Even mono sailors advise is appreciated

[andreavanduyn]

In a way you are right Greg ; that is the challenge ..the niche below 50 and above 35 =40

not wider than 6.5 mtr and lightly build ......real performer if not loaded and if loaded still fast from a cruiser perspective.

Priced below the Neel 45.

Not a French product but Slovenian or Croatian.....

Thoughts?

[Training Wheels]

A performance 40'+ tri with less than 6.5m beam? Sounds like you'd be better off with a cat.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[andreavanduyn]

why that?

Better of with a cat due to with? The average with of a cat of 40' is 7 meter or just less or just more.

Do not understand your motivation

[Training Wheels]

My motivation? Reality. If the average width of a 40' cat is 7m, what do you suppose the average width of a 40'+ performance tri is?

[andreavanduyn]

NON performance tri ; doing 15 to 18 max

7 meter max needed

So why a cat?

[Training Wheels]

Good luck with that. If your convinced it's doable, I'd go hire a naval architect rather than trying to convince people on an Internet forum. Just sayin'........

[andreavanduyn]

Will do so; AM NOT CONVINCING PEOPLE JUST LEARNING FROM THEM

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by andreavanduyn

In a way you are right Greg ; that is the challenge ..the niche below 50 and above 35 =40

not wider than 6.5 mtr and lightly build ......real performer if not loaded and if loaded still fast from a cruiser perspective.

Priced below the Neel 45.

Not a French product but Slovenian or Croatian.....

Thoughts?

Um, I don't think you can built a performance tri that's 21' X 40' It just wouldn't work very well. That's roughly a ratio of 1:2 which would be a very underpowered boat.

By comparison:
ORMA 60 is 1:1
Paradox (detuned ORMA) 3:4
IDEC3 3:4
MOD 70 4:5
Hammerhead 54 3:5
Juniper 2 3:5

Basically there is a direct correlation between width and power, and this between width and speed. The ORMA 60's for instance are arguably faster than the MOD 70's, but the 60's were retired because they were too powerful and fragile to survive open ocean sailing.

Scaling a trimaran back to 1:2 is going to leave you with anemic performance. Sure it will be a trimaran in name, but it won't be all that fast. For a 45'trimaran I think you need to assume a beam of at least 27' and probably 30' would be better.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Stumble

Just to be clear (from a responce to my post). You cannot get close to as much living space in a performance 50' as you have in a 50' monohull. Length for length you will have the most interior room in a Cat, then a monohull, then a trimaran.

Generally to match a cat the monohull needs to be about 50% longer, I have no idea for a trimaran however. To match a 40' mono would probably require something on the order of a 70' trimaran, up until the addition of a bridge deck (ala Neel) starts to work.

As for the Neel, I like them, and am curious about them, but nothing I have seen so far indicates they are any faster than a production cat. Somewhere around the same speeds as a faster Lagoon design.
..

Cats have more space than monohulls but the typically a modern cruising monohull with the double of a length of a cat will have a much bigger interior.
A Lagoon 40 has 7.25m beam, a 80ft monohull will have typically around 6m. The interior volume is not only considerably bigger has the monohull has a more usable interior space with less losses due to two narrow bows on the cat.

Regarding the Neel 45 he did not only beat all cats on the last ARC, including 2 Outremer 51 as it arrived among the fastest 60/50 foot cruiser racers on the racing division.

That was a special one, a racing version with a bigger mast, a lighter interior and it seems a central centerboard. I would say that a Lagoon 450 would not be able to do that.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Why not a Dragonfly 35?

They make one fitted out for cruising for realistic money.

The OP did not mention what the boat would be used for, so I think we're flailing around a bit here. But if it's cruising two-up with minimal gear, without ocean crossing duty, it could work.

The retractable amas are a huge boon for European waters, where marina berths for multihulls is a PITA and can be expensive.

I don't know what you call realistic money but I find it very expensive for the small interior that if offers and the OP specifically said that he wanted a boat for two couples to cruise. Not enough space on the Dragonfly 35.

I love the boat and the finish but almost half a million dollars for a boat with the interior size of a 30ft monohull is not realistic for me, it will be certainly for others.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

Is "That" the schooner or ketch tri over by Bruno's?
...

Yes, over there in derelict old boat area. There is a big old cat over there too with major problems. Both have been rotting away for years.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by andreavanduyn

In a way you are right Greg ; that is the challenge ..the niche below 50 and above 35 =40

not wider than 6.5 mtr and lightly build ......real performer if not loaded and if loaded still fast from a cruiser perspective.

Priced below the Neel 45.

Not a French product but Slovenian or Croatian.....

Thoughts?

So post a link and pictures to know about what you are talking about.

Beam and weight are the basis of stability on a multihull. If you have a 40ft tri with only 6.5m beam than it has to be heavy for stability and heavy means slow.

For comparison in what regards beam, a Dragonfly 32 has 8m beam and a 28fter 6.5m beam.

[CaptainPete222]

Originally Posted by Matt Johnson

I'm extremely jealous you got to sail her. I fell in love the first day I saw her... spent the next year (even delayed departing for our Atlantic crossing) trying to purchase her from the absentee owner. Finally got Capt. John aboard to look her over while we were in Miami, only to find rot in the Western Red Cedar core.

Funny, I thought the interior was very roomy and liveable for a 39' fast tri. Comfy bed, decent galley, and wide and long settees.... what more could you ask for?

Attachment 122076
Attachment 122077

Here are the dirty bits:
Attachment 122074
Attachment 122075

Hi Matt, I believe this is the same CW Skyhook I’m having surveyed next week up here in Maine. The photos of the rot are pretty concerning. The name of the boat is Kachina and, I believe, that’s her original name. I know this is an ancient post, but would you happen to have any more information or pics you’d be be willing to share about the boat? She’s a beautiful boat and, from my own inspection (and Chris White’s recent inspection), the problems were remedied at some point between 2014 and now, though I look forward to going through the boat with the surveyor.

[Matt Johnson]

Nope. Lucky for you, it's a different boat. The one I was looking at back then was - and still is I believe - in Guatemala. It was the original Skyhook and has always carried the name Skyhook.

Good luck. They seemed like an amazing boat as long as it was cared for - which the one you are looking at seems to have been.

I'm out of the country, but I believe I still have a file with a bunch of Skyhook 39 photos if you'd like them. I could send them to you in a week or so.


Matt

[CaptainPete222]

Originally Posted by Matt Johnson

I believe I still have a file with a bunch of Skyhook 39 photos if you'd like them. I could send them to you in a week or so.


Matt

Yes, I would very much like to see the photos, even if they are of Kachina's sister. I'm still scratching my head over the first two photos in your post (the ones before the "dirty bits"). Those photos are almost certainly of Kachina's interior (see https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/199...maran-8280665/). See also two attached recent photos of interior.