Update NW 45 trawler developments........

I don't have the MBY boat test's fuel consumption figures with me but on a general note, I think that the comparison should be made with lower speeds. To my understanding a true displacement speed for this type of craft is closer to 7 knots than the 9,5 mentioned here. 9,5 on a Nordhavn would be closer to 'flat-out'.

What type of fuel consumption you get on yours at around 7 knots?

I've been pondering the economy issue over and over again as I might be looking to sell our current boat and purchase a new one. Earlier I thought that displacement would be the way to go, but I'm not sure anymore.
 
Yup, wholeheartedly agree all that, except I'd have the stabs. You should sea trial one and turn the stabs on/off to feel the difference (which I've only done a couple of times, on my bro's trawler yacht), before you place your order!

I still love that sofa on the NW45 flybridge. Get it all done in sunbrella and what a fab G&T sundowner spot!

Yes, I totally agree you shouldn't buy a boat based on mpg. In fact the sofa factor is much more important :-)
 
Quite agree...I'm not so sure a D boat is the be-all-and-end-all of the future for Mo'bo'ing!

Yes I'm quite happy when the weather is nice, to chug along at 9 knots or so, but I do tend to get a little fed up after a while and there's no doubt it's nice to blow away the cobwebs for a few minutes!

I never intend to go across the pond under my own power. I bought a boat for pleasure and not to challenge the elements!

It's nice to know you've got some speed in reserve to make a run for the nearest port, should the weather turn a little adverse.

I do like the look of conventional "classic" boats though, especially these:

http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1945439/0
http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1826950/0

Some variants of this model can achieve up to about 18Kts, which I would find acceptable, should the need arise to get to port a little quicker!
 
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I totally agree you shouldn't buy a boat based on mpg. In fact the sofa factor is much more important


[/ QUOTE ]

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

My particular one is the size of the shower - I do insist on reaching my bits & pieces without turning into a contortionist /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

oh and erm... my next boat will have a head board /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

Some variants of this model can achieve up to about 18Kts, which I would find acceptable, should the need arise to get to port a little quicker!


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't 18knots in this type of boat be very heavy on fuel compared with a planing hull?
 
[ QUOTE ]
What type of fuel consumption you get on yours at around 7 knots?

[/ QUOTE ]

Offhand i dunno. i do much crusing on long passages at 9.5 or so, so happen to know that mpg. But I bet my mpg is better than the Nord or Selene (assuming same LOA) at 7knots too. Reason is mine is 28 tonnes or so, theirs is nearer 45, which is a heck of a lot more water to shove out of the way and more than destroys the benefit of having a pure D design of hull as opposed to my P design (remeber, they're not much different: both pointed at the front eh?)
 
You're right Garry, it's horses for courses. if I wanted to challenge the elements and cross the oceans I'd sail. For the rest of the time I just want to potter about up and down channel (Bristol that is). Mind you my absolute top speed is 12.6 so nothing too drastic whatever happens.
1 mpg at 10 knots
2 mpg at 7.5 knots
Not too keen on those ultra-high superstructures on the Alaskas though.
All academic for me anyway unless my next big idea works out better than the last 97!
 
Hah, somebody else noticed that too. I was going to post on the forum about this very subject but you beat me to it. These Nordhavn type D boats may be optimised for D performance but they're actually not that economical at D speeds which I guess is down to their very heavy build, large tankage etc. IMHO, if you want to go ocean crossing at D speeds, then only a Nordhavn type boat can do that but, let's face it, what most of us are ever going to do is coastal hopping, even on an extended cruise. So, if minimising fuel consumption is a priority, you're better off getting a lighter weight planing boat and driving it at D speeds plus, of course, you always have the option to go faster if required. Even roll stability on a planing boat at D speeds can be reduced with a gyro stabilizer
Obviously, you now get into discussions about seakeeping of D boats versus planing boats at D speeds and for sure, in extreme conditions, a Nordhavn type D boat is going to be more comfortable but, once again, you have to come back to the argument as to how often, if at all, you are going to be caught in extreme conditions on a coastal hopping cruise. It's interesting to note comments about the number of Nordhaven/Selene/Krogen type D boats that appear on the used market only a year or 2 old. I know some of these boats will have been used for a once in a lifetime extended cruise and then sold but I bet a good many people get taken in by the rufty tufty go anywhere image but quickly find that 7kts @ 1mpg doesn't suit their actual coastal cruising habits and that, if you're going to consume fuel at 1mpg, you might as well do it at 15kts in a lighter boat. It's a bit analogous to people who buy into the rufty tufty 4x4 car image and then find that the slow speed and high fuel consumption don't actually suit their normal driving habits
 
[ QUOTE ]
Reason is mine is 28 tonnes or so, theirs is nearer 45, which is a heck of a lot more water to shove out of the way and more than destroys the benefit of having a pure D design of hull as opposed to my P design (remeber, they're not much different: both pointed at the front eh?)

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes perfect sense. And as Gerry also pointed out, knowing that you not restricted to 9 knots feels easier mentally...

I'm still a bit worried how the engines that are designed for higher speeds cope with cruising at lower revs. Lubrication being the main concern. This is probably discussed elsewhere already, though.
 
Can't see the point of buying a Nordhaven and not speccing the stabilisers. You don't get more space or better fuel economy, so surely the reason to buy one is for heavy weather capability, so may as well have the stabs?
 
Yup, agree all that 100% mike. Indeed, if you're planning to cross oceans you're much better buying a nice sailboat a la tcm, or a nice 90 foot CMN or summink.
 
I can't see the point either. In fact, most if not all of them do have fins afaik.
But that has nothing to see with heavy weather capability, though that's a rather common belief.
Stabs are for comfort, nothing else.
The hull characteristics (stability, ballast, etc.) of these boats are what make them suitable for heavy wx.
Under really extreme conditions, it might be even safer to keep the stabs centered, allowing the hull to follow her own natural motion.
In fact, the answer to a common question re.stabilized trawlers: "can they become dangerous if the equipment fails?" is "yes, but just for the crew stomachs".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

T
Notices to Mariners - Week 50
Replies
2
Views
627
tillergirl
T
T
Notices to Mariners - Week 49
Replies
0
Views
761
tillergirl
T

Share this page

Top