"JimC" wrote in message
. ..
?

You have to be really drunk or really stupid to compare,
in
any way, a Mac26 to a tall ship! Which is it, Jim?

SBV


Both


Oh that's right, you're from Texas.






Incidentally, I crewed on a tall ship (the 1877 Elissa,
docked in
Galveston) and gave tours explaining its operation and
history.


Your point?


SBV

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...


Tall ships hulls are so different from a Mac26M that this
is laughable. The
lower portions of a tall ship are much deeper in the water
than the MAC26M


Brilliant! Did you come to this conclusion all by yourself?
Did you ask Jax?

Scotty

"Scotty" wrote
| "Charlie Morgan" wrote |
| Tall ships hulls are so different from a Mac26M that this
| is laughable. The
| lower portions of a tall ship are much deeper in the water
| than the MAC26M
|
| Brilliant! Did you come to this conclusion all by yourself?
| Did you ask Jax?


Charlie Morgan shoulda said "Sailboats are so different from a Mac26M that this is laughable.
The Mac26M is at the lowest end of sailboats." Who's Jax?

Cheers,
Ellen (just luvs to tease JimC - the dumbest lawyer ever.....)

"Scotty" wrote
| Oh that's right, you're from Texas.

That's where the Dixie Chicks are from, too. And Natalie Mangy. He must be related.....

Cheers,
Ellen

So you need to have onboard a battery charger operated off shore power?

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
I guess I'm spoiled. 2 minute motor out of the marina, and
I'm sailing!

Scotty


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think this is a valid point... for me, the whole point
of sailing is the
journey, not the destination so much. On the other hand,
there are places
where the getting there part is not worth much, as the
destination is the
place to sail. Right now, where I keep my boat requires
about 30 minutes of
motoring or more than an hour of sailing to get to the
deep bay, which is
where things are happening. We use the motoring time (if
that's what we
decide to do) to get the boat ready for 20kts wind, crew
preparation,
planning and discussion about the lesson, etc., so it's
not wasted.

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"JimC" chanted the Mac mantra......

And although you may not think
you need or want it, the large (50 - 70 hp) motor most
M26s have can be
quite handy when you want to motor out to a desired
sailing area without
spending the whole day getting there,

but then again, if you have a decent sailing boat, you'
rather sail back.

Scotty

I have a pair of solar , trickle chargers, that keep the
batteries up while I'm away. While cruising, I don't use
much power. I like to use the oil lamps and/or candles at
night.

Scotty


"Edgar" wrote in message
...

So you need to have onboard a battery charger operated off
shore power?

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
I guess I'm spoiled. 2 minute motor out of the marina,
and
I'm sailing!

Scotty


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think this is a valid point... for me, the whole
point
of sailing is the
journey, not the destination so much. On the other
hand,
there are places
where the getting there part is not worth much, as the
destination is the
place to sail. Right now, where I keep my boat
requires
about 30 minutes of
motoring or more than an hour of sailing to get to the
deep bay, which is
where things are happening. We use the motoring time
(if
that's what we
decide to do) to get the boat ready for 20kts wind,
crew
preparation,
planning and discussion about the lesson, etc., so
it's
not wasted.

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"JimC" chanted the Mac mantra......

And although you may not think
you need or want it, the large (50 - 70 hp) motor
most
M26s have can be
quite handy when you want to motor out to a desired
sailing area without
spending the whole day getting there,

but then again, if you have a decent sailing boat,
you'
rather sail back.

Scotty

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:42:52 -0500, "Scotty"
wrote:

I guess I'm spoiled.

Scotty


You just taste that way.

CWM

very disturbing...

I have a shore power connection with bat charger. Haven't started cruising
long distances, so I don't need anything more.

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

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

So you need to have onboard a battery charger operated off shore power?

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
I guess I'm spoiled. 2 minute motor out of the marina, and
I'm sailing!

