# Southern Cross 31?



## db27513

Im in the market for a 30 something, blue waterish boat and recently become enamored with the Southern Cross 31. I have been searching the net (and SailNet) consistently with not very much information found, even on the owners site 

Its numbers make it off shore worthy, but the sail area - displacement ratio of 12.55 makes me thinks its REALLY pokey, much like Westsail.. 

Thoughts?

Is there a fin keel/skeg rudder boat that has better performance numbers but a capsize ratio well under 2? (Souther Cross is 1.55) or are the numbers diametrically opposed?

We have considered a Bristol 29.9, and Bayfield 29 

thanks in advance

Dave in NC


----------



## JohnRPollard

Dave,

I'm surprised that the SA/D ratio is so low on the Southern Cross 31. That doesn't sound right to me, but I have no first hand knowledge. Might be worth a double check. Is this not the Gillmer 31, built by Ryder? If so, there should be some discussion in Ferenc Mate's "Best Boats to Build or Buy".

You asked: <<Is there a fin keel/skeg rudder boat that has better performance numbers but a capsize ratio well under 2? (Souther Cross is 1.55) or are the numbers diametrically opposed?>>

I will shamelessly put in a plug for our boat model, the Pacific Seacraft Crealock 31 (not to be confused with the PSC Mariah 31). It has the attributes you describe, in the size range you are looking at.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Dave;
We have a gentleman in our club marketing a well equipped Southern Cross 35 for about 78k if you are interested l can get more info,
Dave


----------



## GBurton

I'm also looking at a SC 31. The biggest concern for me is the cored airex hull.

It is a Gilmer designed hull - same as roughwater 33


----------



## db27513

Windrose2 - $78k is out of my range Dave, but thanks.

JohnR - got the figures from the Carls SailCalc.. in pics is sure does look like the main is small, but maybe they are not counting the headsail?? dontknow 

Gburton - I too heard of the cored hull.. but dont really know what to make of it. Anything designed with a 13000+ of displacement in 30 ft of boat has got to be solid, no? Is your concern about water penetration or strength if struck by something?

Im not concerned about the ruggedness, but more about light air and pointing ability.. the figures I reference are really low.. 

The only owners site that Im aware of is www dot southerncross-boats dot org/
and it doesnt have specs


----------



## Gary M

With a sail area to displ of 12.5 I would think a Westsail would sail circles around them 

Have you looked at a Niagara 35 ? They have a long fin keel and a skeg rudder and were designed for blue water. There are a lot of them on the Great Lakes in really nice shape. 

I would be concerned about the wooden bow sprint on the Bayfiled as this is were the forestay attaches. Even though they have a traditional look and are good boats I am not so sure they were ever intended for off shore work. 

Good Luck
Gary


----------



## JohnRPollard

Dave in NC,

Carl's sail calculator is a neat tool, but I have seen errors there. Not output errors, but input errors. My understanding is that anyone can load up the specs to a boat model and run the numbers through the calculator. Sometimes the numbers come from dubious sources (like the specs listed in Yachtworld) and to the best of my knowledge there is no process in place to verify. 

Then again, maybe those numbers for the SC 31 are spot on. If you're truly interested in this model, it would be worth doing some homework to verify the specs.


----------



## sailingdog

The Southern Cross 31 is a pretty solid boat, with circumnavigations to its credit. While it has a cored hull, the hull is very solid, provided it hasn't had any water penetrate the core. 

BTW, from my calculations, the SA/D should be more like 13.25 or so, rather than the 12.55. I am basing this on the following specifications:

LOA 31', LWL 25', Beam 9.5', Displacement 13600, SA (Main + 100% Jib) 472 sq. ft. The main and 100% Jib areas were calculated based on the I, J, P, and E measurements of the boat, which are 36.5, 15.5, 31, and 12.2 respectively. Mainsail area is approximately (P*E)/2 or (31*12.2)/2 or 189.1 sq. ft. 100% Jib are is approximately (I * J)/2 or (36.5 * 15.5)/2 or 282.9 sq. ft. 

