# Feedback Needed: Blue Water Cruising Boats 32-36 Feet



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

Hi Folks,

I'm new to the forum, but I'm not at all new to sailing. I spent my childhood in dingy racing, my the summers in college crewing expensive cruising boats for (mostly) unskilled owners, and was a liveaboard for four years in my late 20's/early 30's. I've done a handful of long single handed coastal trips and one blue water passage.

Now, some 20 years later -- having taken a long break from boating -- I'm looking to buy a boat, and I wanted to tap the collective wisdom that I've seen on this board from lurking for the past six months.

I've been out of the boating world for two decades, during which time I'm sure lots has changed, but below is a brief summary of what (I think) I'm looking for. Mostly, I'd appreciate your input and suggestions to help me refine the objectives and pick the appropriate boat.

Here's our criteria:

1. 32-36 feet (but we'd consider slightly smaller and larger boats)

2. Blue water capable/proven (although we have no immediate plans for anything more than extended coastal cruising): stout, seaworthy, solidly outfitted. We'll trade speed for stability and safety.

3. Berthing: a minimum of three usable berths; five would handy for the few times when we invite a couple of friends for the weekend.

4. Hull design: most likely a full keel design with a cutaway forefoot, but we'd consider a stoutly built more modern design.

5. Outfitting: we'll trade gizmos and the latest amenities for proven, simple systems that require little maintenance.

6. Rigging/layout: cutters probably fit our needs best, but yawls and ketches are not beyond consideration and a single headsail would also be workable. Aft cockpit.

7. Emotional: we'd like to find a boat that captures our hearts as well as our minds: so history, lore, and traditional styling, etc. would be have huge appeal. There's something about teak decks and a class design that we cherish.

8. Budget: up to $100K, but we're prefer to find something under $80K. The market's quite soft.

I've got a short list of boats we like: Valiants, Cape George cutters, some of the Sam Morse designs, Pacific Seacraft, etc., but I really don't know how any of these boats line up against our criteria.

We expect to use the boat for weekend adventures during the year, trips of 2-3 weeks in duration during the summer, and (in another ten years after we retire) for extended periods of living aboard and cruising (probably nothing beyond extended coastal voyages, rather than open-ocean passages).

We're open to (and would be greatly thankful for) any input, but our specific question for the group is:

_*Given our criteria and budget, what boats/designs should we target and should we revise our criteria in any way given our objectives?*_

Gratefully yours,
Oyster7
PacNW, USA


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

What you haven't said, and the item which would best allow comment on the specifics of your criteria and short list, is what you plan to do with the boat. 

I would suggest that collectively your criteria makes sense only if your primary goal is leisurely long distance cruising with a large maintenance budget. Most would be lousy coastal cruisers, especially in an area like the PNW known for big currents. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

The Hans Christian 33 or 38 would work for you if you consider the bunk area in the salon for guests sleeping arrangements. Most of the 33's have a quarter berth, but ours does not, so I can't tell you how comfortable they are. We have had guests on our 33' boat, and as long as they don't mind the salon, the comfort is fine. Everything else meets your criteria for the HC 33.


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

remetau said:


> The Hans Christian 33 or 38 would work for you if you consider the bunk area in the salon for guests sleeping arrangements. Most of the 33's have a quarter berth, but ours does not, so I can't tell you how comfortable they are. We have had guests on our 33' boat, and as long as they don't mind the salon, the comfort is fine. Everything else meets your criteria for the HC 33.


Pretty boats, but waaaay too much teak for my tastes.


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

Thanks, all, for your input. Jeff, I've updated the criteria to say "We expect to use the boat for weekend adventures during the year, trips of 2-3 weeks in duration during the summer, and (in another ten years after we retire) for extended periods of living aboard and cruising (probably nothing beyond extended coastal voyages, rather than open-ocean passages)." Remetau, having guests sleep in the salon is fine (and what we had in mind). I doubt we'll have overnighting guests more than a couple of weekends a year anyway. Thanks, again!


