision is to eliminate them. The other reason is aesthetic. We think the boat much more aggressive looking without, more military if you will, which is an appearance we think makes sense in many parts of the world.
quoc Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 12:16 pm
I am looking for the soaking bathtub.. Given the “ice travel plans” I assume the hull will have thicker plating than earlier FPB designs?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 4:02 pm
The shower/bath forward is of a size that works well as a bath. A vital necessity for Linda’s continued presence and on all our boats going back to Intermezzo ll. The hull scantlings exceed ice class (if there were such a thing for yachts like this). Ice class nominally requires 1.4X the norm on plating and framing, and we are 2X, with even heavier plating. Bottom is nominally 12mm, with 16mm in turn of the bilge, and a 24mm grounding flat. Lots more details on structure in a few days.
ron Says:
June 4th, 2013 at 1:04 pm
hi steve, was just studying the aft side of the matrix deck that is a huge window with no benefit of over hang or angles. have you considered taking the stamoid roof aft of masts to shade this?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 4th, 2013 at 5:01 pm
The window to which you refer Ron, at the aft end of the Matrix deck, is there to curtain off the Matrix deck when wind, temperature, bugs, or rain warrant this. Seating is far enough inboard of the girder between the beams, which functions as an awning amongst other things, to that in most cases additional shading should not be required. We could easily add an additional shade awning with a framework attached to the masts or box girder, and in fact have modeled this concept with additional solar panels. But right now we don’t think it is required. Easy to add later, however, if we find it would be a benefit.
Kenny Dalgleish Says:
June 12th, 2013 at 5:59 am
Am curious as to the reason for having the laundry machinery on the main deck. Horrible noisy things and heavy too. Would it not be better to find space for them somewhere downstairs? As a bonus you’d win more storage or more counter-top space and better views while you do the ironing next to the galley. Personally I hate ironing and find that a good shake followed by line drying means I don’t have to but perhaps that’s not always possible on a boat.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 12th, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Laundry location is a tradeoff like everything else. On our boat, the machines are in use every other day, and the operator of said equipment, who has to be happy aboard above all other considerations, likes the view where they are. Noise is not an issue – both dryer and washer are typically unheard. As to ironing, I tend to agree with you, but once again defer to my betters in this regards. Take shirts for example. This writer has perfected the technique of maximum compression as a means of wrinkle control, i.e. rolling in a ball. Adding in impact velocity usually finishes the job (throwing carefully at high speed onto a shelf). On the other hand, I will admit to enjoying slipping between freshly ironed sheets at night.
Harold Says:
June 17th, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Definitely my favorite of the fleet. Just the right combination of features. Expect there will be a lot of happy customers.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 17th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
Thanks Harold:
Jens Find Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 9:43 am
Wow! The first yacht I ever saw with a brig in it
Richard Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Steve – A question about the access to the crew (and occasional guest) quarters forward. It appears the main (seemingly only) access is thru the deck hatch just aft of the anchor pulpit. In open water, on passage, at night, in difficult conditions, etc., what are your thoughts on the safety implications of having crew traversing the foredeck, opening a large hatch, etc.? As always, a fascinating design!! Richard
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 3:55 pm
At sea, if conditions are difficult (or wet) this area is secured and the crew would sleep aft. The concept here is for this to be used when cruising locally, in which case most access would be at anchor.
Shannon Says:
June 6th, 2013 at 6:31 pm
Love it. Quick question though. Is there a way to replace a prop in a remote area or are you carrying spares so a yard has a matching set should it be needed? My thinking here is the storage for the spare props is in an area where they could be damaged or possibly wedged in if there is a severe impact. Worst case scenario you hit something,damage the spares & the props you are using. That would be my luck. It just seems like the spares are stored in a vulnerable area. Not that there really is a vulnerable area in your boats.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 6th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Having put 6000 hours on Wind Horse, through ice, debris fields, and the occasional grounding, with only a single minor prop ding, you could make a case for not carrying spares. But a set of spares we will carry, under the floorboards in the forepeak. And yes, it is possible to change one of these in the water.
