Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I just checked back on this thread... What are some of you talking about??

I thought this was supposed to be a thread where the owner of a Hunter 356 was asking for advice from another Hunter owner about the seaworthiness of his vessel related to crossing oceans and heading up the coast of Mexico? Which is what I think I offered him as one who's actually owned a Hunter and sailed along the West coast. My points were made towards tankage and the ability of his Hunter to head back into a strong headwind and current along a lee shore and possibly encounter foul weather at some point.... nothing more.


Why is it, that every time the word Hunter is mentioned on a legitimate thread, two or three Hunter fanboys feel the need to change the subject, then dominate the discussion? It gets really..... tiresome.

Chip on their shoulders maybe? Seems to me like Hunter's are capable boats which are a good value because they are priced on the lower end of the spectrum. I don't think Hunter itself pulls any punches about this, but is rather desirous of this position in the market. But like most things you pay less for, there are trade-offs which owners need to be realistic about. What's the big deal?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I just checked back on this thread... What are some of you talking about??

I thought this was supposed to be a thread where the owner of a Hunter 356 was asking for advice from another Hunter owner about the seaworthiness of his vessel related to crossing oceans and heading up the coast of Mexico? Which is what I think I offered him as one who's actually owned a Hunter and sailed along the West coast. My points were made towards tankage and the ability of his Hunter to head back into a strong headwind and current along a lee shore and possibly encounter foul weather at some point.... nothing more.


Why is it, that every time the word Hunter is mentioned on a legitimate thread, two or three Hunter fanboys feel the need to change the subject, then dominate the discussion? It gets really..... tiresome.

Well maybe the OP will decide that a 38ft Salona makes more sense in what regards a light and fast boat to do what he wants to do Certainly is a much better boat to beat upwind.

[avb3]

It's OK to disagree on boats, anchors, heck, even the best drink, but let's avoid personal attacks. The Forum works better that way. Thanks, and carry on.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by avb3

I've sailed the Jeanneau 44DS. In coastal conditions.

It had a LOT of nice features, and of course I liked it. One thing it had that caused more then a few minutes of concern was furling main. It got stuck as the wind picked up, and we had about 10 minutes of 'fun' getting it unstuck before we could reef in. I was at the helm at the time, and was contemplating what the heck that would be like if one was in a situation where it was a lee shore, the wind was higher, and it could not get unstuck.

But I certainly can see its appeal, and for many, it would be a great boat.

That's a great point. If I buy a boat new, it won't have a furling main. I hate those things. Most builders will accommodate you on stuff like that if you ask for it.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Polux

OK, I get you but between a X yachat and a Jeanneau 44DS goes a long distance in quality and type of boat.

I would say that someone that was interested on a Xyacht but had no money for it, would buy the poor's men correspondent that is the Salona, on this case the 44. Lots of common things in what regards building and type of boat. That's not by accident that Salona sells a lot on the North of Europe and those are difficult and demanding clients.

Salonas are definitely niece boats. But, for me, I'd still go with the Jene. I just like it.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Salonas are definitely niece boats. But, for me, I'd still go with the Jene. I just like it.

I am not talking about being nice but about waterproff bulkheads at the bow and the stern (the rudder is separated from the cabin by an waterproff bulkhead), Integral stainless steel and carbon structure for the keel an shrouds that kind of stuff that you can also find on Xyacht too, but not on Jeanneaus.

Not saying that Jeanneaus are not great but slightly more expensive boats, if well done can have a better built because the budget is bigger. If I would the budget for a Bavaria or a Jeanneau, I would have one of them but If I had a little more, I would buy a better boat. Well, if I had the money for a XP 44, I would have the XP44 instead of the Salona 44

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Polux

I am not talking about being nice but about waterproff bulkheads at the bow and the stern (the rudder is separated from the cabin by an waterproff bulkhead), Integral stainless steel and carbon structure for the keel an shrouds that kind of stuff that you can also find on Xyacht too, but not on Jeanneaus.

Not saying that Jeanneaus are not great but slightly more expensive boats, if well done can have a better built because the budget is bigger. If I would the budget for a Bavaria or a Jeanneau, I would have one of them but If I had a little more, I would buy a better boat. Well, if I had the money for a XP 44, I would have the XP44 instead of the Salona 44

Really, I thought for sure you'd go for an Oyster. Heh-heh.

[RTB]

If the OP is still reading, I have some good friends in Bocas. They have their own island, and have sailed their Transpac 49 extensively. He also has a mooring or two available. If you do make it to Panama, look him up. He just delivered a trawler down the left coast to Panama, so sure he could comment on what is in store for you. Send me a pm if you want his email.

I'm not sure about upgrades to your boat. Your 356 and my 36 are very similar in weight, ballast, LWL, sail area, hull speed, water, fuel, and engine horsepower. Our boat gets pretty lively once the winds and waves pick up, but so far everything is solid. Just uncomfortable, especially on a longer passage with just my wife and I. Maybe a little bigger, heavier boat, things could be a little less bumpy? I've been on smackdaddy's boat. It just "feels" like it would do better offshore. It's just got that extra 4' length, more weight, longer LWL, more beam, more....everything. Most times, we're the smallest boat at anchor. I really think 40-41' is just right for a husband and wife crew.

Seeing that you are in San Diego, and the boat in Delaware, is this a delivery? If so, I still think trucking it is the way to go. If you bought the boat in Delaware, and just want to go cruising, that's another. I still think leaving in March will be problematic. You're still dealing with nor'easters, so expect some lay days. It's going to take time to make Panama. Maybe leave the boat there for hurricane season, then head through the canal later?

