# Catalina 42 ... Why not?



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

We retire in 4 years and plan to base out of St Augustine and sail from Maine to Aruba to the Dry Tortugas and all points in between (ie, the Bahamas, swimin' pigs and all!). We might even do a trans-Atlantic or two....

Seriously considering that a used Catalina 42 would be the right boat for us over a 10 to 20 year period.... sooooo - Why not a C 42?

Thoughts?

Thanks


----------



## SteveInMD (May 11, 2007)

As a racer I was skeptical of Catalinas. However, I now own a Catalina 42 and I must say I'm impressed. I believe they are a solid, well built boats that sail better than I expected. I'd buy one again.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

SteveInMD said:


> As a racer I was skeptical of Catalinas. However, I now own a Catalina 42 and I must say I'm impressed. I believe they are a solid, well built boats that sail better than I expected. I'd buy one again.


But what would you do with two of them?? 

I, too, think they'd be a great boat, though perhaps a pretty critical eye should be taken prior to an ocean crossing.

Lesser boats have done it, I'm sure...


----------



## SteveInMD (May 11, 2007)

Faster said:


> But what would you do with two of them??
> 
> I, too, think they'd be a great boat, though perhaps a pretty critical eye should be taken prior to an ocean crossing.
> 
> Lesser boats have done it, I'm sure...


If the sky is the limit on the budget and the primary criteria is crossing oceans, then I can think of a few other alternatives. However, my C 42 is on the Chesapeake Bay but it has been to the Galapagos Islands and California.


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

The sky is not the limit with a purchase price of around $100k with maybe $50k for upgrades. The primary criteria is coastal US and Caribbean with maybe once across and back to cruise a bit of Europe.


----------



## Magoofskie (Nov 23, 2011)

Mmm, well this surely brings many boats in range. If ocean crossing is your game then they're many slightly older heavy built cruisers easily in budget. In today's market you could have change left over from your budget even after upgrades. A friend of mine has a Catalina 42 and recently has a problem with corroded keel bolts. He really uses his boat a few times a week out here in So Cal and corrosion is showing itself at the hull/ keel intersection. However he really loves his boat and it is perfect for Channel Island cruising with the occasional rough channel crossing.


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

_slightly older heavy built cruisers_......that's exactly the type boat I want to avoid since I'm somewhat of a realist. IMO, most folks that own "heavy built cruisers" spend much more time touting their boat's blue water capability than actually sailing blue water. I like the larger cockpit and liveaboard cabin volume that comes with a perfectly capable design like a Catalina 42.
Thoughts?


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

I personally wouldn't try to cross the Atlantic with a C42, though with a thourgough going over it should be more than capable of your other goals. 

Water will find its way into the v berth of my 1991 C36 after hours of pounding to weather. I know some of it is coming through the v-berth hatch, maybe only around the handles, but maybe the gasket. I also found wet areas along the hull indicating either a stantion leak or a leak through the hull deck joint. These issues would just a nuicance for coastal cruising, but could be serious issues for ocean crossings. Before I would take my boat on the coastal trips you envision I'd likely replace at least the v-berth hatch and rebed all the foredeck hardware. Just things to consider for you upgrade budget.

Also you might consider a C400 as well.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

malyea said:


> The sky is not the limit with a purchase price of around $100k with maybe $50k for upgrades. The primary criteria is coastal US and Caribbean with maybe once across and back to cruise a bit of Europe.


Not sure you'd find a MKII in that range... if you did it would probably need all of that $50K in putting it right. But the MKIs aren't that different, I don't think.. mainly in the look/deck and the cockpit.


----------



## SteveInMD (May 11, 2007)

PalmettoSailor said:


> I personally wouldn't try to cross the Atlantic with a C42, though with a thourgough going over it should be more than capable of your other goals.
> 
> Water will find its way into the v berth of my 1991 C36 after hours of pounding to weather. I know some of it is coming through the v-berth hatch, maybe only around the handles, but maybe the gasket. I also found wet areas along the hull indicating either a stantion leak or a leak through the hull deck joint. These issues would just a nuicance for coastal cruising, but could be serious issues for ocean crossings. Before I would take my boat on the coastal trips you envision I'd likely replace at least the v-berth hatch and rebed all the foredeck hardware. Just things to consider for you upgrade budget.
> 
> Also you might consider a C400 as well.


