For the past 4 years I have sailed a 1988 McGregor 26D. I am currently in the market of purchasing a new Hunter 26. I see that it comes with a water ballast or a fixed wing/keel version. I am leaning towards the fixed keel with the inboard 9HP. Because of launching restrictions, I might have to go with the water ballast version. Can anyone give me specifics on differences of sailing charartistics as applies to stability between the 2 models?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Michael Bell
Archives
You may want to check the archives, as there has been much discussion on this in the past. The number of times you may haul out will weigh heavily on your decision – I’m sure.
You may want to check the archives, as there has been much discussion on this in the past. The number of times you may haul out will weigh heavily on your decision – I’m sure.
D
Dave Condon
Water versus Keel
Keith; There is much on this but from the person who sailed the first 260 water ballast and wing keel version, it really comes down to trailering. If considering allot, then water ballast is the only way as the keel version sits much higher on the trailer and you will need a long extension to launch with. Also, many folks forget that you need a long ramp with the launching of a wing keel too. There are very few long ramps.
Keith; There is much on this but from the person who sailed the first 260 water ballast and wing keel version, it really comes down to trailering. If considering allot, then water ballast is the only way as the keel version sits much higher on the trailer and you will need a long extension to launch with. Also, many folks forget that you need a long ramp with the launching of a wing keel too. There are very few long ramps.
C
Craig
fixed keel
I own the 260 keel. I keep it moored on a lake and haul it out once during the summer to go to the San Juan Is. in WA for 8-10 days. The rest of the summer it stays moored. That works well for me. You do need a V10 or diesel 3/4 ton for towing any distance. The sailing of a keel boat is and will always be far superior to the water ballast. I owned the 23.5 for 5 years and their is no comparison. It boils down to the tradeoffs between great sailing versus great towing. Cant have both!
I own the 260 keel. I keep it moored on a lake and haul it out once during the summer to go to the San Juan Is. in WA for 8-10 days. The rest of the summer it stays moored. That works well for me. You do need a V10 or diesel 3/4 ton for towing any distance. The sailing of a keel boat is and will always be far superior to the water ballast. I owned the 23.5 for 5 years and their is no comparison. It boils down to the tradeoffs between great sailing versus great towing. Cant have both!
D
Dave Condon
Response to Craig
The Hunter 23.5 was the first water ballast for Hunter. The 240 addressed the stability issue but I have found in many cases that pelople tend to use too much sail and can get overpowered easily. That is why you reef early and not late. As for the 260, it is of course bigger and the old saying is the bigger, the steadier the boat. The differences in sailing the 260 wing keel versus water ballast is so slight that most folks will never know except for the experienced. If trailering alot, then of course the water ballast is the way to go. In your case Craig, I too would have chosen the wing keel. Hopefully, we have answered your questions Kieth. Happy new Year. Crazy Dave Condon
The Hunter 23.5 was the first water ballast for Hunter. The 240 addressed the stability issue but I have found in many cases that pelople tend to use too much sail and can get overpowered easily. That is why you reef early and not late. As for the 260, it is of course bigger and the old saying is the bigger, the steadier the boat. The differences in sailing the 260 wing keel versus water ballast is so slight that most folks will never know except for the experienced. If trailering alot, then of course the water ballast is the way to go. In your case Craig, I too would have chosen the wing keel. Hopefully, we have answered your questions Kieth. Happy new Year. Crazy Dave Condon
D
Daniel Busche
Crazy Dave
Dave, are you saying the 240 is more stabel than the 23.5 was. I own a '99 240 and used to own a 94' Mac26 and find the 240 still pretty unstable, just much better build. But you are right, if you trailer a lot, water ballest is the only way to go. What did Hunter do to improve stability of 240 over the 23.5?
Dave, are you saying the 240 is more stabel than the 23.5 was. I own a '99 240 and used to own a 94' Mac26 and find the 240 still pretty unstable, just much better build. But you are right, if you trailer a lot, water ballest is the only way to go. What did Hunter do to improve stability of 240 over the 23.5?
