* Vic Smith wrote, On 4/9/2007 6:57 PM:
On 9 Apr 2007 11:31:36 -0700, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

Moorings are for trailer trash and no crappy restaurant (that members
are forced to eat at in many cases), lack of any real services and
semi-access to a boat will convince anyone otherwise.

Wow. Quite a contrast here between you and Wilbur,
who doesn't have a slip and doesn't seem to sail nearly as
often as you do.
Perhaps my respect for Wilbur is misplaced.
BTW, I'm strongly considering a Mac 26M.
What is your opinion of that boat?

--Vic

Yes, there is a contrast between RB and Wilbur. One difference is
that RB has never actually sailed out of sight of his slip. Although
he talks frequently of "cruising" he's only spent a handful of nights
at anchor in 10 years.

The Mac 26M has very specific virtues that might make it a good choice
for some people. In particular, its at the upper limit of size for an
easily trailerable boat, and with a big engine it can be much faster
than any normal sailboat. However, its a ****-poor sailer, and you
can do a lot better with a purpose built powerboat.

"Jeff" wrote in

Yes, there is a contrast between RB and Wilbur. One
difference is
that RB has never actually sailed out of sight of his
slip. Although
he talks frequently of "cruising" he's only spent a
handful of nights
at anchor in 10 years.

That's because he ''needs'' an airconditioner.

S

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:08:15 -0400, Jeff wrote:


The Mac 26M has very specific virtues that might make it a good choice
for some people. In particular, its at the upper limit of size for an
easily trailerable boat, and with a big engine it can be much faster
than any normal sailboat. However, its a ****-poor sailer, and you
can do a lot better with a purpose built powerboat.

If you want fast speed that's true. But if you want to power at
moderate speed and still have room for excursions you can't beat
the Mac 26M for price and operating economy. The sail capability
is a bonus. Some Mac owners buy them for that excursion value and use
them exclusively for motoring, even removing mast/rigging.
I've seen some discussion on the Mac forum where that calculation
was done, and to get a power cruiser comparable to the Mac in living
space would be something like a 24' Bayliner at 70k. And I'm sure
that Bayliner is a real gas hog.
I don't fault them for that if it works for them.
Personally, I would prefer a boat that sails well if it carries sail.
And I'm a bit leery of the load carrying capability of the Mac.
But when all is considered, if that shoe fits me, I'll wear it.

--Vic

* Vic Smith wrote, On 4/10/2007 5:24 PM:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:08:15 -0400, Jeff wrote:

The Mac 26M has very specific virtues that might make it a good choice
for some people. In particular, its at the upper limit of size for an
easily trailerable boat, and with a big engine it can be much faster
than any normal sailboat. However, its a ****-poor sailer, and you
can do a lot better with a purpose built powerboat.

If you want fast speed that's true. But if you want to power at
moderate speed and still have room for excursions you can't beat
the Mac 26M for price and operating economy.

You get what you pay for. Is the Mac that much cheaper than a Hunter
25 or Catalina 250? It won't be any more "economical."

The sail capability
is a bonus. Some Mac owners buy them for that excursion value and use
them exclusively for motoring, even removing mast/rigging.
I've seen some discussion on the Mac forum where that calculation
was done, and to get a power cruiser comparable to the Mac in living
space would be something like a 24' Bayliner at 70k. And I'm sure
that Bayliner is a real gas hog.

You're doing a real apples to oranges comparison here. Also, you seem
to have some misconception about fuel economy. There is no magic
bullet. If specify a length, weight, and speed, its very easy to
compute the required power and estimated fuel economy. There's
nothing inherently economical about a Mac, except that its very light.
And a Bayliner is only a "gas hog" because its much heavier, and
because its 220 HP engine is not going to be too happy running at 8
knots.

Any small boat pushed well under hull speed by an 8 HP outboard is
going to be very economical.


I don't fault them for that if it works for them.
Personally, I would prefer a boat that sails well if it carries sail.
And I'm a bit leery of the load carrying capability of the Mac.
But when all is considered, if that shoe fits me, I'll wear it.
If it fits perfectly, you should get one.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:06:30 -0400, Jeff wrote:

You get what you pay for. Is the Mac that much cheaper than a Hunter
25 or Catalina 250? It won't be any more "economical."

I'll check those out. I thought I had rejected them for one reason or
another, but maybe I'm just getting confused (-:

You're doing a real apples to oranges comparison here. Also, you seem
to have some misconception about fuel economy. There is no magic
bullet. If specify a length, weight, and speed, its very easy to
compute the required power and estimated fuel economy. There's
nothing inherently economical about a Mac, except that its very light.
And a Bayliner is only a "gas hog" because its much heavier, and
because its 220 HP engine is not going to be too happy running at 8
knots.

Good points. I really do want something very economical under power,
and gunkholing often means powering. Not interested in speed at all,
and sailing whenever possible fits slow and economy perfectly.
A small diesel seems best, but some interior space is lost.

Any small boat pushed well under hull speed by an 8 HP outboard is
going to be very economical.

That may be the best option in the end.

Thanks,

--Vic