I would have no issue on short trips.. but I understand that the watch requirements of longer trips would require additional crew. Fortunately I have a long list of willing and experienced options.
"Seaworthiness" - Nordhavn 62 vs 63
- Thread starter SBarlow
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Delfin
Grand Vizier
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,823
Ditto on the 57. Nordhavn bought one for their personal boat, I am told, perhaps because many believe it is the best model they built. And it would certainly be big enough for single handing.
Judy at JWY
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
- Messages
- 205
"It is my understanding that the 63 is an extended 55.."
My understanding is that the 55 needed more waterline length so she was stretched to a 60. Not stretched enough, so she was extended to a 63. Running gear in same position as 55's. I wrote a review on the N63 for another boating forum which you can find pretty easily by searching other yacht forums. Be sure to read between the lines.
I have sold maybe a dozen N62s (Pendana included) and therefore have been on about a dozen sea trials and surveys on the 62s. Have heard opinions that the optional bustle is pretty much a necessity. I only had one owner who was not happy with his 62, but I think the boat was just too complicated for him (he came from a CL 55.) I remain a fan of the Nordhavn 62.
My understanding is that the 55 needed more waterline length so she was stretched to a 60. Not stretched enough, so she was extended to a 63. Running gear in same position as 55's. I wrote a review on the N63 for another boating forum which you can find pretty easily by searching other yacht forums. Be sure to read between the lines.
I have sold maybe a dozen N62s (Pendana included) and therefore have been on about a dozen sea trials and surveys on the 62s. Have heard opinions that the optional bustle is pretty much a necessity. I only had one owner who was not happy with his 62, but I think the boat was just too complicated for him (he came from a CL 55.) I remain a fan of the Nordhavn 62.
I was considering a 55ft vessel where a 9+ ft cockpit was added. Similar to your statement, the running gear was not moved. This concerned me as it would likely have an impact on tracking, especially in challenging quartering or astern seas.
What sort of feedback has come back from NH owners in that regards.
twistedtree
Guru
Kind of right.
I'm not sure about the "needed more waterline" part, but I do think it benefited from more waterline. Most everything does.
There is no stretch between the 60 and 63. The hulls are identical, and the boats come out of the same mold. The differences are all in the interior layout and the top side FRP, with the 60's forward pilot house vs the 63's aft pilot house being the most significant differences.
As for running gear, it was moved aft after the first few 60s, and is aft as well on all the 63s. I think there are 5-6 60s with the original 55 running gear location. The first boat with it moved was hull 56 or 57. Note that the 60 is a continuation of the 55 hull numbering. The first 60 was 43, but there were some built out of sequence for various reasons. And there was some mix of 55s and 60s from 43 through to 51 which was the last 55 built. For some reason PAE restarted numbering 63's with #1, even though they share the 60 mold. The first 63 came out around 6055/6056.
Probably way more info than you ever wanted.....
long-cours.62
Guru
I think not only the force of wind must be taken i country.
But also from where : head, side , back...
In France we have an expression from the sailor
" Vent du cul, la mer est belle"
Look on the pilo charte they use that on the old sailing route
ddw36
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
- Messages
- 134
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- HI-HO
- Vessel Make
- Diesel Duck 462 (my fantasy)
For me the difference in size of the engine room would determine my choice. That is, the larger the better. At age 50+, for crawling around in confined spaces, it is the most important space on the boat, bar none.
As to storms at sea, posts above show concern, but not fear. A well-planned voyage will reduce chances of heavy weather, but be prepared, nontheless. Here's links for two successful Pacific Ocean voagers:
bumfuzzle.com, an itinerant family which has done one circumnav, and after several years has literally set sail for another w/ two teenage kids. In neither of these voyages have they experienced "the perfect storm," altho we'll see how this current voyage goes.
https://archive.nordhavn.com/egret/ This takes you to an excellent experience of a couple owning an H46, who were circumnaving the world, providing excellent details of their trials and joys of their journey.
TFers are no strangers to these links and could provide more, I'm sure. Most voyagers depend on custom weather forecasters who are worth their money in gold in providing custom adivce on weather along the way, whether to stay put, or to go, for example. https://www.oceanmarinenav.com/
As to storms at sea, posts above show concern, but not fear. A well-planned voyage will reduce chances of heavy weather, but be prepared, nontheless. Here's links for two successful Pacific Ocean voagers:
bumfuzzle.com, an itinerant family which has done one circumnav, and after several years has literally set sail for another w/ two teenage kids. In neither of these voyages have they experienced "the perfect storm," altho we'll see how this current voyage goes.
https://archive.nordhavn.com/egret/ This takes you to an excellent experience of a couple owning an H46, who were circumnaving the world, providing excellent details of their trials and joys of their journey.
