On Jul 2, 3:56 am, "Scout" wrote:


Her she is in the slip, I'll post pics and vids as I get more time with her.http://downloads.c-2.com/photos/1183302037.jpg

Cheers,
Scout


That's a good looking boat Scout. Looks stout and seaworthy.

Joe

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 2, 3:56 am, "Scout" wrote:


Her she is in the slip, I'll post pics and vids as I get more time
with her.http://downloads.c-2.com/photos/1183302037.jpg

Cheers,
Scout


That's a good looking boat Scout. Looks stout and seaworthy.

Joe


Looks are deceiving. That's not a very seaworthy boat. And what's with
the lazy jacks on a 25-foot boat. Pretty useless having extra lines to
foul the sail and chafe when the sail is small enough to handle easily.

1) seaworthy would be a turtle on the sliding companionway hatch.
2) seaworthy would be hanked-on headsails, lose the roll up system.
3) seaworthy would be real running lights on the bow. You know,
something that could be seen...
4) seaworthy would be double lowers on the mainmast.
5) seaworthy would be double lifelines.
6) seaworthy would be at least two different anchors and rodes at the
ready on the sprit.
7) an open transom is not seaworthy.
8) seaworthy would be a real keel. That thing looks like it has one of
those retractable keels. Good for trailering but definitely NOT
seaworthy.
9) Those Hunter-copy stern rail seats are an unseaworthy gimmick.
10) Only one cleat on the bow. What a joke. There should be at least
four or a bollard of some sort for affixing lines.

You're welcome!

Wilbur Hubbard

1) seaworthy would be a turtle on the sliding companionway hatch.

Easily added IF required.

2) seaworthy would be hanked-on headsails, lose the roll up system.


Repeated trips to the bow are not safe and put sailors at more risk
than properly installed furlers. No one but a putz pinhead believes
otherwise.

3) seaworthy would be real running lights on the bow. You know,

Those lights are just fine.


4) seaworthy would be double lowers on the mainmast.

Nonsense.


5) seaworthy would be double lifelines.

Again, easy enough to add and probably a valid upgrade.


6) seaworthy would be at least two different anchors and rodes at
the
ready on the sprit.

At the ready in the slip?? You have no idea what kind of ground tackle
he has.

7) an open transom is not seaworthy.

Nonsense.


8) seaworthy would be a real keel. That thing looks like it has one
of
those retractable keels. Good for trailering but definitely NOT
seaworthy.


More nonsense. Retractable keels have gone around the world many
times.

9) Those Hunter-copy stern rail seats are an unseaworthy gimmick.


Explain to us how they're unseaworthy. We used them recently on a
Catalina 36. On the hook they are great!


10) Only one cleat on the bow. What a joke. There should be at
least
four or a bollard of some sort for affixing lines.

Fewer forward cleats when possible is better. Less fouling issues, or
foot hazzard and a stronger foredeck.

Tell us, Mister Sockpuppet...ever own a boat of your own?



RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
1) seaworthy would be a turtle on the sliding companionway hatch.

Easily added IF required.

2) seaworthy would be hanked-on headsails, lose the roll up system.


Repeated trips to the bow are not safe and put sailors at more risk
than properly installed furlers. No one but a putz pinhead believes
otherwise.

3) seaworthy would be real running lights on the bow. You know,

Those lights are just fine.


4) seaworthy would be double lowers on the mainmast.

Nonsense.


5) seaworthy would be double lifelines.

Again, easy enough to add and probably a valid upgrade.


6) seaworthy would be at least two different anchors and rodes at
the
ready on the sprit.

At the ready in the slip?? You have no idea what kind of ground tackle
he has.

7) an open transom is not seaworthy.

Nonsense.


8) seaworthy would be a real keel. That thing looks like it has one
of
those retractable keels. Good for trailering but definitely NOT
seaworthy.


More nonsense. Retractable keels have gone around the world many
times.

9) Those Hunter-copy stern rail seats are an unseaworthy gimmick.


Explain to us how they're unseaworthy. We used them recently on a
Catalina 36. On the hook they are great!


10) Only one cleat on the bow. What a joke. There should be at
least
four or a bollard of some sort for affixing lines.

Fewer forward cleats when possible is better. Less fouling issues, or
foot hazzard and a stronger foredeck.

Tell us, Mister Sockpuppet...ever own a boat of your own?



RB
35s5
NY


Can you say Swan 68? Even my knock around gunkholing boat (Allied
Seawind 32) is about two or three times as seaworthy as your Clorox
bottle Beneteau.

