[C320-list] Unsteping Mast Pro-Con
Ralph Winkler
capt-wink at aepro.com
Tue Sep 12 15:01:17 PDT 2006
We have had Wind Dancer ('96 #394) since '99. The first couple years we
stored outside with the mast up. I even bought one of the 320 fitted canvas
from the Canvas ?? in New England and it worked great. Yes, leaving the
mast up does mean you don't have to cross your fingers and toes with the
yard stepping and unstepping every season however, your kidding yourself
when it comes to the effects of cold and air pollution.
For me, storing inside here in Wisconsin has had it's plus's with easy
access to power and water, instruments, cushions, batteries all stay
on-board and the batteries get a extra charge boost every couple months.
Most of all here in Milwaukee all the yards are in the industrial areas so
with inside storage the hull is not subjected to the air pollution and road
melt salt (eat your heart out Orlando) during the winter. To me the cost
($1800 for seven months inside) is worth it considering the investment. I
guess that it all really boils down to where you are geographically.
With storing inside I had to remove the radar dome from the mast each season
just because I didn't want to worry about damage moving the mast to the
storage rack, so about three years ago I moved the dome to a stern mounted
mast from Garhauler. On Lake Michigan the lost ten foot height change of
the dome I can live with even going across the lake.
Ralph Winkler
----- Original Message -----
From: <c320-list-request at catalina320.com>
To: <c320-list at catalina320.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:16 AM
Subject: C320-List Digest, Vol 109, Issue 2
> Send C320-List mailing list submissions to
> c320-list at catalina320.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.catalina320.com/mailman/listinfo/c320-list_catalina320.com
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> c320-list-request at catalina320.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> c320-list-owner at catalina320.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of C320-List digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Anchor & chain size? (russgm at yahoo.com)
> 2. Re: What are the pros/cons of destepping the mast forwinter
> storage? (jonvez at comcast.net)
> 3. Re: Anchor & chain size? (russgm at yahoo.com)
> 4. Re: What are the pros/cons of destepping the mast forwinter
> storage? (russgm at yahoo.com)
> 5. Re: Anchor & chain size? (Stanley Rogacevicz)
> 6. Re: Anchor & chain size? (russgm at yahoo.com)
> 7. Re: Blade falls off of Autoprop propeller! (bruceheyman at cox.net)
> 8. Re: What are the pros/cons of destepping the mast forwinter
> storage? (David Cardoza)
> 9. Re: Anchor & chain size? (Stanley Rogacevicz)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "russgm at yahoo.com" <russgm at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
> To: C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID: <20060912131142.62950.qmail at web56915.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> chris and co...
> On my new boat(C387) I purchased the Spade, whcih is a wonderful
> anchor(see Practical Sailor etal), the Rocna appears to be the next step
> in this new generation of anchor. Basically, its a copy-cat of the Spade
> with the addition of a roll bar, maybe an improvement(I haven't seen
> enough testing to know, thatis why I went with the Spade). But in my
> research the one to watch is not the Rocna, its the Manson Supreme, who
> has copycated the Rocna, tweaked it a bit, and done so at a reduced price!
>
> http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/SupManson.htm
>
> As with anything like this "Google around" a bit and you will find out
> more and more info about them, including what crusiers have to say about
> them.
>
>
> Chris Holt <oldman1030 at hotmail.com> wrote: That looks like a great anchor.
> Watch the video of their holding tests. It is pretty impressive.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bryan Campbell"
> To: "C320-List"
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 5:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
>
>
>> Check out the "next generation" of anchors at www.rocna.com/.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
>> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com]On Behalf Of Timothy Grennan
>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 3:57 PM
>> To: C320-List
>> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> I have a 15 kg (33 lb.) bruce which is the pattern that the claw is made
>> from. I also use 20 ft. of 5/16" HT chain and 200 ft. of 5/8" nylon
>> rode.
>> I
>> cruise in the great lakes and this anchor has served me very well.
>>
>>
>> Tim G.
>>
>> jpmesa at aol.com wrote:
>> I'm getting ready to upgrade my main anchor & chain and would like to
>> get
>> some feed back on what the 320 group is using? I was thinking about a
>> 30-33
>> lb Claw (type)? I like to go one anchor size up. But would love to hear
>> from
>> others out there. JOHN
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
>> tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the
>> web,
>> free AOL Mail and more.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done
>> faster.