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Oyster7 said:


> We expect to use the boat for weekend adventures during the year, trips of 2-3 weeks in duration during the summer, and (in another ten years after we retire) for extended periods of living aboard and cruising (probably nothing beyond extended coastal voyages, rather than open-ocean passages).


Ten year is a long time, why don't you buy a boat that fits your current need and look for another one ten years from now. It is most likely that you can afford a better boat by then.

After joining sailnet in 2006 and read every post about blue water boats vs other, I am still clueless of which I should buy. I hope you have better luck than I.


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

From my read of your intended use, you dont EVER seem like you need a salty, bluewater cruiser on this comment



> probably nothing beyond extended coastal voyages, rather than open-ocean passages.


Looks like you need something that would be a good liveaboard that could make the occasional gulfstream or mona passaeg crossing with good weather window. Correct?

If so, a production coastal cruiser would fit the bill and save you some bucks to get you in your budget with a newer boat which would sae you big bucks in refit costs. Liveability cant be beat for the bucks you'll spend...nice cockpits that are perfect for bimini/dodger, airy belowdecks, lots of ventilation, low maintenance (no teak).


----------



## casioqv (Jun 15, 2009)

Are you going to need to cook meals, and sleep in rough seas too far offshore to make it to a protected anchorage? If not it sounds like a bluewater cruiser would be a huge mistake for you! 

Most heavy classic style bluewater cruisers don't sail at all in the usually light winds of the pacific northwest; you might as well get a trawler since you'll be motoring most of the time anyway.

They also have huge compromises for sleeping at anchor/dock in calm water since they're designed for sleeping/cooking/living safely in very rough seas. Narrow bunks for use with lee cloths, small gimbaled stoves, tiny portholes/companionway, etc.

My wife and I do the type of cruising you're talking about in a Catalina 22- and it's more than seaworthy enough, if a bit cramped. We take it offshore, as long as we can spend the night in a protected cove on an island, and not at sea. You could do this sort of thing in most any sailboat.


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

This is all very helpful, as it's forcing us to rethink the merits of buying a boat with far more capability (and with greater limitations) than we probably need. Alas, we also happen to be smitten with more classical designs. I guess it's all about tradeoffs. I'm not sure where we'll come out, but I'd appreciate any (and all) the feedback you folks are willing to offer, so please keep the comments coming...

Much obliged!


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Hi Oyster,

We all have our various reasons and predilections that attract us to certain style boats. There's really no accounting for personal preference.

That said, the thing that strikes me most about your criteria is the preference for a full-keel design. Full-keels have some advantages, but they also offer many disadvantages too. 

If you were looking to find the smallest possible boat that could safely cross oceans, and carry a heavy payload, then I'd say look at the various full-keel options in the 20-30 foot range. A full-keel on boats in this size range can yield some advantages, such as offering more displacement in a small length-over-all package.

But once you start moving up into the 30-plus foot range, it really is no longer necessary to have a full-keel in order to achieve the heavier displacement some find desirable in off-shore boats. Most blue-water boat builders, like Pacific Seacraft, Valiant, Hallberg Rassy, etc etc, are not using full-keel designs. Take a look, and you'll see that they use fin keels, usually with a full- or partial-skeg at the rudder.

In the 30'+ size range, there is plenty of hull volume available to achieve needed storage, etc without going to a heavy displacement full-keel arrangement and all its downsides. The downsides are that full-keels hugely increase wetted surface, which creates drag and hampers performance particularly in light air. To compensate for that, you'll need a bigger rig/sailplan, which increases costs and difficulty of handling. Also, a full-keel is simply not as efficient a shape for generating lift as the higher aspect fin keels. So not only do you get more drag, but you get less lift along with it.

So, I would say, throw out that "full-keel" criteria. That doesn't mean you shouldn't end-up with one, only that you shouldn't be disqualifying boats because they don't offer full-keels. You will really open up many more possibilities by considering fin keels too.

I also will agree with others who have said, that for how you plan to use the boat, there are loads of offerings from mainstream production builders that would suite your needs very well. So my best advice is to cast your net a little wider as you continue your search. And don't discount the "comfort" features and amenities so quickly, either. They are really nice to have and can make a big difference in your enjoyment of the boat.

Good luck!


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

JP's points about expanding your search beyond heavy displacement full keel boats is well founded. Note that two of the more popular and prolific bluewater boat desingers (Perry and Crealock) each started with mulitple full keel designs and moved towards modified, cut-away forefoot designs and then onto true fin keelers. Check out the evolution of Perry's line of Baba/Panda/Tashiba boats that started as a rival to the Atkin/Crealock full keel Westsail 32. Then look at some newer designs by Perry such as the Valiants and Crealock's PSC built boats.

Another possible advantage of full keel designs not mentioned by John above is the their tracking ability on down wind runs. This attribute can make a full keel boat a reasonable choice for some itineraries, such as the milk run through the Pacific. However, for the weekend coastal trips you mentioned you may benefit greatly from the increased windward performance of most modified full keels and fin keels.

As John said, you may still end up with a full-keeler because there's many good ones available in your price range, but your options are nearly endless.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

I'll just throw this one out there; a boat that does coastal cruising well, but is built like a tank, and is known for blue water capability: 1978-1987 CS-36T

It meets all your criteria (although the emotional aspect is subjective).

I will leave it to the collective to critique the boat (and know that they will).


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

I take it you are in Puget sound or north in the straight of Georgia? There is NO need for a heavy full keel boat around here in the collective salish sea area. In fact, a fin keel is the better option with our light winds if you want to sail at all. 

Granted there are some of the heavier, salty style boat around here, BUT, the weather even when 60knots of wind, unless in the straight of jan de fuca, you will not have waves over 10', and could probably motor to the nearest marina to wait out the 24 hrs maybe 36 hrs max that it will be too windy to sail or be on the boat.

But reality is, many of the boats in the 32-36' range built over the last 10 yrs, I would say 90% of them have the European Class A ie open ocean bild spec ratings. Most should be able to go down the west coast in the typical August/sept time frame. Not sure I would want to be out there in the winter, where ave wind seems to be 30-60 knots.......with times it is calm.. but still.

A number of folks in the summer while choosing weather windows circumnavigate Vancouver island in boats as small as 25', even kayaks. 

Marty


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

*I like the CS 36T + some others*



eherlihy said:


> I'll just throw this one out there; a boat that does coastal cruising well, but is built like a tank, and is known for blue water capability: 1978-1987 CS-36T
> 
> It meets all your criteria (although the emotional aspect is subjective).
> 
> I will leave it to the collective to critique the boat (and know that they will).


When I was looking at mid 30s cruisers in 2000 I narrowed the field to three boats: CS 36T, Tartan 37, and Niagara 35. I ended up buying the Niagara and was very pleased with it. A main reason why I decided against the CS was that the bilge was very shallow with nothing resembling a sump. Any water that got in (and some always will) would end up in storage lockers when the boat was heeled.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

kwaltersmi said:


> JP's points about expanding your search beyond heavy displacement full keel boats is well founded. Note that two of the more popular and prolific bluewater boat desingers (Perry and Crealock) each started with mulitple full keel designs and moved towards modified, cut-away forefoot designs and then onto true fin keelers. Check out the evolution of Perry's line of Baba/Panda/Tashiba boats that started as a rival to the Atkin/Crealock full keel Westsail 32. Then look at some newer designs by Perry such as the Valiants and Crealock's PSC built boats.


Actually, Perry designed the Valiant 40 before he did the Tayana 37, Babas, etc.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

blt2ski said:


> I take it you are in Puget sound or north in the straight of Georgia? There is NO need for a heavy full keel boat around here in the collective salish sea area. In fact, a fin keel is the better option with our light winds if you want to sail at all.


+1

Marty and Jeff are right. You don't need a blue water boat to sail in the Salish Sea. If you do, then it simply means you picked the wrong time to cross the straits. As mentioned, we don't have the fetch required to build high seas unless you are out in the straits (Juan de Fuca or Georgia).

