Messages

Hi Bob,

I have "The Annapolis Book of Seamanship" in front of me.  Here's what Rousmaniere has to say about leeway angles (in degrees):

                                               3-10kts          11-21kts         22-33kts          34-55kts
                                               B       R          B       R           B        R           B         R
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow-keel cruising sailboat        10      5          8       4          12       10         20       12
Deep-keel racer-cruiser sailboat     6       4          4       2          6         4          12        6

"B" and "R" stand for beat and reach.  I'm not sure whether a wing-keel C34 qualifies as shallow-keel cruising or deep-keel racer-cruiser. There was a third category I didn't include called "large cruising sailboat," which I would assume means a full-keel style.

Hope this helps!
Tim

Ken,

You might want to check EBay. I bought a Raymarine RL70RC plus radome from an EBay seller called Discount Marine (buy it now pricing - no auction). It was $150 cheaper than anywhere else I could find by internet search, and it was brand new, in the box. This was in May 2004.

Tim

We recently started bulking up the insulation around our icebox and found that the icebox walls are actually a sandwich of insulation between two layers of fiberglass. The insulation isn't very good; too thin in general (less than an inch) and full of large voids. We drilled holes from the inside of the icebox (through the first layer but not the second) and blew low-expansion foam insulation ("Great Stuff") into the voids. Where we hit a pocket of insulation we couldn't get any more foam in, but where we hit a void we put lots of foam in.

The next step is to insulate more around the outside of the sandwich, as has been described elsewhere on this website. We're planning to do it with more expanding foam; you can basically paint the outside of the icebox with it (at least where you can reach it). As for the starboard side, which is unreachable without cutting a hole in the hull, I think we'll drill more holes from the inside, all the way through the sandwich this time, and then repeat the foam trick.

Good luck,
Tim

I'm having the same problem right now, but I can't access Ron's Mainsheet Tech Notes article. Actually it shows up in the Tech Notes index in both November 2003 and November 2004. The '03 won't open and the '04 is a different article. Everything else opens fine.

Any ideas?

Tim

Kerk,

This doesn't answer your question, but here's another thought: we got tired of tripping over the arm so we mounted the foot pump completely inside the lower cabinet door. We have to open that door now to use the foot pump, but we don't use it much anyway.

Tim

We just had the failed riser experience, too. The engine compartment got a good coating of exhaust grime but we managed to motor home without choking on the fumes. Ours broke both at the flange and the nipple. I think the nipple had been leaking because we could smell some exhaust in the head before the event.

Catalina told me the same thing they told Paul: if I send them a black-iron riser, that's what they'll send back. Ours is stainless so we got stainless back.

Catalina's first attempt at making a replacement was unsuccessful; the angles were off so far that it couldn't reach from the riser to the muffler, even with a new silicone hump hose. I sent it back with a detailed drawing on how to make it right. Their second try didn't fit either but I discovered that I could make it fit by unwrapping all of the insulation (wear gloves and a dust mask if you attempt that - fiberglass dust everywhere), untwisting the threaded elbow they use for the first turn by about 15 degrees, and then reassembling the whole thing. All reassembled now and no exhaust smells, so we're ready for a test drive.

The whole job would be very quick and easy if Catalina delivered an exact replacement. I think in our case they lost the reference angles because the nipple area was so corroded. It would be almost painless to do this job before the riser fails, if you can figure out when that is...

We typically anchor bow-and-stern in 20-25 feet of water, so we frequently let out all of our bow line (300') in order to set the stern. That puts us at increased risk of losing the bow anchor line.

In order to both (a) secure the bitter end so we don't lose the rode and (b) have the rode ready to let go if needed, we put a large loop in the bitter end, which we loop over the bow cleat before starting to let out rode. On departure, after raising anchor and piling all of the rode back in the locker, we flop the bitter end on top. So the rule is: the loop is first out, last in.

Tim

We have the Mercury equivalent (10'2" with high-pressure floor). With a 5-hp four-stroke we can plane with one adult aboard but rarely with two. I'd guess you'll get similar results with a 6-hp.

One thing we did to make planing easier was to build a throttle extension, so you can sit forward in the boat and still steer. It's very simple: a length of PVC pipe that slips over the tapered, rubber-gripped throttle handle. No clamping needed.

Tim

I mounted two "cigarette lighter" style 12v outlets in the aft end of the port slider. It's a perfect spot because (a) they're out of sight when the slider is closed, (b) they're right next to the electrical panel so the wire runs are short and (c) I only had to drill into the side of the teak conduit there (nothing in there but a couple of AC wires and the holding tank vent line anyway).

This area is now a charging station for our VHF handheld and cellphones.

