Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser) - Page 11 - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > On Board > Boat Review and Purchase Forum
 Not a Member? 


Like Tree17Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #101  
Old 01-16-2013
chef2sail's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,828
Thanks: 28
Thanked 53 Times in 49 Posts
Rep Power: 7
chef2sail will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to chef2sail
Re: Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)

It just dawned on me also tha Brian you may be talking about straight line speed. That by itself doesnt make a boat a performance cruiser or racer cruiser. Angle of attack to windward makes a diffeence also.

I have never seen a Hunter, Catalina, or even most modern Benes point near as close to the wind as the Farrs, Sabres, C&Cs J's or even the older Persons for that matter. Maybe thats another reason people generally dont race with them.

Dave
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
___________________________
S/V Haleakala (Hawaiian for" House of the Sun")
C&C 35 MKIII Hull # 76
Parkville, Maryland
(photos by Joe McCary)
Charter member of the Chesapeake Lion posse

Our blog-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


“Sailing is just the bottom line, like adding up the score in bridge. My real interest is in the tremendous game of life.”- Dennis Conner
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #102  
Old 01-16-2013
bjung's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Blue Ridge
Posts: 467
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 6
bjung is on a distinguished road
Re: Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)

Maybe it's time to start a new thread on stability and stiffness and ask for some "professional help" (bobperry comes to mind) sorting out the various "opinions".
But, at the very least, let the discussion return to the Blue Jacket 40, somewhere on page 3.
Talk about hijack....
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #103  
Old 01-16-2013
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,160
Thanks: 21
Thanked 95 Times in 79 Posts
Rep Power: 10
PCP will become famous soon enough
Re: Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjung View Post
Maybe it's time to start a new thread on stability and stiffness and ask for some "professional help" (bobperry comes to mind) sorting out the various "opinions".
But, at the very least, let the discussion return to the Blue Jacket 40, somewhere on page 3.
Talk about hijack....
Ok,the Bluejacket it will be a stiff boat. A lot more than the Catalina 40, but less than a First 40 or a J122. That's where that stiffness discussion had begun.

Regards

Paulo
chef2sail likes this.

Last edited by PCP; 01-16-2013 at 01:51 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #104  
Old 01-16-2013
Cruisingdad's Avatar
Best Looking MALE Mod
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mobile Liveaboards
Posts: 9,894
Thanks: 3
Thanked 97 Times in 52 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough
Re: Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjung View Post
Maybe it's time to start a new thread on stability and stiffness and ask for some "professional help" (bobperry comes to mind) sorting out the various "opinions".
But, at the very least, let the discussion return to the Blue Jacket 40, somewhere on page 3.
Talk about hijack....
I am happy to start a new thread, but I was under the assumption that for once we all agreed on the BJ and the discussion was closed: kinda like, eehh, its ok (shrug), but I wouldn't buy it.

Brian
__________________
Sailnet Adminstrator & Moderator
Catalina 400 Technical Editor

2004 Catalina 400, Sea Mist IV (our boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in S FL and Keys primarily)
1987 Tayana Vancouver 42, Credendo Vides, (Mom and Pops boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in Puget Sound)

My Website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow My Blog at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow me on Facebook:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #105  
Old 01-16-2013
Cruisingdad's Avatar
Best Looking MALE Mod
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mobile Liveaboards
Posts: 9,894
Thanks: 3
Thanked 97 Times in 52 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough
Re: Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PCP View Post
Ok,the Bluejacket it will be a stiff boat. A lot more than the Catalina 40, but less than a First 40 or a J122. That'w where that stiffness discussion had begun.

Regards

Paulo
Hey Paulo, where did you come up with your data on the C400? DId you calculate it?

Brian
__________________
Sailnet Adminstrator & Moderator
Catalina 400 Technical Editor

2004 Catalina 400, Sea Mist IV (our boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in S FL and Keys primarily)
1987 Tayana Vancouver 42, Credendo Vides, (Mom and Pops boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in Puget Sound)

My Website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow My Blog at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow me on Facebook:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #106  
Old 01-16-2013
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,160
Thanks: 21
Thanked 95 Times in 79 Posts
Rep Power: 10
PCP will become famous soon enough
Re: Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruisingdad View Post
Hey Paulo, where did you come up with your data on the C400? DId you calculate it?

Brian
You mean the relatively low AVS? It was posted by another poster and taken from a Calder book (that I have too).

I remember having looked at a Catalina 42 stability curve, many years ago, and be confused with the low AVS (105º, a lot worse then the one from the 40) and the relatively high B/D but I guess that has to do with the keel design without bulb and a relatively low draft.

