Dave, you are right that a poorly maintained boat will be less
seaworthy. But assuming that two boats are in the same state of
repair (as we must in order to compare designs, rather than merely individual boats), then there are some attributes that are desireable in a circumnavigator. Here are a few that should not be too controversial:
Bridgedeck clearance (and shape); keeping weight out of the ends; adequate bouyancy in the bows in large seas; a reasonably low center of gravity; a
deck that is easy to move around on and a
mast (especially if lines are not led aft) that is easy to reach and use; adequate pulpits, pushpits, stanchions and
lifelines; adequate tankage; adequate storage; a galley in which the cook can be braced in (or at least, strapped in); an adequate chart table/nav station - preferably in the bridgedeck
saloon; solid if not necessarily heavy construction; the ability to reef/change down to storm
sails easily; the ability to tack without resorting to one of the iron gennys; the ability to not only accomodate but carry the stores and
equipment used by most modern long-distance cruisers; decent visibility from the helm and the ability to provide some protection from the elements for the helmsperson; a good system for multiple pieces of ground tackle; adequate standing
rigging for extreme conditions; a main that can be raised and lowered easily, preferably without resort to
power winches/windlasses; windows and
portlights that are designed for
offshore use; adequate cockpit drainage; adequate reserve bouyancy to keep the vessel afloat in the case of a
capsize.
Yes, you can circumnavigate in virtually anything (as Patrick Childress proved in a used
Catalina 27 monohull); that does not however mean that anyone would/should recommend the boat for that purpose. The original thread was an inquiry about the cats that were most suitable for circumnavigating and it seems that most of the posts have been trying to assist in that regard. Could the Manta be used for a successful circumnavigation? No doubt, and it would also no doubt be better suited than a number of other boats. However, there are some features that are decidedly less than ideal: bridgedeck clearance is below the recommended minimum of 10% of beam overall; the stock
anchoring arrangement is for a
single anchor deployed from the middle of the forward cross-beam; the camber-spar
jib, while ideal for short-handed sailing, does not readily
permit reefing in strong winds; until the
introduction of the 42, bouyancy at the sterns was also limited.
Having said that, they have the reputation for solid construction, they have the layout that Andreas and his girlfriend seem to prefer and they provide adequate, if not sparkling performance (akin to the
Privilege,
Leopard and most Lagoons). They also have reasonable side-decks, steps to the top of the bridgedeck house and have kept heavy accomodation out of the ends of the boat.
Brad
) so in my book crew comfort is a major consideration rather than out and out speed or being totally 'bullet proof' (or as near as you can make it). Some will claim that speed is all and can get you out of 
I like the boat because they are fast, solid and would be safe anywhere ... It does however leave a lot to be desired in creature comforts ... My girlfriend hasn't been onboard one yet, but I suspect I already know what she'll say: "Hell No". Until then it's on my list.
Linear Mode
Recent Discussions