You need to first d/l the pdf files for each of these (quite different!) designs from the Specs and Documents Forum at this site. You will find that these are different designers, different design goals, ...but both attractive in different ways. Either could be used for coastal cruising or even offshore sailing. I will avoid the over-use of the "R" word, since any sailboat entered in a "race" is a racing sailboat......
And also, avoid the over-use of the "C" word, since both designs are equipped for "cruising" by virtue of tankage, storage, bunks, etc.....
You will have to search a bit for an example of either one, in the used boat market, as well. I have seen an example of each go on the market here in Portland, within the last several years... but only once.
Happy Hunting,
Loren
And also, avoid the over-use of the "C" word, since both designs are equipped for "cruising" by virtue of tankage, storage, bunks, etc.....
You will have to search a bit for an example of either one, in the used boat market, as well. I have seen an example of each go on the market here in Portland, within the last several years... but only once.
Happy Hunting,
Loren
They are totally different boats in design concept- I worked on the development of the Holland boats while working at the factory and ran the factory race program on the 36H and 33H-so I know them all to well-They are awesome boats-especially the 36. It was designed to the IOR rule at the time and rated in the 27.3-27.8 range-and were competitive. They are still amoung the fastest PHRF boats for their rating around. For cruising, the very strong TAFG(Tri-Axial Force Grid) and ocean-going interior make them very strong and GREAT sea boats, as well!
The 36C was an interesting attempt to build a tradional-looking boat above decks blended with a comtemporary hull shape. The result was a boat that sailed EXTREMELY well for a pure cruiser. The interior was innovative, but although I may be biased, I would probably choose the racier Holland boat even for purely cruising-this is for 2 reasons: I feel the newer structure (TAFG), which is also found on the King boats of the same vintage, offers a lot of peace of mind structurally, and the performance in my mind equates to seaworthiness. Not to say the 36C is slow-it is not, but this is my choice. If you like a traditional looking boat, then the 36C is one of the best choices out there.
Most of the traditional looking boats are full keeled, slow, and not close winded. I never undersood why so many people think this is seaworthy. If you can't get off a lee shore in a gale under sail, how is it a safe, seaworthy boat?
Happy hunting!
Seth
The 36C was an interesting attempt to build a tradional-looking boat above decks blended with a comtemporary hull shape. The result was a boat that sailed EXTREMELY well for a pure cruiser. The interior was innovative, but although I may be biased, I would probably choose the racier Holland boat even for purely cruising-this is for 2 reasons: I feel the newer structure (TAFG), which is also found on the King boats of the same vintage, offers a lot of peace of mind structurally, and the performance in my mind equates to seaworthiness. Not to say the 36C is slow-it is not, but this is my choice. If you like a traditional looking boat, then the 36C is one of the best choices out there.
Most of the traditional looking boats are full keeled, slow, and not close winded. I never undersood why so many people think this is seaworthy. If you can't get off a lee shore in a gale under sail, how is it a safe, seaworthy boat?
Happy hunting!
Seth
Thank you for your comments. This boat has a wing keel that draws 5 ft, one person said it looked like a lifting wing design (I don't know). The Hull number is #2 so were they doing any experimenting with wing keels when you were there? Its covered in a layer of fiberglass and smooth finished. Is this an attempt to get it to semi-plane under spinnaker? Or is it just to give less draft. I found some old race ratings (1982 vintage) and its I.O.R is 27.5 and its PHRF is 108 on the PHRF rating the Keel is checked as Fin. So this wing must have been added later? How much will it affect the sailing characteristics of the boat? Does it slow it down? I assume it would make it stiffer.
Besides the lines of the boat the framing system is what sold me as well it looks extremely stong so I thought if I ever went cruising then it would take a real beating. I wasn't sure about hull shape though because her age puts her in the heyday of building the designs that failed during Fastnet so I wasn't sure if she was to shallow and beamy for cruising. Its great to hear from someone that actually knows these boats I fell better already.
Besides the lines of the boat the framing system is what sold me as well it looks extremely stong so I thought if I ever went cruising then it would take a real beating. I wasn't sure about hull shape though because her age puts her in the heyday of building the designs that failed during Fastnet so I wasn't sure if she was to shallow and beamy for cruising. Its great to hear from someone that actually knows these boats I fell better already.
Hi there. First, the 3/16" maximum was to make sure the J measnurement did not get too large to keep the IOR rating intact. You can set the mast almost anywhere you need to, the key issue being how much prebend you end up with and how that fits the luff curve of your main. For example, if your main has a lot of luff curve (and is very deep with the mast straight), then you would want the step back and the mast wedged forward at the partners. If your main is somewhat flat, then the step in mid-position and the partner only slightly forward of center is fine.
On the wing keel, and if in fact it is hull #2, which I used to sail in California, it was definitely done much later. We never did a winf keel on these boats while they were in production.
The idea is to get the same (in theory) performance as a deep keel by adding "wind" area. In truth, they are slightly slower due to higher wetted surface, with the biggest flaw being much slower acceleration out of tacks and gybes. The idea of "planing" downwind is a nice fantasy, but nothing more.
In the Fastnet, the hull shapes were never really the problem, but the structures instead. I am pretty convinced that the 36H would have held up just fine in those conditions-at least as far as hull integrity.
I think this covers it-I will look again at your note to see what I forgot.
Seth
On the wing keel, and if in fact it is hull #2, which I used to sail in California, it was definitely done much later. We never did a winf keel on these boats while they were in production.
The idea is to get the same (in theory) performance as a deep keel by adding "wind" area. In truth, they are slightly slower due to higher wetted surface, with the biggest flaw being much slower acceleration out of tacks and gybes. The idea of "planing" downwind is a nice fantasy, but nothing more.
In the Fastnet, the hull shapes were never really the problem, but the structures instead. I am pretty convinced that the 36H would have held up just fine in those conditions-at least as far as hull integrity.
I think this covers it-I will look again at your note to see what I forgot.
Seth