Selen or Kadey Krogen?
Hi Everyone!
We are trying to decide between a Kadey Krogen 42 Widebody (later model) or
a Selene 47 2000 model. Our planned 5-7 year cruise would be from Alaska,
down the West Coast & Mexico, through the Panama Canal into the Carib, a
side trip to Guatemala, up to Florida and then probably at least half of the
Loop. From there we'd like to go to Holland and take the route to the Black
Sea, Aegean & Med. (Atlantic crossing probably by Tanker delivery!).
We are concentrating on long range blue-water pilothouse/trawlers with low
bridge clearances. The Nordhavns seems to have high stacks and almost no
cockpit. Although they are awesome boats, they don't seem to be compatible
with our need to live mostly on the decks! Is the Kadey Krogen hull design
really superior? Is the hull of the Selene 47 sufficient for the waters we
plan on cruising? We love both boats and can see why owners fall in love
with both of them!
Would anyone like to join a discussion on this? Our last boat was a Marine
Trader, but this time we're serious!
Barb & Don
Reno, Nevada.
"... We are trying to decide between a Kadey Krogen 42 Widebody (later
model) or
a Selene 47 2000 model.... The Nordhavns seems to have high stacks and
almost no cockpit. Although they are awesome boats, they don't seem to be
compatible with our need to live mostly on the decks! ..."
Barb & Don:
It might be beyond your budget, and possibly a waste of time, but before
giving up on Nordhavn, you might want to check out the used Nordhavn 62
market. There is an extreme amount of exterior deck space, and it's a pretty
tough world out there right now. My guess is that an old N62 could be picked
up cheaper than you think, and that sellers will grumble a lot, but take
seriously offers that they would have laughed at a year ago.
-Ken Williams
Nordhavn 68, Sans Souci
(former N62 owner)
PS That said, I haven't actually looked to see if any of the older N62s are
for sale...
You are looking at two very different types of cruising, tropical and north
of 30. 2 very different boat configurations. Cockpits are not really that
useable, at sea they are cold and stinky, in port that are suntraps. If I
was going to sea like that I would opt Nordhavn or Kady K but both with
active stabilizers.
Best of Luck
Carmen
La Paz Mexico
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Barbara Wilkinson xbrit@charter.netwrote:
Hi Everyone!
We are trying to decide between a Kadey Krogen 42 Widebody (later model) or
a Selene 47 2000 model. Our planned 5-7 year cruise would be from Alaska,
down the West Coast & Mexico, through the Panama Canal into the Carib, a
side trip to Guatemala, up to Florida and then probably at least half of
the
Loop. From there we'd like to go to Holland and take the route to the
Black
Sea, Aegean & Med. (Atlantic crossing probably by Tanker delivery!).
We are concentrating on long range blue-water pilothouse/trawlers with low
bridge clearances. The Nordhavns seems to have high stacks and almost no
cockpit. Although they are awesome boats, they don't seem to be compatible
with our need to live mostly on the decks! Is the Kadey Krogen hull design
really superior? Is the hull of the Selene 47 sufficient for the waters we
plan on cruising? We love both boats and can see why owners fall in love
with both of them!
Would anyone like to join a discussion on this? Our last boat was a Marine
Trader, but this time we're serious!
Barb & Don
Reno, Nevada.
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
To unsubscribe send email to
passagemaking-under-power-request@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.
A cockpit on a boat with a wet exhaust is uninhabitable underway,
IMHO. I find inhaling diesel fumes contributes to sea sickness.
However, with a dry stack, cockpits are great places to get a breath
of fresh air when underway, although there is little sense in making
them too big. You aren't going to have a dinner party out there while
underway.
Once we're at the dock or at anchor, the covered flybridge is where we
socialize when the weather is good. Its airy, its big, its up high and
has a great view and cool breezes. Or we set up a table and chairs on
the boat deck.
Bottom line, the cockpit is the least used area of our boat. It's just
my personal preference, but I'd always keep the cockpit small and use
that space for the salon.
John Marshall
Pacific Northwest
On Feb 18, 2009, at 7:10 PM, Anthony Thorne wrote:
You are looking at two very different types of cruising, tropical
and north
of 30. 2 very different boat configurations. Cockpits are not really
that
useable, at sea they are cold and stinky, in port that are suntraps.
If I
was going to sea like that I would opt Nordhavn or Kady K but both
with
active stabilizers.
Best of Luck
Carmen
La Paz Mexico
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Barbara Wilkinson
xbrit@charter.netwrote:
Hi Everyone!
We are trying to decide between a Kadey Krogen 42 Widebody (later
model) or
a Selene 47 2000 model. Our planned 5-7 year cruise would be from
Alaska,
down the West Coast & Mexico, through the Panama Canal into the
Carib, a
side trip to Guatemala, up to Florida and then probably at least
half of
the
Loop. From there we'd like to go to Holland and take the route to
the
Black
Sea, Aegean & Med. (Atlantic crossing probably by Tanker delivery!).
We are concentrating on long range blue-water pilothouse/trawlers
with low
bridge clearances. The Nordhavns seems to have high stacks and
almost no
cockpit. Although they are awesome boats, they don't seem to be
compatible
with our need to live mostly on the decks! Is the Kadey Krogen
hull design
really superior? Is the hull of the Selene 47 sufficient for the
waters we
plan on cruising? We love both boats and can see why owners fall
in love
with both of them!
Would anyone like to join a discussion on this? Our last boat was
a Marine
Trader, but this time we're serious!
Barb & Don
Reno, Nevada.
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
To unsubscribe send email to
passagemaking-under-power-request@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.
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
To unsubscribe send email to
passagemaking-under-power-request@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.
Having seen a man almost thrown out (he hit and grabbed the door jamb) of a
KK42's pilothouse by a passing sportfisherman on the Severn River, I can
attest that they roll like crazy. Most KK42's have foam core from the
waterline up. Some have foam all the way to the keel. Late models are solid
fiberglass. They need a well-reinforced active stabilizer installation
costing about $40,000. Slow trawlers need large fin area stabilizers like
the Naiad 252 or equivalent. The wooden doors on older KK42's are not
adequate for ocean service and I am not interested in those who have
ventured-forth successfully with them. Otherwise they are seaworthy and
commodious boats with good storage and a basement. Goods placed in the
basement would have to be in waterproof wrapping. The vessels of its era did
not come equipped with ocean crossing in mind. They look great.
I have only seen one Selene up close and it was a 53 and beautiful. It had
twin Cummins engines. Unlike KK yachts (the newer ones are of even higher
quality) the Selenes do not appear to have a full displacement hull as the
after section flattens out. Some owners think that they are
full-displacement and Selene has made the forward hull "deeper." Selenes
also require adaptation for ocean voyaging, A key factor in both brands is
their range with existing fuel tanks at say 6 knots.
These are dramatically different boats. The Nordhavn 46 comes closer to the
KK42 conceptually, but is a proven world-circling full-displacement trawler
and they usually have either or both active and passive stabilization. Be
sure that crossing the Atlantic is in your future. You mention crossing as
deck cargo so that would subtract most of the North Atlantic, but the coast
of Europe is the Atlantic and the Med (Mare Nostrum) and is not tame. Any of
these boats would be comfortable as canal cruisers, although most would have
to fold down their masts.
Ron Rogers
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Thorne
You are looking at two very different types of cruising, tropical and north
of 30. 2 very different boat configurations. Cockpits are not really that
useable, at sea they are cold and stinky, in port that are suntraps. If I
was going to sea like that I would opt Nordhavn or Kady K but both with
active stabilizers.
I take exception to John Marshall's comment re the "uninhabitability"
of the cockpit on wet exhaust boats. I've owned six wet exhaust boats
of various types. Those with the exhaust exiting the stern through a
flat transom can suffer from the "station wagon" effect at higher
speeds, resulting in exhaust fumes being sucked back into the
cockpit. This can be unpleasant. On my last two boats, a Nordhavn 57
and 64, the exhaust exits at the aft starboard corner through an
outlet that is underwater at about six knots. The exhaust is thus
swept back behind the boat and does not come into the cockpit. There
is no exhaust odor in the cockpit.
The wet vs. dry debate is endless. For a thorough discussion of the
issue, I suggest Dave Gerr's article in the February/March and April/
May 2008 issue of Professional Boat Builder: After weighing the
plusses and minuses of each choice, Gerr concludes: "[M]y preference
is for wet exhaust on yachts and most small passenger vessels. I
think the majority of boat owners will be happier living with a wet
exhaust."
Tim Johnson
M/V CLAIRBUOYANT
Nordhavn 64 #06
tim@timandclair.com
Hi Tim,
We build almost exclusively wet exhausts, and you are absolutely right! We
have delivered boats long distances and fine the boats very clean on
arrival. I also think wet exhausts are less expensive to build, and if an
exhaust separator is used, they are really clean and quite!
