61 Hatteras CPMY 1984

[capttonyf]

Full disclosure, I've never seen this boat in person< But a company I do work for has it listed. That's not why I'm posting it. I'm posting it because from the pictures it looks like a nice clean, Re Powered with Cummins CPMY. I know a few people on here have been looking for such a boat and I thought this may be a good possibility for them to consider. Again, I don't personally know the boat, just looked like a good listing when I stumbled across it. Hope this helps someone.

http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/198...4381/Vero-Beach/FL/United-States#.VvV2btIrK9I

Tony

 

[SKYCHENEY]

Too bad they went with a low hp repower. If you can live with that, then it might be worth a look.

 

[Boatsb]

Too bad they went with a low hp repower. If you can live with that, then it might be worth a look.

My thoughts exactly. It was not designed to be a trawler and taking out 5 or 6,000 lbs may not help the ride. I hope the stabilizers don't fail.

 

[SKYCHENEY]

My thoughts exactly. It was not designed to be a trawler and taking out 5 or 6,000 lbs may not help the ride. I hope the stabilizers don't fail.

I know a guy with a 60MY. His Wilcox stabs failed out in Lake Michigan. One went hard over causing the boat to list horribly in 7 footers. He couldn't go over about 7kts for fear of dipping the gunnel below the waves which happened a couple of times. I know that's extreme and not a fault of weight or balance, but it shows what a boat like this will do if things are not right.

 

[capttonyf]

The Motors look tiny compared to the originals. If I was to repower this boat I would've went with the QSM 11's Personally. Wouldn't have beem much more money, all the labor was there already. Don't know the back story though, maybe he had his reasoning.

Tony

 

[johnjen50]

Dipping the gunnel on a boat like this? That must have been really bad. And I'm assuming that boat still had the 12v71's or 92's to add some weight. Never thought about that happening.

 

[saltshaker]

Huge mistake on the repower. She must be very top heavy without the 12V71's in there. They must have taken about 4 tons out of her. QSM11s would have been a much wiser choice. I'd guess that with the 650HP 12V71's that boat would plane and cruise around 16-17kts. QSM11's would probably get her to around 20kt cruise. A pair of 1050HP C18s would have been sweet!

 

[jim rosenthal]

"The only 61 Hatt repowered with Cummins on the market. Buy it quick before someone else nabs her."

Hilarious. Who would want to be on this anywhere other than dockside? Talk about tender.

With M11s this might be a decent boat, although you would still worry about the weight. With C-series? I wonder if Cummins even signed off on the repower?

 

[jim rosenthal]

Huge mistake on the repower. She must be very top heavy without the 12V71's in there. They must have taken about 4 tons out of her. QSM11s would have been a much wiser choice. I'd guess that with the 650HP 12V71's that boat would plane and cruise around 16-17kts. QSM11's would probably get her to around 20kt cruise. A pair of 1050HP C18s would have been sweet!

Not to mention that you would not have to reballast the entire boat....

 

[oscarvan]

"The only 61 Hatt repowered with Cummins on the market. Buy it quick before someone else nabs her."

Hilarious.

No, the BS that gets written on these listings is not hilarious. It is less than disingenuous, if not misleading.
I find most of what I read on the YW pages more than a little bit annoying, if not outright BS and it makes
me not want to do business with whomever wrote it......

"Nicest one on the market"
"Better than new"
"Great Liveaboard"
"Ready for the Great Loop"
"Needs Nothing"
"Won't last at this price"
"Bristol Condition"
"Great for Entertaining"
"Open checkbook maintenance"
"The kind of luxurious accommodations expected by serious cruising yachtsman"

And on, and on.

And that's just the hyperbole. I'm not even talking about the endless factual incorrectness.

Is this business nothing more than the "We tote the note" used car lot on the corner?

Sorry, rant over.

