Seajet
...
You can't prepare for everything, if there's a log, lightning bolt or errant torpedo / Exocet with ones' name on it, that's your time up chum !
Last edited:
Hunter Medina vs Swift 18 et al
- Thread starter wombat88
- Start date
Praxinoscope
Well-Known Member
Agreed you can’t prepare for everything, strangely enough my old Vauxhaul Astra estate was nicknamed the Vauxhall Exocet by my work colleagues, based upon the knowledge that I pften used to transport numerous cans of cellulose nitrate based cinema film in it.
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
Not sure if I already asked about performance on this thread - or if it justifies mentioning at all - but...
It is often said that the Swift 18 is a cruiser based on the micro 18 racing specification, but that it is not a sporty example.
Meanwhile, the larger Hunter Medina is routinely noted to be a very good sailing machine for its small size.
The Medina is two feet longer and 170 kilos heavier (including 50kg more ballast), so proportionately, a full 25% bigger than the Swift, with 13 inches more waterline length; though she's also eight inches less beamy and strangely, sets smaller upwind sail area.
That suggests that the Medina is more yacht-like, relying upon lean efficiency and sensible sail-plan/displacement, while the Swift is more like a light, beamy, powerfully-rigged, planing hull. I would think the Swift is the less able in rougher water.
Interestingly, the RYA cruiser handicaps show the Swift as slightly but significantly faster than the Medina...presumably in flat seas?
Has anybody sailed both designs, on close enough occasions to compare their performance fairly?
It is often said that the Swift 18 is a cruiser based on the micro 18 racing specification, but that it is not a sporty example.
Meanwhile, the larger Hunter Medina is routinely noted to be a very good sailing machine for its small size.
The Medina is two feet longer and 170 kilos heavier (including 50kg more ballast), so proportionately, a full 25% bigger than the Swift, with 13 inches more waterline length; though she's also eight inches less beamy and strangely, sets smaller upwind sail area.
That suggests that the Medina is more yacht-like, relying upon lean efficiency and sensible sail-plan/displacement, while the Swift is more like a light, beamy, powerfully-rigged, planing hull. I would think the Swift is the less able in rougher water.
Interestingly, the RYA cruiser handicaps show the Swift as slightly but significantly faster than the Medina...presumably in flat seas?
Has anybody sailed both designs, on close enough occasions to compare their performance fairly?
wombat88
Well-Known Member
I understand that during storm Callum the Jaguar 21 that went over stayed afloat whereas the Medina sank. Probably due to the the Jaguar's outer and inner mouldings filled with polywhatsit. The Jag's mast was bent however.
If you search the internet there is a pic of some guys pulling a Jaguar 21 right over (while afloat) in order to do something at the masthead.
I treat our boat like a big dinghy...and it will plane. Good fun and cheap!
If you search the internet there is a pic of some guys pulling a Jaguar 21 right over (while afloat) in order to do something at the masthead.
I treat our boat like a big dinghy...and it will plane. Good fun and cheap!
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
Interestingly (possibly only to me) these three boats' RYA handicaps rate as follows, highest number indicating highest performance:
Swift 18.......0.832
Medina........0.821
Jaguar 21.....0.809
I guess you can't lose, whichever you choose - they're all versatile, fun, tough and pretty cheap.
Swift 18.......0.832
Medina........0.821
Jaguar 21.....0.809
I guess you can't lose, whichever you choose - they're all versatile, fun, tough and pretty cheap.
Last edited:
Seajet
...
If I really HAD to have one of them I'd go for the Medina then instantly beef up the rudder and all backing plates; but for a one-off hard race I'd go for the Swift, with a good crew I think it would knock spots off the Medina ! 
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
I find the Swift's light displacement and compact LOA, part of her appeal...it reminds me of dinghy handiness.
And she has a pivoting plate which I've read can pop free of its winding-mechanism if the keel hits the bottom...unlike the Jaguar and Hunter, whose vertical drop-keels need a lot more navigational forethought. But the Jaguar is almost 500kg heavier than the Swift, so perhaps it doesn't belong in the same group for consideration.
Presumably ground tackle for a Swift can be a lot smaller than for a boat a yard longer and twice her displacement? There's a lot to like about the smaller design, although a cockpit only four feet long must feel easily crowded.
