|
|
16-04-2018, 06:48
|
#1
|
cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2017
Boat: Retired from CF
Posts: 13,317
|
Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
My priorities, generally getting formulated and discussed here http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ts-193354.html
This thread is specifically for comparing these two boats. To discuss my needs **in general**, please post to that thread, ideally after at least scanning the earlier pages.
My most important priority is ability to upfit for offshore passages. I'm not planning to circumnavigate, but want a boat with good structural integrity, capable of equipping for that usage maybe one day. Seakindly motion, stability when the sea state gets rough are most critical.
Being able to easily drop the mast alone will also be important.
Comfort & headroom, ability to carry liveaboard supplies & gear is next.
_____
The Columbia 29s are near the top of my preference list, lots of kudos from Don and Newhaul.
Recently a Columbia 28 has appeared on CL near me, Hull# 168, built in 1968, nearly free.
https://nh.craigslist.org/boa/d/colu...561954621.html
I'm so far from ready to begin to think about even considering actually shopping, it's just not funny, but I might just go have a look, it's maybe a 4 hour drive.
Fin keels & spade rudders, I've heard no good compared to full keel / skeg hung? I had previously posted wrt the Columbia 26, where it turned out directional stability was an issue. http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...d.php?t=199993
I assume even though the same 8'6" beam, only 1' shorter, similar interior space, maybe less headroom than the what, 6'3" of the Defender variant?
I would get a surveyor if actually serious, but suggestions on what to look for, how to approach the seller would be appreciated, I'm a complete noob in that arena.
|
|
|
16-04-2018, 07:24
|
#2
|
Senior Cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 30,561
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
I would not fret over much about ability re dropping the mast overmuch.. this is easily achieved with any deck stepped mast by getting a tabernacle designed/made to fit your boat.. with the size of boat your contemplating this will enable you to raise and lower the mast safely and easily with just you and one other..
Once you get the hang of it it should be possible solo with prep.
__________________
It was a dark and stormy night and the captain of the ship said.. "Hey Jim, spin us a yarn." and the yarn began like this.. "It was a dark and stormy night.."
|
|
|
16-04-2018, 10:54
|
#3
|
cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2017
Boat: Retired from CF
Posts: 13,317
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
Great to hear, it would be great to find that ability already in place, but that appears rare.
Other recent threads implied only certain designs could be so retrofitted, or doing so would cost a lot of money.
|
|
|
16-04-2018, 11:25
|
#4
|
Senior Cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 30,561
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
Quote:
Originally Posted by john61ct
Great to hear, it would be great to find that ability already in place, but that appears rare.
Other recent threads implied only certain designs could be so retrofitted, or doing so would cost a lot of money.
|
Do not see why not.. all it is is a mast base with 18" side cheeks and a backstop..
__________________
It was a dark and stormy night and the captain of the ship said.. "Hey Jim, spin us a yarn." and the yarn began like this.. "It was a dark and stormy night.."
|
|
|
16-04-2018, 22:27
|
#5
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Channel Islands, CA
Boat: 1962 Columbia 29 MK 1 #37
Posts: 14,262
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
I'm only lukewarm on the Columbia 28 for a couple reasons. First the keel bolts by now need to be replaced. You may recall a recent thread about one that was separated from its keel after a hard grounding. Second, the prop behind the rudder makes maneuvering in close quarters with the engine more difficult since you lose the advantage of having the blast against the rudder kick the stern around. And though I have not heard of any trouble with the spade rudders, I don't prefer them for cruising, but that's just me. I'd catch every lobster pot in town with one in my area probably too. However, if the keel and bolts are in really good shape then I'd certainly consider it worth a look.
Ok edit,
That one looks nice, and looks to be well cared for. I see there is some fairing on the keel/stub joint.... hmmmm.... It has been in fresh water I presume all its life, which is a plus, but I'd still like to really check those bolts.
__________________
DL
Pythagoras
1962 Columbia 29 MKI #37
|
|
|
17-04-2018, 08:31
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Location: St-Barthelemy Island, French West Indies
Boat: Ericson 34
Posts: 339
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
Quote:
Originally Posted by john61ct
My priorities, generally getting formulated and discussed here http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ts-193354.html...........Fin keels & spade rudders, I've heard no good compared to full keel / skeg hung? I had previously posted wrt the Columbia 26, where it turned out directional stability was an issue. [url]http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199993[/url....
|
Hi: The problem of directional stability with fin keel & spade rudder can be solved in a very efficient way: Get a self steering such as an Hydrovane which acts as a completely independant rudder. You give the main rudder a little angle to balance the boat & lock it in that position; the Hydrovane does all the steering. Its smaller but it's way out with a long lever arm. Picture was taken alf way, during my single handed passage from Beaufort NC to St Martin, French West Indies. New Hydrovane costs an arm & a leg ($6000+) but I found a second hand one in Beaufort NC for $2000. Cheers.
|
|
|
17-04-2018, 08:40
|
#7
|
cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2017
Boat: Retired from CF
Posts: 13,317
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
Super feedback Don, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don C L
That one looks nice, and looks to be well cared for. I see there is some fairing on the keel/stub joint.... hmmmm.... It has been in fresh water I presume all its life, which is a plus, but I'd still like to really check those bolts.
|
Yes apparently the original*keel bolts*were regular*steel*and rust whenever the owner tolerates a wet bilge
If doing a direct inspection, would replacing with new stainless steel hardware*be a **lot** more work?
I assume that's a job for paid professionals in either case?
|
|
|
17-04-2018, 08:48
|
#8
|
cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2017
Boat: Retired from CF
Posts: 13,317
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALAIN97133
Hi: The problem of directional stability with fin keel & spade rudder can be solved in a very efficient way: Get a self steering such as an Hydrovane which acts as a completely independant rudder.
|
Thanks Alain, I'm a complete noob wrt auto pilots, so that's interesting.
But it seems there is such a glut of great classic plastic in this size range available for peanuts, and I have plenty of time to window-shop, so
I think I'm best off just narrowing my list to boats that are superbly well designed for offshore single-handing in the first place.
Then, when I can afford to begin the bluewater upfitting process, I'm also free to choose the best type of self-steering for my needs. Which I suspect will be whatever's the most simple and bulletproof.
|
|
|
17-04-2018, 22:13
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Morro Bay, CA
Boat: Herreshoff 28 modified ketch- wood
Posts: 379
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
From the waterline up the 28 looks almost identical to my 29 mark 2. But the similarities stop there. Keep looking for a 29. I’ll be selling mine soon but I hope to sell her locally, with the slip.
|
|
|
19-04-2018, 01:31
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Alameda
Boat: Flicka
Posts: 92
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
I recall there were several keel configuration of c28. One I believe is bolted on lead. Decent but doesn't compare to the c29 mk1, a real Sparkman Stevens design. They sail sweetly. The interior layout, bulkheads, tankage, rigging plan were from SS. The mk2 and defender 29, I believe we're Columbia's take on the original plans. Only hull is identical. Mk2s and defenders ive seen had floor rot issues. D29s had a strange list to the side, slightly cockeyed. I speculated because of tankage or just interior weight not distributed evenly. I noticed they all had deck compression/chainplate issues. C28 & C29 are both capable offshore designs. A friend years ago converted a C28 to a junk rugged schooner. Good ole plastic classics.
|
|
|
19-04-2018, 06:53
|
#11
|
cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2017
Boat: Retired from CF
Posts: 13,317
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatnerd
Mk2s and defenders ive seen had floor rot issues.
|
Do you mean interior, cabin sole, maybe bilge issue?
So far all C28 seem to be bolt-on keel, not a deal-breaker but.
I would think any list in a Defender can be corrected by loading to counterbalance, that is if it's even an issue.
|
|
|
20-04-2018, 14:02
|
#12
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Channel Islands, CA
Boat: 1962 Columbia 29 MK 1 #37
Posts: 14,262
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
In the dinette version it is easy to load one side heavier, so yes, put the batteries on the other side or vice versa. The boat is tender so any imbalance will probably show at the dock but unless it is major it won’t affect performance much. The dinette version also has the bulkhead and post under the mast and that would be the place to be sure there is no rot at the base.
|
|
|
20-04-2018, 14:47
|
#13
|
Senior Cruiser
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 12,113
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
Personally I would rather the 29 over the 28 for one simple reason " keel bolts" the 29 is a fully encapsulated ballast in the keel.
If you want it you can have my islander bahama 24 just come get it and transfer the title.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
|
|
|
20-04-2018, 14:50
|
#14
|
Senior Cruiser
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 12,113
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatnerd
I recall there were several keel configuration of c28. One I believe is bolted on lead. Decent but doesn't compare to the c29 mk1, a real Sparkman Stevens design. They sail sweetly. The interior layout, bulkheads, tankage, rigging plan were from SS. The mk2 and defender 29, I believe we're Columbia's take on the original plans. Only hull is identical. Mk2s and defenders ive seen had floor rot issues. D29s had a strange list to the side, slightly cockeyed. I speculated because of tankage or just interior weight not distributed evenly. I noticed they all had deck compression/chainplate issues. C28 & C29 are both capable offshore designs. A friend years ago converted a C28 to a junk rugged schooner. Good ole plastic classics.
|
the " strange" list to starboard is due to the galley configuration in the defenders. The fuel and water are centerline . (Gotta love solid mahogany cabinetry)
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
|
|
|
03-10-2018, 09:11
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Conshohocken, PA
Boat: Columbia 29 & Saber
Posts: 23
|
Re: Columbia 28 as opposed to 29'
I realize I'm a little late to this post, but as I have owned both boats in question I'll give you my two cents.
Sailing performance on both are good but in different ways. The C28 is better in light winds and has much more tiller response than the C29. My C28 had an outboard well as opposed to the in-board on my C29. This and the rudder size, for me, made the C28 easier to control in tight spots. The C29 seems to handle better in > 12 kts of wind, it is very well balanced. With the C28 I felt the need to keep a closer eye on things even with the main reefed.
I am 6'2" and below the decks the C29 wins for the simple fact that I can stand up straight. I have the C29 mark I without the dinette and find it suitable liveaboard. The C28 was a mark II and I did liveaboard it for almost 9 years. The dinette in the C28 is a little strange layout wise, but worked well for me. Many of my friends would say they could tell if I was aboard depending on the list of the boat.
I never had a problem with the keel bolts, but that will vary boat to boat. If you have the choice I would go with an outboard well configuration as it is easier to maintain in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Advertise Here
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vendor Spotlight |
|
|
|