psneeld
Guru
Could always start a poll with possible outcomes to make it even more captivating....
Ray McCormack Sunseeker 54 delivery to Hawaii currently underway
- Thread starter marcs
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Could always start a poll with possible outcomes to make it even more captivating....
rslifkin
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2019
- Messages
- 7,985
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Vessel Name
- Hour Glass
- Vessel Make
- Chris Craft 381 Catalina
As best I can figure with the latest info, they're probably just idling into those seas with them pretty much right on the nose.
mvweebles
Guru
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 7,730
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Weebles
- Vessel Make
- 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Thanks Larry - the SA post states Hilo is bearing of 262. Sunseeker is running at 199 at 3.6 kts. Someone calculated between two points 90 mins apart to find overall 222 degrees at 4 kts so he's slowed up and bore off to run almost due south.
Wind and wind waves should abate later tonight. But the swell picks up tomorrow and will be from the NW up to 12-16 ft at 12 seconds; and is forecast to continue for a couple days. Those are bigger seas at shorter duration than I've seen in a small boat - I am having trouble imagining what they would be like. Part of me says big ocean swells are not that bad as long as there is no wind chop on top. Another part of me says 12 secs apart is pretty short. And seas tend to get confused even without wind chop.
I'm getting seasick just thinking about it. Wonder what its like out there?
Peter
Wind and wind waves should abate later tonight. But the swell picks up tomorrow and will be from the NW up to 12-16 ft at 12 seconds; and is forecast to continue for a couple days. Those are bigger seas at shorter duration than I've seen in a small boat - I am having trouble imagining what they would be like. Part of me says big ocean swells are not that bad as long as there is no wind chop on top. Another part of me says 12 secs apart is pretty short. And seas tend to get confused even without wind chop.
I'm getting seasick just thinking about it. Wonder what its like out there?
Peter
Last edited:
Interesting going back over the forecasts . It’s been pretty close so there shouldn’t be any surprises.
Last edited:
darkside
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2016
- Messages
- 412
- Location
- New Zealand
- Vessel Name
- Ahi
- Vessel Make
- Roger Hill Powercat
TTs comments about the bladders are correct.
Ours had bands on heavy ratchets to take up the slack of a partially drained bladder. Even then I couldn't decide to empty as much as I could while the conditions were perfect, or wait until we had burnt enough to empty the whole lot.
I was much happier when it was all off the deck, and that was on a coastal run.
We had our boat built with restraining eyes built in, low down in the cockpit. No point tieing the bladder upwards to a gunwhale cleat.
There in no way you could restrain one properly in a guest cabin.
I'd also want it stowed somewhere any spillage found its way directly overboard.
Ours had bands on heavy ratchets to take up the slack of a partially drained bladder. Even then I couldn't decide to empty as much as I could while the conditions were perfect, or wait until we had burnt enough to empty the whole lot.
I was much happier when it was all off the deck, and that was on a coastal run.
We had our boat built with restraining eyes built in, low down in the cockpit. No point tieing the bladder upwards to a gunwhale cleat.
There in no way you could restrain one properly in a guest cabin.
I'd also want it stowed somewhere any spillage found its way directly overboard.
mvweebles
Guru
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 7,730
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Weebles
- Vessel Make
- 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
3-4 meters building tonight and yes, probably a good 30 hours or more. Luckily, the 3-meter wind waves are dying and won't be atop the swells. But the more I think of it, the swells will be confused even with no wind. It's a pretty big low pressure cell 800 nms north - will take another day or two to settle down.
Leaving aside the Ray-bashing, this is a good lesson. As Larry said, forecast has been pretty steady - no surprises. The low pressure cell has been forecast for several days. I have to think that if the boat has more fuel range, he would have headed further south. 200 miles south would make a pretty sizeable difference. But without fuel, his only option was to endure it and hope for the best; or turn back which is hard to do after 1000 nms.
Also note, the seas are forward of the beam. There's a good chance the decks will be awash. He has about 72-84 hours between fuel transfers - probably hasn't been possible for the last 24 hours, and next 48 don't look good. Finally, keeping the engine bays dry could be a challenge - there are frequently a lot of electrics in these engine spaces, including heavy DC cabling and switching, AirCons, inverters, and main breaker panels. None of it does well with water of course. It's a probablem on many boats (Nordhavn, Selene, KK, and others are not immune). DC systems are a bit fragile on all boats. Luxury style yachts are especially susceptible.
