SailNet Community

SailNet Community (
-   Boat Review and Purchase Forum (
-   -   Pearson vs Whitby (

aphil138 12-30-2002 06:06 AM

Pearson vs Whitby
Opinions needed:
Pearson 422 (1985) vs. Whitby 42 (1978)
Same age, around the same price....
Not sure how much "Off-shore" I am going to do but may want the option. Tough choice?

WHOOSH 12-30-2002 04:00 PM

Pearson vs Whitby

The 7 years newer age of the 422 will gain you something (if use is similar between the boats; hours on the engine & V-drive, perhaps some of the original systems that are still alive & well) but the Whitby''s age is a good thing given the direction quality went in Hansen''s operation in the 80''s. Both these boats strike me a bit as ''Whales'' in appearance, with large ''hull sails'' offshore, shallow drafts (relatively speaking), and not much maneuverability around docks & slips in the case of the Whitby. I''m assuming the 422 is a cutter (you didn''t say) vs. Whitby''s ketch rig, so you may have some preferences there you should honor. Personally, I find the cutter rig too often praised by those who haven''t lived with one long-term, while ketches are so passe'' these days, most folks have never experienced them and thoughtful comment is therefore hard to come by. The cutter rig will be easier to live with and handle for coastal cruising IMO but I very much like being able to add or subtract sail area relatively easily on my Pearson 424 ketch. I have not worked on a Whitby extensively; my superficial impression is that construction of these boats is pretty basic, adequate and similar in nature. An exception worth noting is that the Whitby comes by its larger tankage as a result of just capping the keel cavity; these boats later would pop the ''covers'' on these integral tanks as the hull worked hard and resealing them was a chore. Pearson by contrast built in heavy glass tanks with conventional plumbing systems.

You may be in that intermediate zone where a given boat''s equipment, level of care & maintenance, convenience of location for moving her home, and/or your personal tastes vs. how the boat is fitted out should be weighed more heavily than when the choices are much more distinct. Either way, good luck!


aphil138 12-31-2002 04:52 AM

Pearson vs Whitby
Thanks for you reply.
Ive been sailing on Lake Ontario for the last 25 yrs, the last 10 on a Catalina 30. I am planning on retiring in the 5-6 years and would like to start cruising South.
I''ve narrowed my choices for the next boat down to at least a center cockpit, mostly for the large amount of living space and tankage you seem to get with that kind of design. Cutter rig, ketch rig maybe if the rest of the boat fit my needs. I guess I am not that picky yet. I know that there will be some compromises when it comes to shape of hull in terms of performance and windage etc.
I am not sure about the keel thing, although I know I will need something I can use in the islands. I will miss the manuverability of the fin like I have now, so maybe some kind of modified full keel may be the best compromise. I would like the option of doing some "offshore" work and have some level of comfort. Sailboats is always a compromise.
The amount of equipment a given boat comes with, although the more the better, is not so much of a consideration given that I would rather put my own in rather than be a slave to someone elses cob job. A sound boat that is constructed well is more of a desire.
Location.... well I guess that depends on how "good" a deal and how blinded I get when I fall in love with my next boat.
Any other opinions for boats are always welsome,

WHOOSH 12-31-2002 12:35 PM

Pearson vs Whitby

"Any other opinions for boats are always welcome..."

I would recommend you look at a Pearson 424 ketch or cutter. I say this out of bias, of course, because the lines please me and I see no offsetting benefits in the center cockpit version of the 422/424''s hull & extended fin/full skeg rudder. I remain unconvinced that center cockpit boats give "more privacy". On larger boats, maybe...but not in the 35-40'' range (at least in my view). The difference between our aft & forward cabins - with their visual and distance separation - isn''t that different from a huge dent being inbetween them, as in the 422.

Tanks are either under settes, under the V-berth and/or below the cabin sole. Nothing in a center cockpit design contributes to tankage, that I can see.


aphil138 01-01-2003 05:12 AM

Pearson vs Whitby
I had looked at the 424 and I liked the boat. The only thing I can say that turned me off was the 2nd Companionway that came down into the salon... or am I mistaken..
I would think if I get off this center cockpit thing.... that plenty of boats might fit my desires.

WHOOSH 01-02-2003 02:44 AM

Pearson vs Whitby

Yes, stepping away from a ''center cockpit only'' criterion will allow you to consider many more designs, with some of them perhaps matching more of your other criteria than the c/c designs, within your budget. But I find that, psycologically speaking, folks often zero in on the c/c issue as a ''must have'' rather than including it in their ''Top Ten'' list of features and then judging each available, affordable boat comparably. (The whole c/c preference issue is full of opinion, pro & con. We do extended cruising, where we find many disadvantages to a c/c design - after owning & cruising offshore in both - but this isn''t how most folks use their boats).

Yes, the 424 has a 2nd, main cabin companionway/ladder - it''s one of the most functional features of the boat IMO but we recognize that many are turned off by it because they see it so rarely. Imagine servicing the engine or other aux. items(under the aft companionway) - how does the crew exit the cabin? When pulled into a slip, would you like 2 ways vs. only 1 to minimize exiting/entry between finger pier & boat, depending on whether you''re bow in or stern in? (When weekending, this is less important; when living aboard or long-term cruising, it''s amazing how much easier this makes things). When transfering provisions from the dink to the boat, what''s easier - passing them straight down a companionway next to the galley, or first to an aft cockpit, then forward? (In this case, it makes a 424 as easy to work with as a c/c design). With guests, wouldn''t it be nice for folks in both the forward and after berthing compartments to have equal access to the galley, head and to go topsides, without passing thru the other crews'' sleeping cabin?

