PDQ 36 for offshore passages?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

Remember that the PDQ was originally a 34. When they stretched it you still had the same interior volume. The Mahe was a purpose built 36 which should have more space. It is also over a foot wider so more there as well. I haven't been on either so this is just my view.

I've been on both and that is about right.

Mark

[Cadence]

You had mentions OB range. If you should buy OB power also insure you have an up to date 4 stroke. Also don't over power just enough to achieve hull speed.

[Southern Star]

The fact that the Mahe 36 is rated as offshore capable has as much to do with meeting certain design/equipment standards (such as escape hatches from both hulls in case of capsize) as it does the suitability of the boat for long offshore passages, such as a Pacific Ocean crossing. While the Mahe could undoubtedly carry some more stores as a result of more voluminous hulls, that does not mean that there would not be sacrifices for long passages on that boat as well.

Indeed, for passagemaking I would prefer the galley-down on the PDQ as it provides better bracing and more counter space than the Mahe 36. The lack of escape hatches? I have mixed emotions about the utility of those; indeed, I have read accounts where the hatches have not only leaked, but have likely contributed to the sinking of non-inverted catamarans. if you were in the saloon when one capsized, you would likely want to exit through the companioway door rather than going down and forward in an inverted hull to find and knock open the hatch. On a smaller cat such as the PDQ, I suspect that getting out through the companionway would not pose huge difficulties even if you were in one of the hulls at the time of capsize.

The point is, while the lack of escape hatches means that the PDQ cannot be 'certified' under current construction standards for offhsore use, on a boat of that size I would actually prefer not to have them.

Could you carry sufficent water and stores for a Pacific crossing? Yes, as people have done these passages in boats such as the Contess 26 with much less tankage. However, how prepared are you to ration your fresh water supply? Apart from watermakers (which do use considerable power), I am sure that you could readily modify the solid Bimini on the PDQ Capella by adding a raised lip and drains with a shut off valve in order to collect rainwater and either fill the tanks after an initial flush, or separate 5 gallon jugs for drinking water. Indeed, many people prefer rainwater for drinking and use something similar for that purpose even on boats with watermakers. In any event, the solid Bimin on the PDQ Capella (and the covered helm station at the same level as the cockpit) are both things which I prefer on the PDQ to the Mahe, especially for offshore passages.

I also prefer the ventilation on the PDQ Capella - the four large, angled hatches at the front of the forward staterooms provide better ventilation for that size of cabin than virtually any other design and, the two forward opening hatches in front of the saloon table provide excellent ventilation in that area (bearing in mind that the original Mahe had no opening at the front of the saloon).

An adequate fuel supply? As has been pointed out, no one will have enough fuel to make those kind of passages under power and you will find that the 9.9 outboards are quite economical. You could easily carry another four 5 gallon fuel containers if you wanted, although since you will not be relying on the motors for charging (as you might need on a Mahe with watermaker etc.), your fuel supply should not be an issue.

One other thing to consider is this: the PDQ 36 LRC with inboard diesels has identical hulls etc. and yet weighs 700 lbs more than a PDQ 36 Capella with outboard motors. That difference in weight would certainly allow for extra solar panels, plus significantly more water, fuel, batteries (and perhaps a small Honda generator) while still ending up on the same lines as an unladen LRC. What is more, your performance would still be better under sail as the outboard motors can be readily lifted out of the water into the dedicated lockers with the standard block and tackle, significantly reducing drag.

Hot water? Yes, a problem with outboards. However, a garden sprayer plus a solar shower can do the trick in many conditions. If so inclined, I suspect that you could also install a propane on-demand water heater in the head / shower compartment quite readily as the shower is located aft, near the propane tanks.

Would you have to install hull extensions? No, although for the reaosns indicated already, there are many good reasons to do so both in terms of performance and stability. In the final analysis, only you and your wife can determine whether you are prepared to sacrifice some luxuries/storage capacity on such a (relatively) small cat. If you are prepared to do so and to make some minor modifications for additional water, electrical generation and storage capacity, then so long as you sail relatively wisely and conservatively, there is no reason that you could not make long offshore passages in a PDQ 36.

Brad

[rbrentp]

I was told at one time that the PDQ used the Snowgoose 34 molds originally but build them thinner and lighter. Had more speed and cost less FG to build. Sat next to a 36 for a year and it sure looked like a 34 Prout with extensions.
Anybody heard the same?

[smj]

Originally Posted by rbrentp

I was told at one time that the PDQ used the Snowgoose 34 molds originally but build them thinner and lighter. Had more speed and cost less FG to build. Sat next to a 36 for a year and it sure looked like a 34 Prout with extensions.
Anybody heard the same?

Since Prout was still building the 34 when PDQ came out with their 34'er, I find that highly improbable. Also since PDQ used a foam core and biaxial and triaxial glass I'm sure they are lighter built but not less expensive to build.

[admiralslater]

My father Alan Slater is the designer of the PDQ 36 and my brother Simon and I built the molds in Toronto and Whitby. You can sleep easy tonight in the knowledge that the boat is not a rebadged prout. And as far as the thinner glass is concerned thick glass is much cheaper than the foam core which is one reason that cats cost so much money per foot

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by admiralslater

My father Alan Slater is the designer of the PDQ 36 and my brother Simon and I built the molds in Toronto and Whitby. You can sleep easy tonight in the knowledge that the boat is not a rebadged prout. And as far as the thinner glass is concerned thick glass is much cheaper than the foam core which is one reason that cats cost so much money per foot

^^ I thought that was rather obvious! The triax is also much better than a bunch of mat.

Another stretched PDQ:
Sail Delmarva: Extended Transoms: The Process





I did this primarily to ease dingy boarding for my wife, who is arthritic. It was a huge success in that regard, and also gave tiny boosts in all-around performance. It also makes kayak boarding a lot simpler. As for the lack of sides, after a year in service I can say they don't seem to serve a purpose and are not missed. All they do is make boarding from the side awkward. They do look nice.

----

Something you might find interesting searching the PDQ forum is the complete lack of important structural problems. Except for the usual outboard and electronics issues, and occasional sail replacements, extremely reliable. You won't find discussions of cracks, blisters, rigging troubles, or leaks. I've slammed her around and taken green water right over the salon; she just came out clean.

[Budawang]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

The fact that the Mahe 36 is rated as offshore capable has as much to do with meeting certain design/equipment standards (such as escape hatches from both hulls in case of capsize) as it does the suitability of the boat for long offshore passages, such as a Pacific Ocean crossing. While the Mahe could undoubtedly carry some more stores as a result of more voluminous hulls, that does not mean that there would not be sacrifices for long passages on that boat as well.

Indeed, for passagemaking I would prefer the galley-down on the PDQ as it provides better bracing and more counter space than the Mahe 36. The lack of escape hatches? I have mixed emotions about the utility of those; indeed, I have read accounts where the hatches have not only leaked, but have likely contributed to the sinking of non-inverted catamarans. if you were in the saloon when one capsized, you would likely want to exit through the companioway door rather than going down and forward in an inverted hull to find and knock open the hatch. On a smaller cat such as the PDQ, I suspect that getting out through the companionway would not pose huge difficulties even if you were in one of the hulls at the time of capsize.

The point is, while the lack of escape hatches means that the PDQ cannot be 'certified' under current construction standards for offhsore use, on a boat of that size I would actually prefer not to have them.

Could you carry sufficent water and stores for a Pacific crossing? Yes, as people have done these passages in boats such as the Contess 26 with much less tankage. However, how prepared are you to ration your fresh water supply? Apart from watermakers (which do use considerable power), I am sure that you could readily modify the solid Bimini on the PDQ Capella by adding a raised lip and drains with a shut off valve in order to collect rainwater and either fill the tanks after an initial flush, or separate 5 gallon jugs for drinking water. Indeed, many people prefer rainwater for drinking and use something similar for that purpose even on boats with watermakers. In any event, the solid Bimin on the PDQ Capella (and the covered helm station at the same level as the cockpit) are both things which I prefer on the PDQ to the Mahe, especially for offshore passages.

