Why compare these three and not any of the other 38ft on the market? Well, among this size of boats and in what regards cheaper mass-produced boats the Sun-Odyssey 380 is the less "fat" among all other offers in the category, and the one with the best all-around performance, and the Salona 39 and Dehler 38 are the less expensive performance cruisers, the ones closer as an option for someone that is considering a Sun Odyssey (that is not a performance cruiser).
SO 380
The other mass production sailboats that compete with the SO are the Oceanis 38.1, with a 3.99m beam (10.73 LWL), the Dufour 390, 3.99 beam (10.50 LWL), the Hanse 398, 3.90 beam (10.40m LWL) and the Bavaria C38, 3.98 beam (10.27 LWL). The Jeanneau SO 380 stands out as a different sailboat with a smaller beam (3.76m) and a bigger LWL (10.71m).
The Jeanneau SO 380 has a similar beam if compared with the two performance cruisers we are considering, 3.75m for the Dehler and 3.72m for the Salona, having a bigger waterline due to its inverted bow. The Dehler has a 10.40 LWL, the Salona 10.01m, the Jeanneau 10.70 (and this on a 10.77 hull length!), while the Dehler has 11.30 HL and the Salona 11.60.
Above Dehler 38SQ Below, Salona 380 (same hull as the 39)
All of them come with an integrated bowsprit and have a LOA of near 12m. The Jeanneau displaces 6896kg, the Dehler 7500 (or 7000kg optionally) and the Salona 6200kg. But even if the hulls and displacements are not very different there are other major aspects that explain the price difference and why the Dehler and the Salona are overall faster boats and better-built ones. We can start with B/D and draft, which, because the hulls are not very different, will tell you a lot about the power differential.
The SO 380 has a cast L iron keel with a torpedo with 2.00m draft and a 26.2% BD. On the Dehler, the standard keel is an L bulbed cast iron one with a 2.03m draft and a 31.7%B/D. They offer also a performance keel that they call "competition", with a lead torpedo, 2.24m draft, and a 29.3%B/D (7000kg displacement). The Salona 39 is the only one that comes standard with a lead torpedo, with a 2.15m draft and 35.6%B/D. It has as option a better performance keel with 2.25m draft.
SO 380
A clear advantage in power to the Salona, in what regards standard versions, with the Dehler needing to have an expensive nonstandard keel to come close. The SO 380 is clearly less powerful and slower. The situation where the SO 380 would lose less would be in light wind sailing where the difference in B/D is less important.
But having a similar beam is not all in what concerns drag and we can see that the forward sections of the Dehler and the Salona are much narrower than the ones of the SO 380, offering less drag and the same can be said from the stern, that is designed to offer the bigger possible interior space, even if it has also the advantage of limiting heel, making sailing downwind easier.
Dehler 39SQ
Now, before disliking the SO remember that it is the fastest of the mass production boats with its size and it costs less than the Dehler or the Salona, offering more interior space. This difference in price is due not only because the lesser B/D allows having a less strong structure and because it is an all bonded boat using a monolithic hull, built using a hand-laid method and polyester resins.
This means that for the same weight a boat built this way is less strong and less rigid than one built with better materials and superior and more expensive building techniques; also in what regards sailing hardware for having perfect control of the shape of the sails and for easy handling, the sailing hardware from the Dehler or the Salona is not only of better quality but much more complete.
Salona 380 (same hull as the 39)
Even so, the SO is a step ahead of the Oceanis because the structure is made with an infused fiberglass inner liner, with easy access to frame if a grounding happens, and with relamination in stays attachment areas. Better than the Oceanis but not comparable in quality or resistance with the hull and structure of the Dehler or the Salona.
The Dehler uses a composite hull sandwich using balsa as core, vinylester on the first layer, and then polyester resins (they have an option for full vinylester resins), with hand-laid fabric, and use a carbon-reinforced structure for the hull. Bulkheads are like the ones of the Jeanneau made in marine-grade plywood. The bulkheads on the Salona are not only bonded but glassed to the hull and inner structure. Salona is the only one that uses laminated floorboards.
