I think can address one potential problem of adding an outrigger/poa to a mono to replace the
keel:
First, keels do
not keep your
boat upright. It's the opposite, your
keel is constantly helping the
wind to
capsize your
boat. What the keel does do it keep your boat from sliding sideways. The only things keeping monos upright are the
hull shape and ballast.
*I'm talking about the keel as a conceptually different thing from the ballast, I realize that structurally they are combined.
The job of the poa/outrigger would be the same as the
hull shape/ballast, and it would do a very poor job of keeping the boat from sliding sideways. This is why the hull forms on the main hull for these types of
boats are always slender. Basically I think the poa/outrigger would be a poor replacement for a keel (without drastically changing the main hull shape) because it servers a different function so you'd still need a
centerboard.
My general thought on why we don't see these
boats much internationally and on the cruising scene is because they aren't well balanced...literally. There are potential benefits as long as the additional hull is leeward because compared to the symmetrical craft, the arm of the righting moment is relatively longer and relies on buoyancy. When the additional hull is on the windward side, you're relying on the sheer weight of it to keep you from capsizing, this is much the same as a
monohull. Given the choice between making something artificially heavy, or simply adding another light buoyant force to the other side, it seems to be more efficient to do the latter rather than the former.