Brian
Yachtsmiths International
-----Original Message-----
From:
passagemaking-under-power-bounces+brian.smyth=ns.sympatico.ca@lists.samurai.
com
[mailto:passagemaking-under-power-bounces+brian.smyth=ns.sympatico.ca@lists.
samurai.com] On Behalf Of Tim Johnson
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:01 PM
To: John Marshall
Cc: Barbara Wilkinson; passagemaking-under-power@lists.samurai.com
Subject: Re: [PUP] Selen or Kadey Krogen?
I take exception to John Marshall's comment re the "uninhabitability"
of the cockpit on wet exhaust boats. I've owned six wet exhaust boats
of various types. Those with the exhaust exiting the stern through a
flat transom can suffer from the "station wagon" effect at higher
speeds, resulting in exhaust fumes being sucked back into the
cockpit. This can be unpleasant. On my last two boats, a Nordhavn 57
and 64, the exhaust exits at the aft starboard corner through an
outlet that is underwater at about six knots. The exhaust is thus
swept back behind the boat and does not come into the cockpit. There
is no exhaust odor in the cockpit.
The wet vs. dry debate is endless. For a thorough discussion of the
issue, I suggest Dave Gerr's article in the February/March and April/
May 2008 issue of Professional Boat Builder: After weighing the
plusses and minuses of each choice, Gerr concludes: "[M]y preference
is for wet exhaust on yachts and most small passenger vessels. I
think the majority of boat owners will be happier living with a wet
exhaust."
Tim Johnson
M/V CLAIRBUOYANT
Nordhavn 64 #06
tim@timandclair.com
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power
To unsubscribe send email to
passagemaking-under-power-request@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.
I stand corrected Tim.
Perhaps the various wet exhaust boats I've been on didn't handle the
exhaust correctly, but I could always smell a bit of burned diesel,
especially with a following or quartering wind. (But none of them were
wet-exhaust Nordhavns). Given we're pretty slow, the wind is often
blowing from the back.
Or maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive to the fumes.
John
On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Tim Johnson wrote:
I take exception to John Marshall's comment re the
"uninhabitability" of the cockpit on wet exhaust boats. I've owned
six wet exhaust boats of various types. Those with the exhaust
exiting the stern through a flat transom can suffer from the
"station wagon" effect at higher speeds, resulting in exhaust fumes
being sucked back into the cockpit. This can be unpleasant. On my
last two boats, a Nordhavn 57 and 64, the exhaust exits at the aft
starboard corner through an outlet that is underwater at about six
knots. The exhaust is thus swept back behind the boat and does not
come into the cockpit. There is no exhaust odor in the cockpit.
The wet vs. dry debate is endless. For a thorough discussion of the
issue, I suggest Dave Gerr's article in the February/March and April/
May 2008 issue of Professional Boat Builder: After weighing the
plusses and minuses of each choice, Gerr concludes: "[M]y
preference is for wet exhaust on yachts and most small passenger
vessels. I think the majority of boat owners will be happier
living with a wet exhaust."
Tim Johnson
M/V CLAIRBUOYANT
Nordhavn 64 #06
tim@timandclair.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Marshall" johnamar1101@gmail.com
Perhaps the various wet exhaust boats I've been on didn't handle the
exhaust correctly, but I could always smell a bit of burned diesel,
especially with a following or quartering wind. (But none of them were
wet-exhaust Nordhavns). Given we're pretty slow, the wind is often
blowing from the back.
Or maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive to the fumes.
John
REPLY
Unless you do tank testing to determine the exact water flow at the stern
at varying speeds, it would be hard to get the location exactly right. On
the big boats that I have been on they vented the exhaust down and out
from the very bottom of the boat. There was a bypass for idling at the dock
that exited near the stern at the water line.
I once tried to incorporate this design concept into a 50 footer but it was
rather crowded with the required wet exhaust pipes plus a bypass. My
mentor, Mike Harling expressd the opinion that it was not practical for
smaller than hulls of about 70 feet.
Arild
John Marshall describe what usually happens on my Willard 40. I have to keep
the saloon door closed most of the time underway. My exhaust is at the
waterline under a vented swim platform. Underwater exhausts may be the way
to go. Some dry exhaust owners complain of carbon soot falling on the boat
in certain wind conditions.
Ron Rogers