Anonymous wrote:On that subject: two years ago, I attended the OCC meet in the upper Fal estuary, and James and Hanneke brought the first example of the Mana 24. James was very interested in Weaverbird's rig, and asked to see both boats sailing together. The wind was very light and fluky in the area off Ruan Creek, but it was clear that Weaverbird was faster and more easily manoeuvrable than the Mana 24, with its sleeve luff, gaff-headed wingsails, and James, I think, recognised that our modern cambered junk rigs are an enormous improvement over the flat junk sails that he used on that early voyages.

  James if anything is driven by inertia.   There are many ways that his cats could be improved, but he is successful, and has a cult following.   The cambered junk rig should be an acceptable change in keeping with his KISS philosophy.   Even more so would be Roger Taylors "hinged panel" sail, so his builders could make a cambered sail at  home on an ordinary sewing machine easily.  

                                                                        H.W.

Many thoughts on this subject, too many to try listing in one post, so will try to mainly cover the question of hull size  for a habitation unit and then include a thought or two about Junk rig and  adaptability to a Wharram type cat.

Right now am working in the habitation unit of my Pahi, which compares in size to a Tiki 26, except in that cabin width has been expanded (width is 2.1 metres compared to 1.2 or so of a Wharram hull at deck level).There is a settee bench and double berth on the inboard side, a small galley, stowage lockers and a writing station(with flap down surface),  on the outboard side of the hull. Forward and aft of this basic living area are single tunnel berths, as per the usual Wharram way/style, with storage under.

Living space for for 2 is acceptable in this hull, but two more could squeeze in for a drink or a feed (provided they are not obese and don't mind getting cozy with the other two.

Being a proa ama in this /my case, this ama hull is about a metre shorter than the other or lee hull, which means that I lose roughly 1/2 metre of tunnel space beyond each single berth, by living in the shorter hull, and this is the  best use (for habitation) I think I can make of an 8M hull.

Assuming I had built  the habitation unit on the 9M hull,  which is what the lee hull measures on my Pahi, then there would have been a fair amount of extra elbow room and locker space, plus more stowage space under seats and berths.

Having two hulls, means that a wash compartment and heads is separate from the main habitation space, providing much aditional stowage space as welll in the second hull.

Considering then,  conversion of a 30 ft Wharram, with 17ft beam -- an expanded living unit/cabin would measure over 8ft from the mast bearing girder midway between the hulls, to the outboard side beyond the galley..... thus providing considerably more habitation space than that in an 8M hull.

Stealing/annexing half of what usually comprises excessive open deck space (on a standard Wharram), for cabin space to one side(of midway betweenhulls), overcomes the 'culvert/tunnel hull limitations and helps create facility to step a junk main mast.

Talking of Junk rig and Wharram  -- James told me that he( along with Ruth) had started out with an attempt to Junk rig  a Lifeboat, then  went on to concentrated on double canoes. He did in fact dabble with a battened lug on Tehini, but early on it was found (apparently) that a smaller and more efficient rig suited the speed potential of a multihull better than greater sail area provided by junk rig.

Here I wonder whether  going the route of using a single/una Junk sail of higher aspect ratio, will likewise be better than a shorter biplane set up.  

I have very little experience with catamarans, but a lot of experience of voyaging across oceans and to reasonably wild places (eg Alaskan Peninsula).

Single handed or two handed, a ton of payload was enough. 70 gallons of water and 30 gallons of fuel is ample to cross an ocean, and that amounts to half a ton. Tools and spares are the next heaviest items. Add food and personal kit, and it's quite easy to get to a total of a ton, but any more verges on hedonism. Books, charts and music used to be a heavy item, but nowadays, hundreds of books, charts and music albums can be carried on a tablet.

Mono or multi hull, these sayings still apply:

Go small, go simple, go now.
Don't be overboated.
Keep It Simple, Sailor.
Small Is Beautiful, Less Is More.

Many years ago, when I was thinking about what kind of boat I wanted to up-size to, for serious cruising, I went down to Cornwall to meet James and Hanneka. The first Tiki 36 was in build at Devoran, and I remember thinking "there's no way on earth that I'm going to need a boat as big as this".

I've been aboard a 50ft condo-cat, and remember thinking "this is bigger than my house, and certainly a lot more complicated".

In Tahiti, I watched as couple endeavoured to moor a 50ft South African cat. They couldn't manage it without help, as they needed to be at all four corners at once, to tend bow and stern lines. 

