Trawler Forum

Trawler Forum (https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/)
-   North Pacific Yachts (https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s78/)
-   -   North Pacific 43 & Nordic Tug 42 (https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s78/north-pacific-43-nordic-tug-42-a-24841.html)

dhays 02-23-2016 11:46 PM

North Pacific 43 & Nordic Tug 42
 
After long discussion with my wife, these are two boat that we are seriously considering. I could be very happy with a smaller boat, but my wife wants plenty of room for family or other couples to go with us.

For the next several years, the boat would be a weekender and 2 week vacation type of boat in the Salish Sea. Once I can cut back on the amount that I am working, I am hoping for some longer trips. Eventually when I retire, I would like to do the Inside Passage.

One issue for us is cost. We could afford a used NP43, in the 2006-2010 range or we could afford a NT42 in the 2000-2002 range. The newer boat would have newer electronics etc... which would be nice. I have a circa 2005 Raymarine package now and would really not like to go down in capability in my next boat.

The other issue is cost of ownership. Unsure about repairs, but the North Pacific would likely be a bit more fuel efficient as it generally has a smaller engine.

Pros and Cons from my perspective so far:
- I am not crazy about a flybridge. A NT42 without one would be nice.
- Don't like the lack of a side deck around the NP salon. As a sailor it makes me a bit uncomfortable.
- Do like the interior space provided by the NP
- New systems and electronics would be good
- The NP is butt ugly

I have searched and found a very few references to the North Pacific. I did read about the complaints about there not being electrical boxes for the AC outlets. However, beyond that does anyone have any experience with these boats. Short of actual experience, seeing as this is TF, I would love to hear from those that share my specialty, uninformed opinions.

Rebel112r 02-24-2016 12:54 AM

I would say, that I would not buy a boat that I considered butt ugly. Best go for the Nordic Tug.

Al 02-24-2016 01:11 AM

Is this the style and model?
 
2012 North Pacific 43 Pilothouse Power Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

This second posted photo is what I view a Pacific Trawler
https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/2012...s#.Vs1IsvkrLIU

When I first read your post and having visualized the 42 foot Nordic as I know them, and what I had perceived was a North Pacific is not! The Pacific trawler I am familiar with has a group discussion of its own on the TF under the specific boats nomenclature. Clarify? Thanks,
Al-Ketchikan 27 Marben Pocket CRUISER

Hawgwash 02-24-2016 01:35 AM

I would support Rebel112r when he says don't buy a boat you consider butt ugly but at the same time, give it a chance. And nurture him, he could be your new best friend when it comes to the NP.

Don't discount an older boat because you think it has old electronics. Chances are good it has been upgraded and might even have newer stuff that the 2010 NP.

And smaller engines does not automatically translate to better economy.

Me? Either one for different reasons but more likely the NT.

dhays 02-24-2016 01:55 AM

Rebel, please forgive my intemperate language with regards to the appearance of the NP43. It was in poor taste and likely offensive to any NP owner. You do have the experience with this boat so I would be very interested in your perspective. A few specific questions; Being in the PNW how often do you make use of the flybridge? Is it ever a problem not having side decks to get from the computer to the bow? How is the visibility aft from the Pilothouse?

Al, I am a bit confused but yes, the North Pacific 43 is not the same as the Pacific Trawler.

Hawgwash, You are right. My first reaction to the NP43 was that is didn't fit my mental picture of an attractive boat. However, as I have looked at them more, it is starting to grow on me. In essence, there are some very nice features in the design and functionality has its own attractiveness.

tinped 02-24-2016 04:38 AM

the np has a very nice interior,but from an external view,I agree about the butt ugly part.To me,its the pilothouse shape.best of luck with whatever you decide.

