[PCW] Fuel economy, Chrysalis across the Atlantic

[sealubber7 at aol.com]

Grahame, I'm not a professional at this, but in the many years that I've had mold and mildew growing between my toes and behind my ears, I don't recall seeing a stabilized sailing mono-hull. Is this common? Could you expound upon this? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Grahame Shannon <designer at aviadesign.com>
To: 'Power Catamaran List' <power-catamaran at lists.samurai.com>
Sent: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: [PCW] Fuel economy, Chrysalis across the Atlantic



 The comparison by displacement is misleading, as Nordhavns are ballasted,
and the ballast adds to displacement, but not usable volume.  As a sometime
powercat designer, I'd say a more realistic comparison would be cost. I
think a $2 million production monohull will likely have as much usable space
as a $2 million cat.

Suppose we were to take a decade long ownership, the net cost would be
depreciation + operating costs including moorage and insurance.

I'd hazard a guess that assuming equal first cost and despite slightly
better fuel economy the custom powercat would cost quite a bit more in total
than the monohull. However, if the monohull was a custom boat, the reverse
might be true. In a longer time frame of 20 to 30 years, it probably would
make little difference since I expect 30 years from now ANY powerboat will
be hugely expensive to operate.

The fuel use for a motorsailer (one that actually uses her sails whenever
possible) would be a fraction of that for a pure power craft regardless of
size. On a large monohull sailboat active stabilizers can be used, even
under sail (maybe with the main engine ticking over slowly or a genset
running). I personally find a stabilized monohull more comfortable than a
cat, but I'm happy on either one. 

Budget is important, even the wealthiest clients have one, it is just
bigger!  Almost every custom boat faces huge depreciation in the first few
years. Reputable production boats hold their value well. I warn my custom
boat clients of this fact. That gets rid of most of them...

Kind Regards,
Grahame Shannon

-----Original Message-----
From: power-catamaran-bounces at lists.samurai.com
[mailto:power-catamaran-bounces at lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of bill
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:48 AM
To: Power Catamaran List
Subject: Re: [PCW] Fuel economy, Chrysalis across the Atlantic

John Holbrook wrote;

"Looking at the plans for the 60ft Wild Wind on Malcolm's site it would
appear that the inside space is about the same as a 60ft monohull...
 possibly the spaces on a monohull have more headroom.
I'm only looking at
 plans here and would be interested to here from people who have been
aboard both. "

I ask, what is a valid basis for comparison of multi's vs mono's?

WWIV is listed on Malcolm's website as displacing #73,819.

This falls between the Nordhavn 46 #60,000, and the Norhavn 47 #85,000.
WWIV certainly has more accomodation than either of these.

My current project, a #56,000 powercat, 62', comes in between the Nordhavn
43 and 46, weightwise.

The Nordhavn 55 weighs in at a whopping 56.6T, twice my displacement!

Is length comparison apples to apples?


regards,
Bill
 




 
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
Power-Catamaran Mailing List

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.14/1247 - Release Date: 1/28/2008
10:59 AM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.14/1247 - Release Date: 1/28/2008
10:59 AM
_______________________________________________
Power-Catamaran Mailing List


________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com