Hunter 42 Passage
Kanon Cozad
I say a new Hunter 42CC Passage at a yard in New Jersey and was really
impressed. Before I looked at it any harder, I thought I'd ask for any
experiences with Hunters of this size. Thanks.
--
Kanon Cozad
kco...@ix.netcom.com
Sean Holland
In a previous article, kco...@ix.netcom.com (Kanon Cozad) says:
>I say a new Hunter 42CC Passage at a yard in New Jersey and was really
>impressed. Before I looked at it any harder, I thought I'd ask for any
>experiences with Hunters of this size. Thanks.
Hunters seem to do best in boat yards, boat shows, and make wonderful
liveaboard vessels. Hunter spends great sums of money on the ergonomic
design of their vessels, as well as advertising their wares. They are
roomy beyond belief. Would I go cruising on one? No.
Good Sailing,
Sean
--
Sean Holland
NP2AU
S/V Spindrift
jktho...@earthlink.com
Manageering wrote:
>
> Sean,
> We all like to see our opinions expressed, so your comments brought a nod
> and smile. I worry about being biased, though. Just what is it about,
> for instance, a seaworthy hull shape that makes it and great
> accommodations mutually exclusive? Is it the flat bottom and fin keel
> that go with lots of useable space? Does it have to do with insufficient
> bulkhead spacing? Are we talking about clay coated paper (in brochures)
> vs. more resin (in the winch pads)? How about a knowlegable essay to
> support that feeling that may be envy, tradition, or just good
> engineering judgement? Dean Kyle
How about a couple of examples ??
Subject: Re: Hunter 34 from mid-80's
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 21:39:35 -0700
From: jktho...@earthlink.com
Organization: Pacific Cruising Notes -
http://home.earthlink.net/~jkthompson/cruise/mainpage.html
To: Wayne M Simpson <wsim...@cybercomm.net>
Wayne M Simpson wrote:
>
> I will be doing a refit article on these boats for the February 1997 Sailing
> Magazines retrofit issue and would like to talk to owners and former owners
> of these handsome boats.
>
> I'd like to know youe experiences on the strong and not-so-strong points of
> this model, and what you did to your boat to improve here appearance and
> function.
glad you asked - how about the big rudder problems - here's 3 Hunter's
for your story -
1. Snowdragon
> you've probably heard this story before but - friends on a Hunter 31
> lost their rudder about 12 nm off their landfall in the Marquesas in
> '92. Couldn't steer it with anything and finally had to get a local fish
> boat to tow them in as the current was pushing them twoards the island
> (in the wrong spot). They tried buckets on spin. poles, etc. nothing
> worked. Hunter finally flew them out a new rudder (took 6-7 weeks). Two
> years later the new rudder broke off (same hing - flush with the hull)
> on the passage from Noumea to Brisbane - about 300 nm from Brisbane and
> 200 back to Noumea. No fish boats this time. They took a locker door and
> bolted it to the steering vane of their Monitor vane and made it into
> Brisbane - told Hunter again but wouldn't accept a new Hunter rudder
> this time - had a good one custom made. Their experience was that the
> trick of dragging something off the center line didn't work in their
> boat. The boat is SnowDragon and it's back in the SF area now.
2. Eagles Nest
In 1986, the Hunter 36 'Eagles Nest' lost rudders repeatedly on their
voyage. On the 2nd occasion, Sam McCluny, aboard 'DX' departed from his
course (from Panama to the Marquesas) a considerable distance to assist
Eagles Nest. He lent them his teak cabin boards, which were used as
part of a jury rig rudder. Sam accompanied them all the way to Papeete,
it turned out, under shortened sail. Eagles Nest got a new rudder from
Hunter, supposedly reinforced, which meant that the new one broke in a
new place some months later. I was amazed at 4 things:
1. These folks were on a circumnavigation in a Hunter.
2. Hunter just didn't have a clue about making the rudder strong enough,
even after several attempts.
3. Eagles Nest departed without a spare rudder.
4. Sam's teak cabin boards were replaced with plywood. That's gratitude
for you!
3. Safari III
We sailed with a Hunter 37 as a buddy boat several times in the South
Pacific. The first time it lost it's rudder was on the Equator on the
way
to the Marquesas and we jury rigged one for them
The second time the rudder broke off was near Samoa
The third time the rudder broke off was after they SHIPPED the boat back
to
Alaska (they didn't want to chance another rudder failure) and were
sailing
back to Vancouver BC. The name of the boat was Safari III
In Tahiti the boat was slammed and shattered against a bulkhead during a
hurricane and we saw how it was really built---Like a thin paper machet
model--Really Really Really poor hull construction.It was so thin it was
difficult to repair without creating hard spots. A westsail 32 was
thrown
at the same time and received a few scratches on its rub and cap rail.
Manageering
Dennis Brittain D.C.
Dear Kanon,
Having bought a new Hunter 336 two years ago and sailed the heck out of it
in our moderate to severe conditions on the Oregon coast from cruising to
lots of racing, I moved up to the 430 this year. We've already raced it in
a gale night and day as well as cruised most weekends since April. The
boats are extremely good "sleepers" capable of heavy winds and seas. I find
them to be stiffer and ride of a boat 10 feet its length. As well as fast.
The realities are however, they are NOT blue water ready from the average
dealer! My bad experiences with the local dealer has been the commissioning
crews did a poor job and every thing they did I had to redo correctly. Many
dollars and equipment later has ended up with a cruising boat that yes is
spacious, bright, comfortable, safe and fast.
"Why slog thru a storm when one can sail around one in style!"
db
Kanon Cozad <kco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<kcozad-ya0236800...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> I say a new Hunter 42CC Passage at a yard in New Jersey and was really
> impressed. Before I looked at it any harder, I thought I'd ask for any
> experiences with Hunters of this size. Thanks.
> --
> Kanon Cozad
> kco...@ix.netcom.com
>
>
Paul Horst
We had a 1986 Hunter 45 hull number 7 (this model was later
renamed the Legend 47).
The hull under the forward head deflected so much during a day
passage in Lake Michigan (some pounding into 3-4 foot waves) that
the inner liner was cracked. We didn't suspect any other problem
but when it was hauled out, we found that the hull had delaminated
in an area about 18" in diameter and was down to about half the
original thickness. You could depress the hull with your finger.
With a little more pounding it would have been likely the area would
have opened into large hole, which at that size would have caused the
boat to sink within a very short period of time. The opposite side of
the hull showed similar spider webbing in advance of likely
delaimination.
Hunter did not offer to repair this area. Fortunately, our insurance
did. Our dealer took the boat in on trade on a new Beneteau 45f5
which we now have and will depart with the Expo '98 Round the World
Rally in February.
Other problems we had with the Hunter include:
1. Cutless bearing slid out after less than 100 hours of use. Hunter
suggested that we should dive over the side and repair under water
by breathing through a garden hose. This was a brand new boat. After
some arguing, Hunter agreed to pay to have the boat hauled to fix it
properly.
2. Inside attachment for chain plates had delaminated and were about
to fail (which would have caused the loss of the rig). This problem
was known in advance by Hunter and they arranged to have boat repaired.
Unfortunately, they didn't tell us of the likely failure and we
sailed for several weeks in blissful ignorance.
