mono vs. cat
I am building a custom 50' sailing cat currently, and I can assure you the
interior and exterior volume is quite a bit more than a 50' mono hull and more
than most 65 ft. Also the stability underway and at anchor would be far better
than a stabilized mono hull. As far as sailing and motoring performance
against a equivalent size cruising mono hull, all I can say is "Lets race from
point to point, title for title". In regards to cost, well lets take out the
cost of the lead ballast, and larger required rig in the mono hull, and the
cost of now stabilizers, and I would say the cost of the cat would probably be
less than the mono hull. Yes you can add stabilizers to a mono hull sailboat,
but to imply it wont affect sailing performance is a little inaccurate, that's
a lot more wetted surface and drag in the water.
Hi Pat,
A narrow hulled sail or power cat will almost always be faster and more fuel
efficient than a similar length monohull. I'm suggesting you might compare
by price rather than size. However I was in a race last week in Puerto
Vallarta, mostly upwind in 10 knots, and the single cat in the race was
slower than any of the monohulls. Sorry, I never got close enough to
ascertain the make but It looked like a Fountaine-Pajot of about 40'. We
were on a Beneteau 461 which I consider a slug, but it still pointed higher
and went faster than the cat. In a strong wind I'm sure the results would be
different.
I didn't mean to imply that the monohull would be superior to the power cat,
just that there is more than one way of getting to a similar result. Cats
are rare here (BC) for reasons that have nothing to do with cost or
performance. Moorage is the issue. Most marinas have very few end ties that
can accommodate a wide cat, and if you take two slips you pay double. Also,
slips in general are now VERY hard to find.
For adequate stability, a power cat need not be as wide as a sailing cat and
could be designed to fit in the same space as a "fat" monohull, but few are.
The PDQ 34 would have been more popular on the Left Coast were it not for a
beam too wide for road transport.
I'm FOR powercats in general, but I'm also for a minimalist life style
emphasizing low fuel use and low impact on the environment. Sail, solar, and
low speed (under 16 knots for cats, 8 for monos)diesel boats are the current
winners. I think if you must have all of the amenities of the affluent
shore-side lifestyle with you at all times, it might be better to stay home.
And, if you in a serious hurry, the slowest plane beats the fastest boat.
Kind Regards,
Grahame Shannon
2101 Philip Avenue
North Vancouver, BC V7P 2W5
-----Original Message-----
From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Pat
Reischmann
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 5:56 AM
To: power-catamaran
Subject: [PCW] mono vs. cat
I am building a custom 50' sailing cat currently, and I can assure you the
interior and exterior volume is quite a bit more than a 50' mono hull and
more than most 65 ft. Also the stability underway and at anchor would be far
better than a stabilized mono hull. As far as sailing and motoring
performance against a equivalent size cruising mono hull, all I can say is
"Lets race from point to point, title for title". In regards to cost, well
lets take out the cost of the lead ballast, and larger required rig in the
mono hull, and the cost of now stabilizers, and I would say the cost of the
cat would probably be less than the mono hull. Yes you can add stabilizers
to a mono hull sailboat, but to imply it wont affect sailing performance is
a little inaccurate, that's a lot more wetted surface and drag in the water.
Power-Catamaran Mailing List
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.14/1247 - Release Date: 1/28/2008
10:59 AM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.14/1247 - Release Date: 1/28/2008
10:59 AM