Shannon Reply:
June 6th, 2013 at 9:28 pm
That’s why I so desperately want one of your boats. There isn’t really a vulnerable area. The efficiency & safety aspect of your designs are huge to me. I can’t relax if I have safety concerns & I can’t relax if I am spending more money than necessary. Not to mention range. I am not cheap (some would argue that) I just don’t like waste. Efficiency is beautiful. Your designs are worlds ahead of others in both of those aspects. I love the use of the space in the bow area. It’s a great flexible space.
Eric Says:
June 2nd, 2013 at 12:15 am
Probably a dumb question but in cruise mode would you run both engines at the same time? Thanks, Eric
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 2nd, 2013 at 12:46 am
Yes, Eric, both engines at one time. Theoretically, if one prop was a feathering or folding type, and we were propped for a one engine on the other fixed, we’d pick up about 2% in efficiency. But using both is much simpler.
Seth Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 1:17 am
I’m sure you’ve developed a system that works for you, but for what it is worth, I highly recommend sizing your powered exhaust ventilation fans to provide 30+ air changes per hour (after accounting for duct losses, etc.) This rate is enough to generate a perceptible breeze through the cabin. I’ve had these fans in homes located in Hawaii, in the northeastern and southern U.S., and I can say they’re the bees knees. Even in Hawaii, when the trade winds would fail me, I still hardly ever felt the need to turn on my air conditioning! Granted this was on land, but the same design principles applied to a floating home would get you the same effect. The electrical demand for such fans is fairly high as far as fans go, but they can net a substantial savings over otherwise having to run air conditioning. 50-90% energy savings are reported in residential home construction using “whole house comfort fans” sized appropriately, depending on climate. You mentioned two fans. I suggest wiring them to achieve a high (both) and low (one) setting. I’ve also noticed that blowers vary a lot in cfm (m3/min) per watt. For instance while shopping for my latest buy, I found one that was 2500 cfm at 735 watts. Another was 2850 cfm at 178 watts. That’s a 5-fold difference! While not the sole consideration, that sure is a compelling one. Fans this large will also run in the 50 dB range or so, and can benefit from consideration as to sound isolation. As always, it is exciting to see new designs. I’m excited to watch this project unfold. Regards, Seth
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 1:49 am
Thanks Seth, for the long ventilation suggestions. We think we are well covered in this regard, in terms of,power, noise, and air changes. We will know in a couple of years. In the interim, experiments are being conducted to test different fans.
Rob Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 8:50 am
Seems like the engineering systems are evolving for ever more comfortable long range cruising, however with the loss of the “basement” from earlier models it seems that storage space for personal items and provisions have taken a big hit. Seems little point having fuel for two Atlantic crossing if you can’t store the provisions for one…or do you have more storage areas hidden up your sleeve?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Actually, there is as much or more storage than we had on Wind Horse. There is a separate post coming up on this in a few days.
Matt L Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 9:33 am
Which Luggers are you using? L1066T Medium Duty or L1066A Medium Duty? Inferring what I can from the fuel specs best guess is L1066T Medium Duty, but curious minds want to know.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 4:19 pm
Forgotten the model number Matt, but they are rated at 135HP at 2200 RPM (six cylinder) continuous, and Lugger are allowing us to prop for 2050, since this will give us better engine loading during cruise.
Matt L Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 6:16 pm
“135HP at 2200 RPM (six cylinder) continuous” is the L1066T. The Lugger “Medium Duty” Rating seems to most closely correlate to the M3 Rating from John Deere that you have used in the past. At 1600 RPM the L1066T Medium Duty torque is just off peak at the full consumption lower than the L1066T Continuos Duty. The L1066T Continuos Duty torque peaks at 1400 RPM and torque drops like a rock past 1800 RPM. L1066T Medium Duty fits the performance profile of the FPB 78′s the best from what I can tell.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 7:08 pm
As you know, the Luggers come at a premium, and in the past I have not been willing to pay it. But in this case, their turbo and fuel injection pump differences with the straight Deere are of enough benefit to make this worth the extra.
