# Great mid pacific :)



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

is it possible and reasonably safe to cross the pacific in a 30' catalina??


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

wildwildwest24 said:


> is it possible and reasonably safe to cross the pacific in a 30' catalina??


Possible - yes; safe - no!


----------



## BigAssHam (Nov 5, 2007)

wildwildwest24 said:


> is it possible and reasonably safe to cross the pacific in a 30' catalina??


Hey, why not? What could go wrong??? It's a no brainer.


----------



## US27inKS (Feb 6, 2005)

wildwildwest24 said:


> is it possible and reasonably safe to cross the pacific in a 30' catalina??


It is possible, and I would venture to say it has been done. The problem is that a catalina 30 is a coastal cruiser. It was never designed to cross oceans. If the weather happens to be "fair winds and following seas" then you have no problems. If the weather happens to be howling winds and 60 foot seas, then plan on meeting Davey Jones personally. You could wait for perfect weather, but then how often has your local weatherman been right for a solid 2-3 weeks?


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 27, 2006)

2-3 weeks for a Pacific crossing on a 30'er is very short. More like 5-7 weeks from Panama to Vanuatu. I would hesitate to suggest that such a crossing could be done and could be safe, but only if the Catalina were strapped down on a freighter or in a DockWise transport.
Even the Sandy Eggo to Honolulu portion is 2500 miles, at 5 knots average that would be 3 weeks and the chances of good weather throughout are pretty low. Then Hawaii to Vanuatu is a mere hop of 3350 (28 days) and then comes the final stretch of 1450 miles (12 days) to Cairns in Australia and you are out of the Pacific. Going from southern California to Australia in one hop is a bit shorter overall at around 7200 miles (60 days). And I think that using 5knots for an average speed is optimistic.

[edit]
Oops, I got the distances in statute miles but used knots for speed so the numbers are incorrect. I'll leave the time estimates as they are, but change the average speed to 4.344 knots (which coincidentally happens to be 5MPH  ) which might be a more accurate reflection for a 30 footer having to pass the doldrums.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*reply*

thanks for the help guys.... it is my dream someday hopefully sooner then later to sail down to the south pacific from alaska stoping in hawaii of course....The reason i ask about a 30' catalina is because that is all Budget can afford right now and i was really curious to know if one could make it.. considering most of these replys i would say that most of you think it is not safe... "if not" then what do you think would be a safe size to make 2500-2700 mile stints across the great blue????


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

If you can afford a Catalina 30, you can probably afford a Southern Cross 28 or 31... and either of them can easily handle a Pacific crossing... Both have been used for single-handed circumnavigations, Donna Lange in an SC28 called Inspired Insanity, and Pat Henry in an SC 31.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

wildwildwest24 said:


> it is my dream someday hopefully sooner then later to sail down to the south pacific from alaska stoping in hawaii ...


It looks like you are going to sail Captain Cook's passage, only backwords. Make sure you do not share his fate... Good luck!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

sailingdog said:


> If you can afford a Catalina 30, you can probably afford a Southern Cross 28 or 31... and either of them can easily handle a Pacific crossing... Both have been used for single-handed circumnavigations, Donna Lange in an SC28 called Inspired Insanity, and Pat Henry in an SC 31.


Thanks again for the tips, sailingdog; or anyone else know about cheaper end sailboat but are still sturdy enough to cross the ocean??


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Wild, nothing wrong with a Catalina 30 if equipped properly, and depending on the year of the boat. The earlier ones were pretty solid, Butler took the original Yankee design and "butlerized" it when he bought the molds and designs. Up until a few years ago, Catalina 30's had their own class in the TransPac race, and you'll find a lot of the older ('78-'84) 30's are being bought by Aussies and New Zealanders in the states and then sailed back to Australia. In the ocean, no boat is big.