Rebel112r 02-24-2016 10:09 AM

No need to apologize, every body likes what the like. I never thought my 42 was the prettiest girl at the party either. Great value for the buck though. Seems like most of the used, are in the 300k range. If somebody wants to trade a Fleming for my NP, let me know. There are lots of boats, that have looks that I like. Love the stern on the Cherubini, pilot house on Nordy 46, Selenes are very nice. Mikelson 43 interior is so nice. But I have a NP 42, and it works well for me. We use the flybridge much less with the 42 then we did with the previous boats. Am up there on very nice days and for most docking. Also sit up on the fore deck with auto pilot remote on nice days when making a few miles. Visibility from pilothouse is very good, but not good looking aft, need to stick your head out the doors. The side deck issue has not been a problem, one cleat is hard to get to. There is enough edge to move along side decks, but you better be hanging on. Very secure feeling on the foredeck, the bulwarks are knee high and railings are close to shoulder level. NP has listened to owners over the years, and made changes. We spent 100 nights on boat last season, more this year, actually going out Thursday for 3-4 nights.

JDCAVE 02-24-2016 10:36 AM

The first time I saw a KK42, I thought it was an odd looking boat. Squat and sat like a toad in the water. We had considered both the NT and the NPT. Both are excellent boats. I found the NPT "narrow" (<13') but inside it makes great use of space. I preferred the Pilothouse on the NPT, although I think the edge on construction goes to NT. They really are very well made boats.

"Pacific Trawlers" are also with considering, if you can find one.


Jim
Sent from my iPad using Trawler Forum

dhays 02-24-2016 10:51 AM

Thanks for the feedback so far. Rebel, it is good to know that it hasn't been a problem with not having a side deck around the saloon. One thing I failed to mention that I really like about the NP over the NT is how the boat deck extends over the cockpit. Our weather is so wet, even during what passes for the "warmish" season. My wife would like being able to sit out in the cockpit during a gentle mist and have a cover over her head. The NTs made a mistake by not extending it in my opinion, something that the American Tugs, North Pacific, and Helmsman boats did.

JD, I really like the KK42. The killer for us is the Pullman berth and more exterior teak to maintain.

refugio 02-24-2016 10:57 AM

I echo the comment about NPTs being narrower than expected, particularly the PH.


Keith

tpbrady 02-24-2016 11:10 AM

The major difference I have noticed between the NT42 and NP43 is the size of the pilot house. Without a flying bridge, the size of the pilot house was a big consideration. Walk around decks were not a firm requirement, but do add fishing space especially when fishing from the pilot house and needing to move to the cockpit to land a fish. The extension of the boat deck wasn't an issue, but can be solved with some canvas. For us it wasn't crucial and factored into the fishing equation.

Tom

Hawgwash 02-24-2016 11:17 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dhays
My wife would like being able to sit out in the cockpit during a gentle mist and have a cover over her head.

There is an answer for everything.

Baker 02-24-2016 11:46 AM

The question is, does your wife think the NP is "butt ugly" and if so, can she still stomach owning it??? If the answer is yes,no...then your dilemma is solved.

With that said, I had a 2006 Pontiac GTO. LS2 power at 400hp. The car was far from pretty...based on the Aussie Holden Monaro. But it was a great car and performed well and the interior was above most GM products of the day. Bottom line...I grew to love the car....(ear)regardless of its appearance.

As far as age of boat goes...just look for a well maintained updated boat. Obviously, you may pay more. Or look for a not so well maintained boat at a bargain price and do a little updating yourself. I bought my current boat at half market price because of neglect. After some due diligence, it just needed to be cleaned up a bit and a few things replaced. It will still never be cheap and no boat will be. But I should do well when I sell if I get anywhere close to market.

dhays 02-24-2016 12:27 PM

Thanks for the comments on the size of the PH of the NP43. We are planning on chartering one this spring if we can make the time work out. Chartering the type of boat we were interested in was one of the very first (and best) pieces of advice I received from the TF brain trust.

The idea of a canvas extension over a NT is something we have considered as well. Not all that expensive to have built I would imagine.

I don't fish, so many of the common considerations for those that fish and crab aren't ones that we have.

refugio 02-24-2016 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhays (Post 418175)
The idea of a canvas extension over a NT is something we have considered as well. Not all that expensive to have built I would imagine.

My full custom enclosure including stainless frame (sides not shown in avatar photo) was about $5k 12 years ago.


Keith

Wxx3 02-24-2016 01:33 PM

The Nordic Tug was the first boat I was attracted to.

I would decide on a few, but not more than a few, showstoppers.

What must you have? e.g. side decks; or not have, e.g. pullman berth??

