Nordhavn vs Fleming vs Kady Krogen

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Hi magneto,
Macarthur mentions ocean going cats and Domino is up there.
Perhaps you might like to look at this ocean going cat ... Type in - 'GLAZMOR' it's a 58 footer and has done the lot (ocean crossing etc)
I think it may challenge Domino and cheap around 1/2 mill $ us
 
Re: Dashew FPB, here’s an interesting video regarding the design as well as long range cruising in general. It’s marketing for sure but still a good watch. A lot of footage of their models in heavier seas.

https://youtu.be/oBhG30iBRbE
 
Last edited:
would really love to see manufacturers show videos of extreme weather boating, for some reason they don't, but everyone gets to test their boat or rather how big the waves can be and I know my NT can last more than me and 10 'feet there is still no limit to my NT or skipper, i think Astra can go very very HIGHT seas nice, Because it is designed to rescue a ship in tough conditions at sea.

NBs

see my video link immediately above.
 
Hi magneto,

Macarthur mentions ocean going cats and Domino is up there.

Perhaps you might like to look at this ocean going cat ... Type in - 'GLAZMOR' it's a 58 footer and has done the lot (ocean crossing etc)

I think it may challenge Domino and cheap around 1/2 mill $ us


I remember looking at Glazmor on YW years before. Quite a nice boat. Huge. Nice engine rooms for a cat.

Is this a belt drive for the prop?
IMG_7626.JPG
 
V drive? Looks like it's after the gearbox...
 
I'd say the most common approach to international power, assuming you don't want an ASEA or Atlas, is to use Inverters and Chargers.


The example I'll give is for a 60hz boat operating on 50hz shore power, but it works equally well for a 50hz boat on 60hz power.


Basically you run all you 60hz sensitive loads off the inverters, not directly off shore power. In this config they are drawing power from the batteries. Then you run a set of chargers off shore power with universal AC inputs. These are available from all the usual suspects, and will typically accept any input power from 90-250V, 50 or 60hz. The chargers end up powering the inverters, with the batteries making up any short term deficits, then topped back up by the chargers. It also allows you to run off much lower power shore connections while still having peak power consumption limited only by your inverters. As long as the average consumption doesn't exceed available shore power, you are good to go. It works very well, and is fundamentally what's inside and ASEA or Atlas anyway, but has the added advantage of the batteries for peak power shaving.



This approach does, however, drive you to larger/more inverters and larger/more chargers than you might otherwise have. But I think it beats the heck out of a full fledged power converter.




That is exactly the way we went. Added benefit, if you can fit large battery banks: a very long quiet hold-over time at anchor.

When out cruising, with large alternators fitted, you will need the generator only when running the airco at anchor or in port, or when unusually high AC loads are present.
Also, a surprising number of appliances come in multivolt, 50/60Hz layout these days - check the labels.
 
12/14 is unusually thick. I don't think of it as ridiculously thick. It would be great piece of mind when cruising poorly charted areas with rocky shores. And if the OP has any plans for the Northwest Passage or other icy waters. Hitting a shipping container in the dark wouldn't be much of a threat either.

Another thought is steel has a bad rep here on TF for rusting. Of course it does rust, if the OP wants a gel coat shiny finish will be an on ongoing challenge. But with 12/14 mm hull plating a bit if internal rust won't affect structural integrity much.


Properly designed for steel building, and built by an experienced and qualified yard that does not cut corners, a reasonably well maintained steel yacht can easily outlast other materials. Use stainless plates and profiles in critical areas, with a suitable paint system, and you will never have to worry about corrosion issues at all.

The top European yards have done it for decades now, to any standard of finish required. It is a typical "you get what you pay for" situation.

If you really want to go off-road, a well built steel trawler is the vessel of choice.
 
Also, a surprising number of appliances come in multivolt, 50/60Hz layout these days - check the labels.


And the converse is true too, so definitely read the labels.


The issue I've found is with appliances that historically were 50/60hz insensitive, now have electronic controls that suddenly make them specific to a particular frequency. An electric oven, for example, used to not care. But add a fancy display and control panel, and now it does. Same with washing machines, dryers, and dishwashers.
 
Wow at 175 tonnes and around 1.5 gal/nm, I WILL need a 200 tonne captain's license. It is a lot of boat and still in our budget!

We have dreamed big in the beginning and nothing wrong with that. It's free! But this was our first dream and still for sale a year after we dreamed it:

https://www.boattrader.com/listing/...edition-103014695/?refSource=enhanced+listing

I had seriously considered a 100ft fiberglass ship for sale at one point. It was way overkill for just my immediate family, but we were proposing an expedition boat for our extended family - basically with my brothers coming in as well - and our budget included one full time crew. They backed out so we killed the idea.

However, I recall that the cheapest quote I got for hauling/painting her was about $20k. That's about 20 times more than hauling a little 34ft Taiwan boat.

