Marlow Explorer 72 LR - warning many images

"Hi Paul, well two things really, first, what do they do with the stabilisers, when the thing is up on the plane? secondly, and I may have missed something here? what's happened to the blue thingy? sorry, can't think of the name just for the minute "

The bow on this boat does not leave the water as such - in any event the wave peircing bit stays in the water. It accel;rated fast up to 22 knots and was very solid and easy to manouvre at all speeds.

I am wiating for the weather to get a bit better before trying to take the blue thingy back to Emsworth.
 
With the $ so weak they are not a bad price - the basic price is $1.95m but the extras do add $1m so it ends up at circa $3m which is about £1.57m plus VAT.

The 55 models with much the same technology are a very good value boat.
 
Andy
They are made in China so really I would have to send you there to do your Trader style inspection bit before shipment ...... fancy it? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Marlow have their own hotel for clients and they actually own the yard. Thay are a well financed set up with no borrowing etc.
 
The Trader is still in full saga. Tony chappell has still not answered the simple questions etc.

I hope to get her back for the repairs to Emsworth soon and there will still be a legal battle after that to sort things out.

I am simply taking a deep breath before resuming the struggle. I sometimes need to rest from the banging my head against a brick wall bit /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

After the repairs I intend to use her for the next two or three years - it takes 2 years to get a Marlow built. In the last year of my new boat build I will put her on the market and she will be a well sorted boaty by then.

Planning the new boat is a sort of relief from the Trader struggle. Yet I return from Florida really looking forward to this summers planned crusing with the Ocean Deep...... seems strnge after looking at a new boat but it true.
 
Thanks for that.

I do not think the battle will be short but it will be carried out after the boat has been fixed up and so is a matter that can be kept to one side.

I am going to give myself a few more days break before throwing myself boday and soul into the fight to get simple questions answered. Even with these simple publi questions Tony Chappell cannot break his habit and actually answer them ..... amazing.
 
Paul, the Marlow looks fantastic but I'm with Smiffy100 on the Nordhavn. The Marlow's hull, by definition, is a compromise between planing and displacement capability but the Nordhavn is specifically designed for efficient performance at displacement speed. The other factor is the twin props of the Marlow which will definitely cause extra drag compared to the single prop of a Nordhavn. I've seen a report that suggests that a twin prop boat uses about 20% more fuel at displacement speed than a single prop boat of the same hull design. IMHO, it's very unlikely that the Marlow will be as efficient as a Nordhavn at displacement speed
I don't think your comment concerning CoG is valid either. The Nordhavns are specifically designed for ocean cruising and therefore the Cog will definitely be very low in the boat. In fact, I believe that the substantial keels on Nordhavn's are heavily weighted to ensure this. I agree that the Nordhavn's look a bit top heavy but what you don't see is the deep hulls under the water. Nordhavns are designed in accordance with the principles laid down in Robert Beebe's book Voyaging Under Power. Beebe identified a number of ratios which ocean going boats should conform to including the A/B ratio (cross section area of boat Above waterline to Below waterline). Obviously the lower this ratio is the better it is for stability and Nordhavns are generally in the 2.1-2.7 range which is relatively low compared to most boats which are have A/B ratios over 4. It would be interesting to know what the A/B ratio of the Marlow is
Btw, Beebe's book is worth reading if you're thinking about long distance passage making
 
Nordhavn gave me the book at tye last Southampton boat show - so will now read.

The stated fuel consumption figures on the Nordhavns are higher than the Marlow.

Most long distance cruising is hops of a hundred miles or two form port to port. If crossing oceans then I think I would always need a crew in addition to the two of us so that the helm can be manned 24 hours a day which tends to do away with a lot of the joy - so currently the marlow offers a compromise.

I accept the Nordhavn must be a better blue water boat - but it offers little flexibility for UK or med work where even lon trips lasting months are still basically many short hops.

The truth is my mind is not made up - so i hoiver from one to the other hence all inputs are welcome and many thanks for the inputs so far.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Nordhavn gave me the book at tye last Southampton boat show - so will now read.

The stated fuel consumption figures on the Nordhavns are higher than the Marlow.

Most long distance cruising is hops of a hundred miles or two form port to port. If crossing oceans then I think I would always need a crew in addition to the two of us so that the helm can be manned 24 hours a day which tends to do away with a lot of the joy - so currently the marlow offers a compromise.

I accept the Nordhavn must be a better blue water boat - but it offers little flexibility for UK or med work where even lon trips lasting months are still basically many short hops.

The truth is my mind is not made up - so i hoiver from one to the other hence all inputs are welcome and many thanks for the inputs so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Paul,

Confess I am a little puzzled here, why do you need to man the helm 24 hours a day? I don't do that on my wee sailboat?

