[C320-list] Props
Ralph Winkler
capt-wink at aepro.com
Tue Sep 12 18:14:13 PDT 2006
I've had both the Maxprop and the Autostream (from Martec). The Maxprop on
our previous boat needed to be "tweaked" a couple times before it was right
for that boat. When I bought the Autostream for our 320 the VP at Martec
sent me a questionnaire and called with several questions regard boat "as
built spec" and local conditions etc. they set it up for you but there are
two screws provided for owner tweaking if needed. Credit where credit is
due they got the prop set pretty darn close to right.
We need to understand there are many factors that have to be answered on how
each boat is set-up and where it's used. I'm willing to bet that the pitch
settings I have are not necessarily right for some of you guys out east or
west due to our conditions here on Lake Michigan and/or how Wind Dancer is
set-up. Oh, AND let's not forget the engine/transmission set-up of the week
when our boat was built at the factory in '96. I believe that the various
different engines and transmission configurations adds to the confusion all
the more. The only way you personally will ever know if you have the
correct pitch setting is to check your own boat starting with having a
mechanic check the actual engine rpm vs. what your tach is telling you.
I've had one of my mechanics check both boats and both were off to some
degree. From there you can do some sea trials and rpm tests to verify the
prop pitch settings. Guys, there is no single prop setting or automatic
setting that will meeting every 320 owners boating needs, in reality there
are probably a handful. That statement does not meant that everyone needs
to breakout into a sweat. What I mean is that long-term some boats will get
2500 hours and others 4000 hours before they need engine work. By then most
of us will have talked the Admiral into trading-up like Orlando did and let
the next owner worry about it.
Ralph Winkler
----- Original Message -----
From: <c320-list-request at catalina320.com>
To: <c320-list at catalina320.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 5:01 PM
Subject: C320-List Digest, Vol 109, Issue 6
> 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: Regatta Tech Sessions - a summary. (Jeff Church)
> 2. Re: CHIT CHAT, off topic, not C320 related, (but aren't you
> curious?) (Dave Sparks)
> 3. Unsteping Mast Pro-Con (Ralph Winkler)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:50:17 -0500
> From: "Jeff Church" <jjemail at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Regatta Tech Sessions - a summary.
> To: <catalina at thehares.com>, "C320-List" <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID: <001b01c6d6b5$70757b90$6401a8c0 at JCJG1>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> JeffH
>
> You might be right about the prop manufacturers. MaxProp also recommends a
> pitch setting that is too aggressive. They recommended 20 degrees, I'm at
> 18
> this season and will use 17 next season.
>
> JeffC
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Hare" <catalina at thehares.com>
> To: "'C320-List'" <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Regatta Tech Sessions - a summary.
>
>
> Hi Russ,
>
> That starts to confirm my suspicions about why the AP is able to motor
> at
> lower RPM than other props. They seem to over pitch it. (Before someone
> says it, I know it's self pitching :), but I think it is still has to be
> set
> up for a specific Engine RPM/HP rating). It sounds like they use the same
> calculator that Gori uses, since the gori calculator over-pitches the C320
> Yanmar 3GM combos by what amounts to slightly over 1" of pitch.
>
> Maybe this is how prop makers "tweak" the numbers to make themselves
> look
> better than their competition? Just overpitch it slightly to make the
> boat
> go a little faster at a given RPM?
>
> -JeffH
>
>
> PS: Our Gori 3-blade reaches (what looks like) ~3450-3500 range, but not
> quite the 3600 target when tied to the dock in forward. When the Gori
> prop
> is in overdrive, we can only reach ~2800 RPM full throttle, but in flat
> water, that's enough to drive the boat to around hull speed without
> motorsailing.
>
> In forward (non-overdrive) at 2800 RPM, we're doing ~6.3-6.5 kts on
> average, and at 3000, it runs roughly 6.8 kts which is about all we count
> on
> being able to average under power unless we motor sail and/or use
> overdrive.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: russgm at yahoo.com [mailto:russgm at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:18 PM
> To: bruceheyman at cox.net; C320-List
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Regatta Tech Sessions - a summary.