Keep in mind that this was over 10 years ago and Hunter may have gotten
better. In addition, our first boat was a 1977 Hunter 30 which I felt
was built very strongly.
In any case, with our experience, I wouldn't take a Hunter out of sight
of land.
Paul
s/v Encore
Manageering
Yeah, I picked up the rudder horror stories. What I was looking for
was a thoughtful explanation of what the necessary connection
(exclusion) is between glamour and utility. A knowlegable yachtsman
might define the interplay between mere economic trade-offs and
technically impossible combinations of features. Come to think of
it, that's how I should have phrased the question. Dean
Terry Schell
jktho...@earthlink.com writes:
<snip>
>How about a couple of examples ??
>Subject: Re: Hunter 34 from mid-80's
> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 21:39:35 -0700
> From: jktho...@earthlink.com
>Organization: Pacific Cruising Notes -
>http://home.earthlink.net/~jkthompson/cruise/mainpage.html
> To: Wayne M Simpson <wsim...@cybercomm.net>
<snip>
The real-world examples are very helpful, but I would take them with a
grain of salt for two reasons.
(a) There are a lot of Hunters out there. You *should* expect to hear
about more Hunter failures than most other boats.
(b) Not all Hunters are built the same. In general, they have changed
(largely improved) their construction methods and boat designs over
the years. They also produce some boats that are geared more toward
extended cruising... including the particular boat that was asked
about. The fact that Hunter 37's built in the late 70's or early 80's
had rudder problems does not really tell you too much about a Hunter 42
passage built 15 years later. (Although, it does give you something
you might want to investigate).
YMMV,
Terry
Kanon Cozad
As the general consensus seems to be that perhaps there are better boats
out there around this Hunter's size that would be more appropriate for not
only living aboard but doing blue-water sailing (my wife and I would
ultimately like to take our boat through the Panama Canal and down to the
South Pacific), let me post this additional question: What are some other
boats that meet the requirments of safety, comfort, and reasonable
performance that you would recommend? We'd like to investigate boats in
the 40' to 45' range that can be comfortably sailed by one couple. Other
than those caveats, I'm open to your opinions.
--
Kanon Cozad
kco...@ix.netcom.com
Sean Holland
Biased? Yes one might say so. I believe that this boat is an excellent
liveaboard marina vessel, and would be adequate for weekending at
Catalina or cruising carefully through the Channel Islands, but in my own
opinion I would not attempt an extended cruise in one. I have observed
too many shattered hulls, sunken vessels, lost rudders, and broken dreams
to wish to subject myself to these risks when cruising. A proper
cruising design must be capable of taking a licking and still come up
ticking. A Valiant 40 does so, our C&C has shown this ability, as has
the Norseman, but not so those that you are so fond of.
Good Sailing,
73, Sean
In a previous article, Mana...@Islandnet.com (Manageering) says:
>Sean,
>We all like to see our opinions expressed, so your comments brought a nod
>and smile. I worry about being biased, though. Just what is it about,
Sean Holland
In a previous article, Mana...@Islandnet.com (Manageering) says:
Problem appears to be with inadequate structural construction of hull,
and the aforementioned rudder problems. Erogonomic design looks great at
the dock.
Good Sailing,
Sean Holland
There have probably been a great many more Valiant 40's actually out
there doing extensive cruising, and the stories you hear are not about
vessels that have lost rudders, had their hulls fractured, or sunk during
delivery. I am aware of recent boats that have suffered a fate that
would destroy anyones dreams of cruising. I would not personally embark
upon an extensive cruise aboard the boat in question. I just believe for
the money spent there are far better cruising design available. I have
seen too many disasters to contemplate the risk, but be my guest. The
beauty of the boating industry is that there are boats that appeal to a
great many different people.
Good Sailing,
Sean
In a previous article, tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) says:
>The real-world examples are very helpful, but I would take them with a
>grain of salt for two reasons.
>
>(a) There are a lot of Hunters out there. You *should* expect to hear
>about more Hunter failures than most other boats.
>
>(b) Not all Hunters are built the same. In general, they have changed
>(largely improved) their construction methods and boat designs over
>about. The fact that Hunter 37's built in the late 70's or early 80's
>had rudder problems does not really tell you too much about a Hunter 42
>passage built 15 years later. (Although, it does give you something
>you might want to investigate).
>
Dick Vance
Kanon,
For a lot of information on the Hunter Passage 42 and other Hunters, check
out the Hunter Owners Web at:
http://www.herringn.com
Phil Herring, who lives aboard a Passage 42, runs the site and you can find
most anything you ever wanted, or didn't want
to know about Hunters there. Apparently the newer big Hunters are much
improved over the early and mid 80's boats.
Dick
--
dva...@smoky-mtn.com
ragti...@aol.com
KanonCozad: Have you considered the Whitby 42. We purchased ours to
live-aboard but never made the final plunge. However, many do live-aboard
with great comfort. We find her a nice balance of sailing performance and
liveablility. There is a Whitby Assoc. should you want particulars.
Dan Mrock
Dennis:
What did you need to redo from the local dealer? I'm looking at the
450cc and wonder what you needed to take care of after delivery.
Dan
On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 06:08:47 GMT, "Dennis Brittain D.C."
<dbri...@netbridge.net> wrote:
>Dear Kanon,
>Having bought a new Hunter 336 two years ago and sailed the heck out of it
>in our moderate to severe conditions on the Oregon coast from cruising to
>lots of racing, I moved up to the 430 this year. We've already raced it in
>a gale night and day as well as cruised most weekends since April. The
>boats are extremely good "sleepers" capable of heavy winds and seas. I find
>them to be stiffer and ride of a boat 10 feet its length. As well as fast.
>The realities are however, they are NOT blue water ready from the average
>dealer! My bad experiences with the local dealer has been the commissioning
>crews did a poor job and every thing they did I had to redo correctly. Many
>dollars and equipment later has ended up with a cruising boat that yes is
>spacious, bright, comfortable, safe and fast.
>"Why slog thru a storm when one can sail around one in style!"
>db
>
J.Fuchs
Jere Lull
> I too am looking at the Hunter 42/43. I find it surprising that a
> large
> boat builder like Hunter would make sailing boats that don't do
> the job.
> In what areas are they failing?
In a phrase: "Lightly built". (or possibly "inexpensively" or even
"cheaply".) Seems everything is one size "lighter" and breaks a bit more
easily than cruisers want & need. There's NO way *I* would trust their
current crop with no backstays in a real blow, though I wouldn't mind
playing around with one in coastal waters.
They're built for the mass market which normally doesn't leave sight of
land. Which doesn't preclude their use for world cruising -- a lot of
*very* light and/or small boats have successfully been around the
world. I consider them a short step up from MacGregors. (We used a M-21
for 10 years quite happily. Would still, except we wanted lots more
room.) Both boats introduce many people to sailing and cruising.
--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux
'73 Tanzer 28 #4
out of Georgetown, MD
See how Xan-a-Deux looks at http://www.castle.net/~jerelull/X-Main.html
George Oprisko
Sean Holland wrote:
George Oprisko wrote:
I must agree with Sean, boats built with little reserve for extreme
conditions are the norm on the race course. Racing is performed under
conditions, where much outside assistance is available, and racing is
quite expensive. Here we are discussing cruising boats, which are
used under conditions, where assistance may not be available for days
if at all. Many of us are on limited budgets, often we are short
handed, short on sleep, make mistakes, or lack experience. A solid
forgiving design works better here. Mario Andretti drives a high
performance automobile at the Indy 500. Yet, most of us with families
prefer, mini-vans, or 4X4's as family vehicles. Such is also true
of cruising vessels. Buy and use a vessel appropriate for your intended
use. If your boat cannot carry a dink on deck or in davits, because
there is no place for it, cannot carry appropriate anchoring gear,
spares, water, fuel, food, it is not a cruising vessel. It may be
a splendid around the bouys evening racer, or a daysailer, which
is fine, but it is not a blue water cruising boat.
On my way back from Gun Cay to Ft. Lauderdale, I pondered the impact
on stability of configuring a boat like the J36, beneteau, or Hunter 36
for cruising. These boats have dinghy hulls and fin keels. All have
high freeboard for their length, because the deepest part of the hull
is no more than 18" below the water line, and the cabin sole in these
is at the water line. If we assume a displacement of 10,000 for the
typical vessel of this type, a metacentric height of 4' above LWL and
a VCG 1' above LWL, this vessel has a rightin moment, unheeled of
30,000 ft-lbs.
Most of these I have seen, are carrying 8 jerry cans on deck, lashed
to the lifelines at the spreaders, or 320# of fuel and water, some
5' above the water, with a righting moment of -1300 ft-lbs. Add the
dinghy, motor, wind generator, anchors, lines for an additional deck
load of say 400# 5' above the water, or -1600 ft-lbs. In my experience
3# of food per person per day, (canned, or fresh, including drinks),
works well. So for 2 people for 3 months, we must store 500# of food,
and 1000# of gear. Since the lockers begin at the cabin sole and go
up from there, lets assume we put the heavy stuff low, and the 1500#
winds up 2.5' above LWL for a -2250 ft-lb righting moment. Loading
this vessel has decreased the righting moment by 5150 ft-lbs, or
16%. Is that why most of these I observe, are under power, with covers
on their main sails?
Are these really cruising boats??? The implication for a longer cruise
or one with a larger crew, is ominous. I generated scenarios involving
6 month cruises in which 50% of the righting moment is lost, due to
provisioning and stowage.
George Oprisko
George Oprisko
Douglas Wagner
What about very light multihulls for blue water cruising? (Loaded only
to the design load, of course, and assuming the boat is large enough to
carry the stores needed).
HD
Terry Schell
George Oprisko <gopr...@encore.com> writes:
<snip>
>On my way back from Gun Cay to Ft. Lauderdale, I pondered the impact
>on stability of configuring a boat like the J36, beneteau, or Hunter 36
>for cruising. These boats have dinghy hulls and fin keels. All have
>high freeboard for their length, because the deepest part of the hull
>is no more than 18" below the water line, and the cabin sole in these
>is at the water line. If we assume a displacement of 10,000 for the
>typical vessel of this type, a metacentric height of 4' above LWL and
>a VCG 1' above LWL, this vessel has a rightin moment, unheeled of
>30,000 ft-lbs.
>Most of these I have seen, are carrying 8 jerry cans on deck, lashed
>to the lifelines at the spreaders, or 320# of fuel and water, some
>5' above the water, with a righting moment of -1300 ft-lbs. Add the
>dinghy, motor, wind generator, anchors, lines for an additional deck
>load of say 400# 5' above the water, or -1600 ft-lbs. In my experience
>3# of food per person per day, (canned, or fresh, including drinks),
>works well. So for 2 people for 3 months, we must store 500# of food,
>and 1000# of gear. Since the lockers begin at the cabin sole and go
>up from there, lets assume we put the heavy stuff low, and the 1500#
>winds up 2.5' above LWL for a -2250 ft-lb righting moment. Loading
>this vessel has decreased the righting moment by 5150 ft-lbs, or
>16%. Is that why most of these I observe, are under power, with covers
>on their main sails?
George, I am not advocating one type of boat or another... but your
stability calculatings need work. RM is calculated with repect to
metacentric height *not* with respect to the WL. The metacentric
height of these "dingy hulls" is actually higher than older designs so
they can actually afford to carry their weight *higher* without
sacrificing stability. If the metacentric height is 5 ft above the
waterline then any weight added less than 5 ft above the waterline
will actually *increase* the RM, even if that is on deck!
You *might* be able to argue that some boats don't have enough RM
for blue water work (although I bet that the RM of some of the
boats you are complaining about is actually higher than some
traditional cruising designs!). But the claim that they are less
suited to carry the load due to their hull form is really not
supported by the hydrodynamics.
Look it up.
Terry Schell
Paul Kamen
George Oprisko <gopr...@encore.com> writes:
>...If we assume a displacement of 10,000 for the typical vessel of
>this type, a metacentric height of 4' above LWL and a VCG 1' above
>LWL, this vessel has a righting moment, unheeled of >30,000 ft-lbs....
Ahem. "Righting moment, unheeled" is zero (but I know what you mean).
Still, I think wou'll find that even a lightweight pumpkin seed like a
J-35 was a much wider range of positive righting moment than a "wholesome
cruiser/racer" like Finesterre of a couple of decades ago. Or are you
suggesting that more traditional types with shallower keels and lower
ballast ratios are safer? Or are you advocating deeper keels with bulbs?
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Paul Kamen
hdwa...@lightspeed.bc.ca (Douglas Wagner) writes:
Depends on how big, and what you mean by "blue water." When you look at
the physics involved, you see that size is the dominant factor in
determining capsize resistance of a multihull.
George Oprisko
J.Fuchs wrote:
>
> >Snip
> unters seem to do best in boat yards, boat shows, and make
> wonderful
> liveaboard vessels. Hunter spends great sums of money on the
> ergonomic
> design of their vessels, as well as advertising their wares. They
> are
> roomy beyond belief. Would I go cruising on one? No.
> Good Sailing,
> Sean
> Sean Holland
> NP2AU
> S/V Spindrift
>
> I too am looking at the Hunter 42/43. I find it surprising that a
> large
> boat builder like Hunter would make sailing boats that don't do
> the job.
> In what areas are they failing?
>
> Julian Fuchs
>
> --
> Julian
>
George Oprisko wrote:
It gets worse than that:: consider stability of the J/35 with 300 boats
worldwide, touted as the ideal couple offshore boat.
With a displacement of 10,000#, this boat has a stability limit of 128
degrees, or to put it another way, as delivered it will remain inverted
through a range of +- 62 degrees. Considering that the immersed rig
will inhibit the vessel's roll due to dynamic resistance, together with
the very real possibility that loaded this vessel is less stable than
given in the figures, there is a real possibility that one of these
configured as seen throughout the bahamas, could turn turtle in a
standard knockdown.
In desireable and Undesireable Characteristics of OffShore Yachts,
John Rousmaniere, ed., stability is given considerable study. Olin
Stephens did the chapter, and discusses various hull types and their
ranges of stability. Those old wineglass hulls were positively stable
through the entire range. The CCA keel centerboarders of the 60's
were stable through 172 degrees or so.
So many inexperienced folk read this group, that I thought it prudent
to bring up a very basic aspect of using a monohull for cruising, ie
recovery from a knockdown, or capsize. Worse still, from what I see
on the water, is the cavalier way items are stowed on deck on designs
that are marginal in this department in the first place. It is common
to see 40' vessels like the hunter, sporting a RIB, 25 hp outboard,
sailboards, and other deck items. The weight of these approaching
500# in total. Not considered, when these ULDB's are purchased is the
vertical location of storage lockers, due to the canoe hull fin keel
design. In most of these boats, lockers are at or above the waterline.
This is because the cabin sole is there, and lockers begin at the sole
and go up from there. I bring this up because, I had this problem
with the Tartan 27. Loading that boat, which by the way is deeper
than the ones I am discussing now, made it tender, less able to carry
sail, quite the opposite of what was needed.
The Tartan was 8,000, and is deeper than these which displace 10,000#.
I would expect to see an even greater effect in these boats.
Isn't this the price one pays for an easily driven hull? Actually, no.
The performance shown by these boats is a direct result of sailarea
displacement ratios above 20.0. One thing I have learned, is that
a heavier hull, given the same ratios will perform similarly.
Additionally, the heavier hull will punch through a chop, will sail on
its bottom, and becomes more stable when loaded.
I hope the arguments flow furiously, and wild........
Have a great day!
George Oprisko
Terry Schell
George Oprisko <gopr...@encore.com> writes:
>It gets worse than that:: consider stability of the J/35 with 300 boats
>worldwide, touted as the ideal couple offshore boat.
>With a displacement of 10,000#, this boat has a stability limit of 128
>degrees, or to put it another way, as delivered it will remain inverted
>through a range of +- 62 degrees. Considering that the immersed rig
>will inhibit the vessel's roll due to dynamic resistance, together with
>the very real possibility that loaded this vessel is less stable than
>given in the figures, there is a real possibility that one of these
>configured as seen throughout the bahamas, could turn turtle in a
>standard knockdown.
Have you looked at the range of positive stability for lots of
"cruisers". I think you will find that 130 is fairly good.
What are you talking about when you say "the immersed rig
will inhibit the vessel's roll due to dynamic resistance"? I can
point you to a number of technical references that find that larger
rigs are very effective at *preventing* capsize; some of that work is
summarized in "Heavy Weather Sailing". Why do you think that the
vessel will be less stable loaded than empty? You say these are
common in the bahamas and "could turn turtle"... well, if they are
common we don't need to guess if they turn turtle, do we? Have you
ever seen one turn turtle? Have you ever heard of one?
>In desireable and Undesireable Characteristics of OffShore Yachts,
>John Rousmaniere, ed., stability is given considerable study. Olin
>Stephens did the chapter, and discusses various hull types and their
>ranges of stability. Those old wineglass hulls were positively stable
>through the entire range. The CCA keel centerboarders of the 60's
>were stable through 172 degrees or so.
No hulls are postively stable through the entire range... and range of
positive stability is only one of many factors that influence
seaworthiness. It probably isn't even the most important factor. Do
you know the range of stability of Slocum's "Spray" (hint: the bulk of
his ballast was "loose" in the bilge)?
<snip>
>Isn't this the price one pays for an easily driven hull? Actually, no.
>The performance shown by these boats is a direct result of sailarea
>displacement ratios above 20.0. One thing I have learned, is that
>a heavier hull, given the same ratios will perform similarly.
>Additionally, the heavier hull will punch through a chop, will sail on
>its bottom, and becomes more stable when loaded.
>I hope the arguments flow furiously, and wild........
I have no argument that having a ton of sail area will get even a
heavy boat moving fairly well... but how do you get the same ratios on
a heavy boat? Huge bowsprits and large, expensive sails are not
exactly a cruisers dream.
I don't know where you get the idea that a "heavy hull" gets *more*
stable as it is loaded and a modern hull gets less stable as it is
loaded.
Sincerely,
Terry Schell
Paul Kamen
>George Oprisko <gopr...@encore.com> writes:
>With a displacement of 10,000#, this boat has a stability limit of 128
>degrees, or to put it another way, as delivered it will remain
>inverted through a range of +- 62 degrees....
A couple of technical points:
These "stability limit" calcs are usually done neglecting the cabin
trunk. Even the small coachroof on a J-35 will improve this number
significantly. Don't know if the +-62 degrees includes this - if it's
from an IMS certificate, it doesn't.
Also, in the real world, some water is going to get inside the boat as
soon as it's upside-down. As soon as you subtract a little free surface
effect from the inverted stability, it goes right to zero and the boat
rights itself - even from an exact 180 degree roll. Try it! (No, I've only
been half-way over in my boat, but I've run simulations.)
On added weight: It's the traditional boat that sufffers here. A
relatively wall-sided hull doesn't gain much waterplane inertia at deeper
flotation, so transverse moment of inertia of the waterplande doesn't
increase very much. Metacentric height above VCB is I-sub-t divided by
Displacement. So for constant I-sub-t, BM goes down, GM goes doen by an
even higher perentage (usually) and when you factor in the increased
displacement to get righting moment per unit heel you're lucky if you're
back where you started.
But the "pumpkin seed" J-35 has lots O' flair, and gains lots O'
waterplane. In fact, for a circular section, it's easy to prove the the
metacneter will be at the center of the radius of the circle, regardless
of immersion. So GM loss is slight when weight is added, but you come out
ahead (on righting moment per unit heel) because displacement is up. Capiche?
The Gallow's
In my view, the Hunter is a great Liveaboard, super coastal cruiser, but is
not designed nor sold by Hunter as an offshore cruiser.
--
Legal Warning: Anyone sending me unsolicited/commercial email WILL be
charged a $100 proof-reading fee. Do NOT send junk email to me -
consider this anofficial notice: "By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B),
a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violat
Legal Warning: Anyone sending me unsolicited/commercial email WILL be
charged a $100 proof-reading fee. Do NOT send junk email to me -
consider this anofficial notice: "By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B),
a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the
aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary
loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation."
Dick Vance <dva...@smoky-mtns.com> wrote in article
<01bbff62$4c008140$1769...@dvance.smoky-mtns.com>...
> Kanon,
> For a lot of information on the Hunter Passage 42 and other Hunters,
check
> out the Hunter Owners Web at:
> http://www.herringn.com
> Phil Herring, who lives aboard a Passage 42, runs the site and you can
find
> most anything you ever wanted, or didn't want
> to know about Hunters there. Apparently the newer big Hunters are much
> improved over the early and mid 80's boats.
> Dick
> --
> dva...@smoky-mtn.com
>
Russell Turpin
-*-------
In article <32DD46...@encore.com>,
George Oprisko <gopr...@encore.com> wrote:
> It gets worse than that:: consider stability of the J/35 with 300
Is it, really?
When they did the J/35C, for cruising rather than racing, I
notice that they took a foot of the beam and added a ton of
displacement, the sum of which should provide quite a bit
more range of positive stability.