D
Dave Condon
Response to Daniel
The 23.5 dry weight was 2000 pounds and the 240 is 2300 pounds. As for water ballast the 23.5 had 1000 pounds of water and the 240 has 1300 pounds of water. Thus, total displacement for the 23.5 was 3000 pounds and the 240 is 3600 pounds. I would like to know if you have roller furling for your boat. what winds do you sail in? I would like to know in order to give you some pointers Crazy Dave Condon
The 23.5 dry weight was 2000 pounds and the 240 is 2300 pounds. As for water ballast the 23.5 had 1000 pounds of water and the 240 has 1300 pounds of water. Thus, total displacement for the 23.5 was 3000 pounds and the 240 is 3600 pounds. I would like to know if you have roller furling for your boat. what winds do you sail in? I would like to know in order to give you some pointers Crazy Dave Condon
T
Tom
Previous Mac26 owner
Hi Keith, I previously owned a 1990 mac26 and purchased a new H260 water ballasted boat last year (1999 model year). The H260 is much more stable and has a "big" boat feel compared to the MAC 26. I attribute this due to the H260 being overt 2000 lbs heavier (in the water) and almost a foot wider in the beam. Trailerability is about the same. The H260 actually tracks better than the Mac, due, I beleive, to the tandem wheel configuration. On the trailer the H260 is about 1000 lbs heavier than the Mac -- depending on equipment, etc. Even the H260 water ballast sits much higher on the trailer than the Mac and is not as easy to get the trailer deep enough to float the boat off even with the extension. Setup is a bit easier than the Mac due to the fixed mast raising struts and no back stay. The mast raising pole on the H260 is a bit flimsy and not well attached at the base of the mast. It tends to slip to the side instead of standing upright when the mast is low. I have read accounts for the raising pole failing which could have disaterous results, Hopefully they have improved these items on the 2000 model year. As far as sailing characteristics, I haven't sailed the fixed keel version. Compared to the Mac (1990, swing centerboard), however, it points somewhat better. I sailed my old Mac along side an H-26 (water ballast) and found that I could not point as high or keep up even on a beam reach. From what I have read, generally speaking, a deep keel will provide better hydrodynamic lift than a wing keel allowing better pointing ability. However, the heavy wing keel under the boat will provide a lower center of gravity and longer moment arm to reduce heeling. The centerboard allows for "adjustable draft" in case you are in thin water, offering a little more flexibilty for choosing cruising grounds. Please feel free to contact me with any questions about the H260 and good luck with your new boat. Fair winds, Tom twarneke@cisco.com
Hi Keith, I previously owned a 1990 mac26 and purchased a new H260 water ballasted boat last year (1999 model year). The H260 is much more stable and has a "big" boat feel compared to the MAC 26. I attribute this due to the H260 being overt 2000 lbs heavier (in the water) and almost a foot wider in the beam. Trailerability is about the same. The H260 actually tracks better than the Mac, due, I beleive, to the tandem wheel configuration. On the trailer the H260 is about 1000 lbs heavier than the Mac -- depending on equipment, etc. Even the H260 water ballast sits much higher on the trailer than the Mac and is not as easy to get the trailer deep enough to float the boat off even with the extension. Setup is a bit easier than the Mac due to the fixed mast raising struts and no back stay. The mast raising pole on the H260 is a bit flimsy and not well attached at the base of the mast. It tends to slip to the side instead of standing upright when the mast is low. I have read accounts for the raising pole failing which could have disaterous results, Hopefully they have improved these items on the 2000 model year. As far as sailing characteristics, I haven't sailed the fixed keel version. Compared to the Mac (1990, swing centerboard), however, it points somewhat better. I sailed my old Mac along side an H-26 (water ballast) and found that I could not point as high or keep up even on a beam reach. From what I have read, generally speaking, a deep keel will provide better hydrodynamic lift than a wing keel allowing better pointing ability. However, the heavy wing keel under the boat will provide a lower center of gravity and longer moment arm to reduce heeling. The centerboard allows for "adjustable draft" in case you are in thin water, offering a little more flexibilty for choosing cruising grounds. Please feel free to contact me with any questions about the H260 and good luck with your new boat. Fair winds, Tom twarneke@cisco.com
K
Keith Gustin
- Status
- Not open for further replies.