Buccaneer 28 - build from plans

Hi,
I am interested in learning more about the Lock Crowther designed Buccaneer 28 trimaran. I have found and downloaded some rough sketches of the boat on the internet. Would like to talk to some who currently owns or has built one. How does the boat sail ? Is the 2000 lb. payload realistic ? What could you expect for average cruising speed ?
Thanks

 

Have you worked the Bucc 24 Build thread? (http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/buccaneer-24-builders-forum-28496.html) Lots of knowledgeable builders/sailors there. Very seriously.

Your question's a tough one... where specifically did you get that 2000 lb payload number. I doubt that the Bucc 33 would have that much payload frankly.

Crowther designs (the classic ones anyway) don't usually come to mind when asked for sources of heavy payload designs (for comparable length)

Cheers,

 

Tom,
Thanks for replying and for the info. I will read up on the Buccaneer 24 build thread you posted.
I got the 2000 lb payload from sheet 7 of the plans downloaded from the internet. It lists displacement 4000 lb and max payload 2000. I can email the pdf if you would like to look at it. Motor, sails, people, equipment (and I guess weight of the mast), etc. would all have to be deducted from the 2000 lb. number.
Just curious, have you ever had a chance to sail on a Buccaneer 28? I wish I could see some pictures of one that was built from plans or see one in person.
This is a great site!
Thanks

 

There is Bucc28 discussed in the Bucc24 thread.

The 28 has been described as a "different" Buccaneer - but hard for me to imagine Crowther designing a 'tank' and keeping it in the 'Buccaneer' family name group (but remarks from some here who are well respected for their experience have suggested that the 28 was in fact designed as much more of a "cruiser" that the related boats

I've built/sailed a 24 and a Twiggy, not sailed a 33. I love his boats for their lightness and the acceleration. The 24 was indeed like sailing a bottle rocket!

The (all of the) study plan numbers seem so unintelligible and often a bit disingenuous. But not to be unexpected in those days of intense competition among designers. Frankly it's kind of a tongue in cheek issue, the way the designers have a design displacement number that they're kind of stuck with by virtue of the lines plan... then they squeeze the weight number down as far as they can to get some kind of reasonable payload number. Builders long ago discovered the near impossibility of building a multihull as lightly as the designers suggest.

AFAIK, it is possible for the Bucc 24 and the Twiggy - but takes great attention to detail (truly skilled epoxy work) and absolutely lightest materials. Dunno about the 28 personally, nor have many of them been built.

Cheers,

 

Tom,

Gotcha with the payload numbers. They do seem almost to be too good to be

true. But, as you pointed out given the competition at the time to crank out a

race winner must have been a challenge.

I started reading the Buccaneer 24 thread you sent me. A lot of good

information to read and digest.

How much room did you have in the 24 you built ? Do you feel there is

enough room for a double, and storage for provisions for 2 for a week or so. I

was looking for something to explore some local bays and perhaps Bahamas,

or trailer to Sea of Cortez someday. I really like Crowther's design and also

the fact that it would be relatively easy to repair/maintain (and less of an

expense) when compared to a modern day corsair/farrier/dragonfly. Based

on your experience building the 24, how long do you feel it would take a

person in their late fifties with some finish carpentry experience to build one ?

Thanks

 

I'm in my late fifties with almost no carpentry experience, and I'm at 560 hours into the project. I can fairly accurately estimate I'll be close to the 700 hour mark by the time I'm done.

 

Freddyj,
hi thanks for the hourly build estimates. I saw some pictures of your build. It looks like a nice boat. Are you planning on putting an aluminum mast and crossbeams per the plans ?

 

real world

pt, I have a wood 24 that I have done a lot of work on and a composite 33 that I have rebuilt and am currently sailing. I love the boats, but they are not freighters. My 24, built out of heavier 1/4" ply weighs 1650 lbs empty. Proper ply and attention to detail would reduce it to around 1450 lbs or less. The 24 is over loaded past 2200 lbs, so it is easy to exceed its limits. It is also really fun to sail, and with today's light camping type equipment is a practical small two person cruiser. I think Fred is going to enjoy his.
The 28 is possibly the "best" of the bucs, with real cruising amenities and still not too big to build. I would expect it to take closer to 2000 hrs and it should carry about 1200 lbs. Read the 24, 28 & 33 threads carefully, there is a lot of information.
B

 

I've often thought that the Buc 24 would make better sense if it had a flat deck by cutting off and lowering the cabin roof.

Heres my logic; any space that doesn't have standing headroom should be classified as just ' bunk' space. Being inside a tiny cabin where you can't stand up straight gets very tedious after a very short period of time .

On a flat deck version you would have a boom tent instead. When anchored or in a marina hoist your boom tent over the flat deck; hey presto lots of area to walk around Under full standing headroom! You could even design a lightweight canopy with hoops that lies flat on the deck, and is easy to instantly pull up into position to form a deck tent.

The lowered cabin space can still be used as a tiny low height sleeping space when underway; but you're going to have crawl inside.

Plus you have instantly reduced windage, and can sail closer to windward.

Of course on such a small boat accommodation is all about massive compromise .

 

bruceb,

I appreciate your thoughts/insight & info about these 2 boats. Both boats

seem to have their own niche. The 24 light, easy to build, fast, and less $$.

The primary reason for building a 28 would be to attain more room &

comfort. This one item comes at a cost in $$, time to build, and increased

maintenance cost for the life of the boat. I think this is why I'm having

trouble finding any Buccaneer 28 built from plans that are currently being

sailed. The old saying "the bigger the boat the more money" rings true.

Thanks

 

rustybarge,

Your logic sounds good with the flat deck and a boom tent. These boats can be

so versatile with a little imagination.

This is a great site !

 

Here, are some 28 pics I have gathered.
The blue and white spinnaker and the black and whites are Oldsailers photos (I think).
The boat cruising with the dinghy on deck is Mark Pescott' boat.
The interior photo is from a boat advert I think.
Hope they inspire.

 

redreuben,

Thanks for posting the pictures. I'm still reading/digesting the info on this site.


pt

 

I don't really agree the space enclosed in a cabin even if it is tight is much more useful than space under a boom tent which can only be used when at anchor it's also much easier to get into the bunks and they are more pleasant to sleep in when they have some air gap above them. It's nice to have a place where you can get out of the wind that is permanently available while sailing and has natural light even if it's not possible to stand in it.

 

I think width in a saloon/ cabin isn't as important as length; its lovely to be able to walk around inside the length of your boat even if its only got 8' beam midships. The British narrow boats that ply the Midlands canal system are only 7' wide, but some are over 60' long, and they make very spacious livaboards.

But saying that most sailors spend most of their time in the cockpit when sailing, and are very happy to collapse into a bunk to sleep, so standing headroom isn't necessary until at anchor.

The BuC 24 cabin roof seems to be quite curved, making a boom tent redundant.