I thought I would like the fly bridge, but actually don't, though I think it really is good to have when you sell.

Sidedecks, I thought were not so critical, but now, it would be hard to live without.

Pullman berth, never thought about, and it has not been an issue with all the couples we have had on board.

Good luck.

Richard

Conrad 02-24-2016 01:49 PM

We are very happy with our NT42.

Having side decks or not really only affects our handling of the fenders. Pulling them up and redeploying them is dead simple when you can walk up and down the side decks. Plus for short term cruising between docks the sidedecks are a convenient place to leave the fenders. (We have baskets on the foredeck for longer term stowage.)

Another consideration is that the stanchions provide a place to tie the fenders to at a reasonable height; none sidedeck vessels can be a bit of a challenge there.

Boarding and unboarding is almost always at the stern platform or occasionally from beside the pilothouse door, so sidedecks are irrelevant in that regard; lines are grabbed from the dock so again sidedecks are sort of irrelevant although they do hold the lines in place ready for grabbing.

The pilothouse is very useable, although I think later models are even better. Our hull #1 is a bit tight when passing behind the helm chair. Actually impossible so the helmsperson moves out of the way when someone is moving athwartship. Newer models have the helm moved forward for more space.

Although I am not a fisherman we have some very avid fishermen in the family who really appreciate not having a full overhead deck covering the cockpit; it allows rod movement up and down and not having corner support posts is also a huge benefit.

Good luck with your quest.

Moonfish 02-24-2016 03:03 PM

Just my opinion, but you will be quite happy with either vessel!

Whichever boat you eventually choose, you will be the winner as they both will get you out on the water enjoying life.

As far as a flybridge and exterior aesthetics, I though the same things regarding our boat. I never thought she was beautiful, but have come to love her "handsome" lines. And the flybridge gets way more use than I ever expected...

dhays 02-24-2016 04:40 PM

Conrad, thanks for your input on the side decks. For a long time I would never even consider looking at a boat that didn't have decent side decks. As I have gone along in the process, I am slowly beginning to realize that I can't necessarily think of handling and working the decks of a trawler like I do my sailboat.

Darren, I think you are right. We would be happy with either of them (and a lot of others as well). BTW, I have enjoyed many of your videos. Keep it up.

The other boat that has made our short list is the NT37. That would probably be my first choice, but my wife likes the idea of a bit more room in the saloon to accommodate more family.

It likely will come down to finding the boat that is at the right price, right location, at the right time and call it good.

tpbrady 02-24-2016 05:19 PM

Dave,

I echo Conrad's comments on the pilot house spacing on the earlier NT42s. However, in our first and only long trip (La Conner to Wrangell), I eventually removed the folding helm chair and just sat back and worked with the autopilot remote. I have a remote monitor and wireless trackball that sits to the right of the bench in the pilot house for navigation purposes (Coastal Explorer is the primary tool). I can see the 12 inch Garmin display easily from there for sonar/radar. If I need to sit at the helm for long periods, I plan to use a bar stool since it takes up less space, you can face any direction and there are no arms to get in the way.

Tom

dhays 02-24-2016 06:27 PM

Great feedback from you and Conrad, Tom. Did your boat chase Tom's out of the factory? Is he hull #1 and you hull #2?

healhustler 02-24-2016 06:29 PM

1 Attachment(s)
I'll probably get slammed for being predictable here, but I really like the PT 43, and one of the few things I think it needs is the windshield from the 45, which is grafted here.

dhays 02-24-2016 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by healhustler (Post 418266)
I'll probably get slammed for being predictable here, but I really like the PT 43, and one of the few things I think it needs is the windshield from the 45, which is grafted here.

I think North Pacific agrees with you. As do I.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cyLm6B5nQhE/maxresdefault.jpg
https://www.northpacificyachts.com/im...5/45-ext-2.jpg
https://www.northpacificyachts.com/45-pilothouse/#

Tator 02-24-2016 07:00 PM

Our boat has a very similar layout as the PT43. Our previous boats, GB42 and GB50, had side decks. We have not missed them. The extra room in the salon is worth the negligible hassle. On our boat and the PT43, we really like not having a PH that is open to the salon and/or galley.

