Nordhavn vs Fleming vs Kady Krogen

[OldDan1943]

Having an CE A or B means little if one does not have the skill and experience to operated the boat.

 

[pjtemplin]

What are the top three factors that differentiate a coastal cruiser from an ocean crosser?

 

[guy with a boat]

What are the top three factors that differentiate a coastal cruiser from an ocean crosser?

1. Holds enough fuel to get to the other side.
2. Strong enough and seaworthy enough to stay floating and operational in the big weather you may encounter once you are out of forecast range
3. Pick anything you want as long as you have 1 and 2.

That covers the important stuff, but for more detail, see the first 22 pages of this thread.

 

[rslifkin]

1. Holds enough fuel to get to the other side.
2. Strong enough and seaworthy enough to stay floating and operational in the big weather you may encounter once you are out of forecast range
3. Pick anything you want as long as you have 1 and 2.

That covers the important stuff, but for more detail, see the first 22 pages of this thread.

I'd add a 4th item to that list: well designed systems with adequate redundancy such that a mechanical or electrical problem is unlikely to endanger you or prevent you from getting the boat somewhere for repairs that you can't make underway (even if not the original destination).

 

[OldDan1943]

I would add a 'get home' engine and stabilizers

 

[Hippocampus]

Believe the CE letter system is nearly meaningless. That system rates the boat AT THE TIME it leaves the factory. It DOES NOT apply once the vessel is splashed and used. So all the small but critical things that may fail after use aren’t accounted for. Things such as wiring details, through hulls, bulkhead attachments, bedding of attachments, adhesives and so forth. Series production builders are not aiming at a long service life with abuse and heavy use when it’s counter to the bottom line. Have personally seen “A” boats I wouldn’t take out of sight of land (and then only in calm conditions) after they’d been subjected to a difficult ocean passage. One such new French boat went SF to BVI and was sufficiently worn by that experience to end up going as deck cargo to Europe for a refit and sale. She was “A” when she first splashed. From what I was told she wasn’t “A” when she arrived.

 

[bowball]

If you compare some of the leading brands in each category, Fleming as an extreme coastal cruiser and Nordhavn as the blue water boat, it’s design decision differences. It’s the willingness to make the boat optimized for an extreme weather scenario that may be encountered versus everyday usability. Both these brands have redundant systems and are built strongly.

Differences such as:

1. Low decks and easy access to docks on the Fleming versus much higher and more limited access on the Nordhavn, but the latter better in big seas.

2. Limited aft cockpit space on the Nordhavn so not as much water can enter

3. Much taller, better for the sea but not for coastal.

4. Setting the pilot house further back in the Nordhavn. And moving the tender to the forward deck. Makes access to the tender much more difficult but that isn’t as important

5. Speed. Horsepower makes the Fleming faster but at the tradeoff of range. Hull shape plays into this as well. The heavy deeper displacement of the Nordhavn really benefits it. .

6. Fuel capacity and efficiency

7. Interior spaces. Coastal can have larger more light filled spaces. Less concern about window protection.

There is no right or wrong answer and both brands are at the top of their category. One optimizes for more extreme events than the other and that drives tradeoffs in non extreme conditions such as coastal use.

I’d take a big Nordhavn if I was doing ocean crossings and the Fleming for use closer to the coast. Not that either can’t do both with either some inconvenience and planning.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

1. Holds enough fuel to get to the other side.
2. Strong enough and seaworthy enough to stay floating and operational in the big weather you may encounter once you are out of forecast range
3. Pick anything you want as long as you have 1 and 2.

That covers the important stuff, but for more detail, see the first 22 pages of this thread.

4, Redundant propulsion.

 

[long-cours.62]

If you compare some of the leading brands in


I’d take a big Nordhavn if I was doing ocean crossings and the Fleming for use closer to the coast. Not that either can’t do both with either some inconvenience and planning.

I think remember than Flemming do nice blue water navigation, for example to Iceland...

 

[greatpapabear]

Hi Everyone,

May I comment from 18 years experience on our Fleming, and some 15 years before that on other boats?

1) The last thing anyone wants is for a system to fail when the going gets nasty. Hence, maintenance, redundancy and clean fuel are all vital. Failure at a time of real need, is a sure step towards to a potential disaster.

2) Sea and wind:

It's not so much the size of the swell, but its frequency. The shorter the period, the steeper.

Coupled with this is the effect any wind will have in causing swell and/or waves to break, and it's not just the wind strength, but how long it's been blowing (fetch).

Piers

 

[OldDan1943]

A guess one major difference is the air intake for the engine.

 

[twistedtree]

A guess one major difference is the air intake for the engine.

Yes, and that ends up being a factor in the CE stability rating. I had a look through the CE Class A certification for a sistership to my boat, and key elements are the AVS (how far the boat can roll and still right itself, and the parameter most commonly discussed), plus the down flooding angles. It will probably vary from boat to boat, but one critical angle is where the gunnels submerge and the decks and cockpit flood. Then the other is where the boat starts to downflood into the interior though vents or other openings. The higher the vents, the more heel it will take before you get down flooding through those vents.

 

[OldDan1943]

Yes, and that ends up being a factor in the CE stability rating. I had a look through the CE Class A certification for a sistership to my boat, and key elements are the AVS (how far the boat can roll and still right itself, and the parameter most commonly discussed), plus the down flooding angles. It will probably vary from boat to boat, but one critical angle is where the gunnels submerge and the decks and cockpit flood. Then the other is where the boat starts to downflood into the interior though vents or other openings. The higher the vents, the more heel it will take before you get down flooding through those vents.

and the glass thickness. That concern can be overcome with some storm shutters.

without reviewing all the email on the AT34, I think the max recoverable angle is about 45 degrees but one must consider the time at the max angle too

 

[Slowmo]

Obviously I don't own any of these but have looked at them - for fun! IMHO which one is best is a function of what you plan to do with it. The Nordhavns and Krogens appear designed for ocean use with doors that dog down, full displacement hulls, and generally single engines. The Fleming design is targeted to coastal cruising with large windows, an expansive cockpit, and relatively low freeboard at the transom for easier access. If I were planning to cruise the coasts I'd choose the Fleming in a heartbeat. To my eye it's prettier, offers great spaces both indoors and outdoors, and it's semi-displacement hull can achieve higher speeds. If I was planning to actually cross an ocean then it would be one of the others (NH or Krogen). The things that makes the Fleming attractive day to day are significant debits in a storm on the open ocean.

 

[hrk]

Like the OP, we are a couple ready to retire in 2 years and planning to live abroad, if not for ever at least for 4-5 years. Like them, we are light in experience. we have almost similar goals (I too am electrical engineer so did similar thing while looking for a boat - started with defining objectives first). We recently made a decision and mailed a check for buying a new boat - KK open 60 design. We looked hard at the choices mentioned by OP and chose KK for the following reason. Nordhavn is solid and has many passionate owners. it has a far better network across the globe so repair and maintenance may be easier. Many more Nordhavn owners seem to have been doing ocean crossing. so, it was a close decision for us between N and KK. Fleming is a bit more expensive, well built but in our search did not find it that suitable for ocean crossing. Between N and KK, we chose KK because we like the open design (pilot house on the same level as saloon) which has lot more light and airy feeling in saloon. Also, like the fact that it has stand-up engine room, accessible from master bedroom as well as from aft desk. We are open to crossing ocean but it is more likely that we will spend most of our time in coastal cruising - although we will be spending summers in Maine and nova scotia and winter in Carribbean One year our future plans calls for going thru panama canal as well as doing Alaska trip.
We are both experiences sailors and not planning to have captain onboard except during teething period and crew for long passages. We think 60' feet is about our limit in terms of handling a boat. we are in 70's so that too was a factor in staying in 50-60 range rather than going for larger boats. I understand desire for simplicity particularly if you are crossing oceans or spending extensive time in foreign countries where repairs becomes prohibitively expensive. Right now going through the choices we need to make for building a new boat - chose to have watermaker even though ours would most be cruising in coastal waters - mainly because we may be in Caribbean ocean and Mexico often,

hrk

 

[North Baltic sea]

Having an CE A or B means little if one does not have the skill and experience to operated the boat.

Hi,

You are right experience is important.

In Europe, almost all goods have the CE mark, the purpose is to protect consumers from dangerous products that are dangerous, such as 230V cheap Chinese electrical appliance.