Just for comparison, mine is completely dry inside through heavy rain or taking waves over the bow.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

SteveInMD said:


> Just for comparison, mine is completely dry inside through heavy rain or taking waves over the bow.


Mine was too until I tried it in racing conditions for 10+ hours beating directly into the famous square chop of the Chespeake with 20kts+ on the nose, the rail nearly in the water and a foot of water over the entire foredeck, as often as not . These would be mild conditions compared to what you could expect to encounter at least at some point in an ocean crossing.

Unless its a hull/deck joint leak, its something that can be addressed, but its also something you need to be prepared for if you are buying a 15+ year old boat and thinking of crossing oceans with it. Rudders are another area of concern for a Catalina of this vintage. Many will have wet core by this age, which should be addressed before venturing far offshore.

Personally, I think Catalina made an improvement going to the toe rail type hull/deck joint of the C400, but I still prefer the C42 cabin layout.


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

Not a boat I would take down into the southern ocean but for what you are planning they will do just fine. 

I would look for one with slab reefing rather than inmast furling though.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

TQA said:


> Not a boat I would take down into the southern ocean but for what you are planning they will do just fine.
> 
> I would look for one with slab reefing rather than inmast furling though.


I would half agree. Boat should be adequate for the purpose you mention. The reality is that there are an incredible range of boats 'out there' being cruised successfully.

I have had my first experience with a furling main with our current boat and have been very impressed it after 25,000 mostly bluewater miles. It has not given us any trouble and offers tremendous flexibility and the safety of not having to leave the cockpit when the snot hits the fan. With vane steering it is wonderful for balancing the rig. One caveat, my experience is only with Hood gear and I can't comment on the reliability of others. We met a Swiss couple who had had so many problems with jams on the inmast furling on their Discovery 55 that they replaced the entire rig with one that in boom furling. Don't know the brand.


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

I've only sailed two boats with in mast furling - a Hunter 40 DS and a Saga 409...both had furling issues nearly every time we furled, either at days end or with increasing wind. I don't think poor technique was the cause but rather less than perfect maintenance I suspect.
I'm pretty sure that I'm nearly convinced that for every 10,000 sea miles an in mast system will malfunction more often than slab reefing...
I may be budging on the wing keel issue but I doubt I'll ever own a rig with in mast furling.
Thoughts?


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

malyea said:


> I've only sailed two boats with in mast furling - a Hunter 40 DS and a Saga 409...both had furling issues nearly every time we furled, either at days end or with increasing wind. I don't think poor technique was the cause but rather less than perfect maintenance I suspect.
> I'm pretty sure that I'm nearly convinced that for every 10,000 sea miles an in mast system will malfunction more often than slab reefing...
> I may be budging on the wing keel issue but I doubt I'll ever own a rig with in mast furling.
> Thoughts?


I think I'm with you on both counts. I really don't have any negative experience with a winged keel, but the performance side of sailing always calls to me, so I'd almost certainly opt for a deep keel version of whatever proves to be my next boat, so long as the draft was still reasonable for the Chesapeake and east coast.

The apparent convienience of the furling main appeals to one side of me while the performance side of my brain is repelled by the flat cut and lack of roach in these sails. Also being a bit of a pessimist, I fully expect a rolling furler main would fail me at exactly the worst time, which would displease the lazy side of my personality that was drawn to it in the first place, so this one feature I find easy to leave off my list of wants.


----------



## BCC1 (Dec 18, 2011)

Ok, I'm just a weekend & vacation sailor, but that's every weekend from the beginning of April till the end of November. I've had three boats with in mast furling and that's part of the reason I'm out sailing virtually every day I'm on the boat, when many (most) seem not to bother.

The latest is a 41 Beneteau with vertical battens and it's as completely trouble free as the other 2....and fast. Granted, it's not a boat for ocean cruising.

So, it depends what kind of sailing you plan to do. Sit at the dock or circumnavigate would be one choice, sailing and anchoring most days would be the other.


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

_I'm pretty sure that I'm nearly convinced that for every 10,000 sea miles an in mast system will malfunction more often than slab reefing..._

...I think the more moving parts, the more chance for malfunction.


