…and Two More Pilothouse-Type Cruisers
Issue 147: Nov/Dec 2022
The Nauticat 40 represents a direction in yacht design that leans much more to creature comfort than to offshore performance. Despite that, she is certainly more sailer than motorsailer, yet still offers a light and airy interior that incorporates inside steering to keep you out of the elements.
In “Defining a Pilothouse” (September/October 2013), I addressed the subject of doghouses, raised saloons, fixed dodgers, and pilothouses. Based on the definitions that article established, the Nauticat 40 certainly falls into the pilothouse category.
One typical problem in most tall pilothouse configurations is reduced forward visibility from the cockpit. The Nauticat 40’s Sparkman & Stephens designers have solved this by raising the cockpit sole to such a height as to easily see over the pilothouse (if this were a powerboat, I’d be tempted to call such a configuration a flybridge). Below, this arrangement also allows for a roomy, full-height, aft cabin.
Reduced forward visibility from the cockpit is evident in the profile of the Pacific Seacraft 40 which, like the Nauticat 40, has an inside and outside steering station, but the Pacific Seacraft maintains the standard aft cockpit configuration. The Gulfstar 39, on the other hand, gets around the problem of reduced forward visibility by maintaining a much lower height to her pilothouse which, as defined in the above-mentioned article, is really a raised saloon with no inside steering.
All three of these boats sport almost identical modern cruising underbodies with separate keel and rudder, and each incorporates the slightly more conservative skeg on the rudder. The Nauticat, however, is the only one that attempts to add balance to the rudder with the lower section projecting forward of the rudder shaft in the form of a horn. The Pacific Seacraft is the only one to retain the prop-in-aperture configuration that would have been the norm in most full-length keels.
Looking at the numbers, there is one anomaly that stands out immediately—the 30,865 pounds published displacement of the Nauticat 40, compared to 19,000- pound displacement of the Gulfstar and the 24,500-pound displacement of the Pacific Seacraft. When deducting the ballast weight from the total displacement, you arrive at what we used to call at C&C the “everything else” weight of the boat, which in the case of the Nauticat would be about 22,000 pounds, versus about 11,000 for the Gulfstar and about 15,700 for the Pacific Seacraft.
Granted, the Nauticat has a more sumptuous aft cabin than the other two boats, but considering that each boat has about the same engine and similar mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and similar interior woodwork and deck hardware as well as spars and rigging, the only variable— other than the aft cabin—is the lamination weight of the hull and deck. Can those differences really amount to an over 6,000-pound difference between the Nauticat and the Pacific Seacraft and a whopping 11,000-pound difference to the Gulfstar? I’m at a loss to explain that discrepancy.
The rigs of all three boats are very similar, embodying the attributes of the modern cutter, with large “J” measurements, mast stepped well aft, fixed staysail stay, masthead rig, and in the case of the Nauticat and Pacific Seacraft, fixed bowsprits.
That heavier displacement of the Nauticat results in an extremely high displacement/ length waterline ratio of 390, a very low ballast/displacement ratio of 29%, and an anemic sail area/displacement ratio of 12.9. The displacement/length waterline ratio of the Gulfstar comes in at a very competitive 249, while it is also on the high side for the Pacific Seacraft at 358. Ballast/displacement ratios are also more reasonable at 43% and 36%, respectively, and sail area/displacement ratios also fall more in the norm for boats of this type at 15.3 and 15.8, respectively.
Capsize numbers are consistent for each boat, well under the threshold of 2. It is interesting to note that the Nauticat’s heavier displacement is offset by her greater beam to result in a capsize number equal or similar to the other two lighter but narrower boats. That heavy displacement certainly comes to the fore in the exceptionally high comfort ratio of 45 compared to 31 for the lightest displacement Gulfstar and 38 for the intermediate displacement Pacific Seacraft.
Many older monohull sailboats have cave-like interiors; these three boats work to avoid that by bringing more light below and creating eye-level visibility outward. Modern boats try to achieve the same effect by placing large, fixed ports in the hull sides, and while that helps, it does not achieve what these three boats do in that regard.
All three are good examples of different approaches to the same challenge of belowdecks livability on cruising sailboats.
Good Old Boat Technical Editor Rob Mazza is a mechanical engineer and naval architect. He began his career in the 1960s as a yacht designer with C&C Yachts and Mark Ellis Design in Canada, and later Hunter Marine in the U.S. He also worked in sales and marketing of structural cores and bonding compounds with ATC Chemicals in Ontario and Baltek in New Jersey.
Thank you to Sailrite Enterprises, Inc., for providing free access to back issues of Good Old Boat through intellectual property rights. Sailrite.com
