T&T: Catamaran vs monohull

[HClews at aol.com]

Having just returned from our "Baltic  Adventure", I'd like to add my two 
cents.
 
Fuel economy was a major reason for  choosing our powercat.  In Europe, 
diesel fuel cost  us $7.50/gallon and upwards, so we were very grateful for the 
miserly  consumption of our 34-ft powercat.  On our  recently-completed, 2-month, 
1185 nautical-mile trip, we averaged a  mere 2.73 gallons/hour.
 
To my knowledge, there's no  monohull with two queen cabins, a 
live-aboard-friendly galley,  and the spaciousness of a PDQ, which can cruise at 15 knots  
while burning less than 5 gallons/hour.  The ability to cruise at  speed with 
good economy was a major reason we chose a  powercat. For people like us - who 
like to put some miles  under their keels - it has proven an  excellent 
choice. 
 
I might also add, that despite our  16'-8" beam, we were never once denied 
dockage during our European  odyssey.  I admit to having some concern about this 
when we  bought the boat 2 years ago, but our wide beam has  never proven a 
problem.  Our shallow draft (2'-4" with protected  props) has been the source 
of much pleasure, however.
 
To each his own. For us, the benefits of the  catamaran far outweigh its 
drawbacks.  Plus, we've become rather fond of  her distinctive appearance!
 
Henry Clews
PDQ 34 "Sno' Dog" - currently in Portsmouth,  NH
 
For full details (and photos) of our 2007  Baltic Adventure, see:  
http://www.geocities.com/snodoglog/07BalticAdventure-Pg1.html



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com