SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)

324K views 154 replies 30 participants last post by  PCP 
#1 ·
Blue Jacket Yachts was recently formed as a collaboration between Bob Johnson from Island Packet and Tim Jacket, formerly of Tartan and C&C. Their first design is a new "performance cruiser" called the Blue Jacket 40. I've personally never been a big fan of these compromised hybrid designs, but I think the story is compelling given Bob & Tim's partnership and experience.

I recently posted about the project on my blog, including an interview borrowed from Blue Jacket featuring both Bob and Tim's perspectives on the new design and company. You can read it here.

Any opinions on Blue Jacket Yachts?

 
See less See more
1
#3 ·
Tough market to break into. The performance cruiser market is crowded with the high-end being owned by J-boat, and the volume leader/value play being Beneteau First Series. However, if they start winning distance races/rallys or being competitive in PHRF racing, then I'll get excited about this partnership.

Jacket's old company (Tartan/C&C) could have been considered part of the performance cruiser market too. But we all know how that story ended when they pushed the envelope too far on engineering methods.
 
#4 ·
If I were an Island Packet owner, this line would send me scurrying for the hills:

"Different manufacturing technologies (infused composite hulls and decks, carbon fiber components, etc.) introduced with the Blue Jacket line may eventually find their way into Island Packet construction if deemed appropriate"
 
#8 · (Edited)
You're kidding right? Beneteau's may be a lot of things, but *NO ONE* calls the First line "slow". First series Beneteaus bring home hardware.

This...looks like a porky island packet that put on a mask (a plumb bow) and some new shoes (a bulb deep keel) and now is going to go to the ball as a speed demon...doesn't make sense to me.

Self tacking jib...and is that a boom furler? (*EDIT* - I stand corrected - its a batt-car/lazyjack system) Not many true performance cruisers would go with that equipment. Even with fancy sails and the new underwater profile, this is going to be slow unless those epoxy vacuuming methods of manufacture really really reduce weight. It may be faster than an Island Packet, but an Island Packet 420, by comparison has a base rating in the mid-140s (thats slow for >40 feet of waterline).

I do have to commend them for not cramming a second head into the boat. Although instead of a 3rd cabin, I'd like to have seen more storage/lazarette space. Racing means sail changes/wet sails...who wants to store that in a sleeping cabin and get the upholstery all wet/moldy!
 
#7 · (Edited)
Here's PCP's original post on the boat:

Big surprise:D: Island packet is going to launch a series of performance cruisers. They will be called Blue Jacket line and will be designed by Tim Jackett (ex-President and Chief Designer at Tartan and C&C) in collaboration with Bob Johnson (CEO and Chief Designer at Island Packet).

The first one is already on its way to production and even if in what regards cabin design I find the boat too classic, not to say old fashioned, in what regards hull design and technical characteristics I love the boat.

Well, the keel could be more modern and efficient (it is similar to the one on my boat) but in what regards all the rest it looks perfect to me. In fact it is very close to the Comet 41s in what regards weight, ballast and hull design. It fits on the Italian way of looking to performance cruisers.

A relatively narrow boat with a good B/D a deep draft (2.30) and a big stability that is the opposite in design conception of the also new Tartan(and the CC121). I like a lot more this one;).

Well, there are some things I don't like: The traveler over the cabin and only one winch on each side of the cockpit that will have to be used for the mainsail and the genoa, but I believe that could be changed if clients ask otherwise.

Technical Characteristics
LOA: 39' 10" (12.14 m)
LWL: 35' 0" (10.67 m)
BEAM: 12' 4" (3.76 m)
DRAFT: 7' 5" (2.29 m) deep
5' 2" (1.56 m) shoal
DISP: 16, 500 lbs (7,484 kg)
BALLAST: 6, 100 lbs (2,767 kg) deep
SAIL AREA: 883 sq ft (82.03 sq m) (100% FT)
MAST HEIGHT: 62' 6" (19.05 m)
POWER: 40 HP (30 kW)
FUEL: 40 US gal (151 l)
WATER: 110 US gal (417 l)
WASTE: 25 US gal (80 l)
SA/D: 21.8
D/L: 172
DESIGNER: Tim Jackett w/Bob Johnson, N.A.



















They say about the boat:

Sailplan and rig:
The large sailplan is a further refinement of the Solent style rig featuring standard double head sails with a working jib and a lightweight 150% reacher that mounts on the integral bow prod, both furled with Harken® systems. The working jib is fitted with a carbon fiber Hoyt Boom® that is self-tending and improves performance with its close sheeting and self-vanging feature while the large reacher boosts performance in light air or when off the wind. The fully battened mainsail is equipped with a standard electric halyard winch and a low friction Battcar system and drops easily into a carbon fiber pocket boom with an integral cover and lazy jack system.

This easily managed rig has ample horsepower and versatility for optimizing performance in a wide range of conditions. All sheets lead to the cockpit near the helm and primary winches for short-handed convenience.
On deck:
On deck, anchor handling has been simplified and made especially convenient with a cleverly designed roller recessed in the bow prod providing secure stowage of the anchor and directing the rode to the anchor locker with a (optional) below deck electric windlass that keeps the deck and profile uncluttered. A deck hatch gives access to this area. Wide side decks with full length raised bulwarks, double lifelines, bow and stern rails and cabin top handrails provide security on deck.

The large cockpit has deep coamings, long seats and twin helm stations with great visibility and ready access to all sail control lines. Seat hatches provide access to storage areas and a (optional) central drop-leaf table makes for a great social area. Hinged transom doors open to the integral stern platform with a retractable swim ladder under a central hatch.

