Realistic top cruising speed for Nordic 42 ?

[Nomad Willy]

Originally Posted by Rufus

QUOTE=CDreamer;598363]I am just asking: Aren't the hydraulic pads just intended to keep the boat upright, while the boat's weight is resting on the keel?

I didn't realize those would put more pressure on the hull than "manually positioned" screw-jack type pads.

You are probably correct regarding that trailer...looks like provisions for cross beams under the keel (the square holes in the trailer frame). Can't tell where it's blocked from the photo. If so, that's the "good design" trailer, although I don't know for a fact that they don't lift the boat on the pads prior to installing the keel supports.

I know for sure that the one in the photo below lifts and transports the entire boat on pads. Lunacy. It's a Conolift product. Don't allow one near your boat!

Attachment 69130[/QUOTE]

Depends on the skill of the operator.

[Benthic2]

From: Nordic Tug 42: Sea Trial - boats.com

The Nordic Tug 42 is designed for fuel efficiency — and when it comes to fuel consumption, the boat's standard single 450 hp Cummins diesel engine and the optional 635 hp powerplant both pass efficiency tests with flying colors. The 42's top speed, with the standard engine, is 17 knots. It cruises comfortably at 14 knots — and at a slower cruise speed of 9 knots, the 42 burns less than 3 gallons of fuel per hour.

[OldDan1943]

Of course if you are well-healed long distance travelers do not discount the Nordhavn 43 or larger.
Top speed about 8knts but you can travel forever and in great comfort. I would give serious consideration to adding an active stabilizer system.
I had a N46.... I no longer have it. Major boat yard screw up followed by a 3 year legal dispute .... a long story and it would just make you and me cry in our beer.

[tpbrady]

I think sea trials are done with boats that are considerably lighter than the same boat used for cruising. My 42 shows a dry weight of 26,000 lbs. I haven't weighed it but my guess I am pushing 38,000 lbs with full fuel, water, food, clothes, dinghy, kayak, electronics, tools, spare parts, gasoline for the dinghy, generator, spare anchor and rode, electronics, and all the other things that tend to collect. I think 17 knots on a Nordic 42 with a 450HP Cummins loaded for cruising would maybe make 14 knots and at 9 knots would burn more than 3 gph. Here is a summary of my 2016 summer:

Distance (SM) 2471
Fuel 720
MPG 3.43
GPH 2.03
Engine Hours 354.9
Gen Hours 32.5

Average speed in all engine hours was about 6.3 knots. I don't have 2017 yet, but I believe it should be nearly the same.

Tom

[BandB]

Originally Posted by tpbrady

I think sea trials are done with boats that are considerably lighter than the same boat used for cruising. My 42 shows a dry weight of 26,000 lbs. I haven't weighed it but my guess I am pushing 38,000 lbs with full fuel, water, food, clothes, dinghy, kayak, electronics, tools, spare parts, gasoline for the dinghy, generator, spare anchor and rode, electronics, and all the other things that tend to collect. I think 17 knots on a Nordic 42 with a 450HP Cummins loaded for cruising would maybe make 14 knots and at 9 knots would burn more than 3 gph. Here is a summary of my 2016 summer:

Distance (SM) 2471
Fuel 720
MPG 3.43
GPH 2.03
Engine Hours 354.9
Gen Hours 32.5

Average speed in all engine hours was about 6.3 knots. I don't have 2017 yet, but I believe it should be nearly the same.

Tom

It depends on the builder but many detail exactly how the boat was loaded. Also some of the people like boattest and powerandmotoryacht and others do the same in their tests. We've actually found our boats to exceed what we were told slightly. Ours have been builders who would rather you be surprised in a good way than disappointed. Now, some things will really impact if not in the original tests and that's things like a dinghy and crane because of both weight and location. I've seen one builder's 50' that runs fine low on fuel and without the tender but you put all that weight in the stern and they had to move people forward in the boat to plane. Finally with larger trim tabs it got better but not good. We took weights and put them in multiple areas testing before adding equipment.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by tpbrady

...

Average speed in all engine hours was about 6.3 knots. I don't have 2017 yet, but I believe it should be nearly the same.

Tom

That's my normal cruising speed (one knot below hull speed), consuming much less than 2 gph with an 80-horsepower engine.

[North Baltic sea]

I believe that this NT42 635hp machine will have a fine and seaworthy tugs, above all, if necessary, the power will not end in the end when time is up and the boat stocks are full of everything.


I've seen a lot of boats and I am confident for the quality, strongly and sustainably time NT built a boat.


Good luck hunting for a well-liked Nordic tug.


NBs

[eyschulman]

Originally Posted by Benthic2

From: Nordic Tug 42: Sea Trial - boats.com

The Nordic Tug 42 is designed for fuel efficiency — and when it comes to fuel consumption, the boat's standard single 450 hp Cummins diesel engine and the optional 635 hp powerplant both pass efficiency tests with flying colors. The 42's top speed, with the standard engine, is 17 knots. It cruises comfortably at 14 knots — and at a slower cruise speed of 9 knots, the 42 burns less than 3 gallons of fuel per hour.

I do believe the boats are efficient but the 3/gal/hr at 9K seems out of sorts. 9K is above hull speed. I would think a loaded boat in real life would be more like 5/gal/hr at 9K and 4 at 8K and I would expect a bit over 7K at 3/gal/hr. I would expect the quoted 3/gal/hr at 9K numbers to come from a builder or sales pitch a common practice. If the boat were marketed by the Trump gang it would be billed as the most efficient and best in the world and then go and try to sue them for advertising fraud.

[smitty477]

Originally Posted by eyschulman

I do believe the boats are efficient but the 3/gal/hr at 9K seems out of sorts. 9K is above hull speed. I would think a loaded boat in real life would be more like 5/gal/hr at 9K and 4 at 8K and I would expect a bit over 7K at 3/gal/hr. I would expect the quoted 3/gal/hr at 9K numbers to come from a builder or sales pitch a common practice. If the boat were marketed by the Trump gang it would be billed as the most efficient and best in the world and then go and try to sue them for advertising fraud.

Yes , exactly. At 9 knots you will be much higher than just a knot or two lower. I believe your observation to be very accurate.

[seasalt007]

Originally Posted by eyschulman

I do believe the boats are efficient but the 3/gal/hr at 9K seems out of sorts.

I agree.

At 9 kts my QSC 8.3 540 hp is burning around 8.3+ gph. At 8.5 kts (1600rpms) I am burning exactly 7.7 gph.

[eyschulman]

Originally Posted by seasalt007

I agree.

At 9 kts my QSC 8.3 540 hp is burning around 8.3+ gph. At 8.5 kts (1600rpms) I am burning exactly 7.7 gph.

Yes more like it. My boat which is very efficient for its type with twins and 46.8 ft LWL fine entry 32,000lb SD gets 6/gal/hr at 9k which is just within my hull speed.