Hunter 45 CC Off Shore

[Did It]

I have been contemplating taking my Hunter 45 CC off shore, the standar response I get from most of the sailing/offshore community where i live is NO, Hunter boats a not designed to be off shore for any extended time.
What are the general thoughts of the Hunter community? Should I continue with My Hunter or should I get a real off shore boat?

 

[kappykaplan]

Do a search on this site for postings by "Sequitur". He and his wife sailed from Vancouver to FL, rounding Cape Horn, in a Hunter 49. Their blogs are still at http://www.sailblogs.com/member/sequitur/234839#top

 

[DayDreamer41]

Man on man, I believe that you have pried the lid off of a never ending debate, there are many that will say noway, and then there was be those who have done plenty of offshore with what is referred to a "Production" boat. Personally, there is more to how a boat is captained, how comfortable will it be in heavy weather and seas and what margin of error will be tolerated during a heavy weather event. I really believe that it all boils down to crew / captain experience.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

One thing is certain - if you have to ask, the better question involves the experience of the crew.

 

[Did It]

Skipper and Crew experienced all weather.
That's not the concern I have put the craft through allot, but will it perform in the ocean. I would like to hear from Blue Water people

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

I would like to hear from Blue Water people

Ok. I wrote this on another forum a few years ago. But it seems as relevant today to your question:


As I type, I am asking why get involved in such a discussion but here goes regardless. To quality my opinion, I should state that I have had the great opportunity to make a circumnav a number of years ago and throughout that experience, never, ever heard people actually doing it make some of the totally irrational statements I've read here on the internet, seemingly by people who have no clue what offshore sailing actually entails. I may be incorrect in this presumption but the vast majority of comments derogatory toward any mfg including Hunter seem to support my belief that these folks have never done it. Suprisingly, that minor detail seems to escape them as they appear quite content to speak authoritatively regardless.

To the point, no where, at no time and under no circumstance have I, during that trip, ever heard a conversation among cruisers criticizing a particular boat brand. The obvious reason is that we were all too busy complaining about breakdowns, repairs, spare parts, provisioning, water and fuel supplies, etc... regardless of what boat or who made it. Seemingly, the most problematic boats were the so-called gold-platers made to the proverbial highest standards with so many systems that problems were epidemic. We saw every conceivable type, size and make boat imaginable and it was abundantly clear that no generalitiy could be made about any of them. They were all there and floating nicely at anchor in places most people never heard of.

To do so here is only indicative of one thing - that the authors simply don't know any better.

In a storm, it was FAR more important how the crew managed the boat than who made it. It was FAR more important how old the sails were than who made them. Same with engines, rigs, masts, and lest I forget, coral can't read the nameplate when chewing up fiberglass.

About the most curcial ingredient I observed in determining if people were having a successful cruise was the happiness of the crew so whether your wife, girlfriend, life partner, etc... likes a boat made by Hunter , Catalina, Shannon or Mickey Mouse is equally if not more important than the grid structure, depth of the bilge keel shape or rudder design.

 

[SFS]

Well said Don.

 

[KD3PC]

the only risks I have seen with the Hunter, mine included, is the BIG front windows...My P42 made the Vancouver through the canal and up the east coast trip many times with no issues. I watched the weather and did not hesitate to heave to, or run/duck/hide, stay in port.


The bigger case is your ability and that of your crew.

Best of luck.

 

[Did It]

Exactly I am ready to stretch out my experience and do want to take her and I like what I hear
Thanks to all the comments

 

[DayDreamer41]

Don S/V I sure wish I would have said that as well as you did. Kudo's man!

 

[Bill Roosa]

Check the owners manual, the cert on the first page will tell you if it is rated for blue water or not. My 40.5 says it is. Don't remember the certs name but the boat is capable of going off shore. Now in the interest of full disclosure the tankage is not really up to transoceanic crossings and the cert does not account for the capabilities of the captain.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

The Titanic was certified too Bill.

What I am trying to say is that virtually every accident/tragedy involving a boat isn't the boat's fault.

 

[Ilanortho]

Love this discussion. Always wondered if my boat had what it takes, while I know that at this stage of my development, I do not. But if I did, does IT?

I am sharpening my skills on Lake Michigan, and so far I realize that it's me that I should worry about and not the boat each time it brings me home safe and sound from an environment that at times can be scary. I do of course spend a tremendous amount of time upgrading, restoring and maintaining it, making sure that it is as seaworthy as I can possibly make it along with the marine technicians who do the jobs I am not qualified to do. I have spared no expense.

On the other hand, after ripping out the rotted compression post last winter and replacing it with a metal one, I have to wonder where else in critical areas did Hunter build to a price. I lay awake many a night thinking about my my excursions far out on the Lake, when the mast by all rights should have come crashing down through the cabin top, all for the sake of a few more dollars for a metal post and an adequate sealing gland for the through-deck wiring.

 

[splax]

When I was in school in Naval Architecture/Marine Engineering I heard the sailors among us talking down the quality of construction or the inherently weak design, but have found it to be mostly baseless and a means of making a favored, more expensive brand appear better. The degree of care in maintenance and level of sailing experience will determine what conditions are easily handled. Close to the limits of the ability of the crew or soundness of the boat means no mistakes or poor choices. I don't like to be in that situation, since I am human. A stronger boat by design yields a greater margin of error at sea for those stormy conditions which are inevitable. Hedge your bet with good planning. Read the latest edition of Storm Tactics by Lin and Larry Pardey. Good voyage.
I replaced my compression post a couple years ago with a 3" square aluminum tube. That did a lot to increase the perceived soundness of the boat. Everyone builds to cost, even our nuclear navy.

 

[David in Sandusky]

Wood is a great material for a compression post! Strength, weight, and durability are all outstanding.

But water will begin and sustain rot in wood or metal. And who keeps the water off the compression post? The Captain/Owner with reasonable maintenance.

We are back to the crew.

 

[uncledom]

When I decided to make my first near coastal run from Hilton Head SC to Port Washington NY I researched storm tactics and how to survive. I decided the Jordan series drogue made complete sense and purchased one. It's always onboard and, thank God, has never been used. Read up, find a few worst case scenarios and buy some protection against that. Buy a weather router. He/she will give you weather windows and predictions and help you plot a course and speed goal and what conditions to expect. A satellite phone is a good option also. Remember if you fail to plan you might be planning to fail. My first two runs I took the intercoastal but I really enjoy being out there in the marble blue. 785 nautical miles, 3 days 16hours. The storm over land made some strange conditions at sea but nothing horrible. 12 footers on the Starboard quarter could be uncomfortable if you didn't watch your angle but our Hunter 41 was a champ! I can't wait for my trip south.

 

[DayDreamer41]

This may be a naive question but other than the ability of the blue water generating larger waves, what is the biggest difference between foul weather sailing in the blue water compared to a lake like Lake MI with a (3) day blow from the NW.

I have been on Lake Michigan with some very large seas >18 ft non breaking waves (as observed from a fly bridge on a 40' Chris Craft, couldn't see over the wall of water). I understand that waves can be much larger on the ocean, but one would have to exercise some very poor planning / judgement to be caught in such a raging storm.

It is said that the waves in the great lakes are somewhat more dangerous due the distance from swell to swell, waves intersecting from multiple directions and the ability of the lakes to get rocking and rolling in a very short duration of time.

The wife and I sailed some 500 plus NM in September this year from Muskegon to Port Huron MI, most days we were in 20 kt plus winds and 8 - 12 ft seas, our Hunter 41 DS rode these conditions effortlessly, we stayed dry and never felt like we were getting anywhere near losing control. This is what makes me ask the question, really what is the difference, other than we were always no more that a few hours from safe harbor, as for the boat, other than (1) event where the captains error had her rounding up, she handled the conditions beautifully.

Mark

 

[Ilanortho]

One thing I noticed a lot especially when sailing Green Bay is that in addition to confused seas, I see a lot of low height waves with very short wave lengths. Rather than riding swells it feels like the boat is getting constantly hammered which makes for a very uncomfortable ride. On Lake Michigan proper this is not so frequent, with longer wavelengths that the boat rides nicely.
With the former, I have to reef and slow down just to avoid the feeling that I am bashing the boat. Changing the angle of attack also helps but not with confused seas.

 

[SEMPERAVANTI41]

When I installed a Bow Thruster in my 07 41 DS, I got a firsthand look at the quality of construction, in a area normally hidden from view of most owners. I had to cut 2 holes 6" diameter in the hull ,plus removal of the forward cabin floor and sub floor. I was amazed at the quality of construction and did not see anything I thought could be improved on. Of course the hull could always be made thicker , but I think the purpose of engineering is to design something that works without undue cost & weight. Based on this and many years of satisfied ownership, I purchased a Hunter 50 last year. I then had the 50 sailed up in the Atlantic to Long Island in April from St. Petersburg and the 41 sailed down in July. No issues other than some fuel problems in the 41 and a lost pin in the Furlex on the 50.

 

[David in Sandusky]

Henk Meuzelaar accumulated over 50,000 blue water nm, much of that in the South Pacific, sailing to and from the Vanuatu Islands on his Hunter 43. He is no longer active, but you can find his many posts under his owner name of "henkmeuzelaar" if you want to read some of them.

In one of them, he tells of a friend who sailed across the Pacific in a Hunter CC model if memory serves me.

A feature of "coastal" cruising wherever you do it is that you can get to port in 8-12 hours or so. Big waves take time, and a long fetch to build up, so you will have time to get to a port of refuge if thing turn unexpectedly nasty. (Winds are another matter, a front, or a storm cloud can change them in a minute, but reducing sail and using your engine provide the ability to manage even in high winds.

Finally, the Admiral and I really enjoy coming up with contingency plans. Being a bit of a worrier, she can come up with some interesting problems, always starting with, "What if...??" Rather than telling her the low likelihood of "that" happening, we figure out what the scenario would really look like, and what we would do if it did happen. This inspires confidence in our ability to help the boat take care of us, and, in some ways, does define good seamanship!