A Small "All-Rounder" -- C&C 27

[Rob L]

Jim et all - Having gone through a number of surveys , you are right, maintenance does show immediately, and likely starts you in the right direction. The interesting thing from my experience is that you can look at two boats, one's a disaster in slip ? ... the other, the same model and year, is quite respectable in slip?? Only part of the difference can be attributed to care and maintenance. Our Islander, I think is perfect example, it had been neglected for a number of years, and not been used much. It was being given away. Original hatches and ports had no leaks (past or present) The deck and hull were solid (still are ) althought faded and dirty but, I would bet you a good dinner, that you can find the same boat, same year, with leaks, soft decks and more. What does that add up to, damned if I know, other than I start with the specs and after that I have know idea what I'll find.
Good Luck with your next boat because, as I'm sure you know, it really matters that the people who are on her regularly, feel comfortable.
Thanks for the suggestion ...... the Cascade fits the bill for my requirements but unfortunately I am afflicted with a form over function problem and her form does quite make it for me,......... thank God beauty is in the eyes of the beholder or we'd all be sailing the same boat.

[allan C&C less]

Ahoy Jim!
I have sailed C&C's for over 30 years!!!!!
They have their pluses and minuses. First I would NOT lean towards the 27 model for several reasons. Based on your comments/needs you would be better off with the 29' or 30' The 30' mk1 model I sailed for 15 years! For its size it is very stable when things get ruff. If you care about motion comfort is stiffer the the C&C Landfall 35 and 38!!! With a SAD of over 18 it not a bad performer either. Not the fastest C&C , but respectable! But C&C made several 30' boats over the years. In my opinion the Redwing and Mk1 models are their best!!Down below the aren't the largest or very fancy. But no baots perfect. One thing to consider is the size of your crew..... C&C's are fast boats but have complex rigging. These aren't fractional rigs. So they aren't sailed easily single-handed or with a short crew. Believe me I know!!!!! Been there done that. But if you have a crew of 3+ she'll serve you well.
Fair winds, Allan

[Jim H]

Allan,

Thanks for all the C&C advice based on your experiences. I think they're fine boats, and we did buy the C&C 27 for several unique reasons.

Several sailors I seriously respect gave us the same advice about going for a 29 or 30 footer, and I agreed with that advice. For example, the headroom in the 27 wasn't perfect for me, and the berths could be a bit longer, and we have two kids, etc.

My wife, however, countered with a couple of key points-- the C&C 29s and 30s in our area were roughly twice the asking price of the 27 we were considering, and most didn't have the exceptional upkeep of the 27.

An equally important point is that she felt she'd be perfectly comfortable daysailing the 27 without me along, and since that was as important a goal as cruising at this point, it was a critical factor. She may have become comfortable with a 29 or 30 eventually, but I didn't want to risk that.

As for single-handing, the previous owner singled-handed the 27 for most of the years that he owned it (since 1991), and he also raced it with a full crew compliment. Our test sail (and maiden sail) indicated that we'd have no real problems with the rigging in the area where we'll sail the most (the Columbia River). Our surveyor also advised that the 27 would be a better choice for frequent sailing on the Columbia, because of all the tacking involved.

So, after we have her for a year we hope to do an offshore hop to Puget Sound, as has been done in the past with the 27. It meets all the specs for the Oregon offshore race, for example, if I can find a way to borrow or rent a small life raft. Mainly, however, the conditions on the Columbia and even in Puget Sound won't be testing us or the boat to a major extent if we're careful about the weather. Any trips offshore will also be done in excellent weather.

Thanks again for the comments-- if nothing else, we really enjoy sailing this boat, and we can always go larger in the future.

[rsn48]

I can already hear what you are thinking - "What's a Trapper 500?" Well a Trapper 500 is a C&C built in England. My favourite "Yachting magazine" is one published in jolly old England, entitled "Practical Boat Owner" allegedly "Britain's Biggest Selling Yachting Magazine - Sail & Power.