These numbers are probably a bit conservative, since they assume a mainsail with no roach area whatsoever, which is somewhat unusual today. BTW, the numbers for the SC31 are from the sail specifications section of the MauriProSailing website. The displacement, LOA, LWL and Beam are from several different sites, which all had them listed the same.


----------



## kwaltersmi

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't many of the Southern Cross 31's owner-finished? That would be my biggest concern if I were looking at them as a bluewater yacht. Aesthetically and on paper, I really like the SC31. 

If I were shopping an SC31, I'd also consider some of the following vessels:

Westsail 32, PSC 31, IP 31, Baba 30, Valiant 32, Willard 8 Ton


----------



## sailingdog

Yes, many of the Southern Crosses were owner finished, being sold as bare hulls IIRC. Some of the ones I've seen were quite well done—better than the factory finished ones in some cases—others were miserable.


----------



## JohnRPollard

<<If I were shopping an SC31, I'd also consider some of the following vessels: Westsail 32, PSC 31, IP 31, Baba 30, Valiant 32, Willard 8 Ton>>

Don't forget the inscrutable Allajuela 33 !!


----------



## db27513

Saildog - wow - Im impressed! - thats more information than Ive been able to find..Ive got emails out to every SCowner.org addr I can find!

SA/Dsp ratio - wouldnt the calculation cover how much sail you can hang in the I,J,P & E triangles and hence a cutter rig would have advantages?

Kwaltersmi - thanks for the other suggestions.. pricing wize, for some reason, the SC's Ive seen seem to fall below $40k, even $30k while the others you suggest, in decent shape generally start above $50k

maybe the "owner finished" issue is why there is a strong following on the net..


----------



## sailingdog

I don't know about how the SA/D is calculated for a Cutter-rigged boat, since I don't deal with them all that much. However, as I said, the numbers I gave you are probably a bit on the low side, since most mainsails are cut with some roach to them, especially if they have any battens in the sail.

The PSC 31, HR Monsun and Mistral, Westsail 32, are other boats you could look at. The HR Mistral will probably perform much better than the PSC31 and WS32, since they're fin keeled IIRC. The Monsun is a full-keel design.


----------



## Jeff_H

Traditionally, for the purposes of calculating SA/D, cutters are calculated like sloops, in other words using 100% foretriangle. 

That said I have seen calcs that use 100% fore triangle plus 100% size of the staysail for the published sail area and I understand that Island Packets SA/D is calculated using the area of a genoa. For the purpose of SA/D and center of effort calcs, sails are always calculated as straight edged, ignoring roach or hollow. 

Jeff


----------



## sailingdog

Thanks Jeff... Good to know.


----------



## JohnRPollard

SailingDog said: <<The PSC 31, HR Monsun and Mistral, Westsail 32, are other boats you could look at. The HR Mistral will probably perform much better than the PSC31 and WS32, since they're fin keeled IIRC. >>

It's not entirely clear, but I assume you meant that only the HR Mistral was fin keeled? As a point of clarification, the boat normally referred to as the "PSC 31" is fin keeled also. Confusion sometimes arises because PSC had an earlier model called the Mariah 31 (designed by Morschladt) that indeed was full-keeled and is very similar to the Westsail 32 in appearance. Probably in performance too.

The PSC 31, designed by Crealock, has a 4'10" fin, or optional shoal draft with a 4' Scheel keel fin variant. This boat is distinguished from its otherwise very similar canoe-sterned stable mates by its traditional wine-glass transom.

Edit: To further clarify, here are some photos of a PSC 31:

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...1177436514000&photo_name=Photo+1&photo=1&url=

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...o_revised_date=1177436680000&photo_name=Stern

And here is a Mariah 31, also built by PSC:

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...ariah&photo_revised_date=1&photo_name=Photo+2

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...1168377472000&photo_name=Photo+1&photo=1&url=

The Mariah is more in keeping with the SC31/Westsail 32, etc, but the OP did enquire about fin-keeled boats so I mentioned the PSC 31.

Jeff is correct, the SA/D is supposed to be calculated without the staysail area for baseline apples-to-apples comparison (and I've heard that IPs numbers include the staysail too). Still, it doesn't hurt to also run the calculation with the staysail area included to better understand how the boat might perform under certain conditions. We mostly use our staysail when reaching in light air, when the extra area is most advantageous.


----------



## sailingdog

John-

You're correct...I often confuse the PSC31 and the Mariah, since they're both 31' boats...  The Mistral is fin-keeled, as is the PSC 31. Does the PSC31 have a spade rudder or is it skeg-hung? The one on the Mistral is skeg hung IIRC.


----------



## southerncross31

I couldn't pass this one up  Although i am a bit biased! I "fell in love" with mine last fall for 10k and spent all winter/spring/summer working on it. I had my 4th and best sail last week hitting 6.9knts upwind.....i have no idea why people say these boats are slow. They need speed to tack and dead downwind is a bit rolly but they sail VERY well. I mean it's not going to keep up with G or SD  but i really like it. I put the staysail and headsail on rollers so it is very easy to singlehand. They are actually quite manuverable with the huge rudder hanging off the back. I am docked on a small (20' wide) tidal river with strong currents but i can still turn 360 deg. For the money you can't touch a better bluewater boat! I reaserched this issue heavily! The Bayfields, IP's, Baba's are way more $ and not as strong. The Westsail is too slow and heavy (but bigger inside). I'm headed out tommorrow....12-17knts with gusts too 25...yeah!!! I really like the versatility of the sailplan (even on such a small boat). Don't let everyone scare you about the airex...it is Tough stuff. I replaced all my thru-hulls and scraped out the core around them. It was nearly impossible to remove....very strong...even where some water had entered. The BIGGEST issue is the cored area of the deck under the deck stepped mast...it is plywood and there is not enough of a crown for the water to run off, so it seeps in through the mast step bolt and radio wire holes. Mine was 100% wet so i cut it off and re-cored it. It was not very hard (i still can't find reason to justify the cost of repair at most boatyards). Of course most boats have cored decks so it's a common issue. I love my SC.....it is everything i was looking for. Sails well, tracks well, easy to handle alone and very rugged ( i have to keep my kids safe  ).


----------



## JohnRPollard

SailingDog,

Yes, it's a common mistake. That's what happens when a builder makes two completely different models of the same length, even if not at the same time. Perpetual mistaken identity.

Yes, the rudder is skeg hung, with the propeller in an aperture -- not the best for backing down, but well protected from pot warps (we pay them little heed and often sail right over them).

SC31,

Sounds like you got a great deal on a solid boat, even if it needed some work. Enjoy the breeze!


----------



## sailingdog

SC31-

Just curious...but how do you turn a 31' boat in a 20' wide river... I'd really love to learn how to do that... then maybe I could fit a 18' wide boat in a 13' wide slip. 

For the money, the SC's are probably some of the best boats for the buck for a bluewater capable boat.


----------



## sailalibi

Dont count out the Allied Seawind II. A great sea boat with better stats than the SC31!


----------



## southerncross31

That does sound a bit optimistic doesn't it  Sorry...my kids are shouting at me in the background. It opens up to about 50-60 ft to turn around. But the docks are perpendicular to the current and there is only about 20-30 ft to back out. I've been hanging out with the yard guys all year and at the end of the day they sit and drink beer for an hour and watch everone's mistakes....laugh about people finding new rocks to hit at low tide. I was so paranoid because i had heard such bad things about how the prop/rudder/keel setup of the SC would be horrible. It is actually very easy to manuver. I have a new F-16 anchor on the bowsprit and all i could imagine was twisting up someones rigging etc...  After my last sail though, i set the boat right on the dock in a 1.5knt current and stepped down casually with both lines in my hand, tied her up and killed the motor. They were all sitting there drinking, watching but in usual new england demeanor they said not a word....they only comment on the mistakes


----------



## sailingdog

LOL... a little optimistic, and a bit unrealistic...  50–60' makes more sense.


