Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Grumman or Scott Freighter?

  1. #1

    Default Grumman or Scott Freighter?

    Seems to me a lot of people are switching to the Scott Freighters from the old grummans. Personally I think I like the grummans better for what I want to do. Mostly because they are lighter and a little because they are aluminium, and they are narrower. I guess in short they are a smaller canoe.

    They are not as stable or as comfortable as a Scott but they should be easier to portgage around log jams and over beaver dams etc.

    I wonder if it's just like most decisions with a canoe...you get the canoe you need for the purpose you want. I have a little cedar stip canoe that I can throw on the car for short day trips around here...certainly don't need a big freighter for that. I guess I would like a bigger Scott for longer trips on bigger rivers but I don't think I would want one at the headwaters of some of these creeks.
    Wasilla Real Estate News
    www.valleymarket.com

  2. #2
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    725

    Default Grumman or Scott Freighter?

    martyv...

    I know exactly what you're getting at. I've been going through this issue for about 3 years. I love my 19'er. Been getting me to places that most riverboaters avoid for over a decade. There are places where the Grumman is too large and heavy ... and I don't know of anyone who has actually picked up and portaged a 19'er ... mine with Klingel lift weighs 150# For the last 5 years, I've taken a second canoe out with my 19'er, cata-canoe fashion. We use the Wenonah 16' Kingfisher to go places a Grumman freighter has never been. And the Kingfisher, 64#, can actually be portaged ... in fact, not imagination. Given some effort, and perhaps a rope come-a-long, few beaver dams will stop either a 19'er or a Hudson Bay.

    For me, the issue came down to aluminum or fiberglass. I wanted a larger, more stable canoe with larger capacity. Those who have followed this canoeing forum for last few years know that a number of us have been trying to get a Hudson Bay type canoe made in aluminum. No one is interested. Grumman won't remodel the 19'er; Osagian won't remodel and lengthen their good, but too small 17' flat back. And no one else seems to want to make the right canoe in aluminum. There's simply not enough demand for such an investment to make money.

    So, the issue for me has been ... stick with what I have - a 19' Grumman with lift, or go to the fiberglass Hudson Bay. The posters on this forum who have real HB experience have convinced me that the fiberglass laminate that Scott uses is rugged, and that, with some care and occasional maintainence, the HB will serve my needs better.

    The Grumman 19'er really isn't well suited to rough water. Several times, I've travelled up stream on the Tolovana into strong, cold North wind, with choppy waves big enough to be white caps. And the 14" deep 19'er was taking on water. The HB is 20" deep. There are several places on the Yukon I want to go ... and the HB suits that better.

    I'm picking up my HB in Whitehorse on Saturday. My Wenonah Kingfisher will still go out with me, but no more cata-canoeing. Wenonah will ride on top the HB - almost a load cover. No one boat does it all

    This is not a diatribe against the 19'er. I love mine. But I've reached the limit of what it does well.

  3. #3

    Default

    I do like kandik's surface drive on the HB. what I mean by portage is just to carry it 100 feet or so around log jams etc. It's not easy but after you unload it two people can manage it. I suppose you could with the HB but it seems quite a bit heavier. My little 14 foot cedar strip is easily portagable. Maybe I'll take it along this year.
    Wasilla Real Estate News
    www.valleymarket.com

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    portage 19ft grumman, if you had the lift installed so it can come off easy, that will nock off the weight of the lift, an it would not hung up on the brush, it is real easy when tou frist install it, that way you could car / truck top it, don't need a trailer then

  5. #5

    Default

    Yes, my lift comes off with four clevis pins...comes right off and right back on. It does take quite a bit of weight off. What do you think of going without the lift. Just by raising the transom...would that be better?
    Wasilla Real Estate News
    www.valleymarket.com

  6. #6
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    725

    Default

    At about 30#, a lift only adds 15#/man on a 2 man portage ... 75#/man rather than 60#.

    I very much like the lift on my Grumman. The ability to raise the prop up is invaluable; but I prefer to run with the motor all the way down where feasible, for better performance and a lower center-of-gravity. Hard to do with a raised transom. Would like to fabricate a modified Klingel lift for my HB.

    I use my ride-along, double ender Wenonah (64#) for going around and beyond 100' long logjams. I've taken my 19'er over some smaller logjams and it was fun, but for me there is a limit. And a nice paddle canoe is really good at portable exploration, where a motor powered canoe isn't at home. IMHO.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    high transom changes center of gravity a lot, but will work & cheeper, I like my eng as low as I can get it , only time I want it high is when is when I am in shallow water, also with a high transom it makes it a lot harder to but on a truck / car top when you are by your self

  8. #8

    Default

    Good points about keeping the motor low...especially on a grumman.

    I think I would like both a 19 grumman and a Scott Hudson Bay. But since I use my canoe primarily for shallow water hunting trips with occasional small portages I will stick with the grumman until I can afford the HB. Here is what I need. Nesting canoes. A grumman insice a HB inside a James Bay... with a separate motor for each. I could leave the Yukon Bridge and hunt down by Holycross with that setup.
    Wasilla Real Estate News
    www.valleymarket.com

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    801

    Default

    I think the esquif cargo in/over the HB would be a better fit....

  10. #10

    Default

    I've carried a 16 ft. folding canoe in my HB on hunting trips before. I think it weighs about 50#. You can leave
    the mother ship in bigger water and go a-paddling for the 4 leggeds.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Nenana
    Posts
    50

    Smile What happened to the simple life and why am I poor?

    I'm sure I'm not the first, but I do occasionally carry the 19' Grumman (with lift) in my 24' riverboat (with lift and 150 hp) to remote spots and used the Grumman to get to even more remote locations. Just got a Wenona 16' Prospector to haul this Fall to the cabin where the 19' is stored. This all sounds absurd as I write it and I wonder what ever happened to the simple life. I had a nice solo Wenonah Vagabond but got a Karelian beardog who won't sit still, hence had to get the larger Prospector. If it weren't for boats I suppose I could live in comfort in a nice retirement community where it didn't get cold enough to pop rivets on the Vagabond.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •