How big is your boat, part deux

Twister_Ken

Twister_Ken

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 May 2001
Messages
27,584
Location
'ang on a mo, I'll just take some bearings
Visit site
Original thread, somewhere below (or maybe above, later) got me thinking.

Most of my racing was done on a Swan 411. If we could her going upwind at more than 7 knots, we were pleased, 7 and a quarter brought smiles all round. 7 and a half, never achieved, and only rarely seen off the wind except surfing bigguns.

My current boat matches those upwind speeds without effort or constant trimming and tweaking, and often gets to 8 and a bit reaching or running even without a hatful of wind and a coloured sail.

I compared the dimensions. The 411, BTW is an S&S design, so no slouch on that front and we used to be competitive in class one.

A striking difference is the LOA/LWL.

Swan 411 LOA 12.44m. LWL 10.23m, B 3.64
Arcona 340. LOA 10.40m, LWL 9.30, B 3.45.

So over two metres more boat LOA, but less than a metre LWL.

The sail area - overall - shows a huge 'advantage' to the Swan. Main 33 sqm and genoa 72.1 sqm, so 105.1 overall
The Arcona has a much more modern sail plan, big main, small genoa. Main 37.8 sqm, genoa 41 sqm, for 78.8 overall

However in anything over about 15kts apparent upwind, the Swan's number one genoa would come off to be replaced by a number three spitfire jib - sorry don't know the size – so it would lose sail area as soon as the breeze piped up.

The Arcona will carry full sail up to about 22 kts apparent upwind, mainly because the main can be flattened out using mast bend and other bits of string.

Consequently the actual sail area difference would, in many conditions, be rather less than the headline figures.

Weight is the other shocker. Yes, the Swan was built like a brick outhouse. 10.8 tonnes design weight. My Arcona weighs in at less than half that, empty. (OK, I know it's no so big, but it has the same accommodation, minus one berth in the after cabin. FYI, the Arcona 410 - same LOA as the 411, weighs in at 7.8 tonnes, 3 tonnes lighter, and is no stripped-out racer)

Minimum comfortable cruising crew for the Swan was four fit people - that gear was heavy. On the Arcona, 2 people, slightly crumbly.

The Swan was a state of the art cruiser/racer, design date 1977. The Arcona, ditto, design date 2009.

No doubt a modern Swan (if they still make one that small?) would be more or less a match for the equivalent Arcona - and other cruiser/racer builders - current models. It's the progress that I find interesting.

Well done, designers (and builders).
 
That's interesting.

If both boats were parked next to each other 'ready to go' and you had the keys and proper crew for both, for a trip say UK - Carib today, which one would you step aboard?
 
Angele said:
I don't know the Arcona range, but I'm guessing that hull shape has quite a lot to do with that extra speed.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Don't forget the difference the sail design and construction will make. If TK could nab a set of modern cruiser laminates for the Swan and go back to the early 80s you'd be at every top mark first. Let alone what would happen if you put a set of carbon racing sails on!
 
flaming said:
Yes.

Don't forget the difference the sail design and construction will make. If TK could nab a set of modern cruiser laminates for the Swan and go back to the early 80s you'd be at every top mark first. Let alone what would happen if you put a set of carbon racing sails on!
Click to expand...

It's a general pattern - the new Jeanneau 33 we had last year could give ten year old Jeanneau 40s a good run for their money.
 
flaming said:
Yes.

Don't forget the difference the sail design and construction will make. If TK could nab a set of modern cruiser laminates for the Swan and go back to the early 80s you'd be at every top mark first. Let alone what would happen if you put a set of carbon racing sails on!
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the man management of getting a trained team of 8 crew together, every race weekend ,which probably means having a pool of 12-14 to call on... ...No thanks!
 
Stop it Ken ........ Making me jealous. I really really want an Arcona 370 but it's outside the kittie limit.

Agree they a fantastic boats. And like you i reckon a fast cruiser is much more fun than than an AWB or MAB (though it would be a first for a Swan to be included in the latter category)
 
The Swan would have been built to the IOR regs presumably - so she was designed to go as fast as possible and stay within her class or to have as low a rating as possible rather than for absolute speed? The trouble with the IOR was that it discouraged the narrow beam that would have suited the overhangs and made a boat good to windward but also made you carry the beam well forward with a narrow stern so you didn't get the form stability or wide area aft that a boat could easily surf on. It produced some lovely sweet-handling boats though as well as some horrors.
 
That just doesn't sound right to me. I had 6.9 out of my Sabre offwind, and regularly saw just north of 5 upwind on he RTIR, and the log seems pretty accurate looking at the GPS and factoring tide. I'm also not going to say she's quite as quick as an A22 (although the foiling moth gets close...) but surely the Swan is much faster than you report?

Granted I had brand new sails and standing rigging and a clean bottom (and a fin keel) and we were pushing hard with lard on the rail, but I would have expected the Swan to surf in double figures. Your upwind speed sounds possible, but downwind seems well off...
 
jac said:
An Anderson 22 with potato sacks as sails would still win, even if towing the Ark Royal.
Click to expand...

You naughty boy. You've only got yourself to blame when he wakes up :)

But on a serious note, this has been our findings, that modern "big boats" are quicker and much easier to handle than older ones. I mainly sail with SWMBO. We used to have a First 345, and now have a Bavaria 49. The Bav is easier to sail and park shorthanded than the Bene was (it's pretty quick too).
 
Bobc said:
You naughty boy. You've only got yourself to blame when he wakes up :)

But on a serious note, this has been our findings, that modern "big boats" are quicker and much easier to handle than older ones. I mainly sail with SWMBO. We used to have a First 345, and now have a Bavaria 49. The Bav is easier to sail and park shorthanded than the Bene was (it's pretty quick too).
Click to expand...

Up to a point, I think larger boats are easier than small, almost irrespective of age. We've gone from an eighteen month old Jeanneau 33 to a new Beneteau 43 - and the 43 is a lot easier to handle than the 33. In part that is down to technology - things like a bow thruster, electric winches and a bigger engine - but a lot of the difference is simply that everything happens more slowly and the boat is more stable. Mooring the 33 single handed was a difficult job in any tide or wind - I could bring it alongside the pontoon or buoy but as soon as you cut the engine it would start to drift and I had to be very fast off the mark to get from the helm to the mooring line and get hooked onto something. The 43 weighs twice as much - in most conditions you can bring it to a halt, cut the engine and it simply stays still - far more relaxed to handle.

The same is true of handling under sail - ok, the sails on the 43 are bigger and there's a lot more force in the sheets, but the winches are a lot bigger (and electric if you are feeling lazy). But again, everything reacts more slowly - if we got the sail trim wrong on the 33, there could be a period of frantic activity with the boat heeling heavily - on the 43, it just stays upright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top