Snapdragon 26

[VermontSnappie]

Those pictures are worth a million words! I cannot wait to set up the same on my boat! Thanks so much for taking the time to post the details for us!

[Marc]

Thanks alot Snapdragon!!!  I'm going to try that setup on my Venture 224.

[Lost Farmboy]

Hello, have a question for Snapdragon 26 owners:

What material is used for the ballast? (looking at one built in 1967)

[Snapdragon]

I was hoping someone with more factual information than I would answer, but since no one has raised their
hand yet i'll just make some noise.
As I understand it, the keels were formed as a part of the hull as a hollow void. They were then filled with a
mixture of fiberglass resin and lead shot or ingots to the desired weight.

I have heard anecdotal references as to the makeup and quality of the ballast as "whatever heavy stuff was
lying around at the time", but in view of the overall quality of these boats I feel confident in the quality of
the keels.

[CharlieJ]

Did VermontSnappie (Andrea) ever get her's done? Or did she fade away?

[Jim_ME]

Did VermontSnappie (Andrea) ever get her's done? Or did she fade away?

I was searching for something about Snapdragons and found this blog...
http://vermontsnapdragon26.blogspot.com/
Haven't read much of it yet, but I think this may be her?

[Lost Farmboy]

Bruce, thanks for the response, I'd seen some about the Snapdragons that inferred the "whatever heavy stuff" + resin  = ballast but could not confirm it. It's good to hear of your overall trust in the build quality, and that the ballast does not have a reputation for extra maintenance over time (as opposed to cast iron keels).

The reason for the question is that I'd run across a '67 Snapdragon 26 in the Vancouver, BC area and am considering taking a look at it.

Thanks again,
Bryan

[CharlieJ]

Yep, that's her. Her last post was in March, 2012, and she was last on the forum in January this year.

Wondering if she got her boat done.emailed her- we'll see

[Jim_ME]

I was hoping someone with more factual information than I would answer, but since no one has raised their hand yet i'll just make some noise. As I understand it, the keels were formed as a part of the hull as a hollow void. They were then filled with a mixture of fiberglass resin and lead shot or ingots to the desired weight.

I have heard anecdotal references as to the makeup and quality of the ballast as "whatever heavy stuff was lying around at the time", but in view of the overall quality of these boats I feel confident in the quality of
the keels.

From what I can see, the Snapdragon keels were integrally molded with the hull and internal ballast added. Cannot tell what material or the construction of the ballast. Was not able to find (after a brief search) any accounts online of the construction.

On my Hurley 18 (also a British builder) single keel it appears that the ballast was a large piece of molded cast iron with steel straps added (recessed into the ballast) that extended upward against the hull bilge and were glassed in place. A design to hold the ballast in place during a knockdown, I assume. 

[Snapdragon]

Bryan, please make every effort to check out the 67 snappy. I would love to see pictures of it, both inside and out. I am sure that you will be impressed with both the sturdiness and utility of these boats. I am certainly enjoying mine and find that it's design is particularly well suited for cruising here on the Gulf Coast.
I have, on occasion, subjected Puff to contact with a hard sand bottom while anchored in very shallow water with an outgoing tide and a moderate chop- - a terrible thing to do to a boat. The sturdiness of the keels has been well proven, and close inspection has shown no ill effects. May it always be so! 

[CharlieJ]

Yep, that's her. Her last post was in March, 2012, and she was last on the forum in January this year.

Wondering if she got her boat done.emailed her- we'll see

Got an email back. Boat is still sitting in driveway. She's working two jobs, and has little time. But still has the boat ;)

[Jim_ME]

Got an email back. Boat is still sitting in driveway. She's working two jobs, and has little time. But still has the boat ;)

Charlie, She must be glad that you checked in on her progress. We're at a bit of a disadvantage up here with the short season...same months that are good for working on boats outside are also good for sailing and doing other outdoor activities. Unless you have a nice building (or build one as Colin suggested) to bring a boat into to work on over the winter months. Nice thing about the SD26 is that with its 2.6 foot draft, it is low enough that one could bring it into a standard 24-foot garage and build a light wood frame and poly bump out over the door to enclose the boat and space and work in it over the winter.   

[Lost Farmboy]

Looked at "Snapdragon", a 1967 Snapdragon 26 this last Saturday. I am see-sawing back and forth on whether or not it makes sense to purchase her.

Question for Snapdragon owners:
-Is it true that these boats are built without any coring, even topside?