It can't really be much like a dinghy...the Swift's weight is still four times that of a Wayfarer. But the side of me that hasn't the nerve to take my dinghy far, could enjoy days and nights in comfort and safety in the smallest of yachts.
And she has a pivoting plate which I've read can pop free of its winding-mechanism if the keel hits the bottom...unlike the Jaguar and Hunter, whose vertical drop-keels need a lot more navigational forethought. But the Jaguar is almost 500kg heavier than the Swift, so perhaps it doesn't belong in the same group for consideration.
Presumably ground tackle for a Swift can be a lot smaller than for a boat a yard longer and twice her displacement? There's a lot to like about the smaller design, although a cockpit only four feet long must feel easily crowded.
It can't really be much like a dinghy...the Swift's weight is still four times that of a Wayfarer. But the side of me that hasn't the nerve to take my dinghy far, could enjoy days and nights in comfort and safety in the smallest of yachts.
ProDave
Well-Known Member
Have you considered a Leisure 17 if you want a small boat? A good little sea boat that will please a dinghy sailor.
Seajet
...
Dan,
not wanting to start another arms war re anchors, I'd go for the same on both as I have on my A22; a 7.5kg Bruce ( worked well for 40 years inc in gales, no moving bits to injure one as my mum found out the hard way with a CQR on their Centaur ) 30 metres of 16mm nylon warp and 3 metres of 1/4" chain wirelocked to the anchor - all chain would be a crippling weight to carry.
not wanting to start another arms war re anchors, I'd go for the same on both as I have on my A22; a 7.5kg Bruce ( worked well for 40 years inc in gales, no moving bits to injure one as my mum found out the hard way with a CQR on their Centaur ) 30 metres of 16mm nylon warp and 3 metres of 1/4" chain wirelocked to the anchor - all chain would be a crippling weight to carry.
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
I'd always be wary of undersized anchors. But in theory, wouldn't a 700kg hull need smaller ground tackle than a 1,200kg hull?
ProDave, I've seen a few Leisure 17s over the years, they do have charm. But I put them in a (not obvious) niche with the Corribee...
...fairly old designs with tiny cabins. I'd like to say I'm not bothered by the limited accommodation of very small yachts, but having spent an hour looking over a Corribee selling very cheaply, and in spite of my modest cruising ambitions, I concluded that I couldn't survive in that space. Pretty boat, affordable and well-regarded, but not for me...although I've often regretted that decision. :hopeless:
I'll be looking at many more boats before making any decisions.
Re. the Leisure 17, I thought this full restoration from dilapidation in the weeds, made a touching and very encouraging story:
https://www.pbo.co.uk/expert-advice/leisure-17-rescued-from-the-nettles-23326
ProDave, I've seen a few Leisure 17s over the years, they do have charm. But I put them in a (not obvious) niche with the Corribee...
...fairly old designs with tiny cabins. I'd like to say I'm not bothered by the limited accommodation of very small yachts, but having spent an hour looking over a Corribee selling very cheaply, and in spite of my modest cruising ambitions, I concluded that I couldn't survive in that space. Pretty boat, affordable and well-regarded, but not for me...although I've often regretted that decision. :hopeless:
I'll be looking at many more boats before making any decisions.
Re. the Leisure 17, I thought this full restoration from dilapidation in the weeds, made a touching and very encouraging story:
https://www.pbo.co.uk/expert-advice/leisure-17-rescued-from-the-nettles-23326
ProDave
Well-Known Member
Yea I think the L17 is a good little day sailor, but I don't think it is a serious contender as a cruiser.
Seajet
...
I seem to remember a Leisure 17 managed the Atlantic just fine, and they sail very well, but I tend to agree re cabin space, if not singlehanded one probably will be married or in hospital by the end of the trip.
CoVianna
Well-Known Member
I had a Swift 18. Sailed on the Humber and the short chop could stop it in its tracks. Too light to carry much way. They like to be sailed flat so reef early. Outboard in a well is great as is the ability of the keel to kick up. Accommodation is basic and ok for two. In short I loved it as my first proper yacht.
Later I had a Hunter Horizon 21 which I think is the same hull as the Medina. It carried its way much better than the Swift. The short chop slowed it down but didn’t stop it. Didn’t like the outboard on a bracket on the stern, too easy for the prop to come out of the water. Loved the self tacking jib but needed a bigger sail in light airs. Accommodation much better and more useable. Still wouldn’t recommend it for more than two though.
