# Catalina "Wing Keel"?



## TheWhiteRabbit (Jul 31, 2010)

Was looking on the net at some local listings, and saw a 1989 Catalina 30 “wing keel”. Is the wing keel a good option? What are the differences in sailing qualities between the wing keel and a “normal” (fin?)keel version of the Cat 30? I am interested in going to take a look at this boat, but wanted all your opinions on the Catalina wing keels first

Thanks all!!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Depends on what you're doing with the boat. If the goal is to race the boat, then no...the fin keel will perform better. If you want to cruise and gunkhole in shallower areas, then the wing keel makes sense.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

The wings are good if you are in (or will be) shallow water. In that case, I would not have a fin. If you are in deep water, then I would definitely go with a fin. You will probably find the fin points better (can run closer to the wind). But honestly, until you have sailed a lot, I doubt you will notice a huge difference. And the C30 is not a rocket anyways, so I would not make much of a buying decision off of the keel type on that boat.

My opinions.

Brian


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

I have a 95 Catalina 30 with a wing keel. I mostly sail on Barnegat Bay where 10 feet feels like deep water. Really love the boat. Before buying I talked to a bunch of C30 owners who'd sailed both and the response was "not much difference unless you're racing"

Even then the skill of the captain and the condition of the sails will have more effect on how fast the boat sails.

You can find a ton of information on these boats online. Send me a PM if you want more info and places to research the C30.

Jim


----------



## COOL (Dec 1, 2009)

The wing keel versions of most boats sail much worse
than their fin keel sisterships. A standard Cat 30 barely
draws more than 5', which is not much deeper than the
shoal draft versions of many designs. If you are often 
sailing in water shallower than 6', and you appreciate 
sailing performance, I would opt for either a multihull or
a smaller keelboat.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> The wings are good if you are in (or will be) shallow water. In that case, I would not have a fin.


CD, I respect your opinions but having hired wing keel Catalinas on the Gippsland Lakes, I would seriously dispute that statement on this basis:

If you run aground - in shallow water - in a wing-keeled yacht, especially if it's a muddy bottom and you can't motor out immediately, you are basically stranded until someone comes along to tow you out. If it happens to be a tidal area, there's a good chance you'll damage the keel in the process. If you have a fin keel, you can pull yourself off quite safely using the usual methods.

I would never recommend anyone get a wing-keeled yacht for gunkholing in shallow water.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Hartley18 said:


> CD, I respect your opinions but having hired wing keel Catalinas on the Gippsland Lakes, I would seriously dispute that statement on this basis:
> 
> If you run aground - in shallow water - in a wing-keeled yacht, especially if it's a muddy bottom and you can't motor out immediately, you are basically stranded until someone comes along to tow you out. If it happens to be a tidal area, there's a good chance you'll damage the keel in the process. If you have a fin keel, you can pull yourself off quite safely using the usual methods.
> 
> I would never recommend anyone get a wing-keeled yacht for gunkholing in shallow water.


I have run aground more times than most people have sailed. The water down here is very thin. I can only go in/out at half+ tide.

What you say is true. The wing is harder to get off because you can use more contemporary methods for getting off with a fin. Believe me, I know. However, unless you run aground really hard, you can usually back off with the wing. On a fin, I have had it stuck in the mud and backing off did not work like on teh wing. However, hiking out, pulling the mast over via tender, using your anchor, or any other number of tricks does work that are not as beneficical on a wing because seh sets flat on the bottom.

The bottom line is that you will be able to get more places in a wing that you simply cannot in a fin. FOr example, the C400 (my boat) draws 5'4 (theoretically). With that, I can get in/out at half tide as mentioned earlier. With a fin, you draw 7. You ain't getting in or out anywhere down here.

There is absoluetely nothing wrong with gunkholing with a wing. In fact, I find few other benefits of it. I have done it for years and years. You simply learn to slow down and be prepared to back off or go in when it is flooding. Because if you had a fin down here, you wouldn't be able to get to the slip, much less leave it. You don't have a choice.

