I take back what I said about the new Mac. It's no worse than the Mac I owned,
it just has a different layout and there are pluses and minuses to both
layouts. I was against you at first simply because I no longer have my Mac. I
have a dignhy (I don't even know how to spell it

In truth, me and my wife would love to have our Mac again, now that we live on
the coast. But when the time comes we will buy a Hunter, because that's the
dealer who is in this area--that's it. A tricked out 26 foot Hunter with water
ballast comes to 39,000 with the trailer and all the goodies. A tricked out Mac
with all the goodies comes to 10,000 less. Do you really think we wouldn't jump
on that?

The only difference is that we wouldn't get the 50 hp motor. Not that the Mac
doesn't sail just great with it--it does. But, it doesn't really need it
either. People get it for the safety. And man it provides that, but let me
relate this story:

We were on a lake and a squal came up, and we were out of gas. But we sailed
just fine with a reefed main and a tiny bit of the genoa out, and we sailed in
after the squal (about two hours) without a problem. And I must admit, on lakes
you can have dead wind, and it's nice to be able to power boat and still have
fun. On the coast, near as I can tell, there is always some wind.

The Mac is the best choice for going to Catalina, or sailing down the coast and
through the Florida keys. On the other side of Florida, you could easily sail
it to the Bahamas. If I had a Mac now, I wouldn't cross the Pacific with it,
but I wouldn't cross the Pacific in a cruise ship either. I have no doubt the
Mac would end up in Japan, eventually. But too many things can happen at sea to
a person, and they can die, and it has nothing to do with the boat.

If you sail your new Mac often, I have respect for you and your boat. If it
sits in your back yard or in a slip for its entire existence, as I'm sure this
Valiant does, it's just another way to waste money.

The Veridican

On 13 Apr 2004 12:34:54 GMT, (Veridican) wrote:

The only difference is that we wouldn't get the 50 hp motor. Not that the Mac
doesn't sail just great with it--it does. But, it doesn't really need it
either. People get it for the safety. And man it provides that, but let me
relate this story:

I've a few questions about the engine/Mac combo: Isn't a 50 HP engine
too heavy to be so far aft when sailing, and what's the max. speed
with 4 adults, filled tanks and a full rig with it?

Cheers!


Remco

No. It's perfect. I say, go for it.

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

"Remco Moedt" wrote in message
...
On 13 Apr 2004 12:34:54 GMT, (Veridican) wrote:

The only difference is that we wouldn't get the 50 hp motor. Not that the
Mac
doesn't sail just great with it--it does. But, it doesn't really need it
either. People get it for the safety. And man it provides that, but let
me
relate this story:

I've a few questions about the engine/Mac combo: Isn't a 50 HP engine
too heavy to be so far aft when sailing, and what's the max. speed
with 4 adults, filled tanks and a full rig with it?

Cheers!


Remco

A tricked out 26 foot Hunter with water
ballast comes to 39,000

you can buy a "tricked out" Westsail 32 for that money, and sail up to 8 miles
-- sometimes father -- offshore.

Isn't a 50 HP engine
too heavy to be so far aft when sailing, and what's the max. speed
with 4 adults, filled tanks and a full rig with it?

about 13 knots full bore with the engine, about 3-1/2 with all the sails up on
a beam reach in 15 knot winds.

I've a few questions about the engine/Mac combo: Isn't a 50 HP engine
too heavy to be so far aft when sailing, and what's the max. speed
with 4 adults, filled tanks and a full rig with it?

Cheers!


Remco

It's designed for it, and it sits perfectly balanced in the water with it. At
least mine did.

On 13 Apr 2004 22:44:29 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

Isn't a 50 HP engine
too heavy to be so far aft when sailing, and what's the max. speed
with 4 adults, filled tanks and a full rig with it?

about 13 knots full bore with the engine

You think you can keep that speed with 1-2 foot waves and still enjoy
it? Seems to me it will be kinda noisy below deck...
I also wonder what the fuel rate will be at that speed, about 2-3
gallon an hour? What amount of fuel you can take with you on a Mac, I
don't see this listed on their website?

BTW, I'm not planning to buy one, but it seems this is the key element
of Jim's decision.

Cheers!


Remco

On 14 Apr 2004 01:57:24 GMT, (Veridican) wrote:

I've a few questions about the engine/Mac combo: Isn't a 50 HP engine
too heavy to be so far aft when sailing, and what's the max. speed
with 4 adults, filled tanks and a full rig with it?

Cheers!


Remco

It's designed for it, and it sits perfectly balanced in the water with it. At
least mine did.

Thanks. So the engine is necessary to balance the boat.

Cheers!


Remco

Thanks. So the engine is necessary to balance the boat.

Cheers!


Remco

I don't know what comfort you're trying to achieve, but I've seen pictures of
the boat sitting in the water with a 9 hp engine and it looked perfectly
balanced as well. The boat displaces a lot of water. I don't think the weight
of either engine effects it that much.

The Veridican

"Remco Moedt" wrote
What amount of fuel you can take with you on a Mac, I
don't see this listed on their website?

AFAIK they don't come with any tankage, other the portable one that comes
with the outboard.

SV