----------



## db27513

southerncross - thanks for the post - maybe you (or anyone else) can answer my question #254: after length & draft, I had on my list: a keel stepped mast as a requirement for blue water capability.. then i stumbled over the SC31! What gives? Why wouldnt a CE Ryder build without? Seems like a no brainer

btw, I just rec'd in the mail John Vigors "Twenty Small Sailboats to Take You Anywhere" and it has a chapter on the SC31.. he comments about the cored hull (he summizes its not his 1st choice) and gives the boat the following ratings:
Seaworthyness: 7 (out of 10) - surprising for a boat that gets a 1.55 capsize ratio!
Speed rating: "No sluggard"
Ocean Comfort level: 2 persons, maybe 3 max

Overall, I think he likes the boat, but questions the lack of a keel stepped mast as well..

Dave in NC


----------



## sailingdog

DB-

There are many bluewater capable boats that have deck-stepped masts. The preference of a deck-stepped or keel-stepped mast is mostly personal at this point. What makes you think a deck-stepped mast is less seaworthy than a keel-stepped mast??


----------



## Jeff_H

Dave,

One thing you need to realize is that the capsize screen ratio (or the motion comfort index) tells you absolutely nothing about how likely a boat is to capsize or how comfortable its motion is likely to be. I know that I have explained this on this forum before but here it is again, both of the capsize screen formula and motion comfort index formulas were developed at a time when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today. These formulas have limited utility in comparing boats that are very similar but are totally useless and misleading in most cases. 

Neither formula contains almost any of the real factors that control motion comfort or stability. Neither formula contains such factors as the vertical center of gravity or buoyancy, neither contains weight or buoyancy distribution, and neither contains any data on dampening. In other words these formulas lack all of the major factors that actually control motion comfort or likelihood of capsize. Weight in and of itself has next to no bearing on motion comfort or stability; nor does max beam, which in this formula is measured at a single point on the deck. 

An example that illustrates this might be two boats of equal length, equal max beam, and displacement, but one had a longer waterline and a 1000 lbs of lead in a deep draft keel, while the other had a shallow draft keel with a 1000 lbs less ballast, a hard turn of the bilge, and a 1000 lb heavier interior and deck. 

Obviously the boat with the deeper draft, lower ballast and longer waterline would be the less likely to capsize and offer a slower motion through a smaller roll angle, yet their capsize ratio and motion comfort index would be identical.

That is why I see these formulas as being worse than useless.


Jeff


----------



## JohnRPollard

DB27513 asked: <<after length & draft, I had on my list: a keel stepped mast as a requirement for blue water capability.. then i stumbled over the SC31! What gives? Why wouldnt a CE Ryder build without? Seems like a no brainer>>

There are many, many, solid blue-water boats in this size range that have deck-stepped masts. There will always be debate about what is the better approach, but properly executed there is nothing inherantly wrong with a deck-stepped mast on a boat of this size. There are eve some advantages to deck-stepped, and it is a fairly straightforward process to design sufficient support via a compression post that transfers the loads to the keel.

As boats get larger, it eventually becomes easier to just step the mast on the keel. So speaking very generally you will often see boats in the sub-35 foot range with deck-stepped masts, in the mid-upper 30's it can go either way, and above 40 usually it's keel-stepped (again - generally speaking). In the realm of "blue-water" boats, a good example that I'm familiar with is the Pacific Seacraft line, where all their models under 40 feet (Flicka 20, PSC 25, Dana 24, Orion 27, Mariah 31, Crealock 31 & PH32, Crealock 34, Crealock 37) all have deck-stepped masts. The Crealock 40 & PH40, as well as the Crealock 44, have keel-stepped masts. All were built to be blue-water boats (even if many are considered small for that purpose by today's standards).

I wouldn't lose sleep over the deck-stepped mast. But, someone pointed out that some of these boats were kit or home-built, so be sure that the compression post arrangement was properly designed and executed.


----------



## db27513

JeffH - thanks for the detail on the capsize figures.. am aware that it doesnt deal with weight placement, or depth of ballast.. but what else is there?? Im an engineer and want just the facts .. not anecdotal data! sigh

JohnR - with respect to KS masts, I think its my conservative sailing nature that likes that one more level of safety. A KSM provides that. Sure a deck stepped can be strung up tight and strong, but a failure of any one of those shrouds or stays and your in deep doo doo.. the same failure with a KSM, presents a problem, but having that solid member bolted to the keel is at least reassuring, if not more.. 

and there are some smaller bluewaterish boats that go with them.. Bayfield 29, Tarton 30, Bristol 29.9, so there must be some design factors that play into it.. but your right - been chatting with an SC31 owner and he said for sure to look hard at the stepping plate area and the base of the compression post for deterioration..

Thanks for all the insight..


----------



## JohnRPollard

<<JohnR - with respect to KS masts, I think its my conservative sailing nature that likes that one more level of safety. A KSM provides that. Sure a deck stepped can be strung up tight and strong, but a failure of any one of those shrouds or stays and your in deep doo doo.. the same failure with a KSM, presents a problem, but having that solid member bolted to the keel is at least reassuring, if not more..>>

Like I said, the pros and cons are open to debate, and I am not claiming that one approach is markedly superior to the other. But the corollary to your argument above is that there have been instances where keel stepped masts have torn massive, gaping holes in the coachroof during a rollover. And the smaller the boat, the more susceptible to rollovers in extreme conditions. All things considered, I'd rather have a well-designed deck-stepped mast in this size range. I think the primary reason you see some keel stepped masts in this size range is that it is simply cheaper to build them that way.


----------



## Jeff_H

This is from another venue but it reflects some of the thinking on keel vs deck stepped masts:

I personally strongly prefer a deck-stepped mast over a keel stepped mast but once again this is an area where opinions can differ widely. There is no right answer here. There is a contingent that thinks that the only proper way to step a mast is on the keel. There is a logic to that but it is a logic that can be engineered around and which comes out of a historical context that is less relevant with modern materials. 

To start with the basics, the base of a mast has a vertical and horizontal thrust to it that tries to push it down through the bottom of the boat and also sideward off of the mast step. In normal conditions the down load is several times greater than the side load. Beyond the loads imparted to the boat, there is also the issue of the loads that happen internally in a mast. When you look at the structure of a mast it is really a truss standing on end but it does not completely act as truss because the components of a truss are not supposed to have bending loads on them. Ideally the loads in the mast are primarily axial (acting along the length of the mast) rather than in bending (acting perpendicular to the long axis of the mast). Of course masts do have fairly large bending loads imparted into them. The two most often cited reasons for keel stepped masts being considered stronger is the way that the bending loads (moments) are distributed within the mast itself and the way that the mast imparts its loads into the boat. 

If the goal of designing a mast is to reduce bending moments within a mast, the greater the number of panels (segments between shrouds and other supports) the smaller the moments tend to be. In the days when single spreader rigs were most common a keel-stepped mast added one extra panel, the segment between the mast partners at the deck and the keel. This has become less significant as bigger boats have routinely gone to multiple spreader rigs and moment connections at the deck mounted mast steps. 


In terms of the way that the mast imparts its loads into the boat, masts are generally located in the area of the cabin trunk and because of the shape of the cabin (i.e. the deck folds up at the cabin side and horizontal again at the coach roof) this area, if not engineered for side loads is more prone to lateral flexing than would be the keel. One idea behind a keel-stepped mast being stronger is that with a keel stepped the mast is not supposed loads are put loads into the deck. 

