Liveaboard a Swan.?

[aitchem]

Hi all,
Is anyone living aboard a Swan.?
What do you think.?

I know they aren't totally ideal accomodation wise, but they are true ocean crossing vessels, and absolutely gorgeous looking.

I am looking at ideally an S&S design from the 70's , so no cosy double stateroom at the stern.

thanks

HM

 

[Kilter]

Plenty of people out there, on those, doing that, so why not?

 

[Ariadne]

We've a 1981 vintage Gitana 43, which is based around the Swan 43 hull, same layout etc. 2 adults +2 children on board, plenty of room most of the time. But seems small when tempers fray and the kids get messy /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif. Otherwise its a fine boat.
/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
I believe the the moldings were bought directly by ex employees from Swan, who set up thier own business in SA.

 

[tcm]

Hm, i wouldn't. They might seem big, have excellent passagemaking abilities and certainly look very smart too, BUT in practical terms I think it's going to be very cramped with blimmin white feathers everywhere.

 

[roly_voya]

So many people ask whether more traditional boats are 'big enough' to liveaboard that I thouugh I would chuck in my towpennyworth as to why the are but what to look for. When you compare boats a Dehler 32 is not comparable to a contest 32, a more sensible contrast is with the contest 38.

There is loads of confusion about boat size because these days what is upermost in the mids of the designer and seller is cost, both build cost and berthing costs. Length overall is a poor means of determining a boats size. What counts is the ratio of waterline length to length over deck and volume, usually measured as Thames Tonnage. If you want the formula to calculate its in verious encyclopedias if you do a net search. Thames measure is not exact and tends to underrate modern boats a bit but without doing a full analisis from the lines plan its about the best I have come accross. As I show however waterline length is probably an even better guide

Once you now what volume you want on a boat which for a liveaboard is typically between 20 and 30 tons Thames you then have a chioce.

1 Old style ocean racer with long overhangs and narrow beam. The overhangs are so fine as to have no usable space so you will probably have a boat of 45ftOD x10ft beam and about 32ft waterline. Reletively it will have a huge sail area be spectacular to sail but act like a submarine in a swell. Its also so narrow it will be like living on a canal boat. about 32T thames. Probably 25T displacment with very heavy keel

2 60/70s style classic. Moderate overhangs and beam, deep winglass hull and substatial keel so low freeboard (because the sole is well below the water line). About 38ft, 11ft beam, 32ft waterline about 30T thames. This is the 'classic' go anywhere and look after you blue water boat. The accomodation will seam moderate because the sole will be deep down and quite narrow but she will have stacks of stowage, big deep lockers and space for sails etc in the bow. around 12T displacement depending on construction

3 Modern high volume plum stem and stern (hidden by shugar scoop) say 34ft x15ft beam and 32ft waterline. In fact the thames tonnage is only about 25T but the useable space is the same as freeboard will be higher and there is little space lost in the ends. She will probably point high and surf easily downwind and be brilliant 'round the cans' but will be a poor load carrier, have a very lively motion, wont hove to or run off in bad weather and will nead a heafty crew to handle her. Although the accomodation will look big because of her wide flat sole the furnature will be up against the side of the hull with no stowage behind, ther will be no forepeak stowage (hence the 'anchor locker' on deck) she may have little cockpit stowage of one cavernouse and dangerouse locker instead of one aft cabin. There is also no bilge space so any water gois straight ito your gear. Probably displace 4-5T.

Given that the new cost of a boat is proportional to the displacement, assuming the same build and equipment standards then the first boat will cost five times as much to build and the sixies boat 2-3 times as much as the modern one

Because marina berths are charged by the meter the sixties boat is going to cost abot 15% more and the ocean racer if she also has a bowsprit close to double

But they are all the 'same size' - notice to that the WATERLINE length of each boat is the same

So if you are going to spend lots of time in marinas and only sail in moderate to good weather the modern boat will be cheap and fun. If you want to sail off-shore and anchor in comfort go for the middle one but longer!

If you wanted to go for the old race you would be on the classic boat forum.

 

[Phoenix of Hamble]

What an excellent summary of the difference between boats of different eras... i'll be keeping that one!

 

[milltech]

Likewise, a good post. Mind you using a Swan as a live aboard is a bit like delivering fridges in a Ferrari isn't it?

When is the word "live-aboard" appropriate anyway? It signifies (to me) the kind of gypsy lifestyle where movement is optional and perhaps rare, maybe moving from port to port on a monthly or less basis, if at all. I would not think that someone on the standard round the world cruise would qualify as a live-aboard within my general understanding of the term, though of course they are.

 

[mike_bryon]

When we were looking for a boat to live on we were very tempted by the old style swan 65, we viewed a couple and had offers rejected. Many years ago I sailed a swan 36 a really good boat. For the safety of our young children the only thing we were unsure about was the relatively long drop into the accommodation from the cockpit. Otherwise they would make perfect live aboard boats.

Lots of boats fit the bill. We ended up buying a Southern Ocean Shipyard Ocean 60 from 1979. The accommodation and storage allows a normal family life. At sea we are comfortable. We spend the winter in one place and sail about 4K nm each summer. This compromise allows the children to go to school and the family to live a version of the sailing life.

Best wishes with your plans.

 

[HoratioHB]

Roly, Think you are being a little unkind to new designs. I have not had trouble heaving to and as for shallow bilges getting your gear wet, maybe the way around this is not to have a leaking boat in the first place! I have sailed all of the three types above over many years and now that I am about to buy one for long term living aboard, possibly with some long passages, I have no doubt that the modern design is by far the best compromise for space versus comfort versus cost versus seaworthinesws.

 

[michael_w]

I bought an S&S 40' 1970's Swan with a double handed circumnavigation in mind. I have just sold her after 6 months.

She didn't work for the following reasons:

Deck gear too heavy and old fashioned.

Saloon uncomfortable. Settees too narrow for comfortable lounging. You spend a lot of time at anchor as a liveaboard.

Couldn't sit up in any of the berths to drink your morning tea, let alone any "indoor games" with SWMBO.

Poor companionway, dead easy to fall down in any seaway.

Sure a good looking boat and a joy to sail upwind. A brute in a quartering sea though.

Now looking for a more modern boat.

Beware of rose tinted binoculars.

 

[aitchem]

Thanks for all the useful input.

I might go for a later RonHolland design, rather than the S&S ones.

Hm

 

[Lizzie_B]

My cousin lives aboard his S&S Swan 38 for about 10 months of the year, and has been doing so for at least the last 8 years. He is very happy with it and sees no reason to change.

The late Geoff Pack lived aboard a Rival 32 I believe at one time. How times have changed.