This magazine hosts the now revolutionary idea that a smaller boat can be quite fulfilling and to them the C&C 27 is not that small. This magazine routinely publishes articles on older smaller sail boats and think nothing of trying to create an 18 foot cruising sailor - I kid you not. Every issue has articles on sail boats smaller than 22 feet.

In the July 2003 issue # 439, there is a review entitled "Canadian Classic" covering the Trapper 500 - a C&C 27 boat. Since you are not likely to find this magazine in your area, I'm going to now just quote from it; the rest is the reviewers report:

"Let's say you have between 9,500 and 14,000 pounds to spend on a family cruiser. You want something from 26 feet to 30 feet, with reasonable performance and accommodation, and you don't need twin keels (big in England). One of the most obvious candidates is the Trapper 500. She's neither the fastest boat in the world for her length, nor the most beautiful, but she's tough, roomy and capable of leaving most of her cruising contemporaries in her wake.

Rob Kemp is well qualified to comment; not only does his company makes sails for a significant number of boats in this size range, but he also owned a Trapper 500 for two reasons. During that time he raced - both at club level and in events such as the two-handed Round-The-Island race - and occasionally indulged in some leisurely sailing. His previous boat was another Trapper, the 28, which he likes even more.

Sine the 500 was a development of the slim, slippery-hulled 28, it's no surprise that she should have a respectable turn of speed even though her Canadian creators, Cuthbertson & Cassian, wanted to produce something more suitable for cruising.

In drawing the lines of the C&C 27 (as she is known in Canada) in the late 1960's, George Cuthbertson gave the new boat two notable characteristics below the waterline. One was a pronounced rake to the front of the keel - something of a C&C trademark at the time - and the other was the scimitar-shaped rudder, whose trailing edge extended well abaft the counter. The rudder could, in fact, be rotated through 180 degrees to give the boat outstanding manoeuvrability under power.

In some ways, the 27 was something of a trend-setter. She was substantially beamier than most boats of the time. The stern was broader, the freeboard higher and the overhangs shorter. And for an amply proportioned cruising yacht, she acquitted herself well on the race course.

The review continues, but you get the idea.

[BC Mike]

I would not mention the C&C29 in the same sentence as the C&C30. I would link the 27, 30, and 34 in one group.
The 29 is a lighter faster boat, it has less room than my Tanzer 8.5 especially in the pointy end, the toilet area, the main cabin, the engine room and the aft sections.
There is not very much complexity in a mast head rig. However many folks can make it complex by tightening the wrong wyres first. Let budget, experience, mooring slip, wants and needs be your guide.
My T8.5 will soon be for sail for someone looking for a solid good sailing boat, with more gear and sails than any other similar boat.
Michael

[Jim H]

rsn48 once whispered in the wind:
the scimitar-shaped rudder, whose trailing edge extended well abaft the counter. The rudder could, in fact, be rotated through 180 degrees to give the boat outstanding manoeuvrability under power.

RSN, I really appreciate the information and the details from the review. I see "Trapper" referred to frequently at the C&C 27 Association web site and forums, and I hadn't investigated what it was.

There's something about amateur British sailors that really impresses me (the people, not the boats). They seem far more independent and less likely to worry and wait about every little detail. You're right that they seem less worried about size and all the comforts, and more likely just to set out and go. I'm really impressed by that.

Our 27 has the scimitar rudder noted above, and at first I wish it was a Mark III with the deeper, more traditional rudder. I have to note, however, that the prop shaft is off-set and the boat behaves extremely well when motoring. I can literally let go of the tiller to do quick checks on things without a problem. In reverse, the boat backs well, but there is a lot of pressure on the tiller and you don't want to let it swing too far side-to-side.

Thanks again for reposting the review, and three cheers for smaller boats...

[BC Mike]

Some foil shapes in North America from that era were pretty ugly. C&C and Tanzer had some funny rudders and keels.
Many old boats have new rudders and perform much better. You might lose the hands off motoring ability though. All the rudders will push over in reverse. Rudders on shafts are a bit more complex to build, but it would make a good winter project.
Michael

[Jim H]

BC Mike C once whispered in the wind:

My T8.5 will soon be for sail for someone looking for a solid good sailing boat, with more gear and sails than any other similar boat.
Michael

Michael, is this because you like the Tanzer 22 so much, or are you thinking of something new?

Jim H

[BC Mike]

My T8.5 is a wonderful boat but not big enough for my future plans. With the help of Jeff I have found a larger boat.
The T22 was purchased to give me something to sail during the transition period, and a weekly race boat. The T22 is better suited for this anyway. The bigger boat is many miles away and will require quite some time to get it home if purchased. It will likely stay where it is for a while. We have the farm for sale and I will be in a position to purchase when it sells. I can also make the purchase if I sell the T8.5, although it will be tight on the budget.
I want to sail to Hawaii as a test. If that goes okay I will go further. The T8.5 has more gear and sails than most people want.
It is capable of going to Hawaii but would be too cramped for long term staying on board. Needs a wind vane to do the trip. Most everything else is on board.
Portland is probably close enough for me to deliver for a small fee, like beer and petrol.

Michael

[rsn48]

Jim H, You haven't lived until you go astern on an older Catalina 27; I like to call it "rudder roulette." Maybe you'll go to port, maybe to starboard, maybe straight ahead, who knows until the dice have been rolled, the wind accounted for, and the current estimated.

The original rudder on my Catalina is a thing of ugliness and looks like a child designed it.

If you email me your address, I'll send the full review down to you as what I typed in is about one fifth or less of the entire review. And if by chance we should ever meet on the water, you'll owe me a beer for it.

What I admire about the English is that they want to get out on the water with what ever financial resources at their disposal; bigger is better but small is better than nothing at all. The magazine I quoted actual addresses the majority of sail boaters out there. The number of sail boaters over 35 feet is an incredible minority both in North America and England. However the magazines here cater to their advertisers and if the advertisers want them to review a 60 footer, thats what they'll do.

My feeling is that the sailing mags are totally out of touch with the majority of sailors in North America. Can you imagine Motor Trend only reviewing all of the top line cars and never addressing what the majority drive? If I suggested this tactic to them, they'd think I was nuts. No more reviews of Honda Civics and Hyundai's; can you imagine that in the car mags?

I felt liike apologising for owning a Catalina 27 until I started reading this mag. I've met others who have said - "Yes, I have a boat, a small one; its 27 feet." I've seen this apologitic approach here in this forum and others. The popular sized sail boats get you out on the water, a smile on your face and add extra years on your life due to reduced work stress. As I said to an older lady from the boat moored next to mine in the marina - "its just another black hole for money." Her reply was great - "Yes young man (I'm 58 she about 75) it is a black hole, but its your balck hole!"

[CaptainK]

rsn48

How much do you love your Catalina 27?

I'm looking into getting a Catalina 27 for myself. And this person is wanting to leave boating behind him. He's willing to sail the boat to me. With a trailer.

I understand that there is not alot of room in the 27 like you do aboard a Catalina 30. And the configuration (layout) is different on the 27 compared to the Catalina 30? Only a 3 feet differance!!

But I hear that the Catalina 30 is roomier than the Catalina 27. And that Catalina 27's are also known for having outboards for propulsion. An option, would be to have an inboard. If not installed already.

But to me personally. I would keep the outboard if it came with one. Having an outboard has it's advantages, I think?

[Jim H]

rsn48 once whispered in the wind:
JThe popular sized sail boats get you out on the water, a smile on your face and add extra years on your life due to reduced work stress.

I would agree with this pretty much entirely, and sometimes I think it's missed when I hear of "new to sailing" beginners thinking they need 40 feet to get started... A new sailor we took an ASA course with seemed to think he had to skip anything under 36 feet and only start chartering with something larger (once he rushed through his bareboat certification).

In another thread I wondered if "cruising" only meant crossing oceans and living aboard. If so, I may need to change to a different board. Even Bob Bitchin' at the start of "Letters from the Lost Soul" noted that some people prepare for cruising as if they were preparing for death-- sell everything, say goodbye to everyone, there's no coming back... His point wasn't that selling a house was bad-- just that cruising didn't have to be "all or nothing."