IOE the downsides of the mid-companionway are 1) source of water dribbling into the boat thru the hatch when offshore in rough weather (we''ve found ways to eliminate this but it takes a little effort intially), and 2) it''s non-functional offshore (this isn''t a disadvantage, just a non-advantage). But as I said, it''s become an acquired taste for us while initially appearing strange or surprising to others.


aphil138 01-02-2003 05:47 AM

Pearson vs Whitby
I am interested in more of the disadvandages about the c/c design for extended passages. I know in my head and heart that this is what I would like to do, so I need to make my plans and boat fit. The first 5-7 years I''ll just be doing the Lake Ontario weekend or 2 - 3 week cruises. It''s the next adventure I want to be planning for. I do have my eye on a 422 that fits the budget but will need some work and upgrades.
I appreciate you candid comments and would like to hear more

WHOOSH 01-03-2003 03:35 AM

Pearson vs Whitby
Alan, I''ve not used the archive search function on this BB but you might give it a whirl since C/C design & function has been discussed here before.

Some folks simply love a C/C design. They like the better view of the bow when docking (altho'' it puts the helmsman distant from ALL the docking lines, not much of a help when short-handed), they like sitting ''up'' (a bit more distant from the wind-blown waves and ''the wet''), they like the perceived privacy that a cockpit well provides down below - at least visually - to the boat''s interior (tho'' distance hasn''t changed an iota and we all host fewer night-time guests than we imagine when selecting a boat), and a C/C deck plan accommodates ketch/yawl rigs better as the strings & wires don''t encroach on the cockpit nor do the spars (altho'' split rigs are considered a bit like the buggy-whip today). Another somewhat bizarre preference to my mind is the desire many of us have for two heads in a 40'' +/- boat, as if we have more space than we need or can use but fewer systems to maintain than we''d like. For those with this inclination, a C/C design provides for a walk-thru on one side of the well while the other can be used for a 2nd ("master") head. I''m sure I''m missing some of the other benefits, subjective or objective, but these are what pop to mind.

For long-term cruising and offshore sailing, here are some ways in which I find the C/C design undesireable (at least, relatively speaking). Of course, there are great cruising boats with a C/C (or derivation thereof) deck plan and I don''t see this as a blanket condemnation...but I think all these points apply in the 35-40'' range:
1. Motion sickness is induced far more by roll than pitch, yet perched up higher and more near the center of the boat, a C/C design invites higher acceleration and more roll motion than further aft and down lower. Moreover, it tires the crew more since they must hang on/brace/work against more motion. And when the crew eventually has to go calling ''Ralph''...?
2. Further forward, the crew struggles more to see under the genoa when maintaining watch, is closer to the bow wave and deck spray - C/C deck plans offer by their nature a wetter cockpit - and therefore require a more elaborate cockpit dodger/enclosure (expense, windage).
3. Along with the taller, likely to be bigger/more extended enclosure, we have the hull/deck profile itself - taller in cross-section in order to provide passageway space past the cockpit well when moving between the cabins. Truth be told, we (long-term cruisers) all tend to overload our boats over time, including lots of stuff on the deck, tied to the lifelines, suspended from arches & poles back aft, attached to the spars, and more. As a result, we incrementally - and usually without noticing it - degrade boat performance under sail, and most especially in lighter winds and when sailing to windward. In truth, most cruisers avoid higher latitude sailing and seek temperate climates, which means more often sailing in variable conditions. Throw in a spate of bad fuel and you can quickly find a poor performing boat means you get to enjoy the benefits of remaining offshore an extra day or two when you''d rather have made it to your destination. But just in general, we all enjoy sailing a boat that''s more responsive and handles less like a pig. A C/C deck plan works against this, especially so as boat size goes below 40''. You''ll notice I haven''t even touched on the behavior of such a burdened boat at anchor (which is where you normally reside when cruising), especially in a frontal blow or when a squall rips thru the anchorage.
4. Where does the "stuff" go? We have 3 huge cockpit lockers on our 424 and they are mostly full when offshore. But then, we carry almost no jugs on deck (small gasoline jugs are the exception, for safety reasons), have no cabin or berth encumbered by gear nor settee/quarterberth cushion loaded up with "stuff", carry multiple emergency rations of water and diesel, and enjoy having storage space for all the extra rodes, anchors, big fenders & dock lines, offshore raft (not baking out on deck, where the crew would least like to go if the vessel is in distress) and ditch bag, folding bikes, awnings and the 101 other things used over time when away. (What was I saying about overloading our boats...?) C/C plans provide little such storage space simply because much of it is consumed by a passageway and 2nd head (or workshop, one of the best reasons FOR a C/C design).

There are other reasons for my view and of course, there are alternative views which are equally strongly held. In the end, it''s what you & your crew find most important for you and your cruising plans that matters, not what someone else (on this BB or at a boat show) *claims* you should believe. Hope this helps, if only a little.


garyp 01-03-2003 12:38 PM

Pearson vs Whitby
One type of center cockpit boat you have left out of your comments is those with no below decks passage between fore and aft cabins, allowing a much lower hull profile. Examples would be the Dickerson 36 and the HR Rasmus. (I have never been aboard a Rasmus, but believe I am correct.) I feel this design compromise creates much more successful center cockpit boat in the under 40'' range.
Just my two bits.

aphil138 01-06-2003 01:41 PM

Pearson vs Whitby
I did some web surfing in the last few days and have been checking out the Pearson 422 vs the 424. I have 2 questions one for 424 owners and one for 422 owners....or Center Cockpit owners.
1. If there are no cockpit/sail lockers on a center cocpit boat.... where do you put all your "stuff".
2. Ketch rigged boats.... I can see me coming out of the compaionway and bumping my head on the mizzen. How do you deal with it in the center of the cockpit, esp when entertaining? It sure has to have a lot of redeeming values...

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) LLC 2000-2012

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome