Krogen 42 History

Why do you suppose Krogen only made a few of the 42 Pilothouse designs back in the 70s? Did everyone want something that looked like a Grand Banks? What was their fatal flaw?

To my knowledge, they made around 200. Not sure why that is considered a failure. Ours is number 165, and we love her.


Mike Metts
KK 42-165
Virginia Beach, VA

Sent from my iPad using Trawler Forum

seattleboatguy said:

Why do you suppose Krogen only made a few of the 42 Pilothouse designs back in the 70s? Did everyone want something that looked like a Grand Banks? What was their fatal flaw?

Click to expand...

I think they made 248

And I think they did exactly what James Krogen wanted to do, mass produce a true Passagemaker.

Interesting question. Sales of the Krogen 42 increased in the 80s.

The Grand Banks of the 70s were a twin engine semi-displacement boat. Even today the twin engine semi-displacement boats outsell the single engine full displacement boats by a wide margin. Even the popular Nordic and American Tugs are not full displacement.

Owning a Krogen 42 I am happy to mention that she has often been considered among the best cruising boats ever built. Long distance cruising however is a limited market.

Sales of the 42 model stopped when the mold had been used for 210 or so hulls. Her successors are the 39 and 44 (and the 48). To the untrained eye it is difficult to tell them apart.

I stand corrected

MikeM said:

To my knowledge, they made around 200.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I thought I read an ad that said there were only a handful of them built. But, on re-reading the ad, I see it actually said "[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]one of the first handful of Krogen 42's built". [/FONT]Thanks for the correction.

I have a 1972 Krogen 50. It was the predesessor of the 42. The hull is identical to the 42, just bigger. It was designed by James Krogen at Traditional Yachts and built to his specs by Charley Morgan at his facility in Florida. Mine was the Atlantic model , a Pacific model was also designed but to my knowledge never built. Very few of these boats were built and I assume it was because of the cost, as designed they would have been expensive. Only when Art Kadey came along with overseas connections was the profit margin enough to make production feasible. You occasionally see a 70s Krogen for sale but not often as there just weren't that many built. Interestingly, I talked to Jimmy Krogen about my boat and he sent me everything they had on it. Including all the blueprints and lines drawing, machinery specs, layup/lamination schedules and a few magazine ads and an article from MotorBoating magazine that featured my boat when it was brand new. Jimmy is a super nice guy and very helpfull.

Thanks Kulas, that's great info.

That looks swayback to me. Is that boat getting old or is that original build?
Regardless, I'm a pilothouse fan.

If a kk 42 has a fatal flaw I could live with it the rest of my life .

The "swayback" on my 50 is a little more pronounced. Salty, I believe, is the word you were looking for

I really need to learn how to post pics/images. I have a ton of stuff that us Krogenites love.

Swayback:

Now that we've cleared up the misunderstanding by the OP in post 5, any objections to me changing the thread title from Krogen 42 failure to Krogen 42 History? It seems to better reflect the trajectory of the discussion and will make it easier to find in future searches.

If the OP agrees, I'll make the change free of charge.

How about "Krogen 42 - a success story" just kidding.

kulas44 said:

The "swayback" on my 50 is a little more pronounced. Salty, I believe, is the word you were looking for

Click to expand...

Here's hoping there is nothing wrong structurally.

Is another word for the "dip" midships "sheer"?

If ain't got a little sheer I ain't looking .

markpierce said:

That looks swayback to me. Is that boat getting old or is that original build?.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that the Krogen is a very fine vessel that has proven itself many times over the years. Mark's comment, however, is exactly the way I see that boat! I guess they are right..."beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

This coming from a "tennis shoe" ?. . The Krogen look is THE quintessential "TRAWLER" look. A flat sheer does absolutely nothing for me. A wedding cake boat does nothing for me. When I walk down the dock, if my boat doesnt stir my heart,,,,well, it aint gonna be my boat much longer. I like a big sportfisher bow, made to run Ocrakoke in a blow or Murrells inlet when its raging. Its the same reason I like the "look" of the Krogen trawlers. The look fits the use and abilities. When the ocean turns to $hit you can point that bow into it and ride out most weather short of a hurricane. I wouldnt want to be riding a tennis shoe when that happens.