Materials used:
The Blue Jacket's hull and deck are made with a state of the art vacuum infusion process utilizing 100% vinylester resin, quadraxial knitted E-glass reinforcements and a structural foam core. The end result is superior strength and stiffness with significantly reduced weight compared to conventional laminates. …

The use of premium structural foam coring produces better interlaminar bond properties with freedom from potential core deterioration compared to other choices and allows for an industry-best extended hull and deck warranty.


http://www.bluejacketyachts.com/

..
 
#10 · (Edited)
Tough market to break into. The performance cruiser market is crowded with the high-end being owned by J-boat, and the volume leader/value play being Beneteau First Series. However, if they start winning distance races/rallys or being competitive in PHRF racing, then I'll get excited about this partnership.

Jacket's old company (Tartan/C&C) could have been considered part of the performance cruiser market too. But we all know how that story ended when they pushed the envelope too far on engineering methods
.

Never considered a Tartan a racing cruiser. Thats a Jacket wannabe.( I am not denigratuing tartans as they are standup boats now, and were before Jacket was involved with running the company)

There are racer ( performance) cruisers...and there are cruisers
PHRF for 40 footer

J120- 48
C&C121- 63
Sabre40- 69
BeneFirst12m 69
Tartan40 102

While this Blue Jackett will probably address Island Packets notorious slower boats image and certainly be an improvment as long as their are no quality issues, I still wouldnt put it in a category as a racer cruiser. Great attempt to reincarnate/ rehabilitate Jacketts image by having him paired with a reputable name like Island Packet. Lets hope they marginalize him out of the customer service aspects of the company so they dont follow his previous lead at Tartan which almost ruined a very repurtable brand.

I concur with Paulos commments and would add, Placement of the jib tracks outboard and the hoyt self tacking jib are nolt seen on asny other racer cruiser I know. Dont think the solent system is etiher. C&C is a masthead rig...this blue jacket isnt to windward
 
#13 ·
For those arguing the BJ40 isn't a "racer-cruiser", I'd argue that the proper term is probably "performance cruiser". The Solent rig and Hoyt boom are there for ease of sailing, which is generally a cruiser priority, IMO. While it could race, I suspect it will appeal mostly to the cruising crowd looking for a bit more speed than than more traditional cruisers (IP full foil keel boats, etc.) can provide.

All of this is interesting in the context of Island Packet's own philosophy statement: "We understand that the definition of 'performance' in the cruising context goes well beyond boat speed and must include safe, simple, predictable, and seakindly handling as well."
 
#14 · (Edited)
It is, certainly not a racer-cruiser even if on the brief program Tim Jackett says that he is doing that kind of boat. Performance cruiser is a more vague description and the Bluejacket would not qualify as that in Europe.

A performance cruiser by European standards will include a rigging that will permit to sail the boat with a perfect trim of the sails and that includes on a standard boat a backstay adjuster, a big travell on the back of the boat, 6 winches (if the boat has not a direct main), four of them on the cockpit, one for the Genoa/spinnaker/Code 0 or Spinnaker, the other to the main and in most of the cases German sheeting.

An European main market mass production boat like the Jeanneau 409, not considered as a performance cruiser, has a very similar rigging a not very different weight and in its performance version (still not a performance boat) will be faster than the Bluejacket.

The Jeanneau 409, like the Bluejacket 40 are fast cruising boats. To be called a performance cruising boat depends on the definition.

In Europe anyone that is looking for a performance boat will be looking for the means to have a complete control on sail trim, controls that are nonexistent on the Bluejacket and therefore it would not be called here a performance boat. It see that in America they call performance boats to a lot of slower boats that in Europe would not have that qualification, like the Tartan or the Catalina. Maybe the Bluejacket is a performance boat by American standards;)

Many American say that a J122 or a First 40 or a Salona 41 are not cruising boats but racing boats. For those the Bluejacket will be a performance cruiser, even a cruiser racer.

Regards

Paulo
 
#15 ·
Anyway you look at it this thread has been up for two days and there's only 15 posts... With no one screaming "I'm buying one!"

So it will be interesting to see how they go. I think Island Packet are trying to enter into a very competitive area of the market. You would think the boat will have to be very good and at a very good price to make inroads....

Does anyone here think a current IP owner will change to the Blue JAcket?
So who will be the market? Young pre-ip people? Sort of old but not old enough ;)
 
#16 ·
Not as slow looking as the original designs, but still looks slow enough! Many of the C&C designs by TJ had a hard time sailing to there ratings. so even if this boat was a cruise racer, it would probably have a hard time sailing to the ratings also. Not on my list of boats if I had what will probably be $.5 mil out the door ready to race/sail etc!

Marty
 
#17 · (Edited)
When I read the descriptions of the Blue Jacket 40, I think to myself, this ought to be a boat that I really like. I think, that we have been through several decades of improvement in our understanding of performance, motion comfort, hardware and rig design, structural load paths and structural and material design technology that should be filtering into the world of cruising yachts, and producing boats which clearly are improvements of the performance cruising boats of past generations.

When I look at boats like the Morris Ocean series, or the latest Hallberg Rasseys, Najads, XC 38, I see the genetic influence of the improvements in yacht design science. And while these are wildly expensive boats to buy, their designs show an intent that begins to suggest an improvement to the breed that ideally will filter down into less expensive versions. And infact, to one degree or another, that same thinking has filtered down into less expensive and less offshore oriented models, such as some of the latest Beneteaus, Dufours, and even Catalinas.

And from an arm chair point of view, my sense is that someone like Tim Jackett should have the skill to develop an American, mass market oriented version of the boats produced in Europe or our own custom market, but this alliance between Tim Jackett and Island Packet has resulted in the proverbial ‘Camel: a horse designed by committee’.

