MacWester Rowan 22 long keel vs Westerly Cirrus 22 fin keel

[Praxinoscope]

What Tranona says in #17 is right, when I started cruising, (lat 60's) a 22' as an average size boat, 25' was a 'big' boat, anything larger was massive.
The market in the 70's and 80's was full of boats in the 17' - 26' size, then along came the 30' market and gradually boats grew in size, but IMHO there is still a big market for the 22' - 26' range this is where he sailors and club members of the future can still afford to enter, if they are willing to use drying/swinging moorings and avoid the allure marina convenience.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

Fortunately you don’t need any of those. I thought about this sort of comment about 10 years ago when I bought an old 24 footer (GK24 as I’d loved owning one 20 years before). I wondered if the Channel could have changed from the days when a compass, echo sounder and paper charts did the job when crossing shipping lanes day or night without problems.

I did have GPS position on my phone and then lazily used Navionics on my phone too but no VHF of any kind, let alone AIS or chart plotter.

The gadgets are all good things but are in no sense necessary if you have a smart phone.

The OP mentioned the Med. Would you go down The Raz and cross the Bay of Biscay with chart plotter if possible? I can tell you from 2 fog bound crossings of Western Channel that AIS receiver in shipping lane renders it merely frightening not PTDS terrifying. We have 3 smart phones/tablets and they are great for discussing route in pub or cafe but you dont want to use them in storms or even bright sunlight

 

[Praxinoscope]

I would certainly have an AIS receiver, set to about a 5 mile radius, on board and a chart plotter is great, but I don't think essential, I have crossed the Bay of Biscay a few times, both with and without chart plotter, if you are a confident chart user and are happy with your D.R. then fine, but if you are happier with a chart plotter on board go down that route.
Years ago we sailed around the Channel Islands in our 22' and popped into Lezardrieux using only D.R and RDF. with no problem.
I still use D.R. and have a good selection of charts for my area of sailing, but have given in on the chart plotter, which I use more for checking my chart work rather than the primary navigation tool.

 

[RupertW]

The OP mentioned the Med. Would you go down The Raz and cross the Bay of Biscay with chart plotter if possible? I can tell you from 2 fog bound crossings of Western Channel that AIS receiver in shipping lane renders it merely frightening not PTDS terrifying. We have 3 smart phones/tablets and they are great for discussing route in pub or cafe but you dont want to use them in storms or even bright sunlight

Not only would I but I have, and in the last few years done busy shipping lanes like Straits of Messina and Gibralter and tricky Moroccan Atlantic coast harbours like Rabat. All with a tablet on the chart table as that to me is the right place for easy navigation compared to plotting running fixes on paper charts. Cockpit is for compass and eyeball for me, but each to their own as long as you don’t consider cockpit gadgets as essential. Lots of modern things I wouldn’t do without on boat - e.g. ice maker.

Fog is a big deal which you don’t much encounter after Brittany and AIS is nice I’m sure but given the number of boats and small ships not broadcasting on AIS once you go a bit South then if I wanted reassurance in fog I would go for Radar. But as said I don’t really encounter fog - once in 10 years between a busy stretch of Croatian islands.

 

[Tranona]

What Tranona says in #17 is right, when I started cruising, (lat 60's) a 22' as an average size boat, 25' was a 'big' boat, anything larger was massive.
The market in the 70's and 80's was full of boats in the 17' - 26' size, then along came the 30' market and gradually boats grew in size, but IMHO there is still a big market for the 22' - 26' range this is where he sailors and club members of the future can still afford to enter, if they are willing to use drying/swinging moorings and avoid the allure marina convenience.

That is the problem with youth today. The world was very different 50 years ago and we worked with what we had. I remember my first proper sail was in 1973 on a Sabre 27 that my mate's dad had built along with 2 others. They were senior engineers on the natural gas pipeline programme and all heading for retirement. It was one of the poshest boats on the Waldringfield moorings. Took us safely across the Thames estuary and even across the North Sea to Holland.

I still have my logs and plots of crossings from Poole to Cherbourg and even better the original owners accounts of Devon to Ireland and across to St Malo, through the canal and back round Finisterre in the 60s with just flickering Seafarer depth, compass and Walker log.

Now, of course I have all the goodies, but really only use a fraction of their capability. You just need a good plan, know where you are (and are not) and if in areas of heavy traffic a means of identifying where other ships are.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

The primary advantage of a plotter is that it can be mounted in or visible from the helm. No getting out paper charts in pouring raing and howling wind. Single or short handed that is great benefit. The only time I have ever had a comfy sit at chart table on passage was doing my Coastal Skipper, where there were 5 other doing the sailing while I brooded on the contour lines

Long term it means that paper charts can be large area ones as harbour detail can rely on plotter or even mobile at a pinch. That saves space and cost.

Just to get to Morbihan we have 6 charts thus £150 for the basics, but if we need to divert to N Brittany or to go to St Nazaire I would be content with plotter and cautious approaches in fair weather, rather than buy another £400 of charts just in case but I may never use

 

[RupertW]

The primary advantage of a plotter is that it can be mounted in or visible from the helm. No getting out paper charts in pouring raing and howling wind. Single or short handed that is great benefit. The only time I have ever had a comfy sit at chart table on passage was doing my Coastal Skipper, where there were 5 other doing the sailing while I brooded on the contour lines

Long term it means that paper charts can be large area ones as harbour detail can rely on plotter or even mobile at a pinch. That saves space and cost.

Just to get to Morbihan we have 6 charts thus £150 for the basics, but if we need to divert to N Brittany or to go to St Nazaire I would be content with plotter and cautious approaches in fair weather, rather than buy another £400 of charts just in case but I may never use

That to me has always been the primary disadvantage of plotters especially those with AIS when I have sailed on boats with them. People seem to lose a sense of where they are by looking around them - but again if it makes people happy then fine but it’s very rare even singlehanded that you are so lost you need a chartplotter visible rather than popping your head down the hatch to have a look - new and unfamiliar harbours are the exception but there I just take a picture of the pilot chart or close up detail on my phone and use that for reference if really needed.

It’s a nice to have with disadvantages as well as benefits but people say the same about the gadgets I am very glad to have.

 

[DangerousPirate]

I will get a chartplotter either way. I think the rowan is more stable at sea and rolls less, if I got that right

But Im still not sure about performance. I dint need a boat to race but if its significantly slower its going to make longer trips more difficult

 

[oldmanofthehills]

That to me has always been the primary disadvantage of plotters especially those with AIS when I have sailed on boats with them. People seem to lose a sense of where they are by looking around them - but again if it makes people happy then fine but it’s very rare even singlehanded that you are so lost you need a chartplotter visible rather than popping your head down the hatch to have a look - new and unfamiliar harbours are the exception but there I just take a picture of the pilot chart or close up detail on my phone and use that for reference if really needed.

It’s a nice to have with disadvantages as well as benefits but people say the same about the gadgets I am very glad to have.

You do all that in a storm or at night?

In the choppy rolling seas of the upper Bristol channel only a fool would leave the tiller or wheel while threading the sandbanks in poor visibility. Some of the creeks, harbours and holing up places would simply be unsound and need avoiding in such conditions.

When the 14m tide comes up and the waters are suddenly 500m wide instead of 20m and you cant see the channel markers for the channel due to fog but you can deduce that there must be land and fences under much of what you can see, then a chart plotter is your man. (Uphill, strangers to avoid at night or in poor visibility - but our mooring.)

 

[RupertW]

You do all that in a storm or at night?

In the choppy rolling seas of the upper Bristol channel only a fool would leave the tiller or wheel while threading the sandbanks in poor visibility. Some of the creeks, harbours and holing up places would simply be unsound and need avoiding in such conditions.

When the 14m tide comes up and the waters are suddenly 500m wide instead of 20m and you cant see the channel markers for the channel due to fog but you can deduce that there must be land and fences under much of what you can see, then a chart plotter is your man. (Uphill, strangers to avoid at night or in poor visibility - but our mooring.)

Plenty of rough weather and hundreds of nights doesn’t need close navigation by chartplotter if you have sea room. I sail by tillerpilot or autopilot almost from leaving a berth.

But when it comes to foggy muddy close navigation as you describe I’ve only sailed on the UK East coast not the Bristol Channel so sailing by chart and depth sounder and marks might just work far better there than in the Bristol Channel. As banks shift I find watching the water patterns and the depth changes far more helpful than precise chartplotter positions that may reflect deeper water that isn’t deep any more.

Nothing in what I say is trying to imply they aren’t really useful for loads of people. I only ever comment when somebody says they are necessary for a cross-channel or other sea passage as they clearly are not.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

Plenty of rough weather and hundreds of nights doesn’t need close navigation by chartplotter if you have sea room. I sail by tillerpilot or autopilot almost from leaving a berth.

But when it comes to foggy muddy close navigation as you describe I’ve only sailed on the UK East coast not the Bristol Channel so sailing by chart and depth sounder and marks might just work far better there than in the Bristol Channel. As banks shift I find watching the water patterns and the depth changes far more helpful than precise chartplotter positions that may reflect deeper water that isn’t deep any more.

Nothing in what I say is trying to imply they aren’t really useful for loads of people. I only ever comment when somebody says they are necessary for a cross-channel or other sea passage as they clearly are not.

I have done it for many years without, but on reflection I would not want to expose my dear navigator to some of the risks we then accepted. She changes into Navigator mode readily and wants charts of where we are going, but that is for passge planning. The problem is never deep waters, its the dry or drying bits

 

[William_H]

This post and comments shows me just how different my experiences are to many of posters. I have never sailed in fog or really bad weather. Never needed AIS or chart plotter.
Back to OP question we have had one long keel boat (Top Hat 25) in our racing fleet. Just so embarrassingly slow especially up wind that owner got rid of it for a fin keel.
We have never had a bilge keel or similar in our club but I understand they are also often poor up wind. So fin keel is far a better sailer.
However there are other factors that may influence the decision. A bilge keel boat will sit happily on drying sands. A fin keel or long keel will fall over without stabilising legs . A fin keel on the hard may have problems with fore and aft stability. They often have a fin that sweeps backwards to bring bottom of keel near to balance point.
OTOH a fin keel or long keel can if you have a light enough boat and enough crew, be heeled over to unstick if you happen to hit the mud. ol'will

 

[Praxinoscope]

#32 have a look on one of the free AIS sites at the amount of traffic in the English Channel, easpecially around the Southampton area and the Dover area, this is why AIS is felt to be an essential, in other areas of the U.K., for instance Cardigan Bay where I sail the traffic is so light AIS is more of just another tech' device.
I don't know the general weather conditions in West Australia, but fog can almost come fro nowhere in the waters around the U.K., so most U.K. sailors will at some point end up in a limited visibility situation.
Bilge keelers vary considerably in their windward performance, agreed they lose a bit of close to the wind ability in comparison to single keelers, but this is often over emphasised, the Westerly Fulmar (not my favourite boat) for instance has very good windward performance, and the advantages of bilge keels in areas that have extensive tidal ranges with numerous drying harbours, have made them a popular choice.

 

[DangerousPirate]

Yeah, but thats the thing: Im a cruiser not a racer anyways. I want a comfortable boat to get me from a to b (to c to d .... ). And for upwind capabilities I talked to someone I know, and that person told me I could install an improvised forestay and slap a hank on jib on it to fly more cotton. He called it a slutter.

What do you think? Should I buy the macwester and install something like that?

 

[oldmanofthehills]

Yeah, but thats the thing: Im a cruiser not a racer anyways. I want a comfortable boat to get me from a to b (to c to d .... ). And for upwind capabilities I talked to someone I know, and that person told me I could install an improvised forestay and slap a hank on jib on it to fly more cotton. He called it a slutter.

What do you think? Should I buy the macwester and install something like that?

I had fitted a bowsprit to my Macwester 26 as I said earlier, but now I have fitted 1 metre bowsprit to my LM27 to not only deal with weather helm but also increase sail area. The sail is what would be 150% if stay was in old position and it does greatly improve both windward and downwind performance. So anything that increases sail area is good.

However a note of caution: flying a large genoa in strongwinds needs the mainsail up unless downwind, to balance the side load or it can flex the top part of the mast and snap it. Or reef that genoa in a blow.

The problem with an additional sail ie quasi cutter rig, is that the separation needs to be good or turbulence will impair windward performance so gains might be only on broad reach. I know because I tried it on last 2 boats. However its fairly simple as one just needs a dynema inner stay, but will work better if bowsprit added to improve separation.