Of course, I've been aboard Grand Pha, which is probably a generous size for two, but certainly too big for one.

I tend to agree that 30 - 31ft is big enough, but not too big, for a first cruising cat.

Anonymous wrote:

The Swale's cat ( Annelise I think) had a beam of near 16ft as far as I can determine from a small drawing in Rosie's book of their voyage. This I came to consider as absolute minimum after sailing on the circumnavigating Wharram cat Orowa (45ft), on the leg from the Indian Ocean around the Cape of Africa into the Atlantic. That canoe had  17 ft of beam, which had been good for survival in two Indian Ocean cyclones, rigged as a ketch with solid wooden masts. Then the Tiki 38 built/owned by Bertrand Fercot, is biplane Junk rigged with masts that are likely as tall as those on Orowa, but being hollow, would be lighter.This cat,Grand Pha has a beam of near 20 ft, while Oryx has a beam of near 17ft. Smaller cats have been found to be extremely stable, like the Wharram Hinemoa that I owned and had 14ft of beam, with length 23 ft. ( slightly over 1/2 length), which is roughly proportional to that of Oryx.

Obviously less weight aloft is better, so as priority, a strong light spar such as a hollow carbon reinforced one makes the most sense for Junk rig, and in which case it might pay to maximise rig height and beam within affordable limits.Spend a bit more on spars and save on the floating platform, which makes a Wharram look good to me.

Modifying a composites production cat is going to be a nightmare compared to work on a Wharram, and especially so if the beam is to be extended.

Sure a Wharram leaves a lot to be desired in the way of  living or accomodation facilities, but work to remedy this could serve the combined purpose of creating a step for a mast outside of useful interior space. Also,  demountable hulls get around what to me is a deal breaker for a one piece multihull, with need for a building and berthing space of near 20ft width putting things in the million dollar condocat territory.

Seaworthiness requires more craft width, and compromising this makes no sense..In other words, choosing a shorter bridge deck design  because it offers more living space on a smaller footprint, would just not be suitable for converson.

Economising by opting for a 30ft Wharram and extending the  overall beam to 17ft/ would make a better conversion than a shorter bridgedeck cat with more living space to offer on a smaller footprint.

Modifying a 30 ft wharram by building a widened berth space and settee inboard, could double as a structure with a girder midway between the hulls to locate an unstayed mast.This would mean the widest single part of a cat, even with  17ft overall beam, would be less than 3M when dissasembled.

Depending on the weight of the mast, it could be possible to safely carry sail on just a slightly taller a mast than would be possible with two keel stepped, but  shorter masts.

Having a Junk sail helps get sail off quick enough when reefing, to compensate for  little extra top hamper.

 

  Jeremy:

        like everybody, I want all the good qualities and none of the bad  ;-)    It is my  hope to do serious ocean voyaging, visiting many places, and spending quite a few years afloat.   Long ocean passages are inevitable.    While one could spend a lifetime sailing without ever being far from land, I would like to visit far places rather than just reading about other folks adventures ;-)

     Considering this, several things are important.   As someone pointed out in an earlier response, cost is a major consideration.   Dollars I spend up front may be money out the window, or than can be an "investment".    I'm not "well off", and will have to operate on a fairly tight budget.    Annie's books are a great incentive, full of good advice and ideas.   As I expect or hope to be living aboard for years, perhaps  many years, there are some space requirements and payload requirements.  I don't expect or want to live in luxury, it's not my way, I'm naturally fairly frugal.    I don't need or want a lot of things many cruisers would not leave home without.   The fewer systems to maintain, the better.... within reason.  

      A smaller lighter boat is more easily driven than a big heavy one... within it's range, which is governed by LWL.    Payload is a very significant factor to me, not because I need a huge amount of junk, but because I've done the math... which it seems that many people have not.     A larger boat has more payload (usually), but it also requires a larger, heavier, more expensive rig, larger engine(s), more fuel capacity, heavier more expensive ground tackle, and other scale related differences.  It also requires more bottom paint.... and has more above water surface to maintain and keep painted etc, and if it is berthed will cost more, though there should be little reason to take a berth.... with a bit of planning.  

    A catamaran around 30' with a bridge deck cabin still makes the most sense to me, as I have no serious intention of building......  My gut tells me that I can build or I can sail.... I know how building goes...... far more cost and time than anticipated.   

