Visit our Popular Forums

Sunstone · 22-02-2021, 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Are you sure about the location? Seems counter intuitive to me, putting the coring where the pads would be pushing on the outer skin. If one was gonna do partial coring, I'd have thought having solid laminate at t he pad location would be the choice.

How large are the areas that you believe to be cored? Just pad size or much larger?

It's a curious idea, one I've not encountered before!

Jim

Hi Jim,
Absolutely sure about the location of the core. It was put where I said it is on the MKII's because some owners of MKI's complained about deflection on the flat run under the turn of the hull from amidships aft to the cockpit drains.

It is completely unnecessary if the boat is cradled properly as I described above earlier.

Both Kurt Hanson the builder and owner of Whitby Boat Works and his head of sales Doug Stephenson told me this. I would think the builder who built the boat would know.

The cored area is about 2' wide by 8' long on the flat deadrise portion inboard of the outboard outer radius upward turn where one would expect to find cradle pads located. The rest of the hull is solid GRP hand laid up to Gibbs & Cox specifications of the time.

Cheers,
JB

**Jim Cate** · 23-02-2021, 01:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Hi Jim,
Absolutely sure about the location of the core. It was put where I said it is on the MKII's because some owners of MKI's complained about deflection on the flat run under the turn of the hull from amidships aft to the cockpit drains.

It is completely unnecessary if the boat is cradled properly as I described above earlier.

Both Kurt Hanson the builder and owner of Whitby Boat Works and his head of sales Doug Stephenson told me this. I would think the builder who built the boat would know.

The cored area is about 2' wide by 8' long on the flat deadrise portion inboard of the outboard outer radius upward turn where one would expect to find cradle pads located. The rest of the hull is solid GRP hand laid up to Gibbs & Cox specifications of the time.

Cheers,
JB

OK, thanks for that info. Could you describe how the coring is done, please? Is the regular layup schedule continued and the coring added inside that, or is the "skin" thinner with coring added in that area?

I'm having a hard time following the logic, likely because I don't understand exactly how it was done.

Jim

DNS1324 · 23-02-2021, 05:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by MistyCat

The Niagara 35 is a very good blue water boat for its size. The Classic layout (Companionway cabin for wet locker, sea berths and nav station, double entry to dry salon via head and galley, work space in forward cabin) is extremely liveable at sea. Lots of light and ventilation throughout. 6’3” headroom. We made up a large king size berth in the salon for use at anchor or dock, easy conversion. Your cost Est for fitting to go cruising is realistic based on my experience. Standing rigging! Big issue. I refit mine starting 2015, all new systems except motor. Some recoring. Now mostly done, sailing for past 3 years in Nova Scotia. Very happy with this boat. It has an incredible confident stability that I have not experienced in any other ‘fast’ cruising sailboat.

This is great to hear. Thank you for your response and for your advice to pay a spacial attention to the standing rigging. If we get our boat this year, we will likely sail around Nova Scotia, at least on the Gulf's side. Perhaps we'll meet one day! Cheers.

Sunstone · 23-02-2021, 06:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

OK, thanks for that info. Could you describe how the coring is done, please? Is the regular layup schedule continued and the coring added inside that, or is the "skin" thinner with coring added in that area?

I'm having a hard time following the logic, likely because I don't understand exactly how it was done.

Jim

That I don't know Jim as it is hidden under the liner. However, I have not heard of anyone having a problem and needing to recore the area. However, to call the Hull a cored Hull is misleading as the vast majority is solid layup.

While we are on the subject of coring, there were 3 deck versions over the production run. The MkI had two of them.

Deck Versions
First generation deck layup, in the early boats 68-mid 69 it was a triple glass double masonite core to an L Flange sheer clamp (Gelcoat, glass, 1/4" masonite, glass, 1/4" masonite, glass). No liner. Core ceased about 3-4" from the sheer clamp - stanchions and chainplates through solid glass layup. No liner. Open taffrail.

Second generation mid 69-late 1970 MkI: Gelcoat, glass, balsa, glass. Same schedule as the first generation, core terminated 3-4" from the L Flange sheer clamp. No liner. Open taffrail.

Third generation MkII companionway moved to port instead of stb, sea hood added. Balsa core extends to the Top Hat Sheer Clamp, teak toe rail reduced.
Stanchions bolted through the coring. Shear raised marginally to accommodate lack of solid teak toe rail. Cabin bulkheads moved somewhat forward by 18". Main & Forepeak bulheads moved fwd. Cabin Trunk elongated forward somewhat. Linered hull.

