| Author |
Message Text |
|
Stumpy lake
|
Love my Grumman (with Babe Ruths' face on it)
I would bet it's been to more Quetico/BWCA lakes than any one kevlar.
about 500
|
|
SiouxFan
|
I own a Grumman and I can't begin to say anything bad about it. The good thing is that I bought it about 10 years ago for $100 and it was in perfect shape. All the paint on the floor inside didn't have a scratch in it and not a dent scratch or the slightest nick in the hull. Easily the best $100 I have ever spent.
|
|
plaid wool
|
I have used both and I prefer the Alumnacraft. I have a Quetico model 17' double end. I believe it is the lightweight version. I remember the Grumman being alot heavier. I think they are both underrated.
PW
|
|
The Great Outdoors
|
plaid wool
I have the Alumacraft Quetico double end 17 LW, 75 lbs, compared to 67 lbs for the Grumman 17 foot LW.
|
|
plaid wool
|
TGO-
Now you have me wondering. I am going to have to weigh mine. Maybe I shouldn't, since I think it is lighter than maybe it really is!
Thanks,
PW
|
|
Ho Ho
|
Grummans were all I ever used in my early Quetico area trips as a teenager. That was back in the 70s. I'm not sure I've been in one since then.
I own an Alumacraft 17-foot Quetico now. I like it okay but it does not measure up in my mind to Grummans I remember. But maybe my memory is faulty.
I don't think the Alumacraft is particularly stable compared to my two Wenonahs - a Spirit II and and a Champlain. Then again, those are VERY stable canoes. I'm not sure you can capsize a Champlain even if you try. I will have to experiment with that when the water warms up. I do know you can capsize Grummans and Alumacrafts when you try, because I've done it.
|
|
The Great Outdoors
|
The Grumman 17 double end is far less stable than the 17 Alumacraft, unless you load it with about 200 pounds of rock.
Then it is quite stable!
The Alumacraft has a flatter bottom.
|
|
Pirate
|
Grumman
|
|
Jay
|
Grumman only because they built great aircraft too.
|
|
The Great Outdoors
|
Grumman 17 and 19 foot in square sterns.
Alumacraft 17 foot double end, which is more stable than a Grumman double end.
However, the Grumman 17 foot light weight weighs 67 pounds, and the Alumacraft light weight goes 75 pounds.
|
|
tg
|
the alumacraft ultralight if you can find an old one weighed around 56#...i like mine a lot...can't imagine a more stable boat.
|
|
The Great Outdoors
|
tg,
Where did you find an Alumacraft ultra light, never heard of one???
Is it 17 feet long, or 15???
I have a 17 ft Alumacraft light weight, and at 75 lbs, is 8 pounds heavier than the 17 ft Grumman LW.
|
|
Winemaker
|
Humm, we went through one smokercraft and two michicrafts before we switched to fiberglass/royalex/kevlar. I have always thought the Grummans were very well made, that was before the last acquisition I should note, and the alumacrafts seemed more mass-market designed.
|
|
tg
|
TGO-i bought mine from spring creek about 6 years ago best $325 i ever spent! 17'-might be called voyageur ultralight? VNO has them-rented from them, that's how I was introduced. i believe alumacraft stopped making them so you may need to find a "rental return". mine looks like it was harpooned hence its alternative nickname the gray whale. musta leaked like a sieve on both sides-now has some nice big welds bilaterally at its widest point just below the waterline. doesn't leak a drip.
you'll have an opportunity to see it in 2 weeks.
tg
|
|
Bannock
|
My family canoe growing up was a 17 foot Alumacraft, though at various times we/I have reffered to it as a Grumman. I think during that time "Grumman" meant any aluminum canoe, at least in my area. It was kinda like calling all facial tissues Kleenex.
I did paddle some real Grummans, probably in places like summer and Boy Scout Camps. To tell ya the truth I never thought of similarities or differences, though TGO's comment of Alumucraft being more stable rings true to me. I know that our's, in addition to being a fishing and canoe-camping canoe, was used as a play boat. By "play boat" I don't mean canoe ballet, but rather as a diving platform, an in-water teeter-totter (standing on the decks), and all kind of things. As kids we could climb back into it as easy as climbing out of a pool.
I don't know that I "like" the Alumacraft better than a Grumman as a paddle craft, but I sure have better memories of the Alumacraft.
BTW -- One of my brothers still has that Alumacraft and one of my sisters bought a Sears 17' aluminum as her family's canoe because of those family memories.
|
|
prettypaddle
|
On one trip we took out one of each and no matter what paddler/pack combination we tried, the Grumman paddled like a barge compared to the Alumacraft. The Grumman was a rental tho so it wasn't exactly in the best of shape.
|
|
guest
|
Which do you like better and why: Grumman or Alumacraft?
|
|
canoepaddle
|
I have one of each. A Grumman double end canoe and a y back Alumacraft. I like the Alumacraft when using a motor and for duck hunting. I think both are well made. My Grumman is an early 70's model, not the "Eagle" model, which imho, is a POS.
canoepaddle
|
|
overthehill
|
Gromman (as in sherman tank) solid and I like their feel in the water
|
|
canoe212
|
|
|
PlumberDave
|
I have one of each, like them both.
