Hi all, I live up in Juneau Alaska... two boats I have been looking at
are a 29' Cascade with an 8' 3" beam, 22 hp Yanmar with 2500 hours on
it.... Good sails... The other is a 30' Catalina with a 10' 10"
beam.. Tall mast, good shape, needs some wood work and a new jib... has
an Atomic 4 cylinder... The Catalina is priced about 3k less than the
Cascade....

My question is... And I preface this by saying it would be a year or
two before I attempted this, but I would eventually like to sail from
Alaska down to Seattle and on down the pacific coast of the US towards
southern cali and maybe even central america... I'm guessing the
wider beam of the Catalina is going to make it the better choice for
such a trip... Are there any opions out there about this?

Muchas Gracious,
David

I looked at a Cascade 29 via google search and it looked
like a decent enough boat. The large ports might be dangerous
however, you can't argue with the ventalation. I liked the
keel and rudder. It is a narrower boat and likely better upwind.

I think if you rigged storm boards for the ports lights you
could sail it south, particularly as you have the current with
you and an inland passage much of the way. You would
want to pick a good weather window.

The Catalina will be more comfortable and slower. They are
damn slow boats--you would have to motor it all the time
unless you had plenty of wind. They have good resale, but
I would not recommend it going south, although it could be
done.

I would opt for the diesel over the gas engine. Gas engines
are dangerous and unreliable. Diesels purr forever if you need
to use them, and you might. Parts of the inland passage have
very little wind, I've read, because of the high mountains. The
odd of catching some really bad conditions mean having a
diesel could be a life-saver.

You have some rough water up there. I would not consider
sailing either boat in the opposite direction (north) given the
scarcity of harbors and the slowness of boats in that size range.
You would surely be caught out and suffer for it.

Good luck.

"David" wrote
Hi all, I live up in Juneau Alaska... two boats I have been looking at
are a 29' Cascade with an 8' 3" beam, 22 hp Yanmar with 2500 hours on
it.... Good sails... The other is a 30' Catalina with a 10' 10"
beam.. Tall mast, good shape, needs some wood work and a new jib... has
an Atomic 4 cylinder... The Catalina is priced about 3k less than the
Cascade....

My question is... And I preface this by saying it would be a year or
two before I attempted this, but I would eventually like to sail from
Alaska down to Seattle and on down the pacific coast of the US towards
southern cali and maybe even central america... I'm guessing the
wider beam of the Catalina is going to make it the better choice for
such a trip... Are there any opions out there about this?

Muchas Gracious,
David

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?

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?

Thanks again Bart, this info has been a big help.... Probably will end
up going with the Cascade.... Have been getting info from the cascade
users group as well...

Best,
David

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?


No, rather the opposite if anything. Wide beam gives initial
stability but reduces reserve stability and increases the
the chance of the boat inverting & staying that way. When it
comes to seakindliness & heavy weather sailing, narrower is
better.

And this is just MHO but the Cascade is likely to be better
built than the Catalina.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

No, rather the opposite if anything. Wide beam gives initial stability but
reduces reserve stability and increases the the chance of the boat
inverting & staying that way. When it comes to seakindliness & heavy
weather sailing, narrower is better.

How nice to read such a glowing endorsement of my boat.

Max