As far as purchasing a different boat (cat) as mentioned by Cool - no thanks. I do not mean to stir up negatives on cats, but I am not a big fan of many of them. I enjoy monohulls, gunkholing, and 'shallow water', and the wing allows me to do that.

Believe me, shallow water sailing and running aground is something I know a LOT about.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

By the way, I have never understood this aversion to wing keels. Are fins better? Yep... but only depending on the area and intended use. But I truly believe that most people simply would not appreciate the difference unless they are very performance oriented. I also believe that most people that are fin oriented do not have large boats in shallow water or plan to cruise there.

My opinions. There is certainly no aversion to wings down here.

Brian


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Hartley18 said:


> ...
> If you run aground - in shallow water - in a wing-keeled yacht, especially if it's a muddy bottom and you can't motor out immediately, you are basically stranded until someone comes along to tow you out. If it happens to be a tidal area, there's a good chance you'll damage the keel in the process. If you have a fin keel, you can pull yourself off quite safely using the usual methods.....


Exactly correct. The winged keel on pleasure yachts was a fad that developed after Asstrailia II's win in the 1983 America's cup. In that yacht the wings served to lower the yacht's center of gravity and were engineered to provide righting down-force on the windward side of the keel--theoretically increasing the yacht's ability to carry sail while staying within the rating limitations. The rationale on pleasure yachts was that they reduced draft, which is true. However, the concommitant, disadvantages--particularly in groundings and leeway--had not yet been fully recognized as they have today. Yachts so equpped have many disadvantages as the cost of somewhat shoal draft which, in my view, is a poor trade-off, no?

FWIW...


----------



## stuartmartell (Oct 20, 2004)

*fin v wing*

I sail a 1994 c30 mkIII tall rig with a fin keel. I love it, as i started sailing as a racer. there is quit a difference in performance between the two. I agree that it doesn't matter to most. If you are not going to race and don't mind going a little sideways when on the wind, the wing is fine.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

Hartley18 said:


> CD, I respect your opinions but having hired wing keel Catalinas on the Gippsland Lakes, I would seriously dispute that statement on this basis:
> 
> If you run aground - in shallow water - in a wing-keeled yacht, especially if it's a muddy bottom and you can't motor out immediately, you are basically stranded until someone comes along to tow you out. If it happens to be a tidal area, there's a good chance you'll damage the keel in the process. If you have a fin keel, you can pull yourself off quite safely using the usual methods.
> 
> I would never recommend anyone get a wing-keeled yacht for gunkholing in shallow water.


Well fortunately here on the Chesapeake which could be describe as a gunkholer's heaven, folks don't heed that advice.

The fact is, most shallow water is up creeks and in anchorages and you are not likely to sail yourself into shoal water, unless you work at it. Most times when you touch bottom here, you do so when you're motoring into a creek or anchorage. In that situation, a wing keel is far LESS likely to get hung than a fin since its broad flat base just thumps the bottom without digging in like a fin. I've always been able to back myself off when I found the bottom, mainly because I make a habit of knowing whats under me so I'm easing along when the water get thin.

If you're the type that doesn't honor marks while sailing, you could indeed sail onto a shoal, but in my experience (limited to the shallow waters of the Chesapeake) the chances of running aground at all are reduced with a wing vs. a fin, you are not likely to sail yourself aground, and if you motor aground your odds of getting free yourself are no worse and arguably better than if you had a fin keel.


----------



## COOL (Dec 1, 2009)

Cruisingdad said:


> For example, the C400 (my boat) draws 5'4 (theoretically). With that, I can get in/out at half tide as mentioned earlier. With a fin, you draw 7. You ain't getting in or out anywhere down here.


But logically,
if your 40' boat is fine with a draft of 5'4",
then a standard Catalina 30 would be fine
sailing in the same area. Just because larger 
boats require a shoal draft in a certain area,
does not mean that a smaller boat has to
suffer with reduced performance.
Also, I believe that some wing keels actually
gain draft as the boat heels, which was the intended
result of the keels designed for the 12s.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

COOL said:


> But logically,
> if your 40' boat is fine with a draft of 5'4",
> then a standard Catalina 30 would be fine
> sailing in the same area. Just because larger
> ...