Scotty


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think this is a valid point... for me, the whole point
of sailing is the
journey, not the destination so much. On the other hand,
there are places
where the getting there part is not worth much, as the
destination is the
place to sail. Right now, where I keep my boat requires
about 30 minutes of
motoring or more than an hour of sailing to get to the
deep bay, which is
where things are happening. We use the motoring time (if
that's what we
decide to do) to get the boat ready for 20kts wind, crew
preparation,
planning and discussion about the lesson, etc., so it's
not wasted.

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"JimC" chanted the Mac mantra......

And although you may not think
you need or want it, the large (50 - 70 hp) motor most
M26s have can be
quite handy when you want to motor out to a desired
sailing area without
spending the whole day getting there,

but then again, if you have a decent sailing boat, you'
rather sail back.

Scotty

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:46:57 GMT, JimC wrote:



Scotty wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.com...


.

It operates on the same principle (ballast carried within

the the hull,


in the lower portion of the hull) as most ocean-going

vessels. And the


same principle used in tall ships for hundreds of years.



Tall ships had oversized outboards?

You have to be really drunk or really stupid to compare, in
any way, a Mac26 to a tall ship! Which is it, Jim?

SBV


Both the Mac 26M and most tall ships had internal ballast positioned in
lower portions of the hull. The fact that the Mac also has an outboard
is, of course, not relevant.

Incidentally, I crewed on a tall ship (the 1877 Elissa, docked in
Galveston) and gave tours explaining its operation and history.

Jim


Tall ships hulls are so different from a Mac26M that this is laughable. The
lower portions of a tall ship are much deeper in the water than the MAC26M
relative to the amount of structure and weight carried above the waterline. You
will also note that tall ships did not use water for ballast, because it is far
too light compared to stones, bricks and iron scrap, even when you take into
account the airspaces in piles of stone or scrap. Water ballast is the least
desirable.

CWM


The point is that ships have been using ballast in the lower portions of
their hulls (as does the Mac) for hundreds of years. Whether it's a tall
ship or short ship, a sailboat or power boat, water or permanent
ballast, the principle is the same. And most ocean-going vessels still
use ballast tanks for holding water in the lower portions of such
vessels. (That's what keeps those container vessels from tipping over.)

You say that the tall ships are deeper than a Mac. Still, both used or
use ballast positioned within the hull and below the waterline.

You say that tall ships didn't use water for ballast. Right you are. -
That came later (after marine design became more sophisticated). But
they did use ballast positioned in the lower portion of the hull, as
does the Mac.

You say that tall ships used stones, brick, etc., rather than water.
Nevertheless, the same principles apply.

You imply that water ballast is the least desirable. - In that case,
you should complement MacGregor for adding solid, permanent ballast to
the 26M in addition to water ballast. Of course, if they used only
permanent ballast, they would loose the advantages gained by using
water ballast that can be removed to lighten the boat during trailoring,
or for high-speed motoring, etc. And if they used only permanent
ballast, the boat would quickly sink to the bottom in the event the hull
was seriously compromised, as do most weighted-hull sailboats.

You say that tall ships are so different from the Mac that the
comparison is laughable. Nevertheless, the same principles apply. -
sails acting to power the vessel, keel acting to limit lateral movement,
and ballast, positioned below the waterline, to lower the center of mass
and prevent capsizing of the vessel and limit heeling.

Jim

Jeff wrote:

JimC wrote:

stability analysis of the 26M/X. It certainly has a high center of
gravity, and the metacentric height has to be pretty low.


It operates on the same principle (ballast carried within the the
hull, in the lower portion of the hull) as most ocean-going vessels.


Yes, and more than a few modern vessels have rolled over.

----As have more than a few conventional sailboats! - And when they do
roll over, conventional sailboats sometimes don't come back up. And in
that case, they can quickly sink to the bottom (unlike the Mac, which,
because of its lightweight and flotation, will stay afloat.