----------



## sailsupnwegone (Sep 26, 2012)

Good for you sails up and your gone. Enjoy!!!


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

Inmast furling would be a non-starter for me. After sailing the C42 for a while in nasty conditions, come back and tell us how she might handle 20' waves on a ocean crossing. Otherwise, sounds like a great retirement.


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

If given a choice I would go for the in mast furling. Having used most systems and having many get together's with other cruisers, It would seem those that had problems where due to worn, stretched and out of shape sail. If I can find me some more money and I do upgrade right near the top of the nice to have list will be In Mast Furling.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Pretty much every modern furling mast i have seen has a second slot for a storm sail and as i have seen plenty of normal sails a LOT worse off when used in winds that require that 3rd reef point 

The strom tri would seem to be a prudent piece of gear on any offshore voyage and any type of mast


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

All good points (_I still remain skeptical from some experience with/ref in mast furling_...)...
...but my other issue is with a wing keel...

A good salesman at the Miami Boat Show has me just about convinced I should go with a wing keel as first choice (fin keel was my original first choice)...

I like the shallower draft wing keel for coastal US, Keys and Bahamas and not too worried about 'loss of upwind performance' in a C42 as the owner reports indicate they do quite well with wing keel.....

BUT - how much more difficult is it to unstick a wing keel from a grounding vs a fin keel AND - the shallower draft of the wing affords less 'protection' for the rudder vs the deeper fin.

Thoughts?


----------



## SteveInMD (May 11, 2007)

Are you sure you want to turn this into a wing vs fin keel debate? I think you may be better off reading a few thousand existing posts on the subject rather than rehashing it here. (In the end I don't think you will have a clear answer anyway).


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

SteveInMD said:


> Are you sure you want to turn this into a wing vs fin keel debate? I think you may be better off reading a few thousand existing posts on the subject rather than rehashing it here. (In the end I don't think you will have a clear answer anyway).


Well sure, why not...??? There's usually at least couple new perspectives in any good ole' rehash 

Fin keel vs wing keel for coastal US, Bahamas, Keys, Caribbean and maybe a crossing or two.....

Thoughts?


----------



## SteveInMD (May 11, 2007)

OK...

The only people that will tell you that a wing keel works as well as a fin keel are people that own a wing keel, or have one to sell. If you don't care about upwind performance a wing keel will serve you just fine. Even on the Chesapeake Bay, (lots of shallow water) I glad a have a fin keel and I don't feel like the 6' 8" draft is a problem at all. The boats I used to race on usually had approximately 10' drafts, and one was 14' 6'. The point is that I think 6' 8" really aint that deep. (But many will probably disagree.)


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

SteveInMD said:


> OK...
> 
> The only people that will tell you that a wing keel works as well as a fin keel are people that own a wing keel, or have one to sell. If you don't care about upwind performance a wing keel will serve you just fine. Even on the Chesapeake Bay, (lots of shallow water) I glad a have a fin keel and I don't feel like the 6' 8" draft is a problem at all. The boats I used to race on usually had approximately 10' drafts, and one was 14' 6'. The point is that I think 6' 8" really aint that deep. (But many will probably disagree.)


I agree with Steve on this one even as a wing keel owner. I also hold the humble opinion that 6'5" is not excessive draft for a 42' boat, even on the Chesapeake. Heck, a First 36.7 draws over 7 feet.

Wing keels are a compromise and while they will perform "ok", they never out perform the same boat with a fin. I've only owned wing keel boats, and both of them exhibited fairly strong weather helm sooner than I would have expected. The fin keeled boats I crewed on seemed to have a bit more tolerance as the winds built. I'll tell you my boat sails ok and no worse than the many other shoal draft boats here on the bay, but if I could have the same boat with a fin, I'd take it.

Re: the grounding issue I feel the argument is both overblown and there is a corollary in that I believe, based on my experience, that a wing keel is likely easier to unstick if you run around while motoring since its broad bottom tends to bounce/skip rather than dig a groove. I've found the bottom many times poking around the creeks off the Chessy, and have always managed to manuver off fairly easily. Now if you sail yourself aground, I agree the wing might make life more difficult.


----------



## KIVALO (Nov 2, 2011)

Everyone makes such a big deal over wing vs fin. I have a question regarding the two, how much higher will a fin point? How much faster is a fin?

Of course the answer, if there can really be one, will be approximate since every boat is different.

Thanks in advance

Brad


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

KIVALO said:


> Everyone makes such a big deal over wing vs fin. I have a question regarding the two, how much higher will a fin point? How much faster is a fin?
> 
> Of course the answer, if there can really be one, will be approximate since every boat is different.
> 
> ...


Take a look at the PHRF ratings to get an idea of the relative difference.

A C36 fin is roughly 15-20 seconds a mile faster than a wing keel C36 as rated by PHRF of the Chesapeake.


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

In a slight rum haze....but can we 'convert' that to ' x percent faster'...?


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

PalmettoSailor said:


> Take a look at the PHRF ratings to get an idea of the relative difference.
> 
> A C36 fin is roughly 15-20 seconds a mile faster than a wing keel C36 as rated by PHRF of the Chesapeake.





malyea said:


> In a slight rum haze....but can we 'convert' that to ' x percent faster'...?


Hmm, when cruising you're not going to be constantly tweaking sails to wring every last ounce out of her so the difference is -- drum-roll please -- negligible! 

Offshore you may see some difference in leeway, in the Bahamas and Florida the draft may make a difference depending on where you go. Hell, where I'm sailing 10 feet feels like deep water.

It's a boat. Everything is a trade-off. It depends on where and how you want to sail her.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

JimMcGee said:


> Hmm, when cruising you're not going to be constantly tweaking sails to wring every last ounce out of her .....


My wife would know you've never 'cruised' with me!


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Faster said:


> My wife would know you've never 'cruised' with me!


LOL, OK so I'm more the mellow type 

But if you get to the anchorage first you have to have the dark 'n stormies ready when we get there, we'll dinghy over with the munchies. :laugher

My point was sometimes small differences get amplified out of proportion in these threads. 15 seconds is HUGE if you're racing. Not such a big deal for cruising.

.


----------



## SteveInMD (May 11, 2007)

I sailed a Morris 32 with a wing keel from the Chesapeake to Marion Massachusetts to Bermuda and back to the Chesapeake. I believe Morris Yachts are considered seaworthy boats. However, it seemed to me that every time we started to get some real wind she would just lay over and play dead. We would have to reef way down when everyone else around us still carried full canvas. I've had experiences on other wind keel boats the would just slip sideways in a blow. Perhaps it's overly simplistic but I believe keel shape has nothing to do with it - fancy shapes don't matter. The only thing that matters is getting more mass further down in the water provides a better righting moment. Hence my decision to buy a fin keel boat. For me it's right choice. To each his own...


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Years ago I was the Measurer for the Catalina 34 International Owners Association. The C34 fleet had a very active one design racing component and a pretty rigorous one design rule which we calculated adjustments for things like roller sails and shoal draft keels. The problem with the PHRF formula is it tends to understate the impacts of things like change in displacement (shoal draft boats have heavier keels). For our 34 footers the difference in time between the two types of keels is more like 20-25 seconds per mile. This translates to a shoal boat being 3-5% “slower” than a normal fin keel. What the measurement doesn’t calculate is the tighter tacking angles of a fin keel. I’d say the fin is tighter by five to seven degrees. From my practical racing experience, I never worried too much about shoal boats as I could easily lift above them so I never had to split tacks, I’d just run them down and lift over them.

So you think this only matters if your are racing? IMHO, it is probably more important as a cruiser. The added weight in the shoal keel becomes a bigger disadvantage as the winds get lighter. So you are turning on the motor sooner and motoring longer. You are not as efficient clawing off of a lee shore, nor are you as efficient if your destination is upwind. My opinion is you have to be a really good and constant trimmer just to keep up with a lazy trimmer on a fin keel boat.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Obviously there's a need for shoal draft in certain areas.. in others, like the PNW there really isn't... I hate to see the builders concentrate on wings/shoal keels and fail to offer a deep keel option for those who need it.

We have a member here (Greyhound37) who has beautiful, quick boat - not with a real shoal keel, but one shorter than the deep draft option.. he's gone to the trouble and expense of changing to the deeper keel. Granted he races but still, one would need some motivation to spend serious money on that sort of thing.


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

Maybe not many others would be impacted by this, but when my 4' 11" spouse was on a Catalina 42, she couldn't reach an overhead handhold in the 6' 8" salon.


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

Mine's 5' 8" so I think she's good, but will check, thanks


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

With regard to C42 wing keel perf vs fin keel, I think we may be splitting hairs...

A quick review of both Narragansett and New England PHRF current ratings indicates there is AT MOST only a 1.0 to 1.5% difference in perfomance ratings based on actual boats actually being measured and actually raced...interesting...


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

I hate to be a shoot stirrer here but there is another option to the wing vs. fin debate for the C-42. Some friends of ours have owned a C-42 for the last 10 years or so that they bought in the Virgins from the original owner after he got caught out in a hurricane. The boat came through fine but the owner was so freaked out by the experience he was done with the boat. They bought her, for a very good price, and sailed her back to here to the southwest coast of Florida. She was the deep keel version and our pals thought a bit too deep for the area. So, they hauled her out and took a chain saw to her keel, lopping 6" off the bottom. We all thought Joe was "nuts" but he did save about 7" of her draft and quite a bit on her displacement. (I really don't know how much but a lot. He's still got the lead in his garage in case he ever wants to bolt it back on.) Despite everyone's misgivings, Wind Caller, has been sailed all over heck's half acre and performs very well over all and Joe and Casey are very happy with the boat. Up to 15-18 knots she stays on her feet and moves very nicely. They do have to reef down somewhat earlier than their sister-ships but, until about 18, she stays with, or mostly ahead of, the fleet. Joe is a good sailor and its a pain in the neck to always feel like he's breathing down your neck with that boat until the breeze really gets up.

FWIW...

PS: My (much) better half is only 4'-11" as well and she can't reach most of the hand-holds on that boat either. I am told they rig a grab rope from the companionway to the mast in snotty weather, just in case...


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

See....fresh new ideas with every rehash ;-)


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

svHyLyte said:


> I hate to be a shoot stirrer here but there is another option to the wing vs. fin debate for the C-42. Some friends of ours have owned a C-42 for the last 10 years or so that they bought in the Virgins from the original owner after he got caught out in a hurricane. The boat came through fine but the owner was so freaked out by the experience he was done with the boat.


That's actually a pretty good endorsement for the Catalina 42's ability to weather a blow.



svHyLyte said:


> So, they hauled her out and took a chain saw to her keel, lopping 6" off the bottom.




I'd think a wing keel would be a better option. I've read several stories about Catalina owners swapping keels on used boats. Supposedly dealers can get them from the factory - even for boats that are out of production. I don't know if that's true but given the level of customer support Catalina provides it wouldn't surprise me.



svHyLyte said:


> My (much) better half is only 4'-11" as well and she can't reach most of the hand-holds on that boat either. I am told they rig a grab rope from the companionway to the mast in snotty weather, just in case...


LOL, my wife's 5'1½" (she'll fight you for the ½). Every time she goes on a boat at a boat show she checks if she can reach the hand holds.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

JimMcGee said:


> I'd think a wing keel would be a better option...


The guy could just take the hacked off part and bolt it horizontally onto what's left of his keel. Then he'd have his wing keel. :laugher


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Here's a question for those living with Catalina 42. 

How well does the in-line galley on the tri-cabin models work compared to the L-shaped galley on the two cabin models?

It seems like the in-line galley would be inconvenient cooking or even making snacks underway and handing food up into the cockpit.


And for those with the pullman berth, do you find it comfortable for two adults?

Thanks,
Jim


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

JimMcGee said:


> Here's a question for those living with Catalina 42.
> 
> How well does the in-line galley on the tri-cabin models work compared to the L-shaped galley on the two cabin models?
> 
> ...


We had a "Euro-Style" galley on our prior boat that we sailed for 20+ years and it really proved no worse than an aft J or L-shaped Galley. When it's to windward one just leans into the grab rail and when its to leeward one hooks a waist-belt to the grab rails and leans back against that. On the C-42, the back rest for the center bench of the dinette makes a convenient support for one's posterior.

The Pullman berth is actually quite comfortable but a bit inconvenient at sea unless one has slots along the center-line of the mattress that allow one to rig lee-cloths, otherwise tacks can be very exciting. Frankly, I know no one that uses them for other than storage on a passage as, being forward of the mast, the motion is a bit much. On our boat we rig lee-cloths on the salon seats and the pilot berth and sleep there, or, in the quarter cabin, which is convenient to the cockpit if one is needed.

FWIW...


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

malyea said:


> With regard to C42 wing keel perf vs fin keel, I think we may be splitting hairs...
> 
> A quick review of both Narragansett and New England PHRF current ratings indicates there is AT MOST only a 1.0 to 1.5% difference in perfomance ratings based on actual boats actually being measured and actually raced...interesting...


Wether or not its splitting hairs will be subjective based on the owners philosophical outlook, but I'm with the previous poster saying the evidence is the fin is more like 3-5% faster and will also out point the same boat with a wing. For many, many people this difference won't matter a whit, but to some having the same boat pull a "horizon job" on you is like a knife in the heart. Even in cruising pointing higher is a great benefit and I do think you'll have less issues with weather helm with a fin which is a plus regardless of other performance advantages.

And thanks for whoever started this thread making me want to go buy a fin keel C42, when I can't hardly keep up the care an feeding of my C36.


----------



## MikeinLA (Jul 25, 2006)

PalmettoSailor said:


> And thanks for whoever started this thread making me want to go buy a fin keel C42, when I can't hardly keep up the care an feeding of my C36.


Ha Ha, me too. This thread's been making me get out the 42 brochures again, sure would like that forward cabin. The only threads you ever read here about Catalinas is how they melt in salt water. This one has been refreshing.

Mike


----------



## vasmith (Apr 24, 2003)

c42 nice for live-aboard but not ocean passages other than Bahamas.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

MikeinLA said:


> Ha Ha, me too. This thread's been making me get out the 42 brochures again, sure would like that forward cabin. The only threads you ever read here about Catalinas is how they melt in salt water. This one has been refreshing.
> 
> Mike


Here is proof they don't and a counter point to my previous internet expert opinion about crossing in a C42.

Seems maybe they are a better boat than I thought even though I was already something of a fan.

Welcome Aboard Common Sense


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

PalmettoSailor said:


> Here is proof they don't and a counter point to my previous internet expert opinion about crossing in a C42.
> 
> Seems maybe they are a better boat than I thought even though I was already something of a fan.
> 
> Welcome Aboard Common Sense


Thanks for that Link (I think). I've just spent the last hour+ reading through some of it. Kind'a puts paid to the idea a Catalina 42 isn't up to the job of sailing the deep, eh? Buy the boat and enjoy!


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

vasmith said:


> c42 nice for live-aboard but not ocean passages other than Bahamas.


Really.....care to elaborate just a bit....


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

The C42 is a fine boat. We had to decide between the C42 or the C400. First, let me give my perspective of several issues brought up here.

Wing keel versus fin:

THe fin should be the better performer. You should be able to point higher and run a bit faster. However, and here is the BIG however, if you can't get near shore or run the ICW, it is an irrelevant point, isn't it? 

You WILL run aground, all the time, in SW FL (outside of Tampa) at 6.5. You will run aground periodically at 6, especially anywhere near Port Charlotte south. I am 6 with a wing. I have run aground on this boat more times than I can count. Several of these times have been in the middle of the ICW, incidentally, which is supposed to be maintained 7. Many of the holes and passes are 5 1/2 feet unless you have good local knowledge, catch a really high tide, or are flat out lucky. So, for your intended cruising area, I would avoid anything over 6, with 5.5 better. People that consider 7 or better an option crack me up. I would love to know their experience sailing these waters. Just so you know, when I have 12 inches under my keel, I feel like I am in deep water. DOnt like the wing or the small performance you will lose, then don't come here or be very careful where you go and where you can go. I mean, just look at the water depths off of Rodriguez Key (where you will wait to jump to Bimini, Bahamas). I bet I didn't have six inches under my keel. SO for this area, go shallow. Another reason to go shallow is if you ever want to sell the boat, you may very well rule out a huge percentage of the buyers if they sail or plan to sail any of these waters. You can sail a shoal draft boat in deep waters but you can sail a deep draft boat in shallow waters. 


Inmast versus Slab.