MkII Head entry Fwd of mast and enlarged. Head toilet oriented thwartship sited somewhat outboard (MkI head entry behind mast, toilet oriented for'n aft sited more inboard).

Other MkII interior changes. Elongated aft portlight (MkI had 10 opening all the same size). It should be noted some MkII owners ordered their boats with 10 opening ports with no elongated deadlight. Cooler oriented thwartship, engine compartment narrower.

To compound things there were three interior styles, galley up the stb side, galley aft, quarter berth, no quarter berth. L shaped salon, parallel setees, etc.

There were a number of additional changes during the A-37's very long and very successful production run.

Cheers,

JB

Kalinka1 · 23-02-2021, 07:55

A couple of other Canadian boats you might consider are C&C's 35 and up or Heritage 35's We have the Heritage 35 sailed to Ireland Norway and the UK. Spent a winter on board in Ireland. Boat now in England. Good solid boat reasonably quick averaged 5.8 kts on the crossing under mostly the jib alone. kept the boat level. have owned her for 30 years and no plan to change.

DNS1324 · 23-02-2021, 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalinka1

A couple of other Canadian boats you might consider are C&C's 35 and up or Heritage 35's We have the Heritage 35 sailed to Ireland Norway and the UK. Spent a winter on board in Ireland. Boat now in England. Good solid boat reasonably quick averaged 5.8 kts on the crossing under mostly the jib alone. kept the boat level. have owned her for 30 years and no plan to change.

Thank you. We didn't know about the Heritage 35. We'll keep an eye open. As for the C&Cs, they are apparently quite technical boats to manoeuvrer and we're looking for a boat that might be easier to handle just the two of us with yet little experience.

sv_pelagia · 23-02-2021, 09:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNS1324

Thank you. We didn't know about the Heritage 35. We'll keep an eye open. As for the C&Cs, they are apparently quite technical boats to manoeuvrer and we're looking for a boat that might be easier to handle just the two of us with yet little experience.

C&Cs "technical to maneuver"? Not sure what you mean by that (do you?). Most (perhaps all) C&Cs are easy/simple to maneuver... very agile.

I would not say the smaller (<37') C&Cs are "bluewater" boats, but they certainly are easy to maneuver and not too "technical".

(Our previous boat was a C&C Landfall 38, and we have many friends with C&Cs. Quite common here in Canada.)

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats-for...ountry-canada/

AiniA · 23-02-2021, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNS1324

This is great to hear. Thank you for your response and for your advice to pay a spacial attention to the standing rigging. If we get our boat this year, we will likely sail around Nova Scotia, at least on the Gulf's side. Perhaps we'll meet one day! Cheers.

Niagara's were built with rod rigging. The problem with rod is that it does not give you any warning before it goes. Other than that it is terrific and long-lasting. the main problem is at the ends of rods where a head is moulded. You can test the heads with a three part spray kit and a hand lens to see any cracks. Tiny cracks parallel to the rod are created in the heading process and not a problem. If you find cracks more perpendicular to the rod this can be a source of failure. Heads can be recreated with the loss of an inch or so of rod. If it is original 35 year old rod (or conventional) rigging wire might be time for a change in any case.

DNS1324 · 23-02-2021, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

C&Cs "technical to maneuver"? Not sure what you mean by that (do you?).

If I do? Well.... euh... no, not really, I don't. As I mentioned, we don't yet have much experience with sailboats. We were told that C&C were sailboats initially designed for racing and that they may be more sporty to handle than other cruisers. We were told (I'm not making a claim here), that they require more constant sail adjustments and more attention. C&C are presented as being "high-performance" sailboats with "proven race-winning hull". I'm assuming that handling such a Formula 1 boat may require some technical skills and some experience that we don't yet have. We were recommended that a C&C might not be the best option for us for a first sailboat with the intention we have. Performance is not really a criterion for us. Thanks for your comments.

DNS1324 · 23-02-2021, 11:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by AiniA

Niagara's were built with rod rigging. The problem with rod is that it does not give you any warning before it goes. Other than that it is terrific and long-lasting. the main problem is at the ends of rods where a head is moulded. You can test the heads with a three part spray kit and a hand lens to see any cracks. Tiny cracks parallel to the rod are created in the heading process and not a problem. If you find cracks more perpendicular to the rod this can be a source of failure. Heads can be recreated with the loss of an inch or so of rod. If it is original 35 year old rod (or conventional) rigging wire might be time for a change in any case.

Excellent. Good to know. Thanks.

AiniA · 23-02-2021, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNS1324

If I do? Well.... euh... no, not really, I don't. As I mentioned, we don't yet have much experience with sailboats. We were told that C&C were sailboats initially designed for racing and that they may be more sporty to handle than other cruisers. We were told (I'm not making a claim here), that they require more constant sail adjustments and more attention. C&C are presented as being "high-performance" sailboats with "proven race-winning hull". I'm assuming that handling such a Formula 1 boat may require some technical skills and some experience that we don't yet have. We were recommended that a C&C might not be the best option for us for a first sailboat with the intention we have. Performance is not really a criterion for us. Thanks for your comments.

C&Cs were not 'Formula 1' racers when built in the 1980s. They are more performance-oriented than the other boats you are considering but not hugely so. A bigger problem might be that mid 30s C&Cs tend to have less tankage (water and fuel) than you want for cruising - done to keep weight down. C&C did make what they called Landfall versions of their boats with shallower, longer keels and more tankage. Here is a nice-looking Landfall 38 for sale in Halifax that is in your price range. Looks to be well-equipped with an almost new engine.
https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/198...ll-38-2230435/

sv_pelagia · 23-02-2021, 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNS1324

If I do? Well.... euh... no, not really, I don't. As I mentioned, we don't yet have much experience with sailboats. We were told that C&C were sailboats initially designed for racing and that they may be more sporty to handle than other cruisers. We were told (I'm not making a claim here), that they require more constant sail adjustments and more attention. C&C are presented as being "high-performance" sailboats with "proven race-winning hull". I'm assuming that handling such a Formula 1 boat may require some technical skills and some experience that we don't yet have. We were recommended that a C&C might not be the best option for us for a first sailboat with the intention we have. Performance is not really a criterion for us. Thanks for your comments.

As long as we are talking C&Cs built in Canada, not the new ones...
Yes, they are faster than many boats. That's a good thing. NO, they don't "require" more sail adjustments (that's for racers to worry about; entirely up to you how much you want to do fine changes). They do not require more technical skills than other boats.

Who told you this? It's not true.

Again, we didn't want to take our 38 offshore. So, when we were preparing for offshore, we sold our C&C and went for a more substantial boat. But others do go offshore (certainly to the Caribbean) with C&Cs (indeed, the "Landfall" series were built for the Caribbean charter trade). The Landfall 48 is a go anywhere in the world boat.

The Landfall 38, in my biased opinion, is better than the Niagara. The one Ainia linked to looks nice AND with a newish engine (!). Worth a look!

DNS1324 · 23-02-2021, 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

As long as we are talking C&Cs built in Canada, not the new ones...
Yes, they are faster than many boats. That's a good thing. NO, they don't "require" more sail adjustments (that's for racers to worry about; entirely up to you how much you want to do fine changes). They do not require more technical skills than other boats.

Who told you this? It's not true.

Again, we didn't want to take our 38 offshore. So, when we were preparing for offshore, we sold our C&C and went for a more substantial boat. But others do go offshore (certainly to the Caribbean) with C&Cs (indeed, the "Landfall" series were built for the Caribbean charter trade). The Landfall 48 is a go anywhere in the world boat.

The Landfall 38, in my biased opinion, is better than the Niagara. The one Ainia linked to looks nice AND with a newish engine (!). Worth a look!

Thanks for the additional informations. Thanks too to Ainia. Ok then, you've pretty much convinced us that C&Cs (Landfall) are worth considering.

One detail, which might not end up to be a detail when living on a sailboat but may possibly become an annoyance. The cockpit of C&Cs 35 Landfall (1981) does not seem to be very inviting with the mainsheet traveller in the way and no room for a little foldable table. See the attached image of another C&C 35 Landfall I picked from here (https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/198...ll-35-3521343/). Although the one in Halifax seems to have her sheet traveller on top of the cabin (but the pictures are of really bad quality). Anyway, I wonder how picky we should be about the cockpit layout and size. After all, this is where most of the time is going to be spent.

sv_pelagia · 23-02-2021, 17:00

Hmmm, never seen a Landfall 35...

Landfall38:

https://www.practical-sailor.com/sai...-c-landfall-38

John Kretchmer's review:
http://www.cncphotoalbum.com/reviews...38landfall.pdf

Landfall 38 traveller is forward of companionway... out of the way. Cockpit is large.

Headroom is excellent.

Not sure how tall you are; I'm 6'3 and found the vberth a bit short. We used it for a couple years but then both moved to quarter berths. Some 38s have two excellent quarterberths (our did); the "double" on the port side is a little narrow as a double.