Best Blue Water Trawler

freshalaska said:

So how does the Diesel Duck stack up as a passagemaker? How would they be compared to the same size Nordhavn? Seems like they have a fair amount of blue water under their belt.

Click to expand...

As I have stated before I am not a big fan of most Ducks.. the lounging attributes lack on most of them... but they seem to be well liked by folks I have personally met regarding the way they are underway. Most of them are laid out too much like a sailboat and a bit cave like.. one of the reasons we switched from sail to power.

The two local ones I am familiar with are really great boats..

HOLLYWOOD

Getting back to the original question, took a look at the Elling at a recent Trawlerfest in Anacortes, beautiful boat and many unique approaches to design. Evidence suggests they also handle blue water pretty well... this is the outfit that did the marketing "ploy" of demonstrating a full 360-degree roll with the owner strapped inside



Elling-Yachting | Luxury Yacht Builders

FF said:

"The sensory deprivation can get to you during the day though.."

That's why books were invented.

Click to expand...

Music, television, internet. Plenty of things to occupy our minds and refresh. And breaks from the helm or watch. Even at the helm, looking in different directions, at different screens and instead of just blindly looking out upon the water, find things on the water to absorb. Sort of like long road trips with kids in the backseat. You give them something to occupy their minds.

The compromises of vessels design for ocean travel often include narrow divided interior spaces with lots of hand holds. I don't like them but in a rough sea, I bet I'd prefer banging around between two walls 7 ft apart than I would 15 ft apart. maybe if I was an ocean cruiser I would feel a lot different.

healhustler said:

The compromises of vessels design for ocean travel often include narrow divided interior spaces with lots of hand holds. I don't like them but in a rough sea, I bet I'd prefer banging around between two walls 7 ft apart than I would 15 ft apart. maybe if I was an ocean cruiser I would feel a lot different.

Click to expand...

Hand holds definitely, on any boat. You can get a sudden jolt anytime so when looking at a boat, looking at hand holds is important.

As to the narrow divided spaces, some are designed that way and others are not. For me, would feel too claustrophobic, like many sailboats. Fine for a few hours, but not for days. It's like looking at cabins in a Catamaran. They're narrow. I can't imagine sleeping regularly in one.

So have we decided what trawler like a GB or NT is more seaworthy?

What are some examples of a blue water trawler? I would
place the Elling in that catergory. Little things like the abundance of hand holds would be necessary and may not be standard equipment.

manyboats said:

So have we decided what trawler like a GB or NT is more seaworthy?

Seems to me that's what the OP was looking for.

Click to expand...

I don't think we've decided anything. Defining Seaworthy might help a bit. Is it cruising along the coast or crossing to the Bahamas or to the Caribbean Islands or Transatlantic or Transpacific.

I think we indicated many are to a point but not to the extreme. In the Under 60' requirements, personally I'd rank Fleming at the top, then KK and Nordhavn, then the Tugs and Ducks, then Selene, Grand Banks and such after that.

hollywood8118 said:

As I have stated before I am not a big fan of most Ducks.. the lounging attributes lack on most of them... but they seem to be well liked by folks I have personally met regarding the way they are underway. Most of them are laid out too much like a sailboat and a bit cave like.. one of the reasons we switched from sail to power.

The two local ones I am familiar with are really great boats..

HOLLYWOOD

Click to expand...

I'm confused why you keep saying the Ducks lack lounging attributes and they are cave like. Of the four areas for lounging (the saloon, aft cockpit, pilothouse and fly bridge, three of the four areas have spectacular views of the surrounding area. In fact, two of those three have 360 degree views while the aft cockpit has a wonderful 180 degree view. That all said, why you keep insisting the Ducks are too much like living in a cave bewilders me, it's almost like you've never been aboard a Diesel Duck or you have some kind of grudge against them. Just Sayin'

freshalaska said:

So how does the Diesel Duck stack up as a passagemaker? How would they be compared to the same size Nordhavn? Seems like they have a fair amount of blue water under their belt.

Click to expand...

The layout in the typical Nordhavn would be preferred by most but therein lies one of the reason I chose a Diesel Duck. While the Nordy's might have a nice saloon with an adjoining cockpit aft that cockpit area holds tons of water should you be healed enough for it to go over the gunwales.

Another reason for my choosing a Duck over a Nordhavn (BTW, I was a Nordhavn dreamer for over seven years until I came to my senses) is that hitting something with a steel hulled boat is less likely to cause significant damage than if your were to hit something with a plastic boat, a Nordhavn. Also, should one have any hull damaged while on a voyage, getting steel damage repaired in remote areas is much easier with steel than with FRP.