Russell
--
"When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to
rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts
out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut
off her hand; your eye shall have no pity." Deut 25:11 (RSV)
J.M. Chaney
The following is copied from a post to the Hunter Owner's Forum Home Page
...Hunter stands behind the boats as blue water trans-oceanic capapble, and the IMCI (
International Marine Certification Institute) certifies the boats we build: from the 376
and up, as catagory "A" certified: Ocean, craft designed for extended voyages where
conditions experienced may exeed wind force 8 (Beaufort Scale) and including significant
wave heights of 4m, for vessels that are largely self-sufficient. On the builders
certificate now there is a mark CE. The CE mark means that your caft meets or exceeds
all current ISO (International Organization for Standardization) directives and
standards in effect at the time of manufacture. The criteria IS NOT established by
Hunter Marine and the catagory assisigned is only a reference to the assigned catagory.
The safety of the captain and crew of any vessel is not measured by such catagories, and
you should not interpret these catagories as an indication of your safety in such
conditions. The skill of the captain and crew, together with proper preparation,
appropriate safety equipment for the given conditions, and a well mantained vessel are
critical to safe sailing.
JMC
glenn
kco...@ix.netcom.com (Kanon Cozad)
wrote:
>I say a new Hunter 42CC Passage at a yard in New Jersey and was really
>impressed. Before I looked at it any harder, I thought I'd ask for any
>experiences with Hunters of this size. Thanks.
>--
>Kanon Cozad
>kco...@ix.netcom.com
some were recalled due to mast problems
have rudder assemble checked
heard hunters loose them???
(not on my 28.5 though)
Capt. Billy Bones
If it is built as well as the smaller Hunters I wouldn't even sail it on a
mill pond much less the Ocean !!!!
glenn <gle...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<5c2q1j$m...@camel4.mindspring.com>...
George Oprisko
Terry Schell wrote:
>
> George Oprisko <gopr...@encore.com> writes:
> <snip>
> >On my way back from Gun Cay to Ft. Lauderdale, I pondered the impact
> >on stability of configuring a boat like the J36, beneteau, or Hunter 36
> >for cruising. These boats have dinghy hulls and fin keels. All have
> >high freeboard for their length, because the deepest part of the hull
> >is no more than 18" below the water line, and the cabin sole in these
> >is at the water line. If we assume
a displacement of 10,000# for the typical vessel of this type, a
*******
metacentric height of 4' above LWL and
*********
> >a VCG 1' above LWL,
*********
this vessel has a righting moment, unheeled of 30,000 ft-lbs.
********
George Oprisko wrote:
Terry, I opened up some lines in the original post and highlighted them
with asterisks. Perhaps you were somewhat rushed at the time of your
first reading.
I do believe the metacentric height would be above the CG, which for
my analysis gives MH = +4 - CG = +1 == +3 * DISP = 10,000
gives 30,000 ft-lb.
This figure, by the way, is 3 times the figure Jboats publish for the
J42 with bulb keel and carbon fiber mast.
"Take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints"
Indy
Ole Jensen
I wrote
> The moment of the extra loads with respect to the metacenter is
> +3030 ft-lbs.
Oops, make that +1530 ft-lbs (-720 ft-lbs for the deck-load, and +2250
ft-lbs for the internal load). But still an increase, rather than
decrease, in stability.
-- Ole Hoegh Jensen
Colin&Catherine
So why not agree on a set of general references for ' blue water' say
2 meter or 7' foot waves at fifteen knots, for example. then we could
all try the same math to arrive at some commonality. i do appreciate
this thread-that what the group is for. i would much rather talk hull
dynamics than 'wank' over guns. still reading, cheers, Colin.
au...@lafn.org (Sean Holland) wrote:
>Biased? Yes one might say so. I believe that this boat is an excellent
>liveaboard marina vessel, and would be adequate for weekending at
>Catalina or cruising carefully through the Channel Islands, but in my own
>opinion I would not attempt an extended cruise in one. I have observed
>too many shattered hulls, sunken vessels, lost rudders, and broken dreams
>to wish to subject myself to these risks when cruising. A proper
>cruising design must be capable of taking a licking and still come up
>ticking. A Valiant 40 does so, our C&C has shown this ability, as has
>the Norseman, but not so those that you are so fond of.
>Good Sailing,
>73, Sean
>In a previous article, Mana...@Islandnet.com (Manageering) says:
>>Sean,
>>We all like to see our opinions expressed, so your comments brought a nod
>>and smile. I worry about being biased, though. Just what is it about,
Sshirley5
Clearly, Mr Lull, you have no idea what you are talking about!
If you consider Hunters to be "lightly built," then you have not looked at
a Hunter since about 1980, and you know nothing about the Passage 42,
which is one of the most popular boats for liveaboards. The larger Hunters
(above 37 feet) are built quite heavily, with solid fiberglass
construction below the waterline and balsa coring above. The decks are
balsa cored and have aluminum coring under winches, stanchions, etc.
Hunter is building these larger boats for the island charter market, and
they are strong and solid. I work on boats for a living, and the NEW
(post-92 or so) Hunters are far better built than their competition from
Catalina and Beneteau.
As for your uninformed comment about the backstayless rig, this clearly
shows your ignorance. (Of course, this does not apply to the Passage 42,
which has a backstay, and can be rigged as a cutter.) The B & R engineered
rig has the spreaders swept back such that the mast is stayed at even 120
degree intervals--a perfect three-point-stance. The shrouds go to the
extreme outboard edge of the deck, which further spreads the load, and the
small-overlap jib leads inboard of the shrouds for a very tight sheeting
angle. Forestay tension is maintained by prebend induced by diamond
shrouds. If any element of this rig (other than, obviously, the forestay)
fails, you can still sail home. So what do you need a backstay for?
A fixed backstay on a small cruising boat is an evolutionary throwback to
a time when cruising boat designs were married to a measurement racing
rule such as IOR, which placed a premium on upwind ability and spawned
boats with huge masthead genoas on high aspect ratio rigs. Backstays were
needed to maintain headstay tension, and had tension adjustments, either
mechanical or hydraulic, to place massive tension on the rig, and
consequently the hull. The effect of this is to put huge compression loads
on the mast, which trys to push the keel off, while forestay and backstay
tension try to bend the hull. The inboard shrouds also try to pull the
chainplates through the deck, and it required two large deck apes to trim
in the genoa on boats as small as 27 feet. Show me a boat from this design
era, and I'll show you a.) deck compression around the mast b.) leaky
chainplates, damaged bulkheads, and bulkheads tearing away from the hull
c.) a horizontal crack where the ballast keel attaches to the molded hull,
and d.) lots of stress cracks.
The other use for backstays, also from racing, is on fractional rigs,
where it is used as a mast bending control. On boats like the Santana 20
and J-24, the backstay tension is constantly adjusted sailing upwind to
power-up or depower the sailplan. This is definitely the backstay's
highest and best use, but hardly lends itself to use by the average
cruising sailor, who prefers simplicity and ease of use.
So I repeat: What do you need a backstay for? High performance dinghys
don't have them, nor do most multihulls. When sailing downwind, there is
very little stress on a backstay, as the apparent windspeed is reduced
below true windspeed. Race boats with adjustable backstays EASE them on
reaches and runs. A properly tuned B & R rig would derive no benefit from
a backstay, either upwind or downwind.
