which is best: Nordhavn vs. Kadey Krogen

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
B

bfloyd4445

Guru
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
1,290
Location
usa
Can't decide which to buy Nord 40 to 46 or a kady same size range. Looking for extreme range and the ability to stay weeks at sea. Any suggestions?
 
For ocean going passages, Id go with the Nordhan 46. For hang out space and full time livability, I'd go with a Krogen 44. Both have the ability to stay at sea for weeks but unless that's all you're going to do, think about how you'll be spending the remaining 90% of your boat time.

You'll find a lot more Norhavn 46's to choose from that the KK44. Availability may make the decision for you. :)
 
Better??
Better at what? Better value.. probably the KK, better at going a really long distance of true blue water.. Nordy.

Do you have $ 200,00 or $ 400,000 to spend.. that is really the question. Both boats have a stable value that all in all are very equal. I believe the KK is a bit faster and more fuel efficient.. But the Nordy carries more fuel.. and I feel that the N46 is a slightly better big water boat. And for the record I am not knocking the KK abilities one bit.

In total crap conditions I would rather be in a N46.. better layout for that kind of thing. It s kind of like asking what SUV is better a Yukon Denali or a Caddy Escalade, both will get you there.. but at a different cost.

I have been a few thousand miles at sea in a N46, and spent time in a KK42 at anchor and at the dock.. but not at sea.. so I cannot say I have a totally informed opinion. But if I had $200,000 and wanted a blue water boat I would seriously look at the KK42

That being said, I have plans to acquire a N46 for my next big adventure..
but I wish they were only $ 200,000

HOLLYWOOD
 
If you plan to be at sea for weeks at a time, then you need a boat that can survive almost anything. IMO that is the Nordhavn.


The Nordy has a tougher superstructure, better windows, redundant systems as far as possible, all of which make its ultimate survivability better than the KK. That is not to say that the KK couldn't be rigged to be the blue water equal of the Nordy. Lieshman says as much in his revised version of Bebe's book.


But straight from the factory, I would take the Nordy. And I would prefer the 46 to the 40. The 46 was designed as an all out passagemaker. The 40 made some compromises for interior space in a 40'er.


David
 
As a Krogen 42 owner I have a bias. However, I think both the Nordhavn and Krogen owners agree that if you are going to sea for weeks to cross oceans the Nordhavn 46 is the better boat. If you are island hopping in the Caribbean for weeks/months at a time, the Krogen 44 is the better boat.

Essentially the compromises that must be made on a boat were made more toward big seas on the Nordhavn and more toward livability on the Krogen.
 
bfloyd4445 said:
Can't decide which to buy Nord 40 to 46 or a kady same size range. Looking for extreme range and the ability to stay weeks at sea. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

Can you explain a bit what you mean by staying weeks at sea? Do you mean along coasts or never within view of land? The only situations I know that require weeks at sea are Atlantic and Pacific crossings and while you might do that, it's not an every day thing. Otherwise the longest distances you'll face between land are about 500-700 nm.
 
I look at them this way...if you want to spend your days at sea in a vault, Nordhavn is the answer., and in pure blue water travel, one can be grateful to be in a vault.

In most other catagories outside "pure" blue water, KK.
 
hollywood8118 said:
Better??
Better at what? Better value.. probably the KK, better at going a really long distance of true blue water.. Nordy.

Do you have $ 200,00 or $ 400,000 to spend.. that is really the question. Both boats have a stable value that all in all are very equal. I believe the KK is a bit faster and more fuel efficient.. But the Nordy carries more fuel.. and I feel that the N46 is a slightly better big water boat. And for the record I am not knocking the KK abilities one bit.

In total crap conditions I would rather be in a N46.. better layout for that kind of thing. It s kind of like asking what SUV is better a Yukon Denali or a Caddy Escalade, both will get you there.. but at a different cost.