So I don't think the problem is the boat. You'll find Catalina 27's and 30's cruising the south pacific as often as you find any other. The problem lies in stores. Where you gonna keep 5 weeks of food without depending on rice or pasta? Fuel is another consideration. The standard tank was about 18 or 20 gallons and there's a lot of calm far out. Pick one with the Universal 11 hp diesel and reprop to a 3 blade. Water? a 35 gal tank under the starboard setee and a 45 under the V berth should do it and many of the 30's are set up that way. I'd convert one to fuel and depend on rain water or a small watermaker for the rest.

Other than that, know the boat, pick your weather, go.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

ianhlnd said:


> The standard tank was about 18 or 20 gallons and there's a lot of calm far out. Pick one with the Universal 11 hp diesel and reprop to a 3 blade. Water? a 35 gal tank under the starboard setee and a 45 under the V berth should do it and many of the 30's are set up that way. I'd convert one to fuel and depend on rain water or a small watermaker for the rest.
> .


You forgot to mention changes to the head: when the Big One is coming, the capacity of the septic tank may not be enough.  Although you may do it right in the ocean, proper toilet seat gear may be needed to prevent from being washed away...


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

ianhlnd said:


> Water? a 35 gal tank under the starboard setee and a 45 under the V berth should do it and many of the 30's are set up that way. I'd convert one to fuel and depend on rain water or a small watermaker for the rest.


That would be cool if you could drink diesel when you run out of water.

Now I don't know what fuel consumption you would expect to get but it's probably not better than 1/2 a gallon an hour. So 35 gallons = 70 hours and at 5 knots that will get you an extra 350 miles. On a transPac voyage that's not a significant distance. Your first part of the voyage is going to be at least 6 times that distance.

I'd rather sip my dwindling water supply waiting for wind than running out of fuel and having a dead watermaker (no fuel = no watermaker, no wind generally = no rain) and what is left of 45 gallons of water. On our transPac voyage last year we had 6 days out of 80 of calm.

Having said that, a transPac voyage with 80 gallons of water is IMO a daunting prospect.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

WW24 - Why are in such a hurry ? I do not know the Catalina 30 but if the boat is an older Cat 30 and IanHlnd reckons they are up to the task then why would you not plan your passage on the basis of your limited fuel, water and provision storage capacity, meaning island hop, choosing the shortest possible passage legs. Plenty of people (comparatively speaking) have circumnavigated in 30'ers so provided your boat is well found then go for it just don't be in a hurry. If you have to rush to get to Australia or New Zealand, catch a plane. More times than I can remember one reads of people coming instuck on passage and words to the effect that they had to be somewhere by such and such a date appear in their story. 

Reality is you are unlikely to exceed 100nm days in a 30'er so 2500nm passage is well over three weeks. Too long for comfort. Try and plan it for say 10 - 14 day passages max. 

SD is also likely to be correct in suggesting you look at other 30'ers around the same money. 

You can and probably will have to collect rainwater on the way, showers may be few and far between, you may well have to eat lots of rice and such like and you may well have to sit out the odd calm when boats with greater fuel capacity would be motoring but such it is.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Generally, you should have enough water tankage to finish a journey, rather than relying on a watermaker... if you don't and the watermaker goes south, you're going to be in serious trouble. Don't convert a water tank to a fuel tank. You can live without DIESEL, but without Fresh Water, you're DEAD.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

tdw said:


> Reality is you are unlikely to exceed 100nm days in a 30'er so 2500nm passage is well over three weeks. Too long for comfort. Try and plan it for say 10 - 14 day passages max.


There are no short hops from the US into the Pacific Islands. Even doing mostly 150 miles a day (6 knots) we took 24 days to the Marquesas from San Deigo. At a target of 100 miles a day that trip is going to be a MINIMUM of 4 weeks and probably longer. And your shortest "hop" will be from San Francisco to Hawaii which is a nudge over 2000nm. So if you could average 100nm a day that's still 20 days.

That's 4 gallons per 24 hrs with NO safety margin.

It's do-able but it's not for me


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Omatako, why did you leave directly from San Diego? Most people go down Baja, then over to Mazatlan and then the Marqueses. About 2 1/2 weeks or so. 12 boats left when I was in Mazatlan, from Catalina 30's 38's and then the "big name boats". They all made it OK, no probs. Don't you just hate it when the little boats do the same thing we do with our heavy cruisers? At a lot less expense I may add. I know I do.

The Catalina 30 with the 11 hp Universal and 3 blade prop averages 1/4 to 1/3 gallon at 5 kts under power alone. Motor sailing drastically decreases fuel consumption, and they are fast boats if handled properly.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Omatako said:


> There are no short hops from the US into the Pacific Islands. Even doing mostly 150 miles a day (6 knots) we took 24 days to the Marquesas from San Deigo. At a target of 100 miles a day that trip is going to be a MINIMUM of 4 weeks and probably longer. And your shortest "hop" will be from San Francisco to Hawaii which is a nudge over 2000nm. So if you could average 100nm a day that's still 20 days.
> 
> That's 4 gallons per 24 hrs with NO safety margin.
> 
> It's do-able but it's not for me


Oh Duh. I did kind of forget the first big step didn't I ?

So that first leg is going to be difficult in a small boat but as you say not impossible. On a wee boat you just have to learn to live without engine on demand unless you want to keep a bunch of fuel jerry cans strapped to the deck.

I'm not sure it's for me either but for the young and foolhardy...... ???


----------



## dohenyboy (Aug 16, 2006)

I have got a 29 foot Trintella, and its built pretty stoutly. A bluewater boat and about the same cost as a Catalina 30.


----------



## TThomsen (Oct 9, 2007)

Interest reading would be John Guzzwell's book Trekka. I am sure that there is nobody here that would say that it was a seaworthy boat (if somebody announced that they were going to cross the Pacific in it) though it has sailed around the world at least twice.

Having read "Fastnet Force 10" I am not sure that I would want to be in ANY 30 foot boat in 60 foot waves.

Again, many small boats have made it around the world or Pacific including Catalina's, Folkboats. I am sure that they all had a lot of modifications done to them before they went.

Regardless what boat you sail in it will always be a calculated risk.

Thomas


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

TThomsen said:


> Having read "Fastnet Force 10" I am not sure that I would want to be in ANY 30 foot boat in 60 foot waves.


60 foot waves are rare and even half that size are often never experienced by very prolific voyagers. I know people that have sailed globally for many years and have never seen seas bigger than 15, maybe 20 feet.



TThomsen said:


> Again, many small boats have made it around the world or Pacific including Catalina's, Folkboats. I am sure that they all had a lot of modifications done to them before they went


There are little boats that are really tough and capable. For me it's more about where to put stuff that will help you survive. Water, fuel, life raft, stores, toilet paper. Space to live in is not the critical issue, Ellen McArthur did her rookie Vendee Globe in an Open 60 that had not much more living space than a Catalina Squashbox (whatever). She often slept on her chart table because the bunks were too hard to get in and out of.

I have said it before, I hold the view that people who go voyaging on little boats either have something to prove or a burning desire that seriously out-performs their budget.


----------



## TThomsen (Oct 9, 2007)

US27inKS said:


> If the weather happens to be howling winds and 60 foot seas, then plan on meeting Davey Jones personally.


I was quoting somebody else.

... I don't necessary agree "that people who go voyaging on little boats either have something to prove or a burning desire that seriously out-performs their budget", but rather that they are living within their (realistic) budget. Some people are doers and other are dreamers and sometimes you have to do with whatever you have. Not everybody can afford or wants a 4000 sqft house.

First circumnavigator I met was on Lamu on the Kenyan coast, he and his wife were around 70 and they sailed a 33' boat, I thought what a way to see the world.

