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.
Heavier with more weight up high?

Who says it's more weight up high?
I would assume all the weight is down low and the top half would be light in comparison

Most everyone makes the assumption that ours is top heavy but she weighs in around 70ton and I can assure you a dozen sheets of ply and some windows up top is a very small % of that weight.

I would like to think that Nordys would be cored in the top half reducing weight.
 
Last edited:
Plus the Nordhavn is ballasted on top of all of the heavy engines, batteries, tanks, etc. being down low.
 
Who says it's more weight up high?
I would assume all the weight is down low and the top half would be light in comparison

Most everyone makes the assumption that ours is top heavy but she weighs in around 70ton and I can assure you a dozen sheets of ply and some windows up top is a very small % of that weight.

I would like to think that Nordys would be cored in the top half reducing weight.
Couldn't agree more. My boat is in the 90 ton range. My active stabilizers rarely work coastal cruising (meaning it's hard to tell the difference when I turn them on). I put a 275 gallon( about 2,300 lbs) inflatable hot tub on the upper deck. I would drain it 90% for the 10 hour trip to the San Juans. I decided to experiment and left it full for the return trip. No noticeable difference in ride. The boat didn't blink with the additional weight up top.
As I've mentioned in other posts, the additional weight is beautiful when it comes to anchoring in exposed areas.
 
I would like to think that Nordys would be cored in the top half reducing weight.

They are, as are almost all FRP vessels, solid FRP is pretty rare outside of hulls.

And, while weight aloft can be a stability liability, it does slow roll.
 
They are, as are almost all FRP vessels, solid FRP is pretty rare outside of hulls.



And, while weight aloft can be a stability liability, it does slow roll.
The Willard 36s, built in the 1960s, were essentially solid FRP, though thr deck house was plywood with fiberglass skin on outside. Flybridge was solid fiberglass. When the W40 was introduced in 1974, Willard went to balsa core topside. For their last run of boats in late 1990s, they went to closed cell I believe (Steve D would know better as he was yard manager st Zimmerman Marine at the time, east coast dealer for Willard)

Peter
 
The Willard 36s, built in the 1960s, were essentially solid FRP, though thr deck house was plywood with fiberglass skin on outside. Flybridge was solid fiberglass. When the W40 was introduced in 1974, Willard went to balsa core topside. For their last run of boats in late 1990s, they went to closed cell I believe (Steve D would know better as he was yard manager st Zimmerman Marine at the time, east coast dealer for Willard)

Peter

In the 1960s a lot of FRP vessels were solid, engineers then didn't fully appreciate FRP and simply emulated timber scantlings. Composite cored construction was in its infancy.

I did say almost all;-)

The Willard was cut from a different bolt, being primarily a military contractor, they did a lot of things differently. The one Bill Parlatore and I took from Ches Bay to Bermuda performed well, however, it was "customized" for the passage, including the addition of flopper stoppers.
 
Perhaps Steve will comment. My understanding is that there’s major differences between early and more recent grp construction. Resin provides little strength. The strength is in the glass, aramid or other substrate. Even with glass there’s a large difference between woven, chopper gun and mat. Resin to glass ratios have changed dramatically with vacuum bagging and other techniques. In short thickness of the hull is a poor measure of strength and given the changes in the chemistry of resins used also a poor measure of durability. Especially as time goes on. A modern solid glass hull glass hull of the generation used in the 60s-70s maybe much weaker than a much thinner hull currently built. Take a look at the thin solid glass hulls used in the very large Nautor Swans as an example. The other issue not mentioned is supporting grid (and tabbed in bulkheads). The current practice in series production boats is to prefabricate a grid and then glue it to the inside of the hull. This is markly different than laying up a system of stringers and ribs as done in stick built boats. Any deficiencies in technique can lead to adhesive failure and partial or major detachment of the grid.
So Weebles boat is a excellent vessel. But there are many boats of that generation with hulls that don’t compare favorably to later construction. Similarly there’s a large variation in strength and durability in current construction.
Also currently available is the huge jump in strength to weight that can be achieved with prepreg, baked CF construction.
 
Last edited:
Composite engineering is a hugely complex subject, books are written about it.

Poly and vinyl ester resin itself hasn't changed much over the years, what has changed is better control of resin to glass ratios, and the increased popularity of systems like resin infusion, pre-preg as you noted, and post-curing. Resin to glass ratio plays a very important role in laminate strength and stiffness. Thick, solid hulls can be "strong", but comparatively not very stiff, while cored laminates can be very stiff, but lack resistance to point loading. The laminate schedule, fabric design, plies, and weight, also play a big role in laminate strength, and stiffness. It's anything but black and white. Technique, experience, attention to detail, and cleanliness all play very important roles, but even the best builders can have issues, like the recent keel detachment because of a "dry" laminate.