I have been a few thousand miles at sea in a N46, and spent time in a KK42 at anchor and at the dock.. but not at sea.. so I cannot say I have a totally informed opinion. But if I had $200,000 and wanted a blue water boat I would seriously look at the KK42

That being said, I have plans to acquire a N46 for my next big adventure..
but I wish they were only $ 200,000

HOLLYWOOD
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with much of what has been said by all so far and Hollywood's summary is good.

I came unto this scene, looking for a passagemaker, in 2008, 8 years ago, we bought the KK42 3 years ago.

I didn't know Jim Leishman from Jim Krogen. I only knew what I read, and I read a lot. I probably spent a couple hours per day finding and reading everything I could for the first three years. Key points I came away with:

  • The Krogen is at least 10% more efficient at comparable speeds and sizes than the Nordhavn. This was very important to me knowing the distances I would travel and my budget for that travel.
  • The Nordy "looks" more seaworthy.
  • The Krogen living space is much better. This was also a big consideration since I wanted to live on the boat at some point.

I also drew some conclusions based on what I read or didn't read, as the case may be. This stuff was less objective, but still factors to consider:

Passagemaker magazine was not a neutral party. Their start was in large part (funded) a way to get the Nordhavn message out.
Nordhavn folks published a lot. In large part due to the PM mag connection and Nordhavn spent a lot sponsoring people to do stuff with their boats, at least until the 2008 crisis.
The publish a lot is a double edged sword, on one hand they seem to go every place, but on the other hand, they always seem to have problems, as in "we had to get this part helicoptered in to us".
Most Nordhahn owners seem to have unlimited budgets.
In the meantime, Kadey Krogen makes their owners sign a secrecy pact; or so it seems.
Krogens do go places, you just have to fill in the blanks, as in "Jill and Kevin were in Australia and now they are South America" That's abouit as wordy as it gets.
PM mag has had one article in the last 10 years about a KK crossing the ocean.
In the meanitme, Pm mag just spent 10 pages on how a Nordy figured out its fuel consumption (what no dip stick for them!)
The Marketing person for KK had a baby. I do not know it's name.

In sum, there is a lot of marketing hype out there and you must really be careful to separate the smoke from the fire. I think Passagemaking Under Power is still the bible, even having been updated by JL, and it mentions a number of ocean capable boats.

I think any decision is a compromise and as Hollywood said, one needs to figure out what they really want and/or need.

My only caveat is that a stand-up engine room does not make the boat more seaworthy, though it may change it's look.

I do have reason to believe, hope, that I will never encounter such bad conditions as I did in my North Atlantic passage:
  • in 28 days on the ocean, we only had 6 days with winds less than 15 knots. We had at least 8 days with winds 25+knots. highest winds just south of Ireland on the last day were 35 gusting to 40.
  • I had three days of seas on the beam or close to it, of 9 to 27 feet.
  • I was dead in the water three times for about 10 to 20 minutes each because I was a dope that had nothing to do with the boat.
  • And during those three stops, I never had water over any rail.
  • I never had green water over any rail. I had very little spray (though I did have spray on Long Island Sound that went OVER the pilot house).

When dead in the water, lying abeam, the Krogen just sorts of bobs up and down.

In sum, my research led me to the KK knowing I liked the compromises it made.

My Atlantic Passage made me see that maybe Jim Krogen did not make that many compromises at all.
 
Larry and Mr B raise good points. What are "weeks to sea"? First, if into comparisons, I would go to the 48' KK vs the 46 Nord rather than the 44' KK. Crossing the Atlantic, your longest run, from Bermuda to the Azores, is about 1800-1900 miles, or 10-11 days at 7.5 knots. In the Pacific, the longest run is Galapagos to the Marquesas, about 3,000 miles, or 17-18 days @ 7.5 knots. Are you really going to do so much ocean travel? Either brand can take the passages fine. Many of each brand have done so over the years. Both are well built and well supported. As a KK owner, I am biased like some others here, but that is more based n the liveabiity of the KK over the Nordhavn. Personal preference. I will say this, if you have not spent significant time at sea on a small boat, it only will take about three days at sea for you to figure out that a dock, or a very quiet anchorage, or just short island hops, (or country hops in the Med) is very attractive. You can find plenty of blogs on long voyages of either. Read Richard's blog (Wxxx3 here), www.dauntlessatsea.com, to learn about his Atlantic crossing in a KK 42, or look at MV Dirona for their around the world with some very extended ocean crossings in a Nordhavn 52. Both interesting reads.
 
