On Sunday 16 May 2004 3:15 pm in rec.boats.cruising Matt Colie wrote:


I am a naval architect and a marine enginer. The Mac 26* has not better
theoretical stability than most conventional monohulls. Did you know
that there is a MORC test that requires that a new or seriously modified
boat demonstrate static stability by tieing both head and main sails
(bagged to the top of the mast and then heaving the boat with all keels
and foils retracted down to until the mast is horizontal. The boat must
not flood. I do not like things that get less stable with incline (more
heel angle). Multihulls start loosing righting moment as soon as a hull
comes out of the water. They might be faster than most monohulls, but
they have some bad habits.

Whilst it is true that many multihulls can be badly behaved, it is
both possible and practical to build a multihull which is unconditionally
stable. James Wharram has written extensively on this point, you need
to keep the centre of effort low and limit the sail area. The clever
part of his designs is that when the going gets tough, such as the
hurricane that blows up suddenly out of nowhere, the sails are designed
to shred before the blow-down force is reached. Such incidents are rare,
but one should naturally carry spare sails B-).

--
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

First, I have now known of several Mac 26x owners that have actually
become sailors.

As if becoming a 'sailor' is somehow more
virtuous than being a motorsailor.

If speed is a primary issue, then get an airplane. A boat is always the
worst choice to get somewhere fast.

Irrelevant. The kind of speed refered to in this case
is real and significant to boating. Safety and pleasure can both directly be
enhanced by it.

"Matt Colie" wrote

Trailer launch and recovery is aided by the water ballast, but towing a
5000# boat is not much more problem than towing 3000# boat.

Unless the car you own is rated for 3500# towing.

SV

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message . ..
"Matt Colie" wrote

Trailer launch and recovery is aided by the water ballast, but towing a
5000# boat is not much more problem than towing 3000# boat.

Unless the car you own is rated for 3500# towing.

SV

I have no intention of buying a vehicle capable of towing a 5000 lb
boat as this would be a waste of money. Instead, a more practical
vehicle that can tow a 3500 lb boat without wasting gas all the time
seems reasonable.
Yes, I am cheap, and proud of the fact.

Quality has more to do with how something is designed and put together
than with the materials per se. It tries to ensure the weak link results
by design and not from the construction process. Superlative material
can be sabotaged through inappropriate usage or cheap/careless work, so
while the Mac26 may be a fine appropriate vessel for some, saying it is
made from wunderstuff doesn't say much - design talent and criteria and
production practice count for much more.

Since one of the Mac26 features is price, I would expect that it's
carefully designed to be slightly more than adequet to the long weekend
picnic crowd. This is really the most demanding _significant_ part of
its market; half of the boats sold never get much past the gas docks and
so a large bath tub would be seaworthy enough for them while the
"performance" crowd (like the guy that swamped himself pulling a water
skier) don't buy enough for Mac to design or build for them. Even
wunderstuff gets pricey real fast and we all know about labor costs, so
"good" design in this case balances warrantee and liability costs
against the savings of a cheaper process and the favor of the chosen
market. Mr MacGregor was first and last a business man.

There are likely a dozen or so points of common failure that should be
addressed before cruising the boat hard in water where you might not get
rescued in a timely fashion. The usual suspect come to mind: Hull/deck
join, cockpit drainage, deck fitting stength, port light strength,
steering gear stength etc. But that is true of most "cheap" boats
including Catalinas, Columbias, Contessas, etc.

I didn't read all of "Mullet's" site, but it looked like he had some
good sensible things to say, along with all his hand waving and smoke
and mirrors. He's a believer and he's doing good by his chosen faith and
it's probably doing good by him. He's the kind that gets others
involved, and with a little luck everyone survives the experience. g

Rufus

.....
When i first saw Hunters years ago, i was apalled at the poor quality
compared to my older S2 but when I look at newer ones, it is evident
that good engineering and material advances have probably made them
more than equal to my S2 in quality. I believe the same is true of
the Mac26. Its newer types of materials and construction is probably
better than the older materials and construction methods that went
into high quality boats of yore. By analogy, my fibreglas middle of
the road S2 is a far better boat than a very high quality boat built
in the 1940s and a middle of the road boat built now is better than a
high quality boat built in the late 70s. A lower cost boat built
today may be equal to a middle of the road boat built in the 70s.
From what i can tell, most mac26 owners recognize the limits of their
vessels and many discuss upgrading the equipment. Should a Mac26 be
sailed out of sight of land? I dunno, but I have seen even an Island
Packet that I refused to sail on that was regularly sailed across the
Gulf of Mexico.

is true of most "cheap" boats
including Catalinas, Columbias, Contessas, etc.

Contessa?

btw, comparing a Mac as a sailing vessel positively to a Catalina -- or even a
Columbia -- to lying to yourself about what a Mac is.

Dan Best wrote:
This boat obviously serves it's niche well as long as it's owners follow
the basic rules of responsible seamanship (this includes knowing the
capabilities and limitations of your vessal).

And that has to include realizing that claims of "17mph" under sail are
utter balderdash, as are claims of "higher stability than a normal
sailboat" etc etc.

The Mac26X and 26M are nice boats for some purposes... they are
certainly very roomy, and the trailerability is a plus. But having
sailed in company with them many times, it looks to me like anybody who
placed any value at all on sailing performance would not be interested
in one.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

The Mac26X and 26M are nice boats for some purposes... they are
certainly very roomy, and the trailerability is a plus. But having
sailed in company with them many times, it looks to me like anybody who
placed any value at all on sailing performance would not be interested
in one.

This is really the bottom line, it's apples & oranges when comparing Mac26 to
'real' sailboats.
The Mac does not sail well. It does have 9" draft,
motor at 17mph, is trailerable etc etc.
This is a group for cruisers and a motorsailer such as this can be a very
effective cruiser, even a superior
cruiser depending on where you cruise.

jchaplain wrote in message . ..

I'd like to hear from Mac 26 owners.

I almost went the Mac26 route, and sometimes I wish I had.
They are a good boat for those who like to sail but also want to power
and trailer.
The thing that steered me away from it was watching 3 guys setting
one up one day. It took them a couple hours and they were young strong
guys. I don't think they really knew what they were doing, but
regardless, it seemed like a pretty big job setting one up and
breaking it down- more work than I want to be dealing with.

So, I bought a 24 foot Stingray 240CS and I'll be paying for gas this
summer at over 2 bucks a gallon....sigh...gawd knows what the marinas
will be getting per gallon this summer!
John C.

How slow is the Mac26 under sail? I tried to check. Found a SF Bay
site that listed the Mac 26 as PHRF 221, Morgan OI as 216 (amazing)
and the Westsail 32 as 222. A Chesapeake based site listed the Mac 26
as being 234, Alberg 30s as over 240 , most Freedoms as over 240. I
was surprised at the "Name Brands" that had high PHRF. So, the Mac26
may be slow under sail but seems to be in good company with many REAL
sailboats being much slower.

Parallax wrote:
How slow is the Mac26 under sail? I tried to check. Found a SF Bay
site that listed the Mac 26 as PHRF 221, Morgan OI as 216 (amazing)
and the Westsail 32 as 222.

That's the older model Mac26, not the 26X. I have only seen one
"provisional" rating on the Mac26X and it was around 250, issued to a
guy on the Chesapeake who sailed it with no ballast and a crew on trapezes.

I suspect that a fair PHRF rating for this boat, with the factory sails,
to be somewhere around 320.

BTW Morgan Out Islands came in many different sizes... are you seriously
going to compare the Mac26X to an OI41?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King