John Passmore's amazing Heavenly Twins storm-story from 2000

Greenheart

Greenheart

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Dec 2010
Messages
10,384
Visit site
No matter what people say against them, I like the Heavenly Twins catamarans. And while I accept they're not speedy, I lapped up John Passmore's description of encountering a force 12 aboard his, off Scotland. If you have twenty minutes, click here: http://www.heavenlytwins.co.uk/experiences.php#top

I didn't work out what happened to the boat after his rescue by helicopter. I wouldn't be surprised if she was eventually recovered and sold-on!
 
dancrane said:
No matter what people say against them, I like the Heavenly Twins catamarans. And while I accept they're not speedy, I lapped up John Passmore's description of encountering a force 12 aboard his, off Scotland. If you have twenty minutes, click here: http://www.heavenlytwins.co.uk/experiences.php#top

I didn't work out what happened to the boat after his rescue by helicopter. I wouldn't be surprised if she was eventually recovered and sold-on!
Click to expand...

I was struck by this

And so, when I reached the top of the Shetland Islands, I stopped. I sorted out my long warps, re-read Pat Patterson on the management of catamarans in gales and waited to see which quadrant of the west the unpleasantness would be coming from.

If there was to be any north in it, I would duck back down the East Coast. Anything else would see me running off towards Norway.

and by his apparent omission of the option I would have chosen: head into one of the many sheltered anchorages in the Shetland islands and ride it out there. Perhaps I need to be bolder.
 
Bearing in mind what happened I'd say Mr Passmore probably pushed the boldness quotient a bit far...

I read his exploits at the time, the Telegraph wasn't it ?

A couple of good sailors at my club bought a very smart well equipped Heavenly Twins, but it was so incredibly slow and unrewarding to sail they couldn't stand it for Solent weekending; it could be said it was like using a screwdriver to bang in a nail though...
 
Yes, quite a few reports of the HT's dismal performance - even fond owners seem to concede that the design really won't go to windward. I still like them though.

I've heard their toughness encourages liveaboard-types to overload them before sailing...and whilst they're said to be safe low in the water, the performance really suffers.

Andy, have we covered this before? Sounds familiar, and I don't intend an atom of disrespect...

...but the Portsmouth Yardstick for the HT is around 103...quicker than a lot of popular cruisers...(let each reader discreetly look up his own boat's rating ;))...

http://www.byronsoftware.org.uk/bycn/byboat.htm

...I can well believe that the ratings don't reflect real-world performance.
 
1030 is a similar number to a Sonata. I'm guessing that's not good for a 26' cat. :(

I do question the Byron data, however, when my 21 footer is apparently faster than the half tonner my dad had when I was growing up. :rolleyes:
 
I wonder where they get those figures from? There are countless designs I've never even heard of in there. How can they be presented as roundly tested & accurate?

According to these tables, a Fisher 25 isn't far behind a Hawk 20. A bit hard to imagine...
 
Yup, these figures are completely bogus, even those for the Anderson 22 - which doesn't race much nowadays but one would think had an established figure on the old scales ( used to be 123 years ago ) to work from is now wrong in comparison with others, as is that for the Anderson 26 in comparison, and that's another boat which will hardly ever have raced but they have a figure plucked out of the air.

I used to be a fan of handicap racing, our casual annual club cruiser race worked out as well as one could expect, but the figures I hear lately are nonsense.

As for the Heavenly Twins a Sonata or Anderson would sail rings around it all day...
 
Back on track, the story reveals a deep lack of respect for the conditions. At force 9 forecast he was offered a safe haven by the fisherman but thought he would use the forecast wind to get some miles under him. Then he moans about how his expensive radio didn't have long wave on it - maybe that's something he could have checked first. Then he sets his autopilot to steer a course not wind angle and goes for a sleep and is surprised that there's a shift in the wind angle! Who'd have thought it :rolleyes: In a force 12 his yacht is steering at an angle to the waves and it goes over. There's bold and there's stupid. A good read though and shows the seaworthiness of the class. We had a HT27 for a few years and it was great but to my thinking didn't have enough reward for the compromises. It would slide off when beating and wasn't fast enough for good passage times; yet neither was it very roomy for a cat. Perfect for a couple we outgrew it and don't miss it now. Our Colvic Watson 34 makes the same compromises in sailing but unlike the HT is does get going in a F5/F6 and has all the benefits the HT lacked in space, comfort and stability. The HT was an absolute dream with a quartering sea though, the easiest motion I've ever felt in a quarter sea that catches out a lot of yachts including our own.
 