SO 380, below Dehler 39SQ
The Salona goes one step further and uses vacuum injection, not only on the deck (like Jeanneau and Dehler) but also on the hull, using only vinylester resins on a sandwich hull with foam core. It uses also as structure a very strong galvanized steel grid where the keel and shrouds are attached, having the hull in that area carbon reinforcements. Very few boats offer a watertight aft bulkhead and the Salona is one of them, offering also a watertight bow bulkhead (more common).
The watertight aft bulkhead is rare, even in very expensive yachts, and they are very important to safety, preventing a boat from sinking if a huge shock on the rudder breaks the hull at the insertion point. That is responsible for the sinking of many yachts and I believe that was what happened recently in an X4.9 that was doing the January ARC. Besides all that, if you really have a real stiff and lighter boat you have a not very expensive option for full carbon sandwich bulkheads.
Salona 380 (same hull as the 39)
Regarding sail hardware, the Jeanneau comes with a deck-stepped mast, without a genoa traveler, a mainsail traveler or a backstay (they are not optional), with one 35.2 winch and two 40.2, with an option for another 35.2 (over the cabin). The Dehler comes with a keel-stepped mast, four 40 winches and two 45, it comes with genoa and mainsail travelers and a manual tensioner backstay with an option for a hydraulic one as well as an option for bigger winches or carbon spars.
I believe all will understand the importance of travelers, more winches, bigger winches, backstay and backstay tensioner, to sail trim and easier control, but I believe many will not know why a keel-stepped mast is safer and better for cruising. Here you have a good explanation:
The Salona 39 comes standard with a keel-stepped mast, with genoa and mainsail traveler, four 40.2 winches, two 46.2, a manual cascade tensioner backstay, with an option for bigger winches, a hydraulic backstay, carbon spars and some of these options are not expensive, compared to what they offer.
We have already looked at stiffness (power to carry sails), let's look now at the sail area to explore that sail power. I would not use as measure SA/D, because even if the boats have a similar displacement, the Dehler and Salona have much finer entries, and less full transoms, developing less drag.
,Dehler 39SQ
Because the Jeanneau hull is considerably different it would not be fair to consider a linear relation between drag and displacement not taking into account those hull differences that generate drag, so I choose to post the sail areas and you will know that the Jeanneau develops more drag than the other two, that the Salona is the lighter boat and that only with the optional keel and infused hull options the Dehler will be near the SO 380 displacement.
Salona 39
The SO 380 with a small genoa has a 63,4 m2 sail area, the Dehler can have two different sized masts, depending on the keel, and can have 77.9m2 or 84.5m2 as sail area and the lighter Salona has 80m2. I would say that only with the optional taller mast and the deeper keel the Dehler will have performances close to the Salona ones and that the SO 380 will always be slower, even in light wind, for the same sail area.
SO 380
The bigger difference in sail performance between the SO 380 and the other two boats will be in medium to stronger winds, beam reaching, and upwind where the much bigger B/D of the two other boats will give them much more power.
However the SO 380 has the possibility of having something that the two other boats don't offer, an option for a swing keel with all the weight in the keel, that will not give it a better sail performance but will allow the boat to enter any port or to look for shelter near the shore.
Dehler 38SQ
The swing keel is an expensive option, but for sailing in the Bahamas, or in places where the tides are big can be a must because the draft with the keel up is only 1.32m while it has 2.70m as sailing draft. Some will think that due to the bigger draft this keel will increase performance over the standard keel, but the performance should be very similar, due to the torpedo and smaller drag on the other keel, but mostly because the ballast on this one is smaller than on the standard keel (1607kg to 1810).
Salona 39
In the standard configuration, the Salona 39 is not only the fastest of the three but also the one that is built with the best techniques and best materials, and probably the one that represents the best value for the money, however, I should say that while Jeanneau and Dehler (supported by Hanse) have not experienced deep troubles on the last decade, Salona has experienced problems some years ago and as result times of deliveries were not fulfilled and the quality lowered.
