# Shortest blue water mono sailboat with a 16 foot beam



## GTgamo (3 mo ago)

Good evening all - and thanks in advance for the help - I am searching for info related to shortest used fairly heavy (no cored hull) solid fiberglass vessel that is a true blue water boat - I want a girthy girl as it will be my primary home. I would like to keep it under 125 - but I can afford up to 250 for the right boat - what brands will hold their resale value the best, and what models should I be looking for? I prefer a sleek look with a retractable swim platformk but once again the beam is the most important to me as I want the extra room.

Thanks all for the response


----------



## Sabreman (Sep 23, 2006)

Too open ended a question to really answer, it needs to be bounded. Any modern design will fit your spec.


----------



## GTgamo (3 mo ago)

Sabreman said:


> Too open ended a question to really answer, it needs to be bounded. Any modern design will fit your spec.


@Sabreman - thanks for your reply - I have not seen a 16 foot beam on any vessels shorter than 52 and up -
and they have foam core - do you have any suggestions on alternatives? I'd prefer to be 42-48 solid glass construction.


----------



## Sabreman (Sep 23, 2006)

Even a Benetaeu 46 will come up short with respect to your 16' beam requirement. And the Bene's beam is massive. You're kind of edging toward a catamaran. Not sure why you're set on solid glass either. prePreg Epoxy or similar is superior. A cored hull isn't necessarily good nor bad, it's all about the engineering. Old solid glass boats aren't necessarily superior either, just heavy. We have a balsa core above the waterline and we've never had a moment of concern. In fact, I really don't think about it. There are so many other considerations.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

It is a bit strange to be starting with beam being your #1 search parameter. There are so many more important considerations than the actual beam measurement. 

I get that you want a beam boat because you want the interior volume, and there are many modern designs that will likely give you what you are looking for but may not meet your 16ft beam requirement. That said, many of those designs were intended for coastal cruising, and while fully capable of offshore cruising, may not be the best choice. You specify a "Blue Water Cruiser", but you don't say exactly what you intend to do with it.

You have also dismissed cored hulls out of hand. You need to keep in mind, modern boats that are built with solid glass hulls were not built that way because they are stronger, they were built that way purely to keep production costs down. Cored hulls are stronger and lighter, but much more expensive to build.


Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## GTgamo (3 mo ago)

SchockT said:


> It is a bit strange to be starting with beam being your #1 search parameter. There are so many more important considerations than the actual beam measurement.
> 
> I get that you want a beam boat because you want the interior volume, and there are many modern designs that will likely give you what you are looking for but may not meet your 16ft beam requirement. That said, many of those designs were intended for coastal cruising, and while fully capable of offshore cruising, may not be the best choice. You specify a "Blue Water Cruiser", but you don't say exactly what you intend to do with it.
> 
> ...


@SchockT thanks for the reply
Modern sailboats have foam core hulls to save money as it is less labor intensive and cheaper to manufacturer - there are many reasons why I prefer solid glass - I am not interested in superfast - I want a heavy offshore boat designed for that task - glass versus foam core has been discussed here at SN for years - there are endless threads and opinions and each person has to decide what is more important to them - for me solid glass and wide beam are number 1 and number 2 for me - Benetaeu has foam core hulls but otherwise the design is nice - I could live with a 50 or a 51 - but who makes a solid glass hull? I want the solid hull as it makes the boat heavier - there is no right or wrong answers for the solid glass as opposed to foam core - I want the 16 foot beam for the room - suggestions?


----------



## GTgamo (3 mo ago)

Sabreman said:


> Even a Benetaeu 46 will come up short with respect to your 16' beam requirement. And the Bene's beam is massive. You're kind of edging toward a catamaran. Not sure why you're set on solid glass either. prePreg Epoxy or similar is superior. A cored hull isn't necessarily good nor bad, it's all about the engineering. Old solid glass boats aren't necessarily superior either, just heavy. We have a balsa core above the waterline and we've never had a moment of concern. In fact, I really don't think about it. There are so many other considerations.