As much as I want to like the Blue Jacket, as much as I am staunch advocate for performance cruising boats, as much as I applaud Island Packet for leaving their traditional comfort zone, when I look at the Blue Jacket in detail, I come away wondering “what the heck were they thinking?” Both Tim Jacket and Island Packet should have known better. To me this is a gimmicky version of what this boat should have been. The annoying part is if you read what they wanted to accomplish, it sounds so good... so right. The tragedy in my mind is that they did not come closer to their own mark. And the tragedy is that in these difficult times for boat builders, they identified a market they they uniquely could have dominated if the did it right, but instead they appear to have missed their mark. And while they may sell a bunch of these solely on name recognition, the shame on them is that they should have produced a boat which sold because it was a superb design well executed.

What they call this, racer-cruiser, performance cruiser, offshore passage maker, is besides the point. What this is vs what it could be, is where my disappointment lies.

Respectfully,
Jeff
 
#20 ·
That's the deal breaker for me...Actually I really want to like this boat, but like everyone else I just can't. Then again I have only seen 3D renderings of the boat so it might look a little different in person. Of course I am not in the market for a $380,000 boat so obviously the designer didnt have me in mind when he designed it.
 
#21 ·
Weird thing about Island Packet yachts... And they are not my sort of boat, but....
Why do they only go up to 48 feet when all other makers have been getting larger and larger?

Oyster now has boats over 100 feet and their median must be now 55 or 57
Swan is the same, Beneteau, Jenneau etc are 68 and 64 respectively.

But IP, Hunter and Catalina are all stuck in the 40s or a 50 for Hunter.

What's the go?

If you were into IPs you wouldn't want a Blue Jacket but you may well like a IP 60 pr IP 65 .... With a jacuzzi.... Double reinforced and made from titanium to be safe, of course....
 
#23 ·
This boat will be fast for a cruiser if we compare it for instance with a Catalina or a Hunter. It has a well designed hull/keel/rudder and is not much heavy.

They announce it as a dual purpose boat, for racing and performance cruising, for that the boat lacks all controls that can give a better control over the sail shape and that way maximize performance. About that see post 14 on this thread.

Regards

Paulo
 
#24 ·
Here's PCP's original post on the boat:

Big surprise:D: Island packet is going to launch a series of performance cruisers. They will be called Blue Jacket line and will be designed by Tim Jackett (ex-President and Chief Designer at Tartan and C&C) in collaboration with Bob Johnson (CEO and Chief Designer at Island Packet).

The first one is already on its way to production and even if in what regards cabin design I find the boat too classic, not to say old fashioned, in what regards hull design and technical characteristics I love the boat.

Well, the keel could be more modern and efficient (it is similar to the one on my boat) but in what regards all the rest it looks perfect to me. In fact it is very close to the Comet 41s in what regards weight, ballast and hull design. It fits on the Italian way of looking to performance cruisers.

A relatively narrow boat with a good B/D a deep draft (2.30) and a big stability that is the opposite in design conception of the also new Tartan(and the CC121). I like a lot more this one;).

Well, there are some things I don't like: The traveler over the cabin and only one winch on each side of the cockpit that will have to be used for the mainsail and the genoa, but I believe that could be changed if clients ask otherwise.

Technical Characteristics
LOA: 39' 10" (12.14 m)
LWL: 35' 0" (10.67 m)
BEAM: 12' 4" (3.76 m)
DRAFT: 7' 5" (2.29 m) deep
5' 2" (1.56 m) shoal
DISP: 16, 500 lbs (7,484 kg)
BALLAST: 6, 100 lbs (2,767 kg) deep
SAIL AREA: 883 sq ft (82.03 sq m) (100% FT)
MAST HEIGHT: 62' 6" (19.05 m)
POWER: 40 HP (30 kW)
FUEL: 40 US gal (151 l)
WATER: 110 US gal (417 l)
WASTE: 25 US gal (80 l)
SA/D: 21.8
D/L: 172
DESIGNER: Tim Jackett w/Bob Johnson, N.A.



















They say about the boat:

Sailplan and rig:
The large sailplan is a further refinement of the Solent style rig featuring standard double head sails with a working jib and a lightweight 150% reacher that mounts on the integral bow prod, both furled with Harken® systems. The working jib is fitted with a carbon fiber Hoyt Boom® that is self-tending and improves performance with its close sheeting and self-vanging feature while the large reacher boosts performance in light air or when off the wind. The fully battened mainsail is equipped with a standard electric halyard winch and a low friction Battcar system and drops easily into a carbon fiber pocket boom with an integral cover and lazy jack system.

This easily managed rig has ample horsepower and versatility for optimizing performance in a wide range of conditions. All sheets lead to the cockpit near the helm and primary winches for short-handed convenience.
On deck:
On deck, anchor handling has been simplified and made especially convenient with a cleverly designed roller recessed in the bow prod providing secure stowage of the anchor and directing the rode to the anchor locker with a (optional) below deck electric windlass that keeps the deck and profile uncluttered. A deck hatch gives access to this area. Wide side decks with full length raised bulwarks, double lifelines, bow and stern rails and cabin top handrails provide security on deck.

The large cockpit has deep coamings, long seats and twin helm stations with great visibility and ready access to all sail control lines. Seat hatches provide access to storage areas and a (optional) central drop-leaf table makes for a great social area. Hinged transom doors open to the integral stern platform with a retractable swim ladder under a central hatch.

Materials used:
The Blue Jacket's hull and deck are made with a state of the art vacuum infusion process utilizing 100% vinylester resin, quadraxial knitted E-glass reinforcements and a structural foam core. The end result is superior strength and stiffness with significantly reduced weight compared to conventional laminates. …

The use of premium structural foam coring produces better interlaminar bond properties with freedom from potential core deterioration compared to other choices and allows for an industry-best extended hull and deck warranty.


Blue Jacket Yachts - Performance Cruising Sailboats | BlueJacketYachts.com

..
Well, here's my take from someone who cruises FT on a performance cruiser...

Where do you put your feet when sitting in the cockpit seats? THat span is probably to wide for most people so you will be sliding off the seat.

Where do you put the chartplotter? Working a CP (and seeing it) from across the cockpit is very difficult, especially when navigating unfamiliar waters and in bad weather.

Why not put some seats on the transom to make use of the open space? Maybe a couple of propane lockers? Wasted space withg minimal weight impact.

The stern seats are not angled, and it does not look like the coamings are either. Sure will make for a long, sliding day while you are behind the wheel at sea, especially under a good heal.

A three cabin boat under 40 feet is rediculous. I suspect that the third cabin is a converted workshop... at least I hope so.

Curved settees on a "offshore" boat? Really? Where do you sleep off watch??? I am shocked manufacturers would still consider this.

HERE IS THE KILLER (and why I would completely write this boat off): A forward head on a performance boat SUCKS! When the seas break about 6-8 feet, a forward head becomes almost unuseable. I know this from experience. WHen you are jumping off the seas, your will literally go airborne when you are that far forward. You have to hold yourself down to the toilet seat. Don't even bother trying to stand up unless you want to write your name on the walls. Plus, when you come down, you will be tracking all kinds of salt water and wet gear right through the cabin which undoubtedly makes the floor slick and the whole cabin uncomfortable. As such, I think this would be fine for beer can racing, but not great for offshore distance racing. I also don't think it would be a great cruiser.

Diesel tankage sucks.

Designed weight sounds really low to me unless they really do incorporate a lot of CF. I assume this is a cored hull (not my favorite for cruising)? I bet that boat comes in (realistically) at 20000. The 426 is Designed weight of 24,000 and my boat is about that too. Remember, NEVER confuse designed weight with real displacement. I doubt they are ever the same. I find most designers are woefully optimistic to increase their SA/D numbers. My boat has a designed displacement of 19,500. Realistic is around 24000, and outfitted I am running right about 27000-28000. Now, this is a cruising boat... but dry and empty this boat doesn't weigh its designed weight.

Also, my opinion here, but if your draft is 5'2, you have to really put a lot of lead in that keel. If not, you will have a seriously tender boat (and you may anyways) and tender boats SUCK for cruising. Been there, done that. My boat's draft with its wing keel is right about 6 feet. I would also wonder about that boats pointing abilities at 5'2. For example, we have on HN 317 and above a true 5'4 draft. Everything else is the same, though they modified the keel and hull to do this. The late model HN's do not point as well as the perdecessors and mine is all round a better performer except when running where the draft and hull mods make less of an impact. But I can tell you from a cruisers perspective, you are ALWAYS going to weather. Always. I don't even pull out a map anymore, I just point the boat into the wind cuz somehow mother nature knows thats which way I am heading.

How deep is that bilge? If you draw 5'2, I would be very concerned that would be a shallow bilge... but I am just guessing.

She is too narrow on the beam. Even Sabre has a beam 13.5 at 42 feet. I am 13.5 at 42 feet. That narrow beam will make for a tighter boat to cruise on, reminding me much of a First Series which also would be a great boat for distance racing and beer cans, but not ideal for cruising. My opinion.

I think I would take that boat back to the drawing board. I do applaud IP for trying to get away from the notoriously slow boats they have made. But they do have a lot of competition. For 400k or so (which is realistically what you are going to pay if not more), why not buy a Catalina 445, a Sabre 426, an X yacht, a j44, a First Series, or several other used boats I can think of which ROCK and are really good performance cruisers? Problem is that I'm not sure this boat will be either a good cruiser or a good performer, which basically makes one ask: What's the point???

Brian
 
#25 ·
Wow Brian, that's a comprehensive breakdown of the Blue Jacket. While I obviously haven't sailed one myself (no one has!) and it is not necessarily my kind of boat, I do feel obliged to take a shot a few of your critiques.

"Where do you put the chartplotter?" - How about on the steering pedestals like many other cruising boats? This puts the screen within easy reach and view of the helmsmen.

"The stern seats are not angled, and it does not look like the coamings are either." - The seat bottoms look angled, which would keep you held back against the coaming.

"A three cabin boat under 40 feet is rediculous. I suspect that the third cabin is a converted workshop... at least I hope so." - Per the literature from BJ: An optional interior plan may be selected with two cabins in lieu of the standard plan's three. This arrangement deletes the enclosed starboard aft cabin, extends the galley counter, cabinetry and slip resistant sole and creates a large cockpit locker that's accessible from either the interior or deck. And let's not forget that the C400 was also available w/ a 3-cabin layout.

"Curved settees on a "offshore" boat? Really? Where do you sleep off watch???" - You don't think the port settee would serve as a seaberth w/ some lee cloths installed? Hard to say without knowing the actual dimensions.

"...but if your draft is 5'2, you have to really put a lot of lead in that keel. If not, you will have a seriously tender boat (and you may anyways) and tender boats SUCK for cruising." - Shoal draft version is 5'2", deep draft version is 7'5". The b/d ratio for the BJ40 is .369, while the C400 is a very similar .365 (both deep draft versions). If you believe b/d is a strong indicator of stiffness, these two boats would be similar.

"I think I would take that boat back to the drawing board." - Wow, that's a bold statement considering literally no one has sailed or stepped foot aboard this boat yet. Let's at least wait for the introduction at Strictly Sail Chicago in January. I'll be there to take some photos and give a better first hand impression, but until then I'm reserving judgement.

However, I do agree or am indifferent to a few of your critiques:

"Diesel tankage sucks." - Agreed, 40 gallons isn't enough for big passages. And again just to be fair, doesn't the C400 only hold 35 gallons?

"A forward head on a performance boat SUCKS!" - Agreed, but I'd argue it's no fun to visit any head in 6'-8' breaking seas.
 
#26 ·
Wow Brian, that's a comprehensive breakdown of the Blue Jacket. While I obviously haven't sailed one myself (no one has!) and it is not necessarily my kind of boat, I do feel obliged to take a shot a few of your critiques.

"Where do you put the chartplotter?" - How about on the steering pedestals like many other cruising boats? This puts the screen within easy reach and view of the helmsmen.
Putting the chartplotter on the pedestal is about the only place you can put it unless on the cabintop. However, what happens when you are at the other wheel? Or do you put two charplotters up there? When steering down a unfamiliar waterway, or watching the radar, you are put behind only one wheel. And does the leads from the lazarette and chain have runs for that much cabeling? THat is why many boats have a combo table in the middle of the cockpit. Other than acting as a table, you can use it as a foot rest and put your CP/Radar there. Let me point out another real problem with mounting the CP's there: when under way at sea for long periods of time, you stretch out along the seats in the cockpit. When you have a CP that is behind where you stretch out, you cannot see the radar or the CP. to see them requires getting up and standing behind the wheel. In this case, only one of the wheels even.

I am not saying you cannot make this work on the Bluejacket. I am saying it is not ideal and is a turnoff for cruising.

What I do like on a lot of race boats is the LACK of a table. It allows the crew to run a tack or jibe quickly without dodging the table in the middle. You can even have the same person blow the sheets and pull in the other. I can do this (and do have to do this) on my boat, but it is a real pita especially when it is howling. Some boats, a B49/50 I saw, have a removeable table for that purpose. But this is a Performance Cruiser, not a racer. Right? If we are talking about a straight racer, this is a different discussion.

"The stern seats are not angled, and it does not look like the coamings are either." - The seat bottoms look angled, which would keep you held back against the coaming.
The seats FORWARD of the wheels are likely angled in, but having a place to put your feet when rolling at sea is a HUGE plus. Otherwise, you end up having to hang on to the coaming or other gear which gets very tiring. In order to counteract 15-20 degrees of heel (not to mention the rolls), you would have to have at least that or more on the seats forward of the helms. Propping your feet against something to keep from sliding out is a great benefit.

Now, the seats behind the helms show zero angling nor do the coaming beside them. Or course, this has a great cosmetic look to it and gives the boats pretty lines (think Hunter 460), but at sea, the man behind the wheel will always be standing up or slipping off the seats. Look at the drawings/renderings behind the wheel. Both the coamings and seats are flat - very like the Hunter and some of the Jeauneaus that have come out. That is terrible for long distance stuff, but sure looks pretty at the boat show.

"A three cabin boat under 40 feet is rediculous. I suspect that the third cabin is a converted workshop... at least I hope so." - Per the literature from BJ: An optional interior plan may be selected with two cabins in lieu of the standard plan's three. This arrangement deletes the enclosed starboard aft cabin, extends the galley counter, cabinetry and slip resistant sole and creates a large cockpit locker that's accessible from either the interior or deck. And let's not forget that the C400 was also available w/ a 3-cabin layout.
The LOA on the C400 is actually over 40 feet (just don't tell the marina). I think it is around 41.3 feet... don't remember for sure. It is true that the C400 was offered in 3 cabin versions. It is also true they didn't sell very many of them. I realize there may only be a couple of 2-3 feet difference between the boats, and I realize the BJ has a plumb bow and skinny transom, but her beam is also pretty skinny. Adding that into the above would make for a tight three cabin boat. I am not surprised that the third cabin can be a workshop. That was my immediate thought too which was why I wrote that.

"Curved settees on a "offshore" boat? Really? Where do you sleep off watch???" - You don't think the port settee would serve as a seaberth w/ some lee cloths installed? Hard to say without knowing the actual dimensions.
The salon setttes are curved. Salon settees should be straight for sea berths. THe C42 also has curved settees, and that is a real drawback in my opinion and was one of the principle reasons we didn't buy one (the C42 was even cheaper). Having a straight settee that you can lay across and get some sleep without having to make some contortion to fit the curve of the settees is critical for me. Those that don't mind sleeping cockeyed, different story. But there is a reason most offshore boats have straight settes or a dedicated sea berth down below.

"...but if your draft is 5'2, you have to really put a lot of lead in that keel. If not, you will have a seriously tender boat (and you may anyways) and tender boats SUCK for cruising." - Shoal draft version is 5'2", deep draft version is 7'5". The b/d ratio for the BJ40 is .369, while the C400 is a very similar .365 (both deep draft versions). If you believe b/d is a strong indicator of stiffness, these two boats would be similar.

"I think I would take that boat back to the drawing board." - Wow, that's a bold statement considering literally no one has sailed or stepped foot aboard this boat yet. Let's at least wait for the introduction at Strictly Sail Chicago in January. I'll be there to take some photos and give a better first hand impression, but until then I'm reserving judgement.
The C400 is one of the stiffest boat I have ever been on. But remember, my shoal draft is 6 feet. it is NOT the listed 5'4. So how do you compensate for that leverage difference? Its not just displacement, it is the keel acting as a lever to overcome the force. Can you do that in 5'2? I guess. But how much lead will you have to put in that keel to do it? If you don't have the same draft, but the same lead in the keel, won't that boat be more tender? Well no, not if you make it very flat on the bottom (hard chimed). Catalina changed the C400's around HN 317 to accomodate that shallower draft which was in the specs. THe did it by making the bilge a lot skinnier which I think was a mistake.

