SailNet Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Pearson vs Whitby Reply to Thread
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below

  Topic Review (Newest First)
01-23-2003 11:30 AM
Pearson vs Whitby

I have an Irwin 37'' cc. You can go from one end of the boat to the other with no problem. She heals 30 degrees vs a aft cockpit doing 20. (so you just reef). There is tons of room below so sail stowage is not a problem, especially if its only you and the wife. I use the bow for storage or the aft head, if necessary. One of my two lockers has the extra set of sails and oil and such. Is it a little wetter? Somewhat. Would I go with an aft cockpit? Heavens no. Just got a Cruising WOrld mag and 90% of the ads are center cockpits. Just came from the Cleveland Boat show and didn''t see a one. I like the room, convenience and design of a cc vs. and aft.
01-21-2003 08:42 AM
Pearson vs Whitby

As a Pearson 422 owner,I can report this is a fine mid-cockpit boat. There are 422''s available that are optionally sloop/cutter rigged at the owner''s whim. As for deck stowage, we''ve found a place for everything, and cut back on unnecessaries.
01-21-2003 08:42 AM
Pearson vs Whitby

As a Pearson 422 owner,I can report this is a fine mid-cockpit boat. There are 422''s available that are optionally sloop/cutter rigged at the owner''s whim. As for deck stowage, we''ve found a place for everything, and cut back on unnecessaries.
01-17-2003 01:55 PM
Pearson vs Whitby

You might want to look at a Mariner 39, if you can find any for sale. We looked at both Pearson 424s and Whitby 42s early in our boat search, we ended up buying the Mariner. It''s a VERY similar layout to the Whitby 42, except everythings just a little bit smaller (which we liked, moving up from a Tartan 30 to the 40-foot range was daunting in terms of our ability to handle a larger boat!). There are 2 companionways in the cockpit, one to the aft cabin, although there is also a walk-through (or should I say crouch-through) passageway below. Very good tankage, though much of it is under the settees, which robs storage space for long-term cruising. As previously noted, there''s a serious lack of topsides storage: one cockpit locker. I believe that''s a problem with most CC boats; everythings a trade-off!

What we REALLY liked was the underbody: a fin keel and a beefy skeg-hung rudder. We sailed a Tartan 30 before and maneuverability and accelleration can''t compare, but I suspect the difference would have been greater on a Whitby. She could use more sail, though. We''re hoping a new full-batten main instead of the hollow-roach 20-yr-old main she had will help. You can see the boat at

BTW we also looked at a Hughes/Northstar 40 (got all excited cuz its a Sparkman & Stephens design but TERRIBLE joinery work and the one we looked at was in awful shape) as well as a S&S designed Italian center cockpit ketch called an Alpa (41, I think.) That was a nice boat. Check it out if there are any on the market. Sometimes listed incorrectly as Alpha 41.

Good luck, have lots of fun on the search!
01-07-2003 01:27 PM
Pearson vs Whitby

Re: garyp''s comment, that''s a good point. I can confirm the Rasmus doesn''t have a walk-thru because we lived aboard one for 3 years. It''s cockpit was far lower than other C/C designs, meaning entrance to either cabin was only two short steps down. And the cockpit well had deep, deep coamings that, along with the hard dodger, made it very suitable for offshore work. It was also a great passagemaker.

If it wasn''t for the side galley, it would be even better.

01-06-2003 12:49 PM
Pearson vs Whitby


Coming out of a 424 cockpit, you''re nowhere near the mizzen boom, which is aft of the mast, which is aft of the companionway.

Yes, the mizzen mast stands right there in the cockpit. It provides a stout handhold when scanning the horizon, it makes a mizzen staysail possible in light airs, it''s where you can hang all your electronic goodies (radar, TV antenna, wind generator, various antenna), and it provides a foot brace when heeling. The mast is a good''s all the strings and wire that seem to encumber things!

01-06-2003 12:41 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...
01-03-2003 11:38 AM
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.
01-03-2003 02:35 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.

01-02-2003 04:47 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
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

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