>> ---
>> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:11:43 +0000
> From: jonvez at comcast.net
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] What are the pros/cons of destepping the mast
> forwinter storage?
> To: C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID:
> <091220061311.6826.4506B20E0004799400001AAA2200734364960A90020106 at comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> That is very true--it is a yard by yard consideration, not a regional
> one...
>
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Lachance, Michael B (ISD, IT)" <MLaChance at thehartford.com>
>
>> Just as a point of clarification from a fellow New Englander, some yards
>> in New England do in fact require you to unstep.
>> Mike LaChance
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
>> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of
>> jonvez at comcast.net
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:55 AM
>> To: C320-List
>> Subject: Re: [C320-list] What are the pros/cons of destepping the mast
>> forwinter storage?
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> I typically take the mast down every 5 years or so. I go up the mast to
>> check things out twice a season, but I've found no reason to unstep the
>> mast so often--it just creates opportunities for the yard to screw
>> things up when they restep. I know some yards require you to unstep, but
>> fortunately that is not the case up here in New England...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> -------------- Original message --------------
>> From: Tim
>>
>> > When I bought my boat last year hull #603, the mast was down and had
>> > to be stepped at launching. No real issues but I had a minor problem
>> > with VHF antenna and one of the stays was connected wrong to the chain
>>
>> > plate. Now that winter in approaching, I do have the option to store
>> > my boat either way and was leaning towards leaving the mast intact.
>> Let's here some pros and cons from the group.
>> > For me, there is a cost savings but then it would be good to take a
>> > good look at the mast while down. Also, I was considering purchasing a
>>
>> > cover for the winter and can have it made w/ or w/o the mast in place.
>>
>> > Does this cause the cover to leak a bit?
>> >
>> > Tim
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo!
>> > Small Business.
>>
>>
>> *************************************************************************
>> This communication, including attachments, is
>> for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary,
>> confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is
>> strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
>> the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and
>> destroy all copies.
>> *************************************************************************
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "russgm at yahoo.com" <russgm at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
> To: C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID: <20060912131425.70336.qmail at web56913.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Stan-
> WHen I ought my new boat I did a TON of anchor research, I concluded that
> although the Bruce sets very well, it does not hold particularly well.
> Have you seen the Practical Sailor articles? As my other post on the this
> subject indicates I went with a Spade, but have sights on a Manson
> Supreme.
> -russ
>
> Stanley Rogacevicz <SROGACEV at holycross.edu> wrote: The Rocna may very
> well be a good anchor but I think their streaming
> video is BS. I think the only way you could make a Bruce not set like
> that is if the 'beach' they used was a concrete slab with a little sand
> dumped on the sections used for the 'other' anchors. For the past 7
> years a Bruce 33 has set instantly in all bottoms, in 7-40' of water,
> and held/reset in 180 and even 360 degree wind shifts for me. I like a
> rope rode but if the wind is high or I have to under scope in a crowded
> anchorage I use 1 or more 15 lb. mushrooms as a sentinel that I slide
> down the rode on a separate line.
> Stan
> formerly "Christy Leigh"
> c320 #656
> Wickford/Narragansett Bay RI
>
>>>> "Bryan Campbell" 9/11/2006 5:06 PM >>>
> Check out the "next generation" of anchors at www.rocna.com/.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com]On Behalf Of Timothy Grennan
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 3:57 PM
> To: C320-List
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
>
>
> Hi,
> I have a 15 kg (33 lb.) bruce which is the pattern that the claw is
> made
> from. I also use 20 ft. of 5/16" HT chain and 200 ft. of 5/8" nylon
> rode. I
> cruise in the great lakes and this anchor has served me very well.
>
>
> Tim G.
>
> jpmesa at aol.com wrote:
> I'm getting ready to upgrade my main anchor & chain and would like to
> get
> some feed back on what the 320 group is using? I was thinking about a
> 30-33
> lb Claw (type)? I like to go one anchor size up. But would love to hear
> from
> others out there. JOHN
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
> security
> tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the
> web,
> free AOL Mail and more.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things
> done
> faster.
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>
>
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "russgm at yahoo.com" <russgm at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] What are the pros/cons of destepping the mast
> forwinter storage?
> To: C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID: <20060912131703.77105.qmail at web56901.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Mike did you mean to say
> Mike LaChance (Commodore Elect)
> -russ
>
> "Lachance, Michael B (ISD, IT)" <MLaChance at thehartford.com> wrote: Just as
> a point of clarification from a fellow New Englander, some yards
> in New England do in fact require you to unstep.
> Mike LaChance
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of
> jonvez at comcast.net
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:55 AM
> To: C320-List
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] What are the pros/cons of destepping the mast
> forwinter storage?
>
> Tim,
>
> I typically take the mast down every 5 years or so. I go up the mast to
> check things out twice a season, but I've found no reason to unstep the
> mast so often--it just creates opportunities for the yard to screw
> things up when they restep. I know some yards require you to unstep, but
> fortunately that is not the case up here in New England...
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: Tim
>
>> When I bought my boat last year hull #603, the mast was down and had
>> to be stepped at launching. No real issues but I had a minor problem
>> with VHF antenna and one of the stays was connected wrong to the chain
>
>> plate. Now that winter in approaching, I do have the option to store
>> my boat either way and was leaning towards leaving the mast intact.
> Let's here some pros and cons from the group.
>> For me, there is a cost savings but then it would be good to take a
>> good look at the mast while down. Also, I was considering purchasing a
>
>> cover for the winter and can have it made w/ or w/o the mast in place.
>
>> Does this cause the cover to leak a bit?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo!
>> Small Business.
>
>
> *************************************************************************
> This communication, including attachments, is
> for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary,
> confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is
> strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
> the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and
> destroy all copies.
> *************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great
> rates starting at 1?/min.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:36:20 -0400
> From: "Stanley Rogacevicz" <SROGACEV at holycross.edu>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
> To: "C320-List" <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID: <45067F93.06B5.0058.0 at holycross.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Russ,
> I haven't seen any PS articles in quite a while since the ones that
> gave the Bruce fairly high marks on setting but I don't recall their
> ranking on Holding. As for Holding the 6 years with a Bruce 33 on the
> c320 is a bit oversized and I gave it a quite a few wind shift tests but
> never really gave it much of a high (over 15kt) test. But - my NC 331
> came with a Bruce 33 knockoff which I think is a bit undersized for the
> high windage 18,000 lbs of a pilothouse (44 would be better). On my
> delivery from Annapolis to NGBay I gave it a couple pretty good tests at
> 15-20kts with a good fetch creating waves that kept me up most of the
> night and another 10-15kts night with no wave fetch but a 180 degree
> wind shift through the night. No Problems. Although 7 cruising years in
> the NE is only 1/2 the anchoring time in the south I'm still at %100
> satisfaction so what else can I say - except I still think the Rocna
> video is tainted somehow because it's easy enough to do.
> Stan
>
>>>> "russgm at yahoo.com" <russgm at yahoo.com> 9/12/2006 9:14 AM >>>
> Stan-
> WHen I ought my new boat I did a TON of anchor research, I concluded
> that although the Bruce sets very well, it does not hold particularly
> well. Have you seen the Practical Sailor articles? As my other post on
> the this subject indicates I went with a Spade, but have sights on a
> Manson Supreme.
> -russ
>
> Stanley Rogacevicz <SROGACEV at holycross.edu> wrote: The Rocna may
> very well be a good anchor but I think their streaming
> video is BS. I think the only way you could make a Bruce not set like
> that is if the 'beach' they used was a concrete slab with a little
> sand
> dumped on the sections used for the 'other' anchors. For the past 7
> years a Bruce 33 has set instantly in all bottoms, in 7-40' of water,
> and held/reset in 180 and even 360 degree wind shifts for me. I like a
> rope rode but if the wind is high or I have to under scope in a
> crowded
> anchorage I use 1 or more 15 lb. mushrooms as a sentinel that I slide
> down the rode on a separate line.
> Stan
> formerly "Christy Leigh"
> c320 #656
> Wickford/Narragansett Bay RI
>
>>>> "Bryan Campbell" 9/11/2006 5:06 PM >>>
> Check out the "next generation" of anchors at www.rocna.com/.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com]On Behalf Of Timothy Grennan
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 3:57 PM
> To: C320-List
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
>
>
> Hi,
> I have a 15 kg (33 lb.) bruce which is the pattern that the claw is
> made
> from. I also use 20 ft. of 5/16" HT chain and 200 ft. of 5/8" nylon
> rode. I
> cruise in the great lakes and this anchor has served me very well.