@Sabreman - I appreciate the input - not even remotely interested in a cat.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

GTgamo said:


> @SchockT thanks for the reply
> Modern sailboats have foam core hulls to save money as it is less labor intensive and cheaper to manufacturer - there are many reasons why I prefer solid glass - I am not interested in superfast - I want a heavy offshore boat designed for that task - glass versus foam core has been discussed here at SN for years - there are endless threads and opinions and each person has to decide what is more important to them - for me solid glass and wide beam are number 1 and number 2 for me - Benetaeu has foam core hulls but otherwise the design is nice - I could live with a 50 or a 51 - but who makes a solid glass hull? I want the solid hull as it makes the boat heavier - there is no right or wrong answers for the solid glass as opposed to foam core - I want the 16 foot beam for the room - suggestions?


A quick correction and a quick comment, foam cored hulls are much more expensive to build than solid glass hulls. They require more labor and equipment to build. But they end up with a much stronger, stiffer, more durable, and more impact resistant hull than non-cored hulls. 

In and of itself, excessive beam does nothing good for an offshore boat. All yacht design is balancing act. Too much of any dimension compromises the seaworthiness, sailing ability and motion comfort of the boat. While ultra-light race boats with canting keels and double rudders get away with extreme beams, its a really bad idea on a cruising boat. 

In any event, you are not likely to find a used 42-48 foot cruising monohull with a 16 foot beam within your price range but if you did it would not sail worth a darn and would not be a good choice to take offshore. 

Respectfully
Jeff


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

I am genuinely curious: why a 16 foot beam? Is there a particular boat that has that size beam that you like? Where you aboard a boat with a 14 foot beam and thought "if only there was another foot on each side...."? Interior volume on a boat is not just a function of the beam; it also is greatly impacted by the coach roof, the outboard fittings and cabinetry, and the shape of the bilges, among lots of other factors. You might open up a lot of other possibilities if you were able to quantify your needs via something other than the beam.


----------



## ds34mail (Jul 6, 2017)

mstern said:


> I am genuinely curious: why a 16 foot beam? Is there a particular boat that has that size beam that you like? Where you aboard a boat with a 14 foot beam and thought "if only there was another foot on each side...."? Interior volume on a boat is not just a function of the beam; it also is greatly impacted by the coach roof, the outboard fittings and cabinetry, and the shape of the bilges, among lots of other factors. You might open up a lot of other possibilities if you were able to quantify your needs via something other than the beam.


I guess he wants to fit his reclining couch


----------



## GTgamo (3 mo ago)

Jeff_H said:


> A quick correction and a quick comment, foam cored hulls are much more expensive to build than solid glass hulls. They require more labor and equipment to build. But they end up with a much stronger, stiffer, more durable, and more impact resistant hull than non-cored hulls.
> 
> In and of itself, excessive beam does nothing good for an offshore boat. All yacht design is balancing act. Too much of any dimension compromises the seaworthiness, sailing ability and motion comfort of the boat. While ultra-light race boats with canting keels and double rudders get away with extreme beams, its a really bad idea on a cruising boat.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your reply and input Jeff - It's ok if we agree to disagree - It's all good.

There are many boats with the beam size I am looking for in the price range - Here is one example - 
2005 54' Jeanneau Sun Odyssey - However as previously mentioned - I am looking something with solid glass construction - otherwise - exactly what i am after.

Here is an entire page of various foam core mystery failures - which cannot be explained - I have owned may large (50' plus offshore fishing boats (Viking, Bertram and a 36' Proline) over the years - I wouldn't touch a foam core boat if someone gave it to me - just too many unknown variables - but to each their own. The biggest reason i am searching for solid glass is heavier, slower and more comfortable on long trips, and can be repaired anyplace on earth without any crazy secret sauce glue or special procedures to learn other than typical marine standards. Foam core structural issues

Once again thank you for your help - This is the reason I came here to ask questions 1000's of minds and opinions are certainly better than just 1

Regards

Gus


----------



## GTgamo (3 mo ago)

mstern said:


> I am genuinely curious: why a 16 foot beam? Is there a particular boat that has that size beam that you like? Where you aboard a boat with a 14 foot beam and thought "if only there was another foot on each side...."? Interior volume on a boat is not just a function of the beam; it also is greatly impacted by the coach roof, the outboard fittings and cabinetry, and the shape of the bilges, among lots of other factors. You might open up a lot of other possibilities if you were able to quantify your needs via something other than the beam.


