Brian, I will discuss not this here but I would say that I consider that boat to be a better voyage boat than the Catalina or any other main market mass produced boat. Not my opinion only it is a consensual opinion in Europe. The boat was designed for that and perfected along many years.
The boat as designed with long range voyage in mind having as basis the more adapted hull boats forms to solo sailing, particularly in the trade winds that is where everybody travels, at least while sailing. That is pretty evident to me and the advantages are too many to list, at least in what regards my available time. The boat is extensively used for that and it is as popular for that as the several brands of aluminium boats. It is one of the very few brands that are not shrinking with the crisis but growing. That shows the interest of the ones that like voyaging for the concept.
In fact I had test sailed one (previous model) because that was really one of the boats that I was considering and in what regards storage and interior space my wife's favorite (with the Southerly 42).
I had in fact to struggle with her to choose another boat. The boast is fast and it is a performance voyage boat but it was not nervous enough for me. I mean it did not deliver that crisp feeling that a sports car deliver and that make driving or sailing truly enjoyable for me. That was the same reason why I did not consider the Jeanneau 409 (the faster performance version).
Saying all that, I would say that it would not be the ideal boat for someone that would chose to circumnavigate or voyage the wrong way, I mean against the preponderant winds but then, neither the Catalina.
Regarding going upwind with waves, both your boat and the RM are not a model of comfort but I doubt that boat would be worse than yours. What counts there is how fine are the entries and the tridimensional shape of the hull, specially the bow and frontal part. The RM even if it has a fat ass has finer entries than the Catalina :
The boat foot print, I mean will also be much smaller on the RM. These type of boats, like the shape of them or not, have a diagonal thin foot print while sailing. Looking at the footprint we would say that we are talking about a narrow boat.
Regarding being Fat, I suspect my daughter would call Fat to both
but definitively the Catalina is a lot fatter: after all we are comparing boats with the same length, one with 7400g and the other with 9299Kg, a huge difference in what regards wet surface. Non notwithstanding the much smaller RM wet area they have a similar sail area and you know what that means regarding speed.
Regarding length the Hull of the Catalina is slightly bigger (12.34 to 11.99m). They do that at RM to make sure that the boats pay in Marinas the charge for boats under 12 m but if you look at the more relevant data in what regards interior space and performance, the LWL, then things become inverted and then the RM is considerably bigger than the Catalina (11.13 to 11.68m).
Catalina Boats | 2012 Catalina Ocean Series 400mkII
Unless I could step on that boat, I would probably have a difficult time agreeing or disagreeing with you. I do not believe the Catalina is a good world-voyager. It is a great islands boat, lots of room, great storage (on this model... others do not), lots of hatches for ventilation and light. It makes a good boat for that purpose. However, she lacks many things I would look for in a long distance cruising boat. However, many of those things that I would look for are also lacking in the RM... and probably ANY 'racer-cruiser', which of course is what this whole thread was about.
I believe that every boat was designed with a purpose in mind. That makes some boats better at some things than others. Just like I wouldn't race a Tayana 42, I wouldn't cruise on a First or J122. Can you? Sure. Can you MAKE it work? Absolutely. But why MAKE it work, when there are better boats built to the purpose you are going to use them for.
In the discussion of this thread, what I have tried to point out is what I carry as a cruiser. As mentioned, some of these things are kid related, and as there are very few cruisers with kids, some of these things can be removed. However, in general, I believe that most people here will see that the things I carry are the same things they would carry on their boat. These things take up space. That space must be allotted on the boat. Racer-cruisers in general have much less storage space than the typical performance or HD cruiser (that I have ever been on). So my point was that if you are going to choose one of these boats to cruise on, you will likely have every single corner stuffed with things. You will be forced to put things that HD boats could store below the waterline, above it. You may be forced to place things in berths or in heads where they are not locked down well, will roll in a sea, and are hard to get to. All of this will not only affect the performance of your vessel, but the comfort of it as well. In the end, you may find that the racer-cruiser boat has lost many of the qualities you thought you were cruising on it for in the first place.
That was my point.
I would also like to discuss specifics or the RM boat with you if you want? I found it wanting.
First, and I have said this before: Where do you lean your back against when sailing? Laying up against the lifelines on the high side is fine for a day cruise, but my back (and I am only 41) would be killing me after a day or two at sea. And what about your butt? Do you find that acceptable? They need a foot rest in the cockpit or some place to push up against you can sit in the seats. Look at the fellows in the picture you put a link to: http://www.charles-watson.com/downlo...0RM%201260.pdf
Do either one of them look comfortable to you? THe one sitting down has to lean all the way across to the other seats, thus his back is only supported by the corner of the coaming. THe other is having to lean over behind the wheel. Now, don't get me wrong, but that would be fine for a day sail, but day(s) at sea?
Second, from the pics, I see this as a boat with very minimal storage. There is minimal storage in the staterooms, the galley, and none in the salon (except in the settes). The line drawings show a rather shallow bilge, but I have not been on the boat so am just guessing. I am not guessing about the cabinetry. As I have shown in my previous post, with specifics and exacts of what I carry, how do you make this work? I gave exact dimension that this stuff takes up, so where do you put it all?
THird: Tankage. 34 gallons is very low for fuel for cruising in my opinion. I carry about 45, plus another 20. I have 45 gallons of holding tanks. What is the holding tank of the 1260? I suspect it is minimal, like the Jenneau 409 (20 gallons). 20 gallons will not last you long. Surely you agree?
Fourth: You data on the C400 is incorrect. The LWL is 38 feet (same as the RM). I know this because I pulled a tape measure on it. The Draft is 6 feet with the wing. The engine is a 54, not a 56. The water is wrong, the holding is wrong, it only has one ice box not two, etc. There is a LOT of incorrect information on the C400 floating around the net.
Fifth: Do you like those huge portlights? They look good in the brochure, but are they a good idea for a boat that goes to sea? For example, the portlight that is sitting under the goose neck under the mast... don't you think that is a really bad idea? The large portlights running each side of the cabin top? There is no such thing as a shoe that grips wet plastic. THat stuff becomes ice when it gets wet.