Neither would I. I just don't want one on a 26'er.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
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