Possibly wrong boat, but dreaming.

Leeward Rail · Monday at 1:37 AM

Some quick thoughts/questions to spur some ideas for you..... as I lay awake in the middle of the night...

What is your sailing experience?
Have you thought about crewing for someone ? That way you gain experience and see if you even like the reality of offshore sailing.

Lots of people like the "idea" but not the reality.

sv_regulus said:
In a perfect life I would much rather have a purpose built vessel,

What do think is purpose built for the task in that size ?

sv_regulus said:
Sam Holmes making that same crossing on a 23 ft trailer sailer with next to no equipment, an engine (a real one), or lifeboat is pretty wild.

Depending on the details... minimal equipment, being engine less, or small, have little bearing on suitability.

For an insight into traditional simplicity on a small boat...You may want to read some books by Larry and Lin Pardey. Their first circumnavigation aboard Seraffyn, a 24ft wood boat lasted over a decade.

For another perspective..there is a "round the world race" on right now with boats that are "purpose built" and 19ft long.

Home

Small Boat. Huge Adventure.

minigloberace.com

There is a Contessa 26 (in the same price range as a Ericson 26-2), in our marina, that would handle a trip to Iceland,, nevermind a downwind trip to Hawaii.

Are we talking going alone ?
Single handing ocean sailing is different kettle of fish. Mentally and physically. Skillset becomes much more important.

What are you expecting out of an ocean crossing ?
As a buddy said this summer, after he got back from his first offshore passage... "it's like jogging 700 miles with nothing but open ocean to look at"

Are you planning on selling the Ericson when you arrive in Hawaii, or continuing onwards someplace ?

Edit:
Here's a few links based on my questions, specifically to get you reading/thinking... The Reddit link, is one I bookmarked from a buddy of mine, and has some relevant comments from sailors who have done the Hawaii and back run.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/obituaries/larry-pardey-dead.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/sailing/comments/17jhb5p

Edit again (can't sleep.. hehe):
While SBO has a few very knowledgeable members, it isn't much of a long distance sailing forum. I would join cruisersforum or sailnet for a start.

dLj · Monday at 4:58 AM

sv_regulus said:
Thank you! I'm not sure about the hours on the engine unfortunately, as the previous owner didn't connect the hours meter. Either way I'm planning on rebuilding the diesel as that's one thing I do know how to do. As for tankage, I think I can squeeze a larger tank into the space for diesel in the same spot made out of aluminum 2024-T3.
As far as the overall condition of the boat, the deck is solid in all respects, but I've already decided to add backing plates to all critical areas. The chain plates are in good shape, but the standing rigging is showing it's age. I've already begun redoing the electrical systems, plumping, and plan to use bolt time through holes instead of the ones that came with the boat. The rudder looks good, but I plan to drop it and inspect the bearings as a good measure. There is one keel bolt on the very aft of the bilge that appears to be rusted quite severely, so I may investigate that, by the forward 4 bolts are looking good. Keel joint is visible, but the bolts are as tight as I can get them without worrying about breaking something. We'll see come summer if my local yard can help me. Also going to look into barrier coat from west marine to keep the hull nice as it's currently pretty good as far as blisters go.

Your engine isn't going to get you to Hawaii - your sails will. That keel bolt definitely needs looking at.

The five fundamentals for off-shore boat preparation.

1) Keep the people on
2) Keep the water out
3) Keep the mast up
4) Keep the keel down
5) Keep the rudder on

Get those five in solid shape. Then work on other details.

You need sailing time on your boat.

I would not add more fuel tanks inside the boat - I'd add a lot more water. How are you going to carry 80 to 100 gallons of water? It doesn't matter how much fuel you have if you're dead... You can drink sea water but there is a technique you would need to learn, but it is not a guarantee you will survive it - believe me - you don't want to find out first hand...

I'd recommend getting a paid subscription to Attainable Adventures. At something like $40 a year - it is not only the best information source for going off-shore at any price - it is stupidly cheap! You can spend a year just reading all the information on there.

Attainable Adventure Cruising

Reference and technical site for offshore voyaging and cruising in sail and motorboats.

www.morganscloud.com

dj

FastOlson · Monday at 11:20 AM

I hope the OP does some searching for info at the main owners' site, ericsonyachts.org.
Registering there is not complicated and there is no cost to sign up.
There are 25 years of archives there. Sisterships have cruised oceans.
There are answers, both archival and current, there.

mermike · Tuesday at 6:00 AM

As others have said, get as much sailing experience as you can before trying such a thing. You have crossed the first hurdle, you have a boat. Now go out sailing! Sail in increasingly difficult conditions. Sail the heck out of it. Continuously evaluate your boat against your goal, but more importantly, evaluate yourself. The process of learning about both is part of the joy of sailing.