Tim

If you're having difficulty fitting a picture into the 50k attachment limit, try this:

http://www.virtualzone.de/resizer/

It's a jpeg resizer that I've been using for my website and for postings here. It does some amazing compression, turning the typically 750k pictures from my camera into a 50k attachable and still looking good. And it's free.

Tim

Also see: http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,3701.0.html

Jack,

We used the 2" diameter pole. As for the length, the guy I talked to from Garhauer recommended 9' for the Mark I boats. I measured it out on the boat and it seemed like a good height - it gets the radome above people's heads. I wouldn't change the height. The bottom mounting bracket also came from Garhauer, as did the horizontal bracket to the stern rail, the antenna arch and the outboard hoist, all as a single package deal.

My only disappointment was in having to use a support strut, although that turned out to be pretty unobtrusive. I don't know of a better way around the wobbling issue, other than to reduce the pole height. I suppose the 2.5" pole would be a bit stiffer but part of the wobble comes from the stern rail flexing. I've looked at a number of other pole installations and it seems like everyone either has a support strut(s) or a wobbly pole.

Would I do it the same way again? Yes, assuming I needed the engine hoist. If not for that I'd probably mount the radome up by the spreaders.

Good luck,
Tim

Jack,

We installed the Garhauer radar poston our 1988 a year ago. We placed it on the starboard transom, using a mounting bracket down on the transom and a short, horizontal bracket to the stern rail. This was as recommended by Garhauer specifically for our boat. We used a nine-foot post to get the radar up to a height I felt was acceptable.

The only problem we found was that it had a bit more wobble than we liked. I talked to Garhauer again and they built a support strut for us that mounts at an angle from just below the radome down to the deck just forward of the aft, open scupper. This solved most of the wobbling. If you do the same I'd reccomend getting heavier gauge stainless tubing for the strut. Ours is a thinner wall, 1" diameter tubing that doesn't feel very substantial when I lean against it.

The main post is a massive chunk of metal. If you're looking to save weight you might consider one of the aluminum styles (non-Garhauer). But I like the strength of the Garhauer. We also bought the engine hoist, which has been great.

I'm attaching two pictures. The first shows a side-view before installing the strut, although you can see a length of line tied roughly where the strut ended up. The second shows the base of the strut after installation. I guess I didn't take a picture of the bracket at the base, but it's a simple, squared-U shape that bolts through the transom and supports the base of the post with a single, large horizontal bolt.

If you need any more information let me know.

Tim

Roland,

How much was it? I'm considering this project myself.

Thanks,
Tim

Rusty,

1) Sorry, yes, "16-3" means 16 gauge, 3-conductor.

2) In our case the continuity problems were obvious: the mast lights would work intermittently, even though all of the bulbs were good. If your lights work and don't flicker, you can measure resistance of each circuit using an ohmmeter. But to know whether you have a problem you'll need to know what the resistance should be, and that depends on what wire gauge, circuit length and bulb size you're using. The bottom line is if you don't have problems with your lights the upgrade is optional. But if your wiring is 15 years old it's probably untinned and corroded, and your problems are not far off.

3) There's the traditional way (try to call someone on VHF, preferably someone far away) and the accurate way (buy or borrow a $50 standing wave ratio meter (West Marine 253478, but cheaper elsewhere)). The latter measures the VHF signal reflected back down the coax by imperfections in the cable, connectors, and antenna. If you do replace the coax, I'd recommend the RG-8x as Bill mentioned (and we have). It's thick (0.4" or so) and expensive but you'll lose only 1 dB (20%) of your power to cable losses versus about 3 dB (50%) for the cheaper, thinner stuff.

I don't have a picture of the terminal strip I installed but it's a standard strip from McMaster; go to www.mcmaster.com and search for "terminal strip." I think I used 7527K86. I screwed it into the mast step just in front of the mast. I used non-insulated ring terminals because I used shrink-wrap tubing with the hot-melt glue inside (great stuff, and also from McMaster).

I like Bill's idea of hard-wiring all the way to the panel, especially because those connections live in the bilge space. But I'd still prefer the terminal strip as I like to have test points, plus the terminal strip is easy to inspect. Individual choice, as usual.

Good luck,
Tim

The disadvantage is that, depending what you keep in your icebox, you may create a unique smell in the bilge. If it's just ice melting it's not a problem but our fridge bottom always has a colorful cocktail by the end of a trip. We like to keep the bilge clean and dry, so we kept the fridge foot pump but routed the line to the sink drain hose. We don't use the pump much anyway; we just sponge out the fridge.

The main reason we rerouted to the sink drain is so that we can get rid of one through-hull next haulout. I can't understand the logic behind having a hole in the hull just for a fridge drain.

Tim