Nautors Swan 38 for long ocean passages?

[schepop]

Hello all, I'm doomed.

I'm blown away by a Swan 38. Loved all the care and details. I'm not a racer. Yet, it's on the low end of tankage for long crossings, not the most convenient cruising design. Meat to race, I know.

Yet, how realistic.it would be to bring about some projects to install:
- Water maker;
- Wind Vane,
- Holding tank;
- Increase the tankage;

How blunt is that when it comes to that gorgeous racer-cruiser?

Any inputs are appreciated. I just felt for it after a visit to one available and I can't get it out of my head even knowing she is not the most fit for purpose.

My second in the list are Contest 38S, Moody 38S, Warrior 40, and Oyster 39. Not necessarily in that order.

[neilpride]

No idea the S&S 38 , but I once had the privilege of helping a friend move a 65 S&S from one marina to another, and I was impressed with the details. I have never seen anything like it in terms of how the boat is built, the 38 has to be a rock, possibly more club racing oriented, but it is a Swan.

[h20man]

They are lovely boats...


some of the people that were with Nautor Swan left and started Baltic Yachts... Doug Peterson did some designs for them. They focus on custom and semi-custom designs. Have a look at some of the older ones: https://www.yachtworld.com/boats-for...altic%20yachts



All the care (and more in my opinion) of Swan, Lovely to sail. Cruiser-Racers.

[Eagle ITA]

Originally Posted by schepop

Hello all, I'm doomed.

I'm blown away by a Swan 38. Loved all the care and details. I'm not a racer. Yet, it's on the low end of tankage for long crossings, not the most convenient cruising design. Meat to race, I know.

Yet, how realistic.it would be to bring about some projects to install:
- Water maker;
- Wind Vane,
- Holding tank;
- Increase the tankage;

How blunt is that when it comes to that gorgeous racer-cruiser?

Any inputs are appreciated. I just felt for it after a visit to one available and I can't get it out of my head even knowing she is not the most fit for purpose.

My second in the list are Contest 38S, Moody 38S, Warrior 40, and Oyster 39. Not necessarily in that order.

Pros
I don't know the Warrior 40; but if you look at the displacement of Contest, Oyster and Moody you find that they are all about 8.500Kg, as the Swan 38, so your worries about weight are unfounded (or at least it could be the same for the other boats).
About the Wind Vane, I don't know boats with the same course stability (under sail) as the Swan, so the best boats to use a Wind Vane (Well, maybe some younger boats, mostly sailing downwind, could be )
You named the Swan as "racer-cruiser", it was true, but when it was built in the ages('70/'80) a "racer-cruiser" could have to be, first of all, a realy sea worthy vessel (for shipyards like Swan)
Cons
Maybe not the most protected cockpit you can have (but nothing that could not be solved with a good spryhood)
Too many winches to operate on, but you can optimize the maneuvers as you prefer; placing stoppers, block, and whatever you want, where it suits you best


An experienced sailor once said to me: Swans are the only boats where, from the inside, you don't notice if there are 10 or 35 knots outside (he was talking about a 51ft).
Exaggerated, of course...
...but not so far from reality

[Eagle ITA]

Ask yourself what is better about the Contest 38S, Moody 38S, Warrior 40, and Oyster 39 than the Swan, and then decide if it is worth giving up on a boat that makes you dream

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by schepop

Yet, it's on the low end of tankage for long crossings, not the most convenient cruising design.

Originally Posted by Eagle ITA

An experienced sailor once said to me: Swans are the only boats where, from the inside, you don't notice if there are 10 or 35 knots outside (he was talking about a 51ft).
Exaggerated, of course...
...but not so far from reality

For the OP, yes, the tankage issue is one that is perhaps the one that's the hardest to deal with, but many boats of that vintage are "in the same boat", (no pun intended,)
Even the larger ones of the earlier years are short on tankage compared to what cruisers of today are used to.
One of my "dream boats" has always been the original S&S PJ/Swan 43, and they only carried ~40 gal. of fuel.
One needs to become inventive.
Some cons, you need to be creative, and willing to give-up some various spaces to put all the stuff in that most want today.
Wiring and plumbing are not so easy to access, engine space is small and cramped.
Simple things like adding batteries and aftermarket fuel filters, or increased propane tankage can become challenging projects.

Eagle, that's a good call.
Especially on the S&S boats, you could get in one of those pilot berths and sleep well, knowing you had a boat that had some hull depth, a boat that was IN the water not ON the water, a boat with "True Grit", if I may.

[JPA Cate]

Hi, schepop, You will need either a composting toilet or a holding tank. I'd seriously consider the composting --actually dessicating-- toilet. This is because I really don't like the idea of carrying around fermenting fecal material, and would rather have something else in the space it takes.

As to the water-maker, well, it depends on how miserly you can be and still be comfortable. Jim and I crossed oceans, and the passages were over 3 weeks, with two settee tanks on our first "Insatiable", a PJ 36, 50 gallons, total, did not arrive empty, but did have a 5 gal sun shower. I washed dishes in salt water, with a light fresh water rinse. We had a sun awning we made that we used for a rain catcher, so were sometimes able to supplement from the rainfall. (have also used the mainsail to catch water), so it depends. A small water maker doesn't take up too much (scarce) space, and can be plumbed to a water tank. If you carry a garden sprayer and paint it black on the outside, you can use it both to have warm dish rinsing water and warm showers, using a minimum of shampoo & soap.

Be advised, everything you add to a boat for cruising makes it heavier and slower.

You can build your own wind vane, or add a store-bought or a used one. The one Jim built steered our PJ about 75,000 ocean miles.

When you own a boat that is designed to sail well in light airs, you can operate it with small fuel tankage, although Jim did have a new tank built for the PJ, upping the volume from 18 gal to 45 gal. It is up to you how you choose to do things. On passages, we always chose to accept the light air days, they always lower one's all time days runs averages, but one is not required to run the engine. It may be a time for a swim, or a quick day of little jobs, if there's so little you have to take down sails. It is up to you if you choose to be in harmony with what the weather gods give you. To me, it was educational, and humbling, a good thing on both counts.

Hope this helps.

Ann

Originally Posted by schepop

Hello all, I'm doomed.

I'm blown away by a Swan 38. Loved all the care and details. I'm not a racer. Yet, it's on the low end of tankage for long crossings, not the most convenient cruising design. Meat to race, I know.

Yet, how realistic.it would be to bring about some projects to install:
- Water maker;
- Wind Vane,
- Holding tank;
- Increase the tankage;

How blunt is that when it comes to that gorgeous racer-cruiser?

Any inputs are appreciated. I just felt for it after a visit to one available and I can't get it out of my head even knowing she is not the most fit for purpose.

My second in the list are Contest 38S, Moody 38S, Warrior 40, and Oyster 39. Not necessarily in that order.

[Roniszoro]

A friend had one for years and did 5 trans-Atlantic trips with her. A SUPER boat capable of going just about anywhere, sails beautifully and built like a battleship.

[Eagle ITA]

Originally Posted by schepop

..........................

My second in the list are Contest 38S, Moody 38S, Warrior 40, and Oyster 39. Not necessarily in that order.

I don't know the prices of the Contest 38S, Moody 38S, Warrior 40, and Oyster 39, but if they are like the Swan 38, maybe these two proposals are out of budget (I suspect more than double), but I enclose all the same, because I think they fit perfectly right for you


https://www.yachtworld.co.uk/yacht/1...-mkii-8843650/


https://uk.boats.com/sailing-boats/1...d-390-8528027/

[Eagle ITA]

Originally Posted by Roniszoro

A friend had one for years and did 5 trans-Atlantic trips with her. A SUPER boat capable of going just about anywhere, sails beautifully and built like a battleship.

^^^^^ +1

[JPA Cate]

However, the HR is a stodgy boat, imo, and the Najad has timber decks (v. hot in the tropics), and it is hard to increase the battery capacity to adequate for today's electricity usage. I remember the first Swan I went aboard, and I was amazed at how nice the joinery was. It was to other boats as a Bugatti was to a Ford.

Ann

[Eagle ITA]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

However, the HR is a stodgy boat, imo, and the Najad has timber decks (v. hot in the tropics), and it is hard to increase the battery capacity to adequate for today's electricity usage. I remember the first Swan I went aboard, and I was amazed at how nice the joinery was. It was to other boats as a Bugatti was to a Ford.

Ann

Yes I totally agree,
but (as you can see from what i quoted) my advice (with links) was not about the Swan,
it was about the second choice of Schepop (Contest, Moody, Warrior, and Oyster) and they have the same issues that you point out (stodgy, hot in the tropics, etc) about HR and Najad

[Jim Cate]

^^^^

Relative to Ann's posts above: Our Insatiable was a very similar sort of boat to the Swan 38, both being designed to the early IOR rules and both being intended to race in the One-ton class. If anything, she was even more "unsuited to cruising" than the Swan, being two feet shorter and flush decked. We were mocked by other wanna be cruisers for buying such a unsuitable boat. Yet we cruised as full time live aboards in her for 17 years and 84,000 miles. Most of the mockers didn't!

Ann has mentioned some of t he drawbacks to such designs as have other posters, and they are real. We found them acceptable for our usage and that the exceptional sailing and seaworthyness qualities compensated adequately.

Two things about the Swan not yet mentioned: we have encountered several Swans from that era with severe osmosis issues, and I don't like the companionway and cockpit arrangement for a cruising boat. Having an easily accessible companionway and a comfortable cockpit is a big factor in cruising, especially if you spend time in the tropics.

so, such boats are not for everyone, but YOU ain't everyone and must evaluate things from a personal perspective. Good luck with the search!

Jim

[Joli]

We cruise a racing boat. It's all about what you want from a sailing standpoint. There are much better boats for winning the mooring fields party then ours.