DSK wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:

I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with
a 70hp engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.


I wouldn't mind having a 70hp engine in our 36 foot boat


JimC wrote:

The boat is built to be balanced in the water with crew and with an
outboard of 50 - 70 hp. If the moter were removed, the boat would
tend to "lean" forwardly, with the stern too high in the water. The
weight of the outboard is far less than the weight of a typical
diesel in a 27-29



In other words, the boat is ballasted with a lot of mass far forward, as
Jeff was contending earlier.

I never stated that the ballast mass is "far forward", DSK, and I don't
think Jeff did either. As to the moment of inertia during pitching, the
motor, after all, is about the same weight as a crew member, and though
its slightly aft of the cockpit, its weight (mass) is not a great
factor, as some of your buddies claim. (As previously stated: "I doubt
seriously that the weight of the motor is a major factor.")


Jeff wrote:

Not really. A 50 Hp 4-stroke weighs over 200 pounds - Honda claims
the lightest at about 210, Suzuki's is about 250. A Yanmar 2YM15 is
249 with transmission, though the shaft and prop is extra. There
really isn't a lot of difference in weight.


Big difference in efficiency, though.


ft boat, although, of course, the weight of the diesel is better
positioned.



There is a huge difference here. In fact, much of the weight of a
diesel could be considered ballast. At the very least, it contributes
little to the pitch moment.


Between the ballast far forward and the engine wieght far aft, it's hard
to imagine a worse set-up for good sailing performance.


Actually, of course, the ballast is centered only slightly forward of
amidships, as we have already discussed. The motor, weighing only 200 -
250 lb., is of little consequence.


The chief disadvantage of the larger engine is that it gives
Mac-bashers who have never sailed a 26M another opportunity to turn
their noses up at Mac owners. Although the Macs don't point as well
as conventional boats with weighted keels,


Does the weight of the keel affect pointing? Funny, I always thought
that had to do with the basic rig design... aspect ratio, sheeting base,
etc etc... keel foil configuration plays into it somewhat I'm sure, but
how does the wind know (and why would it care) about the weight of the
keel?

As you probably know, a weighted keel positioned five or six feet below
the hull entails more leverage and provides a more efficient righting
moment than the same weight of ballast,particularly water ballast,
positioned within the hull. For its size, it a deep, weighted keel is
more efficient in keeping the boat in a nearly upright position as winds
increase, permitting more efficient translation of the force of the wind
into forwardly directioned forces. The aspect ration of the keel is, of
course, also a factor in preventing lateral "sliding" of the boat, and
the Mac 26M has a retractable dagger board that is quite narrow. To
compensate for the relative inefficiency of the water ballast as
compared with a heavy,weighted keel, the Mac has a total ballast
sufficiently large to keep the boat upright. After years of mods and
improvements, the current model, with appropriate reefing, sails ratehr
well in pretty heavy weather. (For example, mine was heeling at only 20
degrees Saturday in 15 knot winds, with the first reef taken in.)


Are you tacitly admitting that Mac-26Ms don't sail to windward very
well? We already know that's true of the M26X.

No I'm not tacitly admitting anything. I'm openly stating (once again)
that they don't sail to windward as well as conventional sailboats with
weighted keels. It's one of the compromises of the particular design.



... I doubt seriously that the weight of the motor is a major factor.


OTOH those of us who have been rigorously schooled to sail *well* have
been taught to keep weight out of the ends of the boat. Any one design
racer will have seen (if he's paid the slightest attention) a boat with
crew sitting spread fore & aft getting passed by a boat with two guys
sitting close together.

I'll remember that the next time I'm racing, DSK. But actually, I didn't
buy the Mac with that in mind. I bought it to enjoy the overall sailing
experience.


... Rather, it's the compromises relating to the internal ballast,
trailerable hull, and lack of weighted keel. (The metactric effect.)



Please explain. I know about metacentric height, but have never heard of
"the metacentric effect."

The metacentric height is considered the distance between the center of
gravity and the metacenter. By "metacentric effect", I was referring to
the fact that the righting force is proportional to the metacentric
height times the sine of the angle of heel. Thus, a conventional boat,
with weighted keel low in the water, would have a lower center of
gravity than the Mac and would therefor tend to be less tender. Again,
the Mac 26M does entail compromises, but after a number of years of
development and modifications, it does the job. (If it didn't, I would
have capsized Saturday in the 15-knot winds instead of sailing along
with a 20 degree heel.- Right?

