I am looking at a 1977 36ft Peterson. Any one sail one of these? Any specifics I should look for when I look at it? How well do they sail to the wind? Thanks for any input.
I don''t know anything about the Peterson 36, but Doug Peterson''s designs of that era (I recently purchased a 1980 Peterson 34, designed in 1976), are reputed to sail to windward very well.
I was up in Mill Creek two weeks ago and took a tack in towards your slip. The 34 looks like a very nice boat. I would enjoy seeing her up close if it works out conveniently for you.
I am assuming that the Peterson 36 is the Contessa version that was built in England. I''ve never sailed one but I understand they were very similar in sailing characteristics although slightly faster (111 vs 117) than the 34 which are a very well known quantity.
These boats were pretty fast for their day upwind (but quite slow by any modern standard)and were slow and tricky to sail downwind by any modern standard.
" Approx. 91 Peterson 34s built in Texas between 1976 and 1981. Peterson 34s were the "benchmark" performance cruiser boat throughout the U.S.A. and generally handicap 117 under PHRF. The overall build quality was always considered to be amongst the best available during the five years she was in production." I know you were talking about 36ft.
Performance Comparison LOA Peterson 34(1979) 33.92
Peterson 35 35.41666667
LWL Peterson 34(1979) 28.25
Peterson 35 28.5
Beam Peterson 34(1979) 9
Peterson 35 11.25
Displacement Peterson 34(1979) 10800
Peterson 35 13200
Sail Area Peterson 34(1979) 556
Peterson 35 614.67
Capsize Ratio Peterson 34(1979) 1.63
Peterson 35 1.9
Hull Speed Peterson 34(1979) 7.12
Peterson 35 7.15
Sail Area to Displacement Peterson 34(1979) 18.21
Peterson 35 17.61
Displacement to LWL Peterson 34(1979) 214
Peterson 35 255
LWL to Beam Peterson 34(1979) 3.14
Peterson 35 2.53
Motion Comfort Peterson 34(1979) 29.63
Peterson 35 26.35
Pounds/Inch Peterson 34(1979) 908
Peterson 35 1146
I am not sure how much useful ''performance comparison'' data there is in those numbers, but the statistics are interesting. The thing that caught my eye was the significantly wider beam, weight and the minimally longer waterline of the 35 and the negative impact of that weight on the SA/D and on the L/D.
The missing numbers here are the ballast to weight ratios, proportions of the sail area in the main to headsails, and draft. Boats of the IOR period often had comparatively little sail area in their standing sailplans but carried most of their sail area in their headsails allowing huge genoas and spinnakers. In other words, as normally sailed the 35 may actually have a lot more sail area and the ability to carry it, making the SA/D less significant.
Johns'' data for the Peterson 34 (1979) appear to have come from the sailcalc database, which is notorius for errors (in many cases the basic boat measurements were "reverse-engineered" from the various ratios!).
The Island Yachts/Composite Technologies Peterson 34, built from 1976 to 1981, has a beam of 11''3", not 9''
Here are the data for my boat (1980 Peterson 34):
LOA - 34
Beam - 11.3
LWL - 28.3
Draft - 6.3
Displacement (est.) - 10800
Ballast - 5100 (so the ballast ratio is about 47%)
I - 46.5
J - 14.6
P - 41.3
E - 11.7
Sail Area - 581 (approximately 58% of that is in the foretriangle)
PHRF Rating - 114 to 117 (depending on region and boat modifications)
D/WL - 213
SA/D - 19.02
Theoretical HullSpeed - 7.13
Velocity Ratio -1.1
Capsize Ratio - 1.98
IMS Calculated Limit of Positive Stability - 121
Brewer Comfort Ratio - 22.01
Jeff, I''ll contact you off the board about a visit.
It is funny about the published vs actual measured dimensions of boats. I think that your numbers sound like real measurements to me. The reason that I say this is if you go to the Long Island Sound PHRF database, the Peterson 34 is shown as having the following dimensions:
Presumably this is based on actual measurements taken from the period when the Peterson 34 was raced as a one design fleet on LIS. I think that the numbers that you posted are subtly different but also probably also reflect actual measurements. The reason that I say that is that your measurements show a slighly heavier displacement and a comensorately longer waterline and draft which would be expected.
That really is an extremely high ballast ratio for that era. I look forward to hearing from you.
The measurements I posted may be rounded off, and as listed, I compiled them from several sources. I haven''t actually taken a tape to measure my own boat yet. I do have an old IOR measurement certificate for my boat, but don''t really know how to interpret all the funny parameters listed there. I also have a couple Mid Atlantic PHRF Certificates for the boat, which have some of these values. Finally, I have the USYRU''s IMS Performance Prediction Package report for the boat, although I haven''t found an actual IMS measurement certificate anywhere among the ship''s papers.
In general, in comparing measurements among boats, displacement always seem to be the most questionable value. I''m not sure where my figure of 10800 came from. My boat was customized to be lighter than the typical production Peterson 34 -- by 1000 lbs. according to one claim. So I don''t really know how much she really weighs.
Displacement is such a funny number for boats. Other when a boat is measured for IMS or some one design class like the J-22''s there really isn''t a very consistent way to verify the weight of a boat. Some Travelifts have weight read outs but they are not very accurate showing as much as a 1500 lb difference in the weight of my boat between one Travelift and another. The other funny thing was that my boat once showed a roughly 500 lbs of weight gain between the readout at hauling and launch using the same travelift, even though she floated higher when she was launched.
And then there is the matter of whether a boat is measured dead empty (IMS) or in sailing condition (IOR) or half load (the traditional method for cruising boats) or at maximum capacity (as allegedly was popular with some cruising boat builders who were promoting their boats as heavier duty than perhaps they were, and perhaps a bit unethically).
In any event, 10,600 is still a very light weight for a 34 footer of that era.
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:53 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012