You'll figure out for yourself whether you and your boat are up to the task, and when you're ready to go.

DArcy · Tuesday at 9:29 AM

sv_regulus said:
As for tankage, I think I can squeeze a larger tank into the space for diesel in the same spot made out of aluminum 2024-T3.

I don't know why you would use 2024 for boat tankage. 5052-H32 is superior for three reasons:
1. 5052 is not heat treated and maintains its tensile strength when welded (which your tank will be). 2024 becomes essentially T0 in the heat affected zone around welds and ends up with slightly lower tensile strength than 5052-H32.
2. 5052 has far superior corrosion resistance.
3. 5052 is much cheaper and easier to get.

As mentioned, water tankage is of more interest than diesel. For a water tank that size you might want to look into plastic tanks, polypropylene or fiberglass. Tank-Mart has some ready made but will also custom make tanks.

I've solo sailed small(ish) boats for many years but never on long passages. Seamanship is one thing, spending time alone for weeks on end in complete isolation is entirely different. If isolation appeals to you then this could be an excellent adventure. I follow a guy on Instagram (sailing_with_phoenix) who quit his job and sailed to Hawaii solo with very little experience on a Compac 33. He has been very happy with that decision and now plans to sail around the world on a slightly bigger boat.

David in Sandusky · Wednesday at 6:45 AM

Your Ericsson 26 is an excellent coastal cruiser, and a really good starter boat for single handing or for a crew of 2.

But it was not designed for a blue water cruise to Hawaii. I say this because the capsize screen is well over 2.00. What that means is that if you get caught in a big storm, and big, breaking waves capsize your boat, it is actually unlikely to recover to an upright position. You can plan a trip to Hawaii when such storms are less likely, but the risk remains. The book "Choosing a Cruising Sailboat" by Roger Marshall is a good reference for this discussion. Our '77 Hunter 27 with a capsize screen of 1.93 is a capable design and others have cruised it across oceans.

The other issue is preparing the skipper and the boat for a blue water cruise. The best reference for preparing your boat is "The Pacific Cup Handbook" by Jim and Sue Corenman. "Storm Tactics Handbook" by the Pardeys will help you get your head into preparing contingency plans and equipment for the worst case. You could develop your skipper skills for the trip in two years, but the real question is how many days you spend sailing. I would say it took me 70 to 100 days to know our boat, and understand/practice a good set of contingency plans to consider skippering a bliue water cruise. (I haven't done this - our Great Lakes cruising ground has big storms, but a port of refuge is always close enough to get off the lake as a storm builds up.)

Certainly, others have taken the risk of not recovering from a capsize far from land, and made such trips in a coastal cruising design. But I recommend you spend some time and study understanding the risk before taking such a decision.

Fair winds and following seas!

FastOlson · Wednesday at 8:16 AM

This topic comes up often in sailing forums. It was well-pondered in this entry: https://www.sailnet.com/threads/value-of-capsize-ratios.7839/

While one can look at this and other calculated numbers, there are also more important basic data points to tally, and they will usually come first. One is design and basic construction. A mistake is to lump all production boats into the same group. All sailboats are NOT the same.

That Ericson has a hull-to-deck connection that was only used in high-end boats with a glassed-over monocoque finished hull n deck, and only equaled by other products using a thru-bolted inward flange. That Ericson was a Bruce King design. The point being that pedigree and scantlings are very very important.
I have done some rough sailing and multiple coastal deliveries in smaller and larger sailboats, and I do prefer the ones a little larger just for comfort. But seaworthiness was not in question.
The OP might want to ask their questions on the Ericsonyachts.org site, and do some searching there. That group does not blindly "cheer lead" and with archives 25 years back, has a lot of experience to offer.
Best of luck with the purchase! :beer:

David in Sandusky · Thursday at 8:22 AM

FastOlson, I'm going to respond on your comment and the sailnet thread with comments against the capsize screen.

First, hull design has almost nothing to do with the probability of capsizing. Extensive tank tests of a broad range of designs show that if a boat is hit by a breaking wave higher than its beam it will capsize. (Its beam or the dimension it is presenting to the wave up to and including its length.)

The issue addressed by the capsize screen is whether the boat is likely to right itself from an inverted, capsized position when rolled by another wave. It was developed after extensive tests that showed it is quite accurate in predicting this recovery for most hull designs. The Angle of Vanishing Stability may be more technically appealing, because it includes all weight distribution of the design (center of gravity, etc.) But it is not much better than the capsize screen in predicting recovery from a capsize.

