Buoyancy in the stern!

[Mike Bryon]

Was a former member when family sailing in the Med and Atlantic. I’m dreaming of ocean again.

Want to ask if a 1970s Swan 38’s fine stern is unacceptably high risk of being pooped? Yes keep moving, washboards in and watch clipped on but is the Swan at too high a risk than say a Sigma 362 or Oyster heritage 37?

Advice very welcome.

 

[mjcoon]

What, compared with those modern yachts with the widest beam taken right to the transom, which is completely open? ;-)

 

[KevinV]

Was a former member when family sailing in the Med and Atlantic. I’m dreaming of ocean again.

Want to ask if a 1970s Swan 38’s fine stern is unacceptably high risk of being pooped? Yes keep moving, washboards in and watch clipped on but is the Swan at too high a risk than say a Sigma 362 or Oyster heritage 37?

Advice very welcome.

The youngest of those Swans have survived over 40 years - I'm not sure what makes you think their demise is imminent?

 

[michael_w]

The washboard on a Swan 38 is about 100m high. Bugger all stowage and the 'aft cabin' is more like a tomb.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

All boats are at risk of taking green water over the stern. Buoyancy is less of a factor than wave shape and steepness; it is breaking waves that are likely to "poop", or the vessel broaching on a steep wave and the bow digging in and the stern being pushed round by the wave.

To minimise that risk deployment of a drogue is a better solution than relying on buoyancy. Jordan Sea drogues are favoured by many, the Seabrake Drogue is also one that appears to work well.

I don't think a 1970s Swan 38’s fine stern is presents a high risk of being pooped compared to most other vessels, in my opinion.

 

[Minerva]

What, compared with those modern yachts with the widest beam taken right to the transom, which is completely open? ;-)

Completely open transom = instant draining if pooped

 

[doug748]

Completely open transom = instant draining if pooped

Right into the saloon.


It was a joke. put the washboards in, it was just a joke, it's Christmas.

.

 

[Bajansailor]

I vaguely seem to remember that you used to have an Ocean 60 schooner (or am I getting my Mike Bryons confused?) ?

Want to ask if a 1970s Swan 38’s fine stern is unacceptably high risk of being pooped? Yes keep moving, washboards in and watch clipped on but is the Swan at too high a risk than say a Sigma 362 or Oyster heritage 37?

If I had to choose out of the three yachts above, I would go for a Heritage 37 - and I am sure that @michael_w would agree, as I think he used to have one.

Re the post by @RunAgroundHard I would agree in that I think it comes down more to good seamanship than transom shape re getting pooped (or not).
Colin Archers (used to be) regarded as the ultimate in seaworthiness, and they probably have less reserve buoyancy in the stern (being double enders) than even an IOR Swan 38.

And that tomb of an aft cabin of the Swan 38 is not going to be much fun to sleep in when you are in tropical latitudes.

Here is a copy of a catalogue that I have for the Heritage 37.

 

[14K478]

Was a former member when family sailing in the Med and Atlantic. I’m dreaming of ocean again.

Want to ask if a 1970s Swan 38’s fine stern is unacceptably high risk of being pooped? Yes keep moving, washboards in and watch clipped on but is the Swan at too high a risk than say a Sigma 362 or Oyster heritage 37?

Advice very welcome.

Gosh, - this was a hot topic in the correspondence pages of the "Yachting Monthly" in the 1920s!

 

[michael_w]

Reading the blurb, only 2 pilot house versions of the Heritage were built and I've never heard of one with a lift keel. Otherwise they are a fine cruising boat for a couple if a bit ponderous by today's standards. Well built with only one or two weaknesses. I took mine on a 2 year Atlantic circuit.

 

[14K478]

I got pooped in this, once.
It was not the boat’s fault; it was entirely mine.

Filled the tiny self draining footwell, but she doesn’t have washboards- you step up and over the aft coachroof coaming. About a pint got past the closed companion hatch.

I was clipped on on a short tether and I got religious about that!

 

[Tranona]

Gosh, - this was a hot topic in the correspondence pages of the "Yachting Monthly" in the 1920s!

Replaced (here at least) by discussions on other such unlikely events as "will my keel fall off" or 2will windows in the hull fail and sink the boat" Possible but unlikely.

 

[Mike Bryon]

Thanks guys

All three have aft cabins/quarter berths that I would imagine are uncomfortable in topics. In those climates would prob sleep in saloon. Swan’s is very constricted that for sure. Viewed a Heritage 37 and found quarter berth also tight. Tried to love the Oyster but just couldn’t enough to make an offer.

Every boat has its achillies heal(s). Swan has a steel girder that the keel stepped masts sits on. These are getting on for 50 years old and suffer corrosion from sea water (coming down the mast). Replacement is mad expensive. Many have teak decks that need replacing or removing.

Most trade route sailing is downwind and in heavy weather a narrow sterned boat risks being pooped more than a buoyant sterned yacht. At least that what Warwick Clay the New Zeeland pilot book author writes. Made me think that the swan’s is possibly too narrow at the stern? Think this might be another Achillies heal. But the swan is seriously beautiful.

 

[onesea]

Is buoyancy in the stern just more likely to lift the stern and bury the bow?

I don’t think anyone has designed the best shape boat to survive a storm.

 

[14K478]

Is buoyancy in the stern just more likely to lift the stern and bury the bow?

I don’t think anyone has designed the best shape boat to survive a storm.

I think it has been pretty much axiomatic for a hundred years and more that the volumes out of the water at each end should more or less match, but some people seem to think that wedge shaped hulls are wonderful because they permit high speed downwind.

Really, there are no new hull forms, there are just new materials and fresh suckers.

 

[SaltyC]

At the risk of thread drift. Many 70's and 80's Swans are doing well in the OGR - OK 50 plus feet, but they do look.....Gorgeous!

 

[johnalison]

I have no experience of ocean sailing but my impression is that poopability depends on the yacht design and perhaps the sailor rather than size and degree of rear protection. A long time ago we sailed in company with a centre cockpit Moody 33 of the Primrose era in our small 26’ Mystere with next to no freeboard. We went downwind in the tail end of a gale from Ostend with what appeared to be giant waves to us at the time. We didn’t ship a drop of water but the Moody cockpit got regularly dowsed.

 

[Minerva]

I got pooped in this, once.View attachment 169371
It was not the boat’s fault; it was entirely mine.

Filled the tiny self draining footwell, but she doesn’t have washboards- you step up and over the aft coachroof coaming. About a pint got past the closed companion hatch.

I was clipped on on a short tether and I got religious about that!

Well that certainly fulfils the “row away factor” criteria! What is she?

 

[sarabande]

I am certain, on the basis of empirical experience, that a modern, wide stern lifts more quickly than, say, an IOR "pinched" stern.

There's also a sense of "obvious, innit ?" that a wide, open stern will be an easier target for a following and breaking wave but I am also conscious of the raging certainties of tenets of historical yacht design, such as "cod's head and mackerel tail" from a couple of generations ago which are now proven to be without good scientific foundation.

So many degrees of design freedom !

 

[mjcoon]

Completely open transom = instant draining if pooped

And you could always have foot-straps fitted to the cockpit to help keep your footing with the flowing water, like a paddle-board...

My Enterprise sailing dinghy, like most, had transom flaps fitted the right way round to resist water flowing in but let it flow out! Clever, eh?