Hi Jessee... I see that the MSOG has the article on M-15 vs C-16 that I was going to refer you to. While I own a M-17, I've sailed on several C-16's. They're fine when there's stout winds about. Also, the C-16 only had a shoal draft keel, which will drift off course more then the M-15 (with board down) and won't sail as close to the wind as the M-15...with board down. Tthat centerboard on the M-15 is a great feature<GG> FWIW, I hear that some C-16's now hav ecenterboards like the M-15...if the c-16 that you're looking at has this, then check out the sail area...methinks the M-15 has the C-16 beat. That and the lighter weight (750 vs 1100??) will let the M-15 perform better. Regards, Harvey/ Ga M-17 Stargazer #294
Harvey, Later-model Com-Pac 16CBs had a centerboard and bowsprit. The new foresail position supposedly reduced weather-helm. But I've never read that the CB was a dazzling improvement over the old 16'. One nice thing about the fixed-keel is not moving parts to fail. --Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harvey Wilson" <HarveyWilson@compuserve.com> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:50 PM Subject: Montgomery 15 vs Compac 16 Hi Jessee... I see that the MSOG has the article on M-15 vs C-16 that I was going to refer you to. While I own a M-17, I've sailed on several C-16's. They're fine when there's stout winds about. Also, the C-16 only had a shoal draft keel, which will drift off course more then the M-15 (with board down) and won't sail as close to the wind as the M-15...with board down. That centerboard on the M-15 is a great feature<GG> FWIW, I hear that some C-16's now hav ecenterboards like the M-15...if the c-16 that you're looking at has this, then check out the sail area...methinks the M-15 has the C-16 beat. That and the lighter weight (750 vs 1100??) will let the M-15 perform better. Regards, Harvey/ Ga M-17 Stargazer #294
Hey Harvey, I see you are still sailing Stargazer. That's good. You may not remeber but a year or so ago you took me out for a sail. Hope all is well with you. Thanks for your comments on the CP 16 and M15. Jesse ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harvey Wilson" <HarveyWilson@compuserve.com> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 7:50 PM Subject: M_Boats: Montgomery 15 vs Compac 16 Hi Jessee... I see that the MSOG has the article on M-15 vs C-16 that I was going to refer you to. While I own a M-17, I've sailed on several C-16's. They're fine when there's stout winds about. Also, the C-16 only had a shoal draft keel, which will drift off course more then the M-15 (with board down) and won't sail as close to the wind as the M-15...with board down. Tthat centerboard on the M-15 is a great feature<GG> FWIW, I hear that some C-16's now hav ecenterboards like the M-15...if the c-16 that you're looking at has this, then check out the sail area...methinks the M-15 has the C-16 beat. That and the lighter weight (750 vs 1100??) will let the M-15 perform better. Regards, Harvey/ Ga M-17 Stargazer #294 _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
When I owned my 1973 Com-Pac 16, I visited the factory and talked with a very interesting gentleman, the Mr. Hutchins who founded the company. As I recall, he made his fortune selling klaxons (ah-oo-ga!) for cars. He showed me Clark Mills's drawings for the CP 16, which included a centerboard. The board was omitted from almost all 16's built, in order to keep the boat simple and hold the price down. (I paid $3000 for a brand new boat, trailer, and 3hp Volvo outboard.) Like others who have commented on the upwind ability of an otherwise decently performing boat, I lamented the lack of a board every time I sailed to windward. I was never able to tack through a certain railroad bridge if the wind were on the nose, even on days when my friends in a Cape Dory Typhoon and a San Juan 21 could make it through with one or two tacks. However, on any reach, especially in light air, we could sail along with those boats all day. I once made a photo from the center of the boat, looking directly aft, while sailing to windward in a good breeze. The wake is angled way off to windward, indicating the boat was sliding to leeward at that same angle. Hutchins bragged about the NACA airfoil of the keel, but, with such a low aspect ratio, most of the water flow was under the keel, not along the foil. The board would have made a big difference. When they finally put in a centerboard, it was a flat metal plate, not exactly a paradigm of efficiency. A 200 percent genoa, with sheets routed through the stern cleat legs, was about right on most days. The boat might have been a little undercanvassed as originally equipped! Early Com-Pacs, at least, had a definite strong point: They were built with integrity, of the finest materials. Nothing ever broke, cracked, crazed, bent, or otherwise failed in several years of vigorous sailing my 16. A new CP 16 CB was on my short list when I bought Dulcibella, but the boat was out of production by then and would have been a high-priced custom build. I understand they no longer make them at all now. David Fann Montgomery 17 Dulcibella
participants (4)
-
David Fann -
Harvey Wilson -
Honshells -
Jesse Tate