The best passagemaker on the planet

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Marin

Guru
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
13,745
Location
-
After studying specs and talking to owners I have figured our what is the best passagemaker on the planet and if we can swing the financing we are going to trade up from our old, plodding GB.

This true passagemaker has a one-level living space. No stairs, no ladders. It has tons of room in the cabins, too. Two--- count 'em--- two galleys (both in galley up configuration).

It's twin-engine, which as I've said before I far prefer over a single.

And best of all, even though it has a rounded displacement hull, it's way fast. At least it seems fast to me after 14 years of creeping along at 8 knots.

In talking to people who have gone up the Inside Passage in boats like our GB, it's a ten day trip if you run only during the day and the weather cooperates the whole time.

In the Beaver it's a six hour trip (flying time) betrween Seattle and Prince Rupert.

The passagemaker we want to get goes from Seattle to Prince Rupert in an hour.

Crossing the Pacific in a Nordhavn would take what, two or three weeks maybe? More? LIfe's too short to spend that much tme crossing a big blank ocean full of waves and stuff.

The passagemaker we want does it in ten hours.

The manufacturer currently has quite a backlog of orders but I think if we get our names in early next year we might be able to take delivery in as little as two years or so. That will give us plenty of time to unload the GB.
 
That will give us plenty of time to unload the GB.

And save up for that ~$4500/hr fuel burn and the $10K "mooring" fee to spend the night.
 
And save up for that ~$4500/hr fuel burn and the $10K "mooring" fee to spend the night.

It won't be cheap but it will sure beat screwing around out in the middle of the ocean dodging tsunami debris for weeks at a time.:)

Besides I bet I can fill up that cabin with other people who don't want to screw around on the ocean either and would be willing to chip in on the fuel and moorage costs to avoid it.
 
Last edited:
Ok, Ok, OK, I'll bite...WHAT THE **** IS IT...?
 
777.

Trivia for the day. Boeing did not name its first passenger jet the 707. Our ad agency at the time did.

Boeing product lines have always had a "hundred" number identifier. Early multi-engine planes were "200" (247, 299 aka B-17). Later four engine planes were "300" (307, 314, 345 aka B-29, 367 and 377).

Jet bombers were "400" (450 aka B-47 and 464 aka B-52),

Othe product lines like missiles and gas turbine engines had their own "hundred" numbers.

When CEO Bill Allen and the board of directors authorized the creation of a jet passenger plane the next series number available was 700. While the prototype was called the 367-80 (Dash 80) in an attempt to fool Douglas into thinking it was nothing more threatening than the 80th design study for improving the 367 piston tanker, the plane was going to be called the Boeing 700.

Someone at the ad agency, hearing of this, suggested that the number "seven-oh-seven" had a better ring to it. Bill Allen, who was not noted for standing on ceremony, said something like, "I don't give a crap what you call it," and 707 it was.

The second (actually first) version of the 707 was the 717 which was the KC-135 tanker. Then came the production 707 which had a different fuselage than the Dash 80/717. And third came the short-range version of the 707, the 720.

The need for a better short to mid range plane than the 720 resulted in an all-new design, the 727. And it's gone on from there.
 
Last edited:
True it is faster, but isn't life about the journey not the destination? Plus, do you really want the extra passengers to take care of ... .
 
True it is faster, but isn't life about the journey not the destination? Plus, do you really want the extra passengers to take care of ... .

Yes but not the journey across the ocean. I've done it once. I cannot think of anything more boring.
 
I am just playing Marin. I read every post you put up due to your witty and knowledgeable information. Thank you for your contributions! As someone who does fly (little planes) but has not sailed across the ocean in my own boat, yet, I appreciate the things I have learned from your posts. Jim
 
Transoceanic? Well I'll take a cruise ship, thank you.

232323232%7Ffp7343%3A%3Enu%3D3363%3E33%3A%3E57%3B%3EWSNRCG%3D38329643%3B8336nu0mrj
 
Actually, talking planes Marin, I can agree with you re the 777s - flew one both ways with Emirates to UK last year. Very nice, but next time I won't go unless I can get at least 'Premium' economy...I haven't struck one plane with any airline where you can sleep comfortably in economy, and the leap to Business or First class...a bridge to far for my pocket. I guess you get flown Business, right...?
 
I guess you get flown Business, right...?

Yes. This trip we took KAL 777 from Seattle to Seoul. Next is Qatar 777 Seoul to Doha. Then a short flight to Dubai, drive to Abu Dhabi, then Emirates 777-200LR from Dubai to Seattle. All business class.
 
As someone who does fly (little planes) but has not sailed across the ocean in my own boat, yet, I appreciate the things I have learned from your posts. Jim

I only fly little planes too. And I've not taken our boat across the ocean (and never will),. I took a 600-something foot RORO ship across the ocean. And while I found the ship itself very interesting the ocean crossing itself was a giant bore.
 
"I cannot think of anything more boring."

Much more interesting if you actually spend some time outside!
 
I don't fly, but if I did, it'd be a Grumman Goose.
 
Yes. This trip we took KAL 777 from Seattle to Seoul. Next is Qatar 777 Seoul to Doha. Then a short flight to Dubai, drive to Abu Dhabi, then Emirates 777-200LR from Dubai to Seattle. All business class.

Just returned from a trip to China. American 777. The last time I went Business this time I used mileage and went First. I'm not sure I need the differences. Yes First is a little bit like having your own room but for what I did, eat, drink coffee, doze off and watch several movies for 13+ hours I don't think I will do that again. Maybe i should have taken the PJ's offered.:ermm:
 
MurrayM said:
I don't fly, but if I did, it'd be a Grumman Goose.

Yup. I blame on a TV show during my teen years, Tales of the Gold Monkey. I've flown in the Pacific Coastal planes a few time.
 
My wife and I flew to Australia earlier this year - 777 stretch out 1st class sleeper seats. It was a great flight but we both agreed the preferred ways to replicate that journey would be in a Nordhavn at 8 knots or better yet a Dashew FPB at 10 knots. With a 2 month stopover in NZ harbor hopping the North and South Islands. Lots of nice wineries and food places in NZ, much superior to the Korean "cuisine" Marin is enjoying.
 
"On the flybridge!"

Usually the oxygen tent has far too much motion to be useful on an ocean passage.

Perhaps on a really large boat with stabeliziation, but I measure boats in Feet not Meters .

One big problem is builders create roomarans that max interior volume at the expense of low motion space at or near water level.

Being outside at water level is kind of nice , instead of perched on a roof top .

Of course the price is high , our 50 ft boat minus 15 ft of aft cockpit makes for a smaller interior.
 
Good luck with your 707! I flew professionally and also for recreation for 18yrs. After owning several planes, I can assure you that annual or 100hr mandatory inspections dwarf the cost of owning a small cruising boat. Also, remember that you have to be very careful allowing anyone to "pitch in" on flying expenses such as fuel and ramp fees, or the FAA can ground you for not being within FAR part 91. Accepting any money.for expenses can easily put you into FAR Part 135 which you have to be certified to fly. Both plane and pilot. Besides all that, sounds like a blast!
 
707? Good God, who would want one of those (other than John Travolta). Gas-guzzling ineffeicient, noisy, rattletrap, the 707.

The 777 is where it's at.
 
Haha. Yes, how true. Sorry, I mis-read your post to meaning 707...From what I've read in the past, John Travolta apparently loves his. Beauty in the eye of the beholder I suppose. Heck, many years ago, the first plane I ever owned was a Stinson. I thought it was the greatest at the time...... :)
 
Back
Top Bottom