I've owned a 65 footer and would consider that the upper end of what a solo or cruising couple can realistically maintain and manage themselves. 100 feet is too much though.
 
I agree. We are looking at 60 feet to be the max we want to handle.
It looks like we are siding with Nordhavns which makes it even easier.
 
IMO the Nordies are over-systemed though. If you believe in the principle of keeping things simpler, then you may want to make a detailed consideration of this point.
 
IMO the Nordies are over-systemed though. If you believe in the principle of keeping things simpler, then you may want to make a detailed consideration of this point.

Aside from owner added desired items, what are the "over- systemed" areas to which you refer for the basic Nordhavn?
 
The over-systems in a Nordhavn are generally redundant backups to critical systems. That is exactly what you need for offshore.



David
 
Aside from owner added desired items, what are the "over- systemed" areas to which you refer for the basic Nordhavn?

This is my question exactly. More than a few people have said this on TF and in other forums. But what exactly makes the Nordhavns more complex?

Redundancy is expected and I would hope it would be the case for the KKs as well. Nords seem to have a reputation for ease of new first time owner operation. I like that because I am a new to be owner. Bow and stern thrusters with a wireless remote control makes docking easy but isn't that available on other trawlers? Are the control systems over engineered? As an engineer I like that too. Is the hull thicker, window glass heaver? What does add to the complexity?
 
. Bow and stern thrusters with a wireless remote control makes docking easy but isn't that available on other trawlers? Are the control systems over engineered? As an engineer I like that too. Is the hull thicker, window glass heaver? What does add to the complexity?

I'm a bit of a ludite and shun expensive, breaking, near impossible to repair in remote area and for some people mission critical things.

Electronic engines, engine controls, bow and stern thrusters, don't and won't have them.
Don't particularly like integration, prefer standalone.

Sure, thrusters would make docking easier.
So would getting your skills up.
I am amazed at the skills some of the single engine, no thruster commercial trawler guys have stuffing their vessels into spots I wouldn't try for even with thrusters.
Also, If you are cruising full time you won't be on a dock.
We pull into a fuel/water dock twice a year
 
Last edited:
From a ludite point of view I can see that. I feel that way about cars. I long for the days of working on my own car engine. I was able to repair and rebuild any of my early engines and have fun doing it. Today I open the hood and need a drawing to tell me where the battery is.

But I'm the opposite when it comes to electrical controls. It's what I do for a living. I am comfortable with running diagnostics to determine maintenance needs or to troubleshoot a problem on a vessel of this size. So I can see complexity is subjective to what level of technology your comfortable with.

I also agree that the more complex a system is, the more that can break.
 
I'm a bit of a ludite and shun expensive, breaking, near impossible to repair in remote area and for some people mission critical things.

Electronic engines, engine controls, bow and stern thrusters, don't and won't have them.
Don't particularly like integration, prefer standalone.

Sure, thrusters would make docking easier.
So would getting your skills up.
I am amazed at the skills some of the single engine, no thruster commercial trawler guys have stuffing their vessels into spots I wouldn't try for even with thrusters.
Also, If you are cruising full time you won't be on a dock.
We pull into a fuel/water dock twice a year

The idea with most Nordhavn's is redundancy, if a genset quits there is a spare, main engine goes down you have a wing engine etc. Complex systems come when you have hot water and refrigeration and goes from there. The premise that a thruster is a liability is 20 years + old, the percentage of failure vs the chance of hitting something in close quarters pales in comparison. Simple as possible, well though out redundant systems are the key. Remember that a Nordhavn is a limited production standard build that is designed to meet many peoples need at a lesser cost vs a one off custom build designed for one owner. I believe that production boats ( Nordhavn, Krogen etc.) loose less of the initial build cost vs a custom build and represent better value in bluewater boats. A well maintained used one is a safer bet than a one off, or highly customized custom build like the FPB boats.
HOLLYWOOD
 
From a ludite point of view I can see that. I feel that way about cars. I long for the days of working on my own car engine. I was able to repair and rebuild any of my early engines and have fun doing it. Today I open the hood and need a drawing to tell me where the battery is.

But I'm the opposite when it comes to electrical controls. It's what I do for a living. I am comfortable with running diagnostics to determine maintenance needs or to troubleshoot a problem on a vessel of this size. So I can see complexity is subjective to what level of technology your comfortable with.


I also agree that the more complex a system is, the more that can break.

All well and good if you have parts on hand to replace the bit the smoke escaped from.
In some parts of the planet those parts may take weeks or months to arrive and when they do, may not even be the right part.
(I have seen ill prepared vessels held up for a month or more in Indonesia by a raw water impeller which, when it arrived, had to be modified)

With new "fly by wire" boats do they even leave enough space to run semi rigid Morse cables if required if deciding to revert back to more "primitive" means?
 