I apparently did not state my thoughts well. Probably because I am rushing through some other things outside of Sailnet. Let me take another crack at it:

I believe that a boat with a fin is a better sailing vessel, in general, compared to its shoal draft sister.

I believe that if I was in an area where draft was not a problem, I would go with a fin, all things equal (which they never are).

In an area where the water is shallow, I would not purchase a fin. I would get the shallowest draft boat that I liked from the waterline up.

I do not believe most sailors will notice an appreciable difference between the two boats on a non-performance oriented boat. On a cruising boat, I doubt anyone would realize any performance difference at all! I can expand on this if necessary. When I say cruising boat, I mean a boat that is being used for cruising - not a design type.

A wing is not always harder to get off a grounding. This is NOT true. But in general, it is true. If it is a hard grounding, it is probably a given that a fin is easier to get off. But on a hard grounding, you might not get that fin off either. But most sailors around here that run aground realize they are about to run aground before it happens and are probably watching the depth pretty close.

Now, as far as my boat and my area in specific - THere are many bays and areas I cannot go. My boat is not fine here... it is do-able. A shallow draft C30 would be much better. I am very restricted by the tides. instead, we have to anchor a way out and motor on the tender to places of interest that are less than 6 feet deep. The Tech Editor before me lived down here too and sold his 400 specifically because he got so tired of the shallow water and consistent running aground. I have not. But if I had a boat that had a 4 foot draft or less, I would be thrilled!! But I prefer monohulls (with some exceptions) and as we are cruisers and LA's, we cannot get by on a small boat and are stuck with what we are stuck with. You learn to deal with it or buy a different boat.

On a catalina 30, I personally would not make a buying decision on whether it was wing or fin. The exception being if I was planning on using it in very shallow water than I would purchase a wing. But even if water was not a problem, I personally would not purchase one boat over another simply because of its keel on that particular boat. More important is the condition of the boat.

Just my opinions.

Brian


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Umm...think about it... *All wing keels increase in draft as they heel...kind of a physical limitation of having a wing keel... * The wing provides the shallowest draft when it is parallel to the bottom...any heeling and then it gets deeper...



COOL said:


> But logically,
> if your 40' boat is fine with a draft of 5'4",
> then a standard Catalina 30 would be fine
> sailing in the same area. Just because larger
> ...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I don't buy that. The actual wings on my wing keel are not that wide. I bet you would find that a very limited part of a heel-curve where it actually increased in draft. And a fin might consistenly decrease in draft as the boat heels, but in order to drop, say, over two feet (using a Catalina 400 as an example), it would have to have a SERIOUS heel I would imagine.

ANyone want to do the math?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I wonder if Jeff_h could do that math?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

You can do it via a drawing...if you have a cross section drawing of your boat and keel... even you could do it CD...


----------



## mpickering (Jun 11, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> Umm...think about it... *All wing keels increase in draft as they heel...kind of a physical limitation of having a wing keel... * The wing provides the shallowest draft when it is parallel to the bottom...any heeling and then it gets deeper...


This quality of the winged keel when first introduced is what led Dennis Conner to protest its use on the grounds that it violated the draft rules for the 12 meter class when heeled over. He didn't succeed since the rules stated draft was measured with the boat in a vertical, at-rest position.

But technically he was correct. The Australians had managed to work within the letter of the rules to give their boat more sailing performance. Not surprisingly, most America's Cup challengers afterward sported wing keels. It was the last major technical advance in the 12s before the class was retired and the America's Cup became an international football.

I still think the '87 era 12s are some of the prettiest racing sailboats above and below the waterline ever built. Sailing on Stars and Stripes '87 was a great thrill.

Matt


----------



## COOL (Dec 1, 2009)

Cruisingdad said:


> .
> Anyone want to do the math?


I think the equations would be very complex,
as it is not a 2D problem. It will have a lot to
do with volume distribution, and heeled waterplanes.
I think boats with a wide waterline beam, like most
modern cruising boats, are unlikely to pick up draft
as they heel as would a narrow boat with wide wings.