The CE mark guarantees that the product is safe to use and is authorized to be sold here.

The boat's CE certificate, on the other hand, gives the boater the first information on whether the boat is intended only for smooth waters CE-D, or can boats coast CE-C where the wave can rise 4-5 feet.

The boater in these categories knows that insurance can be negative if damage occurs in the area for which the boat is not designed.

The CE certificate also specifies the max person in the boat and how much other load you can carry on the boat so that it is safe to move in the area where it is CE certified.

ABYC is much the same as CE, but CE-B / A certification required much more, comes with extensive calculations on the stability and strength of structures to withstand wave and wind.

Thhe calculations also provide the answer to boat loading people and goods, water, fuel. The boat manufacturer is legally responsible for meeting the requirements of the boat, even in the future when the boats are built in production.

Do you know OldDan how much you can take people on your AT34, how much you can take cargo on your boat to make it still stable when you go out to sea?

NBs

 

[rslifkin]

Do you know OldDan how much you can take people on your AT34, how much you can take cargo on your boat to make it still stable when you go out to sea?

Many boats of the size discussed on here don't specify a maximum passenger count or load if they're not CE marked. Although some builders do specify a maximum loaded displacement, maximum people on a flybridge, etc.

I know for a design like my boat, provided you don't like packing people in everywhere and partying, you're not realistically going to put enough people on the boat to cause a stability problem. I'd say 8 people is the absolute max practically. More than 8 would be very unpleasant to have on board in my mind. And even at a generous 200 lbs per person (figuring they all bring some stuff), 8 people adds up to 1600 lbs (about 6% of the weight of the boat with full tanks). Almost certainly not enough to be of any concern.

That same thing likely applies to an AT34 (which also carries its passengers a bit lower in the boat typically).

If my boat were to be checked out for CE approval, I'd expect it would likely be considered CE-B. The engine room vent placement is sub-optimal and would certainly preclude being considered A, as would the cabin windows. I wouldn't expect the windows to be a concern for a B rating, however, as they're up reasonably high and inboard of the side decks, so unless breaking waves are involved, it's hard to hit them with anything worse than spray. The decks drain well (water can just run off, no scuppers needed), no cockpit to collect water, etc. So provided AVS and other stability concerns are adequate (I don't have any data for stability), I can't see a reason why it wouldn't achieve a CE-B rating.

 

[Hippocampus]

As a comparison. For sail a AVS of at least 120-130 is generally accepted as reasonable for blue water. 90 is a big deal in a recreational trawler. My current boat does not come close to even that . Also considered is the area of the Gz curve when the boat is past 90 degrees as that will determine how rapidly the boat will self right and if it will at all. The problem with most multihulls is once inverted they won’t self right if they turn turtle. However they have great righting arms if sufficient beam and reserve buoyancy is designed in. Along with escape hatches underneath they will stay floating if inverted so occupants can stay alive. Friend flooded his cruising cat when a escape hatch failed. Lost the engine on that side but did complete the passage.
Did go through the exercise of asking for Gz curves from Nordhavn, KK and DD. Only DD was responsive. However they didn’t give me a classic Gz curve but rather stability information in the format the Chinese use. It was Greek to me.
Recreational trawlers such as my boat and I suspect ATs look like they would have significant down flooding risks. Seriously doubt they would do well with repetitive pooping, significant boarding seas let alone a knock down. My boat is a B and said to be marginally better than AT in a seaway by some. I seriously doubt it would do well in sustained 35kts gusts to 50 and 6-7’ with short period. Remember that’s the average of the highest third. Thinking you won’t see boarding seas seems optimistic. Think people commonly greatly overestimate sea state (self included). Think all the recreational SD tugs aren’t good seaboats. Too much glass and some of it slides, insufficient AVS, too high a down flooding risk, too dependent upon form stability, too many wide open spaces. Even with your design there will be sufficient green water on deck to effect stability. Just need it there for seconds not minutes. Just not made for that purpose. Still they are great boats for their purpose.

