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

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@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.

Why do we automatically assume that twin engines use more fuel per mile than a single. If it takes 50 hp to move the boat at a certain speed that's how much diesel is used. If two small engines have less combined parasitic losses than one bigger engine they will use less fuel to produce the required power. The only remaining factor is drag. But, smaller shafts and props compared to a larger single shaft and prop almost make up the difference. I would take the Krogen over the Nordy simply because it has twins. If I'm not mistaken the new Nordhavn motorsailer can be had with twin engines. Seems like all the big players are going twin, go figure.> From: johnamar1101@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:12:34 -0700> To: passagemaking-under-power@lists.samurai.com> Subject: Re: [PUP] Krogen 55 Expedition vs Dashew FPB64> > 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@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.> _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us

> Why do we automatically assume that twin engines use more fuel per mile than a > single. If it takes 50 hp to move the boat at a certain speed that's how much > diesel is used. If two small engines have less combined parasitic losses than > one bigger engine they will use less fuel to produce the required power. The > only remaining factor is drag. Smaller engines generally use more fuel per pound of horsepower per hour. The 60 hp Isuzu 4JB1 uses about .350 pounds per hour per horsepower. A 400 hp engine is more likely to be about .275. This detail is one factor which can not be ignored. Mike _____________________________________ Capt. Mike Maurice Beaverton Oregon(Near Portland)

Bob E said: "...I would take the Krogen over the Nordy simply because it has twins..." As a Nordhavn owner, who has twin engines, it's tough to understand the above comment. My boat is an N68, but I believe that several N57s were made with twin engine configuration. I've heard the N55 is available with twin engines. I don't know about other models. Prior to purchasing, I convinced myself that the fuel consumption running single or twins was roughly the same. There is some lost efficiency because of the extra friction of the dual props, but there is also some increased efficiency from running the engines at lower rpms. Presently all N68s are twins. I'm sure there'll be a single engine N68 within a year or two, and it will be interesting to compare fuel stats. Our prior boat was a single engine N62. I once lost the main engine crossing the Bay of Lyon and had to run for 24 hours on the wing engine at 3.5 knots. It was knot fun. On the other hand, we recently had to briefly run without the starboard engine on the N68, and it was impressive that we only lost about 1/2 knot of speed (we still made over 9 knots), and fuel consumption appeared to be the same. We plan to cross the Pacific next year, and I really want to understand the differences in fuel efficiency running single engine or twins, so that I can maximize range across the Pacific. Although I've tried, the data is so close between running a single or a twin, that I still don't know which is more efficient. The bottom line presently is that fuel economy seems to be roughly the same twin versus single (or, at least it appears to be within 5%). However, should I lose an engine, I'd rather be moving at 9 knots than 3.5 knots. And, it's certainly preferable having two engines that use the same spare parts. Another side benefit of the twins is that I am able to run at lower RPMs. Generally we cruise at 1,300 or 1,350rpm. In a single engine boat I'd be running 1,600-1,700 rpm to maintain the same speed. I prefer less vibration. It seems to be easier on the engine. -Ken Williams Sans Souci, Nordhavn68.com

Most of the bigger boats, including the Nordhavn 55, can be had with twins, but I know Nordhavn claims the most fuel efficient boats are still the singles. Until they get to the 68 footers, most of their boats go out the door with singles. I've heard the same argument that Mike Maurice mentions, about various frictional (parasitic?) losses that increase with the number of engines for a given horsepower output (assuming same technology of engine), plus two shafts, props, etc. What I haven't seen is any hard data that compares miles per gallon on otherwise identical boats with twins or single. Once the first N55 with twins is on the water (real soon now -- I heard that the first twin N55 is going on FUBAR as a support/sponsor boat), we might be able to get apples to apples fuel consumption data. The first 25 or so N55's delivered have been singles. John On Oct 20, 2007, at 7:20 PM, bob england wrote: > Why do we automatically assume that twin engines use more fuel per > mile than a > single. If it takes 50 hp to move the boat at a certain speed > that's how much > diesel is used. If two small engines have less combined parasitic > losses than > one bigger engine they will use less fuel to produce the required > power. The > only remaining factor is drag. But, smaller shafts and props > compared to a > larger single shaft and prop almost make up the difference. I would > take the > Krogen over the Nordy simply because it has twins. If I'm not > mistaken the new > Nordhavn motorsailer can be had with twin engines. Seems like all > the big > players are going twin, go figure.> From: johnamar1101@gmail.com> > Date: Sat, > 20 Oct 2007 14:12:34 -0700> To: passagemaking-under- > power@lists.samurai.com> > Subject: Re: [PUP] Krogen 55 Expedition vs Dashew FPB64> > 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@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.> > _________________________________________________________________ > Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! > http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us > _______________________________________________ > 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.