Downsides to a Cat??

[schoonerdog]

Regarding a PDQ 36 at anchor on the wrong side of an anchorage with a mile or so of fetch, I've been there done that with our PDQ 36 in a storm for several days in Georgetown in the Exumas. Our particular PDQ was one of the oldest with only 10 inches of clearance underneath the initial step into the cabin (which was eliminated on their boats starting in the early 1990s). Yes, it pounded. Big square waves coming in over and over again lasting for days. But the reason we were stuck was we were poor and took off on a long trip with two old engines which needed servicing. In Georgetown in the Exumas we took them out of our boat, in a storm, loaded them into a dingy and then brought them over into town where they could be worked on. Try that with another boat.

We were stuck we still slept comfortably, cooked, and entertained guests on board. And though we had a loud thumping when the waves nasty, we didn't roll and were quite comfortable. After the storm we even took off for a sail to Rum Key quite a ways away with only our dingy outboard engine by slipping it into the outboard wells for our regular engines. Again, it made cruising laughably simple. Were there a bigger 42 ft version of our PDQ 36 made with retractible outboards I would have bought it. I really liked the PDQ 36 as a very nice couples caribbean sailing boat. Yes it would pound in nasty waves, but frankly that's not the end of the world. Post 1993 boats also pounded far less due to eliminating the step down and raising the cabin roof.

Again, its a question of priorities. To have an engine no more complicated than an outboard was wonderful, and once we replaced our old engines with newer yamahas they proved very reliable. Your most expensive repair would be to replace the entire engine for 2,500 which you could do yourself in a remote anchorage. In fact, that's exactly what we did out in Georgetown in the exumas.

The minus for a PDQ is really limited standing room in the bridgedeck, but one of the best galleys, one of the best births and forward cabins, one of the nicest aft heads of any boat any size.

[ssullivan]

Great post... thanks.

So if I understand you correclty, on the rare occasion when storms kick up to the extent I'm describing, it *will* pound, but the pounding is nothing I need to be concerned about?

Is the pounding more of a nuisance than a structurally signifcant issue?

PS: I'm with you on the outboards. I was thinking about that way back on the other Gulfstar... how much better it would be to have them.

Originally Posted by schoonerdog

Regarding a PDQ 36 at anchor on the wrong side of an anchorage with a mile or so of fetch, I've been there done that with our PDQ 36 in a storm for several days in Georgetown in the Exumas. Our particular PDQ was one of the oldest with only 10 inches of clearance underneath the initial step into the cabin (which was eliminated on their boats starting in the early 1990s). Yes, it pounded. Big square waves coming in over and over again lasting for days. But the reason we were stuck was we were poor and took off on a long trip with two old engines which needed servicing. In Georgetown in the Exumas we took them out of our boat, in a storm, loaded them into a dingy and then brought them over into town where they could be worked on. Try that with another boat.

We were stuck we still slept comfortably, cooked, and entertained guests on board. And though we had a loud thumping when the waves nasty, we didn't roll and were quite comfortable. After the storm we even took off for a sail to Rum Key quite a ways away with only our dingy outboard engine by slipping it into the outboard wells for our regular engines. Again, it made cruising laughably simple. Were there a bigger 42 ft version of our PDQ 36 made with retractible outboards I would have bought it. I really liked the PDQ 36 as a very nice couples caribbean sailing boat. Yes it would pound in nasty waves, but frankly that's not the end of the world. Post 1993 boats also pounded far less due to eliminating the step down and raising the cabin roof.

Again, its a question of priorities. To have an engine no more complicated than an outboard was wonderful, and once we replaced our old engines with newer yamahas they proved very reliable. Your most expensive repair would be to replace the entire engine for 2,500 which you could do yourself in a remote anchorage. In fact, that's exactly what we did out in Georgetown in the exumas.

The minus for a PDQ is really limited standing room in the bridgedeck, but one of the best galleys, one of the best births and forward cabins, one of the nicest aft heads of any boat any size.

[chicagocat]

I can add a little bit about the PDQ 36. I've owned a 1996 PDQ 36 here in Chicago for the last 3 years. Mine is the LRC version, however, and has Yanmar 18hp diesels. I've chartered boats both before and after I bought mine (Maine Cat 30, Lagoon 380, Lagoon 440), and I've been to the Miami and Annapolis shows on 2005 and 2006 and I can certainly say that I think there is hardly a better deal out there for a sub 40 ft cat. They're very well built, and I think the inevitable trade-offs that come with any design make sense for the PDQ. I've never set foot on a boat in it's price range that I would trade for mine.

Mine will slam a bit when heading to weather in short steep chop. Unfortunately, Lake Michigan has a fair amount of short steep stuff, and doesn't really have swells like the open ocean. Still, it's never bothered me, and I've always felt completely safe.

