# I keep forgetting about the Com-Pac 27...



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

There are plenty for sale in my price range, and unlike the Hunter, I don't think anyone can argue that it's either ugly, or poorly build. It is a gorgeous boat, think it fits my needs? (great lakes cruising).

So right now the top three are:

Hunter 27
Com-Pac 27
Catalina 28

In order of affordability:

Com-Pac 27 (although pre 1994 boats will need a repower, only 10hp)
Catalina 28
Hunter 27


----------



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

Then again I keep reading that they are slow, and have low density ballast. Maybe that's why I wasn't looking too hard.


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Looks like shes making probably 6 or 6.5 knots in the picture..how much faster can a 27' cruiser get anyway. Nice looking boat


----------



## Perithead (Nov 16, 2007)

From what I have read and heard, Compacs are good boats. I think they may be better built than Hunters. With the double lifelines it would come across to me as stronger made boat. From what I have learned double lifelines are a good sign of how strong a boat is built. (but I may very well be incorrect)


----------



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

Perithead said:


> From what I have read and heard, Compacs are good boats. I think they may be better built than Hunters. With the double lifelines it would come across to me as stronger made boat. From what I have learned double lifelines are a good sign of how strong a boat is built. (but I may very well be incorrect)


I don't know if that's a sign of how well it's built, double lifelines would be the first modification I would make to the Hunter. The Hunter is over 1600lbs heavier than the Com-Pac and has 500lbs less ballast (H27 = 7600lbs, 2000lbs ballast. CP27 = 6000lbs, 2500lbs ballast). To me that indicates that the Hunter may be the more solidly built boat, and a better performer. But I'm sure there are other factors. I do know the Com-Pac rates a good 20-30 seconds slower per mile, with the Catalina 28 in between the two boats. The Hunter is not rated nationally yet, regional ratings only.

As for personal inspections, I have not seen a Com-Pac 28 in person, but have seen their smaller boats, and they seem to be ok, not spectacular. They just look like old salty dogs, when really they are just coastal cruisers. This is not a problem as it's what I'm looking for, but I would like to poke around in or hear from a Com-Pac 27 owner. I have seen the Catalina and Hunter in person, from what I can tell the Hunter is very solidly built, the Catalina a little less so. It's an odd change from Hunters from the 80's and 90's that's for sure, back when I was first looking at boats I immediately crossed all Hunters off the list, because the couple I looked at were crap, but all the current models I looked at are completely different.

Another factor that makes this boat attractive is it uses foam coring instead of balsa (same with the Precision 28, another boat I'm interested) That means I may be able to go back a few more years than I was willing to before. My Siren was foam cored on deck, and had zero maintenance done before I bought it (it was 30 years old!) it showed no signs of delamination anywhere.


----------



## Delirious (Dec 16, 2001)

BoatUS.com: Boat Reviews by Jack Hornor, N.A. - Alberg 30

Here's a revied on the ComPac 27. I believe the hulls were actually fabricatred by Nimble at some point. Don't know who is doing them lately.

It's a different boat from the smaller ComPacs - designed by Bob Johnson of Island Packets. And, like Island Packets, it is heavy on solid and short on performance. Not a cow, but no antelope, either.

It's a lot of boat for a 27 footer. If you're more interested in two week or longer trips it would probably be a better choice than the Hunter or the Catalina. But for day sailing or weekending the sportier boats may be better. Depends mostly on your're wants and expectations.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I also think which boat depends on what you want to do...those are three pretty different boats. I'd say the Hunter if you want to daysail, race and cruise, the Catalina if you want to daysail and cruise with a little more room, and the Compac if you like the feel of a heavier boat, want to cruise and want to look good doing it, regardless of how fast you're going.

As far as the more or less ballast question....I would certainly not say that proportionately less ballast indicates a better built boat. Modern shaped boats have wide beam and flat bottoms, they use their shape to provide initial stability and can get away with less ballast. The downside of this is that they can get hard to steer if you don't keep them flat. A more traditionally shaped boat like the Compac won't have such a flat bottom and will heel more easily (initially) as once the boat heels the ballast kicks in to provide stability. These types of boats are more comfortable when the going gets tough and are less likely to develop weird steering if you have too much sail up and lay the boat over on its ear. So it really has nothing to do with how the boat is built, but the shape of the hull.


----------



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

The Com-Pac is lighter than the Hunter, despite having more ballast. not the other way around, and the Com-Pac is just as flat underneath as the Hunter and Catalina, it's only "traditionally shaped" on top. It's sailing characteristics should also be very similar.

Com-Pac 27 hull...


----------



## soulfinger (Aug 21, 2008)

The Com-Pac is certainly the best looking boat. I guess the advantage of the hunter is the aft cabin, but I would be surprised if the hunter was better built than the Com-Pac. Com-Pac seems to build very solid boats in a traditional, timeless style.


----------



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

soulfinger said:


> The Com-Pac is certainly the best looking boat. I guess the advantage of the hunter is the aft cabin, but I would be surprised if the hunter was better built than the Com-Pac. Com-Pac seems to build very solid boats in a traditional, timeless style.


Well it's not as nicely finished as the Com Pac, but that extra 1600lbs has to come from somewhere, and it's certainly not in the wood trim, the Hunter has next to none  Like I said, I have not seen the Com-Pac in person, but I have seen the Hunter, and it's solid. like 1/3" glass in non-structural parts like cockpit hatches, no flexing anywhere on the hull or deck, the boat does not heel over when standing on one side (I weigh 220lbs) thick rigging and thick companionway hatch. It seemed better built than the Catalinas and Beneteaus, and saw no difference in solidity to the Tartans.

I have some time to see all these boats in person before I buy, I'm not buying until next fall at the earliest.


----------



## Delirious (Dec 16, 2001)

I've never sailed in the ComPac27 but sat aboard at an Annaplois Boat Show and was kind of impressed with the fit & finish and use of space. 

We owned a brand new ComPac 16II as our first cabin sailboat back in 1984. Very well made. 

After that boat show we ended up with a used Pearson 27 vs. the new ComPac 27 as it was, is, and ever more shall be a better lake boat and much better suited to pointing and light air days. When your destination is upwind on a lake you will use every nautical term available to curse a boat that can't point to 45º.

As I said earlier, you have to get pretty specific in what your sailing requirements and conditions are.


----------