TFers are no strangers to these links and could provide more, I'm sure. Most voyagers depend on custom weather forecasters who are worth their money in gold in providing custom adivce on weather along the way, whether to stay put, or to go, for example. https://www.oceanmarinenav.com/
I found an in-depth review of the 63 and it included two very interesting pieces of info.
1- the reviewer compared the 62 and 63 directly, in head seas, and commented favorably on the 62. 1:38:41 mark
2- the reviewer commented that the 63 has significantly larger stabilizers, which would indicate to me that the boat has a higher center of gravity and is prone to roll more, even though it is lighter than the 62
1- the reviewer compared the 62 and 63 directly, in head seas, and commented favorably on the 62. 1:38:41 mark
My apologies for not noticing that video reference.
long-cours.62
Guru
Not sure the relation between the size of the stab and the amount of the original stabilité was sure.
For example il you have à boat with GM "pushed' by à wave he want come-back quicker with more energy than à boat with poor stability . And for damped this energy/speech you need more effi ient stabilité.
Not sure I am clear with my poor english
For example il you have à boat with GM "pushed' by à wave he want come-back quicker with more energy than à boat with poor stability . And for damped this energy/speech you need more effi ient stabilité.
Not sure I am clear with my poor english
rslifkin
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2019
- Messages
- 7,656
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Hour Glass
- Vessel Make
- Chris Craft 381 Catalina
Not sure the relation between the size of the stab and the amount of the original stabilité was sure.
For example il you have à boat with GM "pushed' by à wave he want come-back quicker with more energy than à boat with poor stability . And for damped this energy/speech you need more effi ient stabilité.
Not sure I am clear with my poor english
Makes perfect sense to me. The more stable boat will need more force applied to adjust its motion to be comfortable as the inputs need to be faster and more significant.
bkcorwin
Senior Member
The fins are likely larger because the boat has stabilization at rest (STAR) via the ABT fins. The change from the standard ABT system to the STAR system usually adds a hydraulic accumulator tank and larger fins.
twistedtree
Guru
I also wouldn't read anything into the boat's stability based on fin size. You can build a boat with a range of fin sizes based on what you want to accomplish. In the early years of using fins on pleasure boats, I think fins were on the smaller size, yet still miraculous in their improvement of comfort. But they also learned that some systems were a bit undersized, as demonstrated by some of the NAR boats that had fin trouble. That causes some boats to get re-specified with larger actuators, more robust pumps, etc. By the way, I DON"T think the 62 ever exhibited such issues, so I would not worry at all about whatever it's equipped with.
The bigger tradeoff is how much anti-roll you want at slower speeds, with corresponding increase in drag. Bigger fins will remain effective at slower speeds, but have more drag. Smaller fins will be less effective at slower speeds, but have less drag. You need to pick where you want to be on that continuum.
I thinks others have said this, but it bears repeating. Despite their name, stabilizers have nothing to do with the stability of the boat. The boat is no more or less likely to roll over, pop back up again, broach, or whatever because of stabilizers. They are 100% about comfort by reducing roll. Given two boats of roughly equal displacement, hull design, and dimensions, like the 61 and 63, the ONLY thing I *might* infer from fin size is whether one might have a bit more roll reduction at slower speeds vs the other.
The bigger tradeoff is how much anti-roll you want at slower speeds, with corresponding increase in drag. Bigger fins will remain effective at slower speeds, but have more drag. Smaller fins will be less effective at slower speeds, but have less drag. You need to pick where you want to be on that continuum.
I thinks others have said this, but it bears repeating. Despite their name, stabilizers have nothing to do with the stability of the boat. The boat is no more or less likely to roll over, pop back up again, broach, or whatever because of stabilizers. They are 100% about comfort by reducing roll. Given two boats of roughly equal displacement, hull design, and dimensions, like the 61 and 63, the ONLY thing I *might* infer from fin size is whether one might have a bit more roll reduction at slower speeds vs the other.
Adopo
Guru
A Slightly Different Perspective
While I have not been out to sea on either the N62 or N63 I have spent a little time on smaller Nordhavn's and will share my thoughts on hull designs. I'm going by memory on most of this so feel free to correct me if I'm off course.
While early designs (N46 and N62) lacked some of the interior space as previously noted the N46 still offers the greatest Beam to Length ratio with the N40 a close second. The N62 follows possibly third or fourth in line. Both first generation designs are not as tall as current designs and to some more favorable with fewer stairs. Both designs are closer to a monohull sailboat design, and I believe more efficient (need to reconfirm). The biggest difference I experienced between the N46 and the N40 and N47 is its performance in a following sea. The N46 aft hull section is round allowing the following seas to pass under and around with less resistance than say the next generation hulls including N40, N47, N55. On our two N40's we noticed the stern squat down leading to a momentary slight loss of steering control at times during moderate following seas or large wakes from passing boats catching us from behind.
The times we were a board N46's in similar conditions we did not feel the same "squatting" which I contribute to the hull design. I would think the N62 with a "similar" hull design would handle the same in following seas and possibly better than the N55 or N63 but not sure.
Take this perspective one step further and comparing our N40 to the lighter KK 39 and talk about a surprise. With the N40 being a heavier boat, we were surprised how much smoother the KK39 was cutting through the water and significant better performance in a following sea due to its wine glass hull design.
In summary depending on your planned use of the boat I would take a closer look at hull performance if planning to travel the world. Remember the 90% rule = Who will be aboard 90% of the time and how will the boat be used 90% of time? For 90% of us any Nordhavn will do the job safely.
John T - N4050, N4061, N3522 Previous owners
While I have not been out to sea on either the N62 or N63 I have spent a little time on smaller Nordhavn's and will share my thoughts on hull designs. I'm going by memory on most of this so feel free to correct me if I'm off course.
While early designs (N46 and N62) lacked some of the interior space as previously noted the N46 still offers the greatest Beam to Length ratio with the N40 a close second. The N62 follows possibly third or fourth in line. Both first generation designs are not as tall as current designs and to some more favorable with fewer stairs. Both designs are closer to a monohull sailboat design, and I believe more efficient (need to reconfirm). The biggest difference I experienced between the N46 and the N40 and N47 is its performance in a following sea. The N46 aft hull section is round allowing the following seas to pass under and around with less resistance than say the next generation hulls including N40, N47, N55. On our two N40's we noticed the stern squat down leading to a momentary slight loss of steering control at times during moderate following seas or large wakes from passing boats catching us from behind.
The times we were a board N46's in similar conditions we did not feel the same "squatting" which I contribute to the hull design. I would think the N62 with a "similar" hull design would handle the same in following seas and possibly better than the N55 or N63 but not sure.
Take this perspective one step further and comparing our N40 to the lighter KK 39 and talk about a surprise. With the N40 being a heavier boat, we were surprised how much smoother the KK39 was cutting through the water and significant better performance in a following sea due to its wine glass hull design.
In summary depending on your planned use of the boat I would take a closer look at hull performance if planning to travel the world. Remember the 90% rule = Who will be aboard 90% of the time and how will the boat be used 90% of time? For 90% of us any Nordhavn will do the job safely.
John T - N4050, N4061, N3522 Previous owners
Adopo
Guru
Here's a youtube channel that is produced by a couple who purchased a 62 Nordhavn. You might find this interesting, perhaps they are even on TF.
https://www.youtube.com/@MVKariwaN62
https://www.youtube.com/@MVKariwaN62
That makes sense...
I agree with that assessment completely. All hull design is a compromise and I believe Nordhavn has moved to maximize interior volume at the measured expense of efficiency and seakeeping factors... exactly in-line with the stated "90%" standard. This is not a bad thing, just a decision made to accommodate 90% of their customers.
Last edited:
Thanks! I have actually contacted them and followed their evolution with the boat. I hope (haven't asked them yet) to catch up with them when they reach Cabo San Lucas.
Solstice1981
Member
Nordy 62
Ohhh man the Nordhavn 62 is my favorite Trawler of all time!! Such a dream ride. Don't know a lot about the 63, When I was trying to buy a 62 I looked at the ones one the 55 range and what I learned was stay away from those but the 62 is sweet!
Wade Cordy'
Grand Alaskan 60
Ohhh man the Nordhavn 62 is my favorite Trawler of all time!! Such a dream ride. Don't know a lot about the 63, When I was trying to buy a 62 I looked at the ones one the 55 range and what I learned was stay away from those but the 62 is sweet!
Wade Cordy'
Grand Alaskan 60
Similar threads
