There is a brand new Nautitech 44 listed on yachtworld for $496,462.00 USD sailaway (albeit not equipped for world cruising), which seems quite competitive.
In terms of analyzing the Lagoon
44 as against the Nautitech and FP43, to me the entry seems finer and the beam of the hulls considerably narrower in both of the latter two boats; further, the windage will undoubtedly be less in either, as will the center of gravity and center of effort of the sailplans. The bridgedeck clearance of both boats actually appears to be greater than on the Lagoon
, apart from the Catana-type inboard knuckles on the Nautitech. Certainly the FP43 has greater minimum clearance and a cleaner underbody. Further, the accomodation (and hence weight) seems to have been pushed less far forward and aft in either of these boats than on the Lagoon. All of these features should prove advantageous to the Nautitech and FP in terms of seaworthiness and performance under sail and anchor
(albeit not at dockside - and you have to love the accomodation in the Lagoon 44).
The twin helms aft on the Nautitech? I too have some difficulty with that notion, albeit still preferring it to the flying bridge on the Lagoon 44 (which not only isolates the helmsperson from the crew/social center of the boat, but also contributes to the raised CG and CE already referred to). Best of all worlds, in my view, is the set-up on the FP43 which permits visibility forward by not only the helmsperson, but all occupants of the cockpit
(rather than facing a ventilation/vision stealing wall as in the Lagoon and Nautitech).
Two other dimensions that should be considered when comparing these three boats is BOA and bridge clearance (especially if one intends to use the ICW
, which generally permits a maximum height of 65 feet). I note the L44 shows a maximum beam of 25.3 feet, as opposed to the Nautitech at 22.34 and the FP43 at 21.8. The greater the beam, the more difficult it is to find docking/haul-out facilities; further, beam to length ratios in excess of 2-1 tend to increase the boats tendancy to pitchpole (by decreasing fore/aft stability); finally, required bridgedeck height is most commonly expressed as being inversely proportional to beam, rather than length. Make no mistake, there are some negatives associated with the significantly increased beam on the L44. One can only assume that this beam was designed not merely to increase interior
accomodation, but to counteract the increased CG and CE that was brought about by the flying bridge (and this I suspect it does - I imagine that the capsize
resistance is virtually as good on the Lagoon as on the other boats, albeit at the expense of the other things already mentioned).
The bridge clearance for the FP43 is listed as 63' (appropriate for the ICW), while the L44 is listed at 69.4'. Nautitech does not seem to list bridge clearance, but posts the height of the mast
as 49.87 feet; assuming that it is stepped no more than 8 - 10 feet above the waterline, that would leave a bridge clearance of no more than 60 feet - again, appropriate for the ICW
A couple of other observations: the teak
toe rail on the Lagoon will prove to be a relatively high maintenance
item and, the split-height side decks will make movement forward and aft less simple (and potentially less safe) than on either the Nautitech or the FP.
At the end of the day, in my opinion there is no clear-cut 'winner' between these three boats. The prospective purchaser should not only try to sail them in varying conditions, but also be honest in assessing what will likely be their ultimate use; simply put, I suspect that few will really be taking their boats on significant offshore
passages. However, once an analysis is done, as is often said, you should consider 'different horses for different courses'.
I have little doubt that the Lagoon 44 is a seaworthy
vessel quite capable of offshore passages; I also have little doubt that she will be a little less suited to that role than either the FP43, or the Nautitech 44. Due to the increased interior
space, the L44 will be a better boat dockside and, for many, a better boat for Florida/Bahamas/most Caribbean
cruising; she will, however, be incapable of transiting the ICW for those who are so inclined.
And as to appearance? I won't go there: lets just say that to a significant degree, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.