Except I paddle the alumacraft and put the boys in the Grumman.
|
|
tonyyarusso
|
We have a 1973 Grumman Standard 17'. Having paddled that and a bunch of rental and Scout camp boats, my preference is definitely for Grumman over Alumacraft. The reason comes down to details of design and workmanship. I've found the Grumman's to have a slightly better shape than the Alumacrafts for performance in the water for me, although that's totally subjective. More objectively, the construction of Grummans is better, such as how they're riveted and how the different pieces come together. The #1 case-in-point which is why I avoid getting stuck in an Alumacraft if I can is that they chose to put a joint on the gunwale right by where the stern paddler sits, such that if your hands are close to the boat on a stroke you'll tear skin off your arm on this jutting out piece of metal. Grumman does not have this problem - the identical point on their boats is smooth and seamless. For someone a bit taller maybe it wouldn't be an issue, but for me and the way I paddle it's a total dealbreaker.
|
|
jackson
|
reviving an old thread...need some more advice.
I'm looking to buy a square stern canoe for the occasional motor trip to Basswood.
I'm trying to decide between the 17' grumman square back vs. the 17' alumacraft square back (Y-style).
They are both similar (heavy) weight, around 80-85 pounds. The grumman is thicker gauge metal with more ribs, and has a reputation for being more durable. But, the alumicraft has the Y-style stern, so it seems it would go through the water better, especially when paddling.
Does anyone have some advice? Thanks.
|
|
nctry
|
I'm thinkin you guys thinking you have the light weight Alumacrafts that weigh 75# don't know what you got. We get light weight Alum's at "work" and they weigh in the 60's. I had four regular wieght 17' Alumacrafts in the day that all weighed 75#. They were great canoes, but I'm too old to carry that kind of weight over my shoulders, so I carry it on my belly. :) Alumacraft and Grumman are both good boats!
|
|
Chilly
|
The old 17 foot Alumacraft is .50 gauge and weights 75 lbs.
The 17 foot Alumacraft Quetico is .40 gauge and weights 62 lbs.
The 17 foot Alumacraft Voyager is .35 gauge and weights 56 lbs.
They are all built in Minnesota.
|
|
fitgers1
|
Both are good boats. I have a 40 year old alumacraft and have also paddled a friends 30 + year old grumman. Neither with a flat back though.
Concerning buying either I would first say buy an alumacraft (if you live in Minnesota) and support the home state. If you don't live here, then it doesn't matter. Second, the y stern should be faster as you'll have a lot less drag on the rear. Getting into some laws of physics there to understand all that.
I do believe that the alumacraft is a more stable craft.
|
|
arctic
|
Back in the day I paddled Grummans a lot. They are tough and stable, though not super fast on the water. They're probably the best bushwacking canoe ever made. I used to occasionally put mine down on long bushwhacks, pound on the bottom, and watch the teenagers I was guiding emerge from the woods and swamps.
|
|
nctry
|
quote jackson: "reviving an old thread...need some more advice.
I'm looking to buy a square stern canoe for the occasional motor trip to Basswood.
I'm trying to decide between the 17' grumman square back vs. the 17' alumacraft square back (Y-style).
They are both similar (heavy) weight, around 80-85 pounds. The grumman is thicker gauge metal with more ribs, and has a reputation for being more durable. But, the alumicraft has the Y-style stern, so it seems it would go through the water better, especially when paddling.
Does anyone have some advice? Thanks."
I always thought the square sterns were 18 ft long. One of the best "boats" around are the Grumman sport boats. Kind of the best of both worlds if your going to use a motor.
|
|
Sierra1
|
I may have paddled a Grumman once or twice at most in my life. My aluminum canoe is an Alumacraft which I've used/had since the mid-60's. I like the way it's constructed with the smooth, no-rivet hull and the good stability. I may be mistaken but it seems to me that when I got it the weight was listed for the Quetico Q17 at 69 lbs.
|
|
reformed aluminum boat user
|
I would say neither. Why anyone would want an aluminum canoe is beyond my comprehension. I have experience with aluminum, Royalex, cedar strip/fiberglass and kevlar, and I would never go back to aluminum. My first canoe was a Grumman 17 Eagle, actually one of Grumman's best models (tell us why you think it's a POS, canoepaddle). It had a low bow and stern profile, not those huge recurved ends that catch the wind, and was just as sturdy as any other Grumman.
Sturdiness, yes, that's all they have going for them. The list of cons is long: heavy, flat-bottomed and keeled (slow and hard to handle in moving water), cold to the touch in winter, blazing hot under the summer sun, noisy as hell (you can hear them coming a mile away, CLANG!), aluminum has a tendency to grab on to rocks instead of sliding off them.
If you want an inexpensive recreational canoe, you can't go wrong with Royalex.
|
|
CanoeGuru
|
Later this week, I'm buying an early 1960's Grumman 17' double-ender canoe because I need a tougher canoe to do the Namekagon River with. It's in good shape, but I need to strip the old spray paint "camoflauge" off of the exterior/interior. Then I need to figure out if it looks good in it's birthday suit, or if I should paint it. Any suggestions on the exterior paint color? I don't plan on portaging this heavy bastard in the Boundary Waters.
|
|
Chilly
|
quote Sierra1: "I may have paddled a Grumman once or twice at most in my life. My aluminum canoe is an Alumacraft which I've used/had since the mid-60's. I like the way it's constructed with the smooth, no-rivet hull and the good stability. I may be mistaken but it seems to me that when I got it the weight was listed for the Quetico Q17 at 69 lbs. "
I do think the ancient Q17 was 69 lbs but the ones made in this century are 62 lbs;)
|
|
Pinetree
|
I have a alumacraft canoe and the manufactor of this Quetico model said it was 72 pounds. I decided to weigth it and it weighted 85 pounds.
Bought new in 1972 for $219.
|
|
Pinetree
|
very old thread but interesting,at least to me.
|
|
jeroldharter
|
Which weighs more: a hundred pounds of lead or a hundred pounds of aluminum?
|