Hunter, Catalina, Benneteau Debate

[sailorboy1]

I am always impressed by the experience people have in these threads. I mean they have sailed on enough different models of boat brand that has been building boats 30-40+ years to be able to make huge sweeping generalizations about each builder. Somehow they can lump a builder's boat into a single statement in spite of the builder having made 100s of models ranging from 20' to 60'. Heck I couldn't even tell you the real sailing difference between my 2001 boat and the builders 1985 model, or the 2020 model.

You guys are just awesome in experience to have sailed all these models over the years to be willing to lump the builders into a box with enough confidence to write it down on a forum.

[Rumrace]

The “plum bow” is an interesting topic the brand debate is lame. The Blum bow came back like bell bottom pants but it came back in racing.
Power boats in an effort to fly the hull needs a deep reaching bow to raise it. On a sailboat raising the hull evenly to reduce wetting surface is the goal.
The Navy 44 with a 35’ waterline transforms to a long thin waterline on heel. The broader transom works like a trim tab on a powerboat transmitting power rather than letting it roll off. All of the above proved on race track. A racked bow on a sailboat in all tests underperformed a blunt bow. That likely explain why every brand is migrating to the how dare the French style. It’s not fashion. Power boats going blunt harder argument. Raising the bow can end your race. Donzis won every race by staying level. The deep V hull was working at speed, bow rarely came ti play.
“Scow bow” where they put a king size bed in a 34’ if we keep it up is past the point of compromise.
So the 419 409 389 missed the scow bow. Jeanneau Scow Bow still doesn’t have a hangover as pronounce as other brands.
Most of the embellished criticism comes from guys in real old boats making comparisons past 4-5 generations of hull designs. You own a classic and no company in business who wants to stay in business will make one. The folks buying new boats think it’s a silly old boat and are unfamiliar with its character nor care. I think there are a few “Scow bows” which will go down in history as “ awkward”, “ the barge”,”slaps”etc. but overall the entry update makes sense. It’s a formula winning races, tempered.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Bowdrie

Well, maybe.
For sure many of the later IOR designs were miserable creatures, designed to beat the rules, but many of the earlier ones were quite sea kindly/wholesome boats with an easy motion that make good cruisers.
A good example would be the Swan/PJ 43.
The early S&S ones are fine all-around sailors, you could race them and then take the family for a cruise, the later ones by Farr and Holland were much more of a "racing machine".
As the rule developed the boats got more "macabre" as it were.
Such is the nature of racing rules, design features that promote "easy motion sailing" are discarded in favor of anything to beat the rating.
The term "Flat Bottom" is just a euphemism, we all know the bottoms of the modern boats aren't really "flat", it's not a point to belabor.
Captain Q has it right, some boats are "mushers", others are "beaters", going out over the Columbia bar the "mushers" save you from going to the dentist for new fillings.
Some of us, (perhaps most,) are not so enthusiastic about sailing as an athletic endeavor, and certainly most of us don't sail ex-racing boats.

Swans rock! (that's supposed to be a joke)

On the (very off topic) subject of IOR designs, the earliest ones, such as the early Swans, were the boats which gave IOR the reputation for being unruly down wind. These boats had wide and rounded hulls amidships but retained their SSA narrow sterns and short waterlines. Though they were fine sailing boats, as suggested, when pressed hard downwind it is an understatement to say that they had control problems. Imagine trying to make a football roll in a straight line. The term "Broach Coach", which irritates me no end, had some basis in fact.

The later boats had wider sterns and control problems became less of an issue, but by then the boats had no interiors and were less suitable for cruising.

The proof that it's the sides of the bow of boats which do the "slamming" was the string of Round the World racers in the 80's which suffered extensive delamination, not of the flat bottoms but of the flat sides.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by wingssail

The proof that it's the sides of the bow of boats which do the "slamming" was the string of Round the World racers in the 80's which suffered extensive delamination, not of the flat bottoms but of the flat sides.

Thinking about it, the higher the fastest angle of heel on a boat, the more the sides of the bow will be an issue for slamming. The more upright a boat wants to sail, the less you'll be smacking the sides against waves (unless the bow is fairly blunt and has a lot of flare). For flatter surfaces, it's all a matter of the angle of impact.

[wpatch]

So I responded in this thread before summer, was deep in the process of survey and taking possesion of an 04 Hunter 36. We have been bopping around in the chesapeake and baltimore harbor. We have anchored off Dobbins overnight, had many exciting docking adventures, and our share of maintenance fun.

I also went to the recent Annapolis Yacht show...and here is a surprise for you all. I looked at all the boats in our size (Think 35-40), and I may be a fool, but wouldn't trade them for mine. I love some of the features. The modern Jeanneau's are neat topside..the walk up to the bow is really slick. The bigger bene's make great use of the cabin space, and the bathrooms are gorgeous. (Although on my boat I can go #2 and take a shower at the same time which is a time saver).

I also love our princess seats, it's the Admiral's favorite spot on the boat.

Here are two things I would change about my Hunter though.

1) Our gate is huge. Way too big. Combine that with problem #2 and our Rascal is scary for people to get on or off.

2) Rascal has a large freeboard

a) Hard to get on or off, because I am quite ready to back her in regurlarly (Yeh docking is fun)
b) Slow and Neutral = realy fun docking and backing up.

If I can get comfortable backing in....woot.

[Joli]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yeah but you pay a price in greater wetted area and hence lower speed and poorer light air performance and downwind control.

It’s a high price to pay which is why the faster modern boats and their owners don’t want to
Pay it.

You can always add horsepower to a heavier boat.

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by wpatch

the bathrooms are gorgeous.

The operative sentence.
A good example of the devolvement of the seagoing mind.
Sorry, couldn't resist,

[Happ]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Swans rock! (that's supposed to be a joke)

On the (very off topic) subject of IOR designs, the earliest ones, such as the early Swans, were the boats which gave IOR the reputation for being unruly down wind. These boats had wide and rounded hulls amidships but retained their SSA narrow sterns and short waterlines. Though they were fine sailing boats, as suggested, when pressed hard downwind it is an understatement to say that they had control problems. Imagine trying to make a football roll in a straight line. The term "Broach Coach", which irritates me no end, had some basis in fact.

The later boats had wider sterns and control problems became less of an issue, but by then the boats had no interiors and were less suitable for cruising.

The proof that it's the sides of the bow of boats which do the "slamming" was the string of Round the World racers in the 80's which suffered extensive delamination, not of the flat bottoms but of the flat sides.

I appreciate your point of view but having sailed production and custom IOR boats I have to disagree. A flat bottom boat is designed to ride on top of the water. When it comes down there is nothing to separate the water so it slaps the water.
That also means less boat dragging in the water in those days speed was relative.

Quick side not sailer a Swan 43 for a season. When sailed well she could hold her rating and was a real comfortable ride. After racing we would go down below and enjoy a beautiful, comfortable interior.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yeah but you pay a price in greater wetted area and hence lower speed and poorer light air performance and downwind control.

It’s a high price to pay which is why the faster modern boats and their owners don’t want to
Pay it.

Just to consider, for the sake of observation, two hypothetical hull shapes with same displacement and same LWL of say 40 feet-

1) 14 feet waterline beam with beam carried to stern and flat runs in underbody (like a flat panel with some depth to it (isosceles triangle planview)

2) semi-circular barrel shaped with 12 foot waterline beam and tapered ends


#1 has more wetted surface area and skin drag (with less wave and form drag).

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by wpatch

So I responded in this thread before summer, was deep in the process of survey and taking possesion of an 04 Hunter 36. We have been bopping around in the chesapeake and baltimore harbor. We have anchored off Dobbins overnight, had many exciting docking adventures, and our share of maintenance fun.
...

If I can get comfortable backing in....woot.

Maybe look at a different prop? My Hunter has a Campbell Sailor and I swear prop walk in reverse is almost non-existent. But that could just be me.

https://westbynorth.com/campbell-sailer/

[slap]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Just to consider, for the sake of observation, two hypothetical hull shapes with same displacement and same LWL of say 40 feet-

1) 14 feet waterline beam with beam carried to stern and flat runs in underbody (like a flat panel with some depth to it (isosceles triangle planview)

2) semi-circular barrel shaped with 12 foot waterline beam and tapered ends


#1 has more wetted surface area and skin drag (with less wave and form drag).

While #1 has more wetted surface it also has significantly greater form stability so can probably carry more sail to more than make up for the wetted surface increase.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Happ

I appreciate your point of view but having sailed production and custom IOR boats I have to disagree. A flat bottom boat is designed to ride on top of the water. When it comes down there is nothing to separate the water so it slaps the water.
That also means less boat dragging in the water in those days speed was relative.

Quick side not sailer a Swan 43 for a season. When sailed well she could hold her rating and was a real comfortable ride. After racing we would go down below and enjoy a beautiful, comfortable interior.

My bad: I thought as I read that that you were going to say: enjoy a beautiful and comfortable female

First place, there are no flat bottomed boats, least of all old IOR boats (they are all old by this point). IOR boats have deep canoe bodies which is why they don't plane. They have a small area between the front of the keel and the bow knuckle which is flattish and fully immersed. It takes a huge wave to get that part of the boat out of the water so it can "slam" when re-entering. Most likely it happens when they are motoring into a steep and large sized chop. Sailing they will be heeled over and the sides of the bow are doing the pounding.

Second place, no boats sit on top of the water unless it is frozen. Some boats plane on top of the water. They are not IOR boats. But they may slam more going upwind. Still they will be heeled over and presenting flattish topsides to the waves when they come down.

The PJ Swan 43 has no flat bottom. It is very 'V' in the bow.

[boatman61]

Comparing boat hulls is simple.. just compare Mottesiers hard chine steel Joshua to Knox Johnsons Suhali..
Despite setting off nearly 2 months after K-J, Mottesiers hard chine boat would have beaten Suhali had Mottesier not gone all Zen and continued on another 2/3rds of a circimnavigation.
The flat planes contributed to the speed of Joshua and as she heeled and set on the sweet spot of the first chine she would fly..

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Comparing boat hulls is simple.. just compare Mottesiers hard chine steel Joshua to Knox Johnsons Suhali..
Despite setting off nearly 2 months after K-J, Mottesiers hard chine boat would have beaten Suhali had Mottesier not gone all Zen and continued on another 2/3rds of a circimnavigation.
The flat planes contributed to the speed of Joshua and as she heeled and set on the sweet spot of the first chine she would fly..

The hard chines don't seem very prominent in this photo. I guess you're talking about the chines between each steel "plank'?

[Rohan]

Originally Posted by wpatch

1) Our gate is huge. Way too big. Combine that with problem #2 and our Rascal is scary for people to get on or off.

2) Rascal has a large freeboard

a) Hard to get on or off, because I am quite ready to back her in regurlarly (Yeh docking is fun)
b) Slow and Neutral = realy fun docking and backing up.

If I can get comfortable backing in....woot.

I have the same boat. I'm confused why you think the boarding areas is way too big. It's standard size for any boat in that class. And the freeboard isn't unusually high.

The only things I don't like about the H36 are the B&R rig, too much beige, beige, beige color inside, and the curtains really suck.