Dragonfly 40

[bigbird]

Does it look as good as it does on paper? No, it looks better, absolutely awesome, what a beautiful boat! And the interior looks are even better than in previous models, with an impeccable finish and good taste on the design. Beauty outside and inside and performances to match. What is the catch?

Well, first of all the price, a well equipped boat ready to sail would cost as much as the all carbon Arcona 465, around 750 000 euros with European vat (about 20% less without taxes), then the lack of storage, that is even worse than what I had supposed from the drawings and finally the interior that is really small for a 40fter due not only to a narrow central beam but also due to the hull design that minimizes wet area.



Then, the interior that looks very nice at a first glance is not very practical: the aft cabin is a spacious one even if low (no meaning in talking about standing height lol), the saloon is narrow and long but for seating on the starboard side comfortably, without the legs hanging, you have to deploy a kind of a step, the forward cabin is really small (the size of one in a 34ft boat) the head and the galley are nicely designed but very small having the galley only a two zone electric ceramic hob, no oven, a vertical refrigerator, a small sink and little storage space.

Regarding that long step, that you have to mount to seat in the saloon, it is worth mention that if you have it mounted you cannot move freely, I doubt it is designed to take the weight of a person, much less two and it reduces the standing height to an insufficient one to pass without bending. Odd and not practical.



On some of the 35 they have a better solution with the saloon table (and seats) only to port side and a long galley on the starboard side. That would provide much more storage and a decent galley and, if well designed, it can be an interesting solution and a nice one too, even if for that it would be needed to think and design out of the box.

The outside storage is much smaller than what I had supposed. Due to hull design that, for good reason, is different than the one of a monohull, the two aft lockers on the cockpit floor are just enough to carry the fenders, there is only another tiny locker under one of the cockpit seat and  the chain locker that is small has only space for the chain and the winch.



The amas have on the top two big access hatches and another one aft that opens them completely allowing to store a kayak inside. Not very practical as a dinghy but better than nothing.

Those superior hatches, if the interior of the amas are subdivided and prepared for it, would allow the use of the amas as a storage space for provisions, with the limitations of a relatively small weight because the trimaran relies on the amas buoyancy for stability and it is a bad idea to diminish that buoyancy adding weight there.



Also while it would be easy to reach those supplies, or anything you store in the amas, with the boat at anchor, while sailing it would be complicated in anything than settled weather and very complicated and dangerous on an ocean passage.

The Dragonfly 40 that was in the boat show had a huge optional 80hp engine (standard 40hp) given the boat a motor cruising speed of 14kt, but not for long since the diesel tank takes only 150 liters.



A very nice boat for coastal cruising and one that will not have a problem crossing the Atlantic for enjoying the change of the European winter for the Caribbean summer, even if the interior of the cabin would have to be full of provisions stocked mainly in the saloon.

Of course if the passage is made by a couple then the forward cabin can be used as a storage space but normally the ones that do passages prefer to have a bigger crew, embarking two friends for the occasion and anyway the bow of the boat is the worse place to put charge on a boat.



The second time I visited the Dragonfly 40 was in the company of a friend that has finished a circumnavigation solo and is preparing another one and I was surprised to see the dealer, that actually is from the factory and a good sailor, to say that the Dragonfly 40 was suited for a circumnavigation and that one had been made with the previous Dragonfly 1200 and that the owners had said that "they would not have done it in any other boat".



Anyway the older 1200 had a beamier central hull and was in fact a bigger (and slower) boat and even if not ideally suited for a circumnavigation, it had more interior space. Regarding the 40 it is a pity that  they did not chose to make it with one more meter because that way it would have forward space for a sail locker (or storage space) it would have allowed a larger and more comfortable forward cabin, would have space for a big locker on the stern and would have allowed a better weight distribution with the engine placed not so aft in the hull.

With some care on the design it would have also been possible to find space for a small generator and a watermaker and then we would have a boat well suited for a circumnavigation. But if it already costs too much, it would make it even more expensive. The question is how much more and would there be a market for that boat at the price.





Source