She definitely feels like a smaller boat in interior space and from outside compared to the Westerly Centaur (same length). The Snapdragon's layout as built is superior, especially like the use of space in the area which is normally occupied by a v-berth and the use of wood interior with less use of GRP liner. The outboard well is also something that I like, with remotely mounted controls (on forward side of outboard well) permit operation of motor with well hatch shut. Having keels that are not bolted on or cast iron is another plus over the Centaur. Draft is ~2.5' vs ~3' for Centaur, understandable based on size/weight differences. Centaur definitely feels more stable, just based on examining Snapdragon from alongside the dock. This Snapdragon is far more "complete" in her finish/readiness than my Centaur is. The "doghouse" that the first owner added to "Snapdragon" is a nice touch for the NW, and here is a picture for that reason, if for no other.

*Edit*
To answer expected questions, here is a description of the doghouse - Made at least in part of wood, probably plywood, did not examine closely enough to determine exact construction method. Holes allow for handrails, hatch, and lines to run through the doghouse. Clear plastic (acrylic or other) panels have been made for installation inside each of the doghouse "window" openings whenever desired.

[Jim_ME]

Looked at "Snapdragon", a 1967 Snapdragon 26 this last Saturday. I am see-sawing back and forth on whether or not it makes sense to purchase her.

Question for Snapdragon owners:
-Is it true that these boats are built without any coring, even topside?

From the openings on the boat that I have seen, the cabin trunk appeared to be of solid fiberglass laminate. I assumed that the deck also was, until I recently read of possible deck core issues in the blog of the SD26 in Vermont, so I would want to check that. Some British boats, like the Hurley 22, were built by several builders and may have used different construction materials and methods. This can be true of domestic boats have as well, such as the Alberg Seasprite 23 was built by various builders over the years...Wickford, Bristol, Pearson, C E Ryder, etc.

She definitely feels like a smaller boat in interior space and from outside compared to the Westerly Centaur (same length).

Although the same length and beam, the Centaur is about a ton heavier than the Snapdragon, so there is a considerable difference. In addition the Centaur's draft is 6" deeper, and its heavier keels are splayed out to give it more self righting moment, and a bit more efficient lateral plane since the downward one is more vertical when heeled. (Although this does make trailering more difficult, since the bottoms of the CR26 keels are the same width across as the center of standard trailer wheels, whereas the SD26's are vertical and spaced only about 5-feet apart, fitting nicely within standard tandem trailer wheels/fenders.) These differences are reflected in the boats capsize ratios, the SD26's being marginal at 2.0, as I recall.

The Snapdragon's layout as built is superior, especially like the use of space in the area which is normally occupied by a v-berth and the use of wood interior with less use of GRP liner.

I also like the SD26's layout and interior construction. The CR's cabin ceiling was finished with a vinyl cloth that eventually comes unglued. Some remove it and then you have the rough/unfinished fiberglass of the deck mold left exposed. I've seen some covered with wood ceiling or just sanded and painted. The SD does have a nice ceiling liner under the cabin trunk. It also do have more wooden cabinetry without a liner, providing better access to the hull interior. The forward layout that separates the V-berths and moves them mostly into the main cabin does seem quite practical in terms of making them better/more comfortable sea/at anchor berths--although at the expense of separate cabins. Although the privacy offered by separate cabins in a 26-foot/5,000-lb boat is probably fairly limited anyway. It DOES provide a large forward head space, rode/chain locker, and sail storage space (which many forward cabin/V-beths become in practice at any rate.) I find the SD feels just about as roomy a layout as the CR.

The outboard well is also something that I like, with remotely mounted controls (on forward side of outboard well) permit operation of motor with well hatch shut. Having keels that are not bolted on or cast iron is another plus over the Centaur. Draft is ~2.5' vs ~3' for Centaur, understandable based on size/weight differences. Centaur definitely feels more stable, just based on examining Snapdragon from alongside the dock. This Snapdragon is far more "complete" in her finish/readiness than my Centaur is. The "doghouse" that the first owner added to "Snapdragon" is a nice touch for the NW, and here is a picture for that reason, if for no other.

If I was going to do a lot of offshore or ambitious coastal sailing, then the Centaur offers more stability and the seakindliness that it extra displacement and draft provide. However, If I planned to do much inland/ICW and less ambitious coastal sailing, and especially if I planned to trailer the boat, the lighter Snapdragon offers much convenience, in addition to its interior/layout features. The SD's rig is a bit smaller/lighter and would be easier to raise and lower (both have hinged/tabernackle bases), and this is a nice feature for inland cruising and trailer sailing.

