[kirkrf7]

Hi,

I'm strongly considering:

1974 Swan 41: I'm unable to post links here, but it's listed at oceanicyachts . com

1982 CT 38: I'm unable to post links here, but its' posted at faralloneyachts . com

Can anyone weigh in on:
1) the relative cost to maintain for these two boats? I understand it varies tremendously boat to boat, but is there any reason to believe that if these two boats were in similar condition today, one would be more expensive to maintain than the other?
2) relative blue ocean worthiness?

 

[tdw]

Interesting. Remember i've not seen either in the plastic.

For cruising purposes I'd take the CT but teak deck ?

That said .... teak deck on a boat that old freaks me somewhat and then the Swan is eight years older.

By the look of it the CT has a much nicer interior for cruising/liveaboard. Personally I do not like the Swan companionway arrangement. Virtually impossible to fit a worthwhile dodger and while that design has its good points ease of access is not one of them.

Cost to maintain .... horses for courses .... presumably if you want to keep her original the Swan would be the more expensive.
Offshore ..... six of one half a dozen of the other but I'd think the CT would be the nicer boat to sail short handed. I'm sure they are both quite capable.

Warwick is/was a fine designer.

 

[SloopJonB]

FWIW the 41 was one of the principal boats that established the Nautor Swan label as being "The Best".

The CT38 was produced around the time that Ta Chiao was improving their rep from being a builder of "Leaky Teakies".

Assuming the teak decks are in comparable condition, I'd take the Swan, no contest. The state of the decks could be a deal breaker though - if they are shot it will be a major job to fix, even just to strip the teak off and paint. To replace the teak will cost as much as the boat these days.

 

[kirkrf7]

thanks!

you think they would have comparable speed?

 

[sailorbill1]

the swan for the sailor, the other for the shore sider, the swan sails magnificently, loves wind ward work, im sorry the other is a leaky risk, I've seen a lot of money spent on theme trying to stop leaks and they arnt the best sailing vessel particuley to wind ward. Both boats really arnt that good of a choice for long term live aboard ocean going, but I no you would enjoy the sailing capability's of the swan, very strongly built.

 

[tdw]

Bloke in Sydney we occasionally share an anchorage with has one of the Swan 41s of that age and yep she is a fine boat and he loves to sail her but still I'll stick to what I said earlier. For cruising that companionway is a pain in the butt and unless you are very young and very agile climbing up and down into the cave that is her interior could well lose its attraction quite quickly. The dodger installation problem should also be of concern to a cruiser.

One whoops on my part I do confess is that I thought for some reason that the CT was built in the US. Silly thought indeed but allowing for the removal of the teak and presuming for one moment that the deck itself is still solid then I'd still go for the CT .... of the two. Acknowledging my brain slip re the CT's origins one would also figure that by now any sub standard hardware would have already been replaced.

Speed wise one would have to think that the Swan would be the more rapid a machine all things being equal. Certainly the Swan would seem to have it all over the CT uphill but really as a cruiser you do pretty much anything you can to avoid more than the occasional bit of windward work. Arriving feeling relatively human is for me a priority and while a floating brick is not my idea of fun no matter how comfortable I'm still of the opinion that the comfort of the CT would make up for any loss when compared to the Swan.

btw .... and I'm not prepared to put money on this but weren't those Swans supposed to be a major handful off the wind ?

 

[killarney_sailor]

There seems to be some confusion. There are two entirely different boats called a CT 38. One is designed by Warwick and is, in general similar to the Swan with a narrowish fin keel. This is the one the OP is talking about.

The other is the one that other posters are talking about

Given that the two boats are similar I would imagine the Swan is going to faster for two reasons - it is bigger and it is a very successful S&S design. The Swan build quality is certainly going to be superior. When both were new, the Swan would have definitely been a much better, much more expensive boat (not just because of size).

My concern would be about the teak decks - can cost tens of thousands to fix and teak decks of the age of these boats either have been fixed or need to be. The companionway is not the newer design where it is purchased in the middle of the deck several feet from the cockpit. The newer Swans did this to allow an aft cabin - we looked at a Holland-designed 43 and could not figure how to make the deck arrangement for extended cruising. Both of these boats have conventional companionways.

Everything else being equal, and it never is, I would go for the Swan except the 7' draft could be a problem in some places and the Admiral would never go for a boat without a 'proper bed'. I guess you could convert the forward cabin from sails to living. There are six good sea berths and some of them could become storage.

 

[SloopJonB]

The S&S Swan 41 has the manhole style companionway they were so fond of.

Everything about those S&S boats was biased towards windward work offshore. Cruising comfort was not factored into their design philosophy.

One thing to consider is the Swan is a much bigger boat - about 1/3 larger.

SWAN 41 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

 

[killarney_sailor]

The Swan 41 companionway is close enough to the cockpit that you have, in effect, a wide bridge deck and so you could put on a dodger. As well as the Swan 43, we looked at a Hylas (42?) aft cockpit boat and both had about six feet between the cockpit and the companionway. One of them had a mini cockpit at the companionway (Hylas). If you were in the real cockpit where one assumes you would have a dodger you would have to go onto the side deck around the dodger and then walk or crawl to the companionway which would have a pram hood over it. Not appealing at watch change at 0300 when its blowing like snot. Also makes it pretty hard if you were on watch and wanted a snack or a pee. It was a deal breaker for us. What makes a boat good for full crew racing for a day or four is not the same as what you want for a 20 day passage with a couple.