Typical Jeanneau structure with an integral liner (bigger boat)
But already for some years now the company has been recuperating under new management and has remained stable. Hard times seem to be behind, the quality improved, new models were launched, and I have no knowledge of recent complaints or problems. If you want to know more about all this you can read it here:
Anyway, if I would buy one, just to be sure, I would use the services of a very good independent naval engineer that lives near the factory (works for Bavaria, More and other companies) and can survey all important stages of the building, assuring that all is properly made and that you end up not only with a boat built with top materials and techniques but also with a boat without any problem.
Dehler 38SQ building
Note that in all brands sometimes problems happen, and because workers are not interested in saying that they have done something wrong, they are not reported and some escape supervision.
There is supervision but if someone wants to disguise the error, sometimes it passes unnoticed and gives origin to a defective product. I have knowledge of cases in almost all brands, even very expensive ones, they are rare, but sometimes they happen and they can be prevented if a boat has superior independent building supervision.
Salona 39 building
Very expensive big luxury yachts are built normally with external supervision to warrant this is avoided, but on less expensive yachts it is rare, because the price of such supervision is expensive, if compared with the boat price. In this case, because the engineer lives near the factory, it is not the case, even for a 38ft boat, that would cost about the same as a good quality mainsail, and that is not much to be sure everything was done the right way.
Regarding interiors, Dehler and Salona have a bit better quality ones, but the quality of materials and finish is one thing, another is styling, and in what concerns that, it is a question of taste: the Jeanneau has an airy modern nice looking interior, but it offers little storage in the saloon and the open galley cabinets are open and not practical unless you never go hard against the wind.
Salona 39
It offers 4 interior layouts, some of them for charter but two interesting ones for cruising, with 2 good cabins, a good storage space, and one or two heads, one of them with a separate shower. The relatively spacious front cabin, incredibly can have a small head without making the "bed" smaller.
That it is only possible due to the fat bow entries, that with medium or strong winds will not diminish significantly downwind or beam reaching performance but that will make the boat slower (in all points of sail) in weaker winds or upwind, making it also less comfortable upwind with waves (increased slamming). That is a trade-off that you can accept as positive, or the opposite, depending on how you value sailing performance over interior comfort and space. You can have a virtual visit here:
The Dehler 38SQ has a very particular modern interior, that you will love or hate, and it has the advantage of being different from any other sailboat. The new version (SQ) is much nicer than the previous ones due to the lighter wood and color schemes. It seems to me that they took time to get it right, but the result now is very nice.
The galley and saloon have incomparably more storage than what is offered in the Jeanneau (and storage is very important on a small boat). There are two layouts one with a three-cabin other with two-cabin, offering on both a spacious head with a separate cabin shower, a good aft cabin (and a smaller one on the 3 cabin version) and a forward cabin that without being small for a boat of this size is considerably smaller than the one of the Jeanneau. The storage with the two cabin layout is suitable for long-range cruising. You can have a virtual visit here:
The Salona 39 has the same hull as the 380, a modern hull with fine entries with a slightly rounded bow, now with an integrated bowsprit, a redesigned cabin and bigger through the hull ports, that allow now a nicer view to the exterior.
Dehler 39SQ
The interior is the more traditional of the three, it is pleasant and offers the best storage in what regards cabinets in the galley and saloon. Like the Dehler, it offers a two-cabin layout (with an option for three cabins) being the more interesting the one that offers a separate shower cabinet (optional). The forward cabin is in size similar to the one on the Dehler, but the aft one (on the two cabin version) is slightly bigger due to smaller storage space.
Salona 39
No virtual visit is available, but because the interior is practically the same used on the 380, you can have a good idea of how it will be, in this video (3 cabin layout).
As to tankage, the Sun Odyssey offers 330L as water tankage and a 130L diesel tank. A very good tankage for cruising but one that is certainly not good for sailing, because the big water tank is below the forward berth and when full it will have certainly a big impact on the sailing performance and on the way the boat will behave in waves. Add that weight to the one of the chain and you will have a lot of weight on the frontal boat sections.
