The Comfortable Pocket Yacht 
|
|
|
Trailer Sailing |
Topics
The Consideration List The first problem was that I lived in the Mid-West but wanted to sail in the local lakes as well as the Great Lakes, The Chesapeake Bay, and the Florida Keys. In addition, I needed to allow for the possibility of sailing on the major rivers such as the Mississippi or even that daydream of a trip across the Gulf Stream to the Bahamas. Local wisdom was in favor of a swing keel trailer sailor typified by the Catalina 22. After all, there were more than 15,000 of these boats produced and the used market was full of them. A short trip to the Chesapeake Bay and tour of several brokerage lots there was not a lot of help since there were generally fewer trailer sailors on the bay. I went back to my reading and the Internet. My intention was to get a list of six or more boat models refined on paper and then see all of them in one place side by side to make a decision. This would dictate a trip to the Annapolis Boat show or something similar to see the boats and check up on available accessories. After all my research, I came up with the following list of candidates. The observant among you will notice that I did not follow all of my criteria above in every case. After all, I did include two catboats in the short list as well as one daggerboard design. This first pass at the prospective boat list was to be broad. I would refine it later after seeing and if possible sailing the boats. My guide in this effort was Larry Brown's Frugal Yachting - Family Adventuring in Small Sailboats and Robert F. Burgess's Handbook of Trailer Sailing. These two references helped me to really evaluate what I expected from the proposed vessel and how some of the current designs would meet these expectations.
A small boat readily available on the used market and still in production. The design was on the active list since it met most criteria. I was skeptical about this boat since like much of the Capri line, it appeared to be better aimed at racing and day sailing rather than cruising. The cabin seemed to be an afterthought. Some of the references to the Capri 18 did refer to significant cruising capability including a singlehanded trip from California to Hawaii by a trusting fanatic. Therefore, the boat deserved to be under active consideration. The design met all of my criteria on paper. First impressions developed in looking at used boats were that while the cockpit was very large and well arranged, the cabin was too cramped for my needs. Also ventilation would be a problem since the windows were formed from solid plexiglass.
The Catalina 22 is often described as the ideal starter sailboat. So many have been produced over the years that you should always be able to find the features you want in a price range you can afford. One local brokerage lot had 5 Catalina 22’s at the same time. Obviously, the broker was also pushing this design in order to try and clear his lot. The Catalina 22 certainly had all of the features that I wanted. The pop-top design would allow for standing headroom. The cabin had more than enough room and was generally well designed. The ports were solid plexiglass and did not open so the ventilation would have to come from the forward hatch. The design met all of my criteria on paper. First impressions developed in looking at used and new boats were that the quality of construction was good. The cabin was large and comfortable. The cockpit was also good sized and comfortable. My general feeling was that the boat was really more than I would need. Used boats were most commonly available with the swing keel. Occasionally, wing keels were offered and I did see one with the fin keel. I would also wish to consider the larger centerboard Catalina 250 Water Ballast if I could overcome the self imposed weight issue. This model was roomy beyond compare both below decks and in the cockpit.
The Com-Pac 19 was designed by Bob Johnson (of Island Packet fame) and has a very flat underwater cross section. This hull shape and it’s full shoal keel with 800 pounds of ballast would lead to enhanced stability under adverse conditions. As with all of the Com-Pac designs, this boat has a very traditional exterior design with an efficient sloop rig. Later models included a bow sprit for better sail balance and all lines were led aft for ease of singlehanding. The four ports were bronze and all opened for ventilation as well as a good sized forward opening hatch. The port-a-potty was located in a compartment under the companion way steps which I felt to be an advantage. This design met all of my criteria on paper. First impressions developed in looking at used and new boats were that the inside was cramped but workable. The full keel looked to be a problem since several owners had commented on needing steep ramps in order to launch from their trailer. I would also wish to consider the larger Com-Pac 23 if I could overcome the self imposed weight issue. The larger model had significant interior room; however, my general impression was that the cabins were too dark due to the mass of wood trim.
Due to it’s water ballast design, this was the largest boat on the active consideration list. It would be trailerable since it’s weight on the trailer was much less than it’s weight on the water. The interior offered significant advantages in usable room over most of the other boats in the list. The design met or exceeded all of my criteria on paper. At the time I was looking, the Hunter 23.5 had just been replaced by the Hunter 240. I looked at both boats and just did not like the general appearance. It was too much like a powerboat for my tastes. This is a purely personal opinion and had no quantitative aspects. The only design problem I saw on the 240 was a VERY low bridge deck. A boarding wave with the companion way hatch out of position would immediately flood the cabin. I had a nagging doubt about water ballast given the range of conditions that I would be sailing. In a major river or inland lake, I felt the boat would be well suited. However, water ballast boats generally have a lower initial stability and this would be troublesome for me as a novice sailor under difficult conditions on a larger body of water. Again, this was a mater of personal preference and not proven fact.