Second was a dane named Troels Kløvedal. Being a very novice at the time I asked him about the weather and storms. During his first circumnavigation he had spend 5 yr in the med. and 5 yr going the rest of the way around. I was told that he has seen more high winds in the med in the first five years than he had seen in the last 5 yr. During the last five years he told me that he had only been a handfull of times that the wind was over Force 8 (40 Knots)

Again read John Guzzwell's book "Trekka" he sailed a 24 boat with 2 gal (if my recollection is correct) and an outboard around the world, sold it to a couple that sailed it around the world again.

If a sailor is prudent there should be nothing stopping him/her in a 30' boat.

To convert a watertank to diesel and rely on catching water would be lutecris, you can sail around the world without diesel but would only survive 72 hours without water (3 weeks without food).

If you budget is so that you only can afford a few years off if using a 30 foot boat then do it and have fun or you can stay home and read about other adventures. I am in the latter part stil saving for the 40 footer.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

ianhlnd said:


> Omatako, why did you leave directly from San Diego?


Apologies Ian, missed your post 

I was kind of up against the clock. Had to get back to NZ to stay employed. So we fast-tracked across the Pacific and spent almost no time recreating (unlike Simon V). We bought the boat in San Diego hence point of departure and spent 2 weeks preparing/stocking/familiarising and 9 weeks sailing across.



ianhlnd said:


> Don't you just hate it when the little boats do the same thing we do with our heavy cruisers? At a lot less expense I may add. I know I do.


Actually, I don't. There are people who sleep in doorways. I could do that and save a lot of money. With practise I would sleep as well as they do but my chances of being mugged/robbed are considerably enhanced.

I could drive a Japanese economy compact instead of my 750iL. I would get there just the same. My chances of dying in an accident are considerably enhanced.

I could be sailing a 27 ft squashbox instead of my 44ftr.  With all these compromises I could sit in Fiji with a locker full of money to be stolen while I'm on shore learning to stand up straight. Oh no, that won't happen because the thieves would never suspect that my 27ft squashbox could possibly have piles of money on board. There's a benefit I never considered before.

I cruise/sail because I enjoy it not because I have a lemming-like obsession to cross oceans wondering if I'll live long enough to have another hot shower. Many years ago I heard a statement that said when cruising, one should have 1 foot of boat for every year of your life. Well, I stopped at 44 ft because 60ft is clearly out of my budget.

Sorry, that got a bit wordy and I now rest my case.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Omatako said:


> I cruise/sail because I enjoy it not because I have a lemming-like obsession to cross oceans wondering if I'll live long enough to have another hot shower. Many years ago I heard a statement that said when cruising, one should have 1 foot of boat for every year of your life. Well, I stopped at 44 ft because 60ft is clearly out of my budget.
> 
> Sorry, that got a bit wordy and I now rest my case.


Well, Thanks for all the input guys! very inspiring... to answer an earlier question about "why the rush"...well there is no signifigant rush, i am only 23 years old and would like to sail the south pacific befor i get any older and have kids or get settled in a job that would'nt alow me the time off to take a couple mounths to dink around the S.P.. and as far as the budget is concerned i would only be able to afford an older catalina or southern cross, so my logic is that if i could prepare a 30-34 fter to take the trip from southeast ak i will do it in the next year or so.......


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Hmmm....confused, I thought I posted this earlier but it hasn't appeared...now what did was I saying....  

Oh yes, 

Everybody I have ever heard of who set forth in a small (sub 30' boat) and made it back went larger later on when they had the funds. Only exception I can think of are the Pardey's but I'd rather not think of them at all.

Guzzwell built himself a 50' odd footer I think and the Hiscocks always said that Wanderer III was smaller than they would have liked. They also said that Wanderer IV was too big at 49'. 

For me I reckon that at 23 years old thirty feet is fine and dandy cos at 53 I can tell it will be too small.

