Portuguese Bridge: I agree this is a nice, but not a critical item. I have a sea anchor deployment scheme where I can not fully deploy the sea anchor from inside the Portuguese Bridge. (Just got it figured out, how to rig a line to manage the chain stopper from the p bridge. But this is only required in cases where the main engine has failed, the wing engine has failed or can not keep you pointed in the direction you want. Based on my limited experience (on 5 day gale) it is not clear what direction the seas are coming from! I believe if can deploy a sea anchor from the foredeck, the seas are not extreme enough to require a sea anchor! (I say the half in jest) Flybridge: I have not seen anyone tlak about the safety benefits of a flybridge. I have and would always get a flybridge if I was doing world cruising. I really NEED it in high traffic areas like the entry to the Panama canal, we got their after a 5 day gale, that was going to be their in a few more hours. at the 1.5 mile range I had 30 targets, 10-12 were moving an island that was off on the chart 3/4" nm, and I was on the flybridge trying to get thru them safely. Oh yes, I was required to work 4 radios at one time. The hardor had me monitor 2 freqs, the agent and the marina. This would not have been possible if I could not have been high up with 360 directions of view to watch all the other ships. I also use it in strange marinas and certainly at night entries. We left the San Blas islands Panama where we ran into another Nordhavn 47, which did not have a flybridge, and they had to go 3 or 4 times as long of distances to get around the islands, we could better see the holes in the coral to get out. (No charts show that level of detail for the San Blas islands.) I believe a flybridge is a important safety feature if you going in crowed areas, or if you have to tread thru coral reefs, or enter strange harbors. --------------------- Disclaimer - I know a Norhdavn. I will not list the reasons I selected the Nordhavn 47 over the KK. The systems on the Nordhavn are much more in line with what I wanted in a world cruiser. I required a backup engine with a second prop. (In the US everyone complains about crab pots, in Europe we complain about fishing nets, a far more complex problem, you see one end but can not find/see the second end! Just as Autumn Wind on the NAR had to use it Wing Engine for hours until the seas settled down enough to dive the prop. I would not do world cruising in a powerboat without a second prop. KK told me they did not do Wing Engines. Stabilization is also a critical system. People you say it is not, do not boat were we do. The most common failure on stabilization systems (by far the most common > 95%) is failure of the cooling systems, on the Nordhavn 47, I do not have a cooling pump, I have a keel cooler that requires no pump. On the KK you need to have a cooling pump is a really life limted item. Little issues reflected a different approach, on the two I looked at did not have an protection around the fuel site tubes. they were very exposed to someone hitting them in a sea way breaking them off. Little issues like this did not make me feel they really made the type of World Cruising boat I wanted. One other comment after helping on a KK. The Nordhavn 47 does not seem to have any wires or plumbing I can not get to. That is NOT the case on the KK I help with they need to use a saw to get to. (That to me is a real problem!) This does nto say the KK is not a good choice for some it is. It depends on what you want in a boat. In a really simplistic summary: The KK has better interior volume for the dollar, the Nordhavn has more fiiberglass per foot, and better systems. What is more important to you, will help you select which boat.