A well-executed poor design is often preferable to a stellar design filled with construction flaws. There's nothing wrong with solid, old-school "two pot" lamination, thickness can overcome many sins. While I have nothing against them in general, cored composite laminates, on the other hand, are far less forgiving of construction and after build flaws.
 
Excellent summary and thanks. Personally believe in solid grp done by skilled workers with good quality control. Think the average owner has few avenues at “time of acceptance of vessel “ nor subsequent to the typical survey to have a firm understanding if there’s any deficiencies in construction. I’m further taken back by the trend in series production construction where there are spaces between the inner side of the hull and modular inserts for much of the interior and where’s there’s no physical or even visible access.
This is particularly a concern if repair is required. Particularly if voyaging where highly skilled and sophisticated yards are unavailable. Not an issue if in east coast Florida or Naragansett Bay. But you don’t need to be international or this to be an issue.
Yes, agree with you Steve. For the typical mom and pop boater a stick built boat has much to offer.
 
First the disclaimer. We looked seriously at all three brands, all in the +/-60' range, and picked Nordhavn, twice. It's the right fit for us.


First, given your mission goals, I would strike Fleming from the list. I think they are an excellent boat - one of the best out there - but they are an extended coastal cruising boat, not a passage maker. They really are not suitable to cross an ocean (not enough fuel) unless you get to the 75' or bigger. Fleming's voyages (all wonderful and enviable voyages) are coastal with nothing more than maybe 500-600 miles max passage. The voyages are in Europe and North America which might lead you to believe they crosses the Atlantic, but they didn't. There are two "Venture" boats, one stationed in each continent. So unless you want to ship your boat across the oceans, I don't think a Fleming meets your needs. But if you did want to ship the boat, which is what Ken Williams did most of the time, the Fleming would remain high on my list. Having the option to run 12-14kts at times for short runs would be real nice.

I agree completely with your points. For coastal cruising , in contrast, I chose Fleming twice. I see Nordhavn’s up here in British Columbia but to me they aren’t nearly as well suited for this type of cruising with too many compromises. But for blue water I would pick one over the Fleming. For Mexico to Alaska, the Fleming wins out easily in my mind. Everyone will have a different - and valid - viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
For our former long-cours 62

As a comparison. For sail a AVS of at least 120-130 is generally accepted as reasonable for blue water. 90 is a big deal in a recreational trawler. My current boat does not come close to even that . Also considered is the area of the Gz curve when the boat is past 90 degrees as that will determine how rapidly the boat will self right and if it will at all. The problem with most multihulls is once inverted they won’t self right if they turn turtle. However they have great righting arms if sufficient beam and reserve buoyancy is designed in. Along with escape hatches underneath they will stay floating if inverted so occupants can stay alive. Friend flooded his cruising cat when a escape hatch failed. Lost the engine on that side but did complete the passage.
Did go through the exercise of asking for Gz curves from Nordhavn, KK and DD. Only DD was responsive. However they didn’t give me a classic Gz curve but rather stability information in the format the Chinese use. It was Greek to me.


.


was 97° without the 30m3 volume of the roof, with that she was "self righting"
 
1. the boat's mission
2. the boat's draft
3. the boat's air draft
4. your money
5. your decision.

Realize, once a boat is 'prior owned', it will not be a 'factory standard'. You will have to spend time sorting out the 'additions and modifications.'

SHRUG
 
Last edited:
Having made extensive blue water passages, in a variety of wx conditions, on both Flemings and Nordhavns, including Venture and Venture II (the latter was sold long ago BTW), I can attest to the seaworthiness of both designs. While Flemings have crossed oceans, it's not what they are designed to do, as others have noted, and I've even heard Fleming rep's say, 'if you want to do that you should consider a Nordhavn'. But the fact is, very few people do cross oceans, and while many believe they want to, few actually realize that goal. A Fleming 65 could cross the Atlantic, via Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland, the Faroes and UK, and those are actually extraordinary cruising grounds, and far more interesting IMO than the East Coast, Bermuda, Azores, Gibraltar route. Ocean passages can be very boring.

The more practical difference between the two designs is speed, again as others have noted, as well as volume. A full displacement vessel like a N has significantly more interior volume, and cargo-carrying ability, than the same length semi-planing hull like a F. If you want more space, and you want to carry everything, including the kitchen sink, without the waterline disappearing, a full displacement vessel can do that, whereas a semi-displacement vessel can't, more weight will affect performance and the waterline. If you want to do 11 knots, and occasionally more, rather than 7, then the F rises to the top.