Hunter L Reply:
June 5th, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Just from my basic understanding of diesels and loading, do you see any downside to propping for 2050? I have always thought that diesels propped to not achieve their maximum RPM (especially in continuous duty settings) would suffer from shortened life span. Not disputing your reasoning, just interested in more insight into why. What would the cruise RPM be at if the boat were propped to achieve the 2200 RPM, or at least achieve 2200RPM with the light displacement and maybe only drop down to 2050RPM at full load with full fuel, water, gear, and crew? Every boat you guys design sets the bar higher (down to the dinghy design over the years), and I have followed all of them from Wind Horse on with great enthusiasm. This Dream Machine and the FPB97 are the pinnacles in boat design in my mind! Look forward to the many future posts with details to come (after all, priority number one in the mornings is always checking SetSail.com when details of your new designs are being posted, from the 64 to the 115, to the 97, and now this).
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 6th, 2013 at 12:21 am
Thanks for the kind words, Hunter: Most yachts work their engines hard, which is good for them, and need lots of HP from the smallest, lightest block possible. Faster turning engines generate ore HP from a given size. In our case the engines are so lightly loaded that the engines are not working hard enough. Which is where the “overpropping” comes into play. Overpropping reduces the max RPM the engine can achieve, but makes it possible to run theengines slower and harder than was the case when navigating convntionally.
Henry Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 9:55 am
Steve, I was wondering how much the hull plating spec adds to displacement over and above the spec for the FPB83. I was also wondering why the stern and the quarters also have 24mm plating. The coloured plating image seems to show a flattening (even a hollowing?!)of the sections at the turn of the bilge. Is this correct? If it is correct, would it be OK to explain?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 4:15 pm
The plating thicknesses shown are preliminary, but close. 24mm plate is on centerline. The teal color (greenish) represents the 16mm plate area, and the rest is 12mm. The shape aft, in particular in the buttock section view (side) indeed has some hollow. This helps with the tradeoff between waterflow, buttock to prop angle, and draft trade-offs. The 64 has similar, but you see it less because with a single screw it is drawn as a small tunnel. With the twin props we take a different approach.It is important to note that the shape of the after sections is a highly complex conundrum with many other factors to be considered beyond just the three mentioned.
ron Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 10:41 am
holy cow steve!! ive always thought your fpb boats were bullet proof but this puppy moves into the bomb proof range!….haven’t been able to figure out where you hid the “Dashew battery bank”….looks like at least 80% of hull is double bottom…as in ice breaker? ron
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 4:10 pm
There is a large battery bank amidships, in a sealed but properly vented coffer dam, carved out of the tanks.
Nils O. Pettersson Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Hi Steve, Another impressive piece unfolds! I am interested in your solution for grey/black water. Will you have holdingtanks? Wastewater treatment facilities? As I’m sure you are fully aware of increasingly demanding legislation in this field it is valuable to hear your take on the issue. Regs.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 4:04 pm
We will have three black water tanks, one for each head, under the sole in the engine room and forepeak. Gray water tanks are pass through, i.e. in areas where discharge is permitted, the valve on the tank is open. Otherwise, close the valve, and wait until you are clear to open the valve and dump by gravity.
Gene LeBeau Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 12:21 pm|
Steve —- are you prepared to reveal other stats on this magnificent machine. LWL, full load displacement, beam, etc.?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Hi Gene: In a couple of days we’ll have all the vitals posted.
Peter Myatt Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Dinghy Mooring Bollards/Cleats. Will there be provision for mooring a dinghy alongside/abaft at the stern? Stern Kedge/Mooring. Would it be possible to have a stern anchor / mooring system for anchorages which are either narrow, or of limited swinging room?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Yes on both counts, Peter: The normal system with the dink would be to bring it along the starboard side of the mother ship. The awning over the dinghy helm is offset to starboard to facilitate this. There will be a permanently stored kedge anchor on the swim step on the port side, in a partial pocket to reduce the interference on the swim step.
david Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 3:36 pm
what’s the glazing on the matrix deck? Still the ultra-clear plastic or did you go to full stormproof glass? A lot high weight if the latter. But, again, what a cool design! So glad you can share it with the setsail community.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 3:56 pm
We’ll be using a Matrix deck enclosure system similar to Wind Horse. Plastic sheeting in the lower section and the Clearview opening windows above.