SO 380
The same can be said about the Dehler which has a slightly smaller water tank in the same place (295L) and a diesel tank with 160L. The Salona has a smaller tankage but a much better weight distribution, having the two main tanks below the two aft berths, one on each side, water 180L and fuel 100L. It can have an additional water tank with 90L in the middle of the boat, behind the saloon seat. The localization of the Salona tanks are on areas where the hull has much more buoyancy (than near the bow) and will affect much less the behavior of the boat, either full or almost empty.
Regarding motorization they all offer as standard a 29hp engine, saildrive on the Dehler and Salona. Jeanneau uses shaft drive offering also a 40hp engine option, which is not referred as possible on any of the other two boats. Regarding the vantages and disadvantages of a shaft drive over a sail drive, here you find a good summary:
The Salona is the only one that proposes an electric motor with 15kw (more than usual), an expensive option (about 30 000 €) that can be an interesting option for the ones that sail from marina to marina.
If that is not the case, I would say a generator should be added and that would turn that solution into a more expensive solution, but the electric engine includes already a hydrogenerator and with an adequate solar panel pack you will waste a lot less diesel and will have plenty of electric energy for living aboard. My wife would like that: electric energy for everything.
Prices are another thing that separates the SO 380 from the other two sailboats, this time in a positive way: the Jeanneau will cost at the factory standard without taxes 147 185 €, the Dehler 38SQ costs 203 900 € and the Salona 39 costs 204 000 €. The prices are merely indicative and may be slightly outdated.
Take into account that for having the Jeanneau with a closer performance to the other boats you will have to buy the performance pack, which will increase the base price, and even so the sail hardware and the sail performance will remain considerably inferior to the slower of the other two, the standard Dehler.
Salona 39
For the Dehler to have the same standard specifications as a Salona 39 you would have to spend a lot more in extras than the difference in price that separates the two boats, and then the Salona will be considerably less expensive. Besides the Salona can have other options that will increase even more its performance over the Dehler, like carbon bulkheads and other items that make it lighter than the Dehler, even in its "race" version, and with a bigger B/D.
I like these three, and I would, very clearly, prefer a Dehler or a Salona over the Jeanneau, if I could afford the extra money (and I would try very hard to get that money), but I f I couldn't and wanted the best sail performance cruiser among the cheaper boats, I would get the Jeanneau, even if quite aware that there is a big difference between it and boats like the Dehler or Salona, not only in performance but also in overall quality, even if it is not clear for some, at first glance.
More than 10 years ago Boreal stormed the aluminum sailboat market with a boat that would be a huge success and would launch a new brand that would occupy a significant place among voyage aluminum boat builders.
The boat had modern lines but looked unrefined in what regards looks and interior design, even so, the boat qualities make it a success probably because it was designed by a sailor, Jean-François Delvoye that had finished a 6-year circumnavigation with the family, on a boat that he had built himself. After the circumnavigation, he had very clear ideas about what the improvements should be to implement on a voyage boat to become the ideal boat to make the kind of cruising he had done, his perfect yacht.
His ideas were enriched by the ones of great sailors he met on his voyages, all with a taste for sailing in remote and isolated places (he spent two years sailing in Patagonia). Obviously, if he was a different type of sailor, not sailing with a big family (4 children), or without a taste for sailing in high-latitudes, cold and deserted places, the ideal yacht would be very different and I can assure you that there is not something like the "best yacht in the world", being the "best yacht" very different, for different sailors.
He wanted: "a ballasted boat with a centerboard going windward, without slamming into the waves and with a soft helm...an ergonomic cockpit with 2 sheltered outside seats...a real visibility for the helmsman while sailing and maneuvering...a real watertight door... an interior station with a huge chart table, allowing you to watch at 360° from inside while navigating...big storage capacities and important gas and water tanks....the possibility to store big stuff ...a roomy and welcoming cockpit...a well thought ventilation...a center boarder to beach and to go in so many places you cannot go into with a big draught."