Keeping track
of weight distribution is one of the primary jobs if the first officer
on most ships.

And your point is.....?


Using phrases like "operates on the same principle" is
like saying it "obeys the laws of physics." It was wise of you to avoid
those boats that don't obey the laws of physics.

Again, what's your point? Obviously, they all obey the laws of physics.
And they all use ballast, positioned within the hull and below the
waterline, to prevent capsizing and limit heeling.



When you look at the long list of warnings, such as:

NO MORE THAN 6 PERSONS, 960 POUNDS.

WHEN POWERING OVER 6 MILES PER HOUR:
- NO ONE ON THE CABIN TOP OR FOREDECK.

and

NEVER POWER THE BOAT OVER 6 MILES PER HOUR WITH THE SAILS UP.
The result could be instant capsize.

its clear that there are issues here. And I should add, the my real
point here is that these issues simply do not exist on "normal" boats.


Right you are. - Macs are different from "normal" sailboats. - "Normal"
sailboats have a weighted keel that can quickly drag the boat to the
bottom of the ocean in the event the boat capsizes or experiences a
breach below the water-line. "Normal" sailboats don't float if the hull
is breached, or if a substantial amount of water enters the cabin, for
whatever reason. The Mac, on the other hand, will stay afloat, and, even
in the event of excessive heeling, with the sails in the water, tends to
come back up.


And of course, we don't want to even consider the issues if the ballast
tank is empty.


Right. But even in that circumstance, the boat would still float,
whereas a conventional boat with weighted keel would quickly sink to the
bottom under the circumstances outlined above.


In the past you've poo-poo'd these warnings as just "lawyer talk," but I
hope now that you've had the boat for a while you take them more seriously.


The Mac 26M owners' manual includes instructions for operating the boat
without the water ballast under power in moderate conditions. It's
another example of the versatility of the boat.


And the same principle used in tall ships for hundreds of years.


I really don't think you want to use the stability qualities of
traditional ships as an example. And remember, even they used ballast
with a specific gravity somewhat greater than one.

Obviously, principles of marine design have advanced since the days of
Columbus, et al. Nevertheless, both the Mac and early (and modern)
ocean going ships use ballast positioned within the hull and below the
waterline. Most modern ships have ballast tanks that can be filled as
required. Regarding the fact that tall ships used ballast with a
specific gravity somewhat greater than one, so does the Mac 26M. - The
use of permanent ballast, heavier than water, in addition to removable
water ballast is one of the features introduced in the Mac 26M.





And the other issue is that the water ballast extends all the way
from stem to stern. This can't be helping the pitching moment at all.


Wrong again. it extends about 2/3rds, and the front and rear portions
of the tank taper to sharp end portions and are therefore of little
mass and no real consequence re the distribution of mass.

Not according to the published diagram:
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm

Its pretty clear from this that the ballast extends all the way forward,
and that in fact a substantial amount is forward of the mast. You
should really spend some time learning about your boat, Jim.

Jeff, did you happen to take courses in geometry and logic in high
school or junior high? The reason I ask is that you obviously know
nothing about either subject. - The fact that the water ballast tank in
the Mac extends toward the bow, forward of the mast, is not
determinative of whether it extends about 2/3rd the length of the boat.
(Remember that my statement was in response to Scotty's ridiculous
remark that the water ballast extends "all the way from stem to stern."
- Why didn't you criticize Scotty for making such a stupid remark?)
Also, the ballast tank is tapered at the front and back such that the
volume (and mass) of water held at the front and rear portions is
substantially less then that held toward amidships. Additionally, the
heavier, permanent ballast is positioned amidships, below the mast.

Jeff, I've sailed many boats. The Mac 26M doesn't pitch excessively and
doesn't pitch more than most others. (Have you sailed the 26M? - No?)
Seems to me that this is just one more example of the fact that the most
opinionated, inflexible critics of the Mac 26m are those who have never
sailed one.


Jim