MacGregorSailors.com

Its a shame that back in the old days , MacGregor didn't build a poor mans trawler . The same basic boat but with out sailing gear and a hardtop over the stern .

We are looking forward to converting ours and opening up some deck space on the bow . Make life a lot easier with the draw bridges too !

Wayne nicol wrote:the ideal for me would have been an unstayed rig, the shorter mast would have been able to be permanently fastened on deck, in holders, without infringing on the cockpit,
the boat would be quick and easy on and off the water. run it as a power boat if need be- step the mast at any time and sail, none of all the rigging and hassle etc.
the fact is , they are not the worlds best sailers- albeit they are fun , so a simpler rig wouldn't hurt it that much , or would it??!
just my opinion- and what would be ideal for me- not necessarily ideal for everyone

I've given a lot of thought to how rigging could be simplified. Unstayed masts are a seriously hard engineering problem unfortunately. You'd need a moulded in mast socket at least a foot deep, and you'd be limited to about 20' of height before aluminum extrusion of an allowable weight would flex too far. Without stays you've got no foresail, so you'd need a gaff rig or a junk rig to get anywhere near enough sail area to make way in moderate winds.

Bermuda rigged sloops are the most efficient rigs (meaning they can make the highest percentage of true wind speed into forward motion), but they're only 10% to 20% more efficient than a most other rigs. A Cat rig can be very simple and makes a good candidate to be unstayed, since the mast could drop down to the keel in the foredeck where you're not worried about space.

You guys know more about sails than me , but on my canoe sailer I had a lateen sail . This allowed for a short mast . That would be a nice option for a Mac

Three Gypsies wrote:Its a shame that back in the old days , MacGregor didn't build a poor mans trawler . The same basic boat but with out sailing gear and a hardtop over the stern .

We are looking forward to converting ours and opening up some deck space on the bow . Make life a lot easier with the draw bridges too !

Agree with your comments ... except for the "poor mans trawler" bit: the Mac is a rich man's take-anywhere state-of-the-art sometimes-trawler ... and at a less-than-rich-man's price.
On a more serious note, I advise that you think carefully before turning the cockpit into a complete enclosure. Years ago I was on a 26X with complete Sunbrella cockpit enclosure; and even though it had well-designed plastic windows all around, the result was to give one the feeling that one was visually trapped inside a tent, peeking out at the scenery while missing the feeling of being in the great outdoors. And with the roll-up windows down it was of course even worse. So for Kittiwake I ordered only the bimmini; and I prefer to leave even that at home.
Kittiwake

No argument from me about the 'trapped in a fish bowl' feel of full canvas when moving. I don't even like the dodger. I do keep the bimini up all the time, as I have to limit sun exposure, and with the reflected light all around, I can get burned even if hiding in the shade of the bimini all day - worse without it, of course.

BUT, at night, at my destination, and especially when the bugs come out to play, there's nothing like having a full enclosure to keep most of them away. A few sneak in through the various openings, but most are kept out, and there's the second layer of defense being the companionway bug screen.

Oh, and when it rains, that boat can start feeling mighty small if the cockpit is open to the elements. Or when it's cold out.

I keep my Dowsar full enclosure in a big duffle type bag, similar to a sports bag (or maybe that's what it really is, left over from either of my boys), all in one place and ready to install when needed. I've done it enough now that it doesn't take that long (less than an hour - probably more like 20-30 minutes).

Yes tk, that really nicely rounds out the factors to consider.
Kittiwake

Here's my thoughts on sail rig.
The only unstayed rig that will allow a headsail is the sprit rig, because as the snotter is tightened, and the sprit is under greater tension, it not only produces a flatter sail shape, better for performance, but it also induces an aft bend in the mast which in turn tensions a forward shroud, which allows you to run the jib.

I have seen results of where they used the same boat, and changed the rig, lateen,sprit, balanced lug, gaff and sloop.
The sprit was by far the best performer on all points of sail, except for sailing to windward,and only then was it just beaten by the sloop,cos it has the higher aspect sails.

The only downside of the sprit, is the reefing procedure, as the rig has to be scandalized, to reduce sail area, and on a bigger boat, that sprit in a good blow, can play havoc for the reefer.

If I knew how to post pics, I could post my preliminary sketches of a boat I am seriously considering building,

twin master, in a schooner type configuration, but with unstayed masts.
fore sail, a boom less sprit, and jib, the aft mast probably a boomed gaff, both mast sockets to run right down to the keel, help keep it watertight, and robust!!
with an open backed pilot house, so that the wheel steering is undercover, but access to the cockpit is still easy and quick, and the option of a canvas and clear plastic house aft bulkhead.
a larger uncluttered cockpit for fishing, and entertaining etc,
still to sleep six, 8.5' wide, and somewhere around 30' long, or slightly less.
easily and legally trailer able, water ballast etc
better galley, bigger head, with the type head layout ,but with a shower,
either twin bilge boards or still the daggerboard/centerboard configuration,
removeable tiller for sailing.

Just sketches right now, trying to find a good naval architect or designer to do the final drawings, as I would like to start building soon!!!

