Krogen 44 vs Nordhavn 43
When Passagemaker arrived this month, I was glad to see the Krogen 44 on the
cover. I saw hull Number One at the boat show in Seattle. Here is a quick
comparison chart I've thrown together:
Feature Krogen Nordhavn
44 43
LOA 49' 43'
LWL 40'11" 38'04"
Beam 15'6" (16'4") 14'10"
Draft 4'6" 4'11"
Height 23'3" (13'8")
Disp (Full) 43,140 54,540
Cp. .607 .59
D/L 283 425
A/B 2.90 ?
Water cap. 250 300
Water Heater 12 ?
Fuel cap. 950 1200
Black Water 52 50
Main Engine Jhn Deer 6068 Lugger L668D
150hp @ 2300 142hp @
Trans Twin Disk 3.0:1 ZF w 220 3.79:1
Cooling Heat Excgr Keel Cooler
Exhaust Wet Dry
Propeller 4 blade 4 blade
28x24.5 32x24
Fuel Day tank none, pump 40 gal, gravity feed
Claimed Range
5.2 knots 4,447
6.0 4,950
6.3 3557
7.0 3,300
7.1 2,667
8.0 2,120
9.0 1,390
Fuel used 855 1080
Reserve Fuel 10% 10%
Base Price 645k 575k
I threw this list together because I wanted to look at the available details
for the two boats side by side. I needed something to guide me through
comparing the two. There were some interesting things that came out of the
comparison, oh, this information is from web sites, publications, and
googling various stuff on the internet, so some of it may not be perfect
information. I'm satisfied it's close enough for government work.
First, how can a boat that's dimensionally bigger by every measure be 10,000
lbs less in displacement? There may be some fudge factor in there for some
things, but the published max displacement numbers are listed. Is it
significant that the Nordhavn is 10,000lbs more? Could construction
techniques make that much difference? Does that construction difference
compromise safety?
Second, the Krogen appears to have markedly better fuel economy. It appears
the hull is more efficient, because with significantly less fuel storage
capacity, it goes further for a given speed. You have to do some inferring
from the graph, and the Krogen numbers haven't been substantiated in a sea
trial, which is where the Nordhavn numbers come from. Should I trust the
numbers on the web site? Is this "with the wind at your back, and surfing
down a wave" kind of thinking? The Krogen dealer would tell you it's
because they have a true displacement hull, which yields the efficiency. In
the end, all that matters is that the boat has the range to cross the globe,
both boats appear to have that capability.
Third, the Krogen has two feature I really like, and one I wonder about.
The Krogen has a flybridge as part of the standard configuration. Living in
the PNW, when the sun comes out, up we go! Having a flybridge is like
owning another boat. However, everyone tells me it won't get used in the
tropics because of the heat. I grew up in FL, so I think I know what Hot
is, and I still think I want a flybridge. Secondly, the covered aft cockpit
is a great refuge from the heat, yet still outdoors. I can see living life
big back there. The biggest feature I wonder about is lack of a Portuguese
Bridge on the Krogen. Nordhavn has popularized the concept of a Portuguese
Bridge and it seems to make sense. For those of you that have made ocean
passages, can you confirm this is a necessity? Do you really take star
shots from here? Would you feel unsafe doing that on the Krogen, or from
the aft cockpit? All other things being equal, this is a fairly big
differentiator between the two boats, and I need feedback to weigh the
importance of these features.
I'd really appreciate the feedback of those of you that have crossed oceans,
and put these features to use. Thanks, boy this is fun stuff to think
about! And so easy to do it now, rather than after the ink dries on the
down payment!
Scott Bulger
Knot@Work, 31' Camano
Email: scottebulger@comcast.net
Scott Bulger wrote:
Could construction techniques make that much difference?
Absolutely it can make that much difference.
Does that construction difference compromise safety?
It need not compromise anything, although without knowing
more about the construction it's impossible to say one way or the other.
things i'd want to know about any boat i was buying, especially with an
eye to going offshore:
(1) what resin system are they built with? (epoxy or polyester/vinylester)
(2) what is the lamination schedule including core specs?
(3) what fabrication techniques were use? (eg, vacuum bagging, resin infusion)
(4) what glass/resin ratio was achieved?
(5) what scantlings was the boat designed to? (ABS, DNV, Other, etc)
(6) what materials are used for structure? (stringers, floors, deck beams)
(7) what is the compartmentation strategy in the design?
this is by no means an exhaustive list, but if you are comparing
the construction, this is a good starting set. wait - add
(8) stability curves
Given the difference in age of the two designs - one in production for
some years now and the other just sliding down the skids, intervening
improvements in in fabrication technology could easily make the newer boat
that much lighter and both stronger and safer.
or maybe not if they went for "cheapness"
-mo
<<The Krogen has a flybridge as part of the standard configuration. Living
in the PNW, when the sun comes out, up we go! Having a flybridge is
likeowning another boat. However, everyone tells me it won't get used in
the tropics because of the heat. I grew up in FL, so I think I know what
Hot is, and I still think I want a flybridge. Secondly, the covered aft
cockpit is a great refuge from the heat, yet still outdoors. I can see
living life big back
there. >>
Winnie the Pooh has a respectable pilothouse, no flybridge. I've never
missed it (well, maybe on the finest day, headed down the ICW, with high
banks on each side, a little). If you live aboard, you'll get more sun than
is good for you. Period. Anything that increases sun exposure is
Dangerous. And all your precious electronics are available from every (1)
steering station, all the time. No extra expense, no compromises.
Flybridges are for fishermen and weekenders, in my opinion.
A covered outside area, like an aft cockpit, I often envy. the K42 or
Pilgrim 44 have wonderful covered "back porches" that would be great for
happy hour on many a fine evening. The lack thereof is my only serious
regret about Pooh's design. 7 years aboard, and only one real regret. Not
too bad.
Mark Richter, m/v Winnie the Pooh
My Krogen 42 has a flybridge. It gets used mostly when I'm backing into a
slip. If it's a pretty day, I may go up there for awhile to get some sun,
since I have no bimini. If I want to stay out of the sun, I stay in the
pilothouse! Also, the instrumentation at the flying bridge is minimal. The
PO said he used the fly bridge twice in 16 years. I guess he never backed
up! I still enjoy having it.
Keith
__
"The sea was angry that day, my friends, like an old man trying to send back
soup in a deli." - George Louis Costanza
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Richter" richter-pooh@rocketmail.com
Winnie the Pooh has a respectable pilothouse, no flybridge. I've never
missed it (well, maybe on the finest day, headed down the ICW, with high
banks on each side, a little). If you live aboard, you'll get more sun
than
is good for you. Period.
I developed a spreadsheet awhile back based on equations published by Dave
Gerr which I've used to check performance data provided by various Naval
Architects. My results were amazingly close to most NA (with one notable who
I won't name). For some unknown reason, my results, especially range
predictions, tend to be more conservative than most boat manufacturers.
I did a comparison of the predicted performance of the 65' version of
Portager (we are currently considering the 54' to 65' LOA range). First I
noted that the LOA * Beam product are about the same, indicating that the
internal area is comparable. Draft and Displacement comparable but Portager
has 37% less fuel than the Krogen 44 and 50% less than the Nordhavn 43 and
14.7% and 10% lower power.
I calculated the fuel consumption rate versus speed at the fully loaded
weight and the light or dry weight and calculated the range based on these
fuel consumption rates, however these ranges are not realistic. The fully
loaded range is pessimistic because weight and fuel consumption decreases
with range and the light range is overly optimistic for the opposite reason.
Therefore I started at the fully loaded weight and determined the fuel
consumption rate and recomputed the weight on an hourly basis. I provided
the full, light and incremental ranges in comparison to the Krogen and
Nordhavn below.
Feature Krogen Nordhavn Portager
44 43 65
LOA 49' 43' 65
LWL 40'11" 38'04" 63' 3.75"
Beam 15'6" (16'4") 14'10" 12' 0"
Draft 4'6" 4'11" 4'
6"
Height 23'3" (13'8") 10'
Disp (Full) 43,140 54,540
48,518(FL)/38,518(LT)
Cp. .607 .59 .6
D/L 283 425
67.75
A/B 2.90 ? 2.22
Water cap. 250 300 250
Water Heater 12 ?
Fuel cap. 950 1200 600
Black Water 52 50 50
Main Engine John Deer 6068 Lugger L668D Steyr 144TI
150hp @ 2300 142hp @ 128 @ 3200
+24
aux
Trans Twin Disk 3.0:1 ZF w 220 3.79:1
Cooling Heat Excgr Keel Cooler Hull plate
cooler
Exhaust Wet Dry Dry
Propeller 4 blade 4 blade CPP
28x24.5 32x24
Fuel Day tank none, pump 40 gal, 50 gal
Claimed Range
Full
Light Incremental
5.2 knots 4,447 4472 5633
4650
6.0 4,950 3359 4231
3492
6.3 3557 3047 3838
3169
7.0 3,300 2480 3050
2562
7.1 2,667 2425 2975
2506
8.0 2,120 2041 2456
2160
9.0 1,390 1721 2084
1701
10.0 1411 1772
1470
11.0 1150 1465
1180
12.0 949 1217
996
Fuel used 855 1080 528
Reserve Fuel 10% 10% 12%
Portager's incremental ranges are comparable to the "claimed" ranges for the
Nordhavn 43 and Krogen 44 with considerably less fuel. In addition, due to
her longer length at waterline (LWL), she can go faster than either Krogen
or Nordhavn with slightly less power.
I think this illustrated the advantages of a long and lean vessel over a
shorter wider boat.
I suggest that any boat you're considering, you double check the
manufacturers or designers math and then verify the performance with your
own sea trials before venturing offshore. I have seen a lot of overly
optimistic predictions with caveats like ranges are approximate, assuming no
wind or current, ... These caveats are designed to prevent you from
verifying or contradicting their calculations in the real world.
As someone else recommended, I would also insist of seeing the stability
curves and better yet confirming the design to complies with the IMO
offshore stability requirements.
Regards;
Mike Schooley
Designing "Portager" a transportable Passagemaker