Get real, Freakinstein! Calling that flimsy little boat of Scout's
seaworthy is something so ludicrous that it can't be abided by any
rational human being. So, if you want to pay the dude a compliment that
say something like "nice lines" or "clean looking boat" but to call it
seaworthy just goes to show people don't have a clue what's involved
with seaworthiness.

He's the proud owner of a gimmick boat. It's far from being seaworthy.
It's not much more seaworthy than a Mac26X, for gawd's sake. Your
defending it as seaworthy shows you're totally ignorant. But, that's to
be expected since you're too chicken to go out to sea. That's why you
stay in sight of land. You don't sail a seaworthy boat either. You
motorsail a style-over-substance daysailer. It wouldn't last two weeks
on a serious passage across an ocean before something serious broke in
two or carried away.

Wilbur Hubbard

Can you say Swan 68?


Yes, but you don't own one no matter how many times you say it.


Even my knock around gunkholing boat (Allied
Seawind 32) is about two or three times as seaworthy as your Clorox
bottle Beneteau.


Uh huh...just like the Swan!



Calling that flimsy little boat of Scout's
seaworthy is something so ludicrous that it can't be abided by any
rational human being.

You might be interested in the current issue BoatUS magazine which
compared the boat to the IP 27 and commented on it being very high
quality construction. If you're the sort of person who can't take a
stock Compac 27 and see it's inherent strengths, we all understand.


So, if you want to pay the dude a compliment that
say something like "nice lines" or "clean looking boat" but to call
it
seaworthy just goes to show people don't have a clue what's involved
with seaworthiness.


Most boats are fairly seaworthy assuming the folks who sail them know
what they're doing.


He's the proud owner of a gimmick boat.


Yup....the gimmich is that he actually owns a boat and isn't so
pathetic as to pretend he owns a Swan. We're all embarassed for you.


It's not much more seaworthy than a Mac26X, for gawd's sake.


Yep, that comment should build on your credibility. Let us know when
your custom space shuttle is ready for guests.


That's why you
stay in sight of land.


I usually daysail and weekend sail on the sound. If you had a clue you
might realize that losing sight of land would require fog or a sharp
blow to the head on the LIS.


You don't sail a seaworthy boat either.


Sails fine and fast for us, which is to say better than your imaginary
boat.


It wouldn't last two weeks
on a serious passage across an ocean before something serious broke
in
two or carried away.


35s5's have done crossings. In fact one WON a solo crossing race just
two seasons ago.
Oops! There goes the last bit of credibility you had, mister
sockpuppet!


RB
35s5
NY

Hake Seaward 26RK even better quality than the Compac 27!



RB
35s5
NY

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:46:54 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

He's the proud owner of a gimmick boat. It's far from being seaworthy.
It's not much more seaworthy than a Mac26X, for gawd's sake. Your
defending it as seaworthy shows you're totally ignorant.

This is a good reason why many Macs are sold. Why spend extra money
on the Hake if the Mac is "almost as seaworthy?" - according to some
here, anyway.
Then there's always the "attractive lines," and "classic good looks"
comments.
Or the "My boat will sail circles around yours" remark.
Guess it just goes to show what opinions have in common with what.
I'm still in the decision mode about what my first boat will be.
Maybe, the F-24, maybe the Mac 26X/M.
Whatever it is, it'll earn my affection.
When I first looked at tri's, they didn't look attractive to me, but
since I've read of their capabilities, they look a lot better.
The Mac powersailors always looked like a homogulation to me, but not
esthetically unattractive.
I've noticed how fond I grow of the looks of dependable cars and
women, despite not being initially impressed, and I'll wager boats
follow that pattern.
Not suggesting that beauty and practicality are mutually exclusive,
but there's plenty of evidence that beauty often is only skin deep.
Scout's boat is a looker, and from what I've read, that's more than
skin deep. I considered one myself, but it would bust me.
Whatever I end up with, I'll enjoy it if I use it.
That's the bottom line for me.
Whatever a boat does best, it's all wasted if the sails are always
bagged - or in the case of a Mac, the motor always idle.
Even incipient-reef liveaboard boats can suit a purpose.
But boats that are seldom visited and never sailed are no better than
derelicts until they are unloaded for some cash.
So it's real nice to hear your boat in the water, Scout.
Being the sailors they are, I know Rob and Wilbur are happy about that
too. How could it be otherwise?

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:46:54 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

He's the proud owner of a gimmick boat. It's far from being seaworthy.
It's not much more seaworthy than a Mac26X, for gawd's sake. Your
defending it as seaworthy shows you're totally ignorant.

This is a good reason why many Macs are sold. Why spend extra money
on the Hake if the Mac is "almost as seaworthy?" - according to some
here, anyway.
Then there's always the "attractive lines," and "classic good looks"
comments.
Or the "My boat will sail circles around yours" remark.
Guess it just goes to show what opinions have in common with what.
I'm still in the decision mode about what my first boat will be.
Maybe, the F-24, maybe the Mac 26X/M.
Whatever it is, it'll earn my affection.
When I first looked at tri's, they didn't look attractive to me, but
since I've read of their capabilities, they look a lot better.
The Mac powersailors always looked like a homogulation to me, but not
esthetically unattractive.
I've noticed how fond I grow of the looks of dependable cars and
women, despite not being initially impressed, and I'll wager boats
follow that pattern.
Not suggesting that beauty and practicality are mutually exclusive,
but there's plenty of evidence that beauty often is only skin deep.
Scout's boat is a looker, and from what I've read, that's more than
skin deep. I considered one myself, but it would bust me.
Whatever I end up with, I'll enjoy it if I use it.
That's the bottom line for me.
Whatever a boat does best, it's all wasted if the sails are always
bagged - or in the case of a Mac, the motor always idle.
Even incipient-reef liveaboard boats can suit a purpose.
But boats that are seldom visited and never sailed are no better than
derelicts until they are unloaded for some cash.
So it's real nice to hear your boat in the water, Scout.
Being the sailors they are, I know Rob and Wilbur are happy about that
too. How could it be otherwise?

--Vic

Good observations Vic. And my thanks to you too.
This is a good group I've been reading and posting here for about 7 years,
and I've come to appreciate the good folks who gather in this forum. I
appreciate each and every response. It was this group that led me to Hake
Yachts / Seaward and I believe I've purchased the perfect boat given my
sailing needs. I wouldn't have found that boat without the help I received
here.

Good luck in your search Vic. I understand about the "bust" part too. If I
had a few million bucks, I'd have a different sailboat and a lot more toys!
In the end, enough is as good as a feast.
Scout

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 2, 3:56 am, "Scout" wrote:


Her she is in the slip, I'll post pics and vids as I get more time with
her.http://downloads.c-2.com/photos/1183302037.jpg

Cheers,
Scout


That's a good looking boat Scout. Looks stout and seaworthy.

Joe


Looks are deceiving. That's not a very seaworthy boat. And what's with the
lazy jacks on a 25-foot boat. Pretty useless having extra lines to foul
the sail and chafe when the sail is small enough to handle easily.

1) seaworthy would be a turtle on the sliding companionway hatch.
2) seaworthy would be hanked-on headsails, lose the roll up system.
3) seaworthy would be real running lights on the bow. You know, something
that could be seen...
4) seaworthy would be double lowers on the mainmast.
5) seaworthy would be double lifelines.
6) seaworthy would be at least two different anchors and rodes at the
ready on the sprit.
7) an open transom is not seaworthy.
8) seaworthy would be a real keel. That thing looks like it has one of
those retractable keels. Good for trailering but definitely NOT seaworthy.
9) Those Hunter-copy stern rail seats are an unseaworthy gimmick.
10) Only one cleat on the bow. What a joke. There should be at least four
or a bollard of some sort for affixing lines.

You're welcome!

Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur
Ah, always the curmudgeon, but that doesn't make you wrong. You're not
entirely right, but your points are well taken. My boat, your boat, any
boat, could always be a little better. Much of what we consider desirable is
relative. I'd like a boat that could accommodate a 6'4" captain a little
better. The world is built for short guys like you, and my poor head pays
the price when I don't duck. But I'm not going to say my boat sucks because
the head room is only 5'10". I'm also not going to say it sucks just
because it wouldn't be my first choice in which to ride out a Katrina.

Since you appreciate honesty, I'll be honest back with you, and tell you
that I really do think you are right in some of your points, but in others I
think you are just being cantankerous for your own pleasure. For instance,
those stern rail seats are frigging awesome my friend, and you are too smart
to not know that. For another instance, I know the open stern would be bad
in rough seas, but on my very first dunk, I appreciated the fun it adds to a
sail - and to be sure, I'm in it for the fun.

If the boat sinks, I have the strength and fortitude to save myself. If you
were sailing with me, I might be able to drag your crabby ass to shore too.
And I would, because in spite of your well documented Asperger's tendencies,
I do believe you might as well be screaming that you need to feel loved and
appreciated. So in that spirit, I thank you for your good intentions and
concern for my safety. You are a good friend and I appreciate you.
Scout

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 2, 3:56 am, "Scout" wrote:


Her she is in the slip, I'll post pics and vids as I get more time with
her.http://downloads.c-2.com/photos/1183302037.jpg

Cheers,
Scout


That's a good looking boat Scout. Looks stout and seaworthy.

Joe

Thanks Joe,
it should be fine for what I need
Scout