 

[Hippocampus]

RS would like to share several conversations I had with two close friends who are professional captains. They stressed the same points. CE A is applicable only for new construction at the time of initial splash. You aren’t on a blue water boat. Heavy weather tactics are different for power than sail. Coastal you may not have sufficient room to have your boat at the best angle and speed for the sea state. Even a simple line squall or T-storm can get you in serious trouble. Change your behavior. Stabilization does not improve stability. True for fins, fish, gyros or Magnus. Ignore the CE classification. If there’s a chance of more than 3-4 sustained stay put. It maybe worse. It’s recreational coastal cruising. You’re not doing it for a living.

 

[mvweebles]

As a comparison. For sail a AVS of at least 120-130 is generally accepted as reasonable for blue water. 90 is a big deal in a recreational trawler. My current boat does not come close to even that . Also considered is the area of the Gz curve when the boat is past 90 degrees as that will determine how rapidly the boat will self right and if it will at all. The problem with most multihulls is once inverted they won’t self right if they turn turtle. However they have great righting arms if sufficient beam and reserve buoyancy is designed in. Along with escape hatches underneath they will stay floating if inverted so occupants can stay alive. Friend flooded his cruising cat when a escape hatch failed. Lost the engine on that side but did complete the passage.
Did go through the exercise of asking for Gz curves from Nordhavn, KK and DD. Only DD was responsive. However they didn’t give me a classic Gz curve but rather stability information in the format the Chinese use. It was Greek to me.
Recreational trawlers such as my boat and I suspect ATs look like they would have significant down flooding risks. Seriously doubt they would do well with repetitive pooping, significant boarding seas let alone a knock down. My boat is a B and said to be marginally better than AT in a seaway by some. I seriously doubt it would do well in sustained 35kts gusts to 50 and 6-7’ with short period. Remember that the average of the highest third. Thinking you won’t see boarding seas seems optimistic. Think people commonly greatly overestimate sea state (self included). Think all the recreational SD tugs aren’t good seaboats. Too much glass and some of it slides, insufficient AVS, too high a down flooding risk, too dependent upon form stability, too many wide open spaces. Just not made for that purpose. Still they are great boats for their purpose.

At the risk of repeating past conversations, I find the Beaufort Scale helpful when discussing seastate and design. If I remember, CE-B is designed for sustained Force 7 conditions - just under gale force winds with 4-5 meter seas. Sounds pretty scary to me, but that's the yardstick.

So what to do with that? If anyone still looks at Pilot Charts, each sector has a wind-rose that gives historical probabilities of conditions for each month of the year. Not very useful for local and/or protected cruising, but immensely helpful for coastal cruising of some distance.

There are a a few ways to reduce risk for coastal cruising. One is to throw a bunch of money at a tank-boat and just plow through whatever may come. Another is to reduce probability and exposure to rugged conditions via knowledge and patience. I'll add that while boats such as a nordhavn are much less susceptible to weather delays, their typical owner and complexity makes them much more vulnerable to mechanical delays.

Bringing this back around to the OP, as long as either of the three (N, KK, or Fleming) have adequate range for your intended cruising grounds, I'd make the decision based on soft factors such as comfort, layout, and equipment. If engine rooms are important to you, then Nordhavn likely scores well though I'm guessing the other two are decent too, just not as manly.

Peter

 

[guy with a boat]

Bringing this back around to the OP, as long as either of the three (N, KK, or Fleming) have adequate range for your intended cruising grounds, I'd make the decision based on soft factors such as comfort, layout, and equipment. If engine rooms are important to you, then Nordhavn likely scores well though I'm guessing the other two are decent too, just not as manly.

Peter

The OP on this thread has been gone for close to a year. Apparently he was fully committed to the plan, until he wasn’t. Hopefully he is just busy doing something else, but he may have decided to take up golfing, instead.

 

[bowball]

The OP on this thread has been gone for close to a year. Apparently he was fully committed to the plan, until he wasn’t. Hopefully he is just busy doing something else, but he may have decided to take up golfing, instead.

I was noticing that too. And last posted the year before that.

However, many others have learned from this, including someone who just purchased a Selene while initially deciding between a Nordhavn and a KK.