Peter
Last edited:
High Wire
Guru
Wouldn’t the bladder tanks be the first emptied and be stored away by now?
mvweebles
Guru
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 7,730
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Weebles
- Vessel Make
- 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
I don't know the model of the Sunseeker (probably a Predator since the Manhatten - which I am familiar with - didn't have a toy garage). It carries abot 550 gallons diesel. If I understood correctly (always a risk), they took-on about 1300 gals in bladders for a total of around 1800 gals total for the 2300 nm rhumbline trip. They are barely halfway across, so they should have over 900 gals left. If their fuel-burn calculation of 5.4 GPH is correct, they burn about 130 gals/day. Right now, they probably have 400 gals in the fuel tanks because transferring is difficult right now; and close to 600 gals in bladders.
Maybe some of you guys with more experience with go-fast boats like the Sunseeker an speculate on whether its realistic to burn 5.4 gph on a 60k# boat with twin MAN 600-ish hp engines at 7.3 kts which was their fuel burn assumption - 0.8 gal/nm. I have a hard time believing anything under 1.0 gal/nm.
Thoughts?
Peter
guy with a boat
Guru
Seems pretty optimistic to me in any conditions. Pushing through weather can have significantly negative impact on both speed and fuel burn numbers. For their sake, I hope the fuel capacity numbers we have here are understated.
rslifkin
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2019
- Messages
- 7,985
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Vessel Name
- Hour Glass
- Vessel Make
- Chris Craft 381 Catalina
In calm water I'd expect they should manage at least 1.5 nm / gal, even with those big engines. Before the weather kicked up they were averaging under 7 kts on a boat with probably 45 feet of waterline, so they're running far below hull speed. Even with the engines well outside of their ideal range that should return reasonable fuel burn. Accounting for sea state, I'd say they're still likely to be very tight on fuel, if they have enough at all.
twistedtree
Guru
That what you would ideally do. Say you use bladders to carry and extra 20% of fuel. Then after the first 20% of your trip, there is space in the built-in tanks for the contents of the bladder. That's also within the initial weather forecast window so presumably you have weather than will allow a safe transfer. Remember, as you empty the bladder, it becomes unstable with sloshing fuel, and the restraints are less effective, so you want good conditions. And as Sam pointed out earlier, you need a way to transfer that fuel with out losing it, and with out getting water into the tanks. Once transferred, you can stow the bladder and carry on.
In this case he has about 75% of his fuel in bladders. That means he has to transfer fuel at approximately the 25%, 50%, and 75% points long the route. The last two are outside of the reliable forecasting window, and in this case the forecast was for heavy seas. That creates a significant risk window during those transfers. Given all this, here are the things I'd be looking at very carefully.
- For stability of the boat and security of the bladders, they need to be emptied in a single shot, as quickly as possible. More, smaller bladders is better than fewer large bladders.
- You need to be able to transfer in rough conditions. What is the plumbing connection, how will it be secured, is it gravity drained or pumped? Someone mentioned draining or pumping through the normal deck fill. That would be a non started in rough seas because of risk of water getting into the fuel system. Some sort of direct plumbing would be mandatory, in my mind.
- How are the bladders themselves secured. I have heard numerous times that the build-in tie downs are inadequate. Successful restraint involves additional cross strapping, or better yet a cargo net strapped down tight.
- To what extend are the bladders providing support or otherwise helping to secure and immobilize other bladders? As you empty bladders, do others become less secure?
- Bladders take up a lot of space. What are they blocking? Cockpit or deck bladders can't block freeing ports, for example, or otherwise interfere with clearing deck or other water that comes aboard. What about access to machinery and equipment space if repairs are required. If there were a steering issue, would the steering gear be accessible with that cockpit bladder in place? What about engines, pumps, generators, bilges, etc.?
- The boat will be carrying an unnatural load not just for the first 25% of the trip in good weather, but for 75% of the trip, and through expected bad conditions based of the forecast. What does that do to stability? Depending on where it's located, it could actually help stability, but it takes some analysis to figure that out - not an apparent strength of our hero. And if it's not positioned favorably, or gets loose in any way, it will make a boat that has unsuitable stability in the first place into a very dangerous situation.
- What are you going to do if one of the bladders does get free? Do you have any way to get it under control? And what are they secured to in the first place? On deck I expect there are strong points - as strong as they get on a Sea Ray. But what about below deck? I know first hand what happens to a boat when stuff get loose in rough seas :-(
ranger58sb
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
- Messages
- 7,308
- Location
- Annapolis
- Vessel Name
- Ranger
- Vessel Make
- 58' Sedan Bridge
Theoretically possible, sometimes actually possible. We can run somewhere between 4-8 GPH at about 7.5-8.5 kts with larger engines, but its still all very sensitive to wind and current to maintain that speed.