Tator

Conrad 02-24-2016 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhays (Post 418265)
Great feedback from you and Conrad, Tom. Did your boat chase Tom's out of the factory? Is he hull #1 and you hull #2?

Tom & I had the opportunity to meet last summer and compare our NTs. Quite different but very similar. Ours (#1) was a bit of a prototype whereas his (#2) has some improvements and differences. After all was said and done we determined that we each preferred our own! (Which was a very good thing...)

We too came from the sailing world and so sidedecks were important from the outset. I still would want to have them in general for other things like ease of rafting or dealing with dock or at sea oddities.

Feel free to ask more questions Dave.

dhays 02-24-2016 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator (Post 418275)
Our boat has a very similar layout as the PT43. Our previous boats, GB42 and GB50, had side decks. We have not missed them. The extra room in the salon is worth the negligible hassle. On our boat and the PT43, we really like not having a PH that is open to the salon and/or galley.

Excellent feedback Tator, thank you. My wife and I have considered the pros and cons of having the PH more removed from the saloon as well. On the whole, we see it as a net positive.

markpierce 02-24-2016 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wxx3 (Post 418190)
The Nordic Tug was the first boat I was attracted to.

I would decide on a few, but not more than a few, showstoppers.

What must you have? e.g. side decks; or not have, e.g. pullman berth??

I thought I would like the fly bridge, but actually don't, though I think it really is good to have when you sell.

Sidedecks, I thought were not so critical, but now, it would be hard to live without.

Pullman berth, never thought about, and it has not been an issue with all the couples we have had on board.

Good luck.

Richard

My selection process was similar. Liked the Nordic Tugs but they were expensive and lacked easy-walk-around decks. Good side decks are critical as well as high/strong railings. Moving rapidly and burdening a boat with a flying bridge had no appeal. We've no need to accommodate more than two for sleeping, however.

ktdtx 02-24-2016 08:54 PM

Quote:

Don't like the lack of a side deck around the NP salon. As a sailor it makes me a bit uncomfortable.
- Do like the interior space provided by the NP
There ya go....compromise.

I wanted a full walk-around for all the reasons....got the widebody instead.
Rationalizing.....I'll spend more time in the boat than I will docking or moving fenders. Wife liked the extra room inside.
.
I'm glad to hear that some people went from full walk around to wide body and didn't miss it.
I haven't had this boat long enough to provide a valid opinion.

One of my "really wants" was a fly bridge....I just like it up there...might change my mind later in the PNW but have always liked it up there.

I don't think I'm alone that during the shopping period I over-analyzed everything,. details & minutiae..trying to find the "perfect, exactly right boat.
Then I remembered a lesson I thought I had learned earlier in life (and was now given a chance to relearn)...get the damn boat and get up to the PNW and use it!! So, I did and so far I really like my boat and hope to come to love it as I use it more and "make it mine".

Datenight 02-24-2016 08:55 PM

Dave,

We have an NP 39 not the 43. Have been very happy with the boat and found Trevor Brice, NP's owner, to be available and responsive to any questions we may have. The boat came very well equiped and is easy to service. Engine access is esp. good on this model.

No side decks on the 39 which was a concern but has been a non issue. View aft on this model is not bad from the pilothouse.

Our previous trawler we piloted from the flybridge over 90% of the time. Now we are in the pilothouse most of the time.

Feel free to ask any questions. We are fans!

Rob

Datenight 02-24-2016 09:03 PM

Forgot to mention our favorite cruising friends have a wonderful NT 37!

Rob

tpbrady 02-24-2016 09:12 PM

Dave,

Conrad and I are a tale of two different boats that look the same on the outside. One difference was the engine. Conrad I think as a 325 HP and I have a 420 Cummins. Over time Nordic has put bigger and bigger engines in the 42, all based on the 6CTA Cummins block. The result is a boat that will go faster and faster but burn a lot more fuel. However at 7-8 knots they probably don't burn any more than the NP43. In my limited cruising so far, I burned about 2.5 gph and averaged 7.1 knots over 788NM, 111 engine hours, consuming an estimated 278 gallons of fuel (Total less heat and generator). To counteract tides and wind to try to keep to a planned schedule, I ran about 200-400 rpm faster than the 7 knot cruise in calm water about 30-40% of the time. I would say a 7 knot cruise would put me in the 2-2.2 gph.

The one thing I learned about extra power, the wife wants me to use it. To her getting to an anchorage or harbor and hour or two earlier, is worth it. When we went south this summer around Cape Caution in BC in a 6 knot boat, it was 8 hours of rolling and yawing in 8-10' swells on the starboard bow, beam, and stern at 5 knots. Coming north it was 7 knots on the port bow of 6-8' and 9 knots with seas on the stern in 7 hours not counting traveling 8NM further. HP is your friend in this case.

Tom

menzies 02-24-2016 09:19 PM

We looked at at a North Pacific 42 (43) in Palm Coast (it then moved to Vero Beach). Loved the boat - you could have eaten your dinner off the engine room floor. All records were meticiously kept. It looked and felt like a well found vessel.

What killed it for us was the single head.

I just don't understand why a 43 foot boat just has one head? It is set up for the cruising couple with guests. But we are just not happy with not offering our guests their own facilities.

dhays 02-24-2016 09:30 PM

kdtx, you are right about compromises. Plus, even if I could figure out what the "perfect boat" was, chances are there would not be one for sale here in the PNW. That 52' you have is a very nice boat. Up here, I just don't see that I would use a flybridge much, but who knows? Even in what passes for normally "warm" summers here, it is still cool by the water when you are moving 6-8 knots. I also am not one for hanging out in the sun much. There are so many boats in the Salish Sea with complete enclosures around their flybridge that I wonder if a flybridge is worth the duplicate cleaning, maintenance, and repair. A bare pilothouse roof and clear boat deck sound nice as far as cleaning goes. (unless I had a boathouse.....)

Rob, nice to hear from another who was concerned about side decks but found it to be a non-issue. I think the NP39 is a very nice boat, but the wife wants that second stateroom.

Tom, that helps with the fuel efficiency question. Trevor Brice claims around 2gph at 7 knots for the NP43. I could be very happy with that as 7 knots is my current cruise speed on my boat. The NP doesn't have the upper speed range that the NTs do however. I believe it maxes out at 12kt and that really burns up the fuel.

GoldenDawn 02-24-2016 11:38 PM

We travel with a dog and for that reason never use the fly bridge on the Krogen. The dog can access everywhere on the boat, except the fly bridge. When the weather is nice, we sit on the bench in front of the wheelhouse - with the dog and the auto pilot extension. I originally thought the bench was stupid, but it is a our go-to place in good weather - and 2 steps from the helm.

Not sure if you have dogs in your life . . .

markpierce 02-24-2016 11:55 PM

No doubt Nordic Tugs are nice.

https://www.trawlerforum.com/attachme...af0bf665f7.jpg

Conrad 02-25-2016 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhays (Post 418343)

Tom, that helps with the fuel efficiency question. Trevor Brice claims around 2gph at 7 knots for the NP43. I could be very happy with that as 7 knots is my current cruise speed on my boat. The NP doesn't have the upper speed range that the NTs do however. I believe it maxes out at 12kt and that really burns up the fuel.

Dave, our NT has a 330 HP Lugger, built on a Komatsu block; as far as I'm aware it is the only NT with a Lugger. Most have Cummins as Tom mentioned although recent models have Volvo power. I recall that Nordic Tugs offered 650 HP Cummins in the past although I don't know if many were sold.

We cruise at 8 knots almost exclusively with the occasional run up to 12 knots which is our max. With fairly significant genset and furnace use (I'm not on the boat so can't give the genset hours ) we are averaging 12 litres/hour overall.

Definitely agree that two heads are better than one!

sunchaser 02-25-2016 08:58 AM

My favorite is the NT 52 later named the 55 I believe. Great ER (lacking in all other NTs), several nice layouts and good build. I compared it to the NP 52 and found it much more user friendly in all respects. But at a million bucks + not a good investment as we were then into Nordhavn territory.

So on value alone as compared to the NT the NP seems a more logical choice. The market place agreed when comparing sales volumes over the past decade.

I compared an NP 52 plug from 18" above the waterline to our DF. What a difference with the NP at about 60% the thickness. Gotta keep costs down somehow.

