Parker 31 vs ......?

[TimBennet]

For the bigger ones such as the 31 there is still a significant amount of ballast in the hull,

Really? I thought the 31 and its successors had stainless steel fins with a huge lead wing at the bottom and no ballast in the hull.

I would have thought their CofG was way lower than many fin keeled boats. All the lead is six feet below the waterline and that's on a 32 ft boat.

 

[seumask]

Really? I thought the 31 and its successors had stainless steel fins with a huge lead wing at the bottom and no ballast in the hull.

I would have thought their CofG was way lower than many fin keeled boats. All the lead is six feet below the waterline and that's on a 32 ft boat.

I stand corrected just read as such on the Parker seal assoc web site http://www.parkerseal.org.uk/about/parker31.aspx
Thats one of the reasons they have such a good PY number.

 

[mainsail1]

I understood that for many of the origional Seals and early Parkers the "Ballast" was in the ballast plate in the bottom of the hull, and the keel / dagger boards were relativly light made of Fiberglass and raised with a pulley system. For the bigger ones such as the 31 there is still a significant amount of ballast in the hull, however the keel's have been made much heavier but not the same as more conventional yachts that have all the ballast in the keel. I stand to be corrected!

You are correct up to the Parker 275 but the Parker 31 had about 1 tonne right at the bottom of the keel in the wings which made it a great sailing boat.

 

[charles_reed]

I understood that for many of the origional Seals and early Parkers the "Ballast" was in the ballast plate in the bottom of the hull, and the keel / dagger boards were relativly light made of Fiberglass and raised with a pulley system. For the bigger ones such as the 31 there is still a significant amount of ballast in the hull, however the keel's have been made much heavier but not the same as more conventional yachts that have all the ballast in the keel. I stand to be corrected!

Before bursting into print you should ascertain your facts, so as not appear foolish.

I have, since new, the pre-production Parker 31. None of the 31 - 325 had any hull ballast - it was all as a lead wing on the end of a 1.8m lever. Mine has 1250 kg of lead on the very end of the keel - later boats were lightened by reducing the lead in the wing.
The Seal 26- Parker 275 had most of the ballast in the form of a cast iron shoe bonded into the hull bottom. A further 500lbs of lead ballast was incorporated in a dagger board of GRP construction.

There are few boats which can outpoint a 31' with a solent - I sailed all the way from Crete to Thassos, against the meltemi, admittedly using the working jib. in still water one can tack through 65 degrees and maintain a reasonable VMG.

 

[charles_reed]

Really? I thought the 31 and its successors had stainless steel fins with a huge lead wing at the bottom and no ballast in the hull.

I would have thought their CofG was way lower than many fin keeled boats. All the lead is six feet below the waterline and that's on a 32 ft boat.

The fin is of wood/GRP construction with a 100 x 100 box section down the centre, one end attached to the lead sub-keel, the other to a shoe sliding up and down the keel-casing. The wing is a single lead casting, retained by 6 x 18mm studs. On the pre-production prototype the lift was by means of a displacement ram with a pair of 2:1 wire strops, later boats had a direct acting ram.
To obtain a similar CofG with a conventional keel would demand a draft of about 10'.

 

[jwilson]

The Seal 26- Parker 275 had most of the ballast in the form of a cast iron shoe bonded into the hull bottom. A further 500lbs of lead ballast was incorporated in a dagger board of GRP construction.

You are certainly right about the 31 - really good boat, but I really thought the Super Seal 26 and early Parker 27s had virtually no ballast in the daggerboard - more or less just enough to stop it floating up, not 500 lbs.

 

[charles_reed]

You are certainly right about the 31 - really good boat, but I really thought the Super Seal 26 and early Parker 27s had virtually no ballast in the daggerboard - more or less just enough to stop it floating up, not 500 lbs.

The Super Seal, John Baker, had about 250lbs, enough to make sure it went down - by the time the 275 came out, Bill was claiming 500 lbs in the board in the form of a lead shoe.
I was going to have one of the Ron Holland designs but got incarcerated in the heads, which I had to dismantle to escape, at Soton Boatshow. Bill then offered me the pre-production prototype 31 - she was way over her design marks and trailed her stern around like a pregnant duck. Later versions were heavily modified, batteries water-tank, and total ballast.
That was in 1990 and I still have the boat on her 4th mainsail and just over 50K nautical miles. She has an extra 1.2m on the mainmast, which has a 44% greater X section than the original masts, a revised stern (to cure the duck's disease) and spends 6 months a year knocking around the E Med. So far this season she has done 680nm. Mileages are way down on her heyday in Western Approaches, but then I'm very much older as well.

 

[jwilson]

The Super Seal, John Baker, had about 250lbs, enough to make sure it went down - by the time the 275 came out, Bill was claiming 500 lbs in the board in the form of a lead shoe.

Have been told by the owner of a SS26 that he can carry the daggerboard on his own when it is out of the boat, so not 250 lbs of lead in it though there must be some. I have also lifted the board myself on one of the very first Parker 27s - which appeared to me to be no different from a SS26 except for the builders logo on the side saying Parker 27. I think they did though increase the ballast later - certainly the 275 had substantial ballast in the board, along with better gear for lifting it.

All these are lovely boats to sail: when younger and fitter I really wanted one myself, but these days the accommodation on the 26/27/275/285 is too small and awkward for me. I much later nearly bought a Parker 325, but could not agree a price with the owner. Then I got the offer of a deepwater mooring and went for a different boat with a fixed deep fin instead.

