passagemaking@lists.trawlering.com

Passagemaking Under Power List

View all threads

Re: [PUP] Krogen 55 Expedition vs Dashew FPB64

DC
Dave Cooper
Sat, Oct 20, 2007 10:04 PM

Fuel range figures are based on so many assumptions that it is always hard
to extract apples to apples comparisons from the vendors.

Both of the boats you mention, the N55 and the KK 55 appear to be publishing
similar ranges with large differences in tankage. Hmmmmmm.

We view range as a variable based on distance speed and days out. For
example we have zero range at zero knots if we are anchored for 180 days or
so because the genset will burn all the fuel!
So we know that we need fuel a minimum of every six months. If we add some
passages into the mix the time between fuel stops goes down but he range
goes up.
Burning 4 GPH at 7.6 or so would give us about 2300 miles, however it would
take us 13 days to do so non stop. There by we used another 100 gallons with
the genset so we are roughly 200 miles shy of the 2300. Lets say 2000 miles.

This means we have a range between 0 and 2000 miles depending upon the mix
of passages vs. anchorages.

I'll bet those marketing Nordhavn and Kadey Krogen folks are capable of
spinning the "assumptions" and coming up with very different "ranges" that
each product is capable of. In reality you as the owner are the only one
that can determine this. There isn't some magic range boosting hull that
runs of the hall effect spun from the hair of mermaids. Similar hulls of
similar weight, beam, wl, windage and power have very similar fuel burns at
the same displacement speeds.

As always YMMV and usually does.....

Dave & Nancy
Swan Song
Roughwater 58

Fuel range figures are based on so many assumptions that it is always hard to extract apples to apples comparisons from the vendors. Both of the boats you mention, the N55 and the KK 55 appear to be publishing similar ranges with large differences in tankage. Hmmmmmm. We view range as a variable based on distance speed and days out. For example we have zero range at zero knots if we are anchored for 180 days or so because the genset will burn all the fuel! So we know that we need fuel a minimum of every six months. If we add some passages into the mix the time between fuel stops goes down but he range goes up. Burning 4 GPH at 7.6 or so would give us about 2300 miles, however it would take us 13 days to do so non stop. There by we used another 100 gallons with the genset so we are roughly 200 miles shy of the 2300. Lets say 2000 miles. This means we have a range between 0 and 2000 miles depending upon the mix of passages vs. anchorages. I'll bet those marketing Nordhavn and Kadey Krogen folks are capable of spinning the "assumptions" and coming up with very different "ranges" that each product is capable of. In reality you as the owner are the only one that can determine this. There isn't some magic range boosting hull that runs of the hall effect spun from the hair of mermaids. Similar hulls of similar weight, beam, wl, windage and power have very similar fuel burns at the same displacement speeds. As always YMMV and usually does..... Dave & Nancy Swan Song Roughwater 58
RR
Ron Rogers
Sun, Oct 21, 2007 2:13 AM

Ignoring the vagaries of mermaid hair, I do remember some emails on the
Trawler List where it was pointed out that some twin engine installations
consumed the same or less fuel than their single engine counterparts. I have
no clue as to why, but a single engine of "X" power may or may not burn more
fuel than twin engines of "1/2 X" power.

The arguments for twin engines on a world cruiser is just about as
meretricious as those for a single engine. I need to go back and read
Dashew's rationale for their going with twin engines.

Ron Rogers

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Cooper" swansong@gmn-usa.com
|
| I'll bet those marketing Nordhavn and Kadey Krogen folks are capable of
| spinning the "assumptions" and coming up with very different "ranges" that
| each product is capable of. In reality you as the owner are the only one
| that can determine this. There isn't some magic range boosting hull that
| runs of the hall effect spun from the hair of mermaids. Similar hulls of
| similar weight, beam, wl, windage and power have very similar fuel burns
at the same displacement speeds.
|
| As always YMMV and usually does.....
|
| Dave & Nancy

Ignoring the vagaries of mermaid hair, I do remember some emails on the Trawler List where it was pointed out that some twin engine installations consumed the same or less fuel than their single engine counterparts. I have no clue as to why, but a single engine of "X" power may or may not burn more fuel than twin engines of "1/2 X" power. The arguments for twin engines on a world cruiser is just about as meretricious as those for a single engine. I need to go back and read Dashew's rationale for their going with twin engines. Ron Rogers ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Cooper" <swansong@gmn-usa.com> | | I'll bet those marketing Nordhavn and Kadey Krogen folks are capable of | spinning the "assumptions" and coming up with very different "ranges" that | each product is capable of. In reality you as the owner are the only one | that can determine this. There isn't some magic range boosting hull that | runs of the hall effect spun from the hair of mermaids. Similar hulls of | similar weight, beam, wl, windage and power have very similar fuel burns at the same displacement speeds. | | As always YMMV and usually does..... | | Dave & Nancy