----------



## casioqv (Jun 15, 2009)

I imagine that a swing keel would be superior to a wing if you do a lot of really shallow water stuff.

I've ran aground once with my Catalina 22 and it was a very minor event. Zero damage, just crank the keel up and sail off!

Plus I can go into anchorages and docks as shallow as 2 feet, if I crank up the keel and pull the rudder. The downside is that I need to motor in these conditions, whereas a wing keel with a kickup rudder I think could actually sail in shallow water.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Cruisingdad said:


> I don't buy that. The actual wings on my wing keel are not that wide. I bet you would find that a very limited part of a heel-curve where it actually increased in draft. And a fin might consistenly decrease in draft as the boat heels, but in order to drop, say, over two feet (using a Catalina 400 as an example), it would have to have a SERIOUS heel I would imagine.
> 
> ANyone want to do the math?


Brian,

It's not that hard assuming one has a reasonable idea of where the metacenter is located. For the sake of the exercise assume the metacenter is one foot below the surface of the water on your 5'4" winged keel yacht. Further, assume the winglets have a 180º dihedral angle (i.e. they're horizontal) right at the bottom of the keel and have a span of 2.5' on either side of the center of the keel.

Given the forgoing the radius of rotation of the keel itself is 4.34 feet and the radius of rotation of the winglets is 2.5 feet. The "draft" of the boat is defined by the function of the heel angle (X) = 1' (depth of metacenter)+4.34 x cos(X)+2.5 x Sin(X). With the heel angle equal to zero, the function is equal to the draft of 5.34 and one can find the relative maximum and minimum of draft by setting the 1st derivative with respect to heel angle equal to zero and solving for X. Of course, with this example we know that with a 90º heel angle cos(x) is zero and sin(x)= 1 so we get to the unremarkable solution that the boats theoretical draft is only 3.4 feet (the height of the meta center plus the span of the wing) although to achieve that, 1/2 the beam of the yacht will have become immeresed so that's a nonsense solution, eh?

As a practical matter, the yacht's maximum draft given the foregoing parameters would be about 6.01 feet at a heeling angle of 29.94º. Continuing to increase heel angle will thereafter reduce draft until the yacht's original draft of 5.34 feet is reached at a heeling angle of about 60º after which it will continue to decrease until the immeresed beam becomes the determinant of draft.

The foregoing would need some adjustment for a negative dihedral angle of less than 180º or if the wignlets emerged above the bottom of the keel but enough of this BS for the moment, eh?

FWIW...


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Cruisingdad said:


> I do not believe most sailors will notice an appreciable difference between the two boats on a non-performance oriented boat. On a cruising boat, I doubt anyone would realize any performance difference at all!


I think this is the real point.

The OP seems to be a beginner and didn't mention racing.

Jim


----------



## COOL (Dec 1, 2009)

JimMcGee said:


> I think this is the real point.
> 
> The OP seems to be a beginner and didn't mention racing.


Just because he is not intending to race does not mean
he should not be concerned about his metacentric height
and the rotational radius of his winglets. These are important
things to take into consideration when deciding between
a wing keel or standard fin.


----------



## TheWhiteRabbit (Jul 31, 2010)

JimMcGee said:


> I think this is the real point.
> 
> The OP seems to be a beginner and didn't mention racing.
> 
> Jim


LOL!! WOW! LOL!! ya'll get real hard-core real fast dont ya?!(metacentric huh? and rotational whucha say?)     
Jim and Cruisingdad are 100% correct, I _am_ a beginner, and racing would not be the intended use for the boat. I would be mostly sailing out of (for the time being anyways) Portland OR on the Columbia river...The Columbia does seem to have a lotta sand bars (already sailed, _and_ powered into a couple) so, this "wing keel" C30 might make alotta sense for me. Thanks all!   (altho, I just saw another FIN keeled c30 right down the street from the winged one.....might have to go lookat that one too....the Columbia aint _all_ sand bars!! )


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> Umm...think about it... *All wing keels increase in draft as they heel...kind of a physical limitation of having a wing keel... * The wing provides the shallowest draft when it is parallel to the bottom...any heeling and then it gets deeper...


