SailNet Community

SailNet Community (https://www.sailnet.com/forums/)
-   Boat Review and Purchase Forum (https://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/)
-   -   Morgan 30/2, C&C 30, Newport 30 Mark III (https://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/69231-morgan-30-2-c-c-30-newport-30-mark-iii.html)

tommays 10-20-2010 01:36 PM

I have found on the C&C sealing the mucho amount of bolts on the Aluminum Toerail to be a painfull task

msmith10 10-20-2010 02:44 PM

I've had a 77 C&C 30 for 9 years now and it's one the best sailing boats I've ever owned (my favorite was a Dragon, but not much for cruising). It's a true racer/cruiser, does both reasonably well for its size. Sails well to its PERF rating: I've been first or second in our club series for 3 years straight. I keep thinking I want a bigger boat, but every time I try to find one I like better, I give up and just keep improving my C&C. Easy to singlehand with boom-end traveler and all lines aft. Great heavy weather boat. Responsive yet forgiving, points very well. I haven't had a problem with the toe-rail-deck-to-hull joint noted above. It's still got the original butyl tape sealant and doesn't leak a drop.
I bought a new main and hank-on 155 genoa 4 years ago, North Nordac, about $3500 (that's right, hank on- as long as my legs will carry me to the foredeck I'll stay with a hank-on jib). A new blade 2 years ago was $2000
The main problem on this vintage C&C is wet deck coring- watch for this. Don't let an Atomic 4 scare you if that's the engine. Easy to repair, parts available and lots of info online.
I would add that the design is not good for adding canvas- a small bimini is possible but a dodger is not really practical- the boom is only about 15" off the cabin top. Later C&C 30's (Mark 2) raised the boom a foot.

sailingfool 10-20-2010 06:05 PM

54 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by msmith10 (Post 656796)
..... Later C&C 30's (Mark 2) raised the boom a foot.

It is a low boom, although into so different from similar size boats. FWIW my recollection from the time, was C&C actually raised the boom a foot around the end of '77, so later Mark I's have less sail area. I'd rather the lower boom...

msmith10 10-20-2010 06:22 PM

I agree with the more sail area. However, I thought that they also made the mast a little taller to compensate for the raised boom. Nevertheless, I've always liked the Mark1 better than the Mark 2, if for no other reason than the framed portlights, which I prefer over the bonded-to-the-cabin type.

laHolland 10-21-2010 10:15 AM

One issue that we noticed on the C&C was that the stanchions along the port side had a lot of flex, and that the gelcoat and perhaps also the deck laminate itself has been cracked in that area (it had more flex than usual but wasn't what I would call soft). I couldn't see how to get to the backing plates, to see what size they are, because of the molded interior liner.

msmith10 10-21-2010 11:54 AM

On my '77, the liner ends about 4-5" from the hull, giving access to the toerail nuts and stanchions. My stanchions are mounted so that 2 bolts go through non-cored deck along the edge, and 2 bolts go thru cored deck. Stanchions have backing plates (1 plate per 2 bolts) but they are really undersized and I intend to replace them with larger plates someday. There is some flexing leading to gelcoat cracking but they are structurally solid. That is a common problem. That is also a common site for core saturation. Later models have stanchion bases that mount over top of the toerail. That is, I think, a better solution, and could always be done if the deck is a problem there. The later model bases are still available if you want to retrofit.

DulceSuerna 10-21-2010 12:25 PM

What about a Bombay Clipper 31? Tough as nails, sail decently, handle tough stuff like a battleship, and best cabin and storage I have seen for her size.

sailingfool 10-21-2010 12:46 PM

54 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by DulceSuerna (Post 657238)
What about a Bombay Clipper 31? Tough as nails, sail decently, handle tough stuff like a battleship, and best cabin and storage I have seen for her size.

the OP has expressed an interest in sailing performance, so a vessel rating some additional 70 seconds/mile would represent a radically different level of performance, or lack thereof.

DulceSuerna 10-21-2010 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfool (Post 657246)
the OP has expressed an interest in sailing performance, so a vessel rating some additional 70 seconds/mile would represent a radically different level of performance, or lack thereof.

Sorry I thought the op had said ,
,, "But for us sailing performance doesn't necessarily mean fast. Stable when it gets in the groove, responsive, handles swells, cuts chop, etc. are more important to us than speed"

I guess I misunderstood :rolleyes:

sailingfool 10-21-2010 05:15 PM

54 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by DulceSuerna (Post 657259)
Sorry I thought the op had said ,
,, "But for us sailing performance doesn't necessarily mean fast. Stable when it gets in the groove, responsive, handles swells, cuts chop, etc. are more important to us than speed"

I guess I misunderstood :rolleyes:

No problem, happens to us all...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome