SailNet Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Is the Columbia 45 Motorsailer Ocean Worthy? 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)
4 Weeks Ago 02:25 AM
Re: Is the Columbia 45 Motorsailer Ocean Worthy?

Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me! Fair winds, wish I were doing the same trip!
4 Weeks Ago 12:12 AM
Re: Is the Columbia 45 Motorsailer Ocean Worthy?

Just thought I would chime back in, in case anyone is looking here.
We have been from Puget Sound to Alaska and To Mexico so far. I have been in some of the worst weather you would be in. The High freeboard kept me pretty much dry. Yeah, we had green water all the way back to the top of my cockpit enclosure a few times.
AS far as handling? I was buzzed twice and then the USCG Chopper hovered overhead. I came back out on deck and called them to ask what is the issue. They said 'they' Didn't see anyone on deck and that the Warnings to Mariners was in effect for Gale Force Conditions' I told them I was below making a sandwich. they laughed. I was. Well, their warning of 'Only Well Found Boats properly equipped and Seasoned Mariners' should be out in that weather. I am just average and my boat is a good sturdy boat. I learned that in SE Alaska / British Columbia during a very bad storm off shore. I finally just headed to a bay under my smallest headsail alone at an average of 10 knots. I will tell you that the winds were above 40 knots sustained. Seas were... Let's see, 53 inches waterline to deck, cockpit enclosure is 80" above the deck, and while in the trough, I could not see over the crests of the waves. BTW, My engine was inop during this run. I anchored at approximately 10 - 11 knots and 'club hauled ' it to a stop with 300' of chain and 200' of line. Secured everything, set anchor watch alarms. settled down to about 18 hours of sleep without waking but a few times.
Did a wing on wing A-Sym and main run for 21 hours straight without an issue. Sailed flat and smooth.
I single hand it in and out of very tight places, anchor in 5' seas and 35 knots wind,(yes alone) sail it for days with simple autopilot assistance.
There it is. We are in Mexico now and getting everything ready to circumnavigate S America by way of Cape Horn starting Spring 2017.
01-22-2012 11:47 PM
LookoutNW Sitting here in the Nav station / office now, in warm, dry comfort. Thinking of a nice cup of tea in less than 2 min...
01-21-2012 09:17 PM
columbia 45

Hi NW Do you still have this boat?
09-27-2011 12:36 AM
LookoutNW Give me a hollar. I have one in Olympia and have modified it alot for cruising. Mine was actually a Sailcrafter and had a lot of mods done that columbia didn't do. The man who built mine and a few others took his offshore to Haweaii and back. Freeboard on any boat is an issue offshore. Wind hits ait and waves smash it. But high flush decks don't swamp the cockpit, and flood below decks either. Large windows covered in 3/8 + lexan or 1/2 ply, removeable when coastal is an option. I am going with the Lexan. Being that I spent time as a lad doing deliveries on the east coast US, I have added much interior cabinet and such to the vast amount of open areas. Offshore you will fall a long ways unless you have something to stop you. You hope that what stops you will not Kill, maim, or break you. Think accordingly. My list goes on and on. As with any boat there wil always be shortcomings. Knowing these and adapting for a better outcome, i.e. being prepared, is key. You can come on down and see mine if you want. Swantown, Oly F37
09-08-2011 09:31 AM
JulieMor I know this is late and maybe doesn't matter anymore but I just joined and saw this. My dad had a 1975 Columbia 45 that he bought in 1977 and kept until he passed in 1996. I logged thousands of miles on it and it was the boat many people sailed for the first time, so it took a beating.

Based on what I'm reading here, this boat should have been built in 1973 (maybe it was and my memory is fading) because this thing was built like a tank. But it was slowwwww, especially in light air.

What it lacked in speed it made up in comfort. Huge aft cabin with private head and separate shower, great headroom in the main saloon, air conditioning and comfy seating and sleeping. I slept like a rock on that boat.

We took it the 330+ miles up and down Lake Michigan many times and we hit some very rough conditions. The worst was a steady 30 knot wind out of the north that brought 12 foot seas. One time we pounded into 5 footers, motor on, for 15 hours to meet my dad. The boat held up, I was beat.

Due to its short mast, we hardly ever had to shorten sail. You could get 6-7 knots out of it in good wind, if you're heading in the right direction.

I can't remember any leaks. We never had a catastrophic failure. We bounced off rocks more times than I care to admit. My dad beached it in the Bahamas once. And he wasn't the greatest when it came to regular maintenance.

For what my dad wanted, it was perfect, a boat that had creature comforts and could take a beating. But if I was looking for a world cruiser, I'd look elsewhere.
12-23-2010 05:38 PM
souljour2000 Well, there you go...I was playing devil's advocate and hoped Jeff or others with more knowledge would chime in. I agree there is alot of freeboard and a very chunky bow ...thgis would be good for the Mediterranean or as a bareboat in the islands . MOTION COMFORT rating of 40 points though...that's pretty darn high as far as production boats go...if those numbers again are right...and even if they are I am sure there are some types of sea state situations where those numbers don't mean squat but I don't know what they are....
12-23-2010 12:52 PM
Jeff_H Judging by your Nom d' board, your goal is distance 'bluewater voyaging'. If that is a reasonable assumption, then this is a really poor choice. I know these boats pretty well, and would suggest that in no way would these be a good choice as an offshore cruiser. It was not the use for which they were designed and this design has a number of design items which would make them a very poor choice for offshore use.