Jeff wrote:

Actually, the engine by itself doesn't bother me that much. I think
that if you asked detractors if they would accept an engine with 3
time the power if there was no cost in weight, fuel usage, initial or
maintenance costs, etc., most would take it.


Sure. Why not? I'm not sure there's any way to seperate the added
horsepower from the added speed & fuel usage though.


... The problem is that most hulls are designed for sailing, not
powering at high speed. The Mac made a number of compromises - a
flat "powerboat" hull, no external ballast, that greatly diminish its
sailing ability.


Ever seen the hull of an 18-footer skiff? They are very wide & flat aft.
Of course, they are *also* designed to generate significant amounts of
horsepower from their rig, and can plane readily. The Mac26-M is not and
can not.

No, the 2M isn't flat aft. Instead, as can be readily seen from looking
at the stern, it has a pronounced V-shape, which extends from the stern
to amidships. In contrast with your statement, it does plane easily and
smoothly. And it's also a lot of fun to sail.


My boat actually could accept large engines - the builder put twin
100's into the smaller version of it, and with only minor hull mods,
created a best selling powercat. But this formula does not work well
for monohulls.


I'm not so sure it can't... I am sure that it can't be done both well
and for cheap. A smallish motorsailer that had very good sailing
performance might be quite a nice boat, but it would look more like a
Melges 24 than a Mac26-M.



The more important factor, however, is that they are lots of fun to
sail.



So you say. Why is it that you almost never post a trip report?


Maybe he's too busy having fun?

Frankly, I have had a good time sailing two shipping pallets skinned
with roofing paper & a bedsheet sail. It was like a really cheap little
scow. So I can believe that Jim enjoys sailing his Mac26-M. However I am
not spending the rest of my life boasting about what super-dooper hot
performing sailing machine that 1-hour scavenged scow was.


And just where did I say that the Mac 26M is a "sooper-dooper hot
performing sailing machine", or anything of the kind? I've said that the
Mac 26M is fun to sail, but I have consistently stated that it doesn't
sail or point as well as a large displacement boat. Instead of saying
the Mac is a great sailing machine, I've said that it has limitations
and disadvantages when compared with conventional vessels.

Do you consider lying about what I said, as you just did, a necessary
evil acceptable when convenient, DSK? Do you consider it appropriate to
ignore any principles of ethics because, after all, you are merely
involved in some more Mac-Bashing, apparently for the amusement and
"atta-boys" of your buddies? Do you have no self-respect whatsoever, DSK?

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

Exactly my point... due to bad compromises you're forced to use a huge
engine when on a sailboat that actually has the potential to sail well, a
smaller engine would do.

Should I just hang down my head and die Ganz? I wouldn't call a 220 lb.
motor "huge." - Incidentally, how much does the motor in Your boat (or
do you have one?) weigh, Ganz? With generator, fuel pump, fuel filters,
shaft to prop, and other accessories?


Why would anyone want to "get back at 14 knots" unless they have a powerboat
mentality?

In certain circumstances, such as when you're 5 - 10 miles from the
marina, the wind is in your face, it's hot as hell, and you have guests
who want to get back home ASAP, its rather convenient and even pleasant
to be able to motor back at a moderately high rate of speed.


It's Captain Ganz to you Jimbo.

I'll call you captain when I feel like it, or when you grow up,
whichever comes first.

Jim

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:



Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:



Capt. JG wrote:

I for one have no interest in owning a 26 foot boat that comes with
a 70hp engine. This is the antithesis of what sailing is all about.


The boat is built to be balanced in the water with crew and with an
outboard of 50 - 70 hp. If the moter were removed, the boat would
tend to "lean" forwardly, with the stern too high in the water. The
weight of the outboard is far less than the weight of a typical
diesel in a 27-29



Not really. A 50 Hp 4-stroke weighs over 200 pounds - Honda claims
the lightest at about 210, Suzuki's is about 250. A Yanmar 2YM15 is
249 with transmission, though the shaft and prop is extra. There
really isn't a lot of difference in weight.


Not sure I'm following you here Jeff. In your previous note, you
stated: that: "And, as I said, with that large engine hanging off the
stern there's a huge amount of weight back there." - So which is it
Jeff? - A "huge amount of weight back there," or "not really a lot of
difference in weight." If the latter, wouldn't that tend to counter
your arguments about the motor and ballast messing up the handling of
the boat during pitching movement?


I was simply responding to your claim that the weight of a 50-70HP
outboard is "far less than the weight of a typical diesel." In fact,
its about the same weight. Jeeze, Jim, do you really feel the need to
fight tooth and nail on every issue, including those where you're
completely wrong? Is this a lawyer thing - do you get paid the same
even when your arguments are stupid?

I sort of get paid for knowing what the hell I'm doing, Jeff. And I
seldom loose.


And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location. A 250
pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to the pitch
moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is built
to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the cockpit. And
it is. Actually, the motor isn't much more astern then the crew sitting
in the cockpit, or the skipper sitting on the back seat over the
transom. However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with
generator, fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about the
same as a modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?


My boat actually could accept large engines - the builder put twin
100's into the smaller version of it, and with only minor hull mods,
created a best selling powercat. But this formula does not work well
for monohulls.


I understand that you have a 36-ft cat. Quite a bit larger boat. -
What's a typical cruising speed?


7.5 to 9 knots in most conditions, though in a breeze its seen 13+ knots.

The powercat with twin 100's cruises at 16-18 knots, using only 4
gal/hour. They originally offered smaller engines, but found the big
ones actually had better efficiency, so there was little point.

So you say. Why is it that you almost never post a trip report?


What, exactly, would you like to know? I had the boat out Saturday in
15-knot winds with fairly rough chop and some whitecaps, and the boat
handled steadily and smoothly except for hitting some nasty wakes of
large speedboats. As mentioned above, I was thankful for the larger
motor when going out against the wind and chop. Under sail, we were
heeling about 20 degrees fairly consistently with one reef in main,
and the jib rolled in slightly. Lots of other boats on the water,
substantially larger than mine for the most part, and quite a few of
them flying only one sail. Coming back, the Mac motored through the
chop at over 13 knots quite smoothly. This was an afternoon sail in
Galveston Bay, not an extended cruise.


Sounds like fun. Might I remind you that a few years ago you were
insisting the Mac could do 18 knots while I was saying that was
unrealistic, you probably wouldn't do much over 12.

This particular day was fairly rough, and I wasn't running the motor
full throttle. - I still think the boat would motor at 18 knots on a
smooth day without the ballast. - But I haven't seen those speeds yet,
because I've been reticent to motor without the ballast.


... Now, where is your last trip report?


No reports this summer, my spare time (and a chunk of the cruising time)
got preempted by family issues. However, here's the most recent set of
pictures:
http://www.sv-loki.com/Summer_06/summer_06.html

In years gone by I've posted a few reports each summer, such as this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...994c6e8d4fd9bf

or this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...4bf089a2629977



If you want to see a long trip report, here's two.
First, a delivery from Toronto to New Bedford:
http://www.sv-loki.com/Delivery/delivery.html

And then a long trip:
http://www.sv-loki.com/The_Trip/the_trip.html

Very nice. Beautiful little girl, and dog also. I suppose you can anchor
in fairly shallow water also.

I'm in the same area as Joe, between Houston and Galveston (third
largest number of pleasure boats in the US). I don't think our harbors
and anchorages are as nice as yours, although we can get to the gulf in
a few hours.

Incidentally, does Durgins Park still serve Indian Pudding?

Jim

Well Cate, you can if you want to. It's not a matter of weight for my boat,
since it's sized for a real sailboat that doesn't need 70 hp to work. I have
an inboard diesel, 13hp Westerbeke on a Sabre 30. It's not particularly
large, but I'm sure it weighs a fair amount. The 26' (or close) sailboats
that I sail on use 5-10 hp outboards and work fine. Oh, and my Sabre was
well under $30K used and is 5 times your boat in quality. Of course, your
limitations dictate the boat you own.

In certain circumstances, I get on a ferry. Sounds like bad planning to me
if you're that far away and it's too hot and your guests are upset. Perhaps
you need to do a better job. I don't bring guests or paying customers for
that matter who have the expection that they'll be transported back quickly
because they're too hot or cold. We deal with the situation where we are.
Perhaps you need different guests.

You can't carry on an intelligent conversation can you. If you don't like
what you hear, then you get nasty, which indicates to me that you're not
very grown up yourself.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..


Capt. JG wrote:

Exactly my point... due to bad compromises you're forced to use a huge
engine when on a sailboat that actually has the potential to sail well, a
smaller engine would do.

Should I just hang down my head and die Ganz? I wouldn't call a 220 lb.
motor "huge." - Incidentally, how much does the motor in Your boat (or do
you have one?) weigh, Ganz? With generator, fuel pump, fuel filters, shaft
to prop, and other accessories?


Why would anyone want to "get back at 14 knots" unless they have a
powerboat mentality?

In certain circumstances, such as when you're 5 - 10 miles from the
marina, the wind is in your face, it's hot as hell, and you have guests
who want to get back home ASAP, its rather convenient and even pleasant to
be able to motor back at a moderately high rate of speed.


It's Captain Ganz to you Jimbo.

I'll call you captain when I feel like it, or when you grow up, whichever
comes first.

Jim

In other words, the boat is ballasted with a lot of mass far forward,
as Jeff was contending earlier.


JimC wrote:
I never stated that the ballast mass is "far forward", DSK, and I don't
think Jeff did either.

If Jeff didn't, then why were you arguing with him over that
exact point?

... As to the moment of inertia during pitching, the
motor, after all, is about the same weight as a crew member

A very very large & well-fed crew member.

... and though
its slightly aft of the cockpit

In other words, it is as far aft as it can be, and still be
part of the boat.

.... its weight (mass) is not a great
factor, as some of your buddies claim. (As previously stated: "I doubt
seriously that the weight of the motor is a major factor.")


Whoever stated that is an idiot.
It's 200+ pounds at the farthest aft extremity of the boat.
You want to claim this doesn't affect pitching moment "very
much" whereas knowledgable sailors know that weight in the
far ends of the boat is bad for steering & worse for
pitching. Not a "major factor?"




Between the ballast far forward and the engine wieght far aft, it's
hard to imagine a worse set-up for good sailing performance.


Actually, of course, the ballast is centered only slightly forward of
amidships, as we have already discussed. The motor, weighing only 200 -
250 lb., is of little consequence.


Yeah, I bet you can carry it with one hand.

"Of little consequence" except for the boat's poor steering
& worse pitching.


Does the weight of the keel affect pointing? Funny, I always thought
that had to do with the basic rig design... aspect ratio, sheeting
base, etc etc... keel foil configuration plays into it somewhat I'm
sure, but how does the wind know (and why would it care) about the
weight of the keel?


As you probably know, a weighted keel positioned five or six feet below
the hull entails more leverage

Which does *what* exactly, for POINTING?
Please explain.


.... provides a more efficient righting
moment than the same weight of ballast,particularly water ballast,
positioned within the hull.

Why "particularly" water ballast? Does gravity care if a ton
of ballast is water or lead or feathers?

.... For its size, it a deep, weighted keel is
more efficient in keeping the boat in a nearly upright position as winds
increase, permitting more efficient translation of the force of the wind
into forwardly directioned forces.

That may help it's speed, but how will it affect the boat's
pointing?


... The aspect ration of the keel is, of
course, also a factor in preventing lateral "sliding" of the boat,

No it isn't. The aspect ratio is a factor in the expected
lift/drag ratio of the foil.

The total amount of lift generated by the foil determines
the leeway or lateral sliding of the boat.



.... and
the Mac 26M has a retractable dagger board that is quite narrow.

Meaning what?
You started out to explain pointing, and so far you've
fumbled around in the dark in left field. You *almost*
mentioned something that might be related to pointing, but
you got it worng anyway.



... To
compensate for the relative inefficiency of the water ballast as
compared with a heavy,weighted keel, the Mac has a total ballast
sufficiently large to keep the boat upright. After years of mods and
improvements, the current model, with appropriate reefing, sails ratehr
well in pretty heavy weather. (For example, mine was heeling at only 20
degrees Saturday in 15 knot winds, with the first reef taken in.)


