[C320-list] Unsteping Mast Pro-Con
jonvez at comcast.net
jonvez at comcast.net
Wed Sep 13 04:26:38 PDT 2006
Ralph,
I am jealous--If I had the opportunity to store indoors, I would unstep my mast without hesitation! Unfortunately, the very few places that do offer inside storage charge about 3 times what you are paying and are few and far between--
Regards,
Jon Vez
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Ralph Winkler" <capt-wink at aepro.com>
> 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:
> To:
> 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"
> > Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
> > To: C320-List
> > 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 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
> > 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)"
> >
> >> 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"
> > Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
> > To: C320-List
> > 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 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"
> > Subject: Re: [C320-list] What are the pros/cons of destepping the mast
> > forwinter storage?
> > To: C320-List
> > 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)" 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"
> > Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
> > To: "C320-List"
> > 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" 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: "russgm at yahoo.com"
> > Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
> > To: C320-List
> > 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 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"
> > Message-ID:
> >
> <137310221-1158069039-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-308933043- at bwe056-cell00.bisx.pr
> od.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
> > 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"
> >
> >> 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"
> > Subject: Re: [C320-list] What are the pros/cons of destepping the mast
> > forwinter storage?
> > To: "'C320-List'"
> > 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"
> > Subject: Re: [C320-list] Anchor & chain size?
> > To: "C320-List"
> > 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" 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 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