Comparatively a First 40.7 has a much bigger AVS (126º) and for the technical characteristics a First 40 would have probably one close but probably bigger than that.

You can see some AVS here and also an interesting but simplified explanation on stability. Just download the items on the left about stability:

RYA Technical department issues new yacht stability listings | News | News & Events | RYA

Regards

Paulo

Last edited by PCP; 01-16-2013 at 02:21 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #107  
Old 01-16-2013
Cruisingdad's Avatar
Best Looking MALE Mod
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mobile Liveaboards
Posts: 9,894
Thanks: 3
Thanked 97 Times in 52 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough
Re: Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chef2sail View Post
Brian,

I am not trying to argue with you, but i really dont understand

Americas Cups boats and for that matter my boat when we race are never sailing flat, especially to windward. What does sailing flat have to do with stiffness.

I undertand about over heeling a boat, so it pushes and slows down so we dont have to go into that.

I am not a brochure person or will not get into the numbers, righting ratios, even though I do uindertand them basically.

I can only go on what I see from a practicality first hand actual sailing experience. Why dont we see more Catalinas racing in the races in Annapolis, Newport or wherever. There are lots of other boats represented and there are plenty of Catalinas?

Again this is not meant to deigrate them in any way or to say I would not purchase one or it isnt good for a family of 4 ( the five included the hound and he takes as much room up as your kids////BTW kids grow up and leave....dogs dont)

I can look at at Catalina as a quick cruiser....but I can not put them in same class as the Farr, Sabre, C&C, some Bennes and other racer cruisers that Paulo has mentioned from Europe like Hanse, X Yachts. They do not compete and they do not point to windward the same. They arent designed to. Seems to me if they were they would be in these races.

Dave
Hey Dave,

TO be clear, as I have said several times now, the C400 is NOT as fast as a J122 or a First as stock. No way. Corrected, I might give them a run for their money (I think that PHRF is too high, but I certainly wouldn't argue that before the race!!). Also, you mentioned why sailing flat was important? It is a piece of the puzzle. As a boat heels, the wind spills. If you have two C&C's, one has your keel and the other has a 30 foot keel, I suspect the 30 foot keel will outrun you (assuming they keep it narrow, weight at bottom, etc). Why, because they are able to maximize the same wind that you would be spilling. THis is why a sailboat does not easily turtle: as it heels, the wind forces decrease. These forces decrease until the force pushing the mast down equal the forces pulling it up. Right? That is why sailing flat (ON SOME BOATS... not all) is beneficial. That is why a stiff boat is beneficial. Using your example, the AC boats don't sail flat. Heck no. They have enormous masts and sail areas. THey are making the ideal compromise between how much forward force they want and balancing that against sailing flat. I bet if they could keep enough weight on the rail to make that boat flat, they would. The problem is that when they turn to run or beam reach, where these heeling forces are minimized, these huge masts and SA really kick in. Also, we have won races against boats that are over powered. If you have too much sail out, and your boat is heeled too much, you will actually go slower than having the correct sail are out to find your sweet spot. That sweet spot changes, depending on boats. I find many of the IOR boats like a good bit of heel. I find many of the mo modern, flat bottom boats, like to sail more flat. And since they have to finish the race with all the crew (don't laugh, you have to... funny story I can share with crew jumping off to win), its a balance.

If stiffness is defined as a boat ability to withstand the wind forces, and my boat has a higher resistance to those forces than a different boat, then doesn't that make my boat a stiffer boat? For example (extreme example): If you take two america's cup boats. They are exactly the same in every way except one has a 10sf of sail area, the other has 5000 sf of sail area, which boat would be the stiffer boat? I would say the boat with 10sf. Its ability, as set, because it has very little force opposing the RM (keel), makes it a very stiff boat. Their initial stability would likely be the same, though. Is that correct?

Note, this does not mean the 10sf boat is faster, just because it is stiffer. The 10sf AC boat is going to get smoked by the other. But the 10sf's ability to withstand the wind forces, because of a rediculously small mast and force, is much higher. It's a stiffer boat.

If I were to put the mast of that AC boat on my boat, would my boat be stiffer than the AC or less stiff? It would be a million times less stiff (assuming it didn't simply tip over)!! But with my mast, and my vastly lower sail area, can my boat, "resist the wind forces" more than an AC, and thus be a stiffer boat? If I did not have a mast at all, wouldn't my boat be a stiffer boat than an AC boat because my ability to withstand the wind foreces would be vastly higher? I simply have no force pushing it over.