What about shock loads? I recently put this rig to the test on a Hunter
29.5 with an asymmetrical spinnaker in 24 knots True. With the main double
reefed and the jib furled, the boat cruised briskly at 120 to 160 degrees
off the wind. When we headed up to about 65 and collapsed the chute, it
would refill violently upon bearing off. (Don't try this at home, kids,
we're professionals.) The backstayless rig never shuddered. It felt much
more solid than my traditional tall-rig IOR boat, which experiences "mast
pumping" under such shock loads.
I would have no qualms about doing an ocean passage aboard a Hunter 336,
376, or 430 with this B & R rig. (Nothing wrong with the design of the
smaller 29.5 or 280, but my personal preference is toward bigger boats for
long ocean passages.) It is scientifically designed and engineered and
thoroughly tested, and I consider it safer than a whole lot of boats are
that have backstays. It is so strong that three new Hunter models (310,
340, and 450) are actually using smaller sections and utilizing deck
struts, a la BOC raceboat designs.
I respect your opinion, and hope that after further enlightenment, it has
changed. I am surprised to see such unfounded criticism coming from
someone who is not a Catalina owner disgruntled with his boat's resale
value compared to Hunter's.
Smooth sailing, and I hope your backstay doesn't break.
J.M. Chaney
This is a great post. I couldn't agree more. I'm an extremely pleased
Hunter Owner and wouldn't even consider trading it for another boat,
except for, mayby, yes absolutely, I would trade it for a Valiant.
JMC
svwi...@aol.com
In article <19970127042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sshi...@aol.com (Sshirley5) writes:
sShirley5 has a truly marvelous and entertaining view of history but then
he is as he says, a *professional.* Whoever would have guessed that the
back stay was only invented due to a racing rule? Those square rig and
Bermuda rig sailers were really clever devils to have been able to
anticipate handicap rules by so many hundreds of years. And what a marvel
it is to learn the the B&R rig, heretofore notorious for going by the
board if not carefully tuned, can continue to sail with any one of it's 3
supports gone. Excepting the fore stay of course which is somehow
different than the other stays arranged in the
*perfect-three-point-stance.* And here all this time engineers have been
laboring under the delusion that the triangle was only stable with all
three of its legs. What new wonders await us in the next installment?
Happy Trails
Paul Kamen
sshi...@aol.com (Sshirley5) writes:
>....Forestay tension is maintained by prebend induced by diamond
>shrouds.....
Please explain how prebend helps maintain forestay tension. Can't you do
exactly the same thing with diamond stays on a straight mast?
Terry Schell
svwi...@aol.com writes:
I am not endorsing Shirley or the Hunter... but you are wrong about
the B&R rig. The shrouds are arranged such that any one of them can
go and the rig survive; the only exception is if the entire chainplate
pulled out. The forestay support is not duplicated by redundant parts
and so is a "Jesus" failure mode.
I was unaware of any notoriety of the B&R rig. Can you point to some
specific failures where it appears that the rig design was a
contributing factor in the failure? I know a couple of B&R that came
down... but then so did lots of other racing rigs in the same
situations. I also know of a couple of instances where a shroud
parted and the B&R rig *didn't* go down.
Just wunderin'
Terry Schell
greg harms
> sshi...@aol.com (Sshirley5) writes:
> >....Forestay tension is maintained by prebend induced by diamond
> >shrouds.....
>Please explain how prebend helps maintain forestay tension. Can't you do
>exactly the same thing with diamond stays on a straight mast?
Oooh you guys are mean...
So the poster is a little fuzzy on the physics of structures. But perhaps we
can agree that the engineers at Hunter planned for the rig to stay up
by sweeping the shrouds back...
What interests me is the wisdom of the net on these newer boats by Hunter. I
must admit that the designs and execution look far better than they did in the
old days. Manufacturers do improve occasionally. The new boats look quite
strong to me. Maybe not the best built, but not junk either. For that you
can buy a Macgregor. (more flame bait)
Comments to the poster's intent in singing the praises of the new Hunters?
greg_...@mindlink.bc.ca
s/v Terna, Vancouver, BC
Paul Kamen
greg_...@mindlink.bc.ca (greg harms) writes:
>Oooh you guys are mean...
You're right, I'm picking a nit. (Actually I'm trying to cover for the
fact that I have no idea what a "B&R" rig is, except that it has
swept-back shrouds and no fixed backstay.)
However, it seems to me that the forestay is the only standing rigging
element on this type of rig that *can* fail without risk of losing the
rig, because a modern jib and halylard will be plenty strong enough to
hold the mast up for a while without the wire.
(This was a trick qeustion on the old Cal Sailing Club written exam:
"What do you do if the foretay breaks?" The wrong answer, which lots of
people checked, was "Lower the jib immediately!")
svwi...@aol.com
In article <5cllm5$c...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu
(Terry Schell) writes:
>I am not endorsing Shirley or the Hunter... but you are wrong about
>the B&R rig. The shrouds are arranged such that any one of them can
>go and the rig survive; the only exception is if the entire chainplate
>pulled out. The forestay support is not duplicated by redundant parts
>and so is a "Jesus" failure mode.
>
>
Hi Terry- you're going to have to work harder than just asserting that
a column supported at 120 degree intervals won't come down if one supprt
is removed.:->
Want to give it a try?
As to B&R rigs. (BTW - was it Bergstrom & Ridder? Can't remember.) In the
later years of the *real* SORC (when we still did overnight races if u can
believe it) and when the B&R was new so many of them came down that
serious damage was done to the rep's of both Mr B and Mr R. Their rigs,
often referred to as *bendy rigs* were ridiculed far and wide. The
cause of failure was usually not the breaking of a stay. Rather they
came out of column due to faulty tuning said B&R. Due to faulty
engineering said the owners. Yup, I do realize that time has passed and
alot more has been learned about tuning the bendy rig and that engineering
improvements have been made. And of course they provide superior ability
to control sail shape. But do I see that arrangement as a good idea for
off shore work, nope.
Regards
Chuck
greg harms
> greg_...@mindlink.bc.ca (greg harms) writes:
> >Oooh you guys are mean...
>You're right, I'm picking a nit. (Actually I'm trying to cover for the
>fact that I have no idea what a "B&R" rig is, except that it has
>swept-back shrouds and no fixed backstay.)
Ha! Me too; but no way was *I* going to admit it!
>However, it seems to me that the forestay is the only standing rigging
>element on this type of rig that *can* fail without risk of losing the
>rig, because a modern jib and halylard will be plenty strong enough to
>hold the mast up for a while without the wire.
Hey for sure. When any of the transverse elements on a rig go, I think
we can be sure it isn't gonna do anything good for the stability of the
structure. If I see(or hear) a shroud popping out you can bet my first
reaction is gonna be to duck... But the reality is the rig will in most cases
come down before I have time.
But this is true of pretty much everything but an unstayed rig, eh?
But what do you think about the structural strength of the modern Hunters
(hull and loaded elements, etc.). To my eye they don't look a hell of a lot
worse than a Beneteau, say.
Paul Kamen
greg_...@mindlink.bc.ca (greg harms) writes:
>But what do you think about the structural strength of the modern
>Hunters?.....
All I know about Hunters is what I read on the net....
