[C320-list] Seaworthiness

Fri Apr 20 16:10:20 PDT 2007

In 5 years of owning #182, I have found the shallow bilge to be a real
pain.  I have drilled inspection and pumping holes to the inner liner, and
I have an efficient pump -- along with Teflon packing.  I also dislike the
way our wing-keeled boat tracks, with serious leeward drift.
However, I have no concerns about Seaworthiness after much off-shore
cruising and racing in MA, SW FL and the FL Keys.
For me, the pros outweigh the cons.
Rollie

> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Clancy <SAILORPETE at msn.com>
> To: C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Date: 4/20/07 5:06:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Seaworthiness
>
> In my enjoyable nine years of owning and sailing an early C320  (#222)
with the shallow bilge, I never experienced any major problem with the
bilge configuration. Our sailing included many races in heavy weather and
several blue water crossings to the Bahamas. A dripless seal or drip free
packing will eliminate the most common source of water accumulation in the
bilge. I cannot agree with the writer of this email.
>
> Peter Clancy
> Former owner 'AROBAN'  #222
> Miami, FL
>
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: brer at adelphia.net<mailto:brer at adelphia.net> 
>   To: C320-List<mailto:c320-list at catalina320.com> 
>   Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:49 AM
>   Subject: Re: [C320-list] Seaworthiness
>
>
>   I must commend you on taking an early 320 more than a few feet from the
dock. The bilge system in these is an absolute joke. Any water that leaks
anywhere on this boat goes under the floor pan, not the so called bilge.
The only water that does go to this so called bilge is from the stuffing
box, but be careful if the hoses that enter are not sealed, the water will
leak OUT of the bilge. Who in their right mind would design a boat with
this joke of a bilge? And yes, I bought one of these follies, my bad for
not checking the bilge system out, but I never in my wildest dreams would
believe someone would design something like this. Looks to me like Frank
and the boys need to get out of the boat business and design bathtubs. So
anyone thinking about buying an early 320 think again or you will be
removing the sole and drilling holes to get the water out. Seaworthiness?
You be the judge. But Larry I'm glad you had a good trip sounds like fun.
>
>   Don  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ---- Larry Frank <WindSwept at stx.rr.com<mailto:WindSwept at stx.rr.com>>
wrote: 
>
>   =============
>   I sailed my 320 across the Gulf of Mexico from Texas to Veracruz, MX in
a
>   regatta during the summer of 2006.  That trip and others in the Gulf of
>   Mexico along the Texas coast in the in rather snotty weather have
helped me
>   form opinions about the 320s seaworthiness.  My observations:
>
>   1.  Good seamanship trumps all other considerations.  Or said another
way in
>   any boat bad decisions or poor preparation can and probably will lead to
>   problems and disaster.  
>
>   2.  Tracking is a weak point.  Big seas on a beam or broad reach push
the
>   rather broad stern around rather easily.  Proper sail balance is
critical.
>   I have the wing keel; perhaps this is better with the fin.  Anyways,
>   steering by autopilot in large seas is not effective.  Manual steering
will
>   wear out crew quickly.  Could a wind vane be mounted?  
>
>   3.  Fuel capacity is low.  Most people carry jerry cans and while this
>   works, it is less than optimal.
>
>   4.  Structurally, the hull and rigging, if properly maintained will
take a
>   licking and keep on ticking.  I never had problems or concerns here, and
>   have had complements from knowledgeable and experienced crew on this
point.
>
>   5.  Open transom is a huge plus, at least in my opinion.  When we
purchased
>   WindSwept, this was a concern to me.  After getting pooped going
downwind in
>   35 knots and big seas in the gulf and watching the water drain out in a
>   couple of seconds, I completely changed my opinion of this feature.
>
>   6.  For serious offshore work, some modifications and additions to the
basic
>   320 are prudent.  What you need to do will somewhat be a function of
what
>   model year you have since Catalina makes improvements in design as a
model
>   matures. 
>
>   I believe the person who told you "you might want a larger boat" was
>   completely accurate.  I'd like a larger boat too for this type of
sailing.
>   However, the question should be can you do what you want to do in the
boat
>   you have now?  Unless you own the Queen Mary, there are always larger,
more
>   capable boats.
>
>   Larry
>   Wind Swept Catalina 320 #246
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From:
c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com<mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com>
>   [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of Robert Seastream
>   Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:02 PM
>   To: C320-List
>   Subject: Re: [C320-list] Seaworthiness
>
>   I've often wondered why, not long ago (~20 years) people did crossings 
>   in ~25 foot boats, yet these days upwards of 40 feet is indicated.
>
>   Recently, while discussing going to Bermuda in my 320 (off list), I was 
>   told I might want a larger boat like the above.
>
>   Bob Seastream
>   'Intuition' hull 906
>
>
>   On Apr 19, 2007, at 9:12 AM, pat reynolds wrote:
>
>   > If any have wondered about ocean crossing on a 320, it
>   > would probably be safer than the google map
>   > directions for a new york to paris, france trip,
>   > particularly direction # 23 at www.google.com<http://www.google.com/>
>   >
>   > __________________________________________________
>   > Do You Yahoo!?
>   > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>   > http://mail.yahoo.com<http://mail.yahoo.com/>
>   >