And he had managed all this on the 44, even if things like real visibility for the helmsman or that 360º interior view from a station were relative, and the choice of a centerboard implied a considerable loss in sail performance, except downwind, but being this a voyage boat, trade winds would be by far the predominant, and that disadvantage less important.
For minimizing the speed disadvantage due to excessive weight, a centerboarder has to have a worse AVS and worse safety stability than a bluewater fin-keeled boat, with a considerable draft and a bulbed keel. Dutch centerboarders, which today are almost extinct, did not go that way and for offering a similar AVS and safety stability had around a 50%B/D.
That made them very slow boats, even downwind, if the wind was not strong, and unable to plan in stronger winds. That is not the case of the French centerboarders, especially the bigger ones (smaller metal boats are proportionally heavier) and the original Boreal 44 had a 36%B/D, which can be considered high if we compared to the one of the OVNI 450 (32%), especially if we consider that the ballast in the OVNI is inside the boat and the one of the Boreal was mostly on a kind of short keel, from midships to the back of the hull.
Note that to be approved as Class A the boat has to have a minimum AVS but that minimum decreases with the boat size (with mass) and on a boat with 10 430kg like the Boreal 44, that minimum is only 100º, even if that is considered by most as unsuitable for a bluewater boat.
Note that I am not saying that the Boreal 44 has only a 100º AVS, quite the contrary, due to the buoyancy of the partially closed dodger, with a waterproof door, the AVS is higher than the one of the OVNI 450, but the safety stability would be close, or very similar, and very far from the one of a bluewater boat with a keel, like a Hallberg Rassy or an X-yacht.
The cabin and dodger buoyancy will not affect positively the stability curve except in angles very near 90º (or over), and that means that when the boat is knocked down, it will not affect the force that the RM is making for righting the boat. The part of the stability curve that is used for righting a boat from high heel angles is what I call safety stability, and if the AVS Boreal is good (due to cabin and dodger buoyancy), that is not the case with the safety stability (due to the low B/D).
Note also that this type of centerboarders can lift the board up and still remain with the same stability, and in bad weather with the centerboard up, they will not trip on the keel when the boat is hit laterally by a breaking wave. That allows them to dissipate the wave energy sliding laterally, while a traditional sailboat, with a large and deep immersed keel, would have the bigger part of the wave energy transformed in a rotating movement.
This is an advantage centerboards have over other sailboats, especially the ones with keels with a large area, but does not diminish the problem when the boat is knocked down, and that can happen just by a huge wind gust or a big breaking wave, leaving it exposed for a relatively long time, on the side, almost without remaining stability, at the mercy of the next wave.
That is why it makes sense for these type of boats to be big, 44ft or bigger, sizes that give them big overall stability (hull form stability and displacement) that makes more difficult, or even improbable, a capsize on of very rare sea and weather conditions. That is also why the SA/D of this type of boat is normally smaller than the one that can sustain a knockdown without any significant problem (being able to right itself up immediately) and the smaller SA/D also diminishes the knockdown risk.
The experience shows that capsizes with this type of sailboats are rare, especially with this size or bigger, and even if I consider it necessary to know about its limitations (to sail it accordingly) the Boreal 44 is a seaworthy boat, with a big hull form stability and big overall stability.
Note the small keel where the ballast is located
The new one will have a bigger hull form stability due to a bigger beam (4.39 to 4.30m) but a considerably smaller B/D 28.7% to 36.4%. The ballast is the same on both boats but while the older model light displacement was 10 430kg, the new one displaces 13 250kg, a huge difference for such a small difference in length (13.80 to 13.87).
Because both displacements are in lightship condition, the difference in weight can only partially be attributed to a bigger beam and higher freeboards, but it has to be due also to a more heavily built boat, and that can be good on this type of boat, but not the absence of the correspondent increase in ballast, to have the same B/D.