On our recent trip to Charleston, for example, we could be making 8.5 kts at 4 GPH on one side of an inlet, 8.0 kts at 8 GPH on the other side... as the tide (direction) change had its way with us.
I wouldn't want to bet my life on it in open ocean.
-Chris
twistedtree
Guru
If you were careful I suspect you could manage the fuel burn. Best would be good fuel flow metering plus GPS SOG and calculated NMPG. You can calculate at the onset of the trip what NMPG you need to maintain to arrive with your desired reserve. Then over the course of the trip you just need to always stay at or below that NMPG, varying speed as needed.
That said, in a boat like this I think the bigger problem is lack of steerage at slow speed. When conditions are bad, you need lots of rudder. But when conditions are bad, you also need to slow down to not wreck the boat, and to preserve that NMPG limit. And when you slow down, those little rudders become very ineffective. So I think controlling the boat is likely one of their biggest challenges in harsher conditions. They could regain some rudder control by speeding up, but then they'd run out of fuel.
The whole thing just hasn't been thought through.
PierreR
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2022
- Messages
- 564
- Vessel Name
- Mar Azul
- Vessel Make
- 1977 Hatteras 42 LRC
Moral cannot be high on that boat right now.
rslifkin
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2019
- Messages
- 7,985
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Vessel Name
- Hour Glass
- Vessel Make
- Chris Craft 381 Catalina
Their ride has to be pretty miserable at the moment, but they do have a couple of things going for them: that Sunseeker (not a Sea Ray) is a pretty low profile boat without much exposed glass, although the helm position is pretty exposed. Sunseeker builds a decent boat, although it wasn't meant for this kind of trip by any means. Weight from all of the extra fuel is a big concern though. From what I know, it's a bladder in the dinghy garage, more bladders in the cabin, and a few drums on deck (which were hopefully used first). CoG impacts from the added fuel are probably not too huge on that boat with where they're carrying it, but they probably started with something like 10k lbs of extra fuel on board (can't remember exactly how much they brought).
I did see a picture of the prop tunnels and rudders in the thread over on Sailing Anarchy. The rudders didn't look too tiny to me, so with the seas forward of the beam they may be ok in terms of adequate steerage with the engines near idle. Plus, even if they getting pushed a bit at some point on the run, those express cruiser bows don't have a deep, fine forefoot that would make them dig in, so I'd expect that hull to do ok in a following sea.
Fuel (including the ability to transfer it), crew endurance, and mechanical failures are likely to be their biggest risks. I think they started with enough fuel to do the crossing in reasonable weather, but I'm not convinced that'll be the case after pushing through 10+ foot head seas for a few days.
I did see a picture of the prop tunnels and rudders in the thread over on Sailing Anarchy. The rudders didn't look too tiny to me, so with the seas forward of the beam they may be ok in terms of adequate steerage with the engines near idle. Plus, even if they getting pushed a bit at some point on the run, those express cruiser bows don't have a deep, fine forefoot that would make them dig in, so I'd expect that hull to do ok in a following sea.
Fuel (including the ability to transfer it), crew endurance, and mechanical failures are likely to be their biggest risks. I think they started with enough fuel to do the crossing in reasonable weather, but I'm not convinced that'll be the case after pushing through 10+ foot head seas for a few days.
More likely he was using the tote for filling the bladders.
- Joined
- May 11, 2019
- Messages
- 3,628
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Muirgen
- Vessel Make
- 50' Beebe Passagemaker
Just a few notes:
First, I am NOT a USCG rated captain.
2nd, while Ray McCormack was “out there, doing it”, we were safely anchored in Turtle Bay, not too far from MVWeebles, so I guess that makes us wimps . . . BUT we had successfully come down from PNW in our boat, and even though the entrance to the bay was wide open, we made the conscious decision NOT to enter Turtle Bay in the dark. We scheduled our departure from Ensenada, and modified our enroute speeds in order to arrive off of Turtle Bay (and NOT by following the 10 meter contour) after daybreak.
Ray McCormack reported the winds at the time of the sinking to be at least 20 kts . . . My anemometer only recorded 12kts max gusts overnight . . . . Due to the sinking, Ray McCormack lost his laptop. BBG owner, trusting to the experience of this USCG captain, lost everything she owned.
On his current delivery.
Ray is on record as stating that his fuel burn rates were done WITHOUT all the additional fuel he was planning on taking on the Hawaii delivery.