Only up to a certain point, then it shallows again. It all depends on the draft of the keel and the width of the wings. My fin keel 400 has a flat bottom on the keel. It increases in draft slightly when the boat is heeled, but quickly loses draft as the boat heels more.

I think CDs point is a good one. In shallow, muddy bottom water such as the Chesapeake, a wing keel gives a lot more options for where you can actually go to anchor or tie up. When actually out sailing, it shouldn't make much difference. I imagine that most won't be doing carefree sailing in water less than 8', particularly if there is a 2-3 foot swell.

However, I sail in the primarily deep water of the Salish Sea. I get *really* nervous if I'm in water less than 20'. Given the tidal currents in our area, it often means that if we are tacking upwind, we are going along the shore to avoid the heavier currents. If I'm tacking into shore, I tack at 20' to move out again.

The entrance to the harbor where I keep my boat is very shallow and narrow, only a couple fathoms deep at MLLW and less than 100 yards wide. Add to that the 2 knots of average current at ebb, and the hundreds of boats that go in and out daily, and it gets a bit tight.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

WhiteRabbit, I just want to wish you luck picking out your boat. We love our C30. They make very liveable weekenders for couples and small families. You'll find most people who own one love them, and most former owners who've moved up to bigger boats get all nostaligic for their past C30's.  

They're great coastal weekenders without any really bad habits and they're stronger than you'd think. If you use the boat as intended you'll be happy with her. 

The C30 is one of the most popular designs ever built. That means there are a lot of them out there, so you can be picky. 

Check out the owner reviews on Sailnet and on CatalinaOwners.com for tips on what to look for in an older boat. There's also an active C30 group on Yahoo. You can find Catalina specific parts at CatalinaDirect.com and on Garhauer's web site (they make Catalina's deck hardware). 

Amazingly Catalina will still make parts for older boats at reasonable prices, they even emailed me missing OEM manuals for my 94 C22. I wish everyone supported their products so well.

Jim


----------



## TheWhiteRabbit (Jul 31, 2010)

Thanks Jim!  And thanks for the links! The C30’s are right at the top of my “everything I want in a boat” list. I was going to go take a look at a couple (C30's) this weekend, a wing keel and a fin keel, but I decided I want to talk to my bank first, do the pre-approval thing, before I go out and start looking seriously/ making serious offers. I think I’m good-to-go on the money thing, but I'll feel better knowing for sure. I don’t want to get all excited about a boat, and find out I can’t get the dough. That would just be a big waist of everyone’s time.....

Thanks again, and I'm sure you’ll be hearing from me more and more, especially when I am finally a boat owner!


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

TheWhiteRabbit said:


> I go out and start looking seriously/ making serious offers. I think I'm good-to-go on the money thing, but I'll feel better knowing for sure. I don't want to get all excited about a boat, and find out I can't get the dough. That would just be a big waist of everyone's time.....


A couple points on financing I found recently as a buyer and seller.
- Some (many) banks won't loan on boats over 25 years old. I had a sale fall through because a buyer couldn't get financing on my 1984 Cat 36.
- BoatUS was able to find financing for me on the boat I just bought at a _*much*_ lower rate than my bank could do for me. I do a LOT of business with this bank, but they couldn't touch the rate that BoatUS found for me, 5.99%.


----------



## TheWhiteRabbit (Jul 31, 2010)

dhays said:


> A couple points on financing I found recently as a buyer and seller.
> - Some (many) banks won't loan on boats over 25 years old. I had a sale fall through because a buyer couldn't get financing on my 1984 Cat 36.
> - BoatUS was able to find financing for me on the boat I just bought at a _*much*_ lower rate than my bank could do for me. I do a LOT of business with this bank, but they couldn't touch the rate that BoatUS found for me, 5.99%.


AWSOME! Thanks for the heads up! Its these kind of things I wanted to get squared away with my bank before I went lookin!


----------