I might be wrong in all of the above. We won't know until she has a sea trial and a one-one comparrison can be made. I am making a lot of assumptions based upon what I see in the specs and rendering. But there's no free lunchs on boats. Everything has tradeoffs. Otherwise, everyone would make a 5 foot draft boat that had a deep bilge, was fast, sure footed, and cheap. Finding the right balance is what is critical. My balance may be very different from others.

Fun discussing this stuff. I am sure others will have a very different opinion of mine. I guess my opinion for Jakcet/IP is that if you are going to break into a market that already has a lot of good performance boats in it, come out with a boat that is considerably better. Make it really good at one aspect or the other and those who buy it will overlook the shortcomings. But in my opinion, especially in this market, you have to really knock the socks off of the competition to carve a name and niche for yourself. Instead, I see this boat as a "nahh, well, (shrug-shrug), ok I guess."

Are you going to sell a lot of boats doing that? THat is especially true with what I see are critical deficiencies from MY Perspective. Others may not care about any of that.

Brian
 
#27 · (Edited)
Jesus Guys, I am impressed. It seems that nobody likes that boat. I wonder if the guys from Island Packet have not done any market research before doing that boat:rolleyes:.

Actually among the American cruising boats, personally, if I had to chose one I would chose the J 122 (and I like it a lot) but taking that one out this one would be a second choice. Off course there are a lot of things to modify but nothing basic (hull, Keel, rudder are OK) and I guess that they would be glad to satisfy my requests (for a price). Off course, the boat is already expensive, that would make the boat a lot more expensive and I don't think that would be justifiable face to other European performance cruisers that come already with all I want and are less expensive.

Cruisingdad, I understand what you mean but regarding beam the J 122 for instance has less beam that this boat and is a hell of a performance cruiser.

I guess that you, considering the Catalina 40 a performance boat, expect this boat to offer the same as a Catalina. People and manufacturers can call their boats what they want but a Catalina 40 would not be called in Europe a performance boat. See what I mean on post 14.

A sailor that is interested in a Catalina 40 would not be interested in this boat and vice verse. This boat is, according with the design brief a performance boat that could race with success offshore or around the cans and also can provide conditions for comfortable cruising. That is not the design brief for a Catalina.

The design brief of the BlueJacket is very similar to the one of the J122, the difference is that the J122 deliver and this boat would not. I don't mean in what regards cruising but in what regards performance cruising or racing. In what regards performance cruising that has to do basically with the lack of adequate controls to control perfectly the sail shape.

I guess that what this boat should be was a kind of more luxurious and comfortable J122. Well, it ain't ;)

Regards

Paulo
 
#28 ·
Jesus Guys, I am impressed. It seems that nobody likes that boat. I wonder if the guys from Island Packet have not done any market research before doing that boat:rolleyes:.

Actually among the American cruising boats, personally, if I had to chose one I would chose the J 122 (and I like it a lot) but taking that one out this one would be a second choice. Off course there are a lot of things to modify but nothing basic (hull, Keel, rudder are OK) and I guess that they would be glad to satisfy my requests (for a price). Off course, the boat is already expensive, that would make the boat a lot more expensive and I don't think that would be justifiable face to other European performance cruisers that come already with all I want and are less expensive.

Cruisingdad, I understand what you mean but regarding beam the J 122 for instance has less beam that this boat and is a hell of a performance cruiser.

I guess that you, considering the Catalina 40 a performance boat, expect this boat to offer the same as a Catalina. People and manufacturers can call their boats what they want but a Catalina 40 would not be called in Europe a performance boat. See what I mean on post 14.

A sailor that is interested in a Catalina 40 would not be interested in this boat and vice verse. This boat is, according with the design brief a performance boat that could race with success offshore or around the cans and also can provide conditions for comfortable cruising. That is not the design brief for a Catalina.

The design brief of the BlueJacket is very similar to the one of the J122, the difference is that the J122 deliver and this boat would not. I don't mean in what regards cruising but in what regards performance cruising or racing. In what regards performance cruising that has to do basically with the lack of adequate controls to control perfectly the sail shape.

I guess that what this boat should be was a kind of more luxurious and comfortable J122. Well, it ain't ;)

Regards

Paulo
My description of a performance cruiser is a boat that runs close to its hull speed, and under good conditions, can exceed it comfortably. More important, the boat has to be a good cruising boat and suitable for cruising. It needs to have a comfortable motion at sea, sure footed, and the space and setup for systems below to make cruising possible AND reasonably comfortable as a live aboard.

Catalina CERTAINLY is not the only boat that does this. It does it well (for the price) but there are other boats that I like lot that do it better... Sabre, X, J, and some beneteaus to name a few off my head that I have been on and like.

I have been on and raced a 122. I assume you have too? I loved that boat for what it was - a race boat. No offense, but there is no way I would take that boat cruising. But I would have to think a real long time before I took a First cruising either, and it was better suited. My compromise is somewhere in the middle where you are comfortable down below and have a lot of space for storage and systems. The 122 I was on was a carbon fire, stripped down racing machine. SHe was rocking fast, but for a cruising boat?? No way! I don't know that I would want too much CF on my boat as a cruising boat. Of course, there is the other extreme (the Tayanas and IP's of the world) where to heck with speed. It is very focused on being a liveaboard and slower than CHristmas. As long as I can plan on 7ish knots, sometimes 7.5 for my SOG trip planning, I am happy with my 40 foot boat. Hey, soimetimes I exceed it. Sometimes I don't. But there are few points when I canot turn on my motor and go well over 7 knots at a reasonable RPM and reasonable fuel useage. And THAT is a performance cruiser to me.

My definition anyays.