Richard's points on publicity are very valid. Toss Fleming in as they're somewhere in there too. Tony writes about his trips and others get published on their pages but you don't see the PR effort you do from Nordhavn. i'm not criticizing Nordhavn when saying that as I think when it comes to PR they are extremely impressive. They have created a following that sometimes is almost cult-like in it's blindness and willingness to accept a process and post-delivery work that others wouldn't accept.

Now, that makes it difficult to truly judge their boats. Just as I won't allow their PR to steer me their way, I work hard not to allow it to steer me away either.

The reality is there are many boats capable of crossing oceans and so much depends on the captain. While Richard did it in his KK 42 and a Nordhavn 40 was mentioned, I think size is of great value in this range and I'd go as large as feasible if transatlantic and transpacific were in my plans. That brings up however the experience of the OP in this regard. The boat won't be the weak link. Read what Richard wrote about his mistakes leaving him dead in the water. The boat did fine, it was very forgiving.

I personally would pick KK over Nordhavn simply because I value the amenities and living space. On the other hand, Nordhavn's very shape gives an added feeling of safety, even if just perceived. I also advise being careful when looking at range as it changes very rapidly depending on your speed. For instance, don't get excited because a KK44 has range of 4,450 nm and will go 9 knots. Those are mutually exclusive. 4450 nm is at 6 knots and it's range at 9 knots is only 1250 nm.

Maybe Oliver will show up and talk about why he'd choose a Nordhavn as he's very knowledgeable on them. Also we have some others here who are.
 
I think you first need to look at exactly what you want to do. An Atlantic crossing is very different from a pacific crossing. Lots of boats can make the approx 1800nm Atlantic crossing. But a lot fewer can make the 2400nm Pacific crossing. So I think you really need to look closely at exactly how far you want to be able to go, then evaluate specific boats with that in mind. Just saying Nordhavn vs KK probably isn't specific enough. Different models will perform differently, have different fuel capacity, and different ability to carry a fuel bladder which might be needed. If you can pass on the Pacific and just want to cross the Atlantic, it will open up your options considerably.

A lot of times I hear about Nordhavn's great marketing. I'm not saying it's bad. Not by any means. But it's not Nordhavn's marketing department who are out cruising around the world, crossing oceans, and racking up millions of miles. OK, they did do the N40 around the world trip, but that's one trip. It's their owners and their boat's that are out cruising the world, doing it all the time, over and over again. I don't think it's a stretch to say that every day there is a Nordhavn making an ocean crossing somewhere in the world. In that respect, I don't think there is any comparison with KK - not even close. Marketing is easy when there is a story to tell. KK has a great story too, but it's generally not an ocean crossing story.
 
BandB said:
Can you explain a bit what you mean by staying weeks at sea? Do you mean along coasts or never within view of land? The only situations I know that require weeks at sea are Atlantic and Pacific crossings and while you might do that, it's not an every day thing. Otherwise the longest distances you'll face between land are about 500-700 nm.
Click to expand...

Good question: I will in all probability use the boat for offshore fishing likely out of sight of land 80% of the time I'm aboard. The other 20% will likely be gunkholing and i am entertaining the idea of an atlantic crossing and a trip to Hawaii. I'm retired and can fine the time. But the truth is i mostly fish and want a boat that can handle a typhoon or hurricane and force 10 winds seas.
 
healhustler said:
I look at them this way...if you want to spend your days at sea in a vault, Nordhavn is the answer., and in pure blue water travel, one can be grateful to be in a vault.