Vessel selection is a series of compromises and choices, define your mission and the right one becomes much clearer.
 
Steve- you have infinitely more expertise than I, and all you say makes completes sense. In addition, when I mentioned the compromises for coastal cruising of the N that ruled it out for me, I was thinking of higher decks, perhaps not walk around decks on both sides, and covered, tender access harder being carried on the bow, etc etc. there are similar compromises the F makes that may rule it out for other scenarios.
 
Excuse my possible ignorance but I've been lurking and learning from this thread and find it very informative. We have an eight year plan to hopefully move up to a trawler. Hopefully diesel won't be $50gl. or just outright banned by then.
My question is unless I missed it somewhere why has Northern Marine not come up in this discussion? Sure they had the issue with the launch of the 90' a few years back but they seem like a quality build and they're built right here in America. I got to check one out in Ketchikan last year and absolutely love the look.
 
I find this a very interesting forum, although not my cup of tea. If I wanted to cross an ocean, a plane is my first choice.


Just got off my friends Nordhvvn 55 and it was an impressive blue water vessel. Built like a brick SH, stong water proof doors, and a spare kicker engine so you could still make way and work on the primary engine. And stabilizers. He's been in a few 20 footers and the boat did fine. Not for me, need a flybridge for my coastal cruising.



Don't want to go out of sight of land.... just too boring.
 
I've spent a bunch of time on one of the early Northern Marine 75s. It's a GREAT boat, the quietest boat of its size I've ever been on, efficient, lots of tankage, huge boat deck (extended after build), nice layout. The owners have put 14,000 hours on her, including lots of Pacific crossings, and have changed or improved many systems over time.

One of the challenges with Northern Marine is you need to look at each boat individually. This is true of Nordhavn, too, but more true of Northern. They largely built what the customer wanted, so there can be some odd layouts and construction details.

Another challenge is, "who is Northern Marine?" There's been a lot of turnover in ownership, management, and employees. The other brands here have been more consistent, at least as far as ownership and management. I don't know for sure, but I imagine this impacts support. Bud LeMieux was running the company when the boat I'm familiar with was built and he's still a great resource, but he might not know much about a Northern Marine built in another time period.
 
All I can say is that you can get most of what you need in a Nordy or Krogen. Not many Flemmings have cruised the world. It’s really a gorgeous coastal cruiser. Friends who have actually done passages on them (75 feet) tell me that it is difficult in a rough sea.

Back to K vs N. Companies learn from experience and my guess is that Nordhavns have the edge on open ocean miles, and not by a small margin.

I should note that I cruised around the world for 10 years in a Nordhavn 62. I never felt in danger, even in 20 foot seas. Not that I am biased!
 
Nordhavn, in the mid 40ft range, based upon my own experience, 'get home engine', Lugger naturally aspirated main engine, 12kw NL generator, (you can shoe horn another 5 or 8 kw in the after lazaret (no sound shield.)) reasonable electronic, AP, washer dryer, water maker, over sized thrusters, rebuild the fwd stateroom to capture more storage space, hyd stabilizer and the rest is your choice.
That boat will take you anywhere until the fuel runs out.
With proper planning you can add a nice cedar lined closet, drawers and a extra bunk on the stbd side on top of the drawers. Without the mods to the fwd stateroom you may be a bit short of storage space. Even my picky ex-wife could not complain about lack of storage space (clothing). She once brought contents of her entire closet down, then the closet was tight. LOL
She also left at least year's worth of single ply TP along with a complaint that she needs/wanted 2 ply TP. She never figured out, if you fold over 1 ply, presto, 2 ply. magic, eh?
 
Last edited:
As oft mentioned, there are many fine vessels out there to throw into the mix of a Ford Vs Chevy debate. When contemplating serious blue water cruising, equally important to the vessel is the crew.

Over the years I've been following a Selene 53 - Mystic Moon. After being delivered to Seattle the owners circumnavigated Vancouver Island, traveled to AK, went down the Pacific Coast, transited the Panama Canal to the Caribbean, eventually crossing to the Matquessas, onto SE Asia, Japan, Kamchatka, Attu and back to Seattle.

So for serious blue water travels throw into this vessel comparison thread crew experience, physical fitness, few shore bound obligations, desire and immense curiosity.
 
Re Nordy, have you seen this latest you tube video?
l]

Still reckon I'd go for something like this for $300k
Throw a million at some pretty
Enjoy using the the pogo stick in the ER
And have 3 million plus in the cruising kitty.

0_4.jpg


https://www.boatsonline.com.au/boat...sel/23m-steel-passenger-charter-vessel/247859
 
Last edited:
All I can say is that you can get most of what you need in a Nordy or Krogen. Not many Flemmings have cruised the world. It’s really a gorgeous coastal cruiser. Friends who have actually done passages on them (75 feet) tell me that it is difficult in a rough sea.

Back to K vs N. Companies learn from experience and my guess is that Nordhavns have the edge on open ocean miles, and not by a small margin.

I should note that I cruised around the world for 10 years in a Nordhavn 62. I never felt in danger, even in 20 foot seas. Not that I am biased!

I've made ocean passages, rough ones, among the most memorable, from the UK to Germany (the N Sea and English Chanel lived up to their reputation), from the Aleutians to Kodiak, across the Gulf of Alaska, and from Scotland to Iceland via the Faroes (probably the most challenging), aboard Fleming 58s and 65s. They are very capable vessels. But, while some have crossed oceans, you are correct they are not not known for crossing oceans. I've traveled to Newfoundland, Greenland and Svalbard (and within 600 miles of the N Pole) aboard Nordhavns, and I too never was concerned about the vessel's integrity.

On the subject of experience, Nordhavn just shipped it's 600th vessel, one I helped build and recently inspected at their Ta Shing yard (which also built your 62), an N68. Nordhavn estimates their vessels have collectively traveled 10m miles. A handful have been lost to fires and groundings, none at sea. At any given time, a Nordhavn is probably crossing an ocean somewhere.

I've helped build KKY's, I've been to their yard several times, I'm currently working on hull #1 of their Open 60.

I'm a critic of every vessel, when I inspect a new Nordhavn, KKY or Fleming, my list is never less than 100 items long, and often over 150. None are perfect, all are different, all have their strengths and weaknesses and all three can be seaworthy, reliable, safe, and capable cruising platforms. Decide what your cruising goals and budget are first, and that will narrow down the selection process.
 
On the downside, Nordies are small boats on the interiors for their size until you get into the mid 50’s range, in my opinion. The original poster wants something in the mid 60’s to 70’s, and the comfort and liveability, becomes exponentially greater. For instance, my friend’s 68 Nordhavn was at least 30% larger than my N62. The 80’ Nordhavn is probably the same over the N68.

The N68 took twice as long to clean as my N62.
 
I might give an impression of being very industrial from the outside but its full of comfort inside. with lots of redundancy. The great thing about the raw ali finish outside is you dont have to spend your whole life polishing it. I have been around the world in one of these 64's.

The pictures of the inside I have seen of a few of them looked very luxurious indeed. I’d really like them.
 
I've made ocean passages, rough ones, among the most memorable, from the UK to Germany (the N Sea and English Chanel lived up to their reputation), from the Aleutians to Kodiak, across the Gulf of Alaska, and from Scotland to Iceland via the Faroes (probably the most challenging), aboard Fleming 58s and 65s. They are very capable vessels. But, while some have crossed oceans, you are correct they are not not known for crossing oceans. I've traveled to Newfoundland, Greenland and Svalbard (and within 600 miles of the N Pole) aboard Nordhavns, and I too never was concerned about the vessel's integrity.

On the subject of experience, Nordhavn just shipped it's 600th vessel, one I helped build and recently inspected at their Ta Shing yard (which also built your 62), an N68. Nordhavn estimates their vessels have collectively traveled 10m miles. A handful have been lost to fires and groundings, none at sea. At any given time, a Nordhavn is probably crossing an ocean somewhere.

I've helped build KKY's, I've been to their yard several times, I'm currently working on hull #1 of their Open 60.

I'm a critic of every vessel, when I inspect a new Nordhavn, KKY or Fleming, my list is never less than 100 items long, and often over 150. None are perfect, all are different, all have their strengths and weaknesses and all three can be seaworthy, reliable, safe, and capable cruising platforms. Decide what your cruising goals and budget are first, and that will narrow down the selection process.

Steve, you linked to a few of the articles you wrote about Flemings; in the one about your trip aboard the Fleming 58, you said it had at least as good of sea manners as the F65, which seems interesting to me given the size, weight and lower relative profile of the 65. Any elaboration?
 
Having made passages aboard 65's I'd rather forget sea state-wise, I was sure the 58 could not live up to that standard. On the UK to Germany passage I made I was pleasantly surprised. Fleming spent a great deal of time, effort and money on designing the 58s hull, and I can only conclude that effort paid off, the sea kindliness of the 58 was excellent in confused and quartering seas, of which there was no shortage on that passage. It's not a 65, and it does have higher freeboard, but the 58 performs and feels like a larger, heavier vessel.
 
Back
Top Bottom