MacGregor 26 pro's/cons
Larry Charlot
George - I'd be glad to talk to you about MacGregor's boats, based on my
own experiences with my Mac 25, and what I've seen of other peoples boats.
I'll answer your questions in the body of your qutoes that follow:
>
> Larry,
>
> You seem to know allot about the MacGregor 26 (water ballast and
> trailerable).
> I am looking at purchasing one (used 1992 model) and would like to know
> about the water ballast part and, when I looked at a used one, the thin
> appearing hull.
Water ballast: Pros and cons...There are 2 primary reasons that water
ballast is becoming increasingly popular in mass-produced "family"
sailboats. First, it saves the manufacturer a lot of money that he doesn't
have to spend on lead or cast iron keels. Second, since the boat is
lighter, the trailer can be lighter and again the manufacturer saves money.
For the customer, the advantage is that you can have a 26' long boat that
can be towed with a relatively inexpensive 1/2 ton light duty pickup truck
or van. Most 26' sailboats weigh more than double a Mac 26 on the trailer
and require a heavy duty 3/4 ton or 1 ton pickup for the tow vehicle. Case
in point, my Catalina 25 with trailer weighs about 6500# as opposed to
about 3000# for a Mac26. On the downside, that water ballast tank is 8 to
10 inches deep and this costs you headroom inside the cabin, compared to
similar boats with a fixed keel. Also, since the mass of the ballast is
not very much lower than the boat's center of buoyancy, it's "righting
moment" is not as much as a conventional lead keel. In other words, in a
given amount of wind hitting the sails, a water ballast boat will heel more
than it would with a conventional metal keel.
Thin Hull: As you obviously have noticed, MacGregor sailboats have pretty
thin, springy hull and deck laminates. My Mac25 actually sagged visibly on
the trailer after a few days out of the water, and the foredeck made
creaking noises and you could feel it sag when walking on it. However, I
made several weekend cruises in fairly rough, windy, choppy conditions in
San Francisco Bay and nothing broke. The biggest problem I have seen with
dry-sailed MacGregors is stress cracking of the gelcoat up on deck in the
corners and edges. As I said, my boat actually sagged around the trailer
bunks because the hull was too flexible, and this made for a LOT of stress
cracks. Boats kept in the water in a marina berth or on a mooring would
probably not suffer from this problem.
MacGregors have light hulls so they can be priced below competitors' boats,
and to keep the total trailering package under 3000# so it can legally use
a single-axle trailer (saves $$$).
> Why would a friend have no logical remarks except than it's "junk"???
Thin hull laminations, really cheezy, bottom of the line deck hardware,
sails, and rigging components, little or no wood trim inside or out gives
these boats a "cheap, plastic-ey" look and feel. Compare a Mac26 to an
older Catalina 25 or Chrysler 26 and you will immediately understand what I
talking about in terms of overall quality.
> Is it as reliable as in the brochures? (They always talk them up in
> them.)
The Mac26 is an okay "starter" sailboat for lakes and sheltered coastal
waters, but I would not want to be caught in one in a 40 knot blow, unless
the rigging had been substantially upgraded to support the mast better. I
would also worry about the security of the hull-to-deck joint in heavy
seas, since the laminates are so thin.
> Is the water ballast good? Large cargo ships have it but sailboats ???
Water ballast has good and bad points as I said earlier. If you want a 26'
sailboat that you will be trailering a lot, but you don't already own a
heavy duty pickup truck, a water ballast boat is a good choice. Keep in
mind that MacGregor isn't your only choice: Hunter and Catalina also make
25'~26' sailboats that are water ballast, that are worth looking at.
> How can I tell if the craft is okay or not, (the sails all appeared
> fine).
