http://www.bluewaternav.com

Posted on behalf of Milt Baker Hello Pupsters, Thanks to Georgs for his invitation to sound off about wet exhaust vs. dry stack aboard the Nordhavn 47 being built for Judy and me. No question about it: dry stack exhaust aboard a Nordhavn looks salty and has significant advantages. In Voyaging Under Power, PAE vice president Jim Leishman makes a strong case for dry stack. I personally believe that dry stack ought to be considered seriously by anyone building a Nordhavn, and you can be sure PAE will make sure that happens with any new buyer. My reason for going with wet exhaust in N47-32 is simple: go with what you know. I've had wet exhaust systems aboard two sailing yachts and three motor yachts for the past 30 years, and wet exhaust has worked almost flawlessly for me. Whenever I've had a cooling system problem, it's been easy to diagnose and usually easy to repair. As a hands-on owner, I understand what it takes to maintain a wet exhaust system and can do virtually all the maintenance myself. On the downside, I will have a large exhaust hose eating up otherwise usable space in the engine room and lazarette, another heat exchanger to maintain, plus a water-injected elbow, and some extra thru-hulls and sea strainers--all requiring maintenance. The main engine will use two raw water intakes (with separate sea strainers) on opposite sides of the boat, so if one is blocked or clogged, the other will supply sufficient cooling water--a nice touch from PAE. I may get some arguments on this one, but even Jim Leishman admits that wet exhaust systems are quieter in Nordhavns, mainly because there's no exhaust or noise from the exhaust system passing through the accommodation. The exhaust on 47-32 will exit near the transom rather than 30 feet above, a disadvantage in downwind situations. Our boat will have no flying bridge, so we should not be much affected by exhaust inside the wheel house. What am I avoiding with a wet exhaust system? Top on my list is the potential for shooting greasy soot all over my own boat and my neighbors' when starting up the mechanical Lugger 668T, something that's probably less a problem for anyone using an electronic engine. I'll also avoid the space-eating sound-insulated cabinetry that surrounds the dry stack as it passes through the accommodation, plus the engine room "wrinkle belly", the dry stack itself, and blower(s). In addition, I'll avoid a little (probably insignificant) drag from by not having a keel cooler. As with most everything else aboard a cruising yacht, dry stack vs. wet exhaust is a matter of plusses and minuses. For me, the plusses of wet exhaust in this boat outweigh the minuses. I don't suggest that wet exhaust is right for everyone or for every boat, but it's the right choice for me in this boat. After other potential 47 owners experience the open feeling of 47-32's main saloon and galley without the intrusive cabinetry for the dry stack, it won't surprise me to see others ordering N47s with wet exhaust. Whether or not that happens, I'm satisfied with my choice on this. The proof of the pudding is whether I'm still satisfied a year or two or more into owning and cruising the N47! If you visit the website for N47-32, please consider it a work in progress. It's been up only a week and needs a lot more attention, and I hope to update it often as the boat progresses. --Milt Baker, N47-32 Bluewater, shipping March/April 2005 At 12:00 AM 2/18/2005 -0500 Georgs Kolesnikovs wrote: >Milt Baker, a participant in this forum, and his wife, Judy, have a >Nordhavn 47 on order. They have launched a thorough site about the >boat, their plans and progress toward their goals: > > http://www.bluewaternav.com > >Interestingly, the Bakers have specified a wet exhaust on their boat. >Bluewater will be the first such Nordhavn 47 built. > >I invite Milt to outline his reasons for selecting a wet exhaust. His >response will hopefully initiate a discussion about the pros and cons >of wet and dry systems for passagemaking. > >--Georgs >-- >Georgs Kolesnikovs

Probably on T&T someone explained how he had combined the best of both systems. I think that he had the Fernstrom keel cooler, but injected water into his "wet" exhaust via an external electric "?" pump. Anyone recall? Should I assume that since generators are operated when not underway, Nordhavn has wet exhausts for its generators? Ron Rogers ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Bulger" <scottebulger@comcast.net> | Posted on behalf of Milt Baker | | Hello Pupsters, | | Thanks to Georgs for his invitation to sound off about wet exhaust vs. dry | stack aboard the Nordhavn 47 being built for Judy and me. | | No question about it: dry stack exhaust aboard a Nordhavn looks salty and | has significant advantages. In Voyaging Under Power, PAE vice president | Jim Leishman makes a strong case for dry stack. I personally believe that | dry stack ought to be considered seriously by anyone building a Nordhavn, | and you can be sure PAE will make sure that happens with any new buyer. | | My reason for going with wet exhaust in N47-32 is simple: go with what you | know.