And one final consideration is the fact that a Diesel Duck is about half the cost of a similar sized Nordhavn.

And yes, many a Duck have crossed oceans, just not with the marketing campaign behind them like Nordhavn did for the NAR in 2004.

IMHO, the Diesel Duck is one of the safest passagemakers on the market today.

Diesel Duck 492 said:

The layout in the typical Nordhavn would be preferred by most but therein lies one of the reason I chose a Diesel Duck. While the Nordy's might have a nice saloon with an adjoining cockpit aft that cockpit area holds tons of water should you be healed enough for it to go over the gunwales.

Another reason for my choosing a Duck over a Nordhavn (BTW, I was a Nordhavn dreamer for over seven years until I came to my senses) is that hitting something with a steel hulled boat is less likely to cause significant damage that if your were to hit something with a plastic boat, a Nordhavn.

And one final consideration is the fact that a Diesel Duck is about half the cost of a similar sized Nordhavn.

And yes, many a Duck have crossed oceans, just not with the marketing campaign behind them like Nordhavn did for the NAR in 2004.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you just confirmed Hollywood's opinions. Salon=lounging around. Put him in the group that would prefer Nordhavn vs. Duck. Others, like you, would be the opposite. Ducks are nice boats.

If you want to compare steel vs. steel then compare Diesel Duck to Bering. I would guess most who prefer Nordhavn would prefer the Bering, but many steel boat fans would prefer the Duck and say it was better built for bad conditions. A lot is style and use of space.

I think his comment that Ducks remind him of sailboats rings very true. Many are offered with sails. It's not negative or positive, just a differentiation.

The "Elling" ?. Beautiful boat but I thought we were discussing serious blue water traveling and not "Ocean Ready or Ocean Capable". There is a difference between running out a few miles for the day and crossing oceans. The specs. on the Elling allow a 400 gallon fuel tank with a burn rate of about 1 gallon per 2 mile on their smaller engine and a water tankage of 230 gallons. I think I will stick with my steel hulled Romsdal and 3000 gallons of fuel and a thousand gallons of water storage.
dan

I repeat:

"Of the four areas for lounging (the saloon, aft cockpit, pilothouse and fly bridge, three of the four areas have spectacular views of the surrounding area. In fact, two of those three have 360 degree views while the aft cockpit has a wonderful 180 degree view."

Cockpit with U-shaped settee = lounging
Fly bridge with settee and comfy helm chair = lounging
Pilothouse with very large settee = lounging

Now if that is what you consider living in a cave then your opinion is certainly on the opposite end of the spectrum than mine. To me living in a cave is dark and the Duck is far from dark with its large pilothouse windows on all four sides along with a very large U-shaped settee and then there's the cockpit with a large U-shaped settee with 180 degree views. If these aren't lounging areas then I guess I just don't know what a lounging area is. Oh, and let's not forget the fly bridge seating with it's 360 degree views. Again, if these all aren't great lounging areas for happy hour or sitting down and reading a good book then I don't know what is.

Greetings,
Seaworthy? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/seaworthy
I've always considered the term extremely vague. A dugout canoe can be considered "seaworthy" and for their uses, by capable navigators, are. Witness the expansion of the Polynesian peoples throughout history in nothing more that hollowed out logs. Is said canoe MORE "seaworthy" than, say, a 34' Marine Trader or less "seaworthy" than a Nordhavn 46?


http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/my new Mantra.

Diesel Duck 492 said:

I repeat:

"Of the four areas for lounging (the saloon, aft cockpit, pilothouse and fly bridge, three of the four areas have spectacular views of the surrounding area. In fact, two of those three have 360 degree views while the aft cockpit has a wonderful 180 degree view."

Cockpit with U-shaped settee = lounging
Fly bridge with settee and comfy helm chair = lounging
Pilothouse with very large settee = lounging

Now if that is what you consider living in a cave then your opinion is certainly on the opposite end of the spectrum than mine. To me living in a cave is dark and the Duck is far from dark with its large pilothouse windows on all four sides along with a very large U-shaped settee and then there's the cockpit with a large U-shaped settee with 180 degree views. If these aren't lounging areas then I guess I just don't know what a lounging area is. Oh, and let's not forget the fly bridge seating with it's 360 degree views. Again, if these all aren't great lounging areas for happy hour or sitting down and reading a good book then I don't know what is.

Click to expand...

He's got an opinion you don't share. I'm somewhere in between the two of you as far as Diesel Duck. Now maybe his is based on one boat, perhaps smaller than yours. Sometimes we get feelings on a boat that may not even be rational. I don't necessarily choose the most popular boat or biggest seller. For instance while you'd choose Diesel Duck over Nordhavn, I'd choose Fleming over Nordhavn. Doesn't make Nordhavn a bad boat. The only DD I've been on, I did feel the sailboat heritage. Still it was a very nice boat. Is the 492 like the 462? They also change and do modifications so often that I would figure whatever aspect one wanted changed could be done so. I don't think anyone is criticizing your boat and his comments can't specifically be applied to it if he's not seen it. Sometimes a small difference can be huge. I love the foredeck on the 55 shown on the site and the entire outside area. The sacrifice I see, however, is in the salon. Sometimes the lounging must be inside.

BandB said:

I don't think we've decided anything. Defining Seaworthy might help a bit. Is it cruising along the coast or crossing to the Bahamas or to the Caribbean Islands or Transatlantic or Transpacific.

I think we indicated many are to a point but not to the extreme. In the Under 60' requirements, personally I'd rank Fleming at the top, then KK and Nordhavn, then the Tugs and Ducks, then Selene, Grand Banks and such after that.

Click to expand...

Curious why you rate Fleming above KK and Nordhavn for seaworthiness? I understand (from a later post) that you prefer the Fleming. But that's not the same thing.

Richard

You all make some very good points.
I thought about my previous response AFTER.I posted it.

That's an extrovert for you.

And I realized what I was also trying to articulate was what many of you have just said, I liked the Krogen better because it seemed simpler to me.

I believe the complexity of the Nordhavn and its many redundant systems is as much a part of their market as anything else.

The people who buy them like that.

Therefore they make them like that.

I think KK's philosophy is of a simpler boat.

I also knew I needed a boat I could maintain myself and parts that were obtainable must places and at reasonable costs.

Thus no Turbos or hydraulic stabilizers.

Britannia said:

Curious why you rate Fleming above KK and Nordhavn for seaworthiness? I understand (from a later post) that you prefer the Fleming. But that's not the same thing.

Richard

Click to expand...

I don't rate it over by a huge amount and it may be unfair in doing so. To me one of the factors of seaworthiness goes beyond the boat hull and structure but extends to equipment being as nearly trouble free as possible. I think that's an area Fleming wins on delivery. If we're talking sea but not ocean crossing or something, i think that ability to go faster can be a part of seaworthiness. It won't help you crossing the Atlantic, but crossing to the Bahamas it may. Now, I personally think Fleming is just a great boat and that may influence my view and I probably hear of more Nordhavn issues partially because there are so many more boats out there. Fleming is always delivered with twins, KK sometimes. One place I'd downrate Fleming is standard fuel capacity and that is certainly an important element of being seaworthy.

Now, aside from the seaworthiness, the main reason we'd select Fleming if buying is simple-more speed.

As to someone seeking a seaworthy boat, all three builders do build them. Fleming only builds 55' and up and I do think size is an advantage. I definitely think for instance that a Nordhavn 40 would be a poor choice for anyone planning to cross the Atlantic.

So no slight intended of KK and Nordhavn.

I really like the Fleming but the lack of salon space and overall space for a 55 is not enough IMO. The side decks are nice though when you use them to come into a marina or med mooring.

As to diesel ducks, they need some quality control before I'd seriously look at one of them. There was a thread awhile back that showed some shoddy building techniques. I agree with Hollywood, it's like being in a sailboat. Which (I'm) not a fan of.

Bay Pelican said:

I believe the owners original boat, Zopilote, was lost off of Alaska/PNW and his replacement was named "Spirit of". Owner is Bruce Kesseler, the television director, among other things.

Click to expand...

Bruce was the first American to circumnavigate in a US built power vessel. As if that and famous 70s and 80s TV director isn't enough he also raced Le Mans, was the last person to see James Dean (they were racing each other to a restaurant 30 miles away, Dean never made it) and married actress Joan Freeman who stared with Elvis and others.

N4712 said:

I really like the Fleming but the lack of salon space and overall space for a 55 is not enough IMO. The side decks are nice though when you use them to come into a marina or med mooring.

Click to expand...

The 65 is really their top model and now the new 58 is very nice. I don't disagree with you on the 55.

I like the low CG and hull efficiency of my DeFever 48. With her original 1000 gallons of fuel and 2 gph at 6.8knots, range is not an issue. With fish installed I wouldn't hesitate for a second to cross and share a pint with Richard.

BandB said:

The 65 is really their top model and now the new 58 is very nice. I don't disagree with you on the 55.

Click to expand...

We saw a 65 in Eleuthera. It looked like a BIG 65, didn't go inside but gazed at its lines. Beautiful boats.

BTW, Nordhavn's aren't complicated if you know the boat. When we first got ours it seemed complicated but after digging through every nook and crevice and reading the manual I know where everything is, what it does, if it breaks or some thing happens what appropriate measures to take. It's not a simple boat, but it's not complicated. The key is your awareness.

All types of rickety small boats have crossed oceans so its no surprise that NH and KK any other power boat with the fuel capacity can do so. As to what happens if you get caught in a tropical depression most of these ocean hoppers might have a hard time surviving and if they do the crew is going to be major beat up. These boats have too much wind age and big flat surfaces for waves to smash into. Many have relatively high CG. I have been out in 60 footers and would never volunteer to go out in such seas with a NH-KK or anything like it. If I had to go its a 600+ ft power boat or a low CG sail boat. The answer to the best ocean hopping power boat is one that gets good weather and small waves form a comfortable angle.

eyschulman said:

All types of rickety small boats have crossed oceans so its no surprise that NH and KK any other power boat with the fuel capacity can do so. As to what happens if you get caught in a tropical depression most of these ocean hoppers might have a hard time surviving and if they do the crew is going to be major beat up. These boats have too much wind age and big flat surfaces for waves to smash into. Many have relatively high CG. I have been out in 60 footers and would never volunteer to go out in such seas with a NH-KK or anything like it. If I had to go its a 600+ ft power boat or a low CG sail boat. The answer to the best ocean hopping power boat is one that gets good weather and small waves form a comfortable angle.

Click to expand...

With either a Nordhavn 60'-64' or a Fleming 65' or a KK 58', I think you have enough boat to handle pretty horrible conditions. The question at that point becomes is the crew up to handling what the boat can. These are all quite well built for 60 footers and designed for adverse conditions.

Now, would I personally cross the Atlantic on either? No, but I'm exceptionally conservative when it comes to something like this. So neither of these would be my choices to cross in. I wouldn't consider it in less than approximately 80' in one of those types and for most other boats it would have to be 100'+. But that's personal. I don't question the capabilities of either of those brands of boats.

Now if the OP is just looking mostly at island hopping and staying somewhat close to land, but wants to be able to handle rough conditions, then I think either of those boats would do it well.

Wonder how the Nordhavns are doing now.

markpierce said:

Wonder how the Nordhavns are doing now.

Click to expand...

Wifey B: Probably not having as much fun as the Coot, although if memory serves me right he does like to occasionally desert his Coot and hook up with big fancy boats known as cruise ships.

There's a reason most blue water boats avoid large open spaces.

AusCan said:

There's a reason most blue water boats avoid large open spaces.

Click to expand...

Been there done that. That is why I say that dinky little NH and KK types are going to get there ass kicked in really bad conditions and if boats survive the crew is going to be really beat up. The adventure completely depends on relatively benign weather. Fortunately weather forecasting is pretty good but an eight or nine knot boat is not too good at out running or avoiding a big depression. There is a certain thrill and bragging rights to taking risks ergo mountain climbing and sky diving and to some extent ocean hopping.

ulysses said:

The "Elling" ?. Beautiful boat but I thought we were discussing serious blue water traveling and not "Ocean Ready or Ocean Capable". There is a difference between running out a few miles for the day and crossing oceans. The specs. on the Elling allow a 400 gallon fuel tank with a burn rate of about 1 gallon per 2 mile on their smaller engine and a water tankage of 230 gallons. I think I will stick with my steel hulled Romsdal and 3000 gallons of fuel and a thousand gallons of water storage.
dan

Click to expand...

Well I'll grant you the limited fuel tank on the Elling but as for the rest, by all accounts these things go well into the "seaworthy" category. A full skeg, Kevlar in the hull, up to a 475 hp motor, and euro ocean ratings that claim it can handle 25ft seas. They also claim 1.5 to 2 gph at 7.5kts cruise. In 2008 they took 3 of them across the Atlantic in 16 days and all they had to do is add some additional fuel capacity. I don't mean to sound like their rep, honestly we're very early in our boat-buying research. But I have to say I'd feel pretty safe in this thing off shore.