A production cruiser will be cheaper, more comfortable, sail MUCH better, easier to maintain, and probably easier to sail double-handed. There are lots of boat on the market right now in this category and many that are on more traditional lines (as opposed to the euro-sleek look of the Bene's etc...). Plenty also have all the brightwork you could ever want (though I prefer to sail my boat than refinish my boat).

If you decide that the waters between Olympia and Hope Island too restrictive at some point in the future, then you can look for a boat to head out into the Pacific with at that time.

As was mentioned, if you buy a boat like you described, you will spend almost all your time under power. Even if you buy a good performer, you'll still spend enough time under power in the Summer months around here.

Of course, if you decide on an old Catalina 36, hit me up as I've got one to sell.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

For short jaunts and local area (if you enjoy sailing) Catalina 36. If you think something more distant is in your future, Tayana 37. I personally am of the opinion that the difficulty in further destinations with the typical production boats is not the boat design, so to speak, but storage and water, and diesel, etc. You should be able to have both of those boats within your price range and both are likely available in that gerographical area. 

My opinions.

Brian


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

FOr around here, assuming we are still disCUSSing the salish sea, marina's are usually no more than 15 miles apart, so tankage of water to a degree is not an issue. There is one fellow in my YC, he had a T-bird up to desolation sound this last summer. My boat has been up there 3-4 times with the Orignal Owner over the 20 yrs they owned her, and I have all of 20 gals of water, and 7 diesel. He never hooked up the 15 or so gal black tank. 

There is probably a reason that one of the more popular boats around here is a catalina 30 frankly. if you go bigger, the C36 is popular too, as are other similar style boats. hunter is another that is popular. Jeanneau, Beneteau are also making inroads with boats sold with in the last 10 yrs. go older, then Erickson, SanJuan, Islander among others are very popular. ANY of these boat brands will do fine around here. if you want to pay a bit more, then go with a J-boat. 

There are a few, I mean a few of the old shoe off shore boat floating around, ie Valiant, Tayana, Cascadess etc. I know of one couple headin around the world right now in a J109, another took off in a J37C to who knows where.....

marty


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

This is all very helpful. Thank you -- everyone -- for your input and advice. I can see clearly that this will be a useful resource for us, and I'm grateful.

All the best,
Oyster7


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

I forgot to mention this, but -- yes -- we live in the PacNW, and would be sailing in the lower-to-mid Puget Sound for the bulk of the year (weekends and long weekends), with a one-to-two week cruise into the San Juans in the summers. Eventually (as in ten years from now when we stop working), then longer passages are likely, but I cannot see our doing any extended blue water passages. I've seen enough ocean out of sight of land to know that it kinda all looks the same once you're offshore...


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

The water might look the same but the destinations don't.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Then for the cruising you want to do, there is no need for an old shoe slower than slow overbuilt blah blah blah, unless you want to the look. Then look for how shall I say, lower quality to higher quality coastal cruisers. ALL will work around here. I know of 5 on my dock in Edmonds, ALL with Hunters, ALL love there boats. for off shore, not sure I would want one. Tartans ie older ones, would fit in the better built, CS another.....lower would be catalina, Jeanneau, beneteau.............

East coast folks will say you need a shallow keel, around here, deep keel is better, you are usually in 200-600+ feet of water. So you anchor all of 50' farther out, not enough to kill some one. Some places, you can nose the bow to the cliff, an still have 200' of water under you.........

marty


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Marty's absolutely right here.. for this area you want at least a moderately responsive light air performer that can take the occasional blow when properly handled. Draft is rarely an issue. Unfortunately in typical summer conditions sometimes the condition of the engine is the bigger deal.

Any of the mainstream brands would do - hard to argue with Catalina's success, sometimes it's hard to figure Hunter's, but successful they are. Friends have a late 80s H 375 which seems a lovely vessel and sails well too.

Your budget is reasonable and you should have a good selection to choose from once you put your 'short list' together.


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

This is all helpful. Thanks, folks!


----------



## djodenda (Mar 4, 2006)

You are getting good advice, Oyster.. remarkably consistent, eh?

