This Forum is supported by C&C 27 owners like you whose membership in the C&C 27 Association makes possible this Forum and the accompanying site. Thank you, members, for your continuing commitment.
You are not logged in.
I just received my "Good Old Boat" March/April Edition. Their featured boat was an Catalina 27, but they did a compare against C&C Mk1/2 and Ericson.
Appears our loved C&C got the nod. "For acceleration in a puff or out of a tack, the C&C would have the edge over the other two. ....The conclusion here is that the C&C would have a distinct advantage in light air, upwind and down with a higher SA/D ratio and faster acceleration. However, as the breeze builds, the C&C will have to reef first...
I would commend you to a subscription of "Good Old Boat." Lot's of good tips for the rest of us that don't have boats fresh out of the boat show.
Steve
TS&CC, 1981 MkIII, Hull 886
Toronto ON
Steve
1981 MkIII, Hull 886
Etobicoke YC, Toronto ON
Offline
Since there appears to be online interest, here are a few more tidbits from article:
"Since these boats (C&C 27, Catalina 27, Ericson 27) are designed to show a good turn of speed around a racecourse, it's worth looking at the performance ratios. In terms of displacement/length (D/L) ratio, which measures the relative weight of the boat, the C&C at 265 and the Catalina at 297 have a distinct edge over the Ericson at a fairly high 342. For acceleration in a puff or out of a tack, the C&C would have the edge over the other two.
The C&C also has an advantage with its high sail area/displacement ratio (SA/D) of 17.6 compared the Catalina's 15.3. Even though their sail areas are almost equal, the Catalina's heavier displacement (by more than a 1,000 pounds) is a distinct disadvantage, especially in light air."
The author, Rob Mazza, used to work at C&C. I'm sure that does not bias his view in favor of C&C. He is just smart.
Steve
TS&CC, 1981 MkIII, Hull 886
Toronto ON
Steve
1981 MkIII, Hull 886
Etobicoke YC, Toronto ON
Offline
Timely article as I may be pulling the trigger on a MkIII.
Cheers Doog
Offline
A while back there was a thread about boat weight. It referred to Mk V's, but Mk I,II,III and IV's real weights may be just as uncertain. The Mk V's were a little over 4600 lbs according to C&C brochures, but a real, measured example was over 6100 lbs. The length and sail area are probably correct, so which displacement number should be used when comparing the potential performance of similar types of boats? Do those other two makes of 27's have more certain displacements?
Alan of SMOKE 1984 Mk V 002
Alan of SMOKE 1984 Mk V 002
Offline