@mstern - thanks for your reply - Ford versus Chevy - Tahoe versus Suburban - Red versus Black - Wider beam is more space - To each their own - It is where i will be living and I prefer the girthy beam.

Regards


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

GTgamo said:


> Once again thank you for your help - This is the reason I came here to ask questions 1000's of minds and opinions are certainly better than just 1
> 
> Regards
> 
> Gus


Hi Gus,

Your question " what brands will hold their resale value the best" ... could be a double edged sword. A high valued boat brand might not be a liquid market. Whereas a brand thats highly liquid - you can buy and sell them easily - might not hold the re-sale value as well, but at least you can flog the thing immediately if you want to.
When I was selecting my boat I wanted a boat I could readily and easily sell immediately. I didnt want an asset that could take a year or 2 to get rid of. So I bought a Beneteau. World wide its one of the most traded boat brands. I can look up the price of a Beneteau 393 instantly on yachtworld and know if I cut $5k off that price mine will sell "tomorrow" anywhere worldwide.  That to me is worth big dollars!  

Yes, all boats have some sort of structural weakness somewhere. Whilst its great to avoid issues that will be a pain when you own it, theres a necessity to know that if you wipe out a really large percentage of boats too early on you micht get to a place, whcih we often see on SailNet, that the corner a person paints themselves into makes any boat an impossibility. Yep, we've seen people give up their dream of boat ownership because of some irrational bull they found on the net.

As for the minds on Sailnet, you'll find Jeff's comments extremely good as he's an architect and been involved with sailboat design and racing since, well, so long ago that he must be a Viking! 😂🤣😂


All the best  


Mark


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

To get a 16' beam, you are going to have to go above 50'. There is no sailboat made that will fit all your criteria unless you have one designed and built specifically to your specifications.
Our 53' Pearson took a direct hit amidships from a container in a gale, while an Oyster, considered by many to be one of the best built yachts, sank without cause some years back. My suggestion is if you want ultimate safety at sea on a production boat, you should get a Westsail 32, which fits none of your criteria.


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

I assume yiubate specifying beam in order to assure adequate size. May I suggest that DISPLACEMENT is a better indicator of size than either beam or LOD.

Displacement specifies the sizeof the hole in the water you make. A bigger hole means more room. Our 44’ cutter has 40,000 lbs displacement and has huge interior space. Much if that space is not immediatly obvious because it is under the sole or under settees.

But also space depends upon the number if amenities you need/want. AC - space, water heater - space, etc. A simpler boat has more space for the owner and leas **** to hreak means more time for the owner and less repair and less hassle.

Many people hat our big ol steel boat. We met a lady who was jusr so proud of her new 42’ production boat, but she would nit use the reefer and or freezer because she had only 32 gallons tankage and running those amenities meant running the generator which meant too little reserve fuel.

At 42’ and nearly double her displacement we have nearly 200 gallons of water and another near 200 gallons of fuel. And enough solar to run the reefer. Sure she had more amenities, but we have more unsupported range.

How do you intend to use the space? Dock queen? Weekender? Coastal cruiser? Distant cruiser?

That is more important.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

GTgamo said:


> Thanks for your reply and input Jeff - It's ok if we agree to disagree - It's all good.
> 
> There are many boats with the beam size I am looking for in the price range - Here is one example -
> 2005 54' Jeanneau Sun Odyssey - However as previously mentioned - I am looking something with solid glass construction - otherwise - exactly what i am after.
> ...


There certainly are a lot of opinions out there, the important thing is to zero in on the opinions that are based on fact.

It is fine that you disagree with what JeffH has to say about cored hulls, but his comments carry a bit more weight because he earns his living designing and building yachts, so if he says cored hulls are structurally superior but more expensive to build, you should perhaps consider revising what you think you know on the subject.

I understand why you are leary about cored hulls, particularly balsa core, because there are horror stories about core rot etc. At the same time you can also find horror stories about delamination and fatigue in solid hulls too.

I bought my Jeanneau because the layout and design suited our needs perfectly. I would have liked a cored hull but they just aren't very common at that price point. Cored hulls are only found on more expensive boats like Jboats.

If you like the Jeanneau 54DS, then you might be relieved to know that they do NOT have a cored hull, they have a solid layup, at least according to what I have read.

Accurate information and an open mind are the first steps to making a good decision.

