As a potential powercat owner, (so far, I canbt convince Penny) I couldnbt help comparing our current Skookum 53 monohullbs performance to the Chryslis and Bluewater. Our 2006 passage back to the US from Trinidad was only 100 miles shorter than the 1800 Georgs quotes as transatlantic. Extrapolating by adding 13 hours and 46 gallons to our data we get: Chrysalis Bluewater Seahorse Average speed 8.3 knots 6.2 knots 7.3 knots Fuel consumption 4.0 gph 4.4 gph 3.24 gph Time underway 9 days 12 days 10 days Fuel burned 865 gal 1,275 gal 757 gal. Seahorse is a 1978 Skookum 53 motorboat with a Lugger 130HP engine. She is built on a sailing hull and equipped with paravanes, one of which was in use for 4 days and both for three more. Regards, John "Seahorse" **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

	Chrysalis        Bluewater       Seahorse

Ocean passage of 1,800 nautical miles: > Chrysalis Bluewater Seahorse > >Average speed 8.3 knots 6.2 knots 7.3 knots > >Fuel consumption 4.0 gph 4.4 gph 3.24 gph > >Time underway 9 days 12 days 10 days > >Fuel burned 865 gal 1,275 gal 757 gal. > >Seahorse is a 1978 Skookum 53 motorboat with a Lugger 130HP engine. She is >built on a sailing hull and equipped with paravanes, one of which was in use >for 4 days and both for three more. Thanks, John, for adding to the knowledge base with real-world numbers. The Skookum obviously is a very slippery monohull. It's also somewhat smaller. But your numbers do point out that, for trans-oceanic passagemaking, power catamarans don't offer as huge an advantage in performance as many people would expect. Power cats do of course have other compelling features, such as space, comfort, stability, shallow draft, etc. --Georgs -- Georgs Kolesnikovs Power Catamaran World http://www.powercatamaranworld.com