Paul Says:
June 3rd, 2013 at 4:51 pm
If you are using a ZF transmission will you be able to use their Joystick Maneuvering System (JMS)?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 6:04 pm
We will not be using the ZF joystick system. However we will be fitting trolling valves and a smart Mathers control system that allows us to use thrust with great finesse when walking sideways. Much more on this later.
Scotto Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Good to see you’re not going to use joysticks. I believe that technology has now given access to the waterways, to an element that basic seamanship, skill and knowledge was once able to keep on the beach. Far too many people in boats that lack basic skills and rely solely on bowthrusters and joystick systems. I love the concept of your big rudders and screws, whether twin or single, your boats are extremely manouvrable. I apologise for standing on the soapbox, but as a seaman(I must admit,not to your standard by any means), somethings really irk me. Bring back the plank and the yard arm I say! Aye Scotto
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 3rd, 2013 at 10:56 pm
From what we can see now, Scotto, the proportional control thruster coupled with the big rudders and tranny trolling valves will give us lots of control, easily operated with the thruster lever and the steering JOG stick.
Roger Reply:
November 17th, 2013 at 11:52 am
Here is the opposite view Scotto. This boat is going to be your worst nightmare then. What makes it “bad” is that I as a complete neophyte can take it safely offshore and come back alive without needing the skill and knowledge required to do the same in a lightly built floating condo. I can do so because a lifetimes worth of skill and knowledge is designed in. This is precisely the boat that would entice me off the beach. Sailors have always used the latest technology. Even huge cruise ships have bowthrusters.
Jens Find Says:
June 4th, 2013 at 9:48 am
With the house battery bank sitting deep down on the keel between the stabilizers, they are definetely well placed. From a maintenance perspective, it seems to me that you might have an issue with access, adequate hoisting gear interfering with the forward edge of the matrix deck. I realize that changing the cells is not an often repeated task, but never the less I assume the matter has been given some thought.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 4th, 2013 at 9:53 am
Yes, Jens, getting individual cells in and out is in the plan as is engines and genset. In the case of the batteries we will either use an A-frame or hoist from a beam on the sole support for the deck above.
Chris B Says:
June 4th, 2013 at 8:13 pm
Astounding design. Looks like you’ve ticked all the criteria for the perfect long range voyager. I’m loving the workshop and forepeak facilities…amongst everything else! CB
ron Says:
June 5th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
hi steve, what do you expect the hp draw to be at cruise (11-12 knots)? ron
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 5th, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Horspeower requirement at eleven knots in smooth water at half load is around 135HP.
Rob Says:
June 7th, 2013 at 7:41 pm
I know your apprehension about electric or hybrid systems have been discussed before but just thought I’d mention that the 1066 lugger is available from northern lights as a hybrid setup. http://www.northern-lights.com/hybrid/index.html The ability to run the diesels at optimum efficiency regardless of prop speed and run at full power silently with engines off for periods of time still seem compelling to me, eg when moving in an anchorage or when inspecting the engine room. Also the larger battery pack increases generator free autonomy at anchor and with a suitably sized solar array up to 10-15 miles a day of solar powered motoring could be possible, imagine island hopping around a South Pacific atoll chain without having to run an engine whatsoever. I guess like any newish system reliability is the big unknown, although considering diesel electric systems are becoming the mainstay of cruise line and large commercial ships it doesn’t seem an insurmountable problem.
Roger Says:
October 6th, 2013 at 8:32 pm
What access and procedures are planned for cleaning all the nooks and crannies in all these tanks? Since the fuel rests right against the cold hull in high latitudes, wouldn’t you get quite a bit of condensation showing up in the fuel tanks?
Steve Dashew Reply:
October 7th, 2013 at 12:46 am
There are provisions for cleaning out the low spots, although this has not been a problem in our experience. Condensation is a non issue since the tanks vent from the day tank and we do not return hot fuel to the tanks. The day tank will accumulate condensation and its sump is easily drained. When in storage the vent system is closed.