The Fix
What interesting comments this thread has begun. I too have 25 years
sailing under under my legs/gluteus maximus and have sailed the South
Pacific. Carribean, and the Pacific Northwest. Raced internationally on
high tech multi's and weathered gales on both mono's and multi's.....thats
why I bought my '96 Hunter 430.
The boat sails best like a multi and is as stiff as a yacht 10' it's
length. This due inpart to the two appproximate fiberglass 1'*6"*1\2
stringers that run the length of the boat. The layered unidirectional cloth
starred out along the lateral hull sides form a chainplate that dynamic
loading can take up to 83,000 pounds of force. Spread out along the
approximate 4' or so of the hull provides much less loading at focal
points with plates bolted through the hull sides.
Epoxied bottomsides to reduce osmosis and a modern bulbed wing keel alows
for better shaller navigation when needed. Oh, yes with a good Harkin
traveller mounted an the arch I point up to 30.
All the design weight of 8D's, genset, tanks and auxillary are well thought
out for CG.
Interesting to note a Morris 44 right next to mine while I was
commissioning it had been in the yard 4 times in its first year with the
mast forcing the keel right out of the bottom of theboat and delam problems
with the rudder. Amazing that boat literally three times the price of ours.
As always you'll have people with opinions who haven't even been on the
boat they speak of as well as purists vs modern tech. All boats have
problems and should individually be strengthened at their week spots and
sailed to their strong points. This boat of ours has been sailed hard alot
already and has been strengthend in its week spots and we love it. At least
until,as every boat, we find fixing becomes to repetitious or
expensive.....knock on FPR!!
db
Sshirley5 <sshi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970127042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Terry Schell
svwi...@aol.com writes:
>In article <5cllm5$c...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu
>(Terry Schell) writes:
>>I am not endorsing Shirley or the Hunter... but you are wrong about
>>the B&R rig. The shrouds are arranged such that any one of them can
>>go and the rig survive; the only exception is if the entire chainplate
>>pulled out. The forestay support is not duplicated by redundant parts
>>and so is a "Jesus" failure mode.
>>
>>
>Hi Terry- you're going to have to work harder than just asserting that
>a column supported at 120 degree intervals won't come down if one supprt
>is removed.:->
>Want to give it a try?
You are going to have to read harder. No one ever said all of the
shrouds on one side could break and the rig would still stand; the
claim was that any *one* shroud on a side could break and there are
structural duplicates that would take the load.
Terry "trying" Schell
George Oprisko
Actually, the Chinese and medieval sailors used rigs without backstays.
Their masts were solid, and they were not attempting to tension a
jibstay to the degree found on masthead rigs. My only concerns on the
swept spreader rig concern mast bend due to the unbalanced compression
loads exerted by the spreader, and mainsail chafe when reaching and
going downwind.
As for the desirability of this rig for offshore work, I too will join
the skeptics. I really doubt this rig will survive loss of an upper,
and the compression forces required to support a spinnaker must be
quite high since the thrust angles are so small.
As for backstays, it has been recommended for years that offshore boats
carry two independent backstays, two lowers, two jibstays, and
preferably two uppers.
See Ralph Naranjo on this one.
Indy
svwi...@aol.com
In article <5cok7m$s...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu
(Terry Schell) writes:
I'm always willing to try harder Terry - I hope. Ummm - i guess u r
correct that no one said *...all of the shrouds on one side could
break...* The claim was that any *element* other than the fore stay could
go and we could still sail happily home. However, in the B&R rig there _
are_ only 3 shrouds and a rat's nest of jumper stays. The jumpers
hopefully serve to hold the spar in column not to secure it to the boat.
If one of the shrouds goes there _are no_ structural duplicates. That's
why I'm being so pedantic about this. Or has Hunter changed this? Or for
that matter does Hunter really use the B&R rig? One last cheap shot &
I'll quit--the swept spreaders of this type rig are a bear for chafe when
downwind.
A positive note on Hunter. In '92 we came upon a Hunter 42 that had the
misfortune to have spent the night on the rocks with a large surf running.
Big hole in the hull at about station 6 to 7and the waterline. Lots of
electrical wireing was exposed. All this wiring was Ancor brand tinned
wire and properly tied. Since no one was ever going to see this once the
boat was assembled it would have been easy to use cheap untinned auto
wire. I was impressed . The layup also looked very good - no dry
laminate
Trivial Pursuit Chuck
Akis Deliyannakis
Guys,
I have been sailing for 25 years. Last 6 as apro skipper in Greece ,in
the summers. Last year I sailed from Spain to Mexico via Panama Canal.
I have sailed on 46 different types of boats and my conclusion is that
there is no perfect boat. Hunters just got CE Certified, that is
offshore Class A for all models 376 and over!!!!
Halberg Rassy, Swan, and other brands much-much more expencive than
Hunter have the same certificate.
Bottom line Americans just like foreighn accents,imported goods and they
arent very proud of Made In USA.
To me the B&R made round the globe on Hunters Child with an American
skipper and came second.
I have sailed them, I sell them as well as the other brands I mention
above and for the MONEY ITS THE BEST BUY!!!!BY FAR
As about the French jobs I was taking a crap in a Force 8 and the door
jammed, the 2 guys up had to tack so I wouldnt break the door.
If you can afford two Passage 42 dont buy them buy one Swan 40 and enjoy
a great boat, well built, holds its value and you can sail it wearing
your Ralf Lauren clothes and park it out side the country club.....
Skipper Angelo Deliyannakis
ger...@hol.gr
Sean Holland
In a previous article, svwi...@aol.com () says:
>
>A positive note on Hunter. In '92 we came upon a Hunter 42 that had the
>misfortune to have spent the night on the rocks with a large surf running.
> Big hole in the hull at about station 6 to 7and the waterline.
Compare this to the Valiant 40 that ran onto the reef SE of Great Inagua
Island and was stranded for almost 2 weeks with the surf pounding her on
the reef. When she was finally towed off, she suffered cosmetic damage,
but no holes, and was easily towed back to Palm Beach and repaired. I
can not consider a "big hole" as indication of any structural integrity,
but rather an indication that the laminate schedule is too light!
Good Sailing,
Sean
Terry Schell
au...@lafn.org (Sean Holland) writes:
It is simply impossible to compare two different accidents and make
conclusions about the boat construction. Do you know the shape of the
rocks it was on... how much was resting on sand... the height and
frequency of waves... how much of the boat was still supported by the
water? The same boat can survive 2 weeks grounded under some
circumstances and be ripped to bite sized pieces in minutes in some
other circumstances.
You can, however, make some limited conclusions about construction
based on an inspection of the damage, particularly the degree of
delamination relative to the size of the holes.
that is my opinion...
Terry Schell
Sshirley5
I seem to have opened up a can of worms with this thread, when actually I
was only responding to someone's unfounded criticism of a decently built
production-line boat. There are actually 3 issues that should probably be
discussed separately: The virtues of the B & R rig without backstays; the
seaworthiness of the Hunter Passage 42; and the quality of construction of
production boats like Hunter and Beneteau vs. heavy displacement
semi-custom boats such as the Valiant. I have defended, and others will
continue to defend, the first two points. I would like to address the
third.
