I intend to buy a 26X in 2007, I would have about 700 lbs. of supplies. If I fill the tanks about 50%, would the boat float on its lines? Has anybody tried something similar? Is it possible to estimate the level of water in the ballast tanks?
- Status
Don't do it
I have a 26x and believe it would be dangerous to partially fill the ballast tank. That would allow the water to slosh around, changing the center of gravity of the boat every time the boat heels. Don't worry, the boat still floats well with the ballast full.
I have a 26x and believe it would be dangerous to partially fill the ballast tank. That would allow the water to slosh around, changing the center of gravity of the boat every time the boat heels. Don't worry, the boat still floats well with the ballast full.
could damage the boat...?
that water sloshing around is alot of energy for the tank to eat. I have wondered if anyone has tried splitting the ballast compartment into a top half and lower half. You could put about 600 lbs. in the bottom half, and open a valve to fill the top half in needed.
that water sloshing around is alot of energy for the tank to eat. I have wondered if anyone has tried splitting the ballast compartment into a top half and lower half. You could put about 600 lbs. in the bottom half, and open a valve to fill the top half in needed.
Lb/cubic foot
If I have done the calculations properly, 700 pounds of supplies should not make a significant change in the depth at which the boat floats. 700 pounds equals about 11.2 cubic feet (62.4 pounds of water per cubic foot) The area of the 26 on the surface of the water is approximately 26' (the length of the boat) times the average beam of the boat 5'(?) or about 130 square feet. 130 square feet X 1" (1/12 of a foot) = 11.2 cubic feet caused by the 700 pounds So the weight of the supplies in the 26 would be cause the boat to float less than one inch lower in the water. I don't believe that less than an inch change in the depth at which the boat floats would be worth the risk of sailing an improperly ballasted boat.
If I have done the calculations properly, 700 pounds of supplies should not make a significant change in the depth at which the boat floats. 700 pounds equals about 11.2 cubic feet (62.4 pounds of water per cubic foot) The area of the 26 on the surface of the water is approximately 26' (the length of the boat) times the average beam of the boat 5'(?) or about 130 square feet. 130 square feet X 1" (1/12 of a foot) = 11.2 cubic feet caused by the 700 pounds So the weight of the supplies in the 26 would be cause the boat to float less than one inch lower in the water. I don't believe that less than an inch change in the depth at which the boat floats would be worth the risk of sailing an improperly ballasted boat.
What's more...
If it's half full, when the boat is heeled over, all the water will be on the wrong side. It will still be low, but it will be on the lower side of the centerline rather than on the upper side of the centerline, making the righting moment that much worse.
If it's half full, when the boat is heeled over, all the water will be on the wrong side. It will still be low, but it will be on the lower side of the centerline rather than on the upper side of the centerline, making the righting moment that much worse.
Partial Ballast?
Half filled ballast tanks is nothing short of dangerous and invites disaster. But now that we are on the topic of partially filled ballast tanks, I have often wondered about a custom ballast tank mod. This would have to be factory ordered of course but suppose the ballast tanks consisted of three seperate logtitudinal tanks running from bow to stern each with a seperate fill valve, (actually only two valves would be required). One fill would be the one third tank down the center line for one third ballast. The second valve would open and fill the outer two tanks down the outside lengths of the hull. One could then choose one third full, two thirds full or three thirds full depending on wind conditions and the individual tanks would be full to prevent sloshing and moving of the water. Just thinking outside the box but it does make for interesting debate.
Half filled ballast tanks is nothing short of dangerous and invites disaster. But now that we are on the topic of partially filled ballast tanks, I have often wondered about a custom ballast tank mod. This would have to be factory ordered of course but suppose the ballast tanks consisted of three seperate logtitudinal tanks running from bow to stern each with a seperate fill valve, (actually only two valves would be required). One fill would be the one third tank down the center line for one third ballast. The second valve would open and fill the outer two tanks down the outside lengths of the hull. One could then choose one third full, two thirds full or three thirds full depending on wind conditions and the individual tanks would be full to prevent sloshing and moving of the water. Just thinking outside the box but it does make for interesting debate.
Just Stupid
Thats just stupid! Why would you want to? Do you think a lighter boat is faster? Its not! You'll never get the boat on plane under sail power, and hull speed doesnt change even if the balast tank is empty. Hull speed is hull speed. Balast is balast. You want full balast to keep the boat more upright, less balast means more heeling, which means SLOW! Load it up and sail!
Thats just stupid! Why would you want to? Do you think a lighter boat is faster? Its not! You'll never get the boat on plane under sail power, and hull speed doesnt change even if the balast tank is empty. Hull speed is hull speed. Balast is balast. You want full balast to keep the boat more upright, less balast means more heeling, which means SLOW! Load it up and sail!
Full or empty
It's extremely dangerous to have uncontrolled, moveable ballast in the form of water, or cargo, or people, inside the boat. Go with full tanks or empty tanks but never partial. I cruise with about the same added on weight in my X. Under power in good conditions I go without ballast and get on plane. With ballast I still get on plane. Under sail in very light conditions (less than 5 mph)I might go with no ballast with only one crew. With more crew, more wind, or more than light chop I always fill ballast completely. to do less that the above in my opinion is less than prudent.
It's extremely dangerous to have uncontrolled, moveable ballast in the form of water, or cargo, or people, inside the boat. Go with full tanks or empty tanks but never partial. I cruise with about the same added on weight in my X. Under power in good conditions I go without ballast and get on plane. With ballast I still get on plane. Under sail in very light conditions (less than 5 mph)I might go with no ballast with only one crew. With more crew, more wind, or more than light chop I always fill ballast completely. to do less that the above in my opinion is less than prudent.
Stan is right
Stan nailed it. With the ballast tank full, when you heel over, the "uphill" water is what balances the boat against the wind.
Stan nailed it. With the ballast tank full, when you heel over, the "uphill" water is what balances the boat against the wind.
Not Stupid at all
To 'Just Stupid' Perhaps you 'don't want to be mean but' You are un-informed! The MacGregor is a hybrid, both power & sail. The powerboat side can be improved with more horsepower. Only a displacement hull is limited by hull speed and the Mac is not a displacement hull, which means, as some people have already done, you can increase horsepower to increase speed. So logically thinking why would the same not be possible by increasing wind power or decreasig weight? I would hypothesize that one could attempt sailing with less than the 1400 lbs of ballast as long as it was contained in seperate full tanks so that it did not slosh from side to side as I described in my original post.
To 'Just Stupid' Perhaps you 'don't want to be mean but' You are un-informed! The MacGregor is a hybrid, both power & sail. The powerboat side can be improved with more horsepower. Only a displacement hull is limited by hull speed and the Mac is not a displacement hull, which means, as some people have already done, you can increase horsepower to increase speed. So logically thinking why would the same not be possible by increasing wind power or decreasig weight? I would hypothesize that one could attempt sailing with less than the 1400 lbs of ballast as long as it was contained in seperate full tanks so that it did not slosh from side to side as I described in my original post.
plastic measuring tube
My X was delivered with a clear plastic tube which if you put your thumb over the top and inserted it into the forward tank breather hole till it touched the bottom of the tank, then remove the tube and you can see the depth of water in the ballast tank. BUT all you should ever, ever, ever do is have the ballast tank FULL or EMPTY never, never, never half full. All the reports I have ever read on the few sailing accidents with 26X's involved ballast tanks being partially full. Cheers Morris
My X was delivered with a clear plastic tube which if you put your thumb over the top and inserted it into the forward tank breather hole till it touched the bottom of the tank, then remove the tube and you can see the depth of water in the ballast tank. BUT all you should ever, ever, ever do is have the ballast tank FULL or EMPTY never, never, never half full. All the reports I have ever read on the few sailing accidents with 26X's involved ballast tanks being partially full. Cheers Morris
- Status