And what was your VMG to windward? Best speed on a reach? If
the wind is strong enough to reef, then you should be able
to plane.

You say the boat sails rather well, my observation (many
times over) is that they sail poorly. Almost any decent
sailboat will beat them downwind and a potting shed will
beat them upwind.



Are you tacitly admitting that Mac-26Ms don't sail to windward very
well? We already know that's true of the M26X.


No I'm not tacitly admitting anything. I'm openly stating (once again)
that they don't sail to windward as well as conventional sailboats with
weighted keels. It's one of the compromises of the particular design.


So... we can agree it sucks at sailing to windward.

Do you think perhaps the weight of the motor... and the huge
flat aft sections necessary to float it... have anything to
do with that?



I'll remember that the next time I'm racing, DSK. But actually, I didn't
buy the Mac with that in mind. I bought it to enjoy the overall sailing
experience.


Actually, if you're reefing & heeling & all that stuff, it
must be almost the same as sailing.You mean, the experience
of sitting on a boat with sails up? Pity you need that huge
motor to actually go anywhere.

BTW many sailboats will go faster than 13 knots.



... Rather, it's the compromises relating to the internal ballast,
trailerable hull, and lack of weighted keel. (The metactric effect.)




Please explain. I know about metacentric height, but have never heard
of "the metacentric effect."


The metacentric height is considered the distance between the center of
gravity and the metacenter. By "metacentric effect", I was referring to
the fact that the righting force is proportional to the metacentric
height times the sine of the angle of heel. Thus, a conventional boat,
with weighted keel low in the water, would have a lower center of
gravity than the Mac and would therefor tend to be less tender.


Good, but not quite right. The metacenter is figured as
height above the waterline. A lower center of gravity
doesn't affect the metacenter at all, it is strictly a
function of hull shape.

Shall I explain curves of righting moment? It's a key to
understanding how different boats sail differently... nah,
maybe some other time. For now, let's just say that there
are effectively 2 forces producing righting moment, one is
the hull shape which produces initial stability... how
tender the boat feels when you step onto the gun'l from the
dock, for example... and the other is reserve stability,
which is affected by how low & heavy the ballast is, and
produces righting moment at high angles of heel.


... Again,
the Mac 26M does entail compromises, but after a number of years of
development and modifications, it does the job. (If it didn't, I would
have capsized Saturday in the 15-knot winds instead of sailing along
with a 20 degree heel.- Right?


The fact that the boat doesn't fall over helplessly in 15
knot winds is good, agreed.



No, the 2M isn't flat aft.

I guess it depends on what you call "flat."
http://www.improb.com/airchives/pape...i3/kansas.html


... In contrast with your statement, it does plane easily and
smoothly.

Then why won't it plane under sail?
Lots and lots and lots of boats plane under sail. It has
been known how to design sailboat hulls & rigs to plane
since 1928. How the heck modern can the Mac 26 M be if it
doesn't incorporate this concept?



And just where did I say that the Mac 26M is a "sooper-dooper hot
performing sailing machine", or anything of the kind?

Well, lately, you've been admitting that it's slow. But hey,
that's of no consequence, just like the increased
hobby-horsing due to the weight of the engine on the transom.


... I've said that the
Mac 26M is fun to sail, but I have consistently stated that it doesn't
sail or point as well as a large displacement boat.

Or a small one.

... Instead of saying
the Mac is a great sailing machine, I've said that it has limitations
and disadvantages when compared with conventional vessels.


It's all about compromises.


Do you consider lying about what I said, as you just did, a necessary
evil acceptable when convenient, DSK?

I haven't lied at all. You however have not only lied but
also contradicted yourself a number of times. Why is that
necessary to defend your boat?



... Do you have no self-respect whatsoever, DSK?


Of course. I also have a lot of fun sailing, only not on a
Mac 26 M or X.

I am glad you enjoy sailing your boat. That's what it should
be all about.