He appears to have actually loaded three 500 gallon bladders, one in the boat garage, and two down below, which coincidentally prevents access to the engine spaces until sufficient fuel is burned off (at least 500 gallons) to allow one of the bladders to be moved out of the way in order to allow access to the engine spaces . . . . In addition he stated he was planning on carrying 7-8 poly drums on the aft deck for additional fuel. So by my figuring, he had the capability of loading 1885 tp 1940 gallons of diesel fuel, above and beyond the installed tankage. Weight of 1885 gallons of fuel plus the bladders, poly drums, pumps, lashing etc, would approach 14,000 lbs of fuel and associated equipment, above and beyond what the boat was designed for.
So, since the engine spaces were inaccessible initially, assuming his 5 gallon burn rate is accurate, then he PLANNED for not being able to access the engine spaces for the first 100 hours of the trip, over FOUR DAYS. This after the previous voyage was cancelled because of a leak in the engine spaces, which necessitated returning to port because not only could he not address the leak because he could not even access the engine spaces, he had no way of knowing how serious the leak even was due to the extra fuel blocking access to the engine spaces . . . . We do engine checks every hour. Not looking at, or even being able to access the ER spaces for the first four days of a trip would be totally a non-starter for us.
There is also the Nov/Dec delivery of a Jefferson 54 from PNW to Socal in 2022. He didn’t make it any further than Cape Flattery. He lost the main anchor, with 400’ of chain, because he neglected to secure it to the deck prior to departure. Then he returned to Neah Bay, attempted to tie up at a dock, because well, he no longer had an anchor. When told he couldn’t tie up there, he left, and on attempting to leave the harbor, apparently ran into a moored log boom, doing extensive damage to the props/shafts/rudders. He limped into Port Angles, abandoning the boat because it was “broken”. Estimates of repair I heard were close to $100,000 usd. . . .
He currently has had to divert further South than apparently planned due to adverse WX. I am not convinced he had sufficient fuel for the trip, even with perfect sea conditions. Given the conditions he is encountering, I don't think he has enough fuel to make it to Hilo. Putting people at risk to save his . . . well, to assist him from the consequences of his actions is unconscionable. Yet, his history of being towed in by the USCG seems to point to this being just another part of a successful Ray McCormack delivery.
Yep, not JUST a delivery captain . . .
First, I am NOT a USCG rated captain.
2nd, while Ray McCormack was “out there, doing it”, we were safely anchored in Turtle Bay, not too far from MVWeebles, so I guess that makes us wimps . . . BUT we had successfully come down from PNW in our boat, and even though the entrance to the bay was wide open, we made the conscious decision NOT to enter Turtle Bay in the dark. We scheduled our departure from Ensenada, and modified our enroute speeds in order to arrive off of Turtle Bay (and NOT by following the 10 meter contour) after daybreak.
Ray McCormack reported the winds at the time of the sinking to be at least 20 kts . . . My anemometer only recorded 12kts max gusts overnight . . . . Due to the sinking, Ray McCormack lost his laptop. BBG owner, trusting to the experience of this USCG captain, lost everything she owned.
On his current delivery.
Ray is on record as stating that his fuel burn rates were done WITHOUT all the additional fuel he was planning on taking on the Hawaii delivery.
He appears to have actually loaded three 500 gallon bladders, one in the boat garage, and two down below, which coincidentally prevents access to the engine spaces until sufficient fuel is burned off (at least 500 gallons) to allow one of the bladders to be moved out of the way in order to allow access to the engine spaces . . . . In addition he stated he was planning on carrying 7-8 poly drums on the aft deck for additional fuel. So by my figuring, he had the capability of loading 1885 tp 1940 gallons of diesel fuel, above and beyond the installed tankage. Weight of 1885 gallons of fuel plus the bladders, poly drums, pumps, lashing etc, would approach 14,000 lbs of fuel and associated equipment, above and beyond what the boat was designed for.
So, since the engine spaces were inaccessible initially, assuming his 5 gallon burn rate is accurate, then he PLANNED for not being able to access the engine spaces for the first 100 hours of the trip, over FOUR DAYS. This after the previous voyage was cancelled because of a leak in the engine spaces, which necessitated returning to port because not only could he not address the leak because he could not even access the engine spaces, he had no way of knowing how serious the leak even was due to the extra fuel blocking access to the engine spaces . . . . We do engine checks every hour. Not looking at, or even being able to access the ER spaces for the first four days of a trip would be totally a non-starter for us.