Inmast is another performance loss. Funny story, but when I got my c400, I was checking with the owners groups to see if anyone wanted to change out masts for a slab and I would pay for their exchange. At that time, I think the inmast was a $10,000 option. Well, no one took it and I decided to at least give it a go. Now that I have used it and logged thousands of miles, I will tell you that I will never go back to a slab reef (unless for racing).  Never. I have been in some really nasty weather and never (not once) had a jam. I also find I am much more likely to use the main than with slab reefing, or more likely to drop in a reef or shake one out. It is easy, and safe. The trick is understanding that it is not a slab reef main and there are nuances to doing it. You cannot reef or shake one out like a traditional main. I find almost all of the jams are do to people not understanding how to properly use the system, or they are old systems. I can go through all this in another thread if you want. But basically, you can do everything from the cockpit of the boat. Assuming you also have a RF Jib, no one ever has to leave the cockpit in any conditions. I find that safety aspect much more valuable than the off chance it might jam and I would have to cut it down.

C42 thoughts...

Positives:

Great cockpit. Sails comfortably. A little more tender than some boats, but not bad. Pretty fast, comparatively. Nice "garage" in the locker beside the galley. Lots of storage. The head in the V can take a washer/dryer. Nice access to second head from Salon. Ability to up tankage under salon floorboard.

Negatives:

Not as sure footed as a 400, and not as fast. The 400 has a much better Hull-deck joint and an aluminum toe rail with "holes" to secure the odd things. Curved settees (I hate them) as they do not make good sea berths. THe Nav station is undersized and all the way to the forward of the main salon. I do not care for pullmans. The problem with pullmans is that when one person always has to crawl over the other and this becomes a real issue at night when you need to take a pee, check the anchor, get a drink, etc. Think about how many times you get up in the middle of the night now and consider doing that on a nightly basis. Better yet, practice it with your spouse now and crawl over her every night for a week when you get up. Now, you can get a different layout (no pullman), but then you lose some of the positives of the original layout. 

For those that think the C42 would not cross an ocean, history (and current events) have proven you wrong. We even have a poster that posts here that just crossed the Atlantic in his C42... by himself to boot. (I think his boat is named Reboot). Personally, I think there are better boats for doing that run (Tayana 42, Cabo, Valiant, etc) because of the tankage and other benefits of those boats, but those same benefits are detrimental for the cruising you want to do. I would make that run in my boat, but I have also dumped in tens of thousands of dollars in modifications on my boat. Even so, I would prefer to ship it (though I would prefer to ship any boat).

In essence, I think the C42 would be a fine boat for your purpose. She has a great owners group, great support at the factory, and was one of the best boats Catalina has built. See ya out there.

My opinions, 

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Oh yeah, as I have a pretty fair amount of experience un-sticking a fin and a wing keel, I will tell you the fin is MUCH easier. The wing loves to suction into the bottom (especially mud), and you cannot heel it over to get it off.

Brian


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

Great info, thanks -

Do you agree with this statement -

_for every 10,000 sea miles an in mast system will malfunction more often than slab reefing..._


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

malyea said:


> Great info, thanks -
> 
> Do you agree with this statement -
> 
> _for every 10,000 sea miles an in mast system will malfunction more often than slab reefing..._


I think the potential for inmast to jam is higher than with slab reefing... even in ONE nm. Doesn't mean you will jam it in 10,000 though... or 1,000,000. The key is understanding the system, how to use it, and what not to do. For example, one critical mistake I often see people use with inmast is reefing or furling with a winch. Why on earth would you put that much force on it!??? Our rule is everything is done by hand. If it cannot go back in by hand, we have an issue somewhere - typically the Boom Vang or Mainsheet is too tight. Inmasts go into the slot at an angle, not horizontal, so you have to give the boom some freedom. Also, keeping some McLube on the track never hurts. The exception is the last foot or so when furling out the main. That takes a winch to pull out the car as the forces are too high unless in light winds. If you want more information on this, I wrote a lengthy article on this in Mainsheet. I think it was q3 of last year, tech editor, C400.

Now, back to the question: _for every 10,000 sea miles an in mast system will malfunction more often than slab reefing..._[/QUOTE]

As said above, I think the potential is higher for a jam... but I would balance that with I think the potential for being injured or lost at sea is higher with a traditional main... especially for those who single.

My opinions.