The MacGregor 25 and 26X models are often available in the used market. Their emphasis appeared to be having the best of both the power boat and sailboat world. This boat could carry a 50 horsepower motor and yet was claimed to be effective under only sail power. The interior layout seemed to be better than anything else that I had read about – almost too good to be true. I looked at a number of used and one new MacGregor. On one used boat, the owner had managed to break the mast about three feet up from the base and then had it repaired with an interior sleeve rather than replacing it. As stated, I had a nagging doubt about water ballast given the range of conditions that I would be sailing. However, by way of comparison to the other boats in this list, the MacGregor’s sail rig was so undersized as to seem dangerous. The deck seemed to flex when I walked forward indicating minimalist construction. While all of these elements would save on weight and cost, it did not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I got the feeling that too many issues were compromised in trying to design a very low cost combination of power and sail. Again, all of this was a matter of personal preference and not proven fact.
A real catboat. This boat is almost impossible to find in the Mid-West. It is really an East Coast invention with a limited resale market elsewhere. However, on the East Coast, prices for even very old boats are at a premium. The interesting thing about the Marshall Sanderling is the huge cockpit. This boat is even available with an inboard diesel engine. Given the way that the mast is stepped with it’s tabernacle, setup time should be minimal. The design met all of my criteria on paper. First impressions developed in looking at new boats were that the quality of construction was excellent. The cabin was cramped but workable. The cockpit was a luxury. The beam at 8’ 6" would have been trailerable in almost every state without special permits.
I fell in love with the yawl rig and overall design of this boat. Everything about the exterior was well thought out and the construction quality appeared exceptional. The Nimble 20 was also the only boat that I seriously considered with a motor well in the cockpit area. The Nimble 20 is a double ender design that derives it’s stability from it’s hull shape rather than a keel and ballast. For this reason, it can float in one foot of water. It’s centerboard requires about 4 feet of draft when lowered. The design met all of my criteria on paper. First impressions developed in looking at used boats were that the interior was cramped due to the centerboard trunk that protruded into the cabin. The cockpit space also suffered from the motor well and the canoe stern. I would also wish to consider the larger Nimble 24 if I could overcome the self imposed weight issue. While the Nimble 24 was still cramped for head room, the overall layout added significant usable space.
The Precision 21 is a modern looking boat with many interesting features. It is light weight and with it’s keel/centerboard design, it would be very easy to trailer and launch. It’s interior was spartan but usable. The design met all of my criteria on paper. First impressions developed in looking at used and new boats were that the quality of construction left something to be desired. The cockpit drains were undersized by my estimate. They also did not have flapper valves so that a following sea would send water up into the cockpit. While this is a small point, it was indicative of other short cuts in construction. I would also wish to consider the larger Precision 23 if I could overcome the self imposed weight issue.
The Rhodes 22 has everything I wanted and then some. The in-mast furling system seemed to be a perfect choice for singlehanding. The 175% genoa with roller reefing and furling would also prevent unnecessary trips to the foredeck under less than ideal conditions. The available enclosed marine head with holding tank and pump-out was also a vast improvement over the port-a-potty arrangements of the other boats. The optional dual forward hatches and standard opening ports seemed to offer good ventilation. The pop-top would also offer standing headroom in the cabin center. The design exceeded all of my criteria on paper. First impressions developed in looking at used and new boats however showed up two significant weaknesses. First and foremost was that the cabin roof was too low for me. I’m 6’ 4" and my head would touch the top of the cabin when seated on the quarter berth. When seated on the marine head, the cabin top was so low that I was forced to open the hatch completely and look out completely above the cabin top in order to make use of the facility. Also, the cabin would need to be re-arranged every night if sleeping accommodations for more than one adult were required.
This boat was also called the Seaward 19. The Seaward Fox looked promising on paper due to it’s light weight, and ease of trailering. With it’s 8 foot beam, this boat is really a modified catboat and not a sloop. Research showed that the boat originated as a Slipper 17 and the molds were later modified somewhat. While interesting on paper, this boat is basically a 17 footer on the inside with a large cockpit. Adding a bowsprit and calling it a 19 does not change the fact that it would be way too cramped to meet my needs. I would also wish to consider the larger Seaward 23 if I could overcome the self imposed weight issue.
The West Wight Potter is the only daggerboard boat on the active consideration list. It’s interior accommodations have been called "a palace" by some. As a trailer sailor, many owners stated that it was perfection. Easy to launch, light weight (only 1,100 pounds), large interior accommodations. The only critical comments came to discussions of performance. The boat was admittedly slow. While the boat met all of my criteria on paper, I was never able to actually see one. The daggerboard design with it’s 350 pounds of iron suspended from a small interior winch just did not appeal to me enough to pursue this matter. Again, this is a purely personal assessment. This page was last updated: 09/14/00 05:11:02 PM |
|
Copyright © 1998-2000 Jobst Vandrey |