I would consider the Nordhavn 43 for ocean crossings and the KK 44 for coastal cruising. I happen to like flying bridges--but I like a safe way of getting up there, not going out onto an unprotected weather deck. For the tropics I don't think that anything beats being out in the breeze, protected by a good Bimini. For the Northern climes--nothing beats a good pilot house. The Portugues bridge of the Nordhavn is not much of a breakwater as it is in many boats--and in some ways takes the place of a flyng bridge, but there is no sun protection. I do not like a bow master stateroom at sea. Generally the noise and motion make them unteniable at sea. I also would prefer the higher weight of the Nordhavn. As far as I can see, the KK 44 still retains the hull lines similar to the KK 42, which is a very effecient hull. I don't know how paravanes would be fitted to the KK, but Nordhavn makes accomidation for this. I don't know how the access for the active stabalizers would be in the KK44. The engine room appears to have significantly less head room in the KK 44. I do like having the walk around decks as on the KK 44. So--each has its features, but I would prefer more tankage than the KK44 has. I understand the "theoretical" and at low speed range. However headwinds and seas can dash the theoretical ranges rapidly. I also feel you have to have a helms chair in a pilot house--and it looks like plenty of room in the 44. I do like a table and separate pilot berth in the wheel house as in the 43, than a raised settee as in the KK 44. If I had my choice for ocean crossings, the Nordhavn would win. Bob Austin

As someone more familiar with cats more than monos, it surprises me to read that interior access to the flybridge ISN'T standard. Also, I'm surprised that the flybridge apparently doesn't have opening windows along either side, opening hatches overhead, and opening door/window aft. When that's included in the design, a flybridge can be opened nearly as much as an "open (bimini only) flybridge," yet also completely weathertight when conditions warrant that. This adapatability is available on many modern tugs and fishing vessels equipped with "enclosed" flybridges. Am I overlooking some reason why a more versatile flybridge design isn't available on leading brands like Nordhavn or Krogen? Regards, Rod Gibbons Bob Austin wrote: >I would consider the Nordhavn 43 for ocean crossings and the KK 44 for coastal cruising. I happen to like flying bridges--but I like a safe way of getting up there, not going out onto an unprotected weather deck. For the tropics I don't think that anything beats being out in the breeze, protected by a good Bimini. For the Northern climes--nothing beats a good pilot house. > >The Portugues bridge of the Nordhavn is not much of a breakwater as it is in many boats--and in some ways takes the place of a flyng bridge, but there is no sun protection. > >I do not like a bow master stateroom at sea. Generally the noise and motion make them unteniable at sea. I also would prefer the higher weight of the Nordhavn. > >As far as I can see, the KK 44 still retains the hull lines similar to the KK 42, which is a very effecient hull. I don't know how paravanes would be fitted to the KK, but Nordhavn makes accomidation for this. I don't know how the access for the active stabalizers would be in the KK44. The engine room appears to have significantly less head room in the KK 44. > >I do like having the walk around decks as on the KK 44. > >So--each has its features, but I would prefer more tankage than the KK44 has. I understand the "theoretical" and at low speed range. However headwinds and seas can dash the theoretical ranges rapidly. > >I also feel you have to have a helms chair in a pilot house--and it looks like plenty of room in the 44. I do like a table and separate pilot berth in the wheel house as in the 43, than a raised settee as in the KK 44. > >If I had my choice for ocean crossings, the Nordhavn would win. >Bob Austin >_______________________________________________ >Passagemaking-Under-Power Mailing List > > >