Keep a lookout maybe, and I do, but not constantly, I have to have time to cook a meal of read a book or do a bit of nav. but I let the boat sail herself, that's what me windvane is for, or in your case, autopilot.

I do tend to stand well off shore, even if coastal, it's usually easier going and you are generally outside all the perishing pots! :-)

Nordhavn has got all the toys, particularly radar alarm, so away from the coast, where is the need to keep a constant lookout or man the helm?

Also, I aint convinced that two engines use less fuel than one, the bigger Nordhavn's have an awsome range, and some even have a wing engine for when you just want to poodle along and admire the scenery or whatever.

In my opinion, that Marlow is a fair weather boat, and looking at her wetted area, I would say she would be an absolute bitch to ride in, in anything over a F6, there is just no grip in the water. Personally, I wouldn't entertain trans ocean in it, but I would be comfortable taking a Nordhavn ( at least over 52 feet) just about anywhere, in any weather.

Yes, the Marlow is very pretty, of it's kind, and it's got all the toys and features one would expect to find interior wise, and I am sure it is a quality fit out, but in my opinion, I think the one thing you would find it aint got is sea legs. It's a Tart, masquerading as a Lady! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm just going. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Somke thought provoking points.

The Cat C18's with the lightweight Marlow do have a better fule consumption - at 9 knots its a comfortable 1.25 mpg.

Also the marlow can dry out.

If I went the marlow route i would not be doing Trans Atlantic.

I fully appreciate the radar alarms etc and use an autopilot now but i would always want to keep a lookout no matter what.

I have to ask myself how often I would need the better sea keepoiu g of the Nordhavn compared to hoiw often I would need some added speed when going port to port.

The Nordhavn ties me down to say a top 10 knots and that lowers the utility when hopping around the Uk, across the channel etc.

Yet I am still tempted to go the Nordhavn way but cannot rationlise it for my use of the boat.

The marlow is a very good sea keeping boat for what it is - in fact much better than most planing boats.

I am still sitting on the fence /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I am still sitting on the fence /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll get a crease in your arse! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
been following this post with interest as i have also been looking at nordhavn/marlow.(53). when i viewed the nordhavn, had it not been for speed limitations would be the owner of one now! fit out superb, all equipment seemed top quality. which then forces you back to look at the speed issue. it is a very nice thing to know that when required, open her up and head for home at 25 kts rather than 9kts. i guess it all depends how far from shore you are? if mid channel not really an issue? if mid atlantic, 9 or 25 won't help much? also thinking about it you could not be mid atlantic at 25 kts because fuel range would not allow!!
 
Maybe a daft question Paul, but on a boat that size how often would you want to dry out? I'm going to assume that inadvertant drying out is no more likely than for anyone else:-) It seems an odd feature on a boat that also offers long distance cruising. Flexibility is fine but I'd want to be very certain of the bottom over a large area to drop the Marlow on it, and also be expecting to cruise in potentially very shallow tidal waters enough to make use of the dry out option.
 
The Nordhavn is a dedicated blue water boat that is great for crossong the Atlantic etc - however I do not really want my boat for that. I want it for spending months cruising from port to port and hence the ability to have the speed option is very nice. I think if it was not for the speed issue then a Nordhan it may well be.

As regards the drying out - my lift out options in the bristol Channel are very limited and even ocean deep is too big for the Swansea lift. So it would be nice to dry out even it for just changing an anode.

However the main plan for drying out would be in the many small drying harbours that abound out here in the West. Mind you I suppose the boat size may be getting a little large for those small harbours.
 
Not yet mentioned but worth looking at................

galleryMain_03.jpg


Grand Banks Aluthian, this is the small one.

Tom
 
I think this decision has to start with a realistic assessment of your intended cruising area. I understand that some people buy Nordhavns or similar because they think they might go long distance cruising but, in reality, end up using it as a coastal cruising boat either because they don't have the time they thought they had or the reality of bluewater cruising is not quite the same as the dream. Of course, as a coastal cruising boat, a Nordhavn may be frustrating if all you wanted to do was day boat to the nearest anchorage or get across the Channel in a small weather window. I understand that quite a few Nordhavns are put up for resale after a year or 2 because of this
Basically, if your cruising area is going to be limited to Europe and the Med, you're never going to consider a passage much more than 500miles or so (Biscay?) and given the unpredictability of European weather, maybe a semi-d boat is a wiser choice. You'd have to be very unlucky indeed with the weather for the blue water capability of the Nordhavn to be the difference between making port and not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top