In reality, this ideal is rarely accomplished for a number of reasons. First of all, if the mast is not tied to the deck or the deck tied to the keel near the mast, either with a tie rod or a tie from the mast to the deck and a connection from the mast to the keel, the downward force of the mast working in opposition to the upward loads of the shrouds can pull the hull together like a bow and arrow lifting the deck and separating the joint between bulkheads and the deck. You sometimes see this type of separated bulkheads on inexpensive or early fiberglass boats with keel stepped masts. 

Not only do keel stepped masts impart vertical loads into the deck (through the ties mentioned above) but they also typically end up imparting side loads as well (if they must if they are going to reduce the moments in the mast as mentioned above). This somewhat reduces the structural advantages of a keel-stepped mast to next to zero assuming that a deck-stepped mast is properly engineered, and of course that is a moderately big if!

There are several things that I consider critical to engineering a deck stepped mast properly. Primary is having a jack post below the mast. A jack post is a vertical member that carries the vertical loads of the mast to the keel. My preference is to have an aluminum jack post rather than a wooden one but a wooden post can work as well. The other issue is the distribution of the side loads. Ideally there should be a bulkhead or ring frame adjacent to the mast that can take the side loads and distribute them into the hull. Done right these are obviously more complex to do than simply having a fat spot on the keel for the mast step to land on. 


My objections to keel stepped masts are to the mostly practical. Keel stepped masts mean that there is always water in the bilge. This water comes in at halyard boxes and other openings in the mast and there is nothing that you can do will stop that. Second, it is way harder to step and unstep a keel-stepped mast making the boat more subject to damage in the process. 

Beyond that if you loose a mast (I have lost two in my life) it is better in my opinion to loose a deck stepped mast because a keel-stepped mast is more likely to damage the deck when it fails and a deck-stepped mast is easier to clear away. The keel stepped mast advocates point out that you are more likely to end up with a bigger stump after the mast fails. I am not sure that that is the case if you are able to tow the rig as a drougue until things quiet down enough to rig a jury rig. I am not sure what you do when the boat is being beaten to death by the upper portion of a keel stepped mast that has buckled 20 feet off the deck at the spreaders. . 

My preferred set up is a deck stepped mast that has a welded flange on its bottom that is through bolted through the deck into the top flange of a structural aluminum jack post in such a way that there is a moment connection and yet the mast stub can be unbolted and jetisonned if it risked sinking the boat. My current boat has a keel stepped mast. It is my intent to pull this mast and have it modified to that arrangement if I ever go intend offshore with her.


----------



## southerncross31

The SC31 has 4, 1/4 inch,19 strand shrouds on either side, a split backstay, the headstay and the inner stay for the staysail. Of all of the deck stepped masts i have seen it has by far the most support. The mast itself is not very tall (~45 ft off the water) and it is very rugged. If i loose a wire for some reason it might stand a chance if i can get the sails down. If for some reason it goes overboard I have 2 hacksaws and a wirecutter onboard to cut it away.
I feel the same way as Jeff, the last thing i would want was a 200 lb 20ft peice of aluminum swinging around poking holes in my boat. If it's going over all is better than nothing!
On the other hand, I think the bottom of my compression post is soft. It is glassed to the keel so it is hard to see but there is definate compression going on...like the bathroom door won't shut in heavy wind! I think I am going to take the mast back off this winter and jack up the cabin top, then cut out the lower section of the compression post and replace it with either metal stock or a fixed jack. Any ideas? All's good though, it isn't getting much worse so i think i can sail out the season. I was out yesterday with a reef in the main and the staysail in 20-25knts! I brought a powerboater friend who had NEVER sailed. He was hooked after the first upwind tack


----------



## GBurton

sc 31- if water gets into the airex core, what happens?


----------



## Jeff_H

Nothing, unlike less expensive foams normally used on power boats and airex is a cross-linked closed cell foam so the water stays pretty much within that localized area where it got access. There is a slight exception to that in areas with a large number of freeze thaw cycles, where the melting and refreezing water can cause a delamination between the foam and the skin. Unlike Balsa this is a pretty easy repair accomplished by drilling holes, draining the area, drying it out and injecting with resin.

The nice thing about airex is that it has a little bit of memory which greatly increases impact resistance over a non-cored hull. 

Jeff


----------



## msl

Are J Boats (the 34C or 35C) airex core or balsa?

Thanks,
msl


----------



## southerncross31

There was water intrusion around one of my thru-hull bolts. The airex was a little soft for about 1/8 inch, then looked fine. There was no evidence of water migration beyond that first 1/8th inch. It is a very hard material. Not what you would think of as foam really. It was nearly impossible to remove...i snapped several allen bits with my drill trying to scrape out a 1" area around the thu-hull holes! There also seems to be a lot less condensation inside the boat and it really mutes outside noises. Compared to the hull on my Pearson 26, it seems like a bank vault  When you come crashing over waves beating into the wind, it doesn't pound at all!!!!


----------



## wnor

I have owned a factory-finished 1980 Southern Cross 31 for 11 years, doing the usual coastal New England sailing things. Sundry thoughts: Like every boat, she is a collection of compromises, but fairly effective ones in my view. She is almost ridiculously over-engineered - you may not get there fast, but you are going to get there. The rig, in particular, is comically massive. Though I love the boat, there's no doubt she is a pig in close quarters. Backing down, you are just along for the ride and have little directional control. On the other hand, the boat sails delightfully in heavy weather, and, with a little tweaking, will beat hands-off better than I can sail her. She pops over following seas like a cork. New sails, particularly a nice full-batten main with generous roach, have made light-air performance reasonable. Stowage is quite limited. Some have reported cracking of the welds in the pintle/gudgeon assemblies; I've inspected mine in detail and noticed no problem. Compression post is fine, and I have not heard of problems with it. I had to overhaul the engine and thought at first that pulling the engine from the tight compartment was going to be impossible, but suspending the engine from a horizontal pipe levered with a chain fall worked fine. But getting to the stuffing box requires gymnastics - if I gain one more ounce I will not fit in the engine compartment. Water stowage is limited (45 gallons). The largest holding tank I could figure out how to install was 6 gallons; just a toy, really. I'm seriously considering installing an Airhead to prevent being forced out of anchorages to dump sewage (I just refuse to violate those laws). Since these are old boats, the majority currently on the market are probably neglected wrecks, but a good one is a wonderful boat, in my view.


----------



## Vern Bastable

SA / D on a stock rig SC31 is 13.98 many have the Tall Rig and or Cutter Rig so they are different but even on the short rig no way its as low as 12.55. Cored hull is no worry as both inner and outer fibreglass each are often as thick as some non cored hulls are. Core makes them less "sweaty" inside as well when things get cold outside. I regularly beat the West Sail 31 in our yacht club and while no heavy cruiser points well on a beam reach they are quite quick.


----------



## Harry Black

southerncross31 said:


> I couldn't pass this one up  Although i am a bit biased! I "fell in love" with mine last fall for 10k and spent all winter/spring/summer working on it. I had my 4th and best sail last week hitting 6.9knts upwind.....i have no idea why people say these boats are slow. They need speed to tack and dead downwind is a bit rolly but they sail VERY well. I mean it's not going to keep up with G or SD  but i really like it. I put the staysail and headsail on rollers so it is very easy to singlehand. They are actually quite manuverable with the huge rudder hanging off the back. I am docked on a small (20' wide) tidal river with strong currents but i can still turn 360 deg. For the money you can't touch a better bluewater boat! I reaserched this issue heavily! The Bayfields, IP's, Baba's are way more $ and not as strong. The Westsail is too slow and heavy (but bigger inside). I'm headed out tommorrow....12-17knts with gusts too 25...yeah!!! I really like the versatility of the sailplan (even on such a small boat). Don't let everyone scare you about the airex...it is Tough stuff. I replaced all my thru-hulls and scraped out the core around them. It was nearly impossible to remove....very strong...even where some water had entered. The BIGGEST issue is the cored area of the deck under the deck stepped mast...it is plywood and there is not enough of a crown for the water to run off, so it seeps in through the mast step bolt and radio wire holes. Mine was 100% wet so i cut it off and re-cored it. It was not very hard (i still can't find reason to justify the cost of repair at most boatyards). Of course most boats have cored decks so it's a common issue. I love my SC.....it is everything i was looking for. Sails well, tracks well, easy to handle alone and very rugged ( i have to keep my kids safe  ).


I am currently considering SC31 but sail on Lake Ontario and we get a lot of light wind days under 10 knots in June-July. I will never at my age get to do true blue water sailing. Is this the right boat for me?


----------



## Jeff_H

msl said:


> Are J Boats (the 34C or 35C) airex core or balsa?
> 
> Thanks,
> msl


Balsa


----------



## Harry Black

southerncross31 said:


> I couldn't pass this one up  Although i am a bit biased! I "fell in love" with mine last fall for 10k and spent all winter/spring/summer working on it. I had my 4th and best sail last week hitting 6.9knts upwind.....i have no idea why people say these boats are slow. They need speed to tack and dead downwind is a bit rolly but they sail VERY well. I mean it's not going to keep up with G or SD  but i really like it. I put the staysail and headsail on rollers so it is very easy to singlehand. They are actually quite manuverable with the huge rudder hanging off the back. I am docked on a small (20' wide) tidal river with strong currents but i can still turn 360 deg. For the money you can't touch a better bluewater boat! I reaserched this issue heavily! The Bayfields, IP's, Baba's are way more $ and not as strong. The Westsail is too slow and heavy (but bigger inside). I'm headed out tommorrow....12-17knts with gusts too 25...yeah!!! I really like the versatility of the sailplan (even on such a small boat). Don't let everyone scare you about the airex...it is Tough stuff. I replaced all my thru-hulls and scraped out the core around them. It was nearly impossible to remove....very strong...even where some water had entered. The BIGGEST issue is the cored area of the deck under the deck stepped mast...it is plywood and there is not enough of a crown for the water to run off, so it seeps in through the mast step bolt and radio wire holes. Mine was 100% wet so i cut it off and re-cored it. It was not very hard (i still can't find reason to justify the cost of repair at most boatyards). Of course most boats have cored decks so it's a common issue. I love my SC.....it is everything i was looking for. Sails well, tracks well, easy to handle alone and very rugged ( i have to keep my kids safe  ).


Can I talk to you about the SC31. I am looking at purchasing one and my big worry is that it's too slow. I'd like really like to hear about your experiences with it in different types of wind. My name is Harry and my number is 416- 464-3442.


----------



## sailingfool

Harry Black said:


> Can I talk to you about the SC31. I am looking at purchasing one and my big worry is that it's too slow. I'd like really like to hear about your experiences with it in different types of wind. My name is Harry and my number is 416- 464-3442.


If you reference the PHRF NE handicaps




__





PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps


PHRF New England is an independent handicapping authority whose handicaps are used by fleets sailing on Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts Bay, the Gulf of Maine, and Lake Winnipesauke.



www.phrfne.org




you see the SC 31 rates 222. The new England region is not a particularly light air area, so this rating would be for average to higher wind speeds. A comparable size boat like a Pearson 31-2 rates 156, while and ODay 31 rates 171.

In a light wind area, with this boat I would think you would spend a lot of time under power rather than sailing..


----------