>
> Bruce-
> I was able to obtain about 3200 or so with my AP.
> Russ Monaco
>
> bruceheyman at cox.net wrote:
> Jon,
> Would be interested what others can get the autoprop up to. When I tried
> it
> yesterday iit only made it up to 3300 or so. I'd also be interesting what
> everyone considers the proper crusing RPM. At the regatta I heard
> everything
> from 3000 to 2100. I always heard that desiels do best at 80% of red line.
> I've looked theough the owners manual and the shop manual for the 3GM30F
> and
> they offer no insight.
> Thanks,
> Bruce
> Somerset 671 SoCal
> Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jonvez at comcast.net
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:37:42
> To:catalina at thehares.com, C320-List
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Regatta Tech Sessions - a summary.
>
> Jeff,
>
> Thanks for the recap, very good info. all around....A couple of items from
> the Yanmar discussion certainly stand out--certainly the comment on the
> Dexcool and also getting the engine up to 3600 regardless of the
> prop...not
> sure I can do that with my Autoprop....
>
> Thanks again for keeping those of us who could not make it informed...
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Jeffrey Hare"
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> At this year's regatta, Dick organized tech sessions by:
>>
>> * Mark Felgenhauer at Garhauer Marine,
>> * A technical guy from Lewmar,
>> * A Yanmar technical representative
>> * Some riggers demonstrating how to tension and adjust the mast rigging
>> on
> a
>> C320.
>>
>> This is about all I remember from those sessions. If you attended and
>> have
>
>> things to add or corrections to make, please feel free to note them and
> make
>> corrections. I'd like to post as much information from the tech sessions
> as
>> possible on the website, but since I didn't take any written notes, I
>> probably forgot about lots of things that were discussed. I may also have
>> made some mistakes below in trying to write this email, so "have at it!".
>>
>>
>> GARHAUER:
>> =========
>> The session with Garhauer was an interesting opportunity to see the new
>> products they've introduces for the C320, and ask tech questions about
>> applications. One of the most interesting new products is the replacement
>> Genoa turning block for the one in the cockpit near the primary winches.
> It
>> is a beautifully manufactured block that's a perfect replacement for the
>> stock Lewmar one. The main difference is that the Garhauer block has
>> bearings and handles the sheet loads way better. It's beautifully
>> anodized and machined from an aluminum block.
>>
>>
>> LEWMAR:
>> =========
>> The Lewmar rep, discussed how to disassemble the side hatches, stop leaks
>> and adjust the latch mechanisms. He discussed the 4 types of side hatches
>> used on the C320, and showed the new Stainless Steel framed replacement
>> hatch used on the current and future C320s. He also indicated that Lewmar
>> now makes all the hatches on the C320, so at some point the forward hatch
>> went from being a Bomar, to a Lewmar. It would be interesting to know
>> when
>
>> this change occurred.
>>
>> My observations: (from memory)
>> There are two shapes for the standard side hatches. Rectangular Ends &
>> Rounded Ends.
>>
>> As a common note, he indicated that replacement inside rubber seals on
>> the
>
>> side hatches are available and replaceable if they're damaged and leak,
> but
>> keeping them clean and having the closing tension properly adjusted
>> (where
>
>> possible) should eliminate leaking through this seal.
>>
>> Rectangular End side hatches:
>> ==========================
>> Used on the Earlier C320's (prior to ~2000??), and have the twist style
>> of hatch closure.
>>
>> There are two styles of outside frame for these. The older style has a
>> horizontal seam in the center of each end, and those that have a single
>> vertical seam at the bottom. The older styles were prone to the sealant
>> in
>
>> the seams drying out and allowing water to enter the hatch frame, and
>> leak
>
>> inside. He had a procedure that would help eliminate or reduce that
>> leakage. The newer version of the rectangular hatch had a vertical seam
>> on
>
>> the bottom and was far less prone to leaking. But he said, to pull the
>> inner trim ring and if you see water in there after a rain, then the
> rubber
>> in the outer seal is probably leaking. Someone who took notes, may have
>> more details here.
