Nordic tug vs Helmsman

[phillippeterson]

What might you know about comparing Nordic Tug to Helmsman?

If there is already a thread on this (I didn't find one) please direct us there.

[soin2la]

https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/...tug-54203.html

[magna 6882]

I am not so sure one can have a boat vs boat discussion that is logical. While i have not seen the helmsman plant since its in china but i have toured both nordic and american tug looking at boats at various stages. They both build a good boat. I think needs,layout and cost point are what most end up using when picking out there boat.

[Hippocampus]

We looked at both and also AT. Personal opinion is construction details on the NT are better. Also don’t miss the added beam of the other two in comparison. Think the narrower hull is slightly more efficient. You still get passageways on both sides unlike the N40 or 43. Do like LWL is close to LOA so you get a decent hull speed. So people experience a wave slap at anchor. Haven’t had that )yet).

[jimdavi]

Looked at both before selecting the NP 45. It depends on what you like. I kept going back to North Pacific.

[soin2la]

Maybe the closest you will get to a comparison will be reviews.

Google produces lots of hits.

Here’s a few.
H 43
https://www.passagemaker.com/cruiser...43e-pilothouse
H 37
https://www.passagemaker.com/cruiser...two-staterooms

NT 40-44
https://www.passagemaker.com/cruiser...tugs-twin-bill
NT 39
https://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/b.../nordic-tug-39
More
https://www.passagemaker.com/search?query=helmsman

https://www.passagemaker.com/search?query=nordic+tug

[dirtdoc1]

Nordic Tug 44 vs Helmsman 46

I think the NT 44 is over priced but is a beautiful build with a nice interior layout. I don't care for the tug look.

The Helmsman have improved their look and appear to be well built. I really like their new 46. It's a very nice looking boat. Unfortunately Helmsman decided not to put a hardtop over the flybridge. I haven't found any interior pics.

Personally I'd go with the Helmsman 46 if the interior layout is reasonably well done but I haven't seen any interior pictures of it. The reason is the look and the price assuming build quality is comparable. But if I actually saw them in person and sea trialed them my opinion might change.

So all said and done my opinion is pretty much worthless.

[FWT]

Do you want more of a planning hull, or one that leans more toward displacement?

The former takes you toward American / Nordic tugs. The latter toward Helmsman.

Either one can go slow. Both can go faster (with enough engine optioned into the build). Just different animals.

There are lots of interior pics and layouts posted online for you to make those personal judgements.

The H46 was mentioned above. There are no pics yet because there is no completed boat. Yet.

[phillippeterson]

Originally Posted by dirtdoc1

Nordic Tug 44 vs Helmsman 46

I think the NT 44 is over priced but is a beautiful build with a nice interior layout. I don't care for the tug look.

The Helmsman have improved their look and appear to be well built. I really like their new 46. It's a very nice looking boat. Unfortunately Helmsman decided not to put a hardtop over the flybridge. I haven't found any interior pics.

Personally I'd go with the Helmsman 46 if the interior layout is reasonably well done but I haven't seen any interior pictures of it. The reason is the look and the price assuming build quality is comparable. But if I actually saw them in person and sea trialed them my opinion might change.

So all said and done my opinion is pretty much worthless.

Originally Posted by FWT

Do you want more of a planning hull, or one that leans more toward displacement?

The former takes you toward American / Nordic tugs. The latter toward Helmsman.

Either one can go slow. Both can go faster (with enough engine optioned into the build). Just different animals.

There are lots of interior pics and layouts posted online for you to make those personal judgements.

The H46 was mentioned above. There are no pics yet because there is no completed boat. Yet.

Both these posts are much appreciated. Your opinion is not so worthless as you think. I value opinions as much as stats. That's why I asked.

[FWT]

What are you looking for? Your home port just lists a city whose name I don't recognize, so where do you intend to use it?

[phillippeterson]

Originally Posted by FWT

What are you looking for? Your home port just lists a city whose name I don't recognize, so where do you intend to use it?

Texas to Florida - the Loop - maybe Bahamas - maybe Mexico to Belize when weather is best. Would like to try the canal someday and mosey through Baja Sea of Cortez then all the way to Alaska. I know it's a lot to ask of a small boat.

Looking at a Kadey Krogen but might want to start small to see how wife likes it.

[dirtdoc1]

Originally Posted by phillippeterson

Texas to Florida - the Loop - maybe Bahamas - maybe Mexico to Belize when weather is best. Would like to try the canal someday and mosey through Baja Sea of Cortez then all the way to Alaska. I know it's a lot to ask of a small boat.

Looking at a Kadey Krogen but might want to start small to see how wife likes it.

Yes go with a Kadey Krogen, full displacement hull with ballast. You won't have to worry about being in open ocean with a KK. I took possession of my NP45 in Bellingham and spent almost 3 seasons cruising the San Juan's and BC. It was perfect in the protected waters. I installed stabilizers for my trip down the coast to San Francisco. I'm glad I did because the following seas would have been a battle all the way down. She did great though. I've heard from multiple KK owners that following seas aren't much of an issue or not an issue at all! The KK is going to weigh a lot more which, really helps in many ways. But if you want a semi-displacement trawler go with the North Pacific. It is a very good boat and is priced comparable to the Helmsman, or at least they were. I am obviously biased.

You can't go wrong with a Kadey Krogen. There used to be a lot of KK42s around for very reasonable price.

Good luck and let us know what you get!