Brian
 
#35 ·
Brian - I admire you tremendously since you're out there "doing it", but respectfully I have to disagree about Catalina has a true dedicated performance line. Both of those models (when the 400 was in production) had roller furling mains, compression posts, fancy wing keels, winches that were a bit undersized, etc. When the 400 was in production, I believe its accepted PHRF rating was generally 110-120. Whereas a Beneteau First 40 is 60. I will say I commend Catalina to sticking with Lead keels, so the boats were definitely less "tender" than Beneteaus I've sailed on length for length...but racers love putting a rail in the water.

I will say I've read some statements from Catalina about their recent models aiming to bring performance back to their models, but 445 and 400 are squarely cruisers. I will say that I was surprised to see the C400 have a lower rating than the Beneteau Oceanis 40 (120 vs 130 something) since around here, Beneteau's generally compete in more competitive classes here than Catalina here in SE Florida.

But nowhere close to First series performance on an equivalent waterline.
 
#36 · (Edited)
Brian - ... I will say I commend Catalina to sticking with Lead keels, so the boats were definitely less "tender" than Beneteaus I've sailed on length for length...but racers love putting a rail in the water.

...
Just a side comment to say that a lead keel means not necessarily that a boat is more or less tender. Lead is a great material to keels, specially if it used only in the bulb but there are much more factors: Draft, B/D, type of keel and beam are the more important.

A First 40 or a J122 will be more stiff than a Catalina 400 simply because they need to be more stiff to carry more sail and going faster. That does not mean that a First 40 will not put a rail in the water faster than a Catalina. That depends of the amount of sail area that is carried. Some boats, especially the narrower ones are designed to sail with more heel than a Catalina, but that does not make them necessarily more tender.

Regards

Paulo
 
#37 · (Edited)
J122 is not your fathers Oldsmobile and is definately a fast cruising boat. We race on one a friend of mine has and it isnt like the smaller or older J which were all stripped out weight wise for speed with very little comfort. Stiff and moved in the light air of the Chesapeake in the summer where most other boats have turned on their engines. Inside accompanyments are more than adequate fot crusing

Brian I appreciate you and admire you cruising style and in many ways, but I have to tell you I never condidered the Catalina 40s even cruising racers. They are well made comfortable boats for cruising. Faster than many other of the heavy cruisers. Never the last in the harbor, but definately lagging behind say a Sabre 402. Good sea motion. They are a great all round boat. Especially for a family or with 5-6 people on board. My definition of the average cruiser is not a family though, It is a couple. So there is no need for those huge water tanks when we go cruising. No need for 2 heads. I admire you as you reasearched your choice well and got the boat which really gave you the best comfort/ speed/ tankage for the type of cruising you are doing. And you are living the dream too. I only hope I get to do half of what you are doing. And your proud of your boat...like we all are.

Like you said the reason their are so many varieties of cruisers is that there as so many different types. You have the massive 40,000 lb center cockpits to the lighter quicker 24,000 performers that kick ass in lighter winds and actually go to windward with precision. You have people whose boats are built like tanks to survive the big storms and the the peopke who make 25-30 miles more passage a day and are in before the storm arrives. You have people who want multiple berths and bunks like you because they have more people on board, then you have a lot of couples who dont need that sleeping space, but want storage space. So many different kinds of cruisers lead to so many different kinds of cruising boats.

Along with the J122s I would say the Sabre 40 footers is what my definition of a performance cruisers should look like. Tremendous quality fit and finish interiors. Sneaky quick. I dont get to see too many of the European boats like Paulo talks about so I have no way of comparing it to them.

As far as the Island packet Blue Jacket shedding the image of what the traditional Island Packet is, I would have to see it in action to beleive they are quick and can keep up with the Js, Sabres, Benne Firsts. I wish the C&Cs would get into this size range again. When you step down to the 38 foot range they are hard to beat and cruise well.

As a complete amateur in sailing when someone mentioned Island Packet and performance cruiser to me , my first though was oxymoron. The day I see a IP sail by inside a Sabre, Benne, J, C&C oing to windward I will be a beleiver.

It funny because Donna and I are looking for our last boat...a cruiser in the 40-43 range. And so unlike my past boat which has been a racer/ cruiser ( C&C 35 MKIII) which could keep up with the Js and the Sabres and Bennes ( Not JeffHs Farr though), we have narrowed it down to Masons ( 43/44), Bristol (41.1/45.5) or a Hans Christian Christina 43. We are looking for a tank...with tankage.

Dave
 
#38 · (Edited)
J122 is not your fathers Oldsmobile and is definately a fast cruising boat. We race on one a friend of mine has and it isnt like the smaller or older J which were all stripped out weight wise for speed with very little comfort. Stiff and moved in the light air of the Chesapeake in the summer where most other boats have turned on their engines. Inside accompanyments are more than adequate fot crusing

Brian I appreciate you and admire you cruising style and in many ways, but I have to tell you I never condidered the Catalina 40s even cruising racers. They are well made comfortable boats for cruising. Faster than many other of the heavy cruisers. Never the last in the harbor, but definately lagging behind say a Sabre 402. ...

Along with the J122s I would say the Sabre 40 footers is what my definition of a performance cruisers should look like. ...
Dave, I don't understand what you mean when you say that a Sabre 402 being considerable faster than a Catalina 400 or a Sabre 402 being a performance cruiser and the Catalina not. It seems to me that both boats have a very similar performance.

I looked at the numbers and ratios of both boats with the wing keel configuration, that is what Brian boat has and the numbers indicate a very similar performance and none of them as nothing to do with a performance of a J122 or any other real performance cruiser.