>>
>> He indicated that there were a couple versions of the twist lock
>> closures on the rectangular frames. Ones that had the catches welded, and
>> others that had the catches screwed in. He had a procedure that would let
>> you adjust the closing tension here.
>>
>> Rounded End side hatches:
>> =======================
>> Used on the newer (post ~2000-ish?) C320s and have the flip up/down
>> hatch closures.
>>
>> Lewmar has made a few different versions of these side hatches, with the
>> differences being mostly in the appearance of the finish on the aluminum
>> outside trim.
>>
>> The newest version has a SS outside trim ring and looks very nice. The
>> rounded end hatches can be directly replaced with the current polished
>> Stainless Steel side hatches since the sizes and hull opening
>> requirements
>
>> are identical. They are not a direct replacement for the squared end side
>> hatches however. I forgot to ask about whether they have better side
>> screens on the new SS hatches.
>>
>>
>>
>> YANMAR:
>> =========
>> He mentioned quite a few things. Some of them I remember, most of
>> them I don't. :)
>>
>> * Again, he reiterated that regardless of which prop you have, the
>> engine needs to be able to reach 3600 RPM under load or the prop is
>> overpitched.
>>
>> * He indicated that a 2 micron filter was a good idea and that the
>> engine and pump has absolutely no difficulty with this fine a filter. I
>> mentioned (after his presentation was over) the discussions this list has
>> had and the concerns some raised about not getting a good enough flow
>> with
>
>> 2u filters. He said that the engine is efficient and doesn't need to move
>> lots of fuel, so fuel starvation isn't going to happen just because you
> use
>> a 2u filter. He indicated that the difference in fuel flow through 2 and
>> 10 micron filters is really quite minimal. He indicated that the finer
>> filter is better for the injectors and that 2micron is stock for newer
>> yanmars anyway. Filter size does matter in really cold (below freezing)
>> weather where diesel gelling issues are possible. But I'm tucked in at
> home
>> beside the fireplace in those conditions anyway. :)
>>
>> * He discussed the differences in the 3YM vs. 3GM. Mainly that the
>> seawater impeller is easier to change.
>>
>> * He indicated that we should CHANGE our ANTIFREEZE to the DexCool
>> variety. He said yanmar found that the Green (and others?) were possibly
>> the cause of corrosion in the aluminum parts of the heat exchanger.
>> Yanmar
>
>> is using DexCool in these engines exclusively now. (Please correct me if
>> I
>
>> missed something here). We discussed flushing it out, and he said that we
>> should try to get as much out as possible, but not to worry about small
>> amounts left in there, that small amounts mixing wouldn't be harmful.
>>
>> * He mentioned that the impeller should be checked every year, and
>> replaced every ?2?. (I forgot his exact answer, but he indicated that
>> look
>
>> for wear and cracking.)
>>
>> * He cleared up the "impeller mystery" between the European and
>> Japanese Yanmars. He said that there are 2 different pump manufacturers.
>> Johnson, and Yanmar. The Yanmar pump, needs an impeller with the keyway
> and
>> a paper gasket. The Johnson pump uses a rubber O-Ring and has a slotted
>> shaft that accepts an impeller with a screw through the center of the
>> hole
>
>> in the impeller. He indicated that the Japanese Yanmars typically (but
>> not
>
>> always) used the Yanmar pump, while the European Yanmars typically used
> the
>> Johnson pump.
>>
>> If you have an engine with the JOHNSON PUMP (it says so right on the back
>> plate), you can use the Johnson impeller kit which comes with the oring,
>> some unneeded paper washers and the impeller. Yanmar also sells this
>> impeller, but sells the o-ring separately (and is probably more $$). He
>> recommends just getting the Johnson kit if you have the johnson pump.
>>
>> If you have an engine with the YANMAR PUMP, (may say yanmar, but doesn't
> say
>> Johnson :), then you probably have to buy the impeller through Yanmar or
>> some other OEM supplier. It needs the paper washer.
>>
>>
>> RIGGING:
>> ========
>> The riggers discussed how to tune the rig. They indicated that the cap
>> shrouds should be tensioned to no more than 12% breaking strength.
>>
>> They demonstrated proper use of the Pro version of the Loos gauge.
>>
>> They recommend the use of Boshield T9 spray on the turnbuckles to
> penetrate,
>> lube and seal out moisture. DON'T use this on turning blocks however
>> because it leaves a waxy buildup behind. Sailkote or other dry lubes are
>> preferred for turning/sliding blocks.
>>
>> They spent a considerable amount of time discussing the concept of
> pre-bend
>> in the mast. (my interpretation and words follow here, so correct me if I
>> incorrectly conveyed what they said)
>>
>> Pre-bend is a slight bend in the mast arching aft. Even for a furling
> main!
>> The reason is that when the mast is perfectly straight in column, the
> middle
>> will tend to pump (wiggle fore and aft) which will cause damaging fatigue
>> stresses on the mast.
>>
>> They indicated that we absolutely want to ensure that our mast has some
>> pre-bend. This is accomplished by ensuring that the FORWARD LOWERS are
>> tensioned properly and tighter than the AFT LOWERS, and that the backstay
> is
>> not too loose. This is to pull the middle section of the mast slightly
>> forward and introduce some bend.
>>
>> An interesting side-note: While at the Marina Del Ray regatta a couple
>> years back, I noticed that most of the C320s there had very loose (almost
>> floppy) forward lower stays.
>>
>> An observation on their techniques: If you've seen Brion Toss's video on
>> rig tuning, he has a far superior technique for adjusting the
>> turn-buckles
>
>> which puts less stress on the turnbuckle and is easier.
>>
>> Procedurally, they said, put enough tension on the cap stays (highest
>> one)
>
>> to keep the mast from falling down. Then generally work from the bottom
> up,
>> side to side until the shrouds are up to tension.
>>
>> There was a lot more, but it seemed obvious to me, so I don't recall
>> specifically what they said. Sorry!
>>
>>
>> -Jeff Hare
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great
> rates
> starting at 1?/min.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:57:15 -0500
> From: "Dave Sparks" <dlsparks at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] CHIT CHAT, off topic, not C320 related, (but
> aren't you curious?)
> To: catalina at thehares.com, C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID:
> <13c0882f0609121457x5e455ca0o271efa9917bb5537 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Jeff:
> Another Catalina here, in front of the Golden Gate Bridge.
> http://www.aquila.dbsparks.com/sf9r.jpg
>
> Dave
>
>
> On 9/12/06, Jeffrey Hare <catalina at thehares.com> wrote:
>>
>> Oooooh.. That title was enough to make *me* look...
>>
>> Is that a picture of a Catalina I see in the background?
>> http://www.aquila.dbsparks.com/PICT3231r.jpg
>>
>>
>> Well worth it. Thanks Dave,
>>
>> -Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Sparks [mailto:dlsparks at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:36 PM
>> To: C320-List
>> Subject: [C320-list] CHIT CHAT, off topic, not C320 related,(but aren't
>> you
>> curious?)
>>
>> San Francisco Bay area C320 owners and others:
>>
>> I generated a web site describing a recent sailing adventure helping
>> friends deliver their new (for them) 45' ketch from Anacortes, WA to San
>> Francisco Bay. The site has pictures of Pt. Bonita Light and varioius
>> sailboats in the Bay.
>> If you are interested in seeing the pictures, go to
>> www.aquila.dbsparks.com
>>
>> David Sparks
>> *En Passant* - C320 # 933
>>
>> --
>> David Sparks
>> dlsparks at gmail.com
>> www.dbsparks.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> David Sparks
> dlsparks at gmail.com
> www.dbsparks.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:01:17 -0500
> From: "Ralph Winkler" <capt-wink at aepro.com>
> Subject: [C320-list] Unsteping Mast Pro-Con
> To: <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Message-ID: <006601c6d6b6$f9d42660$6702a8c0 at Ralph01>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> End of C320-List Digest, Vol 109, Issue 6
> *****************************************
>
> --
> 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