[FWT]

Originally Posted by phillippeterson

Texas to Florida - the Loop - maybe Bahamas - maybe Mexico to Belize when weather is best. Would like to try the canal someday and mosey through Baja Sea of Cortez then all the way to Alaska. I know it's a lot to ask of a small boat.

Looking at a Kadey Krogen but might want to start small to see how wife likes it.

OK. If that's the plan, then I'd say a Helmsman is more like a KK than the two tugs would be.

[Hippocampus]

I’m curious FWT. Why do you say the Helmsman is more like a KK than a NT? My understanding is that NTs have done the big U. Coming off a sail BWB yes the NT isn’t a transoceanic vessel but they do have quite a reputation as a good boat for nearshore. There’s good reasons the NTs are ~1/3 more expensive.
You may want to at AVS, downflooding risks, comfort quotient, A/B and the other factors one usually considers. Also range (at various speeds) and efficiency should be taken into consideration.
Both boats are definitely not A but B and should only be used as such. Comparisons to true BWBs like Nordhavn or KK seem inappropriate imho.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by phillippeterson

Texas to Florida - the Loop - maybe Bahamas - maybe Mexico to Belize when weather is best. Would like to try the canal someday and mosey through Baja Sea of Cortez then all the way to Alaska. I know it's a lot to ask of a small boat.

Looking at a Kadey Krogen but might want to start small to see how wife likes it.

It's a series of 1-3 day trips so definitely doable by any of the three. I personally wouldn't do the trip in an ustabilized boat. Low latitudes means intense sun, heat, and rain. Well bedded and designed windows are as important as strength. Long distance cruising means needing a strong dinghy so launch and retrieval is important, especially since theft is a concern in many areas.

My point is there is a threshold of design that is "good enough" and all three are there. After that, liveability, maintainability, and comfort/convenience are more important than trying to grade seakeeping between A and A-. From Florida to Los Angeles takes most cruisers over a year yet you will put less than 600 engine hours on the boat - 25 days or so.

Peter

[FWT]

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

I’m curious FWT. Why do you say the Helmsman is more like a KK than a NT? My understanding is that NTs have done the big U. Coming off a BWB yes the NT isn’t a transoceanic vessel but they do have quite a reputation as a good boat for nearshore.

For starters, I think the two tugs are both great boats. Seriously. Both well built, good size options and layouts. I'm sure folks can and would begin to get picky about the small differences in choosing AT vs NT, but in the end both are good boats.

My reason is quite simple. The Helmsman hulls lean much more toward the displacement end of things, where the KK's are. You "can", and some do, option them up with larger engines and trim tabs and push them to higher speeds (mid teens), but the tug hulls are designed with that parameter in mind. The Helmsman is a heavier boat by comparison to the tugs and doesn't really have the planning hull the tugs have. From what I see, Helmsman boats are pretty much operated within single digit speeds. While the tugs are quite often operated at double digit speeds.

Hence the "what do you want" question. All boats he mentioned are terrific boats. But just lean in different directions. If one wants a test of life in a heavier boat, and a life at 7 knots, go Helmsman. If one wants a life at 15 knots and lighter, go the tug route. Both directions are "right", just different choices.

[sunchaser]

At some point the experience, capability and available funds of the owner enters the "what boat is best" discussion. Especially so for the ambitious travel plans PPP envisages.

Even though an NT or Helmsman could do the ambitious travel agenda, looking forward I'd much prefer a newer KK (twins or get home equipped) or Nordhavn where the boat's capability is not in question. Then the crew, a significant other best be experienced and with good sea legs.

By all means, the Chevy Vs Ford discussion is a fun read. However, a Ram Power Wagon or Defender may be the ultimate best choice once the decision is made for going off road.

[Hippocampus]

H43 35000. NT 42 or 44 is 31,400. So 3,600 lbs. difference or around 10% difference.
KK 44 43,140lb. Nordhavn 41 43,100lbs. So these have a truly significant difference in displacement to LOA in comparison.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

H43 35000. NT 42 or 44 is 31,400. So 3,600 lbs. difference or around 10% difference.
KK 44 43,140lb. Nordhavn 41 43,100lbs. So these have a truly significant difference in displacement to LOA in comparison.

Are those dry weights or loaded weights? If they're dry weights, I'd be curious how the comparison changes if adding the weight of full fuel and water (and a 50% holding tank) onto the dry weight.

[Hippocampus]

Biggest weather issue we found blue water cruising wasn’t gales or storms as long as you were smart about picking your season and had good weather schooling supplemented by a good weather router. Rather it was line squalls first and Tstorms second. We experienced one microburst but fortunately at night so already reefed and far enough away not a true knock down (about 60 degrees-stick didn’t get wet). I would not want to be on any B rated boat on any of the jumps Peter astutely defines in post #15. Also 3-4m swells from distant storms weren’t uncommon. There’s a gyre in the southern Caribbean Sea. Going south is fairly easily done. Going north can be more problematic. The northern route from the canal to the eastern Caribbean island chain isn’t a walk in the park either. As curls in the current produce a chop . Many folks go far north before getting their east in to have a more pleasant trip.
So think there’s much wisdom in Sunchasers and Peter’s posts. In short if you’re going to do blue water get a BWB. Even line squalls can be very nasty although brief. However not that uncommon to have a field of them on and off for quite awhile.
BTW the only times I’ve experienced storms (by Beaufort definition) has been coastal. Now like being able to get better forecasting and having 17kts in my back pocket with landfalls available in a few hours. Different world in the open ocean. No where to run. No where to hide.