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

GTgamo said:


> @mstern - thanks for your reply - Ford versus Chevy - Tahoe versus Suburban - Red versus Black - Wider beam is more space - To each their own - It is where i will be living and I prefer the girthy beam.
> 
> Regards


Agree completely. Different strokes for different folks for sure. But why 16 feet? Why not 17 or 15?


----------



## Blueprintsailor (Sep 6, 2021)

Re heavy vs lighter displacement for a blue water boat;? Consider yourself on board a wine bottle vs a plastic water bottle on a windy sea.
The plastic bottle would be bounced and blown off much more uncomfortably than the heavy displacement wine bottle.
Very few boats are designed as pure blue water cruisers, especially today. The smallest might be a Nicholson 31,.. beamy at 10’-3”, displacing 14,000 lbs, and designed to go anywhere, in relative comfort, fully loaded .


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Blueprintsailor said:


> Re heavy vs lighter displacement for a blue water boat;? Consider yourself on board a wine bottle vs a plastic water bottle on a windy sea.
> The plastic bottle would be bounced and blown off much more uncomfortably than the heavy displacement wine bottle.
> Very few boats are designed as pure blue water cruisers, especially today. The smallest might be a Nicholson 31,.. beamy at 10’-3”, displacing 14,000 lbs, and designed to go anywhere, in relative comfort, fully loaded .


I don't think that analogy actually works for sailboats unless you are comparing ultra light full blown racing sailboats to more normal designs. There is a couple reasons that this is the case. To begin with thee really isn't that large a difference in overall weight between a normal offshore cruiser and a normal coastal cruiser. The more apt comparison would be between a thick wall wind bottle and a thin wall wine bottle.

In reality, in pretty much all of the motion studies and studies of seaworthiness, actual displacement plays a very minimal role in motion comfort or seasworthiness. By far the single largest determinants in order of significance are 1) Waterline Length, 2) Buoyancy and weight distribution (over the full range of heel angles), 3) Roll and Pitch moments of inertia (which are actually derived from #2) 4) Damping, and 5) water plane size and proportions.

Old school thinking was that boats that were short for their displacement were thought to have more comfortable motions because their roll rates were slower than longer boats of equal displacement. But as research (and the physics behind motion) has shown, boats that are short for their displacement tend to roll slower through much wider angles. That works well in single wave incidents and widely spaced wave trains. But the wider roll angles tends to put the boat out of phased with the wave frequency and so the motion in a chop is much less comfortable than a boat if similar displacement but sailing on a longer water line (i.e. what you are calling a lighter boat).

Pretty much all of the major studies of boat behavior in storm conditions have shown that the only single constant that impacts seaworthiness is water line length. And those studies also show that within reason, displacement and beam, have almost no role at all.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

GTgamo said:


> Thanks for your reply and input Jeff - It's ok if we agree to disagree - It's all good.
> 
> There are many boats with the beam size I am looking for in the price range - Here is one example -
> 2005 54' Jeanneau Sun Odyssey - However as previously mentioned - I am looking something with solid glass construction - otherwise - exactly what i am after.
> ...


Gus,

As a not so quick response that starts with this post....


GTgamo said:


> There are many boats with the beam size I am looking for in the price range - Here is one example -
> 2005 54' Jeanneau Sun Odyssey"


My comment was not that you can't find a boat with that beam that met all of your criteria. My comment was "you are not likely to find a used 42-48 foot cruising monohull with a 16 foot beam within your price range but if you did it would not sail worth a darn and would not be a good choice to take offshore. "

The basis for my comment was that as boats get beyond a reasonable beam to length ratio (beam/Length= roughly 0.25-0.33 for boats the length you are considering), it begins to greatly adversely impact seakeeping ability, ultimate stability, and motion comfort. While some of the newer designs have found ways of dealing with the negatives of having a more extreme beam by configuring the hull form so that the boat is pretty much always sailing on a much narrower water line beam, it is unlikely that you will find a 42 to 48 foot version of these newer designs within your price range.

I went on SailBoatData, which lists pretty much every production boat. I set the filters to monohull, 16 foot min. Beam. No boat under 50 feet came up on the data base.

With that in mind, my sense is that you, of course, have the option of buying either a longer boat to get the 16 foot beam, or an older boat with a narrower beam at the longer end of your length limit, or upping your price range.

Regarding the foam coring issue, I suggest that you need to understand some things about David Pascoe's comments. Most of his comments were written in the 1990's and updated roughly 15-20 years ago. Almost all of his comments are based on power boats.

But power boats are built differently and are subject to different load patterns than cored sailboats, In the case of power boats, they are subjected to much higher pounding loads due to the higher operating speeds and ability to jump out of a wave. Because of that the primary forces are perpendicular to the skin and they experience almost not horizontal shear (forces parallel to the skin). Therefore in a power boat, the coring is there to absorb the shock and quiet the sound level of each impact.

Because of that, power boats tend to use much less expensive and lower density foams that are glued in with resilient adhesives that essentially are similar to construction adhesives. The methods of application of these adhesives makes it easy to have thicker and thinner glue lines as well as random unbonded and dry areas. And these lower density foams have very poor shear capacities and tend to be not very ductile and so are easily damages in certain types of high load situations., David is 100% correct about that.

As noted above, the way foam cored power boats are built bears very little relationship to foam coring in sail boats. First of all, the load paths are extremely different in a sailboat. The rigging and keel loads are trying to bend and twist the boat, so that the skin of the hull has very high bending and torsional loadings, and comparatively small loads perpendicular to the skin, except during an impact. Because of that the cores of sail boats need to resist very large horizontal sheer loads. One of the reasons that end grain balsa coring makes sense (besides for being able to have resin flow into the pores of the wood sealing it to resist rot and creating a very strong bond) Is that structurally balsa coring has very high horizontal shear and compression resistance Because of those properties, in the past, the structural capacities of balsa made it the hands down best material for coring a hull or deck. That was still the case when David Pascoe wrote his articles.

Since the late 1990's, the foams used and the technologies employed with foam cores has tremendously improved. To begin with, partially due to environmental concerns, most, if not all of the European production manufacturer's, and most of the few remaining bigger US builders, have moved to resin infusion/vacuum resin delivery systems. These systems pump in resin then vacuum off the excess resin. The vacuum processes compresses the laminate forcing out excess resin as well. This results in a much denser laminate with fewer voids and a near perfect resin to glass ratio, That resin ratio wildly increases the strength and fatigue resistance of the laminate as well.

Sail boat foam core materials have largely switched from PVC coring (which is is still standard in the power boat world) to polyurethane and SAN polymers core materials. Polyurethane and SAN coring is much more stable, less impacted by heat, and has inherently better shear properties, albeit at a higher density. These foams have been adapted for resin infusions by adding a series of smaller capillaries and passages that allows resin to move into and through the foam core material. The net result is a far superior bond to both sides of the sandwich, as well as much higher horizontal sheer properties. These foam core materials are more expensive than the lower density materials used in power boats, but much more durable and way less likely to delaminate or fatigue. (I personally still think balsa core is the best deck core material).

In terms of impact resistance, I recommend that you try to locate the paper, "_Student Research Projects for the New Navy 44 Sail Training Craft" _- Paul H. Miller and NAOE Naval presented at the SNAME- The Sixteenth Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium in March of 2003. One module of this study (Structures: Fiberglass Laminate Upgrade – Mark Arvidson ) researched impact resistance. Because one of the fleet of Navy 44's get hit typically once a week during training sessions, the Navy was trying to reduce the amount of damage from these impacts. The study was revolutionary and changed the understanding of impact failure in FRP. While the study used PVC foam coring, and did not anticipate current construction methods, it demonstrated that the foam cored construction far surpassed the impact resistance of the other construction approaches evaluated. including 'solid glass'.

The other key finding was that the primary failure mode in an impact is the non-directional fabric in the laminate. Non-directional fabric comes in the form of mat, or chopped glass. Non-directional fabrics are necessary when using course woven roving to bridge the gaps between the course weave of the roving layers. Generally 'solid glass laminate' gets bulked up by using course woven roving, and larger proportions of non-directional fabrics combined with the required resin rich layups these materials generally require. The combination of these two reinforcing materials means that these laminate starts out weaker and lose strength more rapidly over time due to fatigue than a more engineered laminate schedule.

There is a misconception that there is less laminate used in a cored hull. That does not completely accurately describe the situation. There is a very similar amount of fiberglass reinforcing in modern cored hull, but there is way less non-directional fabric and way less resin because of near perfect resin ratios. The result is that the combined thickness of the skins is slightly less than that of a typical 'solid fiberglass hull", but each of the individual skins is typically stronger and more puncture and fatigue resistant than the total thickness of a so-called 'solid glass hull'.

It should also be noted that the Navy study was later backed up by the structural evaluations within the massive research that was associated with developing the EU's CE RCD standards. It also shed additional light on the failure modes noted in the 1990's era insurance industry study of failure modes in older FRP vessels. That study had analyzed panels taken from the hulls in older vessels. The findings were that despite the greater thickness, in actual testing, these older hull laminates ended up with incredibly low bending and impact resistance, mainly due to fatigue, resin rich laminate, poor fabric handling techniques, and the large percentage of non-directional fabrics.



SchockT said:


> It is fine that you disagree with what JeffH has to say about cored hulls, but his comments carry a bit more weight because he earns his living designing and building yachts, so if he says cored hulls are structurally superior but more expensive to build, you should perhaps consider revising what you think you know on the subject.


Thank you for the kind words. I really do appreciate the vote of confidence. But I do want to clear the record, although I have worked for naval architects and yacht designers, and have designed and built boats, I am actually an architect who designs buildings and not boats. I do bring a few things to a discussion like this. My master degree in architecture was heavily biased towards structural engineering, I had family members in the boat building industry. I have been in and out of boat building facilities since the early 1960's, and worked in boat yards at various times in my life, including engineering and supervising repairs to damaged vessels. I have done much of the work on my own boats, and helped others repair their boats since I started sailing in the 1960's. I have attended yacht design symposiums for most of my life, and so have been able to follow and gain access to up-to- date research papers and talk with the folks who performed that research. But in the end, i am just another amateur sailor like most of us who post on SailNet. I do try to explain the basis of my opinions, and when possible explain my understanding of the science behind them, so that others can weigh whether the opinions expressed are well founded. But I readily acknowledge that does not mean that I am automatically more correct in what I post than someone else.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Bill Berner (Mar 16, 2012)

My intention is not to sound harsh, but to provide a reality check.

IMHO, if you want a blue water boat because you intend to sail the ocean, then the beam you are hoping for, especially at the price point you are looking, is just plain dangerous.

At best, in even moderate seas it will be an extremely uncomfortable ride, bobbing like a cork on top of the water, pounding, falling off waves, roll like crazy, and not track worth a damn in following seas with a high broach potential.

Also, at your price point anything of the size you'll need to get that sort of beam will either be in highly questionable condition, a project boat, or a production boat not suited for serious offshore work. Back in the day, no one that built moderate to heavy displacement boats built anything with the sort of beam to length ratio you are looking for.

If you haven't, I'd suggest you read "Sailing a Serious Ocean", by John Kretschmer. In it he describes the attributes that make a good blue water boat, and gives very valuable information about offshore conditions.

I may be biased, but you couldn't give me one of those silly wide modern Beneteaus for offshore use.
My 2 cents

Bill Berner
2006 Passport 470


----------



## Bill Berner (Mar 16, 2012)

In the event I haven't thoroughly alienated you, I will make a suggestion of what you might consider looking at that could get you into the ballpark of your ideal.

Others may howl in protest, but I'd give Island Packets a good look. You would be able to find a 2 digit model in your price range, and they are all very beamy, and crazy comfortable down below. Tremendous amounts of storage and tankage as well. They are basically bullet proof and will get you anywhere and back safely. You won't win any races, but you'll be safe and along the way. Displacements are the high side of moderate, and the ride is very comfortable even in a blow.

Now the downsides - 
They need a fair amount of wind. I had a 420 that wanted 12kts and above to get going. Upwind performance is not so hot until it really gets windy. Beam reach and below is not bad, and I used to broad reach at 7.5kts in 15 apparent. 
You need to be absolutely sure that the holding tank has been replaced with something other than the original aluminum. At the age you'd be looking at, if the original tank is still there you will be looking at a very expensive job to change it when it starts leaking next week. Another harder to evaluate situation is the chain plates. They have been known to be problematic due to the fact that they are encapsulated and inaccessible. Many would make the investment in having them replaced in a vintage boat, but it's not cheap either.


----------