>
>
> Tim G.
>
> jpmesa at aol.com wrote:
> I'm getting ready to upgrade my main anchor & chain and would like
> to
> get
> some feed back on what the 320 group is using? I was thinking about a
> 30-33
> lb Claw (type)? I like to go one anchor size up. But would love to
> hear
> from
> others out there. JOHN
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
> security
> tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the
> web,
> free AOL Mail and more.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things
> done
> faster.
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>
>
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "russgm at yahoo.com" <russgm at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
> To: C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID: <20060912134728.85280.qmail at web56909.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Stan-
> Here is the PS article, there was also a follow up in April on anchors...I
> don't think any reasonably intelligent person could confuse those Rocna
> videos with a valid anchoring test either! BUt nonetheless I have read
> failry positive things, on my new C387 I went with 150' of chain and a 45#
> Spade you cannot make a mistake with a Spade, it was the first of the "New
> generation" and is tried and true. It sets easy, it holds very well, and
> resets well if required. As you can see I am also a fan of chain,
> whatever you got, chain makes it better.
> -russ
>
> Stanley Rogacevicz <SROGACEV at holycross.edu> wrote: Russ,
> I haven't seen any PS articles in quite a while since the ones that
> gave the Bruce fairly high marks on setting but I don't recall their
> ranking on Holding. As for Holding the 6 years with a Bruce 33 on the
> c320 is a bit oversized and I gave it a quite a few wind shift tests but
> never really gave it much of a high (over 15kt) test. But - my NC 331
> came with a Bruce 33 knockoff which I think is a bit undersized for the
> high windage 18,000 lbs of a pilothouse (44 would be better). On my
> delivery from Annapolis to NGBay I gave it a couple pretty good tests at
> 15-20kts with a good fetch creating waves that kept me up most of the
> night and another 10-15kts night with no wave fetch but a 180 degree
> wind shift through the night. No Problems. Although 7 cruising years in
> the NE is only 1/2 the anchoring time in the south I'm still at %100
> satisfaction so what else can I say - except I still think the Rocna
> video is tainted somehow because it's easy enough to do.
> Stan
>
>>>> "russgm at yahoo.com" 9/12/2006 9:14 AM >>>
> Stan-
> WHen I ought my new boat I did a TON of anchor research, I concluded
> that although the Bruce sets very well, it does not hold particularly
> well. Have you seen the Practical Sailor articles? As my other post on
> the this subject indicates I went with a Spade, but have sights on a
> Manson Supreme.
> -russ
>
> Stanley Rogacevicz wrote: The Rocna may
> very well be a good anchor but I think their streaming
> video is BS. I think the only way you could make a Bruce not set like
> that is if the 'beach' they used was a concrete slab with a little
> sand
> dumped on the sections used for the 'other' anchors. For the past 7
> years a Bruce 33 has set instantly in all bottoms, in 7-40' of water,
> and held/reset in 180 and even 360 degree wind shifts for me. I like a
> rope rode but if the wind is high or I have to under scope in a
> crowded
> anchorage I use 1 or more 15 lb. mushrooms as a sentinel that I slide
> down the rode on a separate line.
> Stan
> formerly "Christy Leigh"
> c320 #656
> Wickford/Narragansett Bay RI
>
>>>> "Bryan Campbell" 9/11/2006 5:06 PM >>>
> Check out the "next generation" of anchors at www.rocna.com/.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com]On Behalf Of Timothy Grennan
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 3:57 PM
> To: C320-List
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
>
>
> Hi,
> I have a 15 kg (33 lb.) bruce which is the pattern that the claw is
> made
> from. I also use 20 ft. of 5/16" HT chain and 200 ft. of 5/8" nylon
> rode. I
> cruise in the great lakes and this anchor has served me very well.
>
>
> Tim G.
>
> jpmesa at aol.com wrote:
> I'm getting ready to upgrade my main anchor & chain and would like
> to
> get
> some feed back on what the 320 group is using? I was thinking about a
> 30-33
> lb Claw (type)? I like to go one anchor size up. But would love to
> hear
> from
> others out there. JOHN
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
> security
> tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the
> web,
> free AOL Mail and more.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things
> done
> faster.
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>
>
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:50:10 +0000
> From: bruceheyman at cox.net
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Blade falls off of Autoprop propeller!
> To: "C320-List" <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID:
> <137310221-1158069039-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-308933043- at bwe056-cell00.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Jon,
> In the information that I got from the PO I found an envelope with the SN
> of our H5BB on the outside, a letter from Steve Armatage and a couple
> pages on how to maintain the prop, including how to adjust the bearings
> (tourque down to 14 ft lbs or 18 NM and then back of 1/4 turn). The most
> dificulty I had was tightening the lock nut with out it adjusting the
> tension on the bearings.
>
> I would be happy to make a copy and send to you if that would help.
> Bruce
> Somerset 671 SoCal
> Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jonvez at comcast.net
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:09:28
> To:C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Blade falls off of Autoprop propeller!
>
> Larry,
>
> Did the procedure you mention from AP come with the propeller? I don't
> believe I received the procedure you are referring to...
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Vez
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "WindSwept" <c320_windswept at sbcglobal.net>
>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> I'll respond here to a couple of things.
>>
>> You took a hit on the 240 Buicks so I won't comment on that. The correct
>> unit on the torque is 14 ft-lbs or 18 NM per the instructions I received.
>> My torque wrench is calibrated in inch pounds and NM. 14 ft pounds is 168
>> inch-pounds. Any of the three will work.
>>
>> The website doesn't really talk about bearing adjustment. It really just
>> adresses cleaning out of the bearings.
>>
>> This weekend I checked the bearing adjustment and followed the AB Marine
>> procedure where you back off the retaining cap by 1/4 turn. I also have
>> the
>> procedure recommended by Steve, but decided to go with the procedure
>> provided by the designers and manufacturers over the distributor. I have
>> no
>> reason to believe that Steve's procedure wouldn't be perfectly fine and
>> it
>> is easier to follow.
>>
>> When the bearings are adjusted using the procedure provided by the
>> designers
>> of the autoprop, the blades spin smoothly and there is just a small
>> amount
>> of play in the bearings.
>>
>> Larry
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:
>> To: "C320-List"
>> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 6:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Blade falls off of Autoprop propeller!
>>
>>
>> > Larry,
>> > Sorry you lost the blade! I'd be very interested in how freely the
>> > blades
>> > rotate when you get your prop back from the factory. I just rebuilt
>> > ours
>> > but on the direction of Steve Armitage I did NOT follow the original
>> > instructions. The original instructions call for you to tourque down on
>> > the adjustments for each blade to 14 nm (I know I have the number right
>> > but not sure about the units) and then back off 1/4 turn. Steve told me
>> > to just tighten them down until there was no play in any direction and
>> > the
>> > blades still rotate freely. The rebuild kit was about 240 buicks and
>> > fairly easy to do. Hardest part was getting everything good and clean.
>> > I
>> > also have the H5BB so no grease.
>> > Bruce
>> > Somerset 671 SoCal
>> > Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: "Robert E. Sloat"
>> > Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 09:41:36
>> > To:"C320-List"
>> > Subject: Re: [C320-list] Blade falls off of Autoprop propeller!
>> >
>> > Check out their website at http://ab-marine.com/. There is all kind of
>> > installation information and
>> > maintenance procedures for the various model Autoprop propellers. Mine
>> > is
>> > the H5 model which does not require any greasing. For the models which
>> > require greasing, they suggest every 2 years. The installation
>> > instructions
>> > for my prop suggest rotating the blades at haul out to make sure they
>> > freely
>> > move and gives information on bearing replacement kits when needed.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "WindSwept"
>> > To: "'C320-List'"
>> > Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 8:59 AM
>> > Subject: [C320-list] Blade falls off of Autoprop propeller!
>> >
>> >
>> > A funny thing happened on the way to the ship yard this spring for my
>> > semi-annual bottom job. Well maybe not so funny.
>> >
>> > Carla and I spent the night at anchor in a cove about 1/2 mile from the
>> > yard
>> > the prior to dropping off WindSwept.
>> >
>> > After hauling anchor when we tried to motor over to the yard the boat
>> > shook
>> > terribly at any RPMs above idle.
>> >
>> > We quickly anchored again and I dove below the boat to find out what
>> > was
>> > wrapped around the prop, but was amazed to find that one of the three
>> > blades
>> > of my Autoprop was just......missing!
>> >
>> > We managed to sail to the yard which is located up a narrow channel and
>> > moor
>> > in the haul up slip. Luckily the wind was from a favorable direction.
>> >
>> > To make a long story shorter, I had the fixed three blade that came
>> > with
>> > WindSwept reinstalled and sent the Autoprop to AB Marine for analysis
>> > and
>> > repair. The prop had to be sent back to the factory in the UK so the
>> > engineers could look at it and a new blade could be fabricated.
>> >
>> > The reason for the failure was that the bearings were excessively worn
>> > causing too much torque to be applied on the mechanical fastenings that
>> > hold
>> > the blades on.
>> >
>> > At this point I think it is relevant to mention that I had purchased
>> > the
>> > Autoprop used about 7-8 years ago from a 320 owner who had traded up. I
>> > do
>> > not believe I received all the paperwork that one would normally
>> > receive
>> > with a new Autoprop. This paperwork discusses the need to inspect and
>> > adjust the bearings at each haulout. AB Marine sells a kit for this
>> > purpose.
>> >
>> > I was upset with AB Marine as through the years I have had many
>> > discussions
>> > on this subject and even though I asked about maintenance, this was
>> > never
>> > mentioned. In their defense, they probably thought I had the original
>> > instruction sheets for installation and maintenance. As an engineer I
>> > was
>> > amazed that I didn't need to do any maintenance on a bearing in this
>> > type
>> > of
>> > service. The autoprop had been on WindSwept for four years without
>> > maintenance before the failure occurred.
>> >
>> > The point of all this is that I think this was a preventable situation
>> > had
>> > I
>> > know to inspect the bearings for excessive looseness and adjust every
>> > year
>> > or two as needed.
>> >
>> > I plan on having the Autoprop put back on in a couple of weeks as I can
>> > definitely say it really improves boat speed and handling in all
>> > situations.
>> > I will inspect it annually and disassemble and adjust bearing
>> > clearances
>> > every other year at a minimum.
>> >
>> > I wanted to share my experience with others in the hopes that you don't
>> > experience the same problem. In another situation it could have been
>> > much
>> > more disastrous.
>> >
>> > Larry
>> > WindSwept C320 #246
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:56:13 -0400
> From: "David Cardoza" <dave at avaloncon.com>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] What are the pros/cons of destepping the mast
> forwinter storage?
> To: "'C320-List'" <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID:
> <000d01c6d673$4616a4b0$2f15500a at Americas.missionenergy.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I truck the boat home every year so I have to un-step. I like having the
> Boat in the back yard. I have a shore power hookup and fair cloth cover
> and
> can put a little heat in the boat when I want to get a head start on
> spring.
> Besides it's cheaper than winter storage at a yard and I think I do a
> better
> job on the bottom than the yard does. I can also have a mechanic from the
> regional Yanmar distributor go over the engine without having issues about
> not using yard mechanics. The cost is a little over 1k per year and
> includes the crane to step and un-step. The only negative I find is that
> the hull does settle a little on blocks without the mast and stays up.
> When
> it first hits the water the stays seem short but after about 24 hrs fit
> just
> fine. I assume it's the whole keel supporting the boat on blocks / boat
> supporting the keel on water thing.
>
> Another thing I remember about storing the mast down at the yard one year
> was they charged extra to store the mast on top of the stepping fee.
>
> See all you New Englanders at the Newport boat show.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of Tim
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:44 PM
> To: C320 List
> Subject: [C320-list] What are the pros/cons of destepping the mast
> forwinter
> storage?
>
> When I bought my boat last year hull #603, the mast was down and had to be
> stepped at launching. No real issues but I had a minor problem with VHF
> antenna and one of the stays was connected wrong to the chain plate. Now
> that winter in approaching, I do have the option to store my boat either
> way
> and was leaning towards leaving the mast intact. Let's here some pros and
> cons from the group. For me, there is a cost savings but then it would be
> good to take a good look at the mast while down. Also, I was considering
> purchasing a cover for the winter and can have it made w/ or w/o the mast
> in
> place. Does this cause the cover to leak a bit?
>
> Tim
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small
> Business.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:16:42 -0400
> From: "Stanley Rogacevicz" <SROGACEV at holycross.edu>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
> To: "C320-List" <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID: <45068909.06B5.0058.0 at holycross.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Russ,
> I assume you attempted an attachment - nope - but that's ok because
> in general I agree that the Spade design is good. Actually since I have
> a dual roller and dual locker I may replace the CQR all chain (it needs
> all the help it can get) with a Spade type since I have no need to Plow
> any furrows in the seabed with a CQR Plow I may sell it for an upgrade
> to a Spade as my secondary anchor. I may also upgrade to a Bruce 44
> which will still be my primary which has always done fine with rope.