 

[bluerm166]

From my manual for a Parker built Seal Mk2 '27' #131 : lift keel weighs 160kgs.,achieved by an 'internal full length steel bar with mahogany fairings' within the grp shell and with bronze shoe.Other Parker 27 manuals state 136 kgs.Having manipulated the keel on the mainsheet tackle suspended from the spinnaker pole I am prepared to believe Mr.Parker's data.

 

[roblpm]

You are certainly right about the 31 - really good boat, but I really thought the Super Seal 26 and early Parker 27s had virtually no ballast in the daggerboard - more or less just enough to stop it floating up, not 500 lbs.

Anyone is welcome to come and winch the keel up and down a few times to test the weight on my 275, 225 turns on the winch!!

The manual says 700 lbs and I have no reason to doubt it.

I agree the 275 is a bit tippy but with judicious sail trim and decent sails I think it can be sailed pretty flat to please the family and for racing it provides a bit of fun!!

 

[mrming]

I used to race on the Super Seal 26 which many years before had won her class in the 1979 AZAB. We pushed her hard in some big wind and never had any issues with stability.

 

[northwind]

The daggerboard on my super seal weighs about 40kgs, I can lift it by hand. The bilge of the boat is filled with pig iron. I describe the boat as a weeble...

 

[mrming]

The daggerboard on my super seal weighs about 40kgs, I can lift it by hand. The bilge of the boat is filled with pig iron. I describe the boat as a weeble...

The bilge on ours was also filled with pig iron. Water had got at it over the years and it didn't smell too hot!

 

[leoniesails]

Thanx - have tried that

 

[Laurie]

As you have owned both how would you compare the sailing abilities of the two? The 31 seems quite light and to have a lot of sail area for its weight. Any comments much appreciated.

Sorry,wrong quote...the below refers to the "Feeling" option.....:encouragement:

The 286 doesn't. Does have a shoal wing keel option though. Engine under the saloon table, fitting a calorifier could be problematic?
Sails well, roomy with a tardis like aft cabin...The 326 though does have a lift keel option, as do the later 30 and 32 variants. Also sail v well.......

 

[Birdseye]

Before bursting into print you should ascertain your facts, so as not appear foolish.

.

Pompous !

 

[charles_reed]

Pompous !

But true!! I could have been a lot less polite.

 

[rgarside]

Before bursting into print you should ascertain your facts, so as not appear foolish.

I have, since new, the pre-production Parker 31. None of the 31 - 325 had any hull ballast - it was all as a lead wing on the end of a 1.8m lever. Mine has 1250 kg of lead on the very end of the keel - later boats were lightened by reducing the lead in the wing.
The Seal 26- Parker 275 had most of the ballast in the form of a cast iron shoe bonded into the hull bottom. A further 500lbs of lead ballast was incorporated in a dagger board of GRP construction.

There are few boats which can outpoint a 31' with a solent - I sailed all the way from Crete to Thassos, against the meltemi, admittedly using the working jib. in still water one can tack through 65 degrees and maintain a reasonable VMG.

Apologies for not noticing this at the time.

To clarify the ascertainable facts relating to Parker 27's and 275's - the 27 has a daggerboard with some added ballast that weighs around 100 kg, the 275 has a cast iron daggerboard weighing about 330kg and less internal ballast than the 27. I think the Seal 26 arrangement is described in earlier posts.

 

[TSB240]

Apologies for not noticing this at the time.

6 years on that must be a record for an apology! ?

 

[Slowboat35]

I've sailed a Parker 285 quite extensively on the E coast and I have to say that after my initial reservtions that such a setup couldn't possibly be optimal I have been totally converted.
It sails like a witch, very close winded, very responsive and very fast on a seagoing passage. We've hit some really horrible weather (esp smashing out of Lowestoft into biig standing waves in a srong easterly) and she handled it beautifully though (inevitably) dramatically but in a way that quickly (thank God!) gave me complete confidence in the boat. Equally we got her badly overpressed downwind once and had to heave-to to double reef and the ensuing drama was mild and shortlived due to the excellent crisp response to the helm and she sat there good as gold while we put the error right, and then tore off again at 7.high kts ...pretty damn fast for a 27ft waterline but easily achieveable on almost any decent sailing day.
The electric lift keel version I know is superb but does require routine preventative maintenance but the performance from that high-aspect foil is astonishing. The ability to reduce draft for shallow entrances (or marinas with cills) is so, so useful, the ability to 'unstick'if you get stuck no less so. I gather some of the larger Parkers had a wing keel and some had hydraulic lift but they'd be just as good if perhaps not quite so extremely shoal draft as the 285.
We regularly left our companions in boats considerably longer for dead. The 285 sails like a big powerful dinghy yet is utterly reliable in any weather at sea. I have seldom has such confidence in a boat's seaworthiness let alone it's seakindliness. It inspires total confidence. She was dry except in the most sporting conditions and the deep cockpit alwats feels very secure.
Interior is just superb quality, really well thought out and beautifully made. Space is well used and utterly practical in layout.

Parker's went bust because they got their cost control all wrong. Their build quality was exemplarly, the materials only the best, the cabinet work and finsihing superb, the layup solid and beautifully done. In fact, they simply overspent on production cost and could not recoup this on sales cost. You quite simply got a fair bit more than the market could bear.

It's a bulletproof, superbly engineered British classic.
The only downside I can think of is the"Lift Keel" decal which makes some other boat owners wag their heads wisely and mutter 'never mind' or some such platitudes. Their tune changes pretty fast when you take their lines at the destination, every time...

I'm a total convert.