Coronado 34?

[Coronado23]

I'm starting to look at a upgrade to my C23 and found
a larger sister ship fairly close and affordible..

The Coronado 34...

What is familiar is like my 23 it has a interior molded out of
fiberglass.. The atomic 4 is described as "sciezed' and the
condition of the boat is described as "neglected"..

Last spring I traded for a Volvo Penta MD7A diesel with trans
and have it on a pallet in the garage..

Q? Is this a good stepping stone upward for NW coastal or
river crusing, or tradeing chip for something better later?

Doc~

[Bluenose]

Hey Doc,

Here is my two cents worth of advice with a qualifier that I have never sailed on a Coronado. Go to the Sailnet forum (at http://www.sailnet.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3) and search on the boats you are interested in and you will find lots of info. I personally pay particular attention to a poster named Jeff_H. I find his posting to almost be a sailing school. He doesn't beat around the bush at all. If in his experience (naval architect and extensive boat ownership experience) he thinks something is poorly built he will say so. After reading many, many of his posts I ask about my Bluenose Sloop. In the theme of be careful what you ask for, here is part of his response.

Ok, how about a McVay Bluenose Sloop? Jeff_H, anyone?
I have never sailed the McVay Bluenose sloops and I am not even sure that I have been aboard one except perhaps at a boatshow many years ago. I know very little that is specific to them.

From what I recall they were designed as one design raceboats with an eye to a rating rule that proceeded the CCA rule, and so are probably Universal Rule boats. Raceboats of that era were even more extreme than the CCA era boats, with extremely narrow beam, low freeboard and extremely short waterline length. It produced boats that were beautiful to look at, challenging to race, but not very good sailing boats in an absolute sense.

Like most race boats of that era they were small fraction (2/3 or 3/4 vs 7/8), fractional rigs. This made them tactical and easier to handle in the days before geared winches were common.

While I have never sailed a Bluenose, I have raced and sailed on similar boats (Luder 16''s, Etchells, Westphalls [sp], Resolutes, Dragons, and IOD''s). These were challenging boats to sail well.

In a general sense the extremely short waterline coupled with the very narrow beam found on boats like these was a real handicap to their sailing ability. They were very tender and required a lot of sailing skill to keep at a reasonable angle of heel.

Their sail plans are fairly small and so they were not very good light air boats. They were a real challenge in heavy air. I do not know how the Bluenose cockpit and deck is laid out but on most of the boats of that era, it was pretty easy to take a hard knock down in a gust and swamp them, or even sink them.

Boats of that type were really aimed at flat water sailing. In a chop, the short waterline length meant that they would hobby-horse to a near stop and even in a longer chop, with their low freeboard they would tend to take a lot of water over the deck and would ship a lot of green water in the cockpits.

Boats like these thrived on heavy crews hiking out ''tooth and toenail''. In heavier conditions the ability to hike became a matter of survival as a knock down could swamp the huge cockpits of the day and the comparatively tiny cockpit drains really were not up to the task of draining the boats.

Still and all, the challenges of sailing boats like these well was very rewarding. It was in fact the challenges of sailing these boats that make them so interesting to folks like me. There was a whole different aesthetic to sailing boats like these and to this day, I think that they are fun to mess with and gorgeous to look at.

Respectfully,
Jeff

It is always nice to have someone praise the boats we love but I find it quite instructive to hear a variety of different views and experiences. I hope this helps.

Good luck in your search, Bill