Today I am in Andre's camp re comfort and convenience but I tell you without a shadow of a doubt that I wish I had taken the plunge if only for a year or two when I was 23 or so.

Andre, the one foot per year of age is I think correct up till 40 or so then back off. 44 is a good size, I'd like to get it down a few to an even 40 if I could but displacement does have something to do with it as well , of course.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

wildwildwest24 said:


> would like to sail the south pacific befor i get any older and have kids or get settled in a job that would'nt alow me the time off to take a couple mounths to dink around the S.P..


My thinking is different: raise the kids first (I got 2) - you have to leave a footprint in this world after all, annoy my wife (I have 1) so that she cannot stand me anymore, get really expensive life insurance, get a seaworthy boat and Roaring Forties - here I come!


----------



## Sapperwhite (Oct 21, 2006)

Check this out:

Equipped to Survive - Catalina 36

This is not to say that blue water boats aren't lost from time to time, just read it and learn from others mistakes. If we take away the medical emergency, they still had a major steering failure that would have required rescue. Can the boat make it???

BUT, 
Patrick Childress solo circumnavigated a Cat27 named "Juggernaut". There are both sides. I can bet Juggernaut was a better prepared boat.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Sapperwhite said:


> Check this out:
> 
> Equipped to Survive - Catalina 36
> 
> ...


SW,

Reading that report the one thing that keeps coming back to me is that it was not necessarily that the boat itself was so much the problem, more a lack of simple preparation and a lack of preventative maintenance of basic equipment. Perhaps this was a simple lack of experience.

Leave things like blocks and line clutches out in the sun they will deteriorate. No risk. We know this, why didn't they ?


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

A Catalina 30 DRIFTED (?) from the San Diego coast to Hawaii in less time than some people have taken to sail it last winter, I think the Santa Ana winds were just right at the time to push him off coast till he hit the currents.
News: O.C.-owned sailboat found adrift off Hawaii, with no one aboard | bunker, mcarthur, boat, christensen, coast - OCRegister.com


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Keep in mind that for all of the amazing voyages you read about in small boats, there are an equally amazing number of those who don't make it and are never heard from again and never make the news.

Anyone hear about this guy? Thought not. But it is a CURRENT case on the same size boat and the same type voyage. Not saying he is gone and I hope not...but there are ALWAYS recreational sailors missing at sea (two other boats over a month overdue right now). Don't take it lightly.

*09/07/08<o></o>*
<st1>Place<st1>lacetype>*Home*</st1>lacetype><st1>lacetype>*Town*</st1>lacetype></st1>lace>* : *<st1>lace><st1:city>*Alameda*</st1:city>*, *<st1:state>*CA*</st1:state></st1>lace>*<o>></o>>*
*ZipCode** : 94501<o>></o>>*
*Home_Country** : *<st1:country-region><st1>lace>*USA*</st1>lace></st1:country-region>*<o>></o>>*
*Work_Phone_Number** :** 510-437-3701<o>></o>>*
*Home_Phone_Number** :** <o>></o>>*
*Email_Address** : rccal[email protected]<o>></o>>*
*MessageType** : Lost_or_Overdue<o>></o>>*
*Vessel_Name** : S/V FREEDOM<o>></o>>*
*Vessel_Description**: 30FT Sloop (6ft draft), White *<st1:city><st1>lace>*Hull*</st1>lace></st1:city>*, Blue Bottom, Red Boot <o>></o>>*
* Stripe, Brown Deck, White Sails, with Red Sail covers. <o>></o>>*
* Inboard single diesel engine for auxiliary power with 25 <o>></o>>*
* gallons of diesel onboard. Two liferings and lifejackets. <o>></o>>*
*Communications : VHF-FM Marine Band and SSB radios (Unknown frequencies monitored). <o>></o>>*
* Unknown last radio contact.<o>></o>>*
*Itinerary : Departed Keehi Lagoon, *<st1>lace><st1:city>*Honolulu*</st1:city><st1:state>*Hawaii*</st1:state></st1>lace>* on 14 July 2008 enroute <o>></o>>*
* to *<st1>lace><st1:city>*San Diego*</st1:city>*, *<st1:state>*California*</st1:state></st1>lace>*. ETA *<st1:date month="9" day="1" year="2008">*01 Sept 2008*</st1:date>*.<o>></o>>*
*Persons_on_board** :** 1 person on board. Bob Irvin, 43 year old male, good health, <o>></o>>*
* 5ft 7inch, 230 pound, long brown hair, Caucasian. First Trans-Pacific voyage. <o>></o>>*
*Reason : S/V FREEDOM has been reported Overdue in *<st1:city><st1>lace>*San Diego*</st1>lace></st1:city>* by his friend <o>></o>>*
* Dale. Please report all sighting to RCC *<st1:city><st1>lace>*Alameda*</st1>lace></st1:city>* at 510-437-3701 or <o>></o>>*
* [email protected] <o>></o>>*
*Comments : Submitted by Chief Douglas Samp, Search and Rescue Duty Officer, RCC *<st1:city><st1>lace>*Alameda*</st1>lace></st1:city>*.*


