Capt. JG wrote:
I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with a
70hp engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.


I wouldn't mind having a 70hp engine in our 36 foot boat


JimC wrote:
The boat is built to be balanced in the water with crew and with an
outboard of 50 - 70 hp. If the moter were removed, the boat would tend
to "lean" forwardly, with the stern too high in the water. The weight
of the outboard is far less than the weight of a typical diesel in a
27-29


In other words, the boat is ballasted with a lot of mass far
forward, as Jeff was contending earlier.


Jeff wrote:
Not really. A 50 Hp 4-stroke weighs over 200 pounds - Honda claims the
lightest at about 210, Suzuki's is about 250. A Yanmar 2YM15 is 249
with transmission, though the shaft and prop is extra. There really
isn't a lot of difference in weight.


Big difference in efficiency, though.


ft boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better
positioned.


There is a huge difference here. In fact, much of the weight of a
diesel could be considered ballast. At the very least, it contributes
little to the pitch moment.


Between the ballast far forward and the engine wieght far
aft, it's hard to imagine a worse set-up for good sailing
performance.



The chief disadvantage of the larger engine is that it gives
Mac-bashers who have never sailed a 26M another opportunity to turn
their noses up at Mac owners. Although the Macs don't point as well as
conventional boats with weighted keels,

Does the weight of the keel affect pointing? Funny, I always
thought that had to do with the basic rig design... aspect
ratio, sheeting base, etc etc... keel foil configuration
plays into it somewhat I'm sure, but how does the wind know
(and why would it care) about the weight of the keel?

Are you tacitly admitting that Mac-26Ms don't sail to
windward very well? We already know that's true of the M26X.

... I doubt seriously that the
weight of the motor is a major factor.

OTOH those of us who have been rigorously schooled to sail
*well* have been taught to keep weight out of the ends of
the boat. Any one design racer will have seen (if he's paid
the slightest attention) a boat with crew sitting spread
fore & aft getting passed by a boat with two guys sitting
close together.


... Rather, it's the compromises
relating to the internal ballast, trailerable hull, and lack of
weighted keel. (The metactric effect.)


Please explain. I know about metacentric height, but have
never heard of "the metacentric effect."



Jeff wrote:
Actually, the engine by itself doesn't bother me that much. I think
that if you asked detractors if they would accept an engine with 3 time
the power if there was no cost in weight, fuel usage, initial or
maintenance costs, etc., most would take it.

Sure. Why not? I'm not sure there's any way to seperate the
added horsepower from the added speed & fuel usage though.


... The problem is that most
hulls are designed for sailing, not powering at high speed. The Mac
made a number of compromises - a flat "powerboat" hull, no external
ballast, that greatly diminish its sailing ability.


Ever seen the hull of an 18-footer skiff? They are very wide
& flat aft. Of course, they are *also* designed to generate
significant amounts of horsepower from their rig, and can
plane readily. The Mac26-M is not and can not.


My boat actually could accept large engines - the builder put twin 100's
into the smaller version of it, and with only minor hull mods, created a
best selling powercat. But this formula does not work well for monohulls.


I'm not so sure it can't... I am sure that it can't be done
both well and for cheap. A smallish motorsailer that had
very good sailing performance might be quite a nice boat,
but it would look more like a Melges 24 than a Mac26-M.



The more important factor, however, is that they are lots of fun to sail.


So you say. Why is it that you almost never post a trip report?

Maybe he's too busy having fun?

Frankly, I have had a good time sailing two shipping pallets
skinned with roofing paper & a bedsheet sail. It was like
a really cheap little scow. So I can believe that Jim enjoys
sailing his Mac26-M. However I am not spending the rest of
my life boasting about what super-dooper hot performing
sailing machine that 1-hour scavenged scow was. JimC seems
to be trying to convince others (maybe himself?) of several
claims that contradict the obvious truth.

DSK