 

[johnjen50]

Soooo. Jim's comment made me think, how mould you get insurance on it if it were so potentially unstable? I guess anything for a price, but i wonder if the insurance companies consider that, and if they build it into the premium? Regardless Sky's comments really threw me. Can't even imagine my boat heeling so much the tunnel comes anywhere near the waterline, and I do not have stabilizers. Yet.

 

[oscarvan]

Soooo. Jim's comment made me think, how mould you get insurance on it if it were so potentially unstable? I guess anything for a price, but i wonder if the insurance companies consider that, and if they build it into the premium? Regardless Sky's comments really threw me. Can't even imagine my boat heeling so much the tunnel comes anywhere near the waterline, and I do not have stabilizers. Yet.

You're giving the insurance companies and their surveyors waaaaaayyy too much credit.

Even if you explained it to them they wouldn't get it.

 

[holtcl]

OK I'm going to step out on a limb here just to try and learn something. I thought this looked like a nice boat. When we brought the 44TC up the waterway and diesel was $5/gallon, I could imagine someone wanting to re-power a boat like this 61 here if they preferred a trawler-like boating lifestyle. Though I could never see the fuel cost savings justifying a re-power cost in almost any scenario.

Having said all that, what makes this boat's repower different than the setup with a 58 LRC with the 471s? It it apples and oranges? Too much weight came out with the smaller cummins? Or that the 61 CPMY was not designed for this modest power?

Cheryl
Cinderella
1971 53 MY

 

[jrbrein]

OK I'm going to step out on a limb here just to try and learn something. I thought this looked like a nice boat. When we brought the 44TC up the waterway and diesel was $5/gallon, I could imagine someone wanting to re-power a boat like this 61 here if they preferred a trawler-like boating lifestyle. Though I could never see the fuel cost savings justifying a re-power cost in almost any scenario.

Having said all that, what makes this boat's repower different than the setup with a 58 LRC with the 471s? It it apples and oranges? Too much weight came out with the smaller cummins? Or that the 61 CPMY was not designed for this modest power?

Cheryl
Cinderella
1971 53 MY

Cheryl,

Comparing the 61' CPMY to the 58 LRC is apples to oranges. The 58 LRC carries on average 1000 gallons more fuel and at roughly 7 pounds per gallon that alone is a 7000 pound difference. The 58 LRC can also carry 300 more gallons of water than the 61' CPMY and at 8 pounds per gallon that is another 2400 pounds of weight.

That is roughly 10,000 pounds of weight at full load difference between the boats. This should more than make up for the lighter weight 4-71's.

The hull design as you know I am sure is a full displacement design in the 58 LRC designed to travel at hull speed and no more.

I agree that putting lower horse power into a planning hull vessel is a bummer but the issue of center of gravity and ultimate stability cannot be ignored!


Jonathan Brein

 

[saltshaker]

OK I'm going to step out on a limb here just to try and learn something. I thought this looked like a nice boat. When we brought the 44TC up the waterway and diesel was $5/gallon, I could imagine someone wanting to re-power a boat like this 61 here if they preferred a trawler-like boating lifestyle. Though I could never see the fuel cost savings justifying a re-power cost in almost any scenario.

Having said all that, what makes this boat's repower different than the setup with a 58 LRC with the 471s? It it apples and oranges? Too much weight came out with the smaller cummins? Or that the 61 CPMY was not designed for this modest power?

Cheryl
Cinderella
1971 53 MY

Yes to all of this and what jrbrein said bellow. You can run it like a trawler and add weight below if needed. Problem is this is not how the boat was designed to be used. A repower with QSM11s wouldn't have cost much more and would deliver the same economy at slow speed while having the ability to run at decent speed and on plane. But even those engines would have left the boat much lighter and all that weight came out down low in the boat. The added weight of the extra fuel and water the LRC carries is all down low in the hull adding to the boats stability. This will be a tough boat to sell, particularly at the current asking price.

