> "slower" never requires such a dimishment in speed > that maneuverability > becomes an issue. > Further, the inherent stability of two, widely > spaced hulls makes the > addition of a stabilizing system a moot point. Personally, I have never experienced loss of maneuverability in heavy seas because of low speed per se. Sure, it can be tough to control due to sea state, but that's a little different. Not all monohulls are created equally in terms of stability, and not all boaters have the same tastes. My personal boat is a Willard 36, and I am quite active in the Willard owners group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WillardBoatOwners - open to everyone - owner or not). We polled our members extensively a couple years ago and found that on average, Willard's equipped with stabilizers run them about 10% of the time in open ocean conditions. This parallels my experience, but I confess we tend to be a frugal group. I would imagine a similar poll of Nordhavn, Krogen, Selene, etc owners would find a much higher percentage of stabilizer useage, partially because these boats have higher superstructures and more prone to roll, but also because people get used to having them on all the time. I did a docking demo'd with a PDQ cat at the Manitowoc Trawler Fest last year and was quite pleased with the maneuverability and yes, it did handle okay on one engine. I am curious about how they do in wind chop and such, especially in the smaller sizes like the PDQ. Rod - are you the same "Rod Gibbons" who owns "Cruising Cats USA" in Alameda? Peter www.SeaSkills.com

Dear Peter, Yes, the same Rod Gibbons. Interestingly, one of my salesmen lives aboard a Willard. Has done so for a few years. LOVES the boat! Me? "I likes the variety!" Over the past 5 yeras I've owned, sequentially: a Lagoon 380 sail-cruising catamaran; a Maryland 37 power catamaran; a 13' Livingston dinghy with o/b motor; and, this past year, a 40', houseboat built on displacement-type fiberglass hulls that I cruise around Puget Sound. (13 knots at 4 GPH with a single 115 HP, 4-cycle Yamaha outboard. Meanwhile, the 40' x 12 layout is bigger than the apartment I lived in in NYC for 10 years!...AND there's the cabin-long sundeck above. Of course, catch me in more than a 3-foot beam sea and I feel like the toy-whistle in a box of Cracker Jacks! Fortunately, one can cruise Puget Sound much of the year without encountering 3-foot seas -- and in 2-feet I'm fine.) Speaking of outboards, one of the most unexpected changes I'm noticing in coastal cruising boats the past couple of years is the use of outboards in place of diesels. There was a recent article in "PassageMaker" magazine espousing outboards for cruising. I'd have pooh-poohed the notion...except that now that I've used one of the new, 4-cycle models, I've been introduced to some striking advantages. (No winterizing necessary; no nasty diesel exhaust fumes to breathe when motoring downwind; waaaayyyy quieter; easier to arrange for a "loaner" engine if big repairs required; takes all the machinery out of the hulls; surprisingly economical -- ten years ago I'd have laughed if someone had told me diesel could become MORE expensive than gasoline.) Of course, you're still talking "apples-and-oranges" when comparing inboard diesels with outboard 4-cycle motors.....but previously we were talking "kumquats-and-aardvarks!" There's a large community of would-be cruisers who are financially constrained to select boats in the 25' to 35' range. And it would seem that the modern outboard motor, surprisingly, can offer the coastal cruiser an acceptable alternative to diesel engines. (And nope, I don't sell outboard motors.) Cheers, Rod Peter Pisciotta wrote: >>"slower" never requires such a dimishment in speed >>that maneuverability >>becomes an issue. >>Further, the inherent stability of two, widely >>spaced hulls makes the >>addition of a stabilizing system a moot point. >> >> > >Personally, I have never experienced loss of >maneuverability in heavy seas because of low speed per >se. Sure, it can be tough to control due to sea state, >but that's a little different. > >Not all monohulls are created equally in terms of >stability, and not all boaters have the same tastes. >My personal boat is a Willard 36, and I am quite >active in the Willard owners group >(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WillardBoatOwners - >open to everyone - owner or not). We polled our >members extensively a couple years ago and found that >on average, Willard's equipped with stabilizers run >them about 10% of the time in open ocean conditions. >This parallels my experience, but I confess we tend to >be a frugal group. I would imagine a similar poll of >Nordhavn, Krogen, Selene, etc owners would find a much >higher percentage of stabilizer useage, partially >because these boats have higher superstructures and >more prone to roll, but also because people get used >to having them on all the time. > >I did a docking demo'd with a PDQ cat at the Manitowoc >Trawler Fest last year and was quite pleased with the >maneuverability and yes, it did handle okay on one >engine. I am curious about how they do in wind chop >and such, especially in the smaller sizes like the >PDQ. > >Rod - are you the same "Rod Gibbons" who owns >"Cruising Cats USA" in Alameda? > >Peter >www.SeaSkills.com > > >