Other swing keel boats

[lake norman mac]

I have been researching sailboats for the past few months now and believe that I will soon be in the market for MAC X. As I have been looking around at other boats, I noticed that Catalina built a few swing keels back in the early 80's and I believe they make some today. I was wondering how the Catalina swing keel from the 80's and today perform compared to the Macgregor?

Also, are there any other manufacturers of swing keel boats other than Macgregor? If so, how do they perform?

Other than the Cats I noted above, all the other boats out there are fixed keel. Why haven't the other manufactures adopted the swing keel technology?

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated!

[Tom Spohn]

Go to this web site and punch in the boats you are interested in. The Mac stacks up very well.
http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html

[Chip Hindes]

I'm fairly certain that technically a swing keel is different than a centerboard. A swing keel actually has weight, just as a fixed keel does, and besides hydrodynamic lateral resistance also adds to the stationary righting moment of the boat. A centerboard has no more weight than is needed to keep it from floating, and it does not contribute to righting moment, only to lateral resistance due to the foil shape.

A daggerboard is pretty similar to a centerboard except for the method by which it is retracted. I believe I also read once of a boat with a vertically retracted sliding keel which would be similar to a daggerboard.

It appears since you're talkng about the X you are interested primarily in used boats.

The Hunter water ballast boats 240 and 260 have centerboards as well.

When I was looking around four years ago before settling on the Mac, I found the Hunter 260 had both centerboard and fixed, deep keel versions. I seem to remember the 280 also had either a shoal draft keel or centerboard version which may have been trailerable, but I can't be sure, and that one would have been way out of my price range. The fixed keel 260 was apparently quite rare, and I'm not sure it was considered trailerable either. At a boat show I asked a Hunter dealer about it, and he said nobody had ever asked before and couldn't tell me whether a trailer could even be had to accomodate it.

The 280 has apparently been discontinued. The 260 is still available with a fixed "shoal draft" keel option, but it's barely mentioned in the literature and who knows whether it's "trailerable?" The CB version is certainly trailerable; though note the draft "board up" is nearly two feet, quite a lot more than the Mac.

Note as well that even the though the Hunter comes from the factory with a lot of stuff which are extra cost options on the Mac, current delivered price of a new Hunter 260 is probably $5K more than a comparably equipped Mac; some of this has to be reflected in the price of a used boat as well.

[Dimitri-2000X-Tampa]

Lake Norman Mac,

According to the marketing literature, a Mac trailers easier than a Hunter or Catalina. This is due to both lighter weight and the custom trailer that puts the Mac much lower to the road for easier launching. Some people have to use trailer tongue extensions to launch other boats less their tow vehicle may flood on shallow ramps.

A boat that only is for sailing (such as a Catalina or Hunter) will probably sail better than a Mac powersailor because it is only meant for sailing. A powersailor is a hybrid design, will plane and can go 20 knots or more with the right engine. A pure sailboat of that length will only go 6-7 knots regardless of how big an engine you put on it.

I think that hits the three main comparison points.

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

The last swing keel (weighted keel, not water ballasted) Mac was the 25. The classic 26's had both centerboards and daggerboards, the only difference being the method of retraction. The 26X is a centerboard, the 26M is a daggerboard. These all rely on water ballast for righting movement.

While the Hunters are indeed water ballasted with centerboards they are very different creatures to trailer. Take a look at these Hunter pictures. Note the location of the boot stripe compared to the fenders. Now look at this picture of a mac 26 on the trailer. There is a direct relationship between the height of the boot stripe and how deep you have to sink the trailer to get the boat off.

Here's another example, The Seaward Eagle, a 32' trailerable boat with a lifting keel.

[Chip Hindes]

The prices look good on the Hunters but as mentioned above I think by Chip the freight delivery will hurt the overall price.

I think it's more than just freight. For one, freight is highly dependent on where you live; if you're in FL, you'll get a good deal on Hunter freight, not such a good deal on Mac freight. CA, just the opposite. If in NY like me, either one will be serious $$, but the Mac will be a little less for equivalent distance.

Let's try apples and apples, though.

Just the trailer and wheel steering add over $5k to the cost of the Hunter, which puts it over $30K list. It's a two axle galvy, way better than the Mac trailer, but how do you determine the added value? Let's put that comparison off for a moment.

As I noted, the Hunter has a fair amount of other stuff that is optional extra for the Mac: trailer brakes, anchor light, porta potti, stove, dishes?, complete Coast Guard package, boom vang, topping lift, lines led aft, rope clutches, jib, mast raising gear, "hinged sea hood" (WTH is that, maybe a dodger?). By my rough estimate, a Mac with all this optional stuff is maybe $3K additional. It's still gonna be under $22K list, at least $8K less than the Hunter.

Note that there is a not too subtle hint on the Hunter website about "dealer prep" which may be up to $2.5K.

Other options can be added to either boat; some are a few bucks more for one or the other, but I'd say on the whole (for instance) a VHF radio is going to cost the same whether it's installed on a Hunter or a Mac, so most of the options are pretty much equivalent in price.

A 9.9 HP motor, installed will be about the same for either as well. Many of us opted for way bigger motors for the Mac, but that's simply not a fair comparison. Heck, the $8K will easily pay for the 140HP Suzuki for the Mac with a few $K left over to buy gas or maybe the upgrade you'll need for the trailer.

Bottom line, the difference is pretty significant. It's certainly way more than just a few bucks in freight costs, and way more than I would have figured before I checked it out more closely. The Mac is a better deal than I thought. Have I done something wrong?

Opposing views are welcome.

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

Perhaps a fixed keel H26 is available, but as far as I have ever seen, both the H24 and the H26 come standard with water ballast and centerboard. I do see in the list they say fixed keel, but in the specs they also quote the board up and down draft.

The H24 has a draft of 1'6" board up and 5'6" board down.
The H26 has a draft of 1'9" board up and 6'0" board down.
If you're comparing the draft of a 26X board up is only 9".

That is a H24 in the mast raising pics. The H26 has another window behind the the two small ones. I wouldn't be surprised if it sit's even higher on the trailer.

Other relevant trailering specs to look at are beam and weight. The H26 beam is 8'11", well beyond legal trailering width without a wide load permit. The H26 trailering weight is 3870# plus you've got to be able to hual that and and extra 2000# of water up the ramp a bit to drain the tank since there is no way to empty it under way. Like the mac towing weight that is a stripped weight, not even a motor. I doubt you could find one that weighed less than 4000# equiped. This moves you up a notch in required towing capacity, trucks only need apply.

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

Here in Washington the legal width is 8'6". Some states only allow 8'0" wide without a permit. That's why the mac is 7'11", legal in all states.

You can check out your state here.

It would be a pain to have to get a permit all the time, yet I see some very large power boats being towed around without special signs on the tow vehicle. I don't think the rules are to widely enforced. Kinda like the center light at the rear rule. Most likely only a problem if you are stopped for some other violation and they want to play add on.

[Rick Mathews]

Perhaps something to keep in mind here is that when you compare a Mac X or M to other swing keel, centerboard, or daggerboard trailerables you are comparing apples and oranges. None of the others can do what a Mac does, which is go fast under power. You asked about performance, but when you buy a Mac you aren't buying a high-performance sailboat. I'm sure others can beat the Mac in that department. What you are buying is versatility. It sails reasonably well, it powers fast (for a sailboat), and is the easiest boat to trailer in its size class. Every boat is a compromise and the Mac is no exception, but if you want versatility, I don't think you can beat a MacGregor.

[Don B]

Ken,

Thanks for the reply !! The flyer I got on Hunter trailerables being made of a outer Luran S plastic Skin started in Jan 1997 when Hunter signed a joint venture with JY sailboats. For all I know it is a superior product to fibreglass. Sounds like your boat was made before they switched if indeed they ever did switch.

Don

[Arthur Kelly]

Hi Don. The Hunter 240 and 260 are both still built in fiberglass. Hunter bought out JY a couple of years ago. The largest boat that is currently built with this material is the new 210 daysailer. I have seen it advertised in Sail magazine and it looks like a pretty good deal. $14,000.00 delivered including sails and trailer. The boat has a couple of really neat features. Take a look at the rudder and keel when you get a chance.