# Catalina 445



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

Has anyone seen the new Catalina 445 or want to discuss it?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

To be introduced April 15th! Just in time for your tax refund!


----------



## soulfinger (Aug 21, 2008)

Looks nice to me...like the idea of a "multi-purpose" storage or other room. I nice ammenity for cruisers and liveaboards. 

I am surpised that the LWL is only 38' given that fairly plumb bow. But how they can get a boat this big to only draw 4'10" is impressive. That' only a few inches deeper than my 350.


----------



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

It looks like a nice boat, love the rear cabin and workshop, but I think they need to liven up the styling a bit. Seems kinda light for a 45' boat, only 20,000 lbs?


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

I'm really interested in this boat, can't wait to see it. We had a C-36 mkII and loved that while we had it (5 yrs). I had basically made my mind up that my next sailboat would be the C-400. I went onto the Catalina website to view the C-400 again and saw the new 445 and thought ....hello, what have we here....? I think the admiral would have preferred the master aft, that is my only drawback at this point, but personally I like the master forward - to be close to the anchor for checking when on the hook.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Personally...I don't like the layout & design at all. Seems like Cat is getting more and more "dock" oriented with a Hunter like obsession with interiors that only make sense when tied to a dock. 
I note that there is no reference in the preliminary specs for how the hull/deck joint is being done...just the mention of an inward flange. Usually they comment on "through bolted on 8" centers" or similar. Wondering if this is simply a preliminary oversight or a real change. 
BTW...I am a Catalina fan...just don't like the direction they are going.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> Personally...I don't like the layout & design at all. Seems like Cat is getting more and more "dock" oriented with a Hunter like obsession with interiors that only make sense when tied to a dock.
> I note that there is no reference in the preliminary specs for how the hull/deck joint is being done...just the mention of an inward flange. Usually they comment on "through bolted on 8" centers" or similar. Wondering if this is simply a preliminary oversight or a real change.
> BTW...I am a Catalina fan...just don't like the direction they are going.


Agreed.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

nemier said:


> I'm really interested in this boat, can't wait to see it. We had a C-36 mkII and loved that while we had it (5 yrs). I had basically made my mind up that my next sailboat would be the C-400. I went onto the Catalina website to view the C-400 again and saw the new 445 and thought ....hello, what have we here....? I think the admiral would have preferred the master aft, that is my only drawback at this point, but personally I like the master forward - to be close to the anchor for checking when on the hook.


But the 400 for a master aft and lots of room (our choice). It honestly is one of the best boats made. She is fast, sure footed, points well (at least the pre hull 307-312's did... the newer ones fo not point quite as well). She has great storage and is well apportioned.

Buy the 42 for a master forward or for 3 cabins. She points well (almost as well as the pre 307 c400's) and is pretty fast. She is not as sure footed as the 400 and not as fast, but there are some positives in the design along with some negative tradeoffs. I would be happy to discuss.

Buy the 470 if you can afford more money and really like the layout of the 400, but NEED (NEED) more room and storage. I like the boat and going back, I would have strongly considered it. Still like our 400 better for our use.

If spending 150k or under and want to go cruising, buy the 380 (no longer in production). We LA'd it and it is solid.

If more coastal, buy the 36. No longer in production either.

I can discuss any of the above boats in detail if you want. I prefer the older Catalinas to the newer changes. Even the 400 has gone under many changes I am not happy with.

Let me know id you want more details.

Brian


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

Yes, Brian, I'd like more details.
I was really disappointed to hear what you and Camaraderie were saying about the 445, I'm sobbing over my keyboard - well, not quite.
Dock orientated? No, that will not do. I must have a boat that can sail well and get into the groove. But the Admiral must also like it, and from the first look, I was hoping that we just might have the perfect compromise.
The 400 is definitely a contender but the Admiral wants something a little bigger. I guess it may be the 470, if not the 445.
- Is the 445 dockish like the 350?
- would You take your 400 south through the canal, & over to Polynesia, with your family onboard?
On all points, please advise.


----------



## soulfinger (Aug 21, 2008)

The 350 is "dockish"? And since when is "dockish" even a word? It sounds like some sort of dog. I wouldn't describe my 350 as dockish, though maybe there's an option that I don't have.

As long as I'm taking exceptions to things, I'll also take exception to saying that the new 445 (which no one has actually seen) needs to "liven up the styling"...the whole thing that makes Catalinas great (IMHO) is that while the styling evolves, all Catalinas still look like Catalinas.


----------



## huguley3 (May 7, 2007)

Are you talking about the Catalina Morgan 445? I forget the number but they had one at the St Pete boat show in december. It had a very pretty and brightly lit interior. I don't even remember any of other monohulls there(Except the Vagabond) it really sticks in your mind. No idea about its sailing qualities though everything looked like it was laid out thoughfully.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

Not that I'll be in the market but I'd like to see the boat in person. My initial impression is that its not any more "dockish" than many other boats marketed as suitable for long term cruising. It seems to me that if the saloon berths can be rigged with lee cloths for use underway, that this would be more suitable than some other boats on the market. Worst case, it appears you'd have useable 2 sea berths in the convertable part of the aft cabin although that is not the most optimal location. 

I'd have to see it myself, but it seems to me this boat is more like an IP interior than a Hunter.


----------



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

soulfinger said:


> The 350 is "dockish"? And since when is "dockish" even a word? It sounds like some sort of dog. I wouldn't describe my 350 as dockish, though maybe there's an option that I don't have.
> 
> As long as I'm taking exceptions to things, I'll also take exception to saying that the new 445 (which no one has actually seen) needs to "liven up the styling"...the whole thing that makes Catalinas great (IMHO) is that while the styling evolves, all Catalinas still look like Catalinas.


What do you mean "which no one has actually seen" the brochure is on their website!

Look, here it is...


----------



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

huguley3 said:


> Are you talking about the Catalina Morgan 445?


This is a new model

Loading...


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I'll butt out...but my suggestion is that you stop looking at new Catalinas to cross the pacific with your family. Buy a bluewater boat at the same price that is a few years older. Failing that, get a new Hunter49.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

nemier said:


> Yes, Brian, I'd like more details.
> I was really disappointed to hear what you and Camaraderie were saying about the 445, I'm sobbing over my keyboard - well, not quite.
> Dock orientated? No, that will not do. I must have a boat that can sail well and get into the groove. But the Admiral must also like it, and from the first look, I was hoping that we just might have the perfect compromise.
> The 400 is definitely a contender but the Admiral wants something a little bigger. I guess it may be the 470, if not the 445.
> ...


It is our intention to use our 400 everywhere in this "hemishphere". If you are certain you are going to cross the Pacific, you would probably be better off choosing another boat. It is not to say that you cannot, but there are better boats for it which are built to that purpose.

Let's discuss Design basics. These are generalities, as there may be exceptions to these rules here or there... but in general (in our price range) these are good rules of thumb.

Production boats, in general, are made for primarily coastal work. When you get into the larger boats, they become more suitable for longer jaunts offshore. THere are many differences/aspects to these boats that make them very good for that design. These are:

1) Lots of hatches for ventilation and light.
2) Designed for winds 10-30 kts in general. Good performance in light airs.
3) Strong focus on interior layout and comfort at anchor/marina.
4) Less robust hardware which keeps costs down.
5) Generally low fuel and water capacities. 
6) Large cockpits for entertaining and comfort.
7) Small lazarettes so that more room is translated to the interiors.
8) Generally have sugar scoops for ease of boarding from water and enjoyment at anchor.

Typical "Blue water" boat.

1) Fewer hatches and darker interiors. Often less ventillation. THis may be over compensated for with Dorades (which I believe any ocean going boat should have, but that is another discussion). Certainly this may be debated, but hatches see a vulnerable point on a boat. I am not saying that blue water boats do not have hatches, but certinaly are not the light, airy interiors that is typical with most "coastal" boats.
2) Generally heavy/robust boats. Where as the typical coastal boat might be able to avoid any nasty stuff by waiting out weather windows, you do not have that luxury when making long crossings. Sooner or later, you will be in a blow and it may last for days. THis is when the typical blue water boat has a nice easy motion and takes a beating. Production boats are lighter (not always a bad thing... I am generalizing) and certainly not as well prepared for a beating. I can discuss in more detail if necessary. But the portholes, hatches, cockpit, bulkhead, and in my opini the rigging, simply is not designed for days of pounding.
3) The design on most blue water boats is for lots of storage and tighter spaces for transversing the boat at sea. THis obvioulsy makes the inside more cramped.
4) These boats are made to take a beating and the hardware is appropriately selected for it. Mast, rigging, stanchions, etc are "over built".
5) Without exception (that I can think of), blue water boats have large capacities of fuel and water. THe positive of this is it allows for a lot more motoring and travelling to distant shores. The negative is that you may not cycle the fuel enough if you are coastal and just island hopping.
6) Almost without exception, blue water boats have small cockpits. THis is so that you have a smaller, controlled environment when getting bounced around, and so that if you get pooped, there simply is less volume of water to fill the cockpit. The negative is that a huge amount of your time is spent in the cockpit - especially at anchor. You will have lots of people over at anchorages. THese cockpits do not accomodate that very well at all - compared to a production boat.
7) Without exception that I can think of, blue water boats have large lazarettes for lots, and lots of storage. THis might include extra hardware, sails, lines, etc. The reason for this is obvious.
8) Seems like there may be a blue water boat with a sugar scoop, but I am having a difficult time thinking of one this morning. Most have swept back or may be canoe stern. The reason being that you have less area vulnerable to a following sea. This becomes especially important when they start breaking on the stern and the water wants to push you around to beam on or broach. I have been in these circumstances and can tell you that it is an issue.

THere are other things that I have not mentioned, including (maybe) watertight bulkheads (not all BW boats have them), protected running and rudder, etc. Some production boats have done a better job at protecting these than others.

So ater reading everything, you may be under the opinion that every boat going to sea should be a blue water boat? There certainly are people (even on this forum) that feel that way. I strongly dissagree. Each boat has a design purpose. You can go the islands with a blue water boat. Many people do. But remember that 99% of your time is a tnachor. Your comfort level is MUCH higher on the typical production type boat. You have more liveable space. You can entertain in your cocpit. When you open up all your hatches, you get an awesome amount of ventiallation. It is bright, airy and comfortable. For 99.99% of what you are going to do, this boat is not only suitable, but better suited than the typical blue water boat (for all the reasons that make it a blue water boat). The fact that these boats generally cost less is another positive.

However, when you start talking about making for very distant ports with long passages, there are boats that were built for that purpose. Could you do it in a production boat? Certainly. Many people have. But you need (as Cam as has put it before) more luck than you might in a bluewater boat. From fuel capacities to lazarette, blue water boats are better suited to make those distant ports in safety and comfort.

Two different boats. Two differnt purposes. Now, you might be able to take a production boat and change her such that you have a blue water boat. We have certainly done many of these modifications. However, you start running the risk/reality that you will end up spending more money on the production boat that you would have should you have simply bought the blue water in the first place. Also, there are some things (like rudder protection) that are expeisive and very difficult to change without a major refit of the boat.

SO when I tell people to choose your destinations carefully, I mean it. I really think a person will be very happy with a production boat in the area it was designed for - much more happy than should they have chosen a blue water. I believe they will be happy with the blue water in the area it was designed for - much more happy than should they have chosen the production. Try not to mix the two if you can. Don't buy the blue water unles you are CERTAIN to cross the Atlantic/Pacific.

DId that help?

Brian

PS THese are my opinions only. Take them as such. Some may dissagree, and that is fine. I have seen a bunch of Valiants that are abandoned by their owners because they are uncomfortable at anchor and for what 99% of the boat is used for. I have heard of many productio nboats losing a rudder at sea or them taking a beating in a storm because they pushed the limits of design and safety. But do not underestimate the necessity to have a comfortable boat and the ventilation and cockpit, etc. You will burn yourself out on a bullet-proof shoe box where a production was better suited.


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

Jesus H.
I'm impressed! Your reply must have taken some time and I appreciate it. Yes, you have answered a lot of my questions and your reply has made me think more about the purchase. Before I go into more of this thread I want to apologize to Soulfinger, when I re-read my post I believe it may have sounded offensive and that truly was never my intention.
FWIW, I'm a Catalina guy. I think once you've owned one, you keep searching for reasons to buy another one, like I'm doing. I still can't figure out why, even when I have literally an entire world of yachts to choose from. I am looking at everything (Honest!) but I keep getting drawn back to a Catalina. I admit, perhaps I need therapy.

Anyway, you're reasoning that 90-odd% of the time is spent on the hook or tied up has helped me the most I guess. Now I can see another reason for the Catalina. I 'm laughing to myself because I know Jeff is shaking his head right now, "Oh no, not another one...." FWIW, I'm looking at Farr's too.
Remember, the Admiral Has to like it or else I'll be doing this thing singlehanded in a 28' Shannon, Alone...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I have owned a Catalina 250, a Catalina 320, a Catalina 380, and now a Catalina 400. My pops has a Tayana 42.

Here is both boats rafted together, with the family jumping off the back. This pic actually shows you several advantages of a production type boat: comfort, room on the transom, lots of hatches, etc. You certainly cannot do this from the Tayana 42!!! But, I like the T-V-42. SOlid, solid boat.










Here is my old 380, right before a trip to the Tortugas...










- CD


----------



## christyleigh (Dec 17, 2001)

nemier said:


> FWIW, I'm a Catalina guy. I think once you've owned one, you keep searching for reasons to buy another one, like I'm doing. I still can't figure out why, even when I have literally an entire world of yachts to choose from. I am looking at everything (Honest!) but I keep getting drawn back to a Catalina. I admit, perhaps I need therapy.


 Ahhh...... I know the feeling. I only had a couple but it took an extreme change to "kick" for me  CD's picture does remind me how much I miss the ease of boarding though as my canoe stern is a few steps higher to climb than his dads  Instant high dive board though


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Hey Stan,

you know, as we discuss the obvious negative from a safety point of view of a sugar scoop, you reminded me of a huge safety plus: Getting someone back on board that has fallen over. I will also say that boarding the boat from the sugar scoop and the tender is immensely easier than from the beam, as is common on almost all Blue Water boats. 

I mean no offense, but simple everyday life aboard a production boat is so much better than on a BW. From swimming, to boarding, to relaxing. Yes, many people call these dock amenities. But the reality is that when you cruise, your boat becomes your home. Make her comfortable and make her enjoyable. Safety first, of course - but that is more the captain than the boat.

Brian


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

eMKay said:


> What do you mean "which no one has actually seen" the brochure is on their website!
> 
> Look, here it is...


Looking at the rig profile here, I see that Catalina has continued the shift toward fractional rig, a welcome change. But I don't understand why they are retaining the large overlapping genoa as the primary headsail. I would like to see a more powerful mainsail and a smaller genoa or jib.

As an aside, while I can appreciate many of their amenities I am not a huge fan of the aesthetics of most modern production designs. But for some reason I find that the "look" of most Catalinas improves somewhat when you cover these profile drawings from the waterline down, i.e. to replicate their lines when afloat. Anybody else notice that?


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

JohnRPollard said:


> But for some reason I find that the "look" of most Catalinas improves somewhat when you cover these profile drawings from the waterline down, i.e. to replicate their lines when afloat. Anybody else notice that?


John,

I have noticed the same thing. My (soon mine) C400 looks a lot better in water than on the hard. It looks a lot sleeker in the water. It is something with the underbody (hull) that makes it look a bit on the phat side.

OTOH, maybe that's the case with most boats and I have just noticed it on the Catalina's


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> John,
> 
> I have noticed the same thing. My (soon mine) C400 looks a lot better in water than on the hard. It looks a lot sleeker in the water. It is something with the underbody (hull) that makes it look a bit on the phat side.
> 
> OTOH, maybe that's the case with most boats and I have just noticed it on the Catalina's


A bbq helps balance that out. Been telling these guys for years... but no one listens... especially Jeff_h! I think I got Pollard coming around though!!

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

JohnRPollard said:


> Looking at the rig profile here, I see that Catalina has continued the shift toward fractional rig, a welcome change. But I don't understand why they are retaining the large overlapping genoa as the primary headsail. I would like to see a more powerful mainsail and a smaller genoa or jib.
> 
> As an aside, while I can appreciate many of their amenities I am not a huge fan of the aesthetics of most modern production designs. But for some reason I find that the "look" of most Catalinas improves somewhat when you cover these profile drawings from the waterline down, i.e. to replicate their lines when afloat. Anybody else notice that?


Honestly, I like the lines in and out.

Brian


----------



## soulfinger (Aug 21, 2008)

A well thought-out post from CD. Really good ideas about "comfort on the hook". 

I agree that Catalinas look better in the water. When I look at a profile drawing, I think to myself "is this really any different than a Hunter?" But when you see them (Catalinas) in the water, they look "right". 

I'm not a huge fan of Hunter exterior styling. The one thing that Hunters do have going for them is the more mainsail-driven rig (though I haven't made up my mind on the whole B&R thing). We were out on a friends Hunter 38 the other day, and the 110 jib was SO much easier to deal with than our 135. Tacking was quite a non-event.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> A bbq helps balance that out.
> Brian


That's one of my biggest concerns, not sure where to put my Magma Newport, some knobhead put GPS and Sirius antennas and other low priority items in the spot where obviously the BBQ's gotta be mounted.

I think the Newport will add the final touch, once I find a spot for it.


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

JohnRPollard said:


> But I don't understand why they are retaining the large overlapping genoa as the primary headsail. I would like to see a more powerful mainsail and a smaller genoa or jib.


Note the vertical battens. It's designed for a roller furling mainsail, which necessarily is going to lose some drive. Hence, the larger genny.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Did someone have sail it ? or buy one ? and can give real comment on it ?


----------



## jassail (Aug 8, 2009)

*I like it!*

Firstly, I'm a coastal criuser and don't want or need a BW boat, so we'll get that out of the way up front. I currently own a Bene 361 and am partial to Beneteau and Jeanneau styling. Can't stand to even look at Hunters and frankly Catalina mostly doesn't move me one way or another... blah. Having said all that, I am in the market for a larger cruiser as my three kids have grown us out of the 36'. I've been focused on the Beneteau 46/49 and Jeanneau 45i/49i. The problem is that Bene and Jenny have both narrowed their entry so much that all you get is a cramped vberth in a 45' boat. You have to move up to a 49' boat to get a reasonably comfortable owners cabin in the 3 cabin configuration! Very frustrating, because I really don't want that big of a boat. Enter the new Catalina 445. We got a look at it this past weekend at the Newport Boatshow. Bottom line, I think Catalina did a fantastic job with this boat. The forward owners cabin is an island birth and feels and looks comfortable. Catalina does a much better job than Beneteau in implementing cubbies and draws for storage. Both the salon settee and dining table convert into sleepable spaces. The rear cabins are 60/40, so there is one real nice guest cabin, and a third cabin that can morph into different things, one of them being an double berth and a bunk. Three kids no problem. What's most amazing is that they have accomplished this with a 13'7" beam, less than both Bene and Jenny. From a sailing perspective, it looks like the cockpit layout is designed to sail comfortanbly. I like the furling main, just because I tend to single hand most of the time. You can get a 100% jenny, but I think the SA/D is in the mid 16's (BTW, that is where the Jenneau 45DS is with a 135). The Catalina with a 135% jib has a SA/D of 19.5, which is about where I like it. Yet the D/L is ~185, actually higher than the average big Beneteau. Catalina also integrated the design for an optional bow sprit that holds a code zero furler. So simple, yet the other production guys haven't done it.

I never expected it, but I really love this boat. Great job Catalina. Sorry Beneteau...


----------



## roline (Apr 7, 2000)

I checked out the Morgan Catalina 44 last year and would conclude that it fit most of the criterion that I have established. A real bilge, not a shallow one to allow water to slosh around in. Wife approval factor (W.A.F.) every where you look. A workroom with a vice and with a washer and dryer. It was a real Winnebago on water. Only question is how does it sail? I also have been a fan of the Caliber boats with the tankage serving as additional safety hulls. You can't beat that for true blue water cruising..
We chartered an IP 380 and what storage areas, real bilge, effective rig great ride.... But back to the W.A.F. Morgan Catalina 44


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

roline said:


> I checked out the Morgan Catalina 44 last year and would conclude that it fit most of the criterion that I have established. A real bilge, not a shallow one to allow water to slosh around in. Wife approval factor (W.A.F.) every where you look. A workroom with a vice and with a washer and dryer. It was a real Winnebago on water. Only question is how does it sail? I also have been a fan of the Caliber boats with the tankage serving as additional safety hulls. You can't beat that for true blue water cruising..
> We chartered an IP 380 and what storage areas, real bilge, effective rig great ride.... But back to the W.A.F. Morgan Catalina 44


Note that the 440 is a VERY differnt boat from the 445.

The 440 is a live aboard, comfortable cruiser. The 445 is a rocket meant for coastal racing (though I can make a very strong argument that you can take that boat as blue water as you want).

Just fyi.

- CD


----------



## soulfinger (Aug 21, 2008)

I just got back from the boat show being held outside Houston, and they had a 445 there. In a word: awesome. Beautiful, great design, ready for cruising or racing.


----------



## JulieMor (Sep 5, 2011)

Resurrecting this thread...

Now that the 445 has had some time to prove itself, would anyone care to add to what's already been posted? We saw this at Strictly Sail Chicago over the weekend and the talk in the house about boat buying has been stirred up again, particularly this boat.

If one wanted to get from point A to point B quickly...

If one was going to do coastal and island (Caribbean) cruising...

If one was considering a possible transatlantic crossing and maybe some Med cruising...

If one wanted a boat that could be handled by a couple...

And if one was looking for a liveaboard... 

How would this boat fit? What would fit better in the same price range and size?


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Like several others we liked this one better than the offerings from Bene and Jeann. ESP for serious coastal cruising. Liked the storage, still 'nautical' joinery and the port aft multi-purpose space...BUT felt the cockpit hatch access to that area was too open - a fairly large seat locker open to the entire boat. For serious voyaging I think you'd want to do something different there.


----------