Brian


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

Great discussion, thanks


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

CD,

If the 400 is faster, how does it get a PHRF rating nearly 30 seconds a mile over that of the C42?

Seems that would be an incredible gift rating.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

MikeinLA said:


> Ha Ha, me too. This thread's been making me get out the 42 brochures again, sure would like that forward cabin. The only threads you ever read here about Catalinas is how they melt in salt water. This one has been refreshing.
> 
> Mike


LOL, I was just thinking the same and I LOVE our Catalina 30 MKIII. It has all the conveniences of the 309 with the better layout of the 30 (my opinion).

But every so often I start thinking about boats in the 38-42 foot range because we spend so much time aboard. This thread definitely got the wheels going again. :laugher


----------



## SteveInMD (May 11, 2007)

I was drooling over the Catalina 445 at the Atlantic City boat show a few weeks ago. Anyone want to buy a 3 cabin 42 with a fin keel?


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

PalmettoSailor said:


> CD,
> 
> If the 400 is faster, how does it get a PHRF rating nearly 30 seconds a mile over that of the C42?....
> 
> .


Palm... you have to realize that CD also thinks he's the best looking moderator, so he has a demonstrated difficulty with reality!!


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

SteveInMD said:


> I was drooling over the Catalina 445 at the Atlantic City boat show a few weeks ago. Anyone want to buy a 3 cabin 42 with a fin keel?


Details?


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

SteveInMD said:


> I was drooling over the Catalina 445 at the Atlantic City boat show a few weeks ago. Anyone want to buy a 3 cabin 42 with a fin keel?


Unfortunately, Melyea, I'd guess he's joking.... That's a sad reality about boats and upgrading.. figure that Steve would need to spend $200K or more to make the switch, if you realistically quantify what he'd gain (over what he's already got) seems to me it's hard to justify... esp if he's upgraded his existing boat with goodies the 'new' one doesn't yet have.


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

Faster said:


> Unfortunately, Melyea, I'd guess he's joking.... That's a sad reality about boats and upgrading.. figure that Steve would need to spend $200K or more to make the switch, if you realistically quantify what he'd gain (over what he's already got) seems to me it's hard to justify... esp if he's upgraded his existing boat with goodies the 'new' one doesn't yet have.


Steve...is that it - just teasing me with a 3 cabin fin keel C42


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PalmettoSailor said:


> CD,
> 
> If the 400 is faster, how does it get a PHRF rating nearly 30 seconds a mile over that of the C42?
> 
> Seems that would be an incredible gift rating.


Ahhh... now you get to the rub of many C400 owners. The answer to your question lies in a riddle:

What is the draft of a Mark II C400? (It is a trick question).

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Faster said:


> Palm... you have to realize that CD also thinks he's the best looking moderator, so he has a demonstrated difficulty with reality!!


Bwahaha! Good come back, but now you are on my 'list'!! I think a picture of me drinking a beer at noon on a weekday in my swimtrunks at 75 degrees in azure water ought to do it...

Brian


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Cruisingdad said:


> Bwahaha! Good come back, but now you are on my 'list'!! I think a picture of me drinking a beer at noon on a weekday in my swimtrunks at 75 degrees in azure water ought to do it...
> 
> Brian


GAWD NO.... Spare me the Speedo !!!!


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

....I think I've lost control of this thread......

like I ever had it.......


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

malyea said:


> ....I think I've lost control of this thread......
> 
> like I ever had it.......


Go for the 42. Awesome boat. You will love it and laugh that you ever second guessed it.

Brian


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

malyea said:


> ....I think I've lost control of this thread......
> 
> like I ever had it.......





Cruisingdad said:


> Go for the 42. Awesome boat. You will love it and laugh that you ever second guessed it.
> 
> Brian


Sorry, Malyea.... and what Brian said ...


----------



## sethpool (Jul 28, 2014)

They're good boats, built reasonably well in the U.S. from a builder with a good reputation. I vote for get it.


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

Do any C42 owner blogs talk about boosting tankage and stowage of the boats for longer passage making? Of course, that would be something people would probably do with just about any production boat if they want to venture further than most. 

We spent a few nights aboard one some time ago during chilly weather, and one recollection was that the mast was adjacent to one corner of the pullman berth... and that bare metal was chilly... seems like a padded cover would have solved that micro-issue.


----------