A 1992 boat is probably okay, as it isn't old enough to where you would
have to start worrying about dry-rot and other such problems. Look closely
at the interior upholstery for ANY signs that the windows or deck hardware
are leaking rainwater into the cabin. Check the bilge for excessive dirt
deposits that would be a sign of leakage. Ask for a trial sail for a a few
hours, and observe anything that is broken, then look in the bilge for
water that wasn't there at the beginning of the day. MacGregor's are so
basic that there isn't a whole lot that go wrong with the hardware, but
look for any looseness of the winches, camcleats, deck cleats,
pulpits,railings, and other hardware. Crawl underneath the boat on the
trailer and look for ANY signs that it's been run aground or otherwise
damaged. If you really like the boat, pop $200 for a professional marine
surveyor to look it over. He will spot the difficult problems like
delamination of the fiberglass, dry rot, unsafe or worn out rigging, etc.
> Any other info is desired if you have any.
If you have any more specific questions, please feel free to ask via e-mail
any time, I will be glad to respond if I know the answer. Good luck in
your boat hunt!
Larry Charlot
Catalina 25 #1205 "Summertime Dream"
lcha...@jps.net
Jim Cate
In <01bc2de1$88bfe460$LocalHost@lcharlot> "Larry Charlot"
<lcha...@jps.net> writes:
>
>> Larry,
>>
>> You seem to know allot about the MacGregor 26 (water ballast and
>> trailerable).
>> I am looking at purchasing one (used 1992 model) and would like to
know
>> about the water ballast part and, when I looked at a used one, the
thin
>> appearing hull.
The last two or three years production of the MacGregor 26 is the
MacGregor 26X, which is a substantially different boat than the
original 26. The new model is substantially "deeper" or higher, and
provides 6-foot headroom. It is specially designed to accept a large
(55hp) outboard, and is adapted to plane at 25 mph or so under power,
without the water ballast. The idea is to permit the owner to motor out
to the preferred saiing area (at 25mph plus or minus) and then fill the
water tanks for sailing, and then empty the tanks and motor back. This
feature is advantageous if you are some distance away from your
intended cruising area. --In our area, for example, it is 25-30 miles
from blue water sailing, and it is normally not possible to get there
on a weekend cruise. Another advantage of the "deeper, higher" design
is that it will probably provide greater longitudinal stiffness than
the old 26.
As compared with a heavy boat such as a Tartan, Valiant, Sabre,
etc., the Mac26 is not really built for ocean crossings, but it does
have the following advantages: (1) If heavy weather is approaching, it
can scamper back to the harbor at about three times the speed of the
Tartan or Valiant or Sabre. - This may be a safety factor when one
would prefer to get back to shore rather than ride the storm out
listening to your wife's complaints. (2) If the hull is compromised, as
by running into heavy, floating timbers or the like, the Mac remains
afloat due to its built-in foam flotation and its light weight. You can
then call the Coast Guard to pick you up. In the case of the Tartan, or
Valiant, or Sabre (or Pacific Seacraft) if the hull is punctured
(except for minor leaks), the boat soon goes STRAIGHT TO THE BOTTOM OF
THE OCEAN. (3) With the Mac, you can maneuver safely into unknown bays
and harbors without too much worry about running aground. This is
because the dagger board is retractable, yet if you do retract it, the
ballast continues to do its thing. Thus, if you have to beach the boat
for a picnic, or in an emergency, there is no great problem. Just head
toward a sandy shore and raise the board. (Try this in a Valiant 40 and
you will have some pretty serious problems on your hand.) (4) The Mac,
with a 55 hp motor, is sufficiently fast to permit you to get out to
the blue water, or wherever the heck you want to go, pretty quickly. In
our area, this feature would make the differenece between being able to
head out to the blue water for a few hours and get back, on a typical
day or weekend cruise, or having to mull around in the muddy, brown
water in the bays. Of course, the boat wouldn't be too comfortable in
6-foot seas, but as a practical matter, I probably wouldn't be able to
get out there at all if I had to sail or motor down for some six hours
to get to the prime sailing area. Of course, I could brag to high
heaven to my buddies about my "blue water" boat. I just couldn't get
the boat to the blue water very often. (5) The Mac, of course, can
still be trailored and taken out of the water when you aren't going to
sail it for a while. The cost of leaving it in your back yard, or in
dry storage, is substantially less than docking it in a marina and
paying for bottom cleaning, etc, etc. (Might want to put some
additional pads under the contact points.) (6) Moving the boat to new
sailing locations is, of course, simplified as compared with a Valiant
or Sabre. (7) If your kids can't stand to watch their buddies water ski
behind their power boats, you can manage to pull one of them behind the
Mac. While this wouldn't matter much to me (since my kids are grown) it
might be important in some families. The motoring capabilities might
also be important if you wanted to spend the day fishing or motor
cruising for a change, rather than sailing. (8) In light-wind days, you
can sail the Mac without the water ballast and get the boat up on a
plane. On down-wind runs, the boat will plane under sail, which can be
pretty exciting. Its a different experience. Again, the Valiant 40's
and the Sabres, and the Pacific Seacrafts and Flickas are real hard to
get up on a plane, under any conditions. -- Always limited by hull
speed limitations, though I have seen 9.5 knots on the Valiant 40 with
cutter rig.
Obviously, there are some serious limitations with the Mac. You
really can't store enough provisions for a long passage, nor would you
want to take the boat far out on open water. It is going to be pretty
uncomfortable in heavy weather, though it does, again, have the ability
to motor back to a harbor quickly if you keep track of the weather. I
suppose that I would rather be able to sit it out in harbor than brag
about how great my boat handled in the storm. For most conditions, if
properly reefed, it would probably to OK in most near-shore waters.
Jim Cate
J.M. Chaney
There are a couple of other points to consider:
1. MacGregor should not be spoken in the same sentence with Valient or
Sabre.
2. The hull on a MacGregor 26 is so thin that you can see sunlight
through it.
3. The MacGregor 26 is so tender that you have to reef in 15 knots of
wind.
4. The running and standing rigging provided on the MacGregor 26 is the
absolute minimum you can install and still call it a sailboat.
5. MacGregor 26's are restricted to Leper Colonies and small ponds.
JMC
Bob Edwards
J.M. Chaney wrote:
>
>
> There are a couple of other points to consider:
>
> 1. MacGregor should not be spoken in the same sentence with Valient or
> Sabre.
>
> 2. The hull on a MacGregor 26 is so thin that you can see sunlight
> through it.
>
> 3. The MacGregor 26 is so tender that you have to reef in 15 knots of
> wind.
>
> 4. The running and standing rigging provided on the MacGregor 26 is the
> absolute minimum you can install and still call it a sailboat.
>
> 5. MacGregor 26's are restricted to Leper Colonies and small ponds.
>
> JMC
JMC: just for the record, what kind of boat do YOU own currently, and
what have you owned and sailed in the past?
Not to take sides in the Mac26 pro / con arena, but a couple of the
points you make don't really mean much.
#2) see-thru hull: I doubt very much you can see thru the hull, unless
you are talking about a section without gel-coat or paint. In this
case, you can see thru about any reasonable thickness laminate. My last
boat (Nicholson 39) was not gel-coated below the waterline. When
hole-sawing for new 1" thru-hull, the plug we took out was thicker than
it was wide; but you can easily see light thru that thickness of the
hull!
#3) There are many large-mainsailed boats that need a first reef about
15 knots. My old Pearson Triton was one. Didn't make it any less solid
or enjoyable boat.
#4) Light, sure...but these are not intended for ocean passages.
Oh...you were not being serious? Guess I missed that....but I don't
see how the post was in any way responsive to the original question.
Jim Cate
In <33303D...@mlis.state.md.us> Bob Edwards <r...@mlis.state.md.us>
writes:
>J.M. Chaney wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are a couple of other points to consider:
>>
>> 1. MacGregor should not be spoken in the same sentence with Valient
or
>> Sabre.
>>
>> 2. The hull on a MacGregor 26 is so thin that you can see sunlight
>> through it.
>>
>> 3. The MacGregor 26 is so tender that you have to reef in 15 knots
of
>> wind.
>>
>> 4. The running and standing rigging provided on the MacGregor 26 is
the
>> absolute minimum you can install and still call it a sailboat.
>>
>> 5. MacGregor 26's are restricted to Leper Colonies and small ponds.
>>
>> JMC
>
>
>what have you owned and sailed in the past?