I think you're right that there's a slight inferiority/superiority thing going on, as if only certain types of cruising should be celebrated and worthy of discussion.

To be bold, one book I really enjoyed was "Sailing Small: Inspiration and Instruction for the Pocket Cruiser" by Stan Grayson. The following website has pictures of several of the boats featured in the book: http://www.devereuxbooks.com/sailingsmall.htm

Each chapter was about a different pocket cruiser and how it had been used, and the best was about Charles Stock, an Englishman with a small centerboard cutter that he pieced together after the war and then spent a lifetime sailing in the Thames estuary and east coast of England. What's emphasized by his love of sailing is that sometimes we waste so much time thinking about distant shores that the depth and beauty of our backyards are forgotten about. Additionally, it points out that "money" isn't the answer or prerequisite for successful cruising.

We looked at several Catalina 27s during our year of looking for a small cruiser. They ranged from $2,500 to $10,000, but none really worked out. We had a great weekend trip on a older Catalina 25, and I was surprised by how comfy we were in the V-berth, the kids liked the dinette, and it was a fun little cruise. The 27s seemed to have a narrower bow and a v-berth that would be too small for us, and then sleeping arangements would be tougher. I was also hoping for the challenge of an inboard, but the tight space around some of the 27's engines worried me a bit.

That said, the Catalinas I've sailed have been very enjoyable. The Practical Sailor reviews of the 25 and 27 point out where improvements could be made (especially on the 25s), but in general the boats deliver the smile you refer to. In our area, Cals, Columbias, Tanzers, Newports, Odays, and Pearsons are relatively common in the same size range. (In fact, my brother is hoping to find a Pearson Ariel or Renegade to restore.)

I'll pm you my email address if it isn't a problem to forward the rest of the review. After we do the San Juans, we plan to cruise to Desolation Sound, and someday up the inside passage, so buying you the beer may not be out of the question...

Thanks!

[BC Mike]

Early model.
They sail okay, actually quite well at times. The rudder is awful and many have been changed. The walk forward is not wide enough on the deck. The hatch is too big and slopes forward. The hull is not very thick and will dent inwards if too much weight is placed on the pads. If all the weight is placed on the keel the hull may push up. The weight can vary a lot from boat to boat. Other than that they are okay. They are popular and do sail okay.
The T8.5 and C&C27 do not have most of those problems. The Catalina is a bit quicker in light air, then the C&C then the T8.5. In windy conditions with waves the order is reversed. The C&C has the best rig, the T8.5 has the strongest hull. There is an earlier version of the T8.5 called the Tanzer 28. Sometimes they are available at a reasonable price. My opinion only, but I used to sell Tanzer and Catalina, and I have sailed against the others over the last 25 years.
Michael

[Amac]

Regarding the Catalina 27...

...Oddly enough, it's one of the boats listed in the book "20 small sailboats to take you anywhere." Of course, the flip side of that is in their (admittedly subjective) safety at sea rating, it earns a 20 on a scale of 1-19.

So I'd guess the answer would be "it depends."

[Jim H]

Amac once whispered in the wind:
Oddly enough, it's one of the boats listed in the book "20 small sailboats to take you anywhere."

I read that book, and I believe the Catalina 27 was included because one had circumnavigated. The Practical Sailor review suggested that more than one had circumnavigated. Also, the lower safety rating came in part from the companion hatchway (board will fall out if boat inverts, and at least some boards need to be left in if cockpit is pooped, etc.). I read some materials by the guy who circumnavigated, and he didn't recommend the boat for it, but it was all he had at the time and he went for it. (For the record, he had and preferred the outboard model.)

I guess the larger point is why do we even bother worrying about basic, inexpensive coastal cruisers' ability to circumnavigate? That it's been done is more a testiment to the ability and enthusiasm of one or two people, whereas the basic "smile factor" of sailing such boats is a totally different issue. Overall, it seems like we always refer to ocean passages whenever any type of boat is brought up...