 

[rslifkin]

RS would like to share several conversations I had with two close friends who are professional captains. They stressed the same points. CE A is applicable only for new construction at the time of initial splash. You aren’t on a blue water boat. Heavy weather tactics are different for power than sail. Coastal you may not have sufficient room to have your boat at the best angle and speed for the sea state. Even a simple line squall or T-storm can get you in serious trouble. Change your behavior. Stabilization does not improve stability. True for fins, fish, gyros or Magnus. Ignore the CE classification. If there’s a chance of more than 3-4 sustained stay put. It maybe worse. It’s recreational coastal cruising. You’re not doing it for a living.

Absolutely agreed. Direction of weather does play a factor in go/no-go decisions for us, but we'd certainly never go in conditions where being significantly worse than forecast is more than uncomfortable but not dangerous. And being on an unstabilized boat with a rather full bow, uncomfortable happens pretty easily in steep Great Lakes snot unless we're running downwind.

The worst unforecast weather we've ended up in was a pretty bad thunderstorm. Solidly in "I'll be happy if we never do that again" territory, but the boat took it just fine and we were still making 15 kts without pounding or any control concerns (slowing down would have made the ride less wet, but not any more comfortable and we would have been in it for longer). Just wasn't any bit comfortable for about 20 minutes until we could tuck into our destination (entrance well aligned for a downwind run straight in and then turn to tuck behind the seawall to slow down). It did confirm our normal cabin prep is adequate, as the only thing that moved was one soap dispenser falling into a sink.

 

[guy with a boat]

Like the OP, we are a couple ready to retire in 2 years and planning to live abroad, if not for ever at least for 4-5 years. Like them, we are light in experience. we have almost similar goals (I too am electrical engineer so did similar thing while looking for a boat - started with defining objectives first). We recently made a decision and mailed a check for buying a new boat - KK open 60 design. We looked hard at the choices mentioned by OP and chose KK for the following reason. Nordhavn is solid and has many passionate owners. it has a far better network across the globe so repair and maintenance may be easier. Many more Nordhavn owners seem to have been doing ocean crossing. so, it was a close decision for us between N and KK. Fleming is a bit more expensive, well built but in our search did not find it that suitable for ocean crossing. Between N and KK, we chose KK because we like the open design (pilot house on the same level as saloon) which has lot more light and airy feeling in saloon. Also, like the fact that it has stand-up engine room, accessible from master bedroom as well as from aft desk. We are open to crossing ocean but it is more likely that we will spend most of our time in coastal cruising - although we will be spending summers in Maine and nova scotia and winter in Carribbean One year our future plans calls for going thru panama canal as well as doing Alaska trip.
We are both experiences sailors and not planning to have captain onboard except during teething period and crew for long passages. We think 60' feet is about our limit in terms of handling a boat. we are in 70's so that too was a factor in staying in 50-60 range rather than going for larger boats. I understand desire for simplicity particularly if you are crossing oceans or spending extensive time in foreign countries where repairs becomes prohibitively expensive. Right now going through the choices we need to make for building a new boat - chose to have watermaker even though ours would most be cruising in coastal waters - mainly because we may be in Caribbean ocean and Mexico often,

hrk

Congratulations on making a decision and moving ahead with the purchase.

Your reasoning makes perfect sense and is explained well. Too many get so bogged down in the details and in imaginary scenarios that they either never make a decision, or they choose a boat while focused on the wrong priorities.

You have chosen an excellent boat that should be perfectly suited for all your adventures. Very safe and capable of crossing oceans but not so focused on the crossings that it compromises the 99% of the time that it is used for coastal cruising at each destination. Great size choice for lots of time aboard and to be comfortably run by a couple.

The KK is a great boat. We did a similar analysis and while we arrived at a different choice, it was based on a different use case and personal preferences. Your reasons for preferring KK are real and valid. All 3 makes do well in the marketplace because they all offer advantages that the others don’t.

Would love to see a thread on the boat build when it gets underway, if you are so inclined.

 

[phillippeterson]

OK, here is my recommendation:

When you get tired of RVing and are ready for live aboard boating, first buy a Kady Krogen 39- see https://www.yachtworld.com/boats-for-sale/type-power/make-kadey-krogen/?length=39-39 or a Nordhavn 43- see https://www.yachtworld.com/boats-for-sale/make-nordhavn/?length=40-43. You can buy one of these for less than $500k and as little as $300K.

Both are solid cruisers, not as big as you ultimately want but if you can live on an RV you can live on one of these quite comfortably for a year or two. Other more coastal trawlers would also work, but by buying a smaller version of what you ultimately need for comfortable blue water cruising to anywhere in the world, you will develop your thoughts on what you really want long term.


I also chose these two boats so they would be less than twenty years old, so upgrading should be minimal. The older Nordhavn 40s may need significant upgrades as well as the Krogen 42s. You don't need to spend your time on upgrades. With your financial resources, buy something almost ready to go.


Then first do the Atlantic coast from Florida to Maine. That will take 6 months to a year depending on how much exploring you want to do. Then head over to the Bahamas for several months and then if you still have the blue water itch, head down to the Caribbean. Spend 6 mo to a year there.

You won't need a captain or crew for any of this. The first US part will let you develop large boating skills in an easy non threatening environment that I am sure you can handle with maybe a day or so of instruction on anchoring and boat handling around the dock. The Bahamas/Caribbean legs will let you develop self sufficient skills and particularly the Caribbean leg will give you a taste of blue water fun.

Then after a couple of years you will have a very good idea of what you want long term and the skills to go with it.


Finally, this plan gives you a low cost (well relatively) way to bail out if the live aboard cruising lifestyle doesn't suite you. Or maybe retreat to a US coastal and Bahamas lifestyle. Almost all TFers do the latter and enjoy the cruising in these waters. Also if you decide you don't want to do the world, but love the cruising lifestyle then there are lots of boats beyond the three that you originally mention that would work nicely.


David

Excellent advice.

 

[phillippeterson]

Yes, the big small boat vs small big boat comment was me. It's not just space, but systems as well. Re space, someone brought it up earlier, but more beam has a remarkable impact of space. The N68 is only about 5-6' longer than an N60 (the name doesn't exactly represent it's length), but it's about 60% higher displacement which of course tracks overall size of the hull structure.

Fleming 65 displacement. 124,000
Nordhavn 64 displacement. 185,000

That lower displacement in the Fleming is exactly what I'd prefer - less boat for the same length makes a much better ride.

The Nordhavns typically have a much higher center of gravity - which makes for more room inside but at a ride/performance detriment.

Not a fan of Nordhavn.

Fleming 65 if I could afford it. Kadey Krogen 55 expedition is second choice for us.

 

[phillippeterson]

I'm a big fan of Dashew and his boats, but think they are optimized backwards to the way most people cruise. Even the most intrepid world cruisers who I know spend no more than 5% of their time on long passages. The other 95% is spent day tripping, at anchor, and in marinas.


To me, the FPB (and similarly inspired boats) are optimized for ocean crossing, and OK on a day to day basis. Where the Nordhavn and KK proposed by the OP are optimized for day to day use, yet also capable of ocean crossings. Personally I'd rather have a boat optimized for how I use it 95% of the time, rather than the 5% when I'm making a crossing.

Yep, agreed.

 

[phillippeterson]

PointDoc, you may already know this but there are owners' organizations for most of
the boats you are interested in. There is probably no better way to narrow down your
choices than to get on board and talk to the owners of these boats which the owners
groups or certain brokers might facilitate. Additionally, once you buy one the owners
group will be there to help you get the most out of the boat.

Very practical, good advice.

 

[Mako]

Fleming 65 displacement. 124,000

Nordhavn 64 displacement. 185,000



That lower displacement in the Fleming is exactly what I'd prefer - less boat for the same length makes a much better ride.



The Nordhavns typically have a much higher center of gravity - which makes for more room inside but at a ride/performance detriment.



Not a fan of Nordhavn.



Fleming 65 if I could afford it. Kadey Krogen 55 expedition is second choice for us.

Phillip I think you got that backwards. The heavier boat makes for a much better ride. 50% more displacement is a huge difference in fact. The only thing better about the “ride” of the lighter boat is that it can cruise at SD speeds, if that is what you’re looking for.

 

[phillippeterson]

Phillip I think you got that backwards. The heavier boat makes for a much better ride. 50% more displacement is a huge difference in fact. The only thing better about the “ride” of the lighter boat is that it can cruise at SD speeds, if that is what you’re looking for.

Heavier with more weight up high?