The question of whether to look at the LRC model with Yanmars or the standard model with outboards is a personal one. The Yanmars are very dependable, but they're difficult to reach (particularly the port one) and so are difficult and expensive to service. It is nice, however, to have those big honking alternators to charge up the banks.

The outboards are cheap and easy to service, though.

[Tropic Cat]

I complain about them but absolutely love my Yanmars. Even my 1GM10's each have a 35 amp alternator

[SurfNRG]

I loved me 3 cyl Yanmars too but now love me 3 cyl Volvo's. Run super smooth (knock on wood), sip fuel and I can turn my cat on a dime which is a BIG plus for manuevering in high winds, tight spots, etc.. Much safer carrying diesel too compared to gas (vapors). Don't get me wrong, I love me Yamaha on my dink as well as me Honda gas generator. But what I really love is the free wind as I sail along for free.

[schoonerdog]

it's always kind of funny when I mentioned getting outboards instead of diesels, it's indeed a personal choice and from the unbridled loyalty it's almost like I called someones baby ugly! And yes, the pounding is noticable, but your boat won't be falling apart on a well built boat like the PDQ, especially one primarily intended for smaller passages and not transoceanic passages.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by schoonerdog

it's always kind of funny when I mentioned getting outboards instead of diesels, it's indeed a personal choice and from the unbridled loyalty it's almost like I called someones baby ugly! And yes, the pounding is noticable, but your boat won't be falling apart on a well built boat like the PDQ, especially one primarily intended for smaller passages and not transoceanic passages.

Thank you... much appreciated.

For the record, mine's a Prout. I think it has a pretty strong build quality though.

Definitely happy with the outboard option. (personal preference only) Would never for that on anyone... very personal.

[SurfNRG]

Out of curiousity does your St. Frances have outboards? It'd be really surprised if so. My buddy just sold his St. Frances. What an awesome boat. Took it around the world twice. It'd be my boat of choice if I had the money but my Wildcat will do for now.

[Mark van Niekerk]

I really enjoy the passage-making capabilities of my Cat. My first boat was a Mono (47ft Compass47) and I loved her but you just can't compare passage-making speeds for down-wind sailing. My current boat is a 47 ft custom designed and built Shuttleworth Cat currently in Honolulu. We completed the 4500 mile passage from Galapagos to Honolulu in 23 days mostly on a beam reach with the working jib and 2 reefs in the mainsail (we were short-handed) with just one day motoring through the doldrums.

The downsides are well summarized in Tnflakbaits post. Regarding marina cost, these are more expensive but overcomeable. We have an end mooring in Ko Olina Marina in Honolulu and they are charging me on LOA only. When we get to the South Pacific we will mostly be anchoring anyway.

[schoonerdog]

The st francis has twin yanmars. Mine has 3JH3E. Very nice engines, but can't replace them very easily if something goes really wrong!

[c.spots]

I think monohulls would be great if you travel to ugly places. You sit down in the hull and admire your beautiful woodwork. If you want to look at the scenery, (or check out what is going on around you,) get up and look out through your portholes, or go on deck to your tiny cockpit.
It would be terrible to have to look at all the ugliness, (or see that boat drifting down on you,) from the catamaran saloon, or cockpit with a 360 view.

[BigCat]

You can put pilot houses on a monohull, too. I built one like that, and sailed it across the Pacific. It's wonderful to see the world from your dinette! I show the design for a "big sister" to that boat on my website.

It would be terrible to have to look at all the ugliness, (or see that boat drifting down on you,) from the catamaran saloon, or cockpit with a 360 view.

[Joli]

Originally Posted by BigCat

You can put pilot houses on a monohull, too.

Ok, that's funny.

[Southern Star]

Great post C-spot! I'll have to remember that next time somebody tells me that they wouldn't even consider a catamaran because they are ugly.

I too have had a pilothouse monohull, but can confirm that the viewing angles from below in a cat still tend to be better unless you are standing up in the pilothouse (or have a small but elevated dinette).

Brad

[BigCat]

I always elevate my dinettes. I don't know why designers make pilothouses that you can't see out of while sitting. Well, sometimes they can make the dinettes bigger if they use the area below the side decks as part of the dinette area, but that is not always done by those who design dinettes that you can't see out of. On my website, I show an elevated dinette that seats 8 on a 65' monohull. Actually, you need to elevate dinettes to get good visibility on most catamarans, too.

"I too have had a pilothouse monohull, but can confirm that the viewing angles from below in a cat still tend to be better unless you are standing up in the pilothouse (or have a small but elevated dinette)."

Brad[/quote]