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

and these guys as well....


*Search for Missing Yacht Blessed Be Suspended*

*The search for the 42ft yacht the Blessed Be, missing since August 23 on a journey between Noumea and the coast of Australia, has been suspended. However, relatives are asking for all to report sightings of debris along the coastline.*


My point, and I am in no way taking ocean voyaging in a small craft lightly, is that a well found 30' boat with good gear is not a total no no for an ocean crossing.

I wouldn't do it now but I have done offshore passage in a 26'er. Not once did I worry about that boats capacity to survive.

Raven is only 34' and with a bit of added gear I'd happily do offshore passage making in her albeit feeling a wee bit cramped. Indeed if Ms W were to come to her senses and throw me onto the street I would take off on her. For one she would be fine and dandy.

If the gear is good you have a chance. Light rig, old blocks etc then you are asking for trouble be it 30, 40 or 50'. Lets face it, in the grand scheme of things a 50' yacht is a piece of driftwood in the face of an ultimate storm or if run down by even a small cargo vessel.

So in reality the original question was not the right question to ask.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

tdw said:


> Lets face it, in the grand scheme of things a 50' yacht is a piece of driftwood in the face of an ultimate storm or if run down by even a small cargo vessel.


You're absolutely right - the difference between 30ft and 50ft at sea is a non-event - like Bill Gates losing $30 or $50 bucks out of his wallet.

But the difference between 25ft and 45ft when survival is NOT about a storm is enormous. As said earlier in the thread, space for life's essentials is what it's all about and going to sea with a substantial compromise on those essentials is nothing short of silly.

Unless of course you have something to prove. Like people diving off 30 foot diving boards into 12 inches of water. Can be done but why would you???


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Omatako said:


> You're absolutely right - the difference between 30ft and 50ft at sea is a non-event - like Bill Gates losing $30 or $50 bucks out of his wallet.
> 
> But the difference between 25ft and 45ft when survival is NOT about a storm is enormous. As said earlier in the thread, space for life's essentials is what it's all about and going to sea with a substantial compromise on those essentials is nothing short of silly.
> 
> Unless of course you have something to prove. Like people diving off 30 foot diving boards into 12 inches of water. Can be done but why would you???


I believe dear boy that we have consensus. Great minds thinking alike and all that.


----------



## sasfish (Oct 1, 2008)

I had a friend that did it but he bulked up the stringers and the chain plates. It is not the smartest boat to do it in but it’s your life and your boat so maybe we will see you out on the blue highway. I have been out here now for 20 years and have seen people in things you would not get into in your bath tub. The martin family did it in a cal 27, I think it was a 27. The last I heard they went steel... The ocean is easy most of the time but she is a fickle lover.


----------

