[C320-list] Cracking in sump area and the Wing Keel debate (again)

[Delia Mace]

Tim

I bought a C320 in May this year.  She was built in about 2000, hull #727.
We are absolutely delighted with her after parting with a Duncansson 35.
More room, looks much better, sails faster, much more comfortable, much
better electronics, etc.  Yes, there was some cracking in the bilge area but
it was in the rib, below the left hand circle in your picture.  It was
ground out and repaired.  Turned out that it was surface and of minor
concern.  I strongly recommend that you make it a condition of purchase that
it be repaired at the vendor's expense so that you can be confident that you
have a sound boat.  No doubt you will be guided by a competent and qualified
surveyor - just make sure that the surveyor has an adequate professional
indemnity insurance.  Just in case!  :-)

Best wishes - keep in touch (odmace at gmail.com)

Owen Mace
Baloo, #727
Adelaide, Australia

-----Original Message-----
From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
[mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Cox
Sent: 24 November 2006 02:29
To: 'C320-List'
Subject: [C320-list] Cracking in sump area and the Wing Keel debate (again)

I am still not a C320 owner but am getting far closer.  Although now that I
am ready to buy, have sorted out a mooring and the money, there is a dearth
of 3 to 4 year old C320's for sale on the Australian eastern seaboard!
There's only been a couple in the last three months.  I missed the first one
but now a 2002 build / 2003 launch C320 has just come onto the market.  I
did the 375 mile round trip today to check it out and it appears to be a
very nicely looked after boat.  I have only two concerns:  

Firstly, some cracking in the sump area, which the salesperson assured was
just the bonding of the furniture mould to the hull and of no consequence.
A survey may comment otherwise.  I would be interested in the List's views.
See a picture at http://tinyurl.com/yj98jg  (This is a 67K picture).

The second concern is that despite the advertising to the contrary, it
turned out to be a wing keel.  I have always had some concerns about the
wing keel from a performance point of view, the extra weight carried on wing
keel boats and the potential stresses if it took the bottom at an angle
should the skipper get the tides or depth wrong.  Am I being overly
concerned given that I don't intend to race the boat?  

Stephen G Cox
Canberra AUSTRALIA