[PUP] Krogen 55 Expedition vs Dashew FPB64

[John Marshall]

I'm not sure how to parameterize fuel consumption between two small  
twins and a single, larger main, but I have to believe the twins eat  
more fuel per mile, everything else equal.

That said, I have to assume a single-engine Nordhavn 55 with 2250  
gallons (N55 is a bit heavier, but gross hull dimensions are the same  
as KK) is going to have better range than a KK 55 with twins and 1800  
gallons. Yet both have the same specified range at 8 knots.

I don't see how.

John Marshall
N55-Serendipity
Sequim Bay, WA

On Oct 20, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Dave Cooper wrote:

> Weighing in on this one could generate a long email!
>
> 1. Fuel tankage seems very light for a real long range
> passagemaker...perhaps turning 2 or 300 gallons of that water  
> capacity into
> fuel capacity would help. One of the things we see is that having the
> ability to purchase fuel where the price is "right" can save huge  
> amounts of
> money. If you can buy fuel at $2.50/gal vs. $6/gal then the savings  
> are
> large. If you can find some at the "International price" of $1 to  
> 1.50 /gal
> even better. If you can swing by Venezuela and fuel up for the $.05/ 
> gal or
> even the $.30/gal for unlimited amounts then even better. We are  
> working on
> increasing Swan Song's tankage for that reason alone not range. I  
> wouldn't
> consider anything under 3000 gals as adequate today for a  
> "passagemaker".
> Today, 10/20/07, buying 5000 gals of fuel in Martinique would be  
> $35,000.
> Whereas buying it in Isla Margarita, VE would be $1250.00 and if  
> you did
> some careful shopping you could get 1000 gals of that at $.03/gal  
> today so
> lets say $1030 vs. $35,000 for one fuel up. Again if you are buying a
> passagemaker you aren't staying in Kansas anymore and need to deal  
> with fuel
> and  fueling as a highly variable commodity which it is. Big tanks  
> help this
> process and can lower your cost of operation dramatically.
> 2. The beam/length/displacement ratios would seem to indicate that  
> it will
> take considerable power to over come head seas and wind. This of  
> course will
> have a large effect on fuel burn and range.
> 3. The 1/3 double deck seems a bit out of place on an ocean going  
> small
> vessel. As Seahorse John said the A/B ration looks a bit off for  
> this use.
> 4. The 18' beam certainly gives interior volume but again at the  
> expense of
> sea keeping ability. IMHO.
> 5. The half load displacement of ~82,000 would yield a full load  
> with stores
> and gear of close to 95,000, IMO. This again takes fuel to push thru a
> seaway. It is also on the heavy side for a 49' waterline.
> 6. I would really wonder if the range is 3000 miles under typical
> passagemaking conditions.
> 7. Not being a fan of active fins for stabilization do to potential  
> failure,
> I wonder how she'd handle 15-18 ft beam seas without them  
> operating. More so
> how would the crew stand-up to this for a few days or weeks on a  
> passage?
> 8. Looks are a matter of the eye of the beholder until they get in  
> the way
> of function. I'd be a bit leery of the ride up in that pilothouse  
> if the
> active stabilizers went out. Many feet above the roll center.
>
> Lots of marketing speak in this one page release. Little in the way of
> showing real thought to the real world in passagemaking today.
>
> The Krogen 55 is about as far on the other end of the spectrum from  
> the
> FPB64 design and concept as one could get and still both be twin screw
> monohulls. Fat and heavy vs. lean, long and light. KK focused on  
> interior
> space and living with more than a couple aboard. FPB64 is a  
> couple's boat
> period no pretense of more folks aboard for more that one laundry  
> cycle.
>
> Swan Song in its 58' X 13' has just enough space for Nancy and I.  
> We have a
> second stateroom for guests but tend to discourage anyone from a  
> long term
> stay. When full time cruising, which to us are passages interrupted  
> with
> longer stays at out of the way anchorages and some marinas, you do  
> need more
> space than what many consider adequate for shorter term living  
> aboard. You
> can get this space in one of three ways; increase beam, height or  
> length. Of
> these three two are detrimental to making a good passagemaker, IMO.  
> You only
> have length to work with as both beam and height reduce the level of
> seaworthiness all other things being equal.
>
> The Dashews took the long route to getting the interior volume they  
> felt
> they needed for their type of passagemaking. This won't work for  
> everyone
> and some might even consider the trade offs that they made over the
> top....until of course you are a 1000 miles from the closest safe  
> harbor and
> the seas are 18 and building......The pucker factor goes up  
> remarkably fast
> then.
>
> Swan Song is by no means even close to the Dashews in terms of being
> bulletproof but we are well ahead of what many are selling today as
> "Passagemakers" to people who don't have the offshore experience to  
> realize
> what a bad day at sea can be like. If they did they'd be beating a  
> path to
> Steve's door if they're in the market for a new all weather offshore
> passagemaker.
>
> As always YMMV.....
>
> Dave & Nancy
> Swan Song
> Roughwater 58
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
>
> To unsubscribe send email to
> passagemaking-under-power-request at lists.samurai.com with the word
> UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
>
> Passagemaking Under Power and PUP are trademarks of Water World  
> Productions, formerly known as Trawler World Productions.