Then, there is the issue of the designer's intent. When designing a boat for off-shore cruising a designer will surely consider the capsize screen of his design. Conversely, when designing a coastal cruiser (like the Ericsson 26-2), initial stability, interior room, or other factors may be more important than capsize recovery.

Finally, the high quality of Ericsson yacht construction is a real positive, but also has no impact on recovery from a capsize.

dLj · Thursday at 8:38 AM

David in Sandusky said:
FastOlson, I'm going to respond on your comment and the sailnet thread with comments against the capsize screen.

First, hull design has almost nothing to do with the probability of capsizing. Extensive tank tests of a broad range of designs show that if a boat is hit by a breaking wave higher than its beam it will capsize. (Its beam or the dimension it is presenting to the wave up to and including its length.)

The issue addressed by the capsize screen is whether the boat is likely to right itself from an inverted, capsized position when rolled by another wave. It was developed after extensive tests that showed it is quite accurate in predicting this recovery for most hull designs. The Angle of Vanishing Stability may be more technically appealing, because it includes all weight distribution of the design (center of gravity, etc.) But it is not much better than the capsize screen in predicting recovery from a capsize.

Then, there is the issue of the designer's intent. When designing a boat for off-shore cruising a designer will surely consider the capsize screen of his design. Conversely, when designing a coastal cruiser (like the Ericsson 26-2), initial stability, interior room, or other factors may be more important than capsize recovery.

Finally, the high quality of Ericsson yacht construction is a real positive, but also has no impact on recovery from a capsize.

I've always been concerned with the ability for my ship to return to upright in the unhappy event that it does get turned over. Doing a quick search, here is what AI told me about the OP's boat. FWIW...

A precise GZ (righting lever) curve for the Ericson 26-2 is not publicly available in standard boat specification databases, as it typically comes from the yacht's designer or original manufacturer. However, the boat's known stability characteristics suggest a high initial stiffness for coastal sailing but a low ultimate righting ability if fully capsized.

What the GZ curve would show
Based on its design and available stability metrics, a hypothetical GZ curve for the Ericson 26-2 would feature the following characteristics:

High initial slope: The GZ curve would rise steeply at small angles of heel (0°–10°), indicating the boat is very "stiff" and resists heeling under normal sailing conditions. This is a common feature of boats like the 26-2, which were designed as day-sailors or coastal cruisers.
A "soft" or low curve at large angles: The GZ curve would peak and then fall away relatively quickly, with a limited range of positive stability. This indicates a lower righting capability once the boat is fully knocked down, meaning it would be less likely to right itself quickly in severe conditions.
Angle of vanishing stability (AVS): The AVS—the point where the GZ curve crosses the x-axis and the boat loses its righting ability—is likely to be relatively low compared to offshore voyaging boats. The Ericson 26-2 is best suited for day sailing and coastal cruising, not offshore work where a high AVS is critical.

Known stability data
Several specifications provide insight into the Ericson 26-2's stability profile without the full GZ curve:

Capsize Screening Formula (CSF): 2.13.
- This widely used metric helps predict seaworthiness by comparing displacement and beam.
- A ratio below 2.0 suggests a boat is more suited for offshore conditions.
- The 2.13 ratio for the Ericson 26-2 indicates it is better suited for coastal and inland waters rather than serious offshore voyaging.
Ballast-to-Displacement Ratio: 42.86%.
- A high ballast ratio typically contributes to stiffness and overall stability.
- At over 40%, the Ericson 26-2's ratio confirms its initial stiffness under sail.

How to get the actual GZ curve
To obtain an accurate GZ curve, you may need to find a copy of the official stability paperwork from the original naval architect, Bruce King, or from Ericson Yachts. You could also consult sailing forums, such as those run by Ericson owners, to see if an owner has a copy.

dj

dLj · Thursday at 8:57 AM

sv_regulus said:
I agree with this, however, the coastal cruiser definition seems to be strange to me. It would seem that if you're within the costal area you would be almost as likely, to encounter large freak waves or swells, making any boat that's a costal cruiser kinda pointless, no? Yes, you're closer to rescue, but if every time you get slapped in the face with freak weather that wasn't forecasted or a large rogue wave you're going to lose the boat, what's the point of them? You just tuck tail and run back to mama as soon as you see clouds?

The design criteria for coastal cruising (offshore) are different than for ocean sailing - here's a graph showing the current design numbers.

The AVS is the angle of vanishing stability (I'm sure you know this). However, I have to partially disagree with your statement that in coastal areas you are as likely to encounter wave heights that could turtle your boat. While you may find steep waves where the ocean swell is "humping up" from the decreasing bottom depth, the wave patterns that can occur in the middle of the ocean I've never seen near shore. And they can go on for many hours or days unlike near shore. Near shore those wave patterns are typically coming from one direction so it's easier to position your boat to handle them better. Mid-ocean I've seen huge wave patterns coming from multiple directions at the same time, hence much more difficult to position your boat to handle them... I feel it is the possibility for this greater random wave direction to be part of the driving force behind the design criteria above.

dj

FastOlson · Thursday at 11:30 AM

One small knit pick about boating near shore... When 50+ miles out I have found that the wave trains were noticeably more predictable and "organized".
It's all those passages up n down the Washington coast at 15 to 20 miles off, where we would have a NW sea with the prevailing wind, and every so often an unscheduled cross sea from weather systems way offshore.

This is most noticeable when you are in the head, and trying pull up your pants, and darned near get hurled out the door !

That's when the boat gets smacked with a large and scornful cross sea! Of course the guy(s) in the cockpit are all laughing and ducking the spray.

And, just waiting to hear some coarse words from inside the cabin.

capta · Thursday at 3:14 PM

If you are seriously considering an Atlantic crossing in a 26' boat, there are a few facts of life you may not have considered. I know nothing of the construction or suitability of your Ericson, so I'll leave that to others. It seems like there are quite a few, above.
A 26' sailboat is going to spend half it's time with most, if not all, of its sails below the wave crests, when in the troughs. That doubles your expected voyage lengths. It will also require some sort of autopilot to maintain a course, as a mechanical vane gear won't work very well in the troughs. That means a power source, which may be difficult, but certainly possible, on that small a boat. Because, space is something which is going to be at a premium.
If you are headed across the Atlantic I'd venture to guess most people would plan on 15 to 20 days of sailing, which I'd double on a small boat. I used to carry a month or two extra provisions when making a crossing, just in case I had to build a jury rig to get myself to someplace safe, at a much reduced speed. Anyway about it, you would be looking at needing a month and a half of food, water, and fuel (for power, if not motivation).
Of course, a few tools and a sail sewing kit would be prudent, never mind voluminous spare parts like filters, fenders and paper products. There's more, but I think you get the idea. Do remember, the heavier you load her, the slower she will go..
There is a mini-TransAt which may happen every couple of years(?) and I'm sure you could get a lot of good ideas for a crossing in a small boat.

pgandw · Friday at 11:27 AM

sv_regulus said:
I agree with this, however, the coastal cruiser definition seems to be strange to me. It would seem that if you're within the costal area you would be almost as likely, to encounter large freak waves or swells, making any boat that's a costal cruiser kinda pointless, no? Yes, you're closer to rescue, but if every time you get slapped in the face with freak weather that wasn't forecasted or a large rogue wave you're going to lose the boat, what's the point of them? You just tuck tail and run back to mama as soon as you see clouds?

The conventional wisdom from years ago was if the entrance bar was breaking too heavily or had a "rage" on, just don't try to cross. Stay out at sea, or stay at the dock, depending on which side you are starting from. I have usually heeded this wisdom, and the time or 2 I didn't, I wish I had. The Coast Guard trains a select few small boat coxswains at the Columbia River Bar at Astoria, Oregon. They spend several weeks learning how to survive rollovers, and the best way to get through a bar in full rage.

In my search and rescue helicopter days, the worst were the boats (both sail and power) that got rolled, lost steerage, or ended up on the rocks in the various inlets. Atlantic hurricanes and North Pacific storms generally were survived better at sea than running the inlets. The longer wave periods in the open ocean make avoiding rollovers a lot easier than in the inlets, despite the waves being much larger. Yes, there are the freak waves in the open ocean, but again you can often see them coming.

Just my opinion, I think the conventional wisdom is correct. If there is any doubt don't cross the bar until things calm down.

I've spent 3 days anchored in Little Harbour, Abacos, waiting for the bar to calm down. I had 3 different cases where 30ft boats lost it at the entrance at Boca Raton, FL. Even my 140ft CG cutter declined to run the bar at Coos Bay, OR when a rage was on. It's predecessor, a 125ft cutter, had been rolled running the bar, with too much loss of life. I've seen boats and ships alike ground themselves between breakers on the West End Nassau Harbour entrance.

Fred W

Lazy1 · Friday at 5:26 PM

Welcome to the club, I just got a '87 35-3 this Summer and it is quite the learning curve coming from a Catalina 22.
Definitely get over to ericsonyachts.org just don't try signing up with a gmail account or you will never get the emails. There are several very active guys there that are very knowledgeable about the line. Drying in the cabin should be the first step to control mold and raise the comfort level. I have replaced all the lewmar port lights and the forward hatch. Still have a leaky salon hatch and the fixed windows as well.