DSK

JimC wrote:



I was simply responding to your claim that the weight of a 50-70HP
outboard is "far less than the weight of a typical diesel." In fact,
its about the same weight. Jeeze, Jim, do you really feel the need to
fight tooth and nail on every issue, including those where you're
completely wrong? Is this a lawyer thing - do you get paid the same
even when your arguments are stupid?

I sort of get paid for knowing what the hell I'm doing, Jeff. And I
seldom loose.

But winning in your business is not the same as being right. In my
experience, lawyers are more often on the side of "wrong" than on the
side of "right." (I think that's because the forces of "wrong" can
afford more of them!)




And let me point out again, its not the weight, its the location. A
250 pound engine hanging off the stern contribute far more to the
pitch moment than an inboard close to the center of the boat.


Well, that's clear enough, and I agree. But once more, the boat is built
to be balanced fore and aft with a motor and a crew in the cockpit. And
it is.

Totally irrelevant. Either you're too stupid to follow the
discussion, or you just showing what type of lawyer you really are.
Obviously the boat was designed to float on its lines with full
ballast and an engine. The issue is whether a different distribution
of mass would lead to a boat that sails better.

Actually, the motor isn't much more astern then the crew sitting
in the cockpit, or the skipper sitting on the back seat over the
transom.

If a 4000 lb racing boat boat sailed with one large (250 lb) crew
hanging off the stern, and another standing on the bow, it would be
substantially slower than its competitors. (Not to mention being more
uncomfortable.)

However, I don't think I agree that a typical diesel, with
generator, fuel pump, filters, prop shaft, etc., would weigh about the
same as a modern outboard. - Any stats on that one?

I thought I just gave one. The weight of a 15 Hp Yanmar, including
everything (alternator, pumps, filter) except the shaft and prop is
249 lbs. Clearly one might add another fuel filter or water filter,
and the muffler weighs a few pounds (mine are plastic) but all of this
is only a few pounds, and then your outboard also has a few extra bits
and pieces not included in its base weight. Also, since the diesel
generates almost twice the power from a pound of fuel, one can claim a
huge weight advantage on that front.



....
Sounds like fun. Might I remind you that a few years ago you were
insisting the Mac could do 18 knots while I was saying that was
unrealistic, you probably wouldn't do much over 12.

This particular day was fairly rough, and I wasn't running the motor
full throttle. - I still think the boat would motor at 18 knots on a
smooth day without the ballast. - But I haven't seen those speeds yet,
because I've been reticent to motor without the ballast.

Yes, buts that's been my point. If you want to keep the boat very
light, and are willing to forgo ballast on a flat clam, you can
achieve the high speeds. But you've just proven my old point that
loaded up with a bit a gear, and dealing with a bit of weather, you
won't want to go that fast.



Very nice. Beautiful little girl, and dog also. I suppose you can anchor
in fairly shallow water also.

I'm in the same area as Joe, between Houston and Galveston (third
largest number of pleasure boats in the US). I don't think our harbors
and anchorages are as nice as yours, although we can get to the gulf in
a few hours.

I've only sailed on the FL side of the Gulf - I enjoyed it a lot, the
Naples area has been on our short list of possible places to move to
in a few years.


Incidentally, does Durgins Park still serve Indian Pudding?

Fresh baked.

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
Now you know why my legs
and butt look so good. ;-)

Cheers,
Ellen

Photos please...

CJH wrote:
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
Now you know why my legs
and butt look so good. ;-)

Cheers,
Ellen

Photos please...


Found them!
http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery....2&galleryid=3#
http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery.asp?galleryid=8#
Favorite: http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery.asp?galleryid=7#

"CJH" wrote | Found them!
| http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery....2&galleryid=3#
| http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery.asp?galleryid=8#
| Favorite: http://www.teamellen.com/en/gallery.asp?galleryid=7#


Wrong Ellen. That famous Ellen the sailor's my namesake and hero.
I'm sexier than her but she's a better sailor, of course. . Here's a photo album of
me. http://ellenmacarthur.badongo.com/album/01

Cheers,
Ellen

Wrong Ellen. That famous Ellen the sailor's my namesake and hero.
I'm sexier than her but she's a better sailor, of course. . Here's a photo album of
me. http://ellenmacarthur.badongo.com/album/01

Cheers,
Ellen

Well, um, those photos were easy on the eyes.