Seeking help to outfit a Mac 26S for gulf crossing.

[IronWind]

Living here on the Gulf and a Full time Sailor, I would not advise a Gulf crossing in a Mac26 at all. The boats are totally unstable in heavy seas of which the Gulf Crossing is bad for. Water Ballast is not what one needs. A deep Keel is what is needed.
Mac 26 for the most part are considered a coastal boat.
NOT a Bluewater.
We have made several Belieze trips and the Seas can get bad .
Although a Mac26 would cross in calm weather, as well as any other smaller boat.
I would highly advise against it.
IronWind

[buckeyesailor]

just so some of us lesser knowledgeable persons might want to know to narrow down our search.........are there any brands in general that would fall into this same category?...I'm sure there are plenty......but just the obvious ones to kick to the curb......most appreciated.

[Sapperwhite]

You guys would be better off starting a new thread. Trebek has unwittingly revived a seven year dead thread. We haven't heard from the OP yet in all these years, maybe he did try to take that Mac out of sight of land ad was never heard from again , who knows? Check the thread and post dates, you'll get better responses that way.

[claritycal36]

Outfitting for the Gulf in a Mac, I suggest a Last Will & Testament.

[artbyjody]

Are we talking about crossing the gulf after a Big Mac... yummm - will last you the crossing...Best wishes on the crossage...just don't order the extra special sauce... Neptune doesn't appreciate that...

[CBinRI]

Originally Posted by jesico

Has anyone crossed on a Macgregor 26 S/C? How did you outfit your boat for crossing? Suggestions appreciated.

If you do a search you will find many threads (some of them heated) regarding the suitability of this boat for various uses. Personally, I would not go far from shore in one of them, but some feel differently.

[CBinRI]

Originally Posted by buckeyesailor

just so some of us lesser knowledgeable persons might want to know to narrow down our search.........are there any brands in general that would fall into this same category?...I'm sure there are plenty......but just the obvious ones to kick to the curb......most appreciated.

I cannot claim to be an expert, but the MacGregor tends to get strong reactions from sailors, not necessarily because of its comparative build quality (although I understand that it is not so good) but because of its design. Many feel that by trying to be both a power boat and a sailboat, it is satisfactory as neither.

You may be aware that most sailboats do not plane under power and thus their maximum speed is limited to their hull speed, which is limited by their water line. A MagGregor 26 is designed so it can plane like a powerboat and therefore far exceed its hull speed under power. The compromise is that by making the hull suitable for planing, it becomes far less suitable for sailing. It will not point high. It will be more inclined to slide sideways on a reach. And I do not not know much about water ballast, but I have often heard that it is less stable and safe.

All boats represent compromises that accommodate verious design objectives, but I am not aware of any others that fall into this hybrid category, which seems to uniquley offend a lot of dedicated sailors. Of course, they have their staunch defenders as well.

[Jeff_H]

The boat in question was not the 26X which is the powerboat/sailboat hybred, but the 26S which was designed solely as a trailerable auxillary sailboat. Unlike the 26x powersailor which has a lot of freeboard, large portlights and tremendous form stability and so would be expected to have a very quick motion, the 26S would be expected to be closer in hull form and motion to a normal 26 foot water-ballasted centerboarder.

There is a tendancy to slam MacGregor's build quality and it is not without some reason. Panel weights are light, there is almost no internal framing, and hardware and rigging sizes are small even by trailerable satndards. By the same token, MacGregor claims to not use chopped glass, they claim to limit coring to deck structure, they use simplified but sturdy enough rigging components like pin type shroud adjusters rather than turnbuckles.

On the other hand their advertising says scary things like, "Our bolted hull to deck joining system is strong, but compact, and adds little to the width of the boat. Many of our competitors use wide joining flanges, which contribute a lot to their beam, but add very little to strength or usable inside space." If you didn't know better you would think, Gee isn't that nice that MacGregors' hull to deck joint adds very little width to the boat, while ignoring that outward flange connections are weaker than inward flanged joints at the deck line and also the bigger problem with that statement is that the faying surface (the amount of flange area available for adhesive or sealant) is critical to the long term strength and durability of the joint. The Macgegors small faying surfaces would come into play in the high impacts of beating to the square chop as might be expected in a Gulf crossing.

Jeff

[CBinRI]

Thanks for the clarification, Jeff. Big difference, I guess, between the S and the X. In the words of Emily Litella, "never mind."

[timebandit]

Originally Posted by CBinRI

I cannot claim to be an expert, but the MacGregor tends to get strong reactions from sailors, not necessarily because of its comparative build quality (although I understand that it is not so good) but because of its design. Many feel that by trying to be both a power boat and a sailboat, it is satisfactory as neither.

You may be aware that most sailboats do not plane under power and thus their maximum speed is limited to their hull speed, which is limited by their water line. A MagGregor 26 is designed so it can plane like a powerboat and therefore far exceed its hull speed under power. The compromise is that by making the hull suitable for planing, it becomes far less suitable for sailing. It will not point high. It will be more inclined to slide sideways on a reach. And I do not not know much about water ballast, but I have often heard that it is less stable and safe.

All boats represent compromises that accommodate verious design objectives, but I am not aware of any others that fall into this hybrid category, which seems to uniquley offend a lot of dedicated sailors. Of course, they have their staunch defenders as well.

I guess you do not know your X and M's from your S and C's.

"Has anyone crossed on a Macgregor 26 S/C? How did you outfit your boat for crossing? Suggestions appreciated."