Good Looking and Spoty Catamarans....Seriously

[Nautorius]

Hi Guys,

Wondered what you thougfht of these Powercats HERE

They look damn fine to me....infact a bit like the Motorcat29 /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Look up the M2 60....just stunning IMHO! (Called the Zutson 57)

And while we are on the subject I like THIS ONE as well! Have a look at the rest of their design work HERE

Even this European one HERE, looks OK!
Cheers

Paul /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[TigaWave]

And at least one is being fitted with Seatorque and quicKutters at the build stage!! Thanks Paul!

 

[KevB]

Now that looks cool /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[Nick_H]

I agree its certainly one of the best looking cats i've seen, but are planing Cats any more efficient than planing mobos? If not, what's the point, as you lose loads of interior space.

OK, on the face of it a builders estimate of 45 mph from twin 800 hp on a 60 foot boat looks impressive, but then look at the forecast weight, a pretty optimistic 15 tonnes for a 60 foot cat?

I suggest a 60 foot monohull weighing only 15 tonnes would have similar 40 knot performance?

 

[Whitelighter]

From what I have seen, planing cats that use a hydrofoil between the hulls are certainly a lot more efficient that their mono counter parts - the innovation power cats from Aus have a good website that gives some figures. Displacement is 25,000kg and they claim a top speed of 30knts with twin 575Hp engines.

 

[oceanfroggie]

Is there a prize for guessing which one is the Ugliest?

 

[hobiecat]

I had some projects going with Argo boats in South Africa. Production has been moved to M2 in USA. Yes - some interesting products are being developed there. There are lots of motor catamarans being developed at the moment but nothing of great interest in UK to my knowledge - pity - in spite of fuel issues here.

 

[Sundays_Child]

I agree. No doubt multihulls are the future.

Hydrolance beyond that.

 

[hobiecat]

might be of interest to show mono v cat performance. Whether a cat planes or not is open to debate.

 

[oceanfroggie]

There is no doubt about the fuel economy of cats V planning hulls, but sub 55ft the accomodation below is cramped and at all sizes they look ugly, never mind the practicalities of berthage. Saving in diesel lost in berthage fees.

Fed up of folk moaning about diesel, it is not the major cost in boat ownership. The old saying "if somebody has to ask about the fuel economy of a Mercedes then they probably can't afford one in the first place" could equally be applied to fast planing motor cruisers.

 

[whisper]

"diesel, it is not the major cost in boat ownership" - if I do more than 50hrs a year in ours, then it is the major cost for me. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[compie1]

nice video under way:

m2 60 video

have fun!

 

[Nautorius]

Ohhhhh, I am in love, that wake looks great and see how flat she rides! Does anyone not agree this is a serious Cat contender....I reckon those 60Ft predators have competition!

Paul /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Gludy]

Su that graph shows that the displacement cat id far more fuel efficient than the planing cat up to 25 knots!!!! It also uses just 1/3rd of the fuel at 10 knots!!!!

Very good case for displacement cats being put forward there Victor.

 

[Nick_H]

With no mention of the provenance of the data. A 12 tonne 46' planing monohull with 250 hp engines would not IMO do 26 knots, nor would a displacement monohull do 17 knots with the same engines, yet we're supposed to take the Cat data at face value?

I'm convinced about the fuel efficiency of displacement Cats, cos I can follow the physics, but i'm not convinced about the case for planing Cats

 

[Gludy]

I agree with that point.

 

[Lakesailor]

I think you'll find there are 2 "t"s in Spotty

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif