On 2008-01-10 11:50:30 -0500, "
said:

My wife and I are still looking for a 27 foot used boat, for summer
cruising north from Port Townsend, WA, where we live, mainly if not
entirely on the inside of Vancouver Island. Our price range is $8,000
- 12,000

We want a boat which has
- solid construction
- good stability - not too much heeling
- adequate performance upwind
- moves in light air

We're narrowing our search down to boats within a reasonable distance,
and I wonder if anyone has opinions on the relative merits of the
following for this type of use

Catalina 27 - 1987
San Juan 28 - 1978
O'Day 272LE -1987
Ericson 25+ -1976
Morgan 27 -1971

I mention the age as I think construction quality has varied
over the years with some of these makers.

Don't ignore the various Tanzers in that size range.

AND pay attention to each boat's support group(s), as a good one can
help you find/fix everything. See http://www.tanzer22.com/ and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tanzer/ for all things Tanzer.

And another's search for the perfect boat: http://cruisenews.net/

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On Jan 10, 1:48 pm, Alan Gomes wrote:
druid wrote:
On Jan 10, 8:59 am, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:50:30 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
My wife and I are still looking for a 27 foot used boat, for summer
cruising north from Port Townsend, WA, where we live, mainly if not
entirely on the inside of Vancouver Island. Our price range is $8,000
- 12,000
We want a boat which has
- solid construction
- good stability - not too much heeling
- adequate performance upwind
- moves in light air
We're narrowing our search down to boats within a reasonable distance,
and I wonder if anyone has opinions on the relative merits of the
following for this type of use
Catalina 27 - 1987
San Juan 28 - 1978
O'Day 272LE -1987
Ericson 25+ -1976
Morgan 27 -1971
I mention the age as I think construction quality has varied
over the years with some of these makers.
Thanks in advance for any comments
Richard
The canadian built CS27 (Canadian Sailcraft) fits your criteria and is
considerably better built than most, or all, of the boats on your
list.

The CS is an eastern boat, hard to find out West, and rarely if ever
for under $12K. Much better to look at the Cal line: you could
probably find a Cal 27 in your range, and I bought a Crown 28 for $12K
last fall. They're WAY better built than the Catalina/Oday/Newport,
sail very well especially in heavier weather (but still good in light
air: after all, they're West-coast boats!)

Ericsons are strange: the 26, 28, 29, etc are FAST, but the 27 is a
slow full-keel boat.

Another one to check out is the C&Cs: I don't personally like them for
some unknown reason, but they're quite well-built and very fast. Be
careful when comparing them though: the C&C 27 came in about 5
"marks" (Mk I, Mk II, etc) and they're quite different from each
other. Also most have been raced, as in "run hard and put away wet"
and they show it.

Also: plan on spending at least $5K or so on ANY boat that age -
there's just things that go wrong that need fixing...

Finally, I'll say a Catalina 27 would probably do you just fine, just
as it has for thousands of couples and families over the last 30
years.

druid
http://www.bcboatnet.org

I think Cal boats are very nice (having owned a few of them), and they
sail quite well. I would NOT say, though, that they are "WAY better
built" than a Catalina. Both are mass production boats, built to a
price, decent but not amazing in quality. ...

A few case-in-points: the V-berth in my Catalina 36 was 1/4"
fibreglass - on my Cal 25 it was 3/4" ply with fg over. The mast-step
on my Crown 28 is 6" laminated hardwood (teak?) 4 ft long
athwartships. On the Catalina it was a 6" x 6" chunk of fg. The
Catalina (even the 36) had quite a bit of chopper-gun fg in the
lockers, etc. - the Crown is all woven hand-laid fg.

We chartered a Catalina 27 last summer, before I bought the Crown. The
difference was phenomenal. But of course you're right that at that
age, the overall condition of the boat is much more dependent of how
it was treated for its lifetime than construction quality. But the
point is, most 30-year-old Catalinas are, well, "fixer-uppers", where
most Crown 28's are still going strong, and probably will for another
30 years.

As for the other comments: The Cascade seems like a good boat, but
hard to find data on it. The Albin Vega is too slow for this area, and
a McGreggor is WAY too lightly-built (having owned a Venture 22 many
years ago...). As for the C&C's - I think it's their lack of soul, I
donno...

A couple other GTE ("get there eventually") boats that are popular
around here are the Columbia and the Grampian (the 28 is nice if you
can find one) They're well-built, comfortable, and, well, will get you
there... eventually

druid
http://www.bcboatnet.org

"druid" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 1:48 pm, Alan Gomes wrote:
druid wrote:
As for the C&C's - I think it's their lack of soul, I
donno...


Wow... I always thought the opposite of them. Diff strokes for diff folks I
guess.

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

On Jan 13, 1:09 am, Alan Gomes wrote:
druid wrote:
On Jan 10, 1:48 pm, Alan Gomes wrote:
druid wrote:
On Jan 10, 8:59 am, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:50:30 -0800 (PST), "

snip


A few case-in-points: the V-berth in my Catalina 36 was 1/4"
fibreglass - on my Cal 25 it was 3/4" ply with fg over. The mast-step
on my Crown 28 is 6" laminated hardwood (teak?) 4 ft long
athwartships. On the Catalina it was a 6" x 6" chunk of fg. The
Catalina (even the 36) had quite a bit of chopper-gun fg in the
lockers, etc. - the Crown is all woven hand-laid fg.