Of course, everything is a trade-off and the 1027kg extra ballast (probably more because it would have to be located inside the hull) that the new boat would need to have the same B/D as the older model, would make the boat even heavier and slower, considering that it is already 2820kg heavier than the previous model.
With this B/D and considering that the ballast is in a small keel outside the hull, in what regards safety stability this boat should not be far from the OVNI 450, which displaces 11 550kg, while the previous model would have considerable bigger safety stability and AVS. However, the overall stability will be bigger on the Boreal 44.2 due to the bigger displacement.
Boreal 44. The 44.2 will have a similar layout
And that's the only thing I don't like on the new version (much bigger displacement and smaller B/D), even if the overall stability is bigger this is going to be a slower sailboat, even with slightly bigger sails. The older version had the same sail area in the main and genoa (45 and 55m2) and only the staysail (this boat has a cutter rig) passed from 22 to 26m2. Displacing more 2820kg and with practically the same sail area and more beam, this boat is going to be considerably slower than the original Boreal 44.
Boreal 44. The 44.2 interiors will be similar
All the rest seems much nicer, from the hull design to the overall design. The boat does not seem any more amateur-designed, it seems well designed and modern, especially in regards to the outside.
Regarding the inside, the apparently larger window surfaces are only cosmetic and don't translate in interior significantly bigger "windows" neither by a more luminous interior (having as reference the 47.2).
If compared to the interior of the last models of other brands of voyage aluminum sailboats, the ones from Boreal seem of good quality and practical, but show clearly that they are not designed by a top interior designer and lack style, beauty, and design quality. I hope that the improvements in design refinement, that the new boat clearly shows on the outside, is going to be followed by an equivalent upgrade in interior design quality.
The 47.2 interior that is given as a reference for the 44.2
Another thing that deserves to be pointed out is that the centerboard on the Boreal 44.2 is smaller than on the Allures 45.9, OVNI 450, or Garcia 45 (2.48 draft to 2.90m in all of them) and this will contribute to worse upwind performance, that is not a really good one in all of them (if compared with a bluewater fin keel yacht): in the light wind due to the extra ballast. And in strong winds due to less power, there is not a similar and proportional increase in RM when the boat heels to bigger heel sailing angles (higher CG).
Boreal 44
Aluminum sailboats are generally more expensive than most fiberglass boats and the huge increase in aluminum price did not help. This boat costs at the shipyard (France), standard with two sails, without electronics, without taxes 538 525€ that is slightly less than what costs an Xc-45 and also slightly less than a Saare 46, but a bit more than the also Aluminum Allures 45.9.
A correct price, taking into account the quality of the building and the high resistance of the hull (that has a bow that can break ice) and that is reflected in a long waiting list. If you order one now, it will be delivered only in 2025.
For extensive cruising, but like most of the nautical press seems to consider, not really a bluewater boat for long ocean voyages. Sure, in any boat you can make extensive ocean voyages, even in the most unsuited for them, but not taking the same risks or with the same comfort.
Regarding comfort, it would be perfect, but long ocean passages imply less control over the weather one will get, and even if they are still trying to certificate this boat as a Class A boat (and they will end up managing that) the stability in what regards AVS (and the implied safety stability) is going to be close to what is demanded as a minimum.
The comparatively higher STIX number (due to size, displacement, and small sails) would indicate a seaworthy boat for the size, but the RM at 90º will be small (for the displacement), and if knocked down this boat will take a considerable time to rise, especially if there is water in the sails, and will be exposed, with little remaining stability, to the next wave, that can invert it. Once inverted this very beamy boat with a relatively small AVS will need many minutes before a right-sized wave can upright it.
To be fair the problem could be bigger if the OVNI had not a big cabin with a considerable height that will add a lot of buoyancy to that area and will make the boat easier to return to the upright position. The bigger problem will be at high angles of heel, 80 or 90º, where the righting arm will be small and the boat will take time to recover from a knock-down, making it not difficult to capsize if hit by another wave.