If you have ever had the opportunity to look at the lamination schedule for a Krogen trawler, and the ring frame/bulkhead arrangement, you would know that "hogging" or swayback as it was called (incorrectly I might ad) is an impossibilty on these boats. The hull and superstructure simply does not allow it.

Pack Mule said:

If ain't got a little sheer I ain't looking .

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Throw in some nice camber for good measure, and you're well on your way.

Yes, please change the title.

FlyWright said:

Now that we've cleared up the misunderstanding by the OP in post 5, any objections to me changing the thread title from Krogen 42 failure to Krogen 42 History? It seems to better reflect the trajectory of the discussion and will make it easier to find in future searches.

If the OP agrees, I'll make the change free of charge.

Click to expand...

I like your idea. Please do so at your convenience. Thank you.

The upturned large bow is traditional ocean going trawler that travels through the seas at hull speed. The tennis shoe lacks this bow as it's designed to pound across the tops of waves at planning speed. Krogens, built for comfort not speed in large seas. If I planned to spend more time on the outside of the line of demarcation, I would likely own one.

Ted

I think they did exactly what James Krogen wanted to do, mass produce a true Passagemaker.

If Passagemaker does not include too much blueb water , perhaps.

I believe the boat is quite range limited by twin engines and modest fuel supply.

FF said:

I think they did exactly what James Krogen wanted to do, mass produce a true Passagemaker.

If Passagemaker does not include too much blueb water , perhaps.

I believe the boat is quite range limited by twin engines and modest fuel supply.

Click to expand...

Almost all 42s are single engines and can carry 700 gallons of fuel.


Mike Metts
KK 42-165
Virginia Beach, VA

Sent from my iPad using Trawler Forum

My Krogen 50 was built with 2 small diesel engines, which is very rare for a Krogen trawler. The normal engines listed were a Perkins 6-354, the Lehman or a 4-71 DD. Mine carries 1000 gallons of fuel and 250 gallons of water. The 42 is very similar. The biggest shortcoming on these boats, for bluewater cruising anyway, is the windows and doors. As built they are not overly strong. Just strong enough.

Here's link to FAQ's for earlier Krogen boats. It's a little dated (1997) but there is some good information on production histories of the earlier Krogens. Scroll down the bottom of the page for the FAQ's.


The Krogen FAQ Page

Just to clear up a few facts. There were 207 KK42s built. The last was "Daisy" built in 1998 and just recently sold by the original owner. Our boat "Aventura" hull number 204 was also built in 1998 and at that time we thought it was going to be the last or next to last build. The molds were in rough shape and required additional work to prep for a build. Those of us who wanted a 42 had to pay extra to have the molds fixed. It was worth it. They are great boats and ours transported us safely over 30000 miles and 4500+ hours. Although our current boat, a Camano31, is a fine variation of west coast fishing hull it is not the spacious, comfortable cruising boat that the 42 was. For this area (PNW & SE AK) the 42 was just about ideal. You could get into neat small anchorages, deal with most any weather and travel long distances all while sipping a minimum amount of fuel. Our Camano uses as much fuel as the 42 at similar speeds. The 42 weighed 4 times what our Camano does, just a great illustration of the efficiency of a full displacement hull design. The 42s predecessor, the KK44 is also a great boat with some nice additional features, bit pricy but what isn't these days.

A KK42 will ideally be my next boat.

I like them too and also never have seen a twin engine one. Just spent two weeks up here in the Canadian Maritimes and you can see the boat's heritage in almost every harbor. As for being passage makers, we just had a forum member cross the Atlantic in one...