MacGregorSailors.com

My inclination is toward a swing keel Mac 25. I like the idea of having 600 pounds of ballast hanging below the hull. But that's a big moving part that can fail (along with the pin, cable, crank). I would assume that water ballast requires less maintenance and has less that can fail. Is that a valid assumption? Is there a compelling reason to go with a 26s with its swing centerboard versus the 26d with its daggerboard?

Thanks!

Don

With proper maintenance a swing keel should not fail. I bought an 1984 M21 three years ago that had the original crank and swing keel cable and pin. The boat was only used on a lake. I inspected the set up and found it to be in good shape but the crank was a bit rusty. I greased it up and used it for two years of good sailing in SF Bay, at times with strong winds and current. But this spring the seals around the pin started leaking and I wanted to change all of it. I removed the keel and replaced everything and treated and painted the keel with POR 15. I will post pics of that process soon. I trust my swing keel.

Nothing really to go wrong with water ballast except the seals which are easy to replace and cheap to buy, Im about to replace my rear gate valve because I think I have a leak, it will cost me about $30 and take 20 minutes.

Weighted keels are great but check the condition carefully, if they have been fiberglassed over the water can leak in and swell the keel in the slot and that becomes a pain to fix.

If I was looking at buying a older boat with a weighted swing keel I would certainly remove the keel and replace the pin and all the winch lines before putting her in the water unless the PO can prove it had been done in the last few years

The point of the fiberglass over Steel as pointed out by Sailboatmike is correct in being aware of. In my case my keel is solid steel

dwlangham wrote: Is there a compelling reason to go with a 26s with its swing centerboard versus the 26d with its daggerboard?

Thanks!

Don

There is if you are frequently sailing in shallow waters. Daggerboards are more prone to damage if you hit something under water, whereas a swing keel would just, well, swing. I sail in tidal waters most of the time, where depth may vary between 30 feet and 3 feet or less within a short distance. And what's more important: these depths frequently change, making depth data on charts somewhat unreliable. It was one of my main reasons to prefer the swing keel over the daggerboard .

Cougar wrote:
There is if you are frequently sailing in shallow waters. Daggerboards are more prone to damage if you hit something under water, whereas a swing keel would just, well, swing.

Sometimes I wonder if it's that simple. Last year I hit an underwater obstacle with the centerboard, under power, low speed, in a canal, and yes, it made a loud bang and swung up over the obstacle, no harm no foul. I had the centerboard down for steerage and it was no big deal.

However the side loads on the centerboard are huge when under sail. So much so that if my sails are up and we are making any headway, I can't adjust the centerboard at all: even two people hauling the line won't move the keel when it's under load. If I hit something under sail, I guess the forces involved would force the board to swing up, but I'd hate to see the damage that might do to the board or the trunk itself. Has anyone hit an obstacle with a centerboard while under sail and can share the story? On a reach?

I read that the daggerboard models have reinforced trunks to minimize damage to the boat on a daggerboard strike, and that the daggerboards themselves are sacrificial in that event, and easily replaced. I chose an X in part because I sail in shallow waters and I thought the swing keel would be beneficial, but I'm not entirely sure that's true. In my one keel-strike event, the swing keel certainly did its job though, and if I had a daggerboard model in the same situation it may have been a bit more of an "event".

Won't the x sail at all with the board all the way up?
I never use the board in less than three or four feet if ways. Its up. Rudders down. They hit first. With the right sails up, the boat does fine. Great even, considering.
Ix

dwlangham wrote:My inclination is toward a swing keel Mac 25. I like the idea of having 600 pounds of ballast hanging below the hull. But that's a big moving part that can fail (along with the pin, cable, crank). I would assume that water ballast requires less maintenance and has less that can fail. Is that a valid assumption? Is there a compelling reason to go with a 26s with its swing centerboard versus the 26d with its daggerboard?

Thanks!

Don

If you plan on cruising much with extended times on the water the S and D have considerable more room inside with the huge aft berth. We enlarged the V-Berth and use the aft berth for storage and there is a lot of storage doing that. If there are more than 2 of you the aft berth along with the V-berth gives one a lot of sleeping room outside the main cabin.

I like the water ballast myself as there is less weight on the trailer and I make up for that with all the other stuff we take. If you or the one who will sails with you doesn't tolerate heeling very well the 25 might be better but the S and D will firm up at about 18-20 degrees and feel like they are on rails. They are slightly faster than the 25 also. The 25 is a nice boat and there are tons of happy owners out there so it will just have to be your decision.

We went with the S for the sake of the swing centerboard since we like to go to new places and some of them have been shallow. It has swung up on more than one occasion when the boat has contacted the bottom.



We also like to beach the boat and the CB quickly pulls up without having to crank it up as you would on the 25.

Sumner

============================
1300 miles to the Bahamas and back -- 2015

The MacGregor 26-S

The Endeavour 37

Trips to Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Canada, Florida

Mac-Venture Links

Sumner wrote:
We went with the S for the sake of the swing centerboard since we like to go to new places and some of them have been shallow.
Sumner

Of course this is true. But don't forget: If you plan to go to shallow waters... you should know it befor... So even with a daggerboard you can pull it up an still have the daggerboard on the right place while sailing...

A big dealer told me he sold much more swing ceterboards of the X than daggerboards of the M. One reason may be that the M owners are more careful. A friend with a stuck some hours in the sand til the boat got free... Good to know also: If you stick with a swing keel like the has in the sand and have some side winds or current the swing keel will bread immediately...

kurz wrote:

Sumner wrote:
We went with the S for the sake of the swing centerboard since we like to go to new places and some of them have been shallow.
Sumner

Of course this is true. But don't forget: If you plan to go to shallow waters... you should know it befor... So even with a daggerboard you can pull it up an still have the daggerboard on the right place while sailing......

I'd agree with that to a point but for a number of places we have sailed there are no reliable charts and even trying to watch the depth finder you can get into shallow water quickly. Sometimes in less than a boat length.



Recently sailing Lake Powell in Utah we almost hit a rock column over 100 yards from shore. The lake is over 500 feet deep but was 72 feet down while we were there. It is always fluctuating in depth, exposing or submerging rock formations. If one sails the same waters all the time you get to know them much better than going for the first time. I'd just take into consideration what your conditions will be and make a choice based on that,

Sumner
===========================================================================================

1300 miles to the Bahamas and back -- 2015

The MacGregor 26-S

The Endeavour 37

Trips to Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Canada, Florida

Mac-Venture Links