RAN Says:
October 8th, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Are the skeg trailing edges shaped to pre-swirl the flow to counteract the prop induced swirl?
Steve Dashew Reply:
October 8th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
The design of the skeg is a trade off between best flow into the props, form and wetted surface drag, and their impact working together with the rudders as propeller wash stators. The baseline issue, of course, is structure during a grounding. All of this works in conjunction with the waterflow along the hull and how this is is impacted by the intersection of skegs/rudders and the buttock line of the hull. A long, tech sounding way of answering your question about axial flow being a consideration. It is.
Scotto Says:
June 4th, 2013 at 3:48 am
Great storage ideas. Easily accesable Fantastic! As usual!
Matt L Says:
June 4th, 2013 at 6:16 am
What will prevent the bins from sliding around and making noise while under way?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 4th, 2013 at 9:56 am
The bins will be constrained in chocks, which we have done before, and the motion is general so little that there should not be audible sound.
JLF Says:
June 4th, 2013 at 9:07 am
Nice Boat. Your design cycle time seems to have shrunk considerably. More comfortable with the software? FPB97 already worked out the themes? Or have you been holding out on us and working on this longer than it seems? I’m curious because my business is moving to this sort of pre-construction, for house, not boats.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 4th, 2013 at 10:01 am
The design cycle is getting tighter. However, what you see is just the start. Between now and completion f working drawings there will be many thousands of man hours.
Steve Says:
June 5th, 2013 at 1:44 pm
If you really want to go South you might consider. Latitude: S 77° 50′ 60″ Longitude: E 166° 40′ 0.0001″ Dangerous as all get out but it is as far South as one can go in a vessel which is something. Biggest attraction for me is the historic huts from the early explorers. Walking into Ernest Shackleton’s Hut at Cape Royds is spectacular, Capt. Scott’s hut a few miles away has even more preserved artifacts. It goes without saying that the wildlife is spectacular. One danger is from ice conditions but that can be mitigated, bigger danger are the dozen or so hurricane force storms a year. I have a seen a few private yachts over the years. the prudent skippers do fine – only one loss that I am aware of and no one can explain why they left a cozy anchorage into a forecast storm. Looks like you have the vessel for it though I might get a little concerned about CG if you run into the proverbial worst case and end up with a bunch of ice accretion topsides. PM me if you ever want to explore the option.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 5th, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Thanks Steve: We do like ice! 77 degrees south sounds a lot more of a challenge than 80 north. As to CG and ice, we’d need to have lots of diesel in the tanks to get the VCG down to start.
Steve Says:
June 5th, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Ballast is the trick particularly since so many of these places are so far from fueling facilities. I was meaning to ask if you had any way to put any heat into the fresh water tanks. I remember reading one Northwest passage account and they were forced to overwinter, might have been at Cambridge Bay, and the unholy mess that resulted from freezing the plumbing despite having enough fuel to heat the living spaces. Water temps in the southern Ross Sea are around 29.5 F year round, the Peninsula is of course quite a bit warmer.
A Hyde Says:
July 3rd, 2013 at 9:45 am
Above is the note: “Although we have the same basement area we had on Wind Horse” I do not see how this is possible with the posted layouts. The accommodations seem to fill all the space under the main deck. The rear of the accommodations appears to meet the engine room with a door in the guest bath. It appears the tanks are directly under the accommodations when you look at the Forepeak posting. It shows Forepeak floor raised above owner’s stateroom floor to provide prop storage at the same level as tanks. The use of storage as detailed seems like all anyone would need, even without a “basement”. So far the FPB 78 is my new dream home on the water.
Steve Dashew Reply:
July 3rd, 2013 at 4:04 pm
The storage comment that references the basement of the previous FPBs is in regard to the number of plastic storage bins. Between the work shop area allocated for storage, now under the sole, and that under the three bunks in the guest and owner’s quarters, we have exactly the same number of plastic bins as on Wind Horse. In addition to which is additional space in the forepeak as well as work shop for bulk items like paper goods, luggage, etc.