> Shame on you.... giving me good excuses to spend a few hundred more
> $$$$$$$$$$$.
> Stan
>
>>>> "russgm at yahoo.com" <russgm at yahoo.com> 9/12/2006 9:47 AM >>>
> Stan-
> Here is the PS article, there was also a follow up in April on
> anchors...I don't think any reasonably intelligent person could confuse
> those Rocna videos with a valid anchoring test either! BUt nonetheless
> I have read failry positive things, on my new C387 I went with 150' of
> chain and a 45# Spade you cannot make a mistake with a Spade, it was
> the first of the "New generation" and is tried and true. It sets easy,
> it holds very well, and resets well if required. As you can see I am
> also a fan of chain, whatever you got, chain makes it better.
> -russ
>
> Stanley Rogacevicz <SROGACEV at holycross.edu> wrote: Russ,
> I haven't seen any PS articles in quite a while since the ones that
> gave the Bruce fairly high marks on setting but I don't recall their
> ranking on Holding. As for Holding the 6 years with a Bruce 33 on the
> c320 is a bit oversized and I gave it a quite a few wind shift tests
> but
> never really gave it much of a high (over 15kt) test. But - my NC 331
> came with a Bruce 33 knockoff which I think is a bit undersized for
> the
> high windage 18,000 lbs of a pilothouse (44 would be better). On my
> delivery from Annapolis to NGBay I gave it a couple pretty good tests
> at
> 15-20kts with a good fetch creating waves that kept me up most of the
> night and another 10-15kts night with no wave fetch but a 180 degree
> wind shift through the night. No Problems. Although 7 cruising years
> in
> the NE is only 1/2 the anchoring time in the south I'm still at %100
> satisfaction so what else can I say - except I still think the Rocna
> video is tainted somehow because it's easy enough to do.
> Stan
>
>>>> "russgm at yahoo.com" 9/12/2006 9:14 AM >>>
> Stan-
> WHen I ought my new boat I did a TON of anchor research, I concluded
> that although the Bruce sets very well, it does not hold particularly
> well. Have you seen the Practical Sailor articles? As my other post
> on
> the this subject indicates I went with a Spade, but have sights on a
> Manson Supreme.
> -russ
>
> Stanley Rogacevicz wrote: The Rocna may
> very well be a good anchor but I think their streaming
> video is BS. I think the only way you could make a Bruce not set like
> that is if the 'beach' they used was a concrete slab with a little
> sand
> dumped on the sections used for the 'other' anchors. For the past 7
> years a Bruce 33 has set instantly in all bottoms, in 7-40' of water,
> and held/reset in 180 and even 360 degree wind shifts for me. I like a
> rope rode but if the wind is high or I have to under scope in a
> crowded
> anchorage I use 1 or more 15 lb. mushrooms as a sentinel that I slide
> down the rode on a separate line.
> Stan
> formerly "Christy Leigh"
> c320 #656
> Wickford/Narragansett Bay RI
>
>>>> "Bryan Campbell" 9/11/2006 5:06 PM >>>
> Check out the "next generation" of anchors at www.rocna.com/.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com]On Behalf Of Timothy Grennan
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 3:57 PM
> To: C320-List
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
>
>
> Hi,
> I have a 15 kg (33 lb.) bruce which is the pattern that the claw is
> made
> from. I also use 20 ft. of 5/16" HT chain and 200 ft. of 5/8" nylon
> rode. I
> cruise in the great lakes and this anchor has served me very well.
>
>
> Tim G.
>
> jpmesa at aol.com wrote:
> I'm getting ready to upgrade my main anchor & chain and would like
> to
> get
> some feed back on what the 320 group is using? I was thinking about a
> 30-33
> lb Claw (type)? I like to go one anchor size up. But would love to
> hear
> from
> others out there. JOHN
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
> security
> tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the
> web,
> free AOL Mail and more.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things
> done
> faster.
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>
>
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> End of C320-List Digest, Vol 109, Issue 2
> *****************************************
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
More information about the C320-list
mailing list