The largish doghouse, or fixed dodger, is a nice feature for normal cruising, although again, in severe offshore conditions it would add some additional windage to an already somewhat marginally stable boat (by offshore standards in ultimate survival conditions).

I agree that the outboard well at the aft cockpit on the SD26 is a nice feature. Every CR26 that I have seen had originally had an inboard (almost all the Volvo MD2B). Some have later been fitted with transom-mounted outboard motors with remote controls, probably when the original inboard wore out. The SD's OB well seems more convenient, versatile, and visually and functionally integrated, and may provides more security from outboard theft than a bracket. With the well you could use remote controls (as you say), or not.

One other nice feature that the SD has is a large skeg that protects the rudder from being struck by floating objects and also takes the weight of the boat in drying out situations--which is one of the benefits/features of twin keels. Other than maybe the latest years, the CR is a free hanging rudder, which gets no protection from the offset twin keels (as a rudder on a conventional single keel boat does).

In offshore conditions, the large main cabin portlights of the SD even though fitted with stiffening strips of metal would give me some concern, compared to the smaller individual ones on the CR. Yet the views out from the dinette and light the large ones provide is a nice feature for less rigorous use.

So in many respects the designs are consistent, with the CR being more intended for the offshore end of the spectrum and the SD more for normal coastal and inland use. Yet I've seen videos and read of SD's doing ambitious sailing, and seem quite capable, with a skilled and experienced skipper and crew. Of course, that is always a big factor, as well.

Just my own views, having been interested myself in how they compare for some time. YMMV.

[Jim_ME]

Here's a copy of a comparison of the Snapdragon 26 and Centaur 26, which quantifies the considerable difference in Displacement, Capsize Ratio, Displacement to LWL Ratio, and Motion Comfort.

There's a good explanation of these terms here...
http://www.tedbrewer.com/yachtdesign.html

[Jim_ME]

Thinking a bit more about a possible comparison example (similar waterline lengths and beam but substantial difference in displacement/draft) between two more commonly known and experienced boats...and came up with this...between an O'Day 23 and Pearson Ariel 26...

[Lost Farmboy]

Thanks for the responses Jim! Just a few counter statements on Centaur vs Snapdragon -

-Hull interior access- Same access or better access for the Centaur, from what I have seen on mine. The only areas that are not accessible as built on the Centaur are below the icebox, below the head and hanging storage section (about 3 ft of boat length), below the v-berth "standing" area, and below the water tank. All other areas can be accessed through hatches or the engine compartment. However, the ceiling liner and having a mix of GRP and wood for the interior are features on the Snapdragon that I greatly appreciate.

-Main cabin portlights- Snapdragon portlights and the GRP surrounding them seem more durable to me. Although they are far longer individually than the Centaur's portlights, the Snapdragon's portlights are only about 2/3 as tall, at most, as the Centaur's. Add to this that the fiberglass surrounding those portlights is fairly thin on the Centaur (less than 1/4") and vertical, and it looks to me like the Snapdragon has a better arrangement for the portlights.

Thanks again for the responses!

Proud (new) owner of Snapdragon 26 #71, "Snapdragon"

[Jim_ME]

You're welcome, Bryan,

On hull interior access, the Centaurs that I've seen have a large cabin fiberglass liner including the sole, berths, galley cabinets, etc.

The early Centaurs with the "A" [dinette] Layout have some removable panels to the hull...I was going to write "bilge" but since the keels are off to either side it is more like the belly of the hull where there is just a few inches below the cabin sole. there is some access to the hull through more panels under the dinette and via doors in the dinette seat ends. On the newer models with the "B" layout there is a large cabin sole of fiberglass with no access panels at all. The Centaur is well regarded as a design in general, but this lack of access to clean the bilge/belly does seem like it could be a problem. Still, I haven't heard any specific complaint about it.

The Snapdragon has a removable cabin sole and wooden cabinets, settee berths, etc., providing better access to the hull, I would say.

The SD has the cabin trunk ceiling liner (which has held up better than the Westerly vinyl fabric). It could be that this liner makes the SD cabin trunk sides near the portlights seem thicker than the Centaur. Again, in very rough offshore conditions where the portlights could be pounded by seas, having the very long ones that the SD has would make me concerned. But as I wrote before, it is a nice feature for more modest coastal and inland sailing. Again, SD26 seems like a fine (coastal) cruising boat in many ways, but was never intended to be an offshore capable design, as the Centaur is.

Similarly, the O'Day 23 (in the other specs comparison) is a popular boat, roomy, easy to trailer with its stub keel/centerboard and lighter displacement, but not offshore capable in the way that an Alberg Ariel 26 is generally regarded to be.

