Unsinkable Fountaine Pajot

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Polux

So are you sayng that catamarans never sunk? really? or are you just tryng to be funny?

]

I guess you can't read. I've said several times, some catamarans can sink.

But that seems to be your normal approach. When you can't effectively argue what someone said, just pretend they said something else and rant and rave about that.

[Paul L]

Still floating, I guess? Privilege 495 after a fire.

[AKA-None]

I guess most of the photos show boats that have not yet hit bottom. So if it’s at neutral bouncy but 90 meters down it also technically hasn’t sunk either. Most would consider the boats in the photo to be less than useful or possibly even would consider then sunk enough. So I guess it depends on what you consider as sunk. I wonder if your insurance company would consider them as sunk?

[peterp]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Hi Peter,
Gordon here, we have met up many times during my Orana 44 ownership days and chatted during my He’lia 44 cruising days from early 2013 on ‘The Larrikin ‘ hull #13. As you know we have now ordered the New 45 and will be picking it up at the factory next year in September.

We are comfortable with the lack of a fwd Nav station because in our experience on ‘The Larrikin’ we used our iPad and WiFi / Bluetooth capability, and were able to passage plan anywhere on board. Also with the side cockpit clears down you have a beautifully large ‘desk’ table out there that we were able to utilise for passage planning on the large paper charts.

You will, as we did, quickly adapt to the helm setup and eventually come to love this arrangement because it has some very positive aspects. Please approach this with an open mind, it may take more than one or two outings to become comfortable but I am confident that you will.

Re the fuel tank qty. We cruised for three and a half years on our He’lia 44 with the same tank capacity as the 45. We sold her with only 715 Hrs on the engines and that included crossing the Atlantic, arriving in Martinique with diesel in the tank. I don’t think you need have any reservation re the 470ltr capacity. There is the ability to carry extra fuel because there is ample storage under the cockpit large seat for another 120ltrs in 20ltr containers.

The New 45 is said to have 10% better performance when sailing/motoring than the He’lia 44. Therefore, fuel hopefully will not be an issue.

Cheers Gordon.

G'day Gordon, nice to hear from you, well I don't agree with the 470Ltr being sufficent for a serious oceans cruiser, be fine for me in Port Philip Bay, but you know as well as I with our flying background, flight fuel, endurance, fuel is critical to radious of action, yes I know it has a sail, frankly I think FP have made an error with one tank and only 470 litres, Mark feels fitting a second tank is possible, another thing is a second tank gives some backup should a problem develop, a leak, bad fuel, the need to transfer fuel from one to another etc. one of the main advantages of a cat is the same as a twin (I have owned two twin engine aircraft) is reduntancy, take one tank away and you have lost some of that precious reduntancy, now as you know I have nil real ocean experience plenty at 10000 feet at 180 knots, but as discussed at the Sydney Boat Show the reason I would stretch to the 45 is for ocean crosings, Gordon I do respect your depth of experience far greater than mine but Mate I demand two tanks! and the endurance and security that around 800 litres of fuel would provide, and I am too old to be mucking around with and lifting heavy cans of fuel. With respect to the chart table I guess that is personal preferance, I dont know why they changed a excellent layout as on the FP47 and FP42. Using the outside table is fine unless you live in Melbourne it gets flaming well cold down here. I certainly am keeping a open mind Gordon as I am spending about $3K to travel north next week to have a really good relaxed go at that steering station. Anyway Gordon congratulations on your new purchase the FP45 is a very attractive craft in many ways, do appreciate your thoughts Gordon but respectfully beg to differ. My kindest regards to you and yours.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

I guess most of the photos show boats that have not yet hit bottom. So if it’s at neutral bouncy but 90 meters down it also technically hasn’t sunk either. Most would consider the boats in the photo to be less than useful or possibly even would consider then sunk enough. So I guess it depends on what you consider as sunk. I wonder if your insurance company would consider them as sunk?

My point of view:
I imagine myself right in the middle of the atlantic. In that case I would not call the FP with the guy on the net "sunk".
I'd stay onboard in calm weather or at least tether my dinghy / liferaft to it so I can access the remaining equipment and stores.

It may flip sooner or later, and even ultimately sink when all air pockets are gone, but that may take days. Those days I could use what is still onboard.

[tbodine88]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

Isn't hat still floating?

Unless it's completely underwater, not including mast and appendages, then it hasn't sunk.

I remember a post on this site of a catamaran that had "sunk" in the southern ocean. Found later awash and partially covered in barnacles floating somewhere out far from land.

This boat had been abandoned in bad conditions, declared unsalvageable and yet was still floating months later.

Unsinkable is not the same as habitable and navigable.

I remember sailing my dinghy when it was totally awash, when I was taking classes in sailing. This is the type of unsinkable I'd like. Sunk but sort of usable.

[GBR134]

Some interesting debate on here and some petty squabbling. You can debate at what point a waterlogged boat awash to deck level is usefull as you wish but please, arguing about the meaning of sunk is just childish. A boat still at the surface has clearly not sunk!
A boat awash with no useable air space in mid Atlantic is less than ideal. In fact I’d consider the only worse condition than being alone in mid Atlantic with an upturned cat with only a foot or so of hull above water would be being alone in mid Atlantic without even an upturned cat with only a foot or so of hull above water.

I have a monohull that can definately sink and I really don’t have that much faith in the liferaft😡

[peter57]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

I guess you can't read. I've said several times, some catamarans can sink.

But that seems to be your normal approach. When you can't effectively argue what someone said, just pretend they said something else and rant and rave about that.

According to the dictionary all the images by Polux of the boats that are submerged are Sunk.

[GBR134]

OK sorry I really didn't think that through. According to the dictionary if you step on to a boat it has sunk - but not by much. In all my life I've worked on the premis that a boat may be in all sorts of different kinds of distress with a whole variety of words to succinctly dentify their condition including - sinking, awash, flooded, submerged, wrecked etc. I have always taken it that the term its sunk means its significantly under water.

In a local survey 100 people asked at random agreed with me but then I am alone.

the pedant in me would point out that none of the pictures Pajot posted would count as submerged in the dictionary I have:-

1. under the surface of water or any other enveloping medium; inundated.
hidden, covered, or unknown:
2. There are many submerged facts which could have a bearing on the case.
poverty-stricken; destitute; impoverished:
3. a program to aid the submerged socioeconomic groups.

[Roddu]

Interesting - how does this compare to aluminium cats? Would modern ones also have the foam core or would these boats sink, once penetrated with a hull beach?

[NevilleCat]

Originally Posted by sailjumanji

I went back and looked up the discussion on Facebook. One of the Seawind owners sailed by and took pics that were posted. One of the dealers got in on the discussion. HIN didn't match a SW, rig wrong, etc. But there was also the possibility that it could be one of two Seawind 31's that were made in a company ownership transition period (or seven more were made privately from plans). That model didn't have a coach house, and the one in pic doesn't either. You can see it has a daggerboard, similar in size to a large beach cat. To match the HIN registration specs, it would have afterwards been stretched and widened by owner, and rerigged. That's a lot of modification.

So if it is a "Seawind", it's not one of their production-run models. And none of the local owners were familiar with that particular boat (although they seem to be a pretty tight group of Seawind owners locally!)

Not a Seawind 31...not those bows. Actually that pic doesn't even look to be a multi...maybe it's just a stock photo?
I would be surprised if there was any kind of HIN as that boat would have been built in the early 80's
The first Seawind was a Seawind 33 designed by Chris Williams who later did the Seawind 24 and then the 31.
I can't find any pics of the Seawind 33 and can't remember the bow profile, but possibly similar to the 24?
There used to be one down here in Westernport that was extended out to about 36 feet or so that may have ended up in the Whitsundays?
Seawind 31s were laid up solid glass below the waterline and balsa above...don't know about the 33, or even if many were made. They were pretty fine hulls as opposed to the 31 which had a lot of flare (the 31s were about 2m wide at shoulder height to give cruising space).
Here's my old 31...

[NevilleCat]

OK here's the Sea Wind 33, built in the 70's, apparently about 9 built so maybe it's possible that pic is of one?
This seems to be the only online resource I can see; Chris Williams was a jazz musician and this is from an online book written by another Jazz muso who helped him build the first boat...there are some pics as well in amongst the sex drugs and Jazz stuff...
http://ken.harponline.de/pdf/Chapter_33.pdf

[jbinbi]

I would rather use the term buoyancy. Use modifiers of positive, neutral, negative. Negative bouyant means that it sinks, and will go down to the bottom. Neutral means that does not do that, but not really above the surface. I would think most of the pictures of the cats semi under water are neutral buoyant. These boats are not sinking.

Are ALL cats or FP cats unsinkable? Of course not, but I would think that in 99% of the cases where they are holed, they will not go down to the bottom, certainly not quickly. As compared to a boat with a keel that will.

[peter57]

Originally Posted by GBR134

OK sorry I really didn't think that through. According to the dictionary if you step on to a boat it has sunk - but not by much. In all my life I've worked on the premis that a boat may be in all sorts of different kinds of distress with a whole variety of words to succinctly dentify their condition including - sinking, awash, flooded, submerged, wrecked etc. I have always taken it that the term its sunk means its significantly under water.

In a local survey 100 people asked at random agreed with me but then I am alone.

the pedant in me would point out that none of the pictures Pajot posted would count as submerged in the dictionary I have:-

1. under the surface of water or any other enveloping medium; inundated.
hidden, covered, or unknown:
2. There are many submerged facts which could have a bearing on the case.
poverty-stricken; destitute; impoverished:
3. a program to aid the submerged socioeconomic groups.

You are correct! I should have stated partially submerged is sunk.