As a class A sailboat, you have to consider it as one that passes the mandatory requirements by a narrow margin and I had already made an article saying, and explaining, why the assumption that a Class A boat is a bluewater boat is misleading. There are Class A boats that pass the certification by a very narrow margin and others by a huge margin and the seaworthiness can be very different even if both are Class A.
Just to make this clear let me tell you that some mini racers have been certified as Class A boats and even if a mini-racer is very seaworthy for a 22ft boat, nobody would say that it is a bluewater boat. That is why I wrote an article saying that the RCD needs a new Class, one with higher stability specifications, to end up with these confusions and allow the consumer to identify and separate (in what regards stability) a bluewater boat, from the ones that look like bluewater boats.
But this does not mean that the OVNI 370 is not a very interesting coastal cruiser with offshore ability, a very strong boat with options that can make it very suited for extensive cruising and anyway most sailboats cruise in the med, Baltic, Caribbean or Bahamas, without never crossing Oceans, and many sailors never sail with more than F7 or F8 while doing coastal cruising, and that is possible due to the relative precision of weather forecasts.
This type of sailboats, centerboarders with practically all the ballast inside the hull can, in bad weather, raise their centerboards, and that will allow them not to trip on the keel while the boat is hit laterally by a wave, and therefore can dissipate the wave energy sliding laterally, while a traditional sailboat with a large and deep immersed keel would have the bigger part of the wave energy transformed in a rotating movement and this is an advantage over other type of boats, but does not diminish the problem if the boat is knocked down, and that can happen with just a huge gust of wind.
Even if tripping over the keel is less a problem for modern sportive boats with a narrow foil and a torpedo keel, the performance of a centerboarder, particularly a beamy one, in what regards dissipating wave energy this way is unmatched, except by a cat, and that is also why cats raise the daggerboards in very nasty weather.
The bigger beam gives cats bigger stability, even if the ballast on the bottom of a centerboard contributes to leveling the field. Anyway, a 36ft cat, if it can manage a Class A certification, does that also narrowly, and it has to be a relatively heavy one.
For those that dispense a good sailing performance, especially upwind and with light wind, the OVNI 370 makes a lot of sense, with a lifting centerboard (that dispenses any hydraulics, an easy and low maintenance system) that allows for beaching the boat, access to practically everywhere and to take shelter anchoring very near the coast.
The interior is nice and very bright allowing for a true deck saloon with a view, a rare thing these days. The very big beam (3.99m) the large freeboard and the considerable height of the cabin make possible a huge interior that is maximized by the bow and stern shape. To see how good the interior is go here and click on Virtual Visit, one of the best I have seen: https://www.alubat.com/la-gamme/ovni-370/
Of course, all this is translated in a lesser sail performance, the lateral increased height of the boat gives it bigger windage, the extra beam, the shape of the transom and the large forward sections increase drag, diminish performance in light wind and upwind and the bigger ballast inside the boat makes the boat heavier, and diminishes the overall sailing performance.
So, a lot of compromises regarding sailing, but as positive points, I may add that today all boats designed by reputable cabinets are well designed and even if miracles should not be expected the sail performance is not bad and the very deep centerboard (3.08 meters) contributes for minimizing the less good upwind performance.
In what regards cruising, besides the nice and big interior and the very resistant hull, this boat, has a two-cabin layout, offering a very interesting solution, with one head aft and a completely separate big shower cabin near the forward cabin. The cabins are big as well as the galley and it offers also an unexpectedly big storage space for personal items and cruising-related stuff. They have done a superb job with that extra space.
Even if it is not a boat I would be interested in having for cruising (due to the less good sailing performance), this is a very interesting sailboat that will serve perfectly the needs of many cruisers, offering fewer worries in what regards damage in pontoons with bad weather, or regarding hitting submerged debris, offering an incredible amount of nice space, great views to the outside, surprising tankage (300L water, 300L diesel) and an integrated arch for solar panels or for suspending a small dinghy.