Here are the numbers:

SA/D :

Catalina 400-17.3......Sabre 402-17.9........J122-23

Displ/lenght :

Catalina 400-188.2 ......Sabre 402-227.2........J122-161

So if the Sail area displacement ratio is marginally better for the Sabre, is very close and both boats very far away from the J122.

Regarding the Displacement lenght ratio, it is substantially better on the Catalina and even so the one of Catalina is far away from the one of the J122.

Basically what is much better on the Catalina regarding the Sabre is the LWL. The Sabre is an older design and shows it clearly on the hull. Probably, even if both boats have a similar beam, the Catalina has a bigger hull form stability due to its more modern hull design (beam carried aft and a larger transom).

Considering that both boats have a very similar weight, RM is very important in what regards the boat power, or for other words the ability to carry more or less sail area. In that regard, as I have said both boats have approximately the same beam but probably the more modern Catalina hull can generate a bit more hull stability.

In what regards ballast the Catalina has a 39% B/D ratio and the Sabre 40% but has the Catalina has a bigger draft (5'4'' to 4'11'') probably the RM generated by both keels is very similar, I mean the boats probably have a CG very close one from the other.

All in all these boats should have a very similar performance and if I had to bet I would bet on a very marginal better performance from the Catalina due to his more modern hull design and bigger LWL.

Nobody has the ratings of both boats? Marty?

Regards

Paulo
 
#42 · (Edited)
Dave, I was talking about the Sabre 402, the one that you compared with the Catalina 400. The ratios and numbers refers to those two boats. Obviously the Sabre 40 is a different boat from the 402, and a much faster one even if much more slower than the J122.

After some research I have find a file for the Sabre 402 that gives a PHRF of 102.

http://www.phrfsef.com/pages/2009/Endurance_28077.pdf

After looking specifically for the Catalina 400 MKII I found a PHRF of 117.

http://www.yachtscoring.com/boatdetail.cfm?Yacht_ID=31499

And for a J 122 a PHRF of 30

http://www.yachtscoring.com/boatdetail.cfm?Yacht_ID=27755

The PHRF of the Catalina 400MKII and the one from Sabre 402 are not very distant and have nothing to do with the one of the J 122 that is in a completely different level.

I have to say however that if these PHRF ratings have a close correspondence with boat performance, I am surprised. I would have expected an even more close performance, regarding Catalina 400 and Sabre 402.

Off course, numbers don't say it all, hull design is important and you don't see that on two dimensions, only the overall shape.

...
 
#45 · (Edited)
Dave, I was talking about the Sabre 402, the one that you compared with the Catalina 400. The ratios and numbers refers to those two boats. Obviously the Sabre 40 is a different boat from the 402, and a much faster one even if much more slower than the J122.

Dave, I don't understand what you mean when you say that a Sabre 402 being considerable faster than a Catalina 400 or a Sabre 402 being a performance cruiser and the Catalina not. It seems to me that both boats have a very similar performance.

I looked at the numbers and ratios of both boats with the wing keel configuration, that is what Brian boat has and the numbers indicate a very similar performance and none of them as nothing to do with a performance of a J122 or any other real performance cruiser.
...
Do you think you can find me a picture or a listing of a Sabre 40 which is different from a 402. I dont remember Sabre making a 40 other than the 402 which I beleive it started production in 2003. I rememberr going on Sabre 402 Hull#1 at the Annapolis Boat Show. Up to that time they only made the 34, 36, 38 and 42. So possibly you made a mistake here.:)

The data you posted on the 102 PHRF rating is very suspect and is only accurate for the one boat Endurance in the SE region. As Nightowl posted these can change.

The data I posted was from the US Sailing Association and the data I posted is a combination of all the PHRF sailing fleets all over the United States and it gives a low, high as well as the mean score, which is universally used as the correct score. The scores in this list are the ones recognized as the true PHRF ratings and are the base levels and combination of many boats of the same size with and all with the same equipment on them.

PHRF

There are many things which an affect the ratings such as keel, sails, bl;ades on prop, etc in an individual race such as the data you posted from. The probablility exhists that the 1 boat you used, the Endurance was penalized due to some of these factors. I see it has a feathering prop and a 140% headsail for instance
http://www.phrfsef.com/pages/2009/Endurance_28077.pdf

Your data therefore is not a correct representation of most Sabre 402's PHRF rating and can not be used for purposes of comparison here. The Sabre 402 PHRF rating of 75 which I provided is the correct number.:)

A rating of PHRF 75 for the Sabre 402 while not nearly as fast as a J122 PHRF of 30, it is substantially faster than the Catalinas 400 PHRF of 120. This Sabre is rated as a true performance cruiser.

PHRF ratings are base on 1 second per point per mile. So a difference of 45 between the Sabre 402 and the Catalina would equate to a 45 second differential every mile. If you have a cruising day of lets say just 100 miles
The Sabre would finish 1 hour and 15 minutes ahead. Only a 12 mile triangular course ,,, a nine minute advantage. ( this of course is with similar crews sailing a simlar course)

I understand PHRF ratings are just one small tool to compare boat speed, and that is only one part of a performance cruiser designation, there are other factors which can be used also, but it is one of the most important factors.

Here are other comporable 40 footers PHRF ratings
Pearson 40- 117
Oday 40- 120
Newport 41- 114
Jenneau Sun Odessey 40- 114
Hunter 40- 120
Cal 40-117
Bennetau Oceanus 120
CS 40- 90
Hanse 400- 81
C&C 40-93

So you can see the Sabre 402 is not your normal cruiser.:)
 
#43 ·
Just remember folks, ratings are for the applicable PHRF authority for your region. There is no "master" rating...it all depends on basic statistics of the boat, but then these ratings are changed/altered based on performance results. People do appeal their ratings all the time and can get adjustments.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top