Search options (Page 2 of 2)

This is an important point worth pondering which many may pass over that read the 'popular' boating books. I've personally talked to several people who have abandoned their vessels which were later recovered and all agree that the life-raft option was a poor mistake seen in hind-sight since they lost their 'base-camp' which was still viable even though half sunken. I think the option comes down to wanting to save yourself by navigation in a raft or wait for rescue staying near the hull even if semi-submerged. A lot has to do with the amount of damage the boat received and what can be repaired/pumped to make the hull somewhat useable. In a race situation you're always being watched so rescue is an alternative. In a cruising situation nobody knows you're even out there so you're on your own. Abandoning ship should always be the very last resort no matter how bad things may seem during the 'incident'. If you can keep the hull afloat even if the rails are totally submerged you have a chance of making a repair and pumping to get the boat navigable again, assuming of course that you were wise enough to install seriously sized pumps.

Your correct to get us back on track. The boat pictured is indeed a good representation of what the Contessa 26 can and should be in the hands of a dedicated owner. In my opinion the single most remarkable thing about these little boats is that they seem to have an almost indefinite lifespan as they are passsed down from owner to the next. They just keep on going. Every now and then they end up in the hands of somebody who wants to bring the boat up to it's true potential as witnessed above.

The overhead and taxes in the UK make production very expensive to begin with. Couple that with the fact that 26's are built to last and you end up with an expensive small boat but one that'll last a long time. Here in California I've seen Flicks's and Dana's sell for up to $115,000 and they can't begin to compare with a 26.

Jeremy Rogers has told me that the current selling price in the UK for a 'new' 26 would have to be around 70,000 pounds to make it feasible to produce them again. His yard typical refits old 26's for costs ranging from 10 to 15000 pounds.

My outboard bracket was at the extreme edge of the tansom and after owning a monitor I don't think think the control sheet arm would be in the way of an outboard. Remember that an outboard can be mounted far off-center if necessary, sometimes even outside the deck sheer line as you see in some river boats that are 'side-steered'. Post a picture of your transom and I'll make some diagrams.

On the two boats I've owned one had a diesel inboard and one had a Johnson 5hp outboard. If I had it to over again I would select the outboard and build a better mounting bracket than what came with the boat and I'd use an outboard that had an integral fuel tank like the Seagulls. Speed-wise both boats were equal but with the outboard I could maneuver in close quarters much better plus it saved a huge amount of money in the up-front cost of the boat. In heavy weather even the diesel inboard (unless you have a big prop) isn't going to help much. Downside is that a big three blade on one of these small boats is a huge drag and you can literally feel the difference when sailing if you've had much experience in 26's with small 2 blades or outboards. You can mount a really big blade to an outboard that's only in the water when you need it. Problem is the mounting system which needs a lot of thought. Needs to be closer to the rudder as well. Actually a rudder mounted bracket is perhaps the best solution for the small outboard. Just my opinion for what it's worth.