In a broad general sense, ideally, when you talk about a boat for offshore use, you want a boat which is robustly constructed, which has a comparatively comfortable motion, and which also has comparatively small deck openings. You want a boat that is easy to move about on during rough going, which has sturdy interior appointments, lots of handholds and which has sturdy, securable storage areas. Offshore, you want the steering station and cockpit located where it minimizes motion in order to minimize wear and tear on the crew. And in the kinds of large waves encountered offshore, you want a boat with a high stability, and low vertical center of gravity.

In other words, if you are planning on going offshore , then you want something that is the anti-thesis of this boat.

To address the discussion above, by the time that these boats were built, Columbia was in financial trouble, they were cheapening the build quality of their boats hoping to remain competative in the marketplace. (I see that SoulJour deleted the reference to the second oil embargo but) To keep the history even slightly accurate, In January of 1973, during the Nixon Administration, the stock market had crashed and pretty much all of the major US boat builders were hurting. OPEC had found its legs and 1973 was the heart of the first oil crisis, the one that impacted the formulation of polyester resin and which created a market for power boats with sails such as the Columbia 45.

It was during this period that there was a near marine industry wide, or at least in the value oriented portion of the marine industry, reduction in build quality and Columbia (think of them as the Hunter of the day) was at the forefront of this corner cutting. The basic hull form of this boat was adapted from an earlier design, but the hull lay-up schedule (thickness and choice of materials) was lightened greatly. (BTW 1" is a very thin hull thickness for a boat of this size and weight) This was before the period when material handling techniques improved, and before internal framing became the norm. What this means is a boat that which really flexes noticably in a seaway and that kind of flexure will weaken fiberglass greatly over a perid of time. (The one that I knew flexed so much that you could not close door to the head on a starboard tack.)

The hull to deck joint on these boats was especially vulnerable damage to failure over time. This boat has the classic hatbox style joint, and this type of joint was a notoriously poor choice. There was an earlier thread discussing one of these boats (not the motorsailor version), which was being restored. The owner was trying to figure out how to repair this type of deck joint once it failed as it had on his.

As the OP already acknowledged the large openings make this boat quite vulnerable in seaway, and if your intended use meant offshore passagemaking, then the large openings should be glassed shut, the cabin sides reinforced and smaller, heavier duty portlights installed.

Numbers aside, there is always a discussion about what makes a boat which can be taken offshore vs one that is ideal or even safe to take offshore. This is a classic case where the numbers are grossly misleading. These boats were real rollers. This is espcially true of the shoal draft versions with their deep canoe bodies, round hull sections, and low density iron ballasted fins. This model were also prone to more pitching in a chop than a more moderate model and their full bows threw a lot of water and were particular uncomfortable coliding with waves, exspecially for a boat this big. The deck layout with its high steering station, amplified this uncomfortable motion making moving about ,or even simply sitting, more tiring on the crew and more likely to induce seasickness (See the discussion on the Sinking of Rule 62 since the discussion of crew comfort applies in spades in this case).

If you are taking a boat offshore, the interior layout and details should meet a certain minimal requirement in terms of seaberths, handholds, footholds, proper seacocks and plumbing layout, securable storage, ground tackle storage and so on. While individual owners may have upgraded any indvidual version of this boat, as they left the factory, there was no attempt to produce an offshore suitable layout.

Although this is a side issue, it is silly to say that the Columbia 45 is only .3 knots slower than a Beneteau. Whatever vitues and liabilities may come with either design, Under PHRF the Beneteau 44.7 rates 143 seconds a mile faster (31 vs 174). In real life that translates to an enormous speed difference, especially in lighter or heavier wind speed ranges. On a heavy air reach, the Beneteau can cover the same difference in half the time, and in lighter air the Beneteau can sail at close to hull speed when the Columbia is stuck motoring. But if offshore voyaging is your goal, I would not recommend a 44.7 either.

In the end the Columbia 45 motorsailors boats make great comparatively cheap live-aboards. They are okay in protected waters as long as their is a breeze. There are lots of great, inexpensive boats that can be taken offshore, and there are even more mediocre boats capable of making occasional offshore passages, but this design fits in neither category. So while SoulJour may be right that this is a good boat to sail into Vahalla, its a poor choice to sail offshore.

12-23-2010 09:13 AM
souljour2000 yeah..I agree...noticed that and thought it was strange...I will try to see if I can find what the correct number is...I know you have to be careful with these numbers in these types of websites..
12-23-2010 08:43 AM
Something is off with these numbers

Originally Posted by souljour2000 View Post
Sail Area Beneteau First 44.7
Columbia 45
Why is the sail area for the Bene only 11.7983? I think this is throwing off the other comparisons.
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 Off

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