Dear "Druid,"

Thanks for your observations. And, as I said, I do like Cal boats,
especially the way they sail. Lapworth is probably my favorite designer.
But considering the Cal/Catalina comparison, the Cal boats are not
uniformly better.

Cal used a mild steel beam that runs athwartships to support the
compression of the mast.

I'm aware of that beam, and was the reason I didn't look at Cal 29's.
On the Crown 28, it's a huge laminated-wood beam, as I said. No rust
(and no rot).

Comparing overall contruction, I put Catalinas, Odays, Newports,
Sunstars, Hunters, etc. in pretty much "the same boat", but Cals go
one level higher, similar to Columbia or Grampian (but faster! ).
I've been told there are other boats with MUCH better design
standards, but I've never seen one. Strangely, the Cals do seem to
have ONE design flaw, just so that people can point at it and say
"See? It's a crappy boat!". For the Cal-29, it's that stupid steel
beam. For the Crown, somebody moved the mast 1ft back after they
designed the interior, so there's a compression post just aft of the
main bulkhead (Not as bad as the Goofy Solution Islander did!). And so
on...

But I stand by my impression that most Cals and Crowns are still in
pretty good shape compared to Catalinas/Odays/Newports from the 70s.
And that includes the ones that have been cruised to Hawaii and back.

druid
http://www.bcboatnet.org

Why haven't I seen mention of any Pearsons on this thread?
Gordon

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:56:00 -0800, Alan Gomes wrote:

Cal used a mild steel beam that runs athwartships to support the
compression of the mast.

Steel is cheaper than corrosion proof aluminum, which, contrary to
popular belief, is no lighter. The strength to weight of mild steel
and common aluminum alloys is about the same. Aluminum would be
bulkier, which means possibly stiffer. Of course, maybe you design for
stiffness, and let strength take care of itself. Houses are that way:
they hardly ever fall down, but quite a few are not quite stiff
enough, and when the wind blows, the plaster cracks.

Casady

On Jan 16, 4:07 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:56:00 -0800, Alan Gomes wrote:
Cal used a mild steel beam that runs athwartships to support the
compression of the mast.

Steel is cheaper than corrosion proof aluminum, which, contrary to
popular belief, is no lighter. ...

The problem isn't that they used mild steel. While not "yachty"
there's no problem with the metal. The problem is that the beam is
installed in such a way that it is impossible to inspect or repair.
Now, 40 years, you can't see how wasted these beams are, but lots of
rust falls off of them so they are suspect. It wouldn't have been any
better if they'd built the beam out of ply, which would have been more
typical. The issue is access and time...

-- Tom.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:26:06 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 16, 4:07 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:56:00 -0800, Alan Gomes wrote:
Cal used a mild steel beam that runs athwartships to support the
compression of the mast.

Steel is cheaper than corrosion proof aluminum, which, contrary to
popular belief, is no lighter. ...

The problem isn't that they used mild steel. While not "yachty"
there's no problem with the metal. The problem is that the beam is
installed in such a way that it is impossible to inspect or repair.
Now, 40 years, you can't see how wasted these beams are, but lots of
rust falls off of them so they are suspect. It wouldn't have been any
better if they'd built the beam out of ply, which would have been more
typical. The issue is access and time...

===========

The steel beam on my old Cal-34 was galvanized as I recall and it was
holding up fairly well when I sold it about 10 years ago. The boat, a
1968 model, is still going strong although it is no longer being
raced.

When I rerigged it as a frac in 1987 we built a custom mast step
directly on top of the steel beam and got rid of the wood compression
post under the deck. In addition, the new chain plates had lugs for
tie rods which attached directly to each end of the beam. This
created a very stiff structure which totally offloaded static rigging
loads from the hull and deck.

On Jan 17, 11:55 am, Alan Gomes wrote:
... (My surveyor friend removed the bilge cover and
smacked the liner; we could see the rust flake off.) Of course, we could
not determine how badly it was rusted, but that in itself is part of the
problem. ...

I think that's the whole problem. I owned a 1960's Cal 36 that I loved
and have since sold to a man who has restored her very nicely. I'm
not dissing Cals at all. But, the steel beam in question was inside a
box beam molded into the liner and under the main bulkhead. There was
really no way to inspect it without tearing up the interior.

-- Tom.

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:51:26 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

But, the steel beam in question was inside a
box beam molded into the liner and under the main bulkhead. There was
really no way to inspect it without tearing up the interior.

Since the box beam is mostly non-structural, you can cut an inspection
window into the forward side (in the head), and cover it up with a
"decorative" piece of teak. When we re-rigged my 34, I cut away about
6 inches of the box beam on each side, totally filled in the cavity
around the steel beam with solid fiberglass, and capped it off with a
custom stainless steel saddle which became the new mast step.