There is also the Nov/Dec delivery of a Jefferson 54 from PNW to Socal in 2022. He didn’t make it any further than Cape Flattery. He lost the main anchor, with 400’ of chain, because he neglected to secure it to the deck prior to departure. Then he returned to Neah Bay, attempted to tie up at a dock, because well, he no longer had an anchor. When told he couldn’t tie up there, he left, and on attempting to leave the harbor, apparently ran into a moored log boom, doing extensive damage to the props/shafts/rudders. He limped into Port Angles, abandoning the boat because it was “broken”. Estimates of repair I heard were close to $100,000 usd. . . .
He currently has had to divert further South than apparently planned due to adverse WX. I am not convinced he had sufficient fuel for the trip, even with perfect sea conditions. Given the conditions he is encountering, I don't think he has enough fuel to make it to Hilo. Putting people at risk to save his . . . well, to assist him from the consequences of his actions is unconscionable. Yet, his history of being towed in by the USCG seems to point to this being just another part of a successful Ray McCormack delivery.
Yep, not JUST a delivery captain . . .
Last edited:
SeaDogAK
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2021
- Messages
- 386
- Vessel Name
- Sea Dog
- Vessel Make
- 1991 DeFever 49 RPH
I’m not sure exactly what he meant, but he posted this in his ad for crew so maybe he has set something up to allow fuel transfers without going on deck:
“A fuel transfer pump and hoses are in place for all fuel transfers so pretty easy.”
“A fuel transfer pump and hoses are in place for all fuel transfers so pretty easy.”
mvweebles
Guru
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 7,730
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Weebles
- Vessel Make
- 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Ahh....the beauty of tradewind sailing!
"You plan. God laughs" was perfect comment. Or Mike Tysons famous "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." Pretty sure current conditions qualify as a Tyson punch in the nose.....
Peter
"You plan. God laughs" was perfect comment. Or Mike Tysons famous "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." Pretty sure current conditions qualify as a Tyson punch in the nose.....
Peter
Attachments
mvweebles
Guru
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 7,730
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Weebles
- Vessel Make
- 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
One of the fellow cruisers at Mazatlan is a Brit who is a retired yacht underwriter for a Lloyd's company, though for yachts in excess of $20m US. He's familiar with the Boat Bum Gal loss, and the continuing story of Ray McCormack aboard the Sunseeker.
I asked him "is a boat like that insurable for a voyage across the Pacific?" He quickly said "yes - it's a competitive market and someone would insure the boat. He wouldn't touch it personally because it's operating in a manner well outside it's design, but someone would insure it."
He further explained that stupidity isn't an excuse to deny a claim. The only way a claim would be denied is if the owner or delivery skipper lied (a high bar compared to simply not knowing something).
Due to the value of the boats he insured, he, as an underwriter, would usually send a risk manager to survey the boat. In addition to reviewing skipper credentials, they would also carefully review the engineers credentials to assure the machinery was maintained and would be kept in running order. Over the years, he has developed an extensive due diligence packet - if an owner or captain/crew respond inaccurately, a claim is at risk of denial. Else, they write a check and cover the claim.
I assume the owner of the Sunseeker sought and acquired insurance. The only fly in the ointment would be whether the owner was required to disclose how much deck fuel the boat was carrying. My friend seemed to think the underwriter should ask and have been notified since that type of boat is not suited for that type of delivery, so the underwriter likely knew of the bladders and chose to underwrite the insurance.
Of course, this all assumes a fairly transparent discussion between owner and his insurance company.
Again, my cruiser friend stressed there is no way in hell he'd underwrite the insurance.
Peter
I asked him "is a boat like that insurable for a voyage across the Pacific?" He quickly said "yes - it's a competitive market and someone would insure the boat. He wouldn't touch it personally because it's operating in a manner well outside it's design, but someone would insure it."
He further explained that stupidity isn't an excuse to deny a claim. The only way a claim would be denied is if the owner or delivery skipper lied (a high bar compared to simply not knowing something).
Due to the value of the boats he insured, he, as an underwriter, would usually send a risk manager to survey the boat. In addition to reviewing skipper credentials, they would also carefully review the engineers credentials to assure the machinery was maintained and would be kept in running order. Over the years, he has developed an extensive due diligence packet - if an owner or captain/crew respond inaccurately, a claim is at risk of denial. Else, they write a check and cover the claim.
I assume the owner of the Sunseeker sought and acquired insurance. The only fly in the ointment would be whether the owner was required to disclose how much deck fuel the boat was carrying. My friend seemed to think the underwriter should ask and have been notified since that type of boat is not suited for that type of delivery, so the underwriter likely knew of the bladders and chose to underwrite the insurance.
Of course, this all assumes a fairly transparent discussion between owner and his insurance company.
Again, my cruiser friend stressed there is no way in hell he'd underwrite the insurance.
Peter