Later I had a Hunter Horizon 21 which I think is the same hull as the Medina. It carried its way much better than the Swift. The short chop slowed it down but didn’t stop it. Didn’t like the outboard on a bracket on the stern, too easy for the prop to come out of the water. Loved the self tacking jib but needed a bigger sail in light airs. Accommodation much better and more useable. Still wouldn’t recommend it for more than two though.
ProDave
Well-Known Member
I would love to know how he got enough provisions in, even just for 1 for that trip. it must have been cosy.I seem to remember a Leisure 17 managed the Atlantic just fine, and they sail very well, but I tend to agree re cabin space, if not singlehanded one probably will be married or in hospital by the end of the trip.
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the descriptions CoVianna, all very believable.
Actually the Horizon 21 seems to be a quarter-tonne heavier than the Medina, with most of that extra weight as ballast, although SailboatData.com also says the bigger Horizon only carries 170sq ft of sail, so it may not be accurate.
I can easily believe that the lightweight Swift's exaggerated beam (7ft 11") presents a form that's easily stopped by chop...
...I guess any beamy hull of less than three-quarters of a tonne, with only 25% of that in the keel, behaves a lot like a big dinghy.
Actually the Horizon 21 seems to be a quarter-tonne heavier than the Medina, with most of that extra weight as ballast, although SailboatData.com also says the bigger Horizon only carries 170sq ft of sail, so it may not be accurate.
I can easily believe that the lightweight Swift's exaggerated beam (7ft 11") presents a form that's easily stopped by chop...
...I guess any beamy hull of less than three-quarters of a tonne, with only 25% of that in the keel, behaves a lot like a big dinghy.
wombat88
Well-Known Member
...and think about the waterline length.
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
I certainly have.
Swift 18 LWL..................16ft 4"
Hunter Medina LWL........17ft 7"
Hunter Horizon 21 LWL..17ft 9"
Assuming we calculate performance potential by the old method of multiplying 1.4 times the square-root of the (static) waterline length, there's only about 400 yards per hour, between the fastest and slowest of these. So I'd not be surprised if real-world sea-state and momentum are more significant factors in determining outright performance ability.
I wonder whether the cruising orientation of the Swift 18 reduces owners' inclination to test her race-breeding?
According to the figures, she's lighter, beamier and carries more sail...as Seajet said, sounds like an exciting ride, downwind at least.
Swift 18 LWL..................16ft 4"
Hunter Medina LWL........17ft 7"
Hunter Horizon 21 LWL..17ft 9"
Assuming we calculate performance potential by the old method of multiplying 1.4 times the square-root of the (static) waterline length, there's only about 400 yards per hour, between the fastest and slowest of these. So I'd not be surprised if real-world sea-state and momentum are more significant factors in determining outright performance ability.
I wonder whether the cruising orientation of the Swift 18 reduces owners' inclination to test her race-breeding?
According to the figures, she's lighter, beamier and carries more sail...as Seajet said, sounds like an exciting ride, downwind at least.
wombat88
Well-Known Member
Whichever way look at it these are small boats with not very much under the water and quite a lot of top hamper above, counteracted by a lump of something. If you are used to the ways of a long keeler they are very different.
IMG_3668 by dralowid, on Flickr
In this pic you can just see that the Jaguar has a flat section that runs from just in front of the keel to the stern, apparently to aid planing but also helps her sit on the beach nicely.
I went through the agony of choice last year. The various designs are basically variations on the same theme so unless stricken by a particular name, condition, equipment, location and finally price become much more important.
IMG_3668 by dralowid, on FlickrIn this pic you can just see that the Jaguar has a flat section that runs from just in front of the keel to the stern, apparently to aid planing but also helps her sit on the beach nicely.
I went through the agony of choice last year. The various designs are basically variations on the same theme so unless stricken by a particular name, condition, equipment, location and finally price become much more important.
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
That's great advice, thanks Wombat.
wombat88
Well-Known Member
...and...some thought should be given to the simplicity and accessibility of the drop keel, its casing and the lifting equipment. You don't want to be digging holes in marina car parks.