Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:



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.


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


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.

Not sure I'm following you here Jeff. In your previous note, you stated:
that: "And, as I said, with that large engine hanging off the stern
there's a huge amount of weight back there." - So which is it Jeff? - A
"huge amount of weight back there," or "not really a lot of difference
in weight." If the latter, wouldn't that tend to counter your arguments
about the motor and ballast messing up the handling of the boat during
pitching movement?


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.

As I said, the weight of the diesel is better positioned.



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, I doubt seriously that the
weight of the motor is a major factor. Rather, it's the compromises
relating to the internal ballast, trailerable hull, and lack of
weighted keel. (The metactric effect.)


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. 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.

As I have agreed all along, the Mac hull is something of a compromise. -
It doesn't sail nearly as well, or point as high, as the Valiant 40 (my
favorite). Nevertheless, it's a heck of a lot of fun to sail. (Also,
the current model, the 26M, has a substantially different hull than that
of the 26X, including a substantially deeper V configuration from the
stern to amidships.)


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 understand that you have a 36-ft cat. Quite a bit larger boat. -
What's a typical cruising speed?



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?

What, exactly, would you like to know? I had the boat out Saturday in
15-knot winds with fairly rough chop and some whitecaps, and the boat
handled steadily and smoothly except for hitting some nasty wakes of
large speedboats. As mentioned above, I was thankful for the larger
motor when going out against the wind and chop. Under sail, we were
heeling about 20 degrees fairly consistently with one reef in main, and
the jib rolled in slightly. Lots of other boats on the water,
substantially larger than mine for the most part, and quite a few of
them flying only one sail. Coming back, the Mac motored through the
chop at over 13 knots quite smoothly. This was an afternoon sail in
Galveston Bay, not an extended cruise. ... Now, where is your last trip
report?

Cheers,
Jim