>
>Not to take sides in the Mac26 pro / con arena, but a couple of the
>points you make don't really mean much.
>
>#2) see-thru hull: I doubt very much you can see thru the hull,
unless
>you are talking about a section without gel-coat or paint. In this
>case, you can see thru about any reasonable thickness laminate. My
last
>boat (Nicholson 39) was not gel-coated below the waterline. When
>hole-sawing for new 1" thru-hull, the plug we took out was thicker
than
>it was wide; but you can easily see light thru that thickness of the
>hull!
>
>#3) There are many large-mainsailed boats that need a first reef
about
>15 knots. My old Pearson Triton was one. Didn't make it any less
solid
>or enjoyable boat.
>
>#4) Light, sure...but these are not intended for ocean passages.
>
>
>Oh...you were not being serious? Guess I missed that....but I don't
>see how the post was in any way responsive to the original question.
To: JM Chancey
For the record, I have sailed the Valiant 40; the Erickson 30; the Cal
34; the Oday 37; the Catalina 30; and the Endeavor 32, Islanders, and
others. I currently belong to a charter association in which I usually
sail on a Cal 34. I have sailed several of the Macs, but have more
sailing time on the Valiant 40, and also the Cal 34, than any of the
Macs. What do YOU own (for the record) and what are your average
monthly slip fees, maintenance fees, insurance premiums, loan payments,
etc.?
Your remarks regarding the rigging of the Macs are totally illogical.
The Mac has light rigging and light construction, and the Valiant has
heavy rigging and heavy construction, but this doesn't mean that the
Mac's rigging or construction is not adequate for the job it does. The
Mac displaces some 3,500 lbs and the Valient [sic] 40 which I sailed
displaces over 25K. Rigging suitable for a 25K boat is a different
animal than rigging suitable for a 3,500 boat. They do not use
turnbuckles, but the hardware is stainless and is quite adequate.
Actually, I am not hung up on the Mac in particular, though it is a
sound boat for the money, and there are other similar designs from
Hunter and others with more included in the package, but at
substantially more cost.
Although you point out that the Mac may have to be reefed at 15
knots, you forget that in winds from 5-15 knots it is performing
quickly and responsively, and that it provides plenty of speed in low
winds. If you are going out in 15 knot winds, of course, you can reef
the sails when you first put them up. Nobody is saying that the Mac is
comfortable or suited for open water sailing in gail winds, though it
will make it through heavy weather. What I WAS saying is that the Mac
26X has a number of safety features (which your boat apparently does
not have) which would be very helpful if heavy weather comes up.
Apparently, JM, you have one of the boats I was referring to which, if
its hull is compromised, will swiftly sink STRAIGHT TO THE BOTTOM OF
THE OCEAN, one that could not be beached conveniently in an emergency,
one that cannot be conveniently trailored, one that cannot be sailed OR
motored faster than its hull speed, and one that entails substantial
costs, dock fees, etc., etc.
Jim Cate
Dr. Jeffrey L. Lorentz
>
> J.M. Chaney wrote:
> >
> > 5. MacGregor 26's are restricted to Leper Colonies and small ponds.
When Father Damian, who went to serve the Lepers at Molokai, contracted
the disease himself, he announced that fact at Mass by saying "My fellow
Lepers ..."
So, to paraphrase Fr. Damian: "My fellow MacGregorites..."
I had a Mac 25 for ten wonderful years and spent many happy hours
sailing on the "small pond" called Galveston Bay. This boat provided an
inexpensive way to enjoy the exact same sailing experience that we might
have had in a more expensive boat. We also had a significant advantage
in shallow water ... we would crank up our swing keel and keep on
sailin' ... while the bigger boats called for TowBoat/US!
Even though I'm now cruisin' in a powerboat, I look fondly at the Mac's
every time I drive past and still consider myself a sailor.