O C Diver 02-25-2016 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator (Post 418275)
Our previous boats, GB42 and GB50, had side decks. We have not missed them. The extra room in the salon is worth the negligible hassle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktdtx (Post 418327)
I wanted a full walk-around for all the reasons....got the widebody instead.
Rationalizing.....I'll spend more time in the boat than I will docking or moving fenders. Wife liked the extra room inside.
.
I'm glad to hear that some people went from full walk around to wide body and didn't miss it.
I haven't had this boat long enough to provide a valid opinion.

Then I remembered a lesson I thought I had learned earlier in life (and was now given a chance to relearn)...get the damn boat and get up to the PNW and use it!! So, I did and so far I really like my boat and hope to come to love it as I use it more and "make it mine".

That sums up my feelings on side decks pretty well. Would like to have had them. Only miss them when docking. Have adapted to not having them for docking and locking. Can hang fenders from the railings of the upper deck. Will certainly use the inside space much more often.

Ted

Nomad Willy 02-25-2016 11:03 AM

tpbrady posted this;,
"The one thing I learned about extra power, the wife wants me to use it. To her getting to an anchorage or harbor and hour or two earlier, is worth it. When we went south this summer around Cape Caution in BC in a 6 knot boat, it was 8 hours of rolling and yawing in 8-10' swells on the starboard bow, beam, and stern at 5 knots. Coming north it was 7 knots on the port bow of 6-8' and 9 knots with seas on the stern in 7 hours not counting traveling 8NM further. HP is your friend in this case."

At first I thought it was the first justified excuse for having extra power. Having a 6 knot boat for over 10 years I can relate to that. Even though most of our trawlering has been up north where most anchorages are usually void of boats arriving even very late in the day/evening.
That has been my usual complaint about having a slow boat ... can't get to many anchorages before dark. That's what killed our winter cruising in SE Alaska. However, most of the time there are anchorages closer so instead of powering up one should just choose a closer anchorage. Or learn how to anchor at night.
But having a go slow boat that goes fast too is an obvious advantage but having a cruiser instead of a trawler offers even more of the fast/slow option. All of this slow and fast boat talk assumes the owner/skipper is OK w underloading most of the time. Engines are so good at running lightly loaded now that it may be a non-issue but the underloading talk still goes on.

Going around Cape Caution we usually go from Alison Harbour to Penrose Is (Frypan Bay) but we could go into Smith Sound. That would cut the trip distance in half so it could be done at 3 or 4 knots. My point being that the option to going much faster than your normal cruise speed is to not go as far. And those of us that have FD boats running 6 or 7 knots w/o a faster option are very familiar w it. Takes us 20 to 25 days to go to Ketchikan. No problem if I don't see it as such.

But tpbrady's practice seems very ideal and well put in his post. I like the part about "my wife makes me do it".

tpbrady 02-25-2016 04:00 PM

Eric,

One of my favorite quotes on engine HP and engine loading comes from Tony Athens at Seaboard Marine (Low Speed Running & “Break-In” of Marine Diesels - Seaboard Marine).

"In closing, I’ll mention that although this topic is brought up quite often and many people preach that you’ve got to use a diesel hard if you want it to last, I’m still waiting to find one that was rebuilt before its time due to low speed use..Just the opposite seems to be always the norm."

Tom

Al 02-25-2016 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpbrady (Post 418576)
Eric,

One of my favorite quotes on engine HP and engine loading comes from Tony Athens at Seaboard Marine (Low Speed Running & “Break-In” of Marine Diesels - Seaboard Marine).

"In closing, Ill mention that although this topic is brought up quite often and many people preach that youve got to use a diesel hard if you want it to last, Im still waiting to find one that was rebuilt before its time due to low speed use..Just the opposite seems to be always the norm."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpbrady (Post 418576)
Tom

Thanks for referencing this site. I have bookmarked it. There is a number of very informative offerings on a number of subjects that are discussed here on the TF. I like the one on 'Over Propping" I would think that Eric would enjoy the content. Recommend that bookmarking of the site worth while as a reference or better if there is response, to questions posed. I did and will await to see if one returns. Yes, the subject is on 'Over Propping".
Al

Nomad Willy 02-25-2016 10:11 PM

Tom, Al and many others,
I do think there is something to the underloading issue but I don't think it's monumental, especially w the new engines. But it's not good for the older engines. And I'm sure that engines are better off if UNDER propped 50 to 100rpm. Then you basically can't hurt them. However over propping is fine or at least workable if one stays below the rpm point that will not overload the engine. But that red line on the tach is a bit vague. Running that way opens the door to possible engine damage. I would be very supprised if any engine manufacturer supported running an engine regularly at less than half it's max output. And the manufacturers .. IMO .. will always support propping an engine to the rated rpm.

