T&T: Catamaran vs monohull

[Bob McLeran]

There are three things that we _require_ on a boat, and most affordable 
cats have only one of them at best: (1) plenty of space in the engine 
room to get around the engine for routine maintenance and emergency 
repairs; (2) a non v-berth island (or at least a semi-island) queen 
berth; and (3) real fuel economy (around 2-4 gph) at cruising speed 
without jeopardizing the engine(s).

Awhile back I had the opportunity to ride a 44 foot cat for a few hours. 
The ride was delightful even in rather rough conditions, but it was 
extremely overpowered with twin turbo diesels at a top speed of around 
26 mph where it was burning over 40 gph! A master cabin with an island 
queen and a 360 degree view outside the boat - incredible amount of 
space. The "engine room" was about 6 inches wider than the engine - 
total width - and in order to get to some of the changeable parts you 
had to stretch out over the top of the engine! No thanks - even if I had 
the +3/4M$ to spend on it.

Both monohulls and multihulls can suffer from the same design issues. 
You just have to know what you require in a boat, and order your 
priorities, no matter what the hull form.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>Mozilla Thunderbird<><><><><><><><><><>
Bob McLeran and Judy Young                  Manatee Cove Marina
MV Sanderling                               Patrick Air Force Base
Defever 41 Trawler                          Melbourne, Florida 



On 9/29/2007 6:45 PM, Mervyn Carr wrote:
> A question I have been pondering, IF money was no object, why would I choose
> say a 42' mono over a 42' Catamaran? To me the Cat design makes so much more
> sense, lot more stable, capable of being driven more economically with
> smaller engines, WAY more room.