--
+---+--------------------------------------------------------+---+----+
| T | Dr. Jeffrey L. Lorentz (jlor...@phoenix.net) | | |
| E | Lorentz & Associates, Inc., Dickinson, TX 77539 | * +----+
| X | Genealogy at http://www.phoenix.net/~jlorentz/family | | |
| A | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +---+----+
| S | I wasn't born in TEXAS but got here as soon as I could |
+---+--------------------------------------------------------+
Mark Armstrong
>
> Your remarks regarding the rigging of the Macs are totally illogical.
> The Mac has light rigging and light construction, and the Valiant has
> heavy rigging and heavy construction, but this doesn't mean that the
> Mac's rigging or construction is not adequate for the job it does.
I agree.
To compare a MacGregor 26 with high quality boats, IMHO, is
plain silly. A Macgregor might not sink but I sure would not
want to be on a 1/2 sunken hull in 10' seas and water temps
of 50 degrees. But a MacGregor does offer alot. Look at my
situation, I live in Rochester, NY. Most of my sailing is
just day sailing, most of the nice cruising spots are 90 knots
away.
With a MacGregor, I could trailer it down to Annapolis for
a long weekend in May.
For Memorial Day, I could trailer it to the 1,000 Island.
I could trailer it to my parents cottage in Michigan for
our annual July 4 vacation.
I could spend a week cruising the Bay of Quinte.
I could trailer it to the North Channel and sail to one
of my dream spots, Mackinaw Island.
I could trailer to Cedar Point, OH for a weekend at a
amusment park and some day sailing.
We take it our annual weekend camping trip at Old Forge.
On Labor Day, back to the 1,000 island (with low water, I
can still get into the bays).
For the fall colors, we cruise down the Erie Canal.
All this in one season.
I can't do all this with my 28' boat (7,000 # displacement).
A trailable boat does offer alot. For me to sail the
North Channel from Rochester, I would need a week moving the
boat thru the Trent-Seven (sp) canal, hoping I don't run aground.
Or I could pay $500-1,000 and haul it up there. I spend a couple
of weeks cruising and maybe a long weekend (I spend a week getting
the boat there). I have to get the boat out of Canada and can't
make it thru the Trent-Seven canal in the fall so I sail solo to
Alpena MI for winter storage (my wife drives around). To sail
the North Channel will take alot of time, money and effort.
Mark
Russell Giles
What the heck, I'll jump into this. I do own a MacGregor although its
the precursor to the 26x, a measley 19' powersailer. I sail it on SF
Bay and out the gate (during winter months). I park it in my back yard
and trailer it to a number of lakes in Northern CA. I've owned it for a
little less than three years and my wife and I have had it out at least
150 days--longest trip 2 weeks sailing and camping at Lake Sonoma. I've
heard it called a lot of names on this newsgroup, but I notice I'm out
on the bay having a ball sometimes in 20-30 winds while 95% of the boats
are in their $150-300 a month slips or heading for them.
From the SF public launch just south of the Bay Bridge, it takes 15
minutes to motor to the Golden Gate, often the only water with wind in
the winter months. I can ignor the tides and currents because I have
enough power to get back to the slip anytime. Also, I generally stay
out sailing two more hours than my well-heeled larger brothern because I
can return to slip at 20 knots. For all the hoofaray about how terrible
Mac's are, the twenty odd experience sailers (many racers) who've been
guest on my dinky little boat are amazed at how well she sails. I
usually run a genny and main until the wind is consistently over 15.
Reefed down with the small jib the boat is steady in the high twenties.
Eight foot seas haven't been a problem out the gate although I wouldn't
consider her for any passage makers nor would I do the same for the 26x
out of the box. The upgrade to rigging isn't that expensive and I'd
rather do it myself than accept the Hunter et al better grade but still
compromise at a much higher price.
I've sailed the 26x and she's an entirely different boat than the older
Mac 26 and venture. Better thicker, laminate and even with the
compromise in hull design points well on tack. The deep blade on the
dual rudder system adds some wicked quick adjustment as well.
Granted I am somewhat new to sailing but I've raced on a number of boats
and dinked around in all kinds of weather supposedly too demanding for
my 19. If one takes a historical perspective, I think you'll find that
on the water, it's usually how well the sailer is put together rather
than the boat that makes the most difference.
Jim Cate wrote:
>
> In <33303D...@mlis.state.md.us> Bob Edwards <r...@mlis.state.md.us>
> writes:
> >
> >J.M. Chaney wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> There are a couple of other points to consider:
> >>
> >> 1. MacGregor should not be spoken in the same sentence with Valient
> or
> >> Sabre.
> >>
> >> 2. The hull on a MacGregor 26 is so thin that you can see sunlight
> >> through it.
> >>
> >> 3. The MacGregor 26 is so tender that you have to reef in 15 knots
> of
> >> wind.
> >>
> >> 4. The running and standing rigging provided on the MacGregor 26 is
> the
> >> absolute minimum you can install and still call it a sailboat.
> >>
> >> 5. MacGregor 26's are restricted to Leper Colonies and small ponds.
> >>
> >> JMC
> >
> >
> Your remarks regarding the rigging of the Macs are totally illogical.
> The Mac has light rigging and light construction, and the Valiant has
> heavy rigging and heavy construction, but this doesn't mean that the
Jim Cate
In <3331A5...@phoenix.net> "Dr. Jeffrey L. Lorentz"
<jlor...@phoenix.net> writes:
>
>>
>I had a Mac 25 for ten wonderful years and spent many happy hours
>sailing on the "small pond" called Galveston Bay. This boat provided
an
>inexpensive way to enjoy the exact same sailing experience that we
might
>have had in a more expensive boat. We also had a significant
advantage
>in shallow water ... we would crank up our swing keel and keep on
>sailin' ... while the bigger boats called for TowBoat/US!
Jeffry,
Did you ever take your Mac down the ship channel to Galveston, or
offshore? I sail a fixed keel boat in Galveston Bay, and you are
certainly correct that the retractable keel provides a great advantage
in that kind of environment, where lots of the bay is less than 4 foot
in depth. The new Mac 26X with 55hp motor could motor down to the gulf
in a little over an hour. Though I probably wouldn't want to do much
offshore sailing in heavy weather, In the fixed keel boats I usually
sail, I simply don't have the time to make the 6-hour trip down to the
blue water, whereas with the Mac, I probably could get out there and
back in one or two days.
This is the point I was trying to make in my original post about the
thousands of beautiful heavy sailboats (around Seebrook and Kemah)
which stay in the dock for 99.9% of the time. There is something to be
said about getting out there in a 26 ft boat on a weekend (albeit, in
moderate weather), as opposed to owning a 40 ft boat which COULD get
out there in heavy weather but which is too slow to make it unless you
can spare lots of time to make the trip. There are also lots of places
around Galveston bay in which you might want to beach the boat or fish
in shallow water, and there are lots more where you really have to be
careful of your depth.
Jim
Ed
Mark Armstrong wrote:
> I agree.
> To compare a MacGregor 26 with high quality boats, IMHO, is
> plain silly. A Macgregor might not sink but I sure would not
> want to be on a 1/2 sunken hull in 10' seas and water temps
> of 50 degrees. But a MacGregor does offer alot. Look at my
> situation, I live in Rochester, NY. Most of my sailing is
> just day sailing, most of the nice cruising spots are 90 knots
> away.
>
J.M. Chaney
Jim Cate wrote:
>
> In <33303D...@mlis.state.md.us> Bob Edwards <r...@mlis.state.md.us>
> writes:
> >
> >J.M. Chaney wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. MacGregor should not be spoken in the same sentence with Valient
> or
> >> Sabre.
> >>
> >> 2. The hull on a MacGregor 26 is so thin that you can see sunlight
> >> through it.
> >>
> >> 3. The MacGregor 26 is so tender that you have to reef in 15 knots
> of
> >> wind.
> >>
> >> 4. The running and standing rigging provided on the MacGregor 26 is
> the
> >> absolute minimum you can install and still call it a sailboat.
> >>
> >> 5. MacGregor 26's are restricted to Leper Colonies and small ponds.
> >>
> >> JMC
> >
> >
I have made many mistakes in my life. Perhaps my previous post was one of them. But my
biggest mistake (with the exception of marrying my ex-wife) was the purchase of a 1990
MacGregor 26.