THat is my issue with this discussion and what I do not understand. Paulo, I think you gave an excellent example and great explanation earlier. Thank you. I am simply saying that stiffer does not always mean faster. My boat might be stiffer than a J122 (I am not saying that it is), but it certainly is not faster. Stiffness to me seems only to be one piece of many pieces of a puzzle. I completely agree with you that if have two of the same boats, one that is stiffer than the other, the stiffer boat should be faster if everything else stays equal.

Brian
__________________
Sailnet Adminstrator & Moderator
Catalina 400 Technical Editor

2004 Catalina 400, Sea Mist IV (our boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in S FL and Keys primarily)
1987 Tayana Vancouver 42, Credendo Vides, (Mom and Pops boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in Puget Sound)

My Website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow My Blog at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow me on Facebook:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #108  
Old 01-16-2013
Cruisingdad's Avatar
Best Looking MALE Mod
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mobile Liveaboards
Posts: 9,894
Thanks: 3
Thanked 97 Times in 52 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough
Re: Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PCP View Post
You mean the relatively low AVS? It was posted by another poster and taken from a Calder book (that I have too).

I remember having looked at a Catalina 42 stability curve, many years ago, and be confused with the low AVS (105º, a lot worse then the one from the 40) and the relatively high B/D but I guess that has to do with the keel design without bulb and a relatively low draft.

Comparatively a First 40.7 has a much bigger AVS (126º) and for the technical characteristics a First 40 would have probably one close but probably bigger than that.

You can see some AVS here and also an interesting but simplified explanation on stability. Just download the items on the left about stability:

RYA Technical department issues new yacht stability listings | News | News & Events | RYA

Regards

Paulo
I will have to check what data they used to calculate. THe data online and published by Catalina is INCORRECT. This is well known for those of us that have these boats and have been well documented in Mainsheet and the owners forums. The correct data is:

Draft MK2: 5'10-6 feet.

Displacement: Well over 19500, dry.

LWL: 38-38.5

If they pulled the Catalina literature and used their numbers, they are wrong. I got the pictures to prove it!!

Brian
__________________
Sailnet Adminstrator & Moderator
Catalina 400 Technical Editor

2004 Catalina 400, Sea Mist IV (our boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in S FL and Keys primarily)
1987 Tayana Vancouver 42, Credendo Vides, (Mom and Pops boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in Puget Sound)

My Website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow My Blog at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow me on Facebook:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #109  
Old 01-16-2013
Cruisingdad's Avatar
Best Looking MALE Mod
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mobile Liveaboards
Posts: 9,894
Thanks: 3
Thanked 97 Times in 52 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough Cruisingdad is a jewel in the rough
Re: Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)

Onto the performance cruising debate:

If we are going to do apples:apples, lets make sure we all have the same definitions...

Let's take racing out of the discussion between the boats (and yes, I understand very well pointing... I do and have raced). This whole thing started with what is a good performance cruiser? I guess it all comes down to what your definition of a performance cruiser is. My definition is a boat that in normal conditions will meet or exceed hull speed while FULLY LOADED with cruising gear. It does not mean it has to have a negative PHRF or outrun a TP 52. WHat is your definition of a performance cruiser? Because if it is simply the fastest boat that you could cruise on, a First or J122 wouldn't even make the list. Lets start talking about trimarans, racing cats, or others. And before you say I am going overboard, just so you know, I have regularly seen people "camping out" in these (saw some this last trip to FMB). Are they cruising? I certainly don't think so, but they spent some days there in the mooring field.

So, what is cruising for you? TO me, cruising is Fulltime living aboard and travelling on a boat for year(s) at a time... and certainly not less than six months at a time. It is going to different places, anchoring out and adventuring. It is a combination of marinas, mooring fields, and sitting on the hook (with a fair amount of being on the hook). I do not feel that cruising is taking a weekend and sailing down to the next marina. THat is weekending. I do not feel cruising is taken several weeks or a couple of months to sail to a few different places and then returning to your house. That is vacationing. So that is my definition. Again, what is yours?

