Offhand I'd say no--the extra beam will not, in my
opinion offer improved handling in heavy weather
for that choice boat (Cat 30).

One critical design factor is the ability to claw your
way off a lee shore like Alaska. You may not have
the option to run before a storm. I've sailed Catalina
30's and they don't point well, and they are slow
because of the huge amount of wetted surface area.
I would not want to be on a boat that wide unless it
had another 10 feet of length.

I am no expert on the Cascade. I never heard of
it before you mentioned it. How many were built?
How many have been lost? There is an expert on
this boat somewhere! You should talk to owners
who are not trying to sell such boats to get an unbiased
opinion.

Now, the Cascade does have a more normal length
to beam ratio. I am reasonably confident the boat
would point well if it has good sails and good sail
shaping controls--it may have neither.

For your location. I'd want tough new Spectra sails. I'd
also want to be certain that the sail shape was still very
good when reefed down (i.e. upwind sailing performance
should be good when reefed)

If a boat can sail upwind well, it can usually sail downwind
fine. Other factors come into play when sailing downwind
like the rudder size and balance and the shape of the aft
sections of the boat. I'd be less worried about downwind
performance than upwind performance. You can alway
slow yourself down if you are going too fast by using a
drogue.

I can't imagine a Catalina 30 beating into heavy winds,
or keeping its speed up while sailing up a steep wave. My
image of this boat in Alaska is of it being pulverized on
the rocks with all hands lost. With an Atomic 4 I doubt it
could motor/sail it's way upwind in rough conditions for an
extended period of time. I don't think it could motor
upwind, at all, in rough conditions.

There are lots of factors that contribute to stability
besides the beam.

What are the ballast to displacement ratios on each?
How much sail area? There are lots of formulas you
can plug the numbers in and compare them.

You need to look at everything.

Better yet go sail both of them. The Catalina does
have a nice cockpit and nice interior for it's size. For
protected waters, where you have enough wind to
get it moving, it is ok boat. In rough conditions you
would want a paid up life insurance policy because it
could kill you.

Given that the Cascade has a narrower beam it will sail
upwind better and have much less interior space. The
cockpit will likely be less comfortable but being smaller
it is probably safer because it can catch less water.

Your best bet is to sail more types of boat to see how
they perform in your area. Alaska is a pretty deadly
place. Your boat should be as reliable as an aircraft.
Everything should work faultlessly, and it should be
able to handle the worst conditions you expect to operate
it in.

You may want to consider sailing either boat in nice
conditions in your home waters and then shipping the boat
south when you want head that way. For example,
you could have it trucked to the Sea of Cortez.

Or you could make a custom trailer for either of these
boats. Not long ago I saw a Catalina 30 with a triple
axle trailer for sail on eBay. It was a nice setup and it
had a diesel engine.

You may want to think about a pilot house sailboat
of some sort like Ole Thom's. That is what I'd want if
I lived up there.


"David" wrote
Bart thanks so much for the input.... So you don't think the wider beam
of the Catalina (10' 10" vs 8' 3") will allow the catalina to handle
heavier seas than the Cascade?