 

[tdw]

Was the first CT38 from Bruce's post also Asian build ? Taiwan ? Hong Kong ? I don't know where CT where/are located. It was the first version I was commenting on.

I'd hate to try and crawl under a dodger and down the rabbit hole. Then again I'm old and somewhat croaky.

No dispute from me btw that the Swan would be the better boat performance wise but I was presuming that the OP was after a cruising boat ergo my favouring of the CT.

 

[SloopJonB]

Was the first CT38 from Bruce's post also Asian build ? Taiwan ? Hong Kong ? I don't know where CT where/are located. It was the first version I was commenting on.

I'd hate to try and crawl under a dodger and down the rabbit hole. Then again I'm old and somewhat croaky.

No dispute from me btw that the Swan would be the better boat performance wise but I was presuming that the OP was after a cruising boat ergo my favouring of the CT.

CT's (Ta Chiao) were all built in Taiwan.

 

[JonEisberg]

The Swan 41 companionway is close enough to the cockpit that you have, in effect, a wide bridge deck and so you could put on a dodger. As well as the Swan 43, we looked at a Hylas (42?) aft cockpit boat and both had about six feet between the cockpit and the companionway. One of them had a mini cockpit at the companionway (Hylas). If you were in the real cockpit where one assumes you would have a dodger you would have to go onto the side deck around the dodger and then walk or crawl to the companionway which would have a pram hood over it. Not appealing at watch change at 0300 when its blowing like snot. Also makes it pretty hard if you were on watch and wanted a snack or a pee. It was a deal breaker for us. What makes a boat good for full crew racing for a day or four is not the same as what you want for a 20 day passage with a couple.

Ahh, yes... the beloved 'Widowmaker Bridgedeck'.... Closest I've ever come to going over the side, occurred while working one of those winches on this very Trintella at a deep angle of heel...

Classic example of a result of a boat designed from the inside-out, and a deck and cockpit arranged to accommodate the interior... I've always rated the ergonomics of the companionway to be one of the most important design features on any boat, it's simply astonishing how bad some of them can be...

As far as the ladder goes, this abortion on the Hunter 45 "Passage" gets my vote as the all-time worst... Pretty sure they came up with something better after building the first dozen boats or so, it finally occurred to somebody how insanely dangerous it might be in the event someone actually wound up going offshore... Hell, if their legal department had been paying attention, they should have made people sign a waiver before even boarding the freakin' things at a Boat Show...

 

[killarney_sailor]

It is interesting that CT came out with two 38s in the same year apparently that are about as different as they could be.

One of the few things my wife insisted on was a proper bed. After looking at boats in the low-mid 40s with aft cockpits it became apparent we needed a centre-cockpit boat. That Hunter companionway is horrible. Did it never occur to them that boats heel?

 

[tdw]

Offset companionways have always been a tadge odd in my eyes. Very much from the inside out. That ladder in the Hunter ... oh my. Maybe Passport and Mason also used to do the offset thing. Made for a roomy quarter cabin I guess.

Bruce, when we went with the Malo one of the last issues to be decided was sleeping cabin. We very nearly bought a lovely Warwick designed CC with a glorious aft cabin but alas a lousy galley. The Wombet usually comes to bed after me, I usually get up earlier and that counted out any form of Pullman style double. In the end we accepted the quite roomy v-berth of the Malo. Until I can justify an HR48 ( oh lordy will those pigs ever get off the ground) it will have to do.

 

[kirkrf7]

Thanks for all the help everyone. To be clear I'm considering the CT38 design posted below, with the following specs. I quite frankly don't know a lot about sailboat design and would really appreciate input on this boat's design in the context of 1)ability to handle ocean passages 2)speed.

LOA: 37.7'
LWL: 30.83'
Beam: 11.48'
Listed SA: 628 ftsq
Draft: 6.58'
Disp: 16775 lbs
Ballast: 8526 lb
SA/Disp: 15.39
Bal/Disp: 50.82%
Disp/Len: 255.56

RIG:
I: 45'
J: 15.8'
P: 39.5'
SA(Fore): 355.5ftsq
SA(Main): 275.55ftsq
Total(calc)SA: 628.05ftsq
DL ratio: 255.56
SA/Disp: 15.39
Est. Forestay Len: 47.69'

 

[SloopJonB]

By the specs she'd be a very good ocean sailer - looks like it's basically a detuned IOR racer. Bit light on sail area but that was pretty common on offshore boats back then.

If it's in fundamentally good shape, I'd say do it. It's certainly good looking and I expect it has the usual lush teak interior of all Taiwan boats of that vintage.

Standard things to check on a Taiwan boat of that vintage - chainplates & turnbuckles (for inferior metal), tanks (for inferior metal), wiring (often substandard), deck core if teak overlay.

 

[mitiempo]

I agree with SloopJonVB

Hull speed is about 7.45 knots using the standard formula