Agree Heavenly Twins are slow and do not go to windward. Yes, anything but heavenly.

Sailed one back from LA Rochelle, to Penzance, it took us 6 weeks. Slow, I could have swum faster.
 
BoyBlue49 said:
Sailed one back from LA Rochelle, to Penzance, it took us 6 weeks. Slow, I could have swum faster.
Click to expand...

Very discouraging. And surprising...this design was reviewed initially as if a new chapter had been written in getting performance & accommodation from a small LOA.

But it's hard to think of any genuinely, generally-admired small catamaran - most owners seem incapable of admitting their own boats' failings - naturally enough, especially if they're hoping to sell - but meanwhile various other folk who comment, seem unable or unwilling to see the same boat in the same happy light. I suppose short people often won't mind restricted bridgedeck headroom - though I'm not tall and I like plenty.

I know catamarans aren't usually very pretty - but having accepted the boxy angularity of small cats, I find the benefits very persuasive, so it's dispiriting to hear so many negative views. I seem to hear bad things of Prout build-quality, worse things about Catalac performance, and now it seems the Heavenly Twins is cute but useless. :(

I can't think of any model or manufacturer whose cats are roundly, unanimously admired. Isn't there a gap in the market here? It must be twenty years since the Woods Strider appeared, and I don't think I've ever even seen one. Isn't anybody building a well-made, small, tolerably quick, sharp-handling, roomy modern catamaran?
 
"Isn't there a gap in the market here? It must be twenty years since the Woods Strider appeared, and I don't think I've ever even seen one. Isn't anybody building a well-made, small, tolerably quick, sharp-handling, roomy modern catamaran?"

See previous threads on why no one is building good small monos anymore. The costs of small boat building don't seem to economic sense. They can't be built at a price that both sells and makes an acceptable profit.
 
dancrane said:
V

I know catamarans aren't usually very pretty - but having accepted the boxy angularity of small cats, I find the benefits very persuasive, so it's dispiriting to hear so many negative views. I seem to hear bad things of Prout build-quality, worse things about Catalac performance, and now it seems the Heavenly Twins is cute but useless. :(
Click to expand...

The dissonance between owners and detractors view is explained simply. The HT is a rubbish passage maker, it's rubbish at getting anywhere quickly under sail or power.

However it's a superb family coastal potterer. You get a very stable platform, many men end up sailing alone or with other chaps from a macho belief that life at a twenty degree angle is exhilarating. I didn't like the HT's sailing performance but my family loved it and hated selling it. Then you add the huge deck space for a 27 footer, large heads, large galley, twin aft cabins, saloon with big windows facing forward and a secure centre cockpit. 95% of our sailing in the five years we had her was non-passage, it didn't matter if we went at 3.5 knots exploring the rivers of East Anglia, we'd get to our destination 40 minutes later than if we went at 5 knots. Speed under sail was irrelevant exploring Holland and just going for a mooch down the Deben was more fun at 3 knots. Passage speed is vastly over rated, it's just not something that figured in our enjoyment of the HT. Seven years later and the whole family goes sailing and loves it, our second boat is much more rewarding to sail and motors a damn sight faster, but she's no fast passage maker under sail, that's almost irrelevant to us, she's a near perfect family yacht in every other respect. You can get great sailing with the great family friendly qualities we have, it would cost you £150,000 extra. Same goes for the HT, couples and families love them.
 
Good points well made.

I'm not exactly in the market for one at the moment, but I'd like to know what I'll want when I am...

Lazy Kipper, your explanation makes me think I could live quite contentedly with the unrewarding level of sailing! But do you think your HT was typical of the class?

John Passmore describes the performance improving noticeably when he offloaded some of his rather excessive cruising kit. And I've read the same from other owners.

If one drew a minimalist Plimsoll line and didn't exceed that, isn't there likely to be a much improved response under sail and power?

I suppose the hulls must be around 24' long and 3' wide at the waterline. Doesn't sound a reluctant or resistant shape, unless she's much deeper in the water than ideal; and I guess it's almost inevitable that most cruisers overload their boats in ways that must make the designer cringe...and perhaps the HT is unusually sensitive to it.

I admit, I'm hoping to hear something that's probably rosier than reality. :rolleyes:
 
The HT that I mentioned had a single cylinder in each hull which gave 4kn on flat water, sailing with cruising shute we managed 5-6kn, however the wind was more often on the nose or near about.
No doubt if one went to sea with only a couple of sleeping bags and a pork pie for sustenance an HR would sail reasonably well for a boat of it's size, I doubt any faster than a mono hull.
I should admit here that I am not a cat lover, mainly for the cross sea throwing about one has to suffer when sailing on a reach, which is the best point of sail to get an HR moving.
Just my views but it did get me out of the house for 6 weeks though.
 
Ours was a 27 and unloaded was more than a match for a cruising monohull, but we sailed loaded with cruising gear and people. The 26 is half the price to buy and sails half a knot or so slower, put twin diesels in and make that a knot and a half - we had a retractable central outboard. FWIW a HT regularly won the cruising multi RTIR on handicap but they stripped her out to the bare bones and noticed a huuuuuge difference. Overly conservative sail plan, 2'6" draft and a lot of boat for the waterline length meant she was slow, not Macwester26 slow, think Centaur with old sails slow.
 
The Heavenly Twins my chums had was a very smart one, I'd imagine a late model but I'm not up on the class.

They are into Solent hops and coastal sailing, I don't think even cross-Channel stuff; they had a Hillyard beforehand so are not exactly speed freaks, and after the HT a Shrimper, much as I take the mickey out of that designs' limited abilities for the silly money I can see it's a fun boat.

Two things about performance...

Speed IS safety in coastal sailing; as one is by its' nature close to land with both lee shores and tidal effects, being able to make port before bad weather hits is highly preferable to sitting there like a pudding and getting clobbered.

With such shallow draught the HT has no grip on the water - yes it lets the boat slide instead of tripping and capsizing but at what cost ?

One has very little chance of beating into stiff conditions, remember the surface drift set up by a strong wind has the whole top 1 metre layer of the sea going to leeward so a Heavenly Twins would probably be in a worse position through lack of size and sail power than the square riggers of old, and they're dotted all around our coasts for divers to see.

There is the other point about being rewarding to sail; everyone I know who has ' let the head rule the heart ' and bought low performing high accomodation lumps has regretted it, I can't think of any exceptions.

Sailing will never be entirely an exercise in logic ! The boat should be enjoyable to sail and talk to the crew, at least the helmsman.

Dan when you mentioned this and catamarans you reminded me of the Dart 18 dinghy cat I had; almost certainly the fastest boat I ever owned but I was very happy to sell it on after one season; simply no feel whatsoever on the nasty helm contraption, it just went where pointed like an efficient machine, zero feel, and it didn't feel a quarter as fast as an Osprey, 505, Fireball etc where one is covered in spray and steering the boat under the rig - I had to keep reminding myself how fast we were probably going.

A right pain on the slipway and on shore too !

Dan,

a Heavenly Twins must have oodles more space than say a Contessa 32, now honestly which would light your fire ?

I would say though, if I was in some sort of Mad Max post-apocalypse situation and had to get away across an ocean I'd be quite pleased to see a Heavenly Twins, certainly more than a Catalac; I knew a very clued up owner of one of those who reckoned he had to use the leeward engine to get to windward at all and at least the HT is vaguely boat shaped...

Wharram boats make the interior of my 22' mono seem like a liner, otherwise cats do seem polarised, dodgy high speed jobs which may turn over or ultra stodgy cruising designs with all the enjoyment of being in Medeival stocks...I suppose Twister Ken summed it up, it's not economical for someone to try for a better compromise right now.
 
You've identified why they are usually slow; gross overloading. They aren't particularly fast to begin with, once you add 2 tonnes of assorted stuff you're likely to get lee bowed by a spritely glacier or a well sailed Isle of Wight. If you factor in the usual bag of knickers older cruisers tend to have in place of a suit of sails, your chance of getting any performance is low. The answer is to travel light and have sails that were made this century. My limited experience of a cat was very favourable; a Fountaine Pajot Belize 43 with 4 en-suite double cabins, a galley/saloon large enough to hold most of the London Philharmonic's brass section and a cockpit big enough for the rest of the orchestra, it went like sh*t off a teflon shovel once the wind was 80 degrees off the bow with a fully battened main(gigantic roach as there was no backstay, just heavily swept shrouds). Windward performance was fairly pedestrian though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top