To amplify... You really want two boats. Once for daysailing and coastal cruising. Then, later, something else if you decide to head out.

It's expensive to change boats, but I think the cost is justified in this case because you have such divergent needs, and a relatively long time frame to work with.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

djodenda said:


> You are getting good advice, Oyster.. remarkably consistent, eh?


David! a few trips to Vancouver and you're already talking Canadjun, eh?!


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

eh?!?!?

don;t tell David his boat sunk yesterday, he furrget to put the dogjer back up, cockpit flooded, and down she went.......

Pics at 4 pm!

Marty

PS, By the way david, will check the dodger later today!


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Someone owes me a beer for fixing the cover on the dodger windows...............


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

My apologies for not responding sooner -- and the delay says nothing about my appreciation to all of you for weighing in on this conversation. Rather, my wife and I were deliberating, and it took some time to get clarity on what we want and need. Your input was helpful.

We have decided (consistent with the advice many of you offered) to delay buying a blue water boat. We have even backed away from buying a coastal cruising boat. Instead, we're going to buy the smallest day sailor we can, from time to time, spend a night aboard with the intention of simply trailering her when needed.

That'll sidestep the (i) problem of being an absentee owner, (ii) the cost of keeping a boat in a marina (and the maintenance it requires), and (iii) the feeling of obligation that will come from having a boat we feel compelled to use. We've also realistically realized that we're not going to be spending huge numbers of weekends essentially living on whatever boat we buy now, so a nice day sailor really does make sense for now.

We're pretty deep into the process of buying a nicely restored Cape Dory Typhoon Weekender. It's not fast, but it's kindly, reasonably stable (for a day sailor), and a lovely thing to look at. Just barely big enough for gunkholing a few weekends per year, and within the towing capacity of our SUV.

Thanks, again. You were all very helpful.
Oyster7


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Thanks for the update, Oyster

Sounds like you've thought it through and your decision makes sense based on what you've said.

It IS a substantial investment, initially and ongoing with moorage costs etc and there will be pressure to 'make it worthwhile'. In the meantime you'll learn a lot and will be ready for the move up when it's the right time for it!


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

I am obliged. Once the boat arrives, and I have some time to live with it, I'm sure I'll return here to the well to drop in another bucket for more advice. I suspect the first purchase might be a handheld GPS plotter, and I don't have a clue what I ought to get. The last time I owned a sailboat, we were all using Loran...


----------



## eryka (Mar 16, 2006)

We've loved our Garmin Oregon 400C - if you look around you should be able to get one for just over $200.


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

Cool. How fun! Thanks for your help. If I may burden you with a question or two...

The Garmin site says: "_BlueChart® g2 coastal charts with limited capability for U.S. and Bahamas_". I'm not sure what "limited capability" means! Can you use the built-in charts effectively for navigation or did you need to purchase additional charts? And does coastal mean "just the coast" or, for example, the Puget Sound in the PacNW? Is the screen large enough to really plot a course, as well as, say, located a good spot for throwing a hook?

Oyster (feeling obliged for all the advice)


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

I'd guess the 'limited capability' for those regions would be the absence of large scale charts with harbour/coastal detail. There's probably a reasonable overview chart of the area, but you'd not be able to 'zoom in' for detail very far.

No doubt you can purchase/unlock more charts for that area (for a price)


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

No, the limited capability has more to do with the satellite photo and "highway" view that the G2 Bluecharts have as a deluxe feature. IIRC, the Colorado/Oregon units can't display the photos or the 3D "highway" over the bow view.



Faster said:


> I'd guess the 'limited capability' for those regions would be the absence of large scale charts with harbour/coastal detail. There's probably a reasonable overview chart of the area, but you'd not be able to 'zoom in' for detail very far.
> 
> No doubt you can purchase/unlock more charts for that area (for a price)


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Cool... thanks SD


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Faster said:


> Cool... thanks SD


de nada Faster..


----------



## hardin45lover (May 6, 2010)

*Try This*

Cape Dory 33 or 36
Capt.Joseph


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

Sorry, for not following the bouncing ball, but do your comments, above, imply that if I were to buy the Garmin Oregon 400c, I could simply charge it up and go use it, out of the box, to plot courses, locate hazards, identify buoys, and find anchorages, as I could with a set of marine charts?

If so, I guess the only (other) question I have is whether "coastal" includes the Puget Sound, as that's an area where we'll be sailing and will need a plotter.

Thanks, again. Technology certainly has moved along since I last owned a boat and Loran was state-of-the-art.

Best,
Oyster

PS: not that any gizmo is a _substitute _for actual charts, of course...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Basically, yes. The 400C should have the coastal US charts, including Puget Sound.



Oyster7 said:


> Sorry, for not following the bouncing ball, but do your comments, above, imply that if I were to buy the Garmin Oregon 400c, I could simply charge it up and go use it, out of the box, to plot courses, locate hazards, identify buoys, and find anchorages, as I could with a set of marine charts?
> 
> If so, I guess the only (other) question I have is whether "coastal" includes the Puget Sound, as that's an area where we'll be sailing and will need a plotter.
> 
> ...


----------



## sck5 (Aug 20, 2007)

Before I got my current big plotter on the boat I used a Garmin handheld for chartering. It was too small to really see to plot a course on - I did that on my laptop and transferred the waypoints to the handheld. I am not sure, but you may be able to connect an Oregon to a computer to do this - I had to purchase charts for my csx76 map so I downloaded them to the laptop before putting them on the handheld.


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

This is helpful. Thanks! Given that we're buying a (mostly) day sailor that we can do the occasional night aboard, we won't be doing a lot of sails that require plotting, but it would be useful to have in the event that the weather ever takes a surprise turn.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

Oyster7 said:


> This is helpful. Thanks! Given that we're buying a (most) day sailor that we can do the occasional night aboard, we won't be doing a lot of sails that require plotting, but it would be useful to have in the event that the weather ever takes a surprise turn.


On my Catalina 36 (I use an old, portable, Garmin GPS/plotter. The screen is very small, but it worked really well throughout the Salish Sea. As you said, it doesn't replace real charts, so I found I would use paper charts for planning, and just the use the GPS to track progress en route. Cheap and effective.

I've now got a large RayMarine plotter on the C400. It is nice, but most of the time no more useful/effective than that old Garmin GPS.


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out on a Garmin Oregon 400c then. Seems a decent choice, and they seem to sell for under $400. 

Now, does anyone have any suggestions for a decent (but reasonably priced) handheld VHF? 

In my view, virtually all boats ought to have (i) a fire extinguisher, (ii) charts (and possibly a GPS), and (iii) a VHF, in addition to life jackets, a horn, etc.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Most cruising sized boats are REQUIRED to have at least two fire extinguishers. You really should check to see what the LEGALLY REQUIRED safety gear is for a boat. It is dependent on size and differs slightly by state. For instance, the state of Massachusetts requires a bell on all boats over 26' LOA. It doesn't require that they be mounted oddly enough...just that the boat have one IIRC.



Oyster7 said:


> Thanks. I'll keep an eye out on a Garmin Oregon 400c then. Seems a decent choice, and they seem to sell for under $400.
> 
> Now, does anyone have any suggestions for a decent (but reasonably priced) handheld VHF?
> 
> In my view, virtually all boats ought to have (i) a fire extinguisher, (ii) charts (and possibly a GPS), and (iii) a VHF, in addition to life jackets, a horn, etc.


----------



## Oyster7 (Aug 28, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> Most cruising sized boats are REQUIRED to have at least two fire extinguishers. You really should check to see what the LEGALLY REQUIRED safety gear is for a boat. It is dependent on size and differs slightly by state. For instance, the state of Massachusetts requires a bell on all boats over 26' LOA. It doesn't require that they be mounted oddly enough...just that the boat have one IIRC.


No worries. I've checked the legal requirements. I was simply making the general point that regardless of the boat, safety gear's important. For the little Cape Dory we just bought, I've got far more than what is stricly required by law. In my experience, it's a worthwhile investment...

Best,
Oyster7


----------