I wish you well. Just have the standing rigging checked out, have clean water and fuel tanks, check all thru hulls and hoses, stuffing box, service the engine well and have spare oil, belts, and filters. And, good luck with weather.

Ralph

[RTB]

For the OP, a few good threads -

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...fic-41873.html

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...n-60350-5.html

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...-in-65598.html

Not so easy making San Francisco from Panama....


Ralph

[td0tz]

On the other side of me was a Morgan Out Island 33 that had been preparing for the crossing for five years.

It's 44 freaking miles across, for God's sake. [/QUOTE]

You mean...like, Catalina and back from MDR?

OY

Vey

[Irish rambler]

Some years ago some young guys n gals made a boat from scrap wood from the New York subway extension and 'sailed' it from the states to Ireland, when they reached Ireland the Irish coastguard gave them a bottle of whiskey for the sheer balls of their achievement, they then down through the French canals to a place called Frontignan where the French police stopped them and said their boat was 'unsuitable to cross the etang du thau' (a large saltwater inland lake). The boat lay there for around 5/6 years generally falling apart before being lifted out and scrapped. Maybe someone on here has further knowledge they could share with us.
I did go on board for a look around and somewhere in my archives I have a photo if anyone's interested let me know and I'll dig it out.
My point being that like a previous poster has said, many guys prepare to sail off into the sunset and never leave port, others do the preparation and go.
In my own case cruising from Ireland to the South of France the best decision I ever made was to set the time & date and stuck to it, it's a great motivator as your mind is then concentrated on getting everything in place on time. I never regretted it for one moment.
Do your research, prepare your self and boat thoroughly, set the date and go for it.

[smackdaddy]

Free whiskey!?!?!? I am now determined to sail to Ireland!

[carstenb]

I've not sailed the coast from Panama up to SF and therefore only know it from what I've read (like any good armchair internet skipper).

From what I've read, the voyage is doable, albeit probably not very comfortable and certainly something that will require a skipper and crew with reasonable sailing skills. Will a Hunter make it? Again, I've only seen Hunters in marinas, never sailed one (they are not that common in Europe) so I really can't have an opinion on that.

But the situation is probably analogous to Bene's, Jennie' and Bavarias sailing around in the Biscay or the North Sea or the trip around Scotland (local saying in Denmark is if you think you want to sail passages and an RTW, take a sail around the UK and Scotland - if you enjoyed that - you won't have to worry about getting caught in serious storms).

The European production boats (including Bavarias which are the European Hunters ), sail in those waters daily.

Most of my sailing has been in the Baltic. Waves patterns here are very short, akin to chop. Sailing upwind in 3 meter chop is tough on boats, any boat and the modern production boats seem to handle this without incidence.

Personally I would probably go via Hawaii - but then I actually like being onthe boat for long periods of time.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by carstenb

I've not sailed the coast from Panama up to SF and therefore only know it from what I've read (like any good armchair internet skipper).

From what I've read, the voyage is doable, albeit probably not very comfortable and certainly something that will require a skipper and crew with reasonable sailing skills. Will a Hunter make it? Again, I've only seen Hunters in marinas, never sailed one (they are not that common in Europe) so I really can't have an opinion on that.

But the situation is probably analogous to Bene's, Jennie' and Bavarias sailing around in the Biscay or the North Sea or the trip around Scotland (local saying in Denmark is if you think you want to sail passages and an RTW, take a sail around the UK and Scotland - if you enjoyed that - you won't have to worry about getting caught in serious storms).

The European production boats (including Bavarias which are the European Hunters ), sail in those waters daily.

Most of my sailing has been in the Baltic. Waves patterns here are very short, akin to chop. Sailing upwind in 3 meter chop is tough on boats, any boat and the modern production boats seem to handle this without incidence.

Personally I would probably go via Hawaii - but then I actually like being onthe boat for long periods of time.

Regarding going to Hawaii instead of going up the coast it all depends on what the OP wants: To go from point A to B on the more comfortable way or to cruise that coast and beside that, If he just wants to go to S, Francisco, not cruising that coast, if he feels comfortable with his skills and boat to make a several days offshore passages.

While going to where I want to cruise with my sailboat I do every year at least 3 days of non stop sailing and I have done 7. Doing more or less it depends of having someone sailing with me that can be on watch while I sleep (on the Med there is a huge ship and ferry traffic) but I surely prefer to do in 3 days sailing non stop what I would have to do in 7 if sailing 10 or 12 hours a day. But that is not cruising, that is voyaging to go to the cruising grounds.

Regarding going to Hawaii or not it will be dependent of the skipper confidence on his skills but also if he wants to do it cruising the coast or if he just wants to go to S. Francisco. I don't know the coast but I have heard here conflicting information here: That is a bare non interesting stretch of coast with no anchorages and that there is anchorages and ports and it is interesting, even if it its way easier to go down that coast then to go up. some had gone up and enjoyed the scenery, or at least is what it seems. It also depends if one likes to sail upwind or not, if he does not bother to motor a lot and that kind of stuff.

[Jim Cate]

FWIW:

For those who are comparing this proposed voyage with doing the Baja bash...

Have you noticed that it is on the order of 2100 miles from the exit of the canal to the tip of Baja? It makes the bash look like a walk in the park.

Jim