I love my new Mac,and am more than happy with the sailing performance, but want something more user friendly, and want something just a tad bigger-but isn't that always the case, if I had a 70' boat, I would probably want a 72' boat.


Oh we'll, alls good for now

As we passed thru drawbridge after drawbridge , I gave even more serious consideration to the idea of converting our Gypsy into a trawler .
We are using our boat as a liveaboard , cruiser . We have done three cruises so far with the longest being to Key West .
I am realizing we are not using the sails hardly at all . There are two reasons for this .

First is that its seldom the winds are favorable . I could tack , but why go 10 miles to make I mile when I can crank the engine and go straight there ?

Second reason is seeing the Admiral having to go on deck to hoist or lower the main in pitching seas . If the main could be controlled from the cockpit , we would use it more often , but that would involve a large modification.

Third ( did I say just two ?) that mast is a lot of trouble when you are cruising . Its been tough finding bridges we could go under , and did I mention drawbridges ?

We have used the jib sail very often in motor sailing . I put the motor at 2,000 rpm ( best gas mileage) and hoist the jib . Its on a furler and controlled from the cockpit . With a fair wind we pick up 2-3 mph , so its good economical cruising , but not worth the other hassles .

So when we go home for Christmas we will be leaving on our next cruise a little shorter .

It's simple enough to dismast a Mac and leave it ready to re-rig for when you do sail. If you're going under all sorts of bridges into unfavorable winds then by all means, use it as a cabin cruiser.

That's the point of a MacGregor--Sail when you want to sail, cruise when you want to cruise, power when you want to power, and trailer when you want to trailer. Four separate modes of travel all equally valid.

I have a friend who has sailed his from Bath Ill and is now near Tampa Bay . He is cruising on an even smaller budget than us (didn't think that possible) so He is using his sails as his main propulsion and we are using ours as secondary or added propulsion .

I guess the difference is we go if the weather is good , He sits if the wind isn't favorable . That was the way it was done in the old days , before engines were standard on a sailboat .

Since we use the engine almost 100% of the time , we would become more efficient to get rid of the mast and dump the water ballast . This will improve the overall weight and increase the aerodynamics of the boat . If we get in rough seas , I can always refill the ballast . Rough seas without a 30 foot mast will probably be more manageable as well , contributing to the safety factor .

Three Gypsies wrote:If we get in rough seas , I can always refill the ballast . Rough seas without a 30 foot mast will probably be more manageable as well , contributing to the safety factor .

But rough seas with a full ballast tank, plus a mast and at least one sail would make it that much more comfortable, with less rock-'n-roll.

Already being done.

http://www.wordboats.com/26x

Three Gypsies wrote:I have a friend who has sailed his from Bath Ill and is now near Tampa Bay . He is cruising on an even smaller budget than us (didn't think that possible) so He is using his sails as his main propulsion and we are using ours as secondary or added propulsion .

I guess the difference is we go if the weather is good , He sits if the wind isn't favorable . That was the way it was done in the old days , before engines were standard on a sailboat .

Since we use the engine almost 100% of the time , we would become more efficient to get rid of the mast and dump the water ballast . This will improve the overall weight and increase the aerodynamics of the boat . If we get in rough seas , I can always refill the ballast . Rough seas without a 30 foot mast will probably be more manageable as well , contributing to the safety factor .

This probably has already been answered , so forgive my overuse of recreational drugs in the 60s and now old age , but when I demast and run with an empty ballast tank , how much more efficient will our X become ?

I am not so much looking to plane but , looking for a little more hull speed in the 2000 to 3000 rpm range on our Honda 50
With a full ballast and sailing gear , Our speeds in this rpm range are between 5mph and 7mph

Will the empty ballast tank have any effect on the stability of the boat , since it no longer has a mast ?

Thanks ,
Glenn

The boat is about 20% more efficient at WOT -10% ballast out vs. ballast in. It won't be any better than that, and is likely negligible below 6 knots.

You're way more efficient to travel at 5 knots vs. 7. Fuel consumption doubles between those speeds. You're putting gasoline into making bow waves and wakes at 7 knots.

The Alura 30 with the 145 hp deasil power boat did 8knots cruising and 10 knots wide open in a semi displacement hull, 7Knots got 4.1 miles per gal.
About what we get at that speed in our 50 hp gas outboards.
Even the Out Islanders? Marine Traders/ 34's with 120 lemans got 7 knots @ 3.8 miles per Gal. and that's a heavy displacement Trawler with fly bridge.
If we stay at 5.5 Knots in a 50 hp outboard we get 5.7 mpg. 5knots , get 7 mpg. Stay at 4.2 knots ya can get 10mpg.
Above, flat waters, no current.
Dave

mastreb wrote:The boat is about 20% more efficient at WOT -10% ballast out vs. ballast in. It won't be any better than that, and is likely negligible below 6 knots.

You're way more efficient to travel at 5 knots vs. 7. Fuel consumption doubles between those speeds. You're putting gasoline into making bow waves and wakes at 7 knots.