But there is a catch here: you would think you will have a bigger advantage with the 370 in what regards marina prices, paying a lot for a berth, for traveler lift or hard standing, than on other sailboats with a similar interior.... but you would be misled because the 370 is not a 37ft boat but a much bigger one and will pay as much as most cruising 40ft in the market that have a hull length of 11.99m.
On their site, they gave the OVNI 360 the same dimension for LOA and HL (11.95m), and that is impossible because the 370 has a fixed integrated bowsprit, so obviously one of them is wrong. The OVNI 400 has a very similar bowsprit, and we can know the length of that bowsprit by the difference between LOA and HL (62cm).
For finding out if it is the LOA or the HL that is wrong we can compare the difference in LWL between the 400 and the 370, and we will see that it is only a 14cm difference. Because the designs are very similar, that means that the HL difference between the two boats will not be very different than the LWL difference (14cm), so, because the 400 HL is 12.28, 11.95m has to refer to the 370 HL. while the 370 LOA should be about 12.50m (if we consider about the same bowsprit length on the two boats).
The OVNI 370 and the 400
The OVNI 400 is a 40.3ft boat and the 370 is not a 37ft boat, but a 39.2ft boat, two cruisers with a close length. Confused? Well, I am a bit because apparently, commercially it makes no sense indicating that a boat is smaller than what it really is (37 to 39ft), and if it surely can explain why a 37ft boat can have that incredible interior space, it does nor explain why they chose this, as a commercial strategy.
Maybe the reason has to do with the 40fter being a very different sailboat, having a much better overall stability, while this 39fter, with considerably less stability, but cheaper to build, with a not very different interior space, offers a more attractive solution for coastal cruising, due to the difference in price.
If they would not find a way to differentiate positively the 40ter from the 39fter, the 40fter would be hard to sell but they didn't want to make clear the difference in stability, so they opted to call the 39fter 370, as if it was a 37fter.
That seems fine to me, but not fine the fact that they did not make all this clear. Let's look at the two boats' stabilities and I will show you why even if the boats have not a very different length the 400 has much more stability than the 39fter (370) and it is therefore much more suited for bluewater cruising.
The difference in displacement between the OVNI 370 and the OVNI 400 is 1800kg and because stability (RM) is obtained by multiplying mass versus GZ (righting arm) we can understand that only that difference in displacement corresponds to 19% more overall stability, for only a 3% increase in length, but in reality, that difference is much bigger because the 400 righting arm is bigger than the one of the 370.
It is bigger because the 400 is beamier (4.35m to 3.99m) because the 400 B/D is bigger (34.8% to 34.7%) but most of all because the ballast weight that is on that very deep centerboard is on the 370 only 260kg on the 400 5 times more (1300kg). All that will contribute to lowering the CG increasing the arm. Without having both stability curves I cannot say exactly how much more stability the 400 has over the 370, but for a 3% increase in length we will have probably an overall difference in stability over 25%, having the 400 a better safety stability and better AVS.
The small difference in size corresponds to a big difference in what regards seaworthiness and overall stability, probably the one that corresponds to the difference between a 37ft boat and a 40ft boat and if we take that into consideration, calling 370 to a 39ft boat makes some kind of sense.
But if you really want to do extensive ocean voyaging, make an effort and buy the 400 instead, that is much better for a bluewater use, or if you can buy the 450, that makes a lot more sense as a true bluewater boat.
Regarding price, aluminum boats are more expensive than mass-produced bonded sailboats and 272 000 € (at the factory, without VAT) does not seem excessive, and the fact that this boat does not need, like the 400, a hydraulic system to raise the keel contributes to that.
A nice quality strong yacht at a fair price, for the ones that want a coastal cruising boat with great features in what regards cruising amenities and with extra security in what regards the possibility of damage due to floating debris and possibility of damage in pontoons or quays, under heavy whether.
For the ones that want to buy an aluminum boat, it may be useful to know that they should make it as soon as possible because prices have raised in an incredible way (+83%) and when they finish their stock that will impact strongly on boat prices.
