Nordic tug vs Helmsman

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.

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.

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).

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

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-reviews/helmsman-43e-pilothouse
H 37
https://www.passagemaker.com/cruiser-reviews/helmsman-trawlers-37-sedan-two-staterooms

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

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

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.

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.

dirtdoc1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

FWT said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

FWT said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

phillippeterson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

phillippeterson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

phillippeterson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Hippocampus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Hippocampus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Dry. The NT gains the most proportional wet at 37,500. But it’s irrelevant. They just aren’t BWBs.

I am getting closer to actually finishing Weebles and heading south. Heading up the Caribbean is definitely a head-scratcher for me. I've done it before but in a larger faster boat (Nordhavn 57), and it was almost 20-years ago when the geopolitical strife of the area was at an ebb. Heading north from Panama Canal would be great with a decent stop in San Andres/Providencia except it's within range of ill-mannered Nicurauguans equipped with fast pangas. Easting out of the Canal makes sense, then heading to Jamaica and the Grand Bahamas Channel, but it's a long run. Plus, with Venezuela being what it is, there's a limit to how far east you can go before you hit another geo-political redzone.

Heading north into the Caribbean can mean several non-stop days of 8-foot chop (Force 5-6) forward of the beam, conditions not well suited to the upright human lifeform. According to the Pilot Charts, May gives potential respite with near-zero chance of Force 7+ but it's a narrow window backed by beginning of hurricane season on June 1st. My current thinking is to leave-open the option of shipping Weebles from Costa Rica (or similar) to Florida. Maybe we'll have a change of heart once we have 3k miles under our belt, but if not, will ship.

BTW - many NTs and ATs have made the trip from West Coast to Florida on their own bottom.

While I won't have alternative propulsion/twins, I do recognize it's a risk, albeit a low-probability (but high impact) risk. Other than that, there are many ways to make this trip as long as you're a patient person.

In my opinion, the logistics, preparation, and time needed (opportunity costs) for a 4500 nm coastal passage through a dozen countries are daunting. While I don't discount the need for a boat in which you have confidence, by the time you're ready to toss docklines, the underlying boat is less important than the prep and conditioning.

Peter

I had a 37' Nordic Tug for several years and put about 3500 or 4000 hours on it between Seattle and Alaska. Great boat, super efficient, easy to singlehanded, comfortable for two and occasional guests, simple logical systems.

We buddy boated with a Helmsman 38 during one trip to Alaska. There was a lot to like about the boat. The layout is great for a cruising couple (but not good for guests), there's tons of interior room, woodwork is beautiful. The lack of generator was a bit problematic, since we spent most of our time at anchor and sometimes stayed multiple days or didn't go far enough each day to recharge the batteries. They got by okay, but a generator would have alleviated power-anxiety and made life at anchor more comfortable...and made it possible to stay somewhere for more than one or two nights. The other surprise was the fuel consumption, which was quite a bit more than my NT. I don't remember the details, but something like 50% more fuel. We were traveling between 7 and 8 knots.

When we wanted to go further than the SE Alaska we bought a Nordhavn. Certainly overkill for what we've done so far (Prince William Sound to Sea of Cortez), but we've never regretted having the boat and countless times have looked at each other and said how glad we are not to be on our old Nordic Tug. Stabilizers make a HUGE difference on the ocean. I agree with Weebles, there's no way I'd do the Florida-Alaska run on a non-stabilized powerboat.

One thing I really appreciated on the Nordic Tug was how accessible systems were and how available parts were...pretty much everything came from North American suppliers, many of which are still in business supplying the same parts. The Nordhavn, probably like most Asian-built boats, has all sorts of non-US-standard parts...things like gas struts, deck fills, anything made from stainless. I think a lot of that is fabricated locally in Asia, and getting replacements isn't always as easy going to the local chandlery.

Retriever said:

The other surprise was the fuel consumption, which was quite a bit more than my NT. I don't remember the details, but something like 50% more fuel. We were traveling between 7 and 8 knots.

Click to expand...

What was your fuel consumption like? On the H38 its roughly 2.2 gph at 7 knots. That appears to be a pretty common level across boats that size and weight from what I can tell.

FWT said:

What was your fuel consumption like? On the H38 its roughly 2.2 gph at 7 knots. That appears to be a pretty common level across boats that size and weight from what I can tell.

Click to expand...

That's right in the ballpark I would expect as well for pretty much anything around 38 - 40 feet with diesel power. When I ran the numbers for a diesel repower in my boat (basically identical to an H38 in size but a few thousand pounds lighter, planing hull), I figured the fuel burn at 7 kts to be around 2.3 gal/hr (numbers were based on twin Cummins QSBs for my boat).

FWT

Nordic 42 with Cummins 6CTA shows this over 1200 operating hours:

3.65 Statute MPG 2.0 GPH 6.2 Kts average speed.

RPM between 1200 and 1400.

Tom

tpbrady said:

FWT

Nordic 42 with Cummins 6CTA shows this over 1200 operating hours:

3.65 Statute MPG 2.0 GPH 6.2 Kts average speed.

RPM between 1200 and 1400.

Tom

Click to expand...

The stats I have on the H38 show about 1 gph at 6 knots and about 2.2 at 7 knots.

So if your buddy was burning at twice your rate I am left to wonder if he had something else going on like a really foul bottom and prop?

On sea trial

6.8 at 1030rpm 2.3gph on a Cummins QSC 8.3.

Knee of consumption curve seems to be ~9.5 with 1700rpm 9.5gph

Temperature, pressure voltage curves pretty much flat throughout . Load gets enough to prevent troubles down the road at ~10.6k at 73%.

The NT is proportionally less beamy with a slightly better prismatic coefficient/frontal plane. Hard to compare individual boats as said bottom condition and parasitic drag may vary. Above was obtained at end of season. Boat has no fins nor fish but rather SeaKeeper so native hull (increase hull efficiency c/w other stabilization but generator on). Did short haul after sea trial so know bottom moderately dirty. 2-3’ chop. Long period slight swell of another ~2’. 10-15k wind. Equal time at cardinal points.
Average over a longer time is more meaningful in real world conditions but physics still rule. Would expect the NT hull to be slightly more efficient. But a FD hull would be considerably more efficient than either of these SD hulls at the same lwl.

Time is money. For a coastal boat speed is safety. We ran East Greenwich RI to Deltaville VA at a average of 10.2k burning 627g. Slack or against tide in Delaware. Favorable in Chesapeake.

Have been told and come to believe there’s no free lunch when discussing efficiency. If you want efficiencies get a FD hull or a very long thin boat. If long/thin you give up space and pay for LOA every where you turn. If FD you give up speed. You will then need longer weather windows to avoid unpleasantness and potentially have troubles going the wrong way against currents.
So the NTs are said to have industry leading efficiency for SD boats but the difference is minor c/w a FD boat.

Seems to me those are good fuel stats. Gotta be pleased with that. And congrats about feeling good about having picked the right boat in general for you.