I also prefer the ventilation on the PDQ Capella - the four large, angled hatches at the front of the forward staterooms provide better ventilation for that size of cabin than virtually any other design and, the two forward opening hatches in front of the saloon table provide excellent ventilation in that area (bearing in mind that the original Mahe had no opening at the front of the saloon).

An adequate fuel supply? As has been pointed out, no one will have enough fuel to make those kind of passages under power and you will find that the 9.9 outboards are quite economical. You could easily carry another four 5 gallon fuel containers if you wanted, although since you will not be relying on the motors for charging (as you might need on a Mahe with watermaker etc.), your fuel supply should not be an issue.

One other thing to consider is this: the PDQ 36 LRC with inboard diesels has identical hulls etc. and yet weighs 700 lbs more than a PDQ 36 Capella with outboard motors. That difference in weight would certainly allow for extra solar panels, plus significantly more water, fuel, batteries (and perhaps a small Honda generator) while still ending up on the same lines as an unladen LRC. What is more, your performance would still be better under sail as the outboard motors can be readily lifted out of the water into the dedicated lockers with the standard block and tackle, significantly reducing drag.

Hot water? Yes, a problem with outboards. However, a garden sprayer plus a solar shower can do the trick in many conditions. If so inclined, I suspect that you could also install a propane on-demand water heater in the head / shower compartment quite readily as the shower is located aft, near the propane tanks.

Would you have to install hull extensions? No, although for the reaosns indicated already, there are many good reasons to do so both in terms of performance and stability. In the final analysis, only you and your wife can determine whether you are prepared to sacrifice some luxuries/storage capacity on such a (relatively) small cat. If you are prepared to do so and to make some minor modifications for additional water, electrical generation and storage capacity, then so long as you sail relatively wisely and conservatively, there is no reason that you could not make long offshore passages in a PDQ 36.

Brad

Excellent points Brad. You make a good case for the Capella. As you say, the weight difference with the outboards means we could, theoretically, carry a lot more food and water. The big jump from the Galapagos to the Marqueasas is 3000 miles. Assuming the Capella could average 150 miles per day then that's a 20 day passage. At a rough estimate, two people could comfortably get by on 20 litres per day of water so 400 litres for the passage which is not much more than her 85 gallon tankage. Food consumption would conservatively be 2 kilos per person per day so that's another 80 kilos. All up, that's about than 500 kilos of provisioning plus a bit more for contingency. If you subtract the weight difference with having outboards instead of diesels (320 kilos) then the net payload works out to be about 180 kilos (400 lbs) which sounds very manageable. Use of a water maker or rainwater collection could reduce payload further or just make life more pleasant. It all sounds very doable unless the Capella really has very limited payload ability. Even a three-person crew should be possible.

My main concern is really sea worthiness and resistance to capsize. On long passages you can't predict the weather for the full duration. My understanding, however, is that it is very hard to capsize a cat of this size unless the skipper is seriously negligent or extremely unlucky. Is this a real concern for trade wind sailing? I guess insurance might be an issue.

I acknowledge the PDQ is not the ideal boat for a circumnavigation, but it seems there are many less capable craft that have done it. Surely the PDQ is more capable than many 30-foot monohulls. My motivation is that they are good value for money.

[Budawang]

Originally Posted by admiralslater

My father Alan Slater is the designer of the PDQ 36 and my brother Simon and I built the molds in Toronto and Whitby. You can sleep easy tonight in the knowledge that the boat is not a rebadged prout. And as far as the thinner glass is concerned thick glass is much cheaper than the foam core which is one reason that cats cost so much money per foot

There's nothing like going straight to the source. Would you feel comfortable doing the Pacific milk run on a PDQ 36?

[admiralslater]

I think the important word here is comfortable .the boat is capable of making the trip as are many others . The Pdq36 /32 where designed as express coastal cruisers and I think that they excelled in that especially when equipped with outboards. They are well built and as far as I know have never suffered a structural failure.
For myself I would not chose that boat for such a trip . The equipment and stores required would seriously hamper the performance and pleasure of the trip.
Some in an earlier post brought up the location of the bunks in rough weather which is a reasonable point.
Now a Pdq 44 is something entirely different it was blue water right from the start ."(I know I know the money)
Ther is a chap in our club who went all the way round in a 30 steel monohull with a junk rig,his wife and 2 kids (yes he is still married) so these things can be done .
We own Pdq 3697 which we got 11 years ago ,and we sail it all over Lake Ontario in any weather and it has never let us down. If my cruising was to be limited to the keys and the Bahamas it would be perfect .But for the lumpy bits I would want more waterline.
If you by a 36 you will have purchased a boat that meets many needs and I hope you have fun
David

[Budawang]

Originally Posted by admiralslater

I think the important word here is comfortable .the boat is capable of making the trip as are many others . The Pdq36 /32 where designed as express coastal cruisers and I think that they excelled in that especially when equipped with outboards. They are well built and as far as I know have never suffered a structural failure.
For myself I would not chose that boat for such a trip . The equipment and stores required would seriously hamper the performance and pleasure of the trip.
Some in an earlier post brought up the location of the bunks in rough weather which is a reasonable point.
Now a Pdq 44 is something entirely different it was blue water right from the start ."(I know I know the money)
Ther is a chap in our club who went all the way round in a 30 steel monohull with a junk rig,his wife and 2 kids (yes he is still married) so these things can be done .
We own Pdq 3697 which we got 11 years ago ,and we sail it all over Lake Ontario in any weather and it has never let us down. If my cruising was to be limited to the keys and the Bahamas it would be perfect .But for the lumpy bits I would want more waterline.
If you by a 36 you will have purchased a boat that meets many needs and I hope you have fun
David

Admiralslater, thanks for the honest answer.

Unfortunately, the bigger 40 foot+ cats are outside my budget with the more "affordable" ex-charter needing considerable work/money to make ready for an ocean crossing.

The PDQ 36 Capella seems to offer great value for money in comparison to the newer "condomarans". The following seems to be an example of a well-equiped, well-maintained Capella currently for sale:

2002 PDQ Capella Classic Catamaran Sail New and Used Boats for Sale

Try finding a similarly equipped Lagoon 380 for that price. The Capella would also sail better.

However, suitability for blue-water passage making is my bottom line. I'll have to start looking at monos again (sigh).

[Sand crab]

Originally Posted by Budawang

Try finding a similarly equipped Lagoon 380 for that price. The Capella would also sail better.

My buddy paid $160K for an L380 owners version in Panama about 6 months ago. Had some minor issues but otherwise OK. It can be done.

[deckofficer]

Budawang, thank you for starting this thread. Today I did a google search for "circumnavigation in a PDQ 36" and one of the first results brought me to this thread. I have considered the PDQ 36 for the same reasons as you, plus my needs for weight carrying is less as I'm a solo sailor.

Brad's posts were insightful and educational, combined with smj going from a Seawind 1000 to the PDQ 36 reinforces my early interest in this boat.

My only question is would the performance during a passage that includes it all, light winds to heavy, confused and large seas, and down wind surfing, be at least a close match to a Cal 40? Both boats sailing at their respective comfortable cruise speeds (not racing) which would reach landfall first?

[Southern Star]

Deckofficer, if both boats were loaded substantially with crew/equipment/provisions for cruising (say 3500 - 4000 lbs.), I suspect that the Cal 40 would perform better in most conditions: the PDQ is obviously going to be much more sensitive to that kind of weight.

Even if you were able to keep weight to a minimum, I also suspect that the Cal 40 would be a better performer to windward.

If you are doing primarily trade wind passages, the PDQ would likely outdo the Cal 40 with the proper cruising sail inventory. Keep in mind that a symmetrical spinnaker is a great cruising sail on a cat due to the absence of a pole. I also find that it is much easier to sail on a broad reach on a cat when conditions pick up because of the reduced risk of broaching.

In any event, there is no easy answer to the question.

Brad

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

The PDQ hull extension thread:
PDQ Owners Forum • View topic - Hull Extensions

Pacifica is anchored next to us.

Mark