I have had the opportunity to visit the production facilities of BOTH
Hunter Marine and Valiant Yachts. Before I risk a further flameout, let me
state for the record that Valiant builds a beautiful, heavy displacement,
full keel boat, and they are well built. Nobody disputes that. Hunter's
Detroit-style assembly line is a lot more impressive to me. I have met
very knowledgable people at both plants. Frankly, there is just not that
much difference in the methods of construction utilized. Face it, they're
both just putting resin and glass in a mold. The Valiant boats are just
much heavier, and MUCH more expensive. We are comparing apples to kumquats
here, the point being that the major difference is not so much quality of
construction as it is philosophy of design. The Valiants, and many others
of its type, are designed to be HEAVY displacement (high displacement to
length ratio) boats. A great many cruisers would never consider going
offshore in anything without a full keel and very high D/L ratio, and the
Valiant is probably one of the very best of this breed.
The critics of the Hunters tend to be fans of heavy displacement,
full-keel, old-fashioned designs, or else salesmen for competing lines,
especially brand B and brand C, who are facing continued loss of market
share to the increasingly popular Hunter designs. If you are firmly
entrenched in the full keel, high D/L camp, then any discussion becomes a
Ford/Chevy argument that no one wins. But consider, just for the sake of
maintaining an open mind, that just because a boat has a separate keel and
rudder and lighter displacement does not mean it can't go offshore. People
sail ULDBs between California and Hawaii on a routine basis. Not the first
choice for many, but proof that heavy displacement is not the True and
Only Way.
You cannot compare the FINISH quality of production boats to that of more
expensive custom yachts. In this area, you get what you pay for. But the
integrity of construction of the Hunters STRUCTURALLY is certainly
comparable to other boats of equivalent displacement. Just because a
laminate is thicker does not by itself mean a boat is better quality! And
higher weight does not mean higher quality, either.
I, too, have seen storm damaged boats, and there are far too many
variables to use these as a valid judgment of the overall quality of ANY
builder. I have seen damaged Valiants and damaged Hunters, but this does
not change my opinion of either builder.
I still think that Hunter builds boats that are the best value on the
market. Does that make it better than a Swan, or a Shannon, or a Valiant?
Yes, in one very important sense: a Hunter you CAN afford is better than
the Swan you will never own. As the bumper sticker says, "I'd Rather Be
Sailing." If I win the $35 million lottery, I will buy a Swan. But if I
only win $4 million, the Hunter is a fine boat.
Smooth sailing,
Scott Shirley
Terry Schell
sshi...@aol.com (Sshirley5) writes:
<snip>
>both just putting resin and glass in a mold. The Valiant boats are just
>much heavier, and MUCH more expensive. We are comparing apples to kumquats
>here, the point being that the major difference is not so much quality of
>construction as it is philosophy of design. The Valiants, and many others
>of its type, are designed to be HEAVY displacement (high displacement to
>length ratio) boats. A great many cruisers would never consider going
>offshore in anything without a full keel and very high D/L ratio, and the
>Valiant is probably one of the very best of this breed.
I mostly agree with your points... but I think it ironic that lots of
people use Valiant as an example of a heavy traditional cruiser. Even
George has used it as an example of a good blue water boat.
The valiant has *modern* underbody with fin keel and separate
skeg&rudder and it has a relatively moderate D/L ratio of 200-250
depending on which model you are looking at. The Valiant 47 has
almost exactly the same D/L as the Hunter 43!!! (209 vs. 194)
People just get fooled by that canoe stern... but she is a modern boat
through and through. I agree that the construction of a newer hunter
is *much* closer to that of a valiant than most people realize.
Sincerely,
Terry "bring-on-the-flames" Schell
yac...@sailing.lover.org
In article <19970208074...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sshi...@aol.com (Sshirley5) wrote:
>
> I have had the opportunity to visit the production facilities of BOTH
> Hunter Marine and Valiant Yachts. Before I risk a further flameout, let me
> state for the record that Valiant builds a beautiful, heavy displacement,
> full keel boat, and they are well built. Nobody disputes that.
Well, here come's MY dispute. The Valiant 40 has a D/L ratio of 250.
Right in the middle of the MODERATE displacement category. There's never
been a "full-keel" Valiant built. They are modified full-keel with
skeg-hung rudder. And when Bob Perry designed it in the early '70s, it
was considered "radical" and unacceptable as a blue-water boat!
I agree that the Hunter provides the maximum boat for the minimum money.
I have seen too much shoddy craftsmanship on these boats to be
comfortable in one for offshore work, but I sure agree that if the boat
meets your needs and your budget, then DO IT!
Bryan Genez
"Capella" Valiant 40 #158
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bryan Genez
In article <5diml4$o...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry
Schell) wrote:
> I mostly agree with your points... but I think it ironic that lots of
> people use Valiant as an example of a heavy traditional cruiser. Even
> George has used it as an example of a good blue water boat.
Well, it is.
> The valiant has *modern* underbody with fin keel and separate
> skeg&rudder and it has a relatively moderate D/L ratio of 200-250
> depending on which model you are looking at. The Valiant 47 has
> almost exactly the same D/L as the Hunter 43!!! (209 vs. 194)
>
> People just get fooled by that canoe stern... but she is a modern boat
> through and through. I agree that the construction of a newer hunter
> is *much* closer to that of a valiant than most people realize.
The fact that two different boats both share modern *designs* has no
relationship to their individual *construction*. There is very little
similarity between Valiant and Hunter *construction*.
The sailboat construction industry is similar to many others. In most
cases, you still get what you pay for. Ultimately, your budget will
determine your boat; or you'll sit at home scheming and dreaming all your
days.
Do what you can afford, but DO IT.
Best,
Bryan
"Capella" Valiant 40 #158
Terry Schell
yac...@toad.net (Bryan Genez) writes:
<snip>
>The fact that two different boats both share modern *designs* has no
>relationship to their individual *construction*. There is very little
>similarity between Valiant and Hunter *construction*.
Valiant is a great boat, but it is constructed with materials almost
identical to the Hunters. And with very similar D/L and ballast ratios
and very similar construction techniques... I just don't see how there can
be *that* much difference in strength.
What about the construction is so different? What (other than the
price and quality of joinery) makes you think that the Valiant hull
constuction is fundimentally different? Does anyone have the actual
laminate schedules and the specs of the load-bearing bulkheads/
floorpan?
I am not really suggeting that everyone head off-shore in a Hunter 42...
but there has certainly been a lot of mis-information about them.
They have even been called ULDB's by some in this group but with D/L
ratios twice what is normally considered the "cut-off" for ULDB this
name seems absurd.
Does anyone know enough about the actual construction of these two
boats to discuss the strengths of the two hulls?
Sincerely,
Terry "heretic" Schell
J.M. Chaney
I used to keep my boat at Cedar Mills Marina on Lake Texoma, the home of
Valiant, and have toured their facility several times. In addition, I
own a Hunter 35.5 that I am quite pleased with. ]
The hull thickness on a Valient is over two inches, about eighteen
layers of laminant. No production boat can compare to the soundness of
this construction.
One Valiant being refitted at Cedar Mills was cought in a Hurricane and
was washed over two miles inland. The only major damage was due to
vandalism.
Based on my experience with Hunter, I would not hesitate to take any of
their boats, 376 and up, off shore. Buy If I hand the money, Valiant
would be my first choice.
JMC