       Modifying something like a Wharram makes sense, though in reality, it has to be a fairly large one, like the Tiki 38 or perhaps an older Tangaroa 35 , but the beam would have to be increased from the absurd 16' of the Mk1 at least to the 19' specification of the later models.   The Tiki 38 as 22'4" beam.  Some economies are I've found "false economy".  

    The Tangaroa at 3' less LOA displaces 70% what the Tiki 38 does, and has 75% of the payload.   It's not as roomy inside, but as you say that can be improved, which is the sort of improvement that can be done incrementally.   3300 lbs payload is a reasonable figure.  Here  is a photo of Aorai with keel stepped masts.... This boat was listed a few years back at 20K Euros... and sold.  With any kind of luck, I would stumble upon something like this and save a lot of work and money.   It's nearly always possible to come out ahead by buying someone else's labor of love.   Masts look to be not much over 30' above deck, which is a height that makes sense for a free standing mast.

      Here is a quote from a Tiki 38 owner:   

back in the seventies, when I was just a wee lad I fell for Wharrams marketing too...
I don't want to complain overly much (after all she took us all the way around) - but in 14 years of bluewatercruising we encountered few boats less comfortable & less suitable for what we were doing than the Wharram...

I presume he was referring to the open deck, lack of integrated bridge deck cabin, side opening companionways, tendency to hobbyhorse, and lack of any real leeway device.   Centerboards and daggerboards have been fitted.   A number of Wharrams have been converted to rigid beams, with reported improvement, and that allows some integration, and eliminates one maintenance point... or rather multiple ones.   They are far from ideal IMHO, but they have proven rugged and safe.   I know of one case where one went through an Indian Ocean cyclone that sank a number of boats, and survived having broken one beam..... making it safely to shore somewhere in Africa I believe. 

     I'm far from "soft"..... most folks who know me would probably describe me as tough rather than soft....... but I'm NOT a glutton for punishment.   To me a Wharram is sort of a "blank canvas"... that is to say room for improvement.

                                        H.W.

Anonymous wrote:

...and I agree with all you say.  Yes there would be places where you would not wish to be in an Iroquois.  That said Rosie Swale was the first cat around Cape Horn in a Bill O Brian cat.....scary reading.  On a better note, Richard Woods abandoned his cat in a F11, it then floated around the Pacific for a considerable time unattended (there is a link on his website if you have not come across it).

A Wharram Tiki is a good choice, though as you say, needs to be getting on for 40ft before the hull accommodation works.

I believe Pete created Oryx by stretching the plans in length by 10%.

 An oceanic 30 is not exactly the optimal round the world catamaran.... It took guts!!   It is does have a beam right at what is considered optimum... 50% of LOA but the forward end is solid.... a scoop for practical purposes rather than netting, and it's a bit tall in terms of windage...... I've read Rosie's book.... The Children of Cape Horn I believe was the title.  That took a LOT of guts!!  ..... sailing around the horn in an Oceanic 30...   She's anything but a lightweight, a real adventurer.  She reminds me a lot of two girls I dated in high school and was foolish enough not to hang onto!

     The Tiki 38 is a boat I've considered seriously, as they are often available quite economically, but it's really more boat than I want.  One however has to consider that length is relevant both to comfort and safety, and also that it takes far less rig to drive a cat than a monohull, unless you are pushing for the max. 

My real objection to it and other Wharrams is the flexible beam connections, but that can and has been "corrected" (James would call it something else ;-)  ) by a number of builders and owners.   Unnecessary wear and maintenance IMHO, plus the pod cannot be integrated with the cabins.  

     James stuck with what worked and sold to his own following, hewing as close to the Polynesian double canoe as was practical out of sentiment or???   It distinguishes his cats from all others, and has garnered a following........ but so has T____.     

      The other thing I don't like is the depth of the hull cabins... about 1.5M below the bridge deck (guess from the photos).   In the main cabin, the coach roof should be raised about half that amount, and reshaped for  more space raising the sole the same.   With the pod anyway, this really would not add significant windage, and would provide a great deal of stowage beneath the newly elevated sole, especially for heavy stuff..... chain, batteries, fuel and water, low and center, exactly where it should be.   Raised to that level, the main cabins could be expanded inboard over the bridge deck, as Richard  Woods did on Mira, creating a large workspace at a comfortable level, and it would also provide forward view and aft view, as well as making it far easier to climb up and down.    Just 30 cm of additional space over the bridge deck would be a real asset.  

       I've looked at just about every cat that could reasonably do the job for me, and tend to delve into the details as deeply as I can with the resources I have at hand.

                                                             H.W.