A Hyde Reply:
July 5th, 2013 at 2:45 pm
No question, there is more than enough storage available, even for me – with back ups for back ups. I like the idea of not having to crawl to retrieve stuff from storage. My concern about the “basement” was more about routing space for ducts/pipes/cables that seem to run in the “basement” in previous postings of details from existing FPB’s. With the FPB 78 it looks like there is no real height between tank tops and accommodations floor. I would assume access to this area above the tanks would be required in areas other than the “tank cut outs” at the stabilizer mounting areas. Is there access height (real person size) in this area between tank tops and accommodations floor, or are there access hatches scattered over any areas requiring possible service/maintenance? Not trying to nit pick details, just looking at how this design could work as my future home on the water.
Steve Dashew Reply:
July 5th, 2013 at 11:37 pm
An existential question, where to run the myriad of plumbing and wiring, and a subject of substantial analysis, design, dialog, strongly held opinions, and in the end what we think is a very good outcome, perhaps the best ever. We have all the major elements now run through the 3D model, so we can insure that there is sufficient build and access space, and that this is all taken into account within the structural detailing. Much more on this subject in a month when we get the details wrapped.
Kent Says:
June 5th, 2013 at 1:49 pm
I wish I had the resources to acquire an FPB. Is there an air vent in the top step of stairs leading down to the swim step? Did I miss this in the earlier posts?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 5th, 2013 at 3:10 pm
The upper stair riser (in the stairway going down to the swimstep) is for an engine room extraction system (two fans).
Warwick Robinson Says:
June 6th, 2013 at 1:59 am
a couple of questions, for you. Have you considered something like Mercury’s jet outbord? they do several sizes, and the ‘leg does not protrude much past the bottom of the hull. the next is ‘what about a ‘drop down’ swim step? it would not add to the overall length of the boat? and would potentially allow for more storage.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 6th, 2013 at 7:02 am
We have considered hinged swim steps where regulations were length critical. However, when all the details are considered, we did not need this. We have the LOA we want for the hull, and there are no regulatory bodies getting in our way.
ron Says:
June 11th, 2013 at 9:23 am
hi steve, something that hasn’t been talked about is the flush deck stem to stern(ignoring mud trap for anchor) in my mind this makes for a much safer deck…would be nice if the winch nearest port control station could be moved to port mast I understand the conflict with the controls but it would be out of the traffic pattern…I see one open radar antenna and something I cant recognize on top of port mast,is this a new radar system?…with 20k# more boat and greater windage will you be using a larger hook?…the vent system above deck level is far superior to the one on deck no need to close it off in rough weather…best ron
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 12th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Agree Ron re flush deck: Coamings are great for trapping tons of water on deck, and creating drag where you don’t want it if you are being knocked down and are skidding with a wave. Regarding the port deck winch, not shown is the second dink, which limits space. When that is in position the winch is out of the way. But we do need the foot path aft of the port mast clear. Going with a 150kg/330 pound Manson Supreme, again way overkill, which is what we like. And going up in chain size to 12mm or 1/2″. That combo will work with this windage as well or better as what we have used on Wind Horse (110kg/240 pound Rocna and 3/8′-9.6mm) chain.
Mike Drinkrow Says:
August 31st, 2013 at 12:19 am
Hi, I currently own a Nordhavn57 and had the pleasure of viewing Buffalo Nickel FPB64. I was very impressed with your design and build quality together with the strength of the vessel. At this point I am interested in the the 64 but must consider the 78. However, not knowing prices, I am a bit in the dark! Reading your write up on the 76, I think I would prefer this size vessel because of the enclosed Flybridge and larger dinghy. I am an avide fisherman and my first reaction to the 64 was that with a sqeeze, I could put on a 17ft x6,5 ft beam dinghy. So, if i may ask a few questions, what is the MAX size of dinghy and it’s weight that a 64 can carry, and what are the budget prices of a 64 and 78 based on vessels with one matching genset and a wing engine include. Kind regards Mike Drinkrow PS I am currently in FIji allside Bufflo Nickel and will move to Aus within a month.
Steve Dashew Reply:
September 2nd, 2013 at 6:35 am
Hi Mike: Todd Rickard will be getting in touch with you shortly re pricing. Dinghy size on the FPB 64 is a question of tradeoffs. With care, a version of the Circa dink perhaps 14 to 15.5 feet long, with a pram bow, might be made to fit, with some overhang of the stern boarding platform. This would require some design effort and a few mods of the aft deck furniture, air intake, etc.
Chris B Says:
June 6th, 2013 at 12:25 am
Wow – I think you’ve struck perfection there…I can just imagine living on board with my family taking them around the world exploring on an FPB78. Very envious – and I’m sure quite a few FPB64 owners are looking on thinking of upgrading! Cheers, Chris.
Scotto Says:
June 6th, 2013 at 12:28 am
This thing is HUGE! the comparison pics really demosstrate the size difference! I thought the 64 was roomy, now its cozy! Not that there’s anything wrong with that! I love the 64
Justin Says:
June 6th, 2013 at 5:24 am
It looks fantastic, but I have a doubt over the decision to have no windows in the owners’ suite. Will you really want to spend time down there with no windows?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 6th, 2013 at 6:59 am
On both Wind Horse and Beowulf before, the shades were up in our stateroom maybe six times in all those years. They are down in port, or when we are sleeping in higher latitudes, which leaves a short time at sea when they might be open. This is just one of those many tradeoffs that occur.
Steve C Reply:
June 6th, 2013 at 9:51 am
I think I would tie a HD camera to the Big Screen TV in the stateroom and pretend its a window when I wanted to see out. You could even put a marine looking window frame around it! Overall I LOVE the size. Great design. Thanks for sharing.
David M. Says:
June 6th, 2013 at 9:32 am
Still with you on your 9th post, hope this just the start of many as you finish the engineering, build and sail in this fantastic new boat.
Kent Says:
June 6th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
I hope you two enjoy her for many years. I look forward to reading about your future travels.
Rob Says:
June 6th, 2013 at 5:42 pm
I noticed the saloon seating, an L shape like the 64, but in this design you have reversed it so that some (crew) are seated facing aft and the aft or forward facing seats are gone. I can usually work out the advantages in a design, but this one has me baffled. I would prefer to sit facing forward as you do in the 64 or stand up close to the front front windows when approaching something interesting, also the fwd seat is quite narrow compared to the space aft. You obviously have a reason, can you enlighten one who has spent far too long wondering about it. Another great design, I’m envious but still hanging out for the 50′ version that the other 99% of us hope for. Regards, Rob.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 6th, 2013 at 8:25 pm
The salon seating is the result of many discussions, and tradeoffs. Here are some of the reasons: We need access to the forward port corner of the galley for maintenance of various systems. The forward face of the galley locker, what would normally be a dead area in the corners, provides excellent storage this way, with space for a large TV that does not need a pop up mechanism. The athwartships seat on Wind Horse was almost never used under way. But we did use the aft port corner, feet up facing forward, which we can still do. Regarding seat width, the seats are the same width around the perimeter, and in fact, somewhat wider than in the past.
Mike Pearce Says:
June 6th, 2013 at 6:52 pm
Steve, Are you staying with Niad on your two latest designs or are you changing to Trac
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 6th, 2013 at 8:16 pm
We are evaluating all the options on stabilizing gear, Mike: A lot depends on some requirements we have for the stabilizer fins and how these are built.
Matt L Says:
June 6th, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Steve, I have been struggling all day with your selections of engine, specifically the M1 or as Lugger calls it “Continuous” Rating for the 1066. Either I don’t understand engine election as much as I thought I did (likely) or the FPB78 is so incredibly optimized for a specific performance range that the L1066T “Continuous” with it narrow band of optimum power is the better choice. The L1066T “Medium Duty” gives you more performance for less fuel burn while still staying at rpm levels that the boat is likely to run. The L1066A “Continuous Duty” weighs a little more and uses 50% more oil but gives better performance with the same or less fuel burn at the RPM the boat is likely to run than the L1066T “Continuous Duty”. If the FPB79 hull is so incredibly optimized that more power is not going to get it past 12.35 Kts, does that not reflect a much higher level of optimization of hull, engine, transmission and prop than your previous designs? As I understood it Windhorse, FPB 64 and FPB97 all have specced M3 rated Deere engines. Am I mistaken or is there something new afoot?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 6th, 2013 at 9:34 pm
Hi Matt: Maybe I missed something, or too many late nights, but we are using the 1066T.
Matt L Reply:
June 7th, 2013 at 8:43 am
Steve, if you are using the Lugger 1066T “Medium Duty” I (think I) understand completely. If you are using the Lugger 1066T “Continuous” then I am confused by the choice.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 7th, 2013 at 9:20 am
Matt: We are using the 135HP @2200 RPM version, propped for 2050 RPM with their approval so we can get proper loading on the engines. We will cruise at 11 knots at a smooth, quiet, 1600 RPM, which is why we are using these engines – for the quiet.
Matt L Reply:
June 7th, 2013 at 9:27 am
Thanks…now the world makes sense… :0)
Steven Reply:
June 7th, 2013 at 10:23 am
Is the engine or generator going to be Keel cooled? How did you pick the L1066T (est 3.75 Gal per hour per engine)engine when you need total 120-140 hp(60-70 Hp per engine)? The L1066T appears to be a inefficient engine burning a gal for avg 18.6 hp/hour (1000-2200 rpm); L1066A burn a gal for avg 19.8 hp/hour(1000-2400 rpm), if the data from http://www.northern-lights.com/PDFs/brochure_pdfs/spec_sheets/Lugger/L1066_curves.pdf is correct, changing the engine to a L1066A should save .2 gal an hour per engine at 1400 rpm. Am I missing something?
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 7th, 2013 at 10:48 am
I will leave it for the diesel engineers to debate these finer points. What we do know is diesel engines are set up wi th various fuel injection timing cycles and that this impacts how efficient they are at different RPMs and engine loads. RPM also has a big impact on prop efficiency and engine noise. The trade offs are far more complex than the simple prop curve data vs fuel consumption usually shown on spec sheets.
Matt L Reply:
June 7th, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Steven, I saw the same thing. In the past I marveled at how every engine selection Steve chose seem to be perfect for the boat based on the combination of torque/hp/rpm/fuel consumption curves. For fun I would wargame all the engine choices around what Steve made to try to pick a better engine. I never could. This time however I was left with the thought, “Huh, how is the Lugger 1066T “Continuous” the best engine selection for the FPB78?” But as soon as Steve posted that the engine was selected for how quiet it was, then Steve’s engine selection made sense. Simply put, an important criteria for engine selection was not in the data I was looking at. But I have to admit I would want to know how noisy the Lugger 1066A “Continuous” would be as you look like you would gain boat speed at same rpm relative to a 1066T “Continuous” with the same or lower fuel burn. You could then make make maximum advantage of the higher freeboard in the bow on the FPB 78 much more often. But then this choice may lead to the boat being overpowered at low rpm with the corresponding lack of control in bad weather/low speeds which is something Steve is always very careful with. The thought of changing a 32.5 quarts of oil every 250 hours with Lugger 1066A “Continuous” instead of 19 quarts of oil every 250 hours on the Lugger 1066T “Continuous” is fairly daunting. That’s a 71% increase in the oil you would have to carry and dispose of. But the Lugger 1066T “Medium Duty” torque/hp/rpm/fuel consumption curves look pretty sweet at 1600 RPM! But then the engine may not “be happy” running up to 4000/hrs a year at 1600 RPM. Not being a “diesel engineer” I understand that my “understanding” is limited, but I still find the whole thing incredibly fascinating.
Steve Dashew Reply:
June 8th, 2013 at 12:41 am
Matt: Butting in here in your reply to Steven and thanks for the kind words. First, the oil replacement period is a function of load (or lack thereof), oil quantity in the s