Anyway, for almost all of the (coastal/semi-sheltered) sailing that I've done, the Snapdragon would be more than adequate, and has the advantage of being much more trailerable, and having shallower draft for gunkholing, etc.

So congratulations on getting the Snapdragon. I'm sure that you'll enjoy her. :)

[Lost Farmboy]

Jim,

The reason that I probably have a different view on the Snapdragon's accessibility is that the lower part of the cabin sole appears to have had 2 removable panels which have had their locations glassed in.  Existing panels are one under each dinette seat (aft one for accessing batteries), and one in each quarter berth. Remainder of access must come from "engine compartment" (though it has never held an engine), chain locker, or cabinets. Yours could be different, either due to build date or decisions by previous owners.

Centaur #83 does have the full fiberglass liner with minimal woodwork. For access, she has 3 removable panels in v-berth, and 13 removable panels in the main cabin (3 under each quarter berth, 1 where icebox was at, 1 under each dinette seat, 1 under dinette table, and 3 in cabin sole) plus access through the (former) engine compartment and doors under the sink. The only areas where I could not access all portions of the hull were under the head & hanging locker section, and the cabin sole in the v-berth. All but the cabin sole panels and forward v-berth panel (chain locker) access useful storage space, with the dinette seats compartments each being large enough for my 5'11" self to fit inside with ease, and the now empty engine compartment containing a massive amount of space as well.

The lower area where water may collect (like you said, bilge is not quite accurate) are divided into 3 areas, which prevents water from collecting in a common area for a pump. These areas range from level with the cabin sole (requiring one 3/8-ish" thick access panel to be shaped to permit space for the hull) to about 3 inches at the deepest. Having an actual bilge in the Snapdragon, with a common area for any water to collect, is a nice change.

Looking back at what I've written, I don't like to see that I'm arguing over these things, but I feel like I ought to defend the Centaur's design where I know it was successful. At least for #83, they were successful in providing a full fiberglass liner that provides good access to the hull interior.

Thanks again Jim! :)

[Jim_ME]

We may be thinking about different ideas of "access". I didn't say so but was thinking mostly about access to the hull below the waterline, especially in the bilge (or belly) area.

It is one thing to be able to reach into an access panel and be able to get to something that is stored there. But this is different from being able to have complete access to a large area of the hull, so that you could easily clean it, or refinish it [use a sander on it], or if there was some damage, to be able to repair it--grind down and lay up fiberglass over that area.

The 1969 (first year of production) Centaur (with the "A" layout) that I'm familiar with does have several removable access panels in the fiberglass cabin liner sole. The 1973 model with the "B" layout has a larger cabin sole area, and has none of these access panels that the earlier boat has.

This is typical for other (Larent Giles designed) Westerly boat models of the 70s that I've seen, including the 21.5-ft Warwick and 23-ft Pageant. There is very little to no access to this belly space beneath the cabin sole, and there seems to be no way to remove the sole liner, as it is part of a larger interior liner.

On my Snapdragon, the central cabin sole, inboard of the dinette and the galley cabinets, is entirely removable, and has some traditional floor timbers to support it. This provides complete access to this large bilge/belly area. This may be why my impression is that it provides better access than the Centaur.

My 1975 Cape Dory Typhoon also had a cabin liner including the cabin sole, which limited access to the hull interior. The later CE Ryder built Alberg Seasprite 23s have a similar cabin liner, whereas the earlier SS23s by other builders had no liner and the interior was wood that was mostly removable with some parts tabbed to the fiberglass hull, or attached to (partial or full) bulkheads.

I suspect that in mass production (Westerly built about 2500 Centaurs in 10 years, or about 1 each business day) it was faster and less expensive to make cabin liners (including soles) than to build the interiors as wooden joinery. Also, the liners offer a smooth surface that is easy to keep clean.

Maybe the design never anticipated that people would still be maintaining and restoring Westerly boats after 50 years...that they would become classics somewhat like Albergs or Rhodes designs...?

I do favor the older style construction that allows you to remove joinery: a settee berth, cabinet, or a wooden cabin sole, and expose the virtually the entire interior of the hull. Yet this wasn't a deal-breaker when I was looking at the SD26 and CR26. Sometimes a design may be successful in spite of some shortcomings, since it has so many other positive characteristics and features.

I see this as just an interesting discussion about boats and design, not an argument. I do like both the SD26 and CR26 designs overall, though for somewhat different purposes, as discussed in earlier posts.