The idea with most Nordhavn's is redundancy, if a genset quits there is a spare, main engine goes down you have a wing engine etc.

It gets a bit ridiculous having an entire spare genset as a "just in case" because the vessel can't function without a sh1ttonne of electrickery coursing through its veins.

Single engine, single genset or no genset vessels have been plying the oceans for a hell of a long time.
If well maintained, the spare generator or wing engine should never see use so can almost be a hindrance in wasted space, extra maintenance and added expense.

But, I guess if money was no issue I might think a bit differently, but I'd need a bigger boat as the loss of space would be a problem.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure what over systemed means. All boats these days have way more in the way of systems than the boat I sailed across oceans in the 70’s. I think it’s just evolution. Today’s racing dinghies are more complicated and have more systems than the old star class keelboats as well. With nordhavn It’s the buyers choice if he wants two Watermakers a seakeeper gyro a partridge and a pear tree.

One of the things that makes these boats so desirable is their livability in really crappy weather. After four days of some cold miserable wind and rain anchored somewhere in paradise the owner of an FPB 64 dinghyed over to us for a visit. After a bit of chat and a tour he offered us a trade. He has her for sale right now but she’s not on yachtworld.

Yes Simi, a guy named Donald Street had the same view. He pulled the engine out of his sailing boat named iolaire and cruised most of his life making charts and sketches of anchorages and reefs all along the way. He did eventually repower her with diesel electric though but he was considered to be a bit of a hard case not unlike Irving Johnson.

If your gonna blow a seven figure hole in your retirement fund with hopes of seeing and tasting the world at a leisurely and comfortable pace, then nordhavn will build a boat for that. If your willing to wait, there are some really good boats doing just that right now, and they become available for new caretakers after an average of two to five years. By then they’ll just be getting broken in with a few thousand machinery hours maybe a dozen oil changes or so.
 
Yes Simi, a guy named Donald Street had the same view. He pulled the engine out of his sailing boat named iolaire and cruised most of his life making charts and sketches of anchorages and reefs all along the way. He did eventually repower her with diesel electric though but he was considered to be a bit of a hard case not unlike Irving Johnson.
.

I never suggested or alluded to anything that extreme.
 
For me, it’s about two things; being comfortable, and being able to continue on when things break.

Here’s a shocker - boats are a trade off - and this is just another area where you can pick and choose to suit your needs.

As for comfort, I want to live like I’m at home, not like I’m camping. I want laundry, ample fresh water, heat, air conditioning, plenty of fridge and freezer space, and enough space to not be cramped. That drives the need for a bunch of equipment that might not be otherwise needed or desired.

Next, when something breaks, I don’t want to get stuck somewhere. That means doing without whatever broke, having a spare that I can switch over to, or having the tools, spares, and skills to fix it.

From there you need to
Do your own evaluation of what’s important to you, what redundancy or a spare is worth the cost, etc.

One thing you will commonly see on Nordhavns are dual auto pilots. The thinking is that if you are on a long run (multi day) and your AP craps, the work required for watch keeping just went up significantly. With dual APs, you switch a switch and are back on line. Is that worth it to you? Maybe, or maybe not.

Another thing to note is that where there are two of something, the norm is to exercise both on a regular basis. Two hens get cycles through, or more often they are different sizes and used at different times for different things. Wing engines are also your six hydraulic power, so it gets exercised regularly.
 
For me, it’s about two things; being comfortable, and being able to continue on when things break.

Here’s a shocker - boats are a trade off - and this is just another area where you can pick and choose to suit your needs.

As for comfort, I want to live like I’m at home, not like I’m camping. I want laundry, ample fresh water, heat, air conditioning, plenty of fridge and freezer space, and enough space to not be cramped. That drives the need for a bunch of equipment that might not be otherwise needed or desired.

Next, when something breaks, I don’t want to get stuck somewhere. That means doing without whatever broke, having a spare that I can switch over to, or having the tools, spares, and skills to fix it.

From there you need to
Do your own evaluation of what’s important to you, what redundancy or a spare is worth the cost, etc.

One thing you will commonly see on Nordhavns are dual auto pilots. The thinking is that if you are on a long run (multi day) and your AP craps, the work required for watch keeping just went up significantly. With dual APs, you switch a switch and are back on line. Is that worth it to you? Maybe, or maybe not.

Another thing to note is that where there are two of something, the norm is to exercise both on a regular basis. Two hens get cycles through, or more often they are different sizes and used at different times for different things. Wing engines are also your six hydraulic power, so it gets exercised regularly.

I feel exactly the same and that probably explains why we are both happy Nordhavn owners.