A more baren boat never existed: inferior sails, no travler, no adjustable fair leads,
inadequate winches, blocks and tackel, and persistent and apparently unsolvable leaks
between the water balast tank and the cabin. No the boat would not have sunk, but
without the automatic bilge pump it would have been well dunked.
The boat was so tender that it healed excessively in moderate air. To this day my new
wife becomes afraid when the wind builds.
I spent thousands of dollars trying to improve the MacGregor 26: New cockpit rails,
stove, larger lifelines, traveler, adjustable fairleads, Genoa, Storm Jib, Crusing
Spiniker - and all of the things that a normal boat comes stock with. But, you can't
turn a pig into a princess. I sold the MacGregor and purchased a Hunter Legend 35.5 -
now there's a boat.
In response to another post, my animosity is directed only at the water balasted
MacGregor 26. I have sailed the MacGregor many times and am fond of it; I wouldn't sail
a MacGregor 26 out of sight of land.
In addition, for most of the time I owned the MacGregor, the boat was docked at Cedar
Mills Marina on Lake Texoma. Cedar Mills is the home and manufacturing facility for
Valient Yachts. I am very familiar with them and have sailed them many times. No finer
boat is manufactured in the world.
Mr Cate, I felt the same way you do for about the first year I owned the MacGregor 26,
but frustration built and ......
Good luck with your boat
JMC
J.M. Chaney
Jim Cate wrote:
>
> In <33303D...@mlis.state.md.us> Bob Edwards <r...@mlis.state.md.us>
> writes:
> >
> >J.M. Chaney wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. MacGregor should not be spoken in the same sentence with Valient
> or
> >> Sabre.
> >>
> >> 2. The hull on a MacGregor 26 is so thin that you can see sunlight
> >> through it.
> >>
> >> 3. The MacGregor 26 is so tender that you have to reef in 15 knots
> of
> >> wind.
> >>
> >> 4. The running and standing rigging provided on the MacGregor 26 is
> the
> >> absolute minimum you can install and still call it a sailboat.
> >>
> >> 5. MacGregor 26's are restricted to Leper Colonies and small ponds.
> >>
> >> JMC
> >
> >
Mark Armstrong
Ed wrote:
> How far is 90 knots?
90 nautical miles
mark
Terry Schell
Thomas Webb
Terry Schell wrote:
Mark Armstrong <m...@raster.kodak.com> writes:
>Ed wrote:
>90 nautical miles
Think again.
How many hours?
Paul Kamen
>How far is 90 knots?
Using "knot" for nautical mile instead of nautical MPH is an old and
obsolete usage, but not an entirely improper one if the context is clear.
It's that pesky "living language" thing again.
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Jim Cate
In <3332A2...@lmtas.lmco.com> "J.M. Chaney"
<l23...@lmtas.lmco.com> writes:
>RE:1990>MacGregor 26.
>
>A more baren boat never existed: inferior sails, no travler, no
adjustable fair leads,
>inadequate winches, blocks and tackel, and persistent and apparently
unsolvable leaks
>between the water balast tank and the cabin. No the boat would not
have sunk, but
>without the automatic bilge pump it would have been well dunked.
>
>The boat was so tender that it healed excessively in moderate air.
>Valient Yachts. I am very familiar with them and have sailed them
many times. No finer
>boat is manufactured in the world.
>
>Mr Cate, I felt the same way you do for about the first year I owned
the MacGregor 26,
>but frustration built and ......
>
>Good luck with your boat
>
>JMC
JMC,
Enough beating about the bush. - Tell us what you REALLY think
about the Mac26. Actually, I agree with you that that Valiant is a
better built boat, and if I could afford a Valiant 40 I might buy one.
I would like to compare it with the Mac 65, however.
The 1990 model 26 was a relatively new design. Has anyone on the
board heard sailed or heard reports re the Mac 26X, with 50-55 hp
motor?
Jim
Colin Starratt
Thomas Webb (tsm...@mail.concentric.net) writes:
> Terry Schell wrote:
>
> Mark Armstrong <m...@raster.kodak.com> writes:
>
> >Ed wrote:
>
> >> How far is 90 knots?
>
> >90 nautical miles
>
> Think again.
>
> How many hours?
>
One hour if you put the boat on a trailer! :-)
Larry Charlot
> The 1990 model 26 was a relatively new design. Has anyone on the
> board heard sailed or heard reports re the Mac 26X, with 50-55 hp
> motor?
>
> Jim
The overall quality of the manufacturing is neither better nor worse
than past MacGregor boats. The real problem with the 26X seems to be
the underbody hull shape. In order to allow the boat to plane at
20 knots, the hull shape is not optimized for sailing,
and this hurts the pointing ability. I have heard from a couple people
who had Mac 25's or 26's and moved to a 26X, that their old boat
would point 10 degrees higher than the 26X. I owned a Mac25 myself
for 4 years, and found that it was not too different in overall performance
from Catalina 25's in our sailing club (once I had put better sails on the
boat).
If you want a MacGregor boat that will sail adequately, best look for
a '90-'94 Mac-26 or a pre-1988 Mac 25. Avoid the '88-'89 Mac 26 with
the vertical-drop centerboard, as these are too easy to snap off if you hit
something underwater or run aground. The '90-94 boat was changed to
a fiberglass swing keel that can pivot if you hit something.
Klaus Sussenbach
And you dont mind speeding tickets....
Allen N. Hilburn
> If you want a MacGregor boat that will sail adequately, best look for
> a '90-'94 Mac-26 or a pre-1988 Mac 25. Avoid the '88-'89 Mac 26 with
> the vertical-drop centerboard, as these are too easy to snap off if you hit
> something underwater or run aground. The '90-94 boat was changed to
> a fiberglass swing keel that can pivot if you hit something.
Any dagger board boat has the "if you hit something" problem, the Mac's,
B25, etc. However, if you are looking for a Mac 26 to race, the dagger
boarder is the way to go. It is one of the best sailing boats Mac ever
made. Also, down in Cancun where the water is shallow, you see a lot of
dagger board Mac's for hire. They run them with the keel raised to the
point where the kickup rudder drags first. The nice thing about a
dagger board, is that it will not change the boats geometry, since it
goes up instead of back, so the Mac dagger still sails farily well.
That said, back when I owned a M25 and sailed where there was the
possibility of hitting something underwater, I did not run with the keel
bolt in so the keel would be free to swing if contact was made. There
was a certain security in this knowledge. ;-)
Allen
SV KAHOLEE
Triton 158
James Jaeckel
Would like to second the Mac19 owner. We too have owned and sailed a
Mac19 and hve found it to be a great little boat. Our longest cruise
was for 11 days up Delaware Bay throgh the C&D Canal and down to Kent
Island Narrows (Annapolis area.) We have had it for four years and have
sailed it on lakes, NJ bays, Delaware Bay and the upper and lower
Chesapeake. The major advantage we had over the "real" sailboat owners
(Catalinas, Hunters, and O'Days at our marina was while every season
they were sailing out to the power plant and back from the power plant
and out to the power plant and back from the power plant, we were
trailering the Mac to diffrent locations and sailing experiences. It is
with some sadness that we are leaving it; having just purchased a Down
East 32 in which we intend to sail up and down the east coast for the
next few summers.
It has been my experience it is very easy to find Mac bashers amoung
those who have never owned one, but a very different quest when asking
those who have owned one. It was a fun, inexpensive boat that more than
met our expectations.
Jim
S/V Witch of Endor (formly -Mac19 Duck Sloop)
Dave
James Jaeckel wrote:
>
> It has been my experience it is very easy to find Mac bashers amoung
> those who have never owned one, but a very different quest when asking
> those who have owned one. It was a fun, inexpensive boat that more than
> met our expectations.
Macs serve a niche. But have you known many (if not any) boat owners
who hate their boat? Boat owners tend to be a bit biased.
--
dav...@li.net "Life is a reach then you gybe"
Triak #35 "Eleven"
5o5 #US4936 ??