 

[jrbrein]

Jack,

I guess if someone was serious about this boat and could live with the limitations on speed, you could add lead ballast down low and well secured like we do on sailboats.

But hey, I am originally a "blow boater" and that is how we think!


Jonathan Brein

 

[jim rosenthal]

You COULD do that, but the hull design- which isn't a displacement hull and doesn't have the same underwater conformation as a displacement hull- would still not be a trawler. A trawler or displacement hull design is different. You can run a disp hull design at low speeds and you will use less fuel, but it won't be as efficient as a displacement hull, and it will not be seaworthy like a displacement hull is designed to be in rough seas.

Even ballasting it will not (obviously) change the basic hull shape. People who put small engines into a large boat designed for heavy powerful engines and think they have a trawler are, in my opinion, fooling themselves. By the time they figure out it isn't the same, it may be too late.

The weight difference, as Jack said, between a pair of C Cummins and big DDs is very significant. This boat will be very tender, I would think, and roll all over the place. The weight has been taken out exactly in the wrong place. The person who designed this boat meant for the engine weight to help ballast the boat, and that weight distribution is now altered for the worse.

 

[Glory]

You're giving the insurance companies and their surveyors waaaaaayyy too much credit.

Even if you explained it to them they wouldn't get it.

Dito twice!!

JM

 

[Glory]

You COULD do that, but the hull design- which isn't a displacement hull and doesn't have the same underwater conformation as a displacement hull- would still not be a trawler. A trawler or displacement hull design is different. You can run a disp hull design at low speeds and you will use less fuel, but it won't be as efficient as a displacement hull, and it will not be seaworthy like a displacement hull is designed to be in rough seas.

Even ballasting it will not (obviously) change the basic hull shape. People who put small engines into a large boat designed for heavy powerful engines and think they have a trawler are, in my opinion, fooling themselves. By the time they figure out it isn't the same, it may be too late.

The weight difference, as Jack said, between a pair of C Cummins and big DDs is very significant. This boat will be very tender, I would think, and roll all over the place. The weight has been taken out exactly in the wrong place. The person who designed this boat meant for the engine weight to help ballast the boat, and that weight distribution is now altered for the worse.

While 405 hp is quite different than the original 8s, or 12s, the 5,000 # difference I would think would difficult for most of us to feel. I wold also suggest that many MY are being operated at hull speed these days, and while Jack Hargreaves might have had fast in mind I don't think it would create any problems.

As for rolling, sea state and sea approach angle can make travel tough, especially in a beam sea. I experienced a stabilizer failure (broken air line) traveling up the coast of NJ, nearly a beam sea comfort on board certainly changed, but all was fine.

As for the value of a 61 CMY with 405 Cummins, we will see.

JM

 

[oldawg]

While 405 hp is quite different than the original 8s, or 12s, the 5,000 # difference I would think would difficult for most of us to feel. I wold also suggest that many MY are being operated at hull speed these days, and while Jack Hargreaves might have had fast in mind I don't think it would create any problems.

As for rolling, sea state and sea approach angle can make travel tough, especially in a beam sea. I experienced a stabilizer failure (broken air line) traveling up the coast of NJ, nearly a beam sea comfort on board certainly changed, but all was fine.

As for the value of a 61 CMY with 405 Cummins, we will see.

JM

I was glad to see this response. There are consequences associated with the removal of that much weight and it matters where the weight loss comes from. Having stipulated that, we are talking about 61 foot boat with an 18 foot beam. Drastically different from a 53 classic or smaller. I wouldn't presume the boat would become unstable or uncomfortable as a result of these changes without doing the math (which I am not qualified to do).

I, too, would have opted for the higher horsepower Cummins if the price wasn't much more. It wouldn't kill the value of the boat to me but it certainly matters to a significant number of potential buyers and that would have affected my decision.

In the real world there is a VERY limited market for boat that size and age and this one seems to be priced at the upper end of the market . As JM said, we shall see.