So here is my issue with the J122 and the First and similar boats: they have major tankage issues. Hey if you are a single person, you might can make it work or deal with it. But many of us actually travel with a companion, many of them I think would quickly nix any thought of cruising on the sparse conditions of a First. Now Paulo mentioned this couple that is in the Antarctica on their First. Was that their boat of choice, or was it what they had and fit their price and them made do? I can certainlty think of a lot of better boats to go to ANtarctica with... I bet they can too. ALso, is it a stock boat? Doubtful. I suspect, like ALL cruising boats, they are loaded to the brim with clothes, pots and pans, gas tanks, diesel tanks, extra water jugs, solar panels, a generator, many weeks (we do over a month) of food stocks, etc. Now, when they are done with that boat, does it still look like and perform like a stock J or First? Heck no. We wouldn't expect it to. But now my question is: How fast is that boat really now? WHat is its true RM now with all that crap all over the deck and above the waterline? How long can they go without having to pump out... or do they dump in the bay? How far can they motor continuously without wind (not even counting charging their batteries)? My guess is that this boat may end up being a much more tender boat and lose a whole lot of its RM, because of all the stuff that more traditional cruisers can stick below the waterline or store in cabinets (as they are made for), cannot all fit in this boat. TO load this boat up with cabinetry, make it beamier to accomodate more space, add tankage and drawers, etc... you then lose much of the benefits these boats offer. I could almost argue that these boats may become less safe if these items are being forced to store above the waterline where other boats can get them below. As everyone who cruises knows, getting weight below the waterline and balancing the boat is critical. When we go to Costco or Sams, we can spend half a day properly stowing goods.

These are the REAL issues we deal with, everyday. And I will give you one of the truest of all statistics when cruising or being a mobile live-aboard. It is too often forgotten that we spend 1% of our time moving, and 99% of our time anchored/moored/docked. So what are you willing to give up to go cruising on a boat like a First, so that you can be the first to the anchorage, then spend the next week(s) in a boat that is cramped below at best? You will have stuff on that boat jammed into every crevice because it simply lacks the storage of a larger, beamier, boat that is filled with cabinetry and drawers and deep bilges for stores, etc. I also question how well that boat performs when loaded down with cruising gear, davits, solar arch, tender, extra batteries, etc... pound for pound, suddenly outrunning a Catalina 400, or a beneteau 40, or a Beneteau 473, might be more of a challenge. I am not saying they wouldn't, but they have made a huge sacrifice to get there.

I understand that for some, this compromise is worth it. For those that it is, do you and have you cruised on this boat? How long? How many people? Where did you go? How much time did you spend on the hook? I suspect they will end up like the Millionaires that buy the V42, outfit it to go around the world, spend a few weeks at the dock, then suddenly realize they are cramped and uncomfortable and the boat sits empty more than used. THey end up paying captains to deliver their boats because they don't want to go to the trouble and conditions. Before long, it is the nicest boat in the brokerage, marketed as a true blue water boat to take you anywhere. Problem is that few of them ever do. THat being said, if I was going to go around the world, I would definitely choose the V42 over my boat... in a heartbeat. For doing my type of cruising and the cruising typical of the vast majority of people, no way.

Anyways, this is a fun discission and I hope no one gets frustrated by it. I certainly am not. I am enjoying it. It is conversations like these that make Sailnet fun.
__________________
Sailnet Adminstrator & Moderator
Catalina 400 Technical Editor

2004 Catalina 400, Sea Mist IV (our boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in S FL and Keys primarily)
1987 Tayana Vancouver 42, Credendo Vides, (Mom and Pops boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in Puget Sound)

My Website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow My Blog at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow me on Facebook:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #110  
Old 01-16-2013
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,160
Thanks: 21
Thanked 95 Times in 79 Posts
Rep Power: 10
PCP will become famous soon enough
Re: Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruisingdad View Post
I will have to check what data they used to calculate. THe data online and published by Catalina is INCORRECT. This is well known for those of us that have these boats and have been well documented in Mainsheet and the owners forums. The correct data is:

Draft MK2: 5'10-6 feet.

Displacement: Well over 19500, dry.

LWL: 38-38.5

If they pulled the Catalina literature and used their numbers, they are wrong. I got the pictures to prove it!!

Brian
Brian, they did not pull anything. They have asked to Catalina Yachts stability curves regarding the boats they have tested.

Those stability curves were provided by Catalina. The AVS were taken from the delivered curves.

Do you mean that the Catalina designers don't know how to do the stability curves of their own designs?

Regards

Paulo
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gill OC1 vs OC2 Ocean Racer Jacket granche1 Gear & Maintenance 2 12-03-2012 11:33 AM
I'd Like to Obtain -- Navy Blue Jacket Manual HighFly_27 Seamanship & Navigation 6 10-27-2012 02:22 AM
Paceship Blue Jacket 23 from the 60s?? hriehl1 Boat Review and Purchase Forum 3 07-26-2010 12:18 PM
Racer / Cruiser T34C Boat Review and Purchase Forum 34 07-18-2008 01:30 PM
racer/cruiser? railsunder Boat Review and Purchase Forum 1 11-26-2006 06:17 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:44 PM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.