I've talked this issue for many years and no .. engines aren't dying in large numbers but many are weak, smokey and hard starting w/o the hours that would usually produce that. It's an interesting topic to discuss and one of the reasons is because there is doubt and unknowns that lurk under the surface. It's like anchors ... not cut and dry. Interesting w posibilities for things to learn ... new knowledge to apply to our real life practices. Possibilities ..........

Al 02-25-2016 10:32 PM

Thread creep- Sorry
 


Sorry:banghead:, Please bring the subject of comparing NP and Nordic Tugs.:flowers:

Al:hide:

ssobol 02-25-2016 11:37 PM

I wouldn't worry about the electronics that are currently installed. By the time you are using the boat a lot, there will be a whole new generation of electronics that you will want to have.

dhays 02-26-2016 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al (Post 418709)

Sorry:banghead:, Please bring the subject of comparing NP and Nordic Tugs.:flowers:

Al:hide:

I don't mind a bit. One of my concerns on these boats has been the size of the engine. Most of the North Pacific 43s have 230hp Cummins. The Nordic Tugs have anywhere from 450hp to 630hp at around the same displacement. As I am a cheap SOB, I would likely be running either at between 7-8 knots. That would be a much lower power % for the Nordic Tugs than the North Pacific. So the issue of underloading is of interest to me and actually germane to my original question.

RCook 02-26-2016 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhays (Post 418736)
I don't mind a bit. One of my concerns on these boats has been the size of the engine. Most of the North Pacific 43s have 230hp Cummins. The Nordic Tugs have anywhere from 450hp to 630hp at around the same displacement. As I am a cheap SOB, I would likely be running either at between 7-8 knots. That would be a much lower power % for the Nordic Tugs than the North Pacific. So the issue of underloading is of interest to me and actually germane to my original question.

I wouldn't be concerned about it at all, as long as it's broken in, and not running so slow it doesn't stay close to normal operating temps. I run my 26-footer with 260hp Volvo KAD44P at 1350-1400 RPM and 6 knots 95%+ of the time. It's fine after 6,500 hours so far.

My buddy runs his NT32 with 210hp Cummins at 7 knots. An NT 37 with 330hp Cummins could comfortably run 7-8. A 42 could comfortably run 8-9. Virtually forever. But all these could also cruise at 14-18 knots if the situation warranted it.

bcam 02-26-2016 12:19 PM

Our NT42 runs just as warm at 7 knots as when we run it at 9 (when my wife starts figuring fuel costs). We're pretty comfortable that we are not harming the engine and burning a lot less fuel. Compared to our Cat 36, it's more fuel. But we are drier and warmer :).

windmist 02-26-2016 12:32 PM

I run my 2004 450 HP Cummins at 1300 RPM which makes 8 knots all day long. Occasionally, I bring it up to 2200 RPM for 10 minutes because my mechanic said to do this, but I only do it about every 20 - 30 engine hours. At 1300 RPM I burn about 3.3 gal/hr. This engine does not have electronic fuel injection. Wide open at 2600 RPM gets me about 14 knots top speed.

dhays 02-26-2016 12:48 PM

Thanks guys, helpful input again.

Nomad Willy 02-26-2016 01:17 PM

Dave,
What I'd like to see is a NT32 w a turned up stern more like a FD hull or much more closly so w a 65 to 75hp engine. But the NT does have more rocker than most all other SD trawlers and as a result is almost certianly more efficient than the straight line bottoms of most trawlers. I like their house and wheelhouse very much but at least as much I like the slightly closer to displacement hull form. The narrower beam adds to that as well.

Re the NP I actually kinda like the wheelhouse style.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012