See this intersting article
CRUISING SAILBOAT RIGS: Converting a Sloop to a Slutter - Wave Train

 

[Praxinoscope]

I think on balance I would probably go for the Macwester, others will say go for the Westerley but choosing a boat is such a personal thing, you are the only one that can make the real choice, it's down to which one really inspires you.

 

[Laminar Flow]

Yeah, but thats the thing: Im a cruiser not a racer anyways. I want a comfortable boat to get me from a to b (to c to d .... ). And for upwind capabilities I talked to someone I know, and that person told me I could install an improvised forestay and slap a hank on jib on it to fly more cotton. He called it a slutter.

What do you think? Should I buy the macwester and install something like that?

If you look at the numbers available, you will find that the Mac is a considerably heavier boat to the Westerly. L/D 330 for the Mac versus 221 for the Westerly. At the same time, the Cirrus has a Ballast/Disp. ratio of 45% whereas The Rowan has one of 34%. I have not been able to find SA for the Rowan to calculate SA/Disp for the Mac, but the SA/Disp ratio for the Cirrus is a decent 17. The Rowan, as some have already suspected, will be comparatively underpowered, especially in light air.
This tells us that the Cirrus will be in all likelihood the better performer and the stiffer boat. In contrast to this the Rowan probably has a kinder motion in a seaway, as far as that can be called kind(er) in a 22' and a gentler roll. That said, neither will much exceed their traditional hull speed and the average speed will be about 4kts.

One last point: as you are interested in cruising, The Cirrus with it's much lighter displacement length ratio will have a much flatter run. While this will, theoretically, allow her to reach higher speeds, it will also severely restrict her load carrying ability. For a small cruising vessel this is a distinct disadvantage.

According to my research and experience in this matter, most weatherhelm issues are caused by poor rudder shape or lack of size or other design features that cause turbulence (coarse deadwood, large props, shaft struts etc.) and thus impact steering efficiency or ability. While sailplan and sail shape can have an impact, the addition of a bowsprit is much more likely disguising an issue in the underwater department. On the other hand, the increased SA on an inherently underigged boat can be a welcome addition, if it can stand up to it.

For what it's worth: it could be argued that the Rowan is the prettier boat.

 

[Fanny Haddock]

I have not been able to find SA for the Rowan to calculate SA/Disp for the Mac, but ...

Is this is, Sail: 225ft2 20.9m2.

Is it possible to retrofit the bilge plates to a Rowan?

Go for the Rowan & always carry an extra 3 days water & snacks with you.

 

[DangerousPirate]

Thank you for your answers. I decided against the Rowan now and try to save up a little more to buy a 25ft-30ft boat instead of fitting out the cirrus.

I hope it may help in the future if someone is comparing these two boats again. (and uses the search function. =)

 

[Laminar Flow]

Is this is, Sail: 225ft2 20.9m2.

Is it possible to retrofit the bilge plates to a Rowan?

Go for the Rowan & always carry an extra 3 days water & snacks with you.

Thank you for the link.
Using the data from your site, and it should be noted that the displacement quoted is over a thousand pounds heavier than on Sailboatdata at 5080lbs vs 4040lbs, the SA/Disp ratio for the Rowan would be 12.61 which would put her in the Motorsailer (sub 13) category. Using the lower displacement from Sailboatdata it would be 14.57 - still not brilliant.

It is quite likely that the displacement for the Cirrus, as quoted in Sailboatdata, is also rubbish; as usual I'm afraid. I have come to understand that. unless clearly stated what weight one is looking at, i.e. dead weight, half load or full load, design weight, which again is different from actual build weight , any figures posted are unreliable (I'm trying to be polite here).

I'm quite sure that one could retrofit bilge plates to a Rowan. The question is why? Firstly, it is not just a matter of bolting them on. They need to be of the correct size and precisely in the right position and, unless you have considerable design experience or are copying an existing yard-built model, that may not be a good thing. There will have to be some internal structure to take the loads. It adds to the wetted area and overall resistance, which the poor thing doesn't need. The increase in righting moment will make her roll jerkier and increase rigging loads. With the long keel and a relative shallow draft, I would suggest that legs would be quite suitable for taking the ground and without a performance penalty.