There are plenty of yachts that, in my opinion, suffer from too many complicated systems stuffed into too small a space. Those aren’t Nordhavns. My boat has plenty of luxury and convenience, but every system is well engineered and accessible to operate and maintain. I do 90% of my own maintenance and one of my requirements is that everything is accessible without contortions and struggles. Every system is logically laid out, properly routed and labeled and accessible for maintenance. Critical systems all have redundancies. Beyond the obvious safety factor of those redundancies, it often gives you the ability to finish a trip and schedule repairs or service when convenient. If my water maker pre-filter clogs, I switch to the second WM and go fishing, then handle it when time permits.

To each his own, but this works for us. We looked at a lot of boats, and the Nordhavn checked all the boxes for us. Owning, operating and maintaining the boat has strongly reinforced that we made the right choice for us.
 
We need to consider what is one's definition of redundancy.

If both autopilots are connected to the same hydraulic ram then that may provide redundant APs, not not steering. Perhaps one AP operating an electric drive would be considered more redundant because you have two different systems now for steering.

A lot of people talk about having two electric somethings... example chart plotters. If one goes down there's a backup. Well what if your electric goes down or a lightning EMP takes out microprocessors.
 
Good point. For me electronic navigation aids are a luxury not a necessity. Same with an auto pilot. On most nordhavns though they can become necessary. Mine steers better than most and I think we could probably manage fine if needed. I have hand steered across an ocean twice without gps radio or any electronics but hey that was the only way it could be done at the time. Today is different, I’m different and the world is different.
 
We need to consider what is one's definition of redundancy.

If both autopilots are connected to the same hydraulic ram then that may provide redundant APs, not not steering. Perhaps one AP operating an electric drive would be considered more redundant because you have two different systems now for steering.

A lot of people talk about having two electric somethings... example chart plotters. If one goes down there's a backup. Well what if your electric goes down or a lightning EMP takes out microprocessors.


Yup, all that needs to be taken into consideration. Every boat will have single points of failure. The trick is to reduce the number, and have them be as reliable as possible, and preferably things that wear rather than fail catastrophically.


A redundant system really just gives you a faster time to repair. Turning on a backup is quick. Swapping in a spare is slower. Ordering parts and waiting is even slower.


On our last boat I made a giant list of all the systems and devices and noted 1) what's the impact if it fails?, 2) what would I do about it? The corrective action ranges from "do nothing, just live with it", to "repair when convenient", to "repair promptly", to "turn on the backup". The more important it was to get something fixed, the more spares I had for it. And the things that I didn't want to be without were duplicated like radars, VHFs, AP, propulsion. Even the steering had a manual tiller in case of a cylinder or hydraulic line blowout. And many blowouts could be quickly isolated by valving off one section or another.
 
Twisted,

I would love to see your data.
 
1) what's the impact if it fails?, 2) what would I do about it? The corrective action ranges from "do nothing, just live with it", to "repair when convenient", to "repair promptly", to "turn on the backup".

This is a key point about redundancy vs simplicity. For example if you have two gensets and need both to be operational for peace of mind, it really means twice as long sitting at the dock waiting for repairs or parts over the course of your ownership.

We did all our long distance on a sail cat so three propulsion systems, several steering systems (two rudders, two engines, towing something on a tackle between the hulls etc. etc.)
The only thing we wouldn't sail without was the second autopilot (one electric, the main one hydraulic). With only two watch keepers we would have been awfully busy without one system working.
 
From a ludite point of view I can see that. I feel that way about cars. I long for the days of working on my own car engine. I was able to repair and rebuild any of my early engines and have fun doing it. Today I open the hood and need a drawing to tell me where the battery is.

But I'm the opposite when it comes to electrical controls. It's what I do for a living. I am comfortable with running diagnostics to determine maintenance needs or to troubleshoot a problem on a vessel of this size. So I can see complexity is subjective to what level of technology your comfortable with.

I also agree that the more complex a system is, the more that can break.

Hi Magneto. You'll have read that my wife and I own a Fleming 55 which we bought new in 2003. The boat's very pretty, attracts many admirers wherever we go, and is a joy to handle and manoeuvre. We've lived on board for 6 years and cruised many coastal miles.

Being determined to be able to maintain any and all systems, I started by attending (and passing!) the Cummins Engine Tech course which allowed to maintain the engines whilst they were under warranty. Since then, I have become au fait will all on board systems and carry a wide range of (from experience) spares.

Now for the 'but'. The pain of maintaining the Fleming 55 is the small engine room in comparison the Nordhavn's walk around and tall engine room. Back ache from crawling behind engines, squeezing into the lazarette to change water pumps, maintain air con units, etc, are key reasons I'd change to a Norhavn, if changing was a potential. But knowing the Fleming so well, I (currently) have no intention of changing. But if starting again...hmmm. Pretty versus ease of maintaining comes to mind.
 
Redundant systems need maintenance too. Easily neglected. Should be used frequently.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom