Association Forum - Hatfields; McCoys

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

Catalina 250 Specific Forum

Hatfields; McCoys

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

reuben
Navigator

Member Avatar

USA
202 Posts

Initially Posted - 02/17/2004 : 20:54:55

Having searched the forum for comparisons of stability between the WB and WK and enjoyed the resulting threads, it seems to me the enigma remains: is either model quantifiably stiffer than the other? One reason I was attracted to the winger (besides the fact that a good one was readily available) was that physics seemed to dictate a stiffer boat. Then several anecdotes popped up on these pages suggesting the WK is actually more tender than the WB. Therefore, while aspects of this question have been speculated upon, I respectfully ask for evidence of any nature, empirical or storified, that will, let us say, help calibrate our search for truth.

This isn't a matter of enormous importance to me, incidentally. I love my as-yet unchristened WK, and lobbing out questions like this is a good excuse to keep thinking about cruising until the snow melts.

Reuben
C-250 WK #499
Bayfield, WI

Edited by - on

Oscar
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2030 Posts

Response Posted - 02/17/2004 : 21:32:12

If there was a way, and a will, to establish scientifically sound evidence of the tenderness of one of the two boats over the other, subject to establishing suitable definitions and parameters for the concept "tender" of course, it might very well turn out that the difference would be, shall we say, academic.

In other words, would a schmuck like me be able to tell the difference if given the helm blindfolded? To be sure, it would not be like comparing a Maxi Sled and, say, a Morgan OI. I'm afraid the difference, if any, would have to be left to be appreciated only by those of us that have highly refined equilibriums.

Oscar
250WB#618 Lady Kay on the Chesapeake

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 02/18/2004 : 06:22:49

Derek Crawford's report is the only one that comes to mind, having experienced some of both boats and probably completely non-prejudicial. Even though his comments surprised me, they carried a lot of weight because I greatly respect Derek's sailing savvy. I don't think they mean that the jury is in.

I agree with Oscar likening the ride comfort of the water ballast to be similar in ways to that of the C30. I've sailed the 30 quite a bit and confirm his viewpoint.

As to fore and aft stability, in some ways it is similar to a teeter totter. If a fulcrum exist midship such as a heavy mass aka weighted keel, that mass will resist movement compared to lighter fore and aft extremities... and produce hobby horsing in a seaway.

If associated with center mass is mass weight at the bow... then the teeter todder is bow heavy and will become a pitching wet boat... with the bow driving hard down with the teeter totter movement.

A water ballast boat carries her ballast from the bow to just aft of the companionway step and it is also spread laterally. The manifested character of that mass is in my opinion far different than a center keel boat. She is far less prone to pitch in a seaway.

Lateral stability might be similarly effected to some extent, I don't know. What I do know, is that in my cruising experience on the Great Lakes, we often make passages that a great many larger boats choose not to. It could be that our comfort tolerance is less critical. As Oscar says, it gets too academic to know.

Edited by - on

osmepneo
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
1420 Posts

Response Posted - 02/18/2004 : 08:31:57

I suspect a naval architect, probably specializing in sailing boat design, could answer that question, with some level of "proof." Since the issue is up for grabs umong us common sailors, probably other variables play in a decision. The key one being, in my mind, is whether you plan to trail a boat to various locations, fairly frequently. If so you probably want to give more weight in your decision model to a wb boat. You would have less trailing weight, thus needing a smaller tow vehicle.

If any boat feels tender, the solution is to reduce sail. Roll up some of the Jenny, put in reef in the main. I've found when I do this, that I still maintain hull speed, and have a much more comfortable ride.

Edited by - on

bill bosworth
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
172 Posts

Response Posted - 02/18/2004 : 10:20:17

Reuben;
I would love to take a sail on a WK so that I could make comparisons with my WB. I can however make comparisons to the other boats that I have owned. My previous boats included a Kenner Kittiwake, a 24' boat with a full keel, a Cal 25, a fin keel boat, and a Cal 25II a fin keel boat. My concern when selling my Cal 25II in order to purchase the Catalina 250 was tenderness and stability. Initially I found that there was a little period of adjustment, getting used to the 250wb. I find that I do need to reef sooner than I might on the Cal 25's, but that said, I still am able to sail the 250wb in any weather that I sailed the previous boat, probably with no less comfort. On numerous occassions, while racing the Kittiwake and Cal 25, we would burry the rail in the water and have waves wash over the cockpit. My wife much prefers the 250, as it's 110 jib is much easier to handle, the moton of the boat and heal are no greater than we experienced with the former boats and we have never come close to burrying the rail. All of our boats tended to round into the wind if overpowered. We find that we fully enjoy putting in a reef and taking the 250 out into fairly high winds, if sailed properly it is a lively performer, and provides a comfortable ride. I have no reservations about the WB system. By the way, our boat is at our dock nine months of the year, our main reason for going with the wb version, was the ease of hauling, launching, we no longer wanted to be at the mercy of a marina. We also enjoy being able to beach the boat and sail in shallow waters, not being concerned about running aground. If I had the money to buy a new boat tomorrow, it would probably be a 250wb.
Bill
C250wb #134 Serendipity

Edited by - on

bren737
Captain

Members Avatar

291 Posts

Response Posted - 02/18/2004 : 11:11:28

Reuben,

Interesting you should bring up this subject at this time. My 'Ruah' is a 250 WB and just last week while in San Diego I rented a 250 WK for a couple of hours on the bay. It was a perfect day; had a great time -- especially because I was intending to rent a much cheaper C22, but their last one was out of commission, so they gave me their 250 for the same price! At any rate, I was gad to be able to finally get a chance to compare the two boats.

I'm certainly no engineering/technical type in regard to sailboat design, so my comparison is strictly on a 'seat-of-the-pants' basis. I know, too, that being a WB owner may tend to make me biased to that version. It appeared to me that the WK, as has been reported on the forum many times, tended to indeed 'porpoise' over waves and passing boat wake much more than my WB. When a Navy SEAL patrol boat blew by, we rocked up/down along the pitch axis considerably more than my WB does. The WB tends to slice through the wake/wave and be done with it. I felt this tendency in the roll axis as well when a puff would hit, though not as pronounced. My WB tends to be quick to roll to 5-7 degrees and then stiffen up. I felt the WK was a little less easy to begin to heel, but once it began, it didn't 'feel' quite as stable. If felt that it wanted to continue to roll more than I am used to on my own boat.

Some of the 'feel' difference could be in that my boat has wheel steering and the rental WK had a tiller; though the tiller obviously gives better feedback to trim than a wheel does. Interestingly, though, the rental WK only had a 110 jib (as does my WB). I suspect that the rental company doesn't have the usual 135 jib on the WK in order to not risk having someone over-power the boat. Had it had the usual 135, I would think the tendency to be 'more tender' than the WB would have been even more pronounced. Too, we had four adults on the WK, one of which was a strapping 6'4", 230+ pounds. My WB rarely has anyone but myself and my 10 year old son on it, but yet it feels less tender.

All of this being said and again pointing out that this is not a 'quantifiable comparison' I think the WK is indeed a bit more tender in the roll and definitely has more of a 'hobby-horse' effect in waves/wakes. As Oscar pointed out, though, blind folded I think you would be hard pressed to really feel a significant difference. The differences are indeed subtle.

Do I love my WB--you bet! Would I be just as happy with a WK-- now having spent a little time on one--you bet! The reasons for my buying a WB were the trailerability, 'shoal-draft' ability and the fact that it is MUCH cheaper to store dry-slipped at our marina vs. wet-slip.

Edited by - bren737 on 02/18/2004 11:39:30

Oscar
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2030 Posts

Response Posted - 02/18/2004 : 23:36:43

I've done the rental in San Diego on a long layover.....that's a lot of fun. To your thought about weight I'd like to add that your "ballast" was up high, and in the aft end of an otherwise empty boat. In contrast, all the stuff on your own boat is down below, and it adds up, while you and your son are the only ones up high and aft. On these relatively light boats that would make a big difference, in fact, I find that Lady Kay is on her best behaviour when loaded with a weeks worth of cruising gear for four.... To Reuben, don't worry about it, go sailing.

Oscar
250WB#618 Lady Kay on the Chesapeake

Edited by - on

frog0911
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1349 Posts

Response Posted - 02/18/2004 : 23:55:58

Bren, you should know better than have so much weight in the rear end. Just wonder what you static margin was and what the EPI would have to be to lower the nose for stability. I do agree with you on one thing the WK appears to roll up much quicker than the WB. I have never let PennyII reach the stopping point yet I just spill air until it stops. Of course I probably would not have the problem if I just reefed the main when the winds go above 10K. Tommorrow is sailing day so I will just have to practice more then,Temp.70 with winds 5-10.

Edited by - on

bren737
Captain

Members Avatar

291 Posts

Response Posted - 02/19/2004 : 10:26:20

Oscar, Jerry. . .

I certainly agree that 'personal gear' stored below adds a good bit of stability, especially, as you pointed out, on such a light boat as the 250 where on a percentage basis, a little bit of weight shifted here or there can make a big difference.

However, on the WK last week all of the weight was NOT in the aft end. The 230+ pounder was on the fore deck, feet over the windward rail, one person was on the cabin roof, feet over the windward rail and the other two of us were as far forward on the windward cockpit seat coaming as possible so I could tend the jib sheets. We'd switch on the tacks.

Edited by - on

frog0911
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1349 Posts

Response Posted - 02/19/2004 : 19:40:33

That being the case, I guess the threads that discuss adding weight to the forward end of the WK, begin to take on a bit more valitity. I added a second 12 gal water tank in the v-berth and when I filled them the nose dropped 1.75". Apparently I will need to add another 400 lbs to attain the stability of a WB. I was going to take her out today with the additional 211 lbs. of water forward, but the General had a meeting this AM so will give it a shot tommorrow. Somehow I need to slow the rolling moment down from a nano second to a micro second.

Edited by - on

Derek Crawford
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
3321 Posts

Response Posted - 02/19/2004 : 21:40:12

And to think I'm always trying to take weight OFF "This Side Up"...
Derek

Edited by - on

frog0911
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1349 Posts

Response Posted - 02/20/2004 : 07:46:34

Don't take to much off or "This Side" may not stay "UP.

Edited by - on

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Response Posted - 02/20/2004 : 09:38:40

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by frog0911
 Don't take to much off or "This Side" may not stay "UP.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Please remind us of what Pretty Penny was. Was she a C-25?

Edited by - on

Derek Crawford
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
3321 Posts

Response Posted - 02/20/2004 : 16:51:49

"don't take too much weight off..."

True Jerry - but controlled round-ups get you to weather so nicely!
Derek

Edited by - on

frog0911
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1349 Posts

Response Posted - 02/20/2004 : 23:08:17

Pretty Penny is a 79 C25 converted swing to wing in 88 at the Largo factory.

Edited by - on

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.