In most other catagories outside "pure" blue water, KK.
Click to expand...

hummm...a vault, like in jail or like bulletproof? I know nothing of these boats but from what i have read these two brands are like the creme of the crop. KK's definately have been aroung the globe many times but so have the nord's
Thanks for your input when i spend this money i will be broke and at 69 not likely to have time to save up again
 
Wxx3 said:
I pretty much agree with much of what has been said by all so far and Hollywood's summary is good.

I came unto this scene, looking for a passagemaker, in 2008, 8 years ago, we bought the KK42 3 years ago.

I didn't know Jim Leishman from Jim Krogen. I only knew what I read, and I read a lot. I probably spent a couple hours per day finding and reading everything I could for the first three years. Key points I came away with:

  • The Krogen is at least 10% more efficient at comparable speeds and sizes than the Nordhavn. This was very important to me knowing the distances I would travel and my budget for that travel.
  • The Nordy "looks" more seaworthy.
  • The Krogen living space is much better. This was also a big consideration since I wanted to live on the boat at some point.

I also drew some conclusions based on what I read or didn't read, as the case may be. This stuff was less objective, but still factors to consider:

Passagemaker magazine was not a neutral party. Their start was in large part (funded) a way to get the Nordhavn message out.
Nordhavn folks published a lot. In large part due to the PM mag connection and Nordhavn spent a lot sponsoring people to do stuff with their boats, at least until the 2008 crisis.
The publish a lot is a double edged sword, on one hand they seem to go every place, but on the other hand, they always seem to have problems, as in "we had to get this part helicoptered in to us".
Most Nordhahn owners seem to have unlimited budgets.
In the meantime, Kadey Krogen makes their owners sign a secrecy pact; or so it seems.
Krogens do go places, you just have to fill in the blanks, as in "Jill and Kevin were in Australia and now they are South America" That's abouit as wordy as it gets.
PM mag has had one article in the last 10 years about a KK crossing the ocean.
In the meanitme, Pm mag just spent 10 pages on how a Nordy figured out its fuel consumption (what no dip stick for them!)
The Marketing person for KK had a baby. I do not know it's name.

In sum, there is a lot of marketing hype out there and you must really be careful to separate the smoke from the fire. I think Passagemaking Under Power is still the bible, even having been updated by JL, and it mentions a number of ocean capable boats.

I think any decision is a compromise and as Hollywood said, one needs to figure out what they really want and/or need.

My only caveat is that a stand-up engine room does not make the boat more seaworthy, though it may change it's look.

I do have reason to believe, hope, that I will never encounter such bad conditions as I did in my North Atlantic passage:
  • in 28 days on the ocean, we only had 6 days with winds less than 15 knots. We had at least 8 days with winds 25+knots. highest winds just south of Ireland on the last day were 35 gusting to 40.
  • I had three days of seas on the beam or close to it, of 9 to 27 feet.
  • I was dead in the water three times for about 10 to 20 minutes each because I was a dope that had nothing to do with the boat.
  • And during those three stops, I never had water over any rail.
  • I never had green water over any rail. I had very little spray (though I did have spray on Long Island Sound that went OVER the pilot house).

When dead in the water, lying abeam, the Krogen just sorts of bobs up and down.

In sum, my research led me to the KK knowing I liked the compromises it made.

My Atlantic Passage made me see that maybe Jim Krogen did not make that many compromises at all.
Click to expand...

Well one of my aspirations is to sail to the British islands and the north Atlantic is intimidating. I likely will never do so but sounds like the kk42 which is highly recomended is a good choice. Thank you for the info, if out my way Coo's Bay Oregon rattle my cage cause we know how to brew a pint<smile> but terrible whisky:)
 
THD said:
... In the Pacific, the longest run is Galapagos to the Marquesas, about 3,000 miles, or 17-18 days @ 7.5 knots. ...
Click to expand...
You can make a Pacific Crossing via Hawaii with a lot shorter passages. SF to Hawaii is 2100nm. From Hawaii you can head south to NZ without any longer passages.

At least that's how I plan to do it :)

Richard
 
twistedtree said:
I think you first need to look at exactly what you want to do. An Atlantic crossing is very different from a pacific crossing. Lots of boats can make the approx 1800nm Atlantic crossing. But a lot fewer can make the 2400nm Pacific crossing. So I think you really need to look closely at exactly how far you want to be able to go, then evaluate specific boats with that in mind. Just saying Nordhavn vs KK probably isn't specific enough. Different models will perform differently, have different fuel capacity, and different ability to carry a fuel bladder which might be needed. If you can pass on the Pacific and just want to cross the Atlantic, it will open up your options considerably.

A lot of times I hear about Nordhavn's great marketing. I'm not saying it's bad. Not by any means. But it's not Nordhavn's marketing department who are out cruising around the world, crossing oceans, and racking up millions of miles. OK, they did do the N40 around the world trip, but that's one trip. It's their owners and their boat's that are out cruising the world, doing it all the time, over and over again. I don't think it's a stretch to say that every day there is a Nordhavn making an ocean crossing somewhere in the world. In that respect, I don't think there is any comparison with KK - not even close. Marketing is easy when there is a story to tell. KK has a great story too, but it's generally not an ocean crossing story.
Click to expand...

I live on the Pasific coast of Oregon and California so a pacific crossing is more likely but the truth is i mostly just enjoy the seaaway from land and fish. Thanks
Britt
 
Britannia said:
You can make a Pacific Crossing via Hawaii with a lot shorter passages. SF to Hawaii is 2100nm. From Hawaii you can head south to NZ without any longer passages.

At least that's how I plan to do it :)

Richard
Click to expand...
Hawaii is easy from the west coast and in a powerboat the doldrums are not a real problem. Are you gonna do Cape horn?
 
Britannia said:
You can make a Pacific Crossing via Hawaii with a lot shorter passages. SF to Hawaii is 2100nm. From Hawaii you can head south to NZ without any longer passages.

At least that's how I plan to do it :)

Richard
Click to expand...

Richard,
It is a long way across some big water either south or west of Hawaii.. And there is a LOT of Pacific Ocean out there. If one wishes to stay in the N.Pac Hawaii is ok.. if you want to go South it is a uncomfortable ride with a big beam sea for a long way.
One the plus side you have a great boat to do it in
HOLLYWOOD
 
hollywood8118 said:
Richard,
It is a long way across some big water either south or west of Hawaii.. And there is a LOT of Pacific Ocean out there. If one wishes to stay in the N.Pac Hawaii is ok.. if you want to go South it is a uncomfortable ride with a big beam sea for a long way.
One the plus side you have a great boat to do it in
HOLLYWOOD
Click to expand...

My question would be to you sir how does your ocean alexandra compare to a nord and kk in your opinion?
 
Britt-if you are really interested primarily in multi-day offshore fishing, neither the Nord or the KK would be on my list. Neither is set up for fishing and would take major modifications before either would be even minimally suitable. For that you really need something like what MYTraveler has, I think a 75' Mikelson.
 
THD said:
Britt-if you are really interested primarily in multi-day offshore fishing, neither the Nord or the KK would be on my list. Neither is set up for fishing and would take major modifications before either would be even minimally suitable. For that you really need something like what MYTraveler has, I think a 75' Mikelson.
Click to expand...

That's where things really get complicated for him as the Mikelson and most other similar boats lacks the range to cross the Atlantic or Pacific. The 75' Mikelson only carries 2600 gallons of fuel and with twin 1825 HP CAT's that's not going to get you across.

Sportfishing aficionados could never live with the slow speed of a KK or Nordhavn. They want to get to the hot spots more quickly.

Ultimately all boats are compromises and a KK or Nordhavn could be modified to be an ok fishing vessel.
 
"i mostly fish and want a boat that can handle a typhoon or hurricane and force 10 winds seas."

Weather fax is free on the air to your computer.

There is no reason ever to be caught out in F10 . 55-65K no big deal but 120K , hardly.

The hassle is the compromises required to survive in really heavy weather (which would include rollovers) makes for a really crappy vessel for the 99.999 of the time .

Huge fuel and water tanks , eat much of the interior volume .

Tiny ports , super strong doors and the requirement for multiple hand holds inside do not make for a comfortable boat at any time.

Watch a couple of issues on TV of the folks fishing off Alaska in the winter and decide if that is going to be your retirement dream.
 
THD said:
Britt-if you are really interested primarily in multi-day offshore fishing, neither the Nord or the KK would be on my list. Neither is set up for fishing and would take major modifications before either would be even minimally suitable. For that you really need something like what MYTraveler has, I think a 75' Mikelson.
Click to expand...

That is where Mikelsons excel. Some of the features, like large in-transom bait tanks, plenty of rod holders, scanning sonar and a tower can be added to many boats, some other aspects are inherent to the design. For example, there are no deck supports or other obstructions to prevent an angler from following a fish around the boat with ease. And since the larger Mikelsons are semi-custom, an owner can have the boat fine tuned to his needs.




BandB said:
That's where things really get complicated for him as the Mikelson and most other similar boats lacks the range to cross the Atlantic or Pacific. The 75' Mikelson only carries 2600 gallons of fuel and with twin 1825 HP CAT's that's not going to get you across.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Mikelson Nomad is not a go-fast boat, but is instead optimized for range. We carry 2300 gallons, typically travel at 8.7 knots (a little slower at night and when trolling for tuna) and average a little better than 1 nmpg. Slowing even one knot hugely increases the range, improving efficiency to better than 1.5 nmpg. Without any effort to maximize range, in one trip we burned less than half our fuel and covered 1200 nm. On that basis, I think the boat has the range to make it the 2200nm to Hawaii, though if I were doing it, I would run at 7.5 knots (or slower if need be) until my remaining fuel, relative to DTG gave a more comfortable margin.

BandB said:
Sportfishing aficionados could never live with the slow speed of a KK or Nordhavn. They want to get to the hot spots more quickly.
Click to expand...

My last boat was a go-fast sportfishing battlewagon, which carried 1,000 gallons of fuel. I could easily burn all of it in a weekend of fishing within 100 miles of port. But I lacked the range to get to Guadalupe Island (something like 170nm out of Ensenada) and fish for a week, at least without bladders and running the boat at displacement speeds -- not good for my DD's, which like to be hot.

Since the really good fishing (which I define as the chance to catch more, bigger, and different fish than I am accustomed to) is not close enough for the weekend warriors to reach, I went on a search for a long range sportfisher. Mikelson doesn't have a good PR machine, in fact it barely advertises and most of its ads are for their most affordable and popular boats (go-fast sportfishers). So, it was only by luck that I stumbled into the Nomad. I had settled on a Nordhavn, and was at the stage of negotiating the contract. I quickly realized that a Nomad better suited my needs. Much better, although I have no ambitions to cross any ocean. I do aspire to go to the Galapagos, Costa Rica, Panama, through the canal and see what lies beyond. Before that, I want to get to Alaska. Other Nomads (and there aren't many), have done all of that before and I believe those owners would all agree they have the right boat for that sort of mission.
 
bfloyd4445 said:
My question would be to you sir how does your ocean alexandra compare to a nord and kk in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Interesting question...

We bought the O.A. as a temporary boat.. I figure five years max we will keep it. For what we plan to do with it it's a really great boat.. actually better suited than my previous passage making capable boat for the Pac. N.W.
Easier to handle,dock,operate,own than a more complicated true passagemaker ( I.E. Nordhavn with multiple ac units, generators, watermaker, get home engine etc. ) Great layout, fast, comfy .. and above all else a great value.
I wouldn't hesitate to cruise the O.A. between Alaska and Panama.. all coastal cruising in my view. She has about a 1000 mile range at 8kts and doesnt roll too bad for a non-stabilized boat.
The build quality is ok.. not fantastic.. but the previous owner had spent an insane amount of money on her having it professionally re wired, re plumbed and totally updated. Her systems are fairly complicated for a typical O.A. with a watermaker, hydronic heat, multiple refrigerators etc.

She is a great boat but not even close in the league of Nordhavn or a Kady Krogen as a true distance/ long term liveaboard cruising boat.

In the last five years we have gone the opposite direction most boaters go..from a palatial custom 47' passagemaker to a 40' luxurious fast 40' SeaRay to a slow 40' O.A. Europa.. all completely different boats designed for different types of boating.. all did their respective type of boating actually very well.
The choice comes down to this..
What you wish to do with the boat
What you can afford.

I am also lucky as I spend time on other folks Nordhavn's in many other countries and that has fulfilled my Nordhavn lust for the short term.. and given me great knowledge of the boats that can only be gained by going to sea in them.

HOLLYWOOD
 
bfloyd4445 said:
Good question: I will in all probability use the boat for offshore fishing likely out of sight of land 80% of the time I'm aboard. The other 20% will likely be gunkholing and i am entertaining the idea of an atlantic crossing and a trip to Hawaii. I'm retired and can fine the time. But the truth is i mostly fish and want a boat that can handle a typhoon or hurricane and force 10 winds seas.
Click to expand...
So far you've indicated that 100% of the time you'll either be fishing offshore or gunk holing. So the question you've asked, is the wrong question! A huge number of boats Will do what you've indicated you want to do!
 
Last edited:
Nordhavn.

The 46 is one of my favorite boats .. even the style except for the stern hull shape. The stern is fine functionally but lacks graceful lines. The 46 was featured in "voyaging under Power" and the design was slanted heavily toward passagemaking. Probably the only 100% FD Nordhavn. Others are 98 to 99% FD IMO. We just went aboard one at Anacortes Trawler Fest. Was an old boat and the cap rails are wood as evidenced by missing sections of the outer coating. I had always thought the CR was plastic. What a chore that would be to refinish! My favorite boat though.


THE 43 was was praised heavily for being better than the 46 w a longer WLL so may be a bit faster than the 46 but may burn a bit more fuel. Don't like the chunky looks but the 43 is probably a very good boat.

But if I had a Seaton boat to choose from I'd probably go for that. Steel and heavy full displacement.
 
THD said:
Britt-if you are really interested primarily in multi-day offshore fishing, neither the Nord or the KK would be on my list. Neither is set up for fishing and would take major modifications before either would be even minimally suitable. For that you really need something like what MYTraveler has, I think a 75' Mikelson.
Click to expand...

Thnks I'll check them out. Your right they wont be as good as my grady was but far more comfortable especially for extended stays
 
FF said:
"i mostly fish and want a boat that can handle a typhoon or hurricane and force 10 winds seas."

Weather fax is free on the air to your computer.

There is no reason ever to be caught out in F10 . 55-65K no big deal but 120K , hardly.

The hassle is the compromises required to survive in really heavy weather (which would include rollovers) makes for a really crappy vessel for the 99.999 of the time .

Huge fuel and water tanks , eat much of the interior volume .

Tiny ports , super strong doors and the requirement for multiple hand holds inside do not make for a comfortable boat at any time.

Watch a couple of issues on TV of the folks fishing off Alaska in the winter and decide if that is going to be your retirement dream.
Click to expand...

Youyr right and i don't plan on being caught in those conditions but stuff happens.
The Nord's look very solid but so do the kk's and both seem to have well structured doors thats why i chose them, definately not because of there fishing amenities. Not interested in a 75 foot boat i could never afford to take it out and would be one of those weekend marina people that are so common. My boats get used
Thanks for the comment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Nordhavn 40...lack of side decks
2 3
Replies
76
Views
6K
Bravo
B
J
Small boat cruising SE U.S.
Replies
9
Views
1K
mvweebles
mvweebles
mvweebles
5-mos Cruising Pacific Mexico Q&A
Replies
11
Views
1K
PNW
PNW
Adopo
Stability and righting ability
Replies
19
Views
3K
Hippocampus
H
slowgoesit
"The "average" boat in the Sea of Cortez"
Replies
3
Views
3K
ksanders
ksanders

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom