# pearson on the ocean! question about these boats



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I am intending on eventually getting a nice heavy cruiser in about 5 or 6 years, in the meantime pearsons, the 27-2 and 28-2 specifically have really caught my eye, I absolutely love the interior layouts, more or less perfect in my opinion. The head next to the companionway ad the rear double berth is ideal in my opinion. 

I am curious, how "blue water" are these boats? I keep finding what appear to be very nice examples in my price range, mostly i will be going on the jersey shore area and up to nantucket to my families house. 

I would love to make a VI run at one point or another as well as a bermuda run. 

is this somethign i shouldn't consider with these boats?


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

I owned a P26 up on lake Champlain and sailed it in lots of nasty conditions. They are great boats but they pound heavily in short steep waves and for several reasons would definately NOT be bluewater boats, although i have read articles about people sailing them far and wide. The hulls are not very thick and the keel is bedded on plywood. If the hull, keel joint has not been properly maintained, water intrusion can cause the typical rot in plywood. This causes the keel to loosen and move slightly. This could be very bad in extended bad weather conditions. The rudders are also quite vulnerable to damage as well and the bottom bearing on the rudder shaft. Another big concern is the motor. You should really be looking for an inboard engine (i'm not sure if the 27,28 have one) because in even mild 3-4 foot waves the outboard's prop comes out of the water...even with a long shaft. For what you want i would look at a P30...you would be much happier in the long run and they can handle worse weather. I was out on my yard manager's P 365 last week in 30knts and 6-8 foot seas. It was a fun ride, but even his boat was pounding on some of the larger waves. Have you thought about a full keel boat? They are slower, and don't point as high but they are usually much more comfortable at sea.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

neither is really a bluewater boat IMHO. Both were designed as relatively beamy coastal cruisers, which have a length-to-beam ratio of more than 3:1 and a capsize ratio over 2. 

I probably wouldn't do a straight shot bluewater passage to the USVIs from New Jersey in one.  You might be able to hop down the coast and then cut across the Caribbean, island hopping. But it would take much longer to get there. 

Define heavy cruiser for me? If you got a Southern Cross 31, or a Alberg 30, or a Nicholson 31, you could make the crossing to the Virgin Islands in something like that pretty easily.


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

I just checked the 28-2 out and it looks much better set up that the 26 was...or even the 30 for that matter. I would take one out for a sail and see how it does in rough weather if you can. If you know the boat inside and out and all of the major mechanical systems are good i.e thru-hulls, standing rigging, motor, prop shaft, rudder, you should be fine. Be careful near the Barnaget shoals.  Check out how the keels are mounted and get a good survey. Hugo Vihlen crossed the Atlanic in April Fool....less than 6 feet long!


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

_*"full keel boat? They are slower, and don't point as high but they are usually much more comfortable at sea."*_

Just as a point of reference here, the fact that a boat has a full keel has nothing to do with a boats comfort at sea or seaworthiness. Some of the worst sea boats that I have ever sailed on have had full keels. The big items that affect motion comfort is a product of hull form (buoyancy distribution), weight distribution (both vertically and longituninally), and dampening. Seaworthiness is affected by a huge number of factors but the length of the keel turns out to have no bearing at all.

Personally, I find that many, if not most of the fiberglass hulled full keeled yachts tend to have comparatively high vertical center of gravities and poor dampening resulting in miserable motion in terms of large pitch and roll angles. may of the better newer designs actually significantly lower center of gravities, finer entries, much better dampening characteristics, and better longitudinal weight distributions, resulting in much easier motions on the crew.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

Hey SD, I knew you liked SC's, man would i love a 39 someday  I just launched my boat 2 weeks ago. There are no leaks and the motor is running well  but i still haven't mounted the traveller...probably on Sunday. Then i finally get to go sailing Yeah!!!! I'm near Kingman Yacht center in Cataumet..are you in that area?


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

Jeff, any canoe shaped hull with a flat entry and a fin keel will pound much more heavily than a full keel. The hull shape on a full keel is more of a wedge shape so when it enters the water it is not slamming down onto a flat hull. Poorly designed full keel boats will roll more heavily but if they are balasted properly they are no worse than a fin keeler. In short steep waves, heading into the wind, my SC is much more comfortable than any fin keeler!


----------



## Professor (Nov 1, 2005)

We have done runs to VA from NJ via inside CD canal etc, down and back with our old Hunter 27, but experienced some heavy pounding in moderate seas in the bay and Deleware. We now own a P38 and experienced some heavy duty seas in 2005 Wilma and NE'r along Jersey coast bringing her from Anappolis. Not sure we would head to Bermuda in anything under a 35' boat regardless of keel configuration. She can be an unforgiving ocean....Best regards.....Prof Murphy


----------



## Stryker72 (Jun 6, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> _*"full keel boat? They are slower, and don't point as high but they are usually much more comfortable at sea."*_
> 
> Just as a point of reference here, the fact that a boat has a full keel has nothing to do with a boats comfort at sea or seaworthiness. Some of the worst sea boats that I have ever sailed on have had full keels. The big items that affect motion comfort is a product of hull form (buoyancy distribution), weight distribution (both vertically and longituninally), and dampening. Seaworthiness is affected by a huge number of factors but the length of the keel turns out to have no bearing at all.
> 
> ...


Jeff,

would you give a few examples of boats in this size range that you find to be blue water capable? I would be very interested in your opinion on this.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

southerncross31 said:


> Hey SD, I knew you liked SC's, man would i love a 39 someday  I just launched my boat 2 weeks ago. There are no leaks and the motor is running well  but i still haven't mounted the traveller...probably on Sunday. Then i finally get to go sailing Yeah!!!! I'm near Kingman Yacht center in Cataumet..are you in that area?


I'm a bit further down, over in New Bedford Harbor. I sent you a PM.


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

Well I will speak in defence of long keels. I've got one, and like it... a Union Polaris 36. It took me home to Scotland, and did well in the bigger seas.

It's each man to his own, really.

I like the idea of the keel being cast into the glass fibre.... no keel bolts, and with reduced keel stresses.... no deep fin stuff for me.

Long keels are slower, particularily in light airs, but they have their better moments in the bigger seas.

I will disagree with you there Jeff. The length does matter (just like the depth of a keel does matter). It's together with a whole bunch of other factors, but the keel length does matter, and its depth.


----------

