Jeff, as previously stated, the Mac 26M is well suited for the
conditions experienced by most sailors 95% of the time. And I haven't
read of any instances in which a Mac skipper was caught offshore in
heavy weather that prevented him from making it back to shore. It's a
coastal cruiser, and I have never claimed that it was suitable for
extended crossings, live-aboards, trips to Mexico, or the like.

At 40-kts., the Mac would not be comfortable, but it would make it back
to shore. Incidentally, what would you do if your cat flipped over off
the crest of a wave offshore and turtled? That wouldn't happen in the
Mac, which would simply ride down the wave and pop back up again.

What confuses me, Jeff, is the fact that I post the same comments, such
as those above about the limitations of the boat, over and over and over
again. - Yet to you, each day seems to be a brand new discussion, a
fresh clean slate.

Jim



Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

Yes, this one has had me thinking some. I understand Jim's point
that the high freeboard can cause a bit of a problem. However, the
small sail area on the boat only generates a limited amount of
power. I can't find my reference (Gere's book) but I think all he
could count on from his sails in 14 kts would be around 6 HP. Even
doubling the wind only brings it up to 24 HP. Certainly others of
his size, such as Neal's banana boat, can get up to hull speed with
an engine under 10 hp.


The small sail area generates limited power, but the freeboard is
rather large, and under heavy winds, it can also generate "power".
Additionally, the boat is lightweight, has no weighted keel, etc.


Yes, I appreciate that your boat has problems that could be considered
"lack of seaworthiness."





So claiming that 50 hp is required to power the boat is essentially
claiming that the boat would be unmanageable under sail. In other
words, the big engine would allow to get offshore fast, but then
you're in deep **** if it died, because the sails do not generate
enough power to get you back.


First, I'm not saying that you "need 50 hp to power the boat." You
could probably get by with 15 - 25. I do think that you need
something larger than the typical 5 - 10 hp often used on boats of
this size,


The problem here is that the sails don't generate much more than 5-10
HP. Actually, at 20 knots your full sail would generate 17 hp, but you
already told us that even at 15 knots you need to reef the sails.

The actual engine that would be appropriate for a boat your size would
be about 10 Hp, though with outboards you can generally get a 15 for the
same weight as a 10.

As I've mentioned most of my sisterships are powered by twin 9.9
outboards. These boats are considerably larger than yours, with a lot
of windage and no ballast. Many of them (in fact all of them, since
they are rather difficult to put on a trailer) have done extended trips
under power.

and that having a large motor provides reserve power and additional
control that is nice to have in severe conditions. The 50 hp is needed
if you want to plane with full load, but I think 20 hp would probably
be enough for getting through most heavy weather conditions.


If that is true, you're saying that the boat is unmanageable under sail
in heavy weather. This is quite disturbing - I've never been on a
sailboat billed as a "cruising boat" that could not be trusted under
sail in winds up to 40 knots or more. This was a lesson learned early
on, when we had to sail off the anchor on a dangerous lee shore.

I'm not claiming that when push came to shove I wouldn't appreciate an
engine, the bigger the better. But the boat should be able to handle
anything under sail, and you're claiming it can't.



As to getting back if the motor failed, I think the boat would get
back safely with reduced sail under most conditions. - In the Mac
discussion groups, other Mac owners speak of their boats performing
well (though not comfortably) in some pretty wild conditions, and I
don't recall hearing about any who couldn't get back to shore. On the
other hand, I personally don't want to head out in known severe or
threatening conditions.


So now you're saying that the boat can handle heavy weather, but it
isn't fun. Sorry Jim, you can have this both ways. You've said many
times that the boat is "fun to sail" but its well known that the Mac is
very slow in light air (with ballast) and here you're saying its not fun
in heavy air. So I guess it fun as long as the wind is between 14.5 and
15.5 knots.

Scotty wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

"Scotty" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:
In other
words, the big engine would allow to get offshore fast,

but then

you're in deep **** if it died,


you're in DEEP **** as soon as you step aboard a

Mac26Xm.

Scotty




Even on the trailer?



deep, DEEP.....

Deeper than in a Seidleman(sp)? At least the Mac would be floating ON
the water, rather than sinking below it.

Jim

Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
t...

Jeff, despite all your ranting and ravings, repeated ad

nauseum, the

following is still true:


1. the Mac 26 XM sucks!

2. the Mac 26 XM is NOT a sailboat.

3. I are a idiot.

4. There should be an open season on lawyers.

Jimbo C.


Oiy!




Scotty, when are you going to answer my question about the lies you
posted regarding your six "quotes"? - Or to you think it's OK to lie
when you are merely responding to a Mac owner?

Jim
Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

Ummm... I think you're getting befuddled. Doug wrote this... as much as I
would have liked to. :-)

Sorry.

"katy" wrote:

Martin Baxter wrote:
Seahag wrote:


Yo Ho Ho !.

We'd give you a tomato broadside! Har har.


But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up
with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

I'm taller s I have to be the sail holder upper....and she
has better aim...so it all works out well...


snort...catch up...snort


See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

Seahag

Seahag wrote:


But then you'd have to drop the sail you're holding up
with your arms,
since your spars are back at the yard! ;-)

I'm taller s I have to be the sail holder upper....and she
has better aim...so it all works out well...


snort...catch up...snort


See above r.e. lack of spars = lack of speed, no?

Katy's boat is faster and has spars:^p~~~

Dang, I forgot she'd moved her to the real big pond. Rats.

Marty

JimC wrote:

Scotty wrote:


Oiy!



Scotty, when are you going to answer my question about the lies you
posted regarding your six "quotes"? - Or to you think it's OK to lie
when you are merely responding to a Mac owner?

What difference would it make? Judging from your responses they don't
like it, and won't listen when you tell them the truth, so why not tell
them lies and make 'em happy?

Cheers
Marty

Jim
Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
et...


Capt. JG wrote:

Ummm... I think you're getting befuddled. Doug wrote this... as much as I
would have liked to. :-)

Sorry.



No problem... you own a Mac. :-)

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Seahag" wrote in message
...



We;d kull you...deader than a doornail....and pin your
skin to the yardarm....

Might need it for a spinnaker to outrun Jonathan!


What about the 'big hole' in the middle?




It wasn't my fault. A Mac did it.

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

"JimC" wrote in message
et...
Jeff, as previously stated, the Mac 26M is well suited for the conditions
experienced by most sailors 95% of the time. And I haven't read of any
instances in which a Mac skipper was caught offshore in heavy weather that
prevented him from making it back to shore. It's a coastal cruiser, and I
have never claimed that it was suitable for extended crossings,
live-aboards, trips to Mexico, or the like.

Maybe they're smarter than we think?


At 40-kts., the Mac would not be comfortable, but it would make it back to
shore. Incidentally, what would you do if your cat flipped over off the
crest of a wave offshore and turtled? That wouldn't happen in the Mac,
which would simply ride down the wave and pop back up again.

I don't think you can know this for certain. I think it's a wishful guess,
since you would never get out in those conditions.

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