Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alan,
I think you got three different answers all saying the same thing – neither approach is a good idea.If I understood the two options you were presented, both intended to use the foil to secure the luff of the SJ. The difference was in the hoist. Both sails appear to be racing storm jibs – where the objective is to keep sailing and in the race direction. I've been on the foredeck (20 years and 70 pounds ago) dousing a #3 genoa and hoisting a racing SJ in 45 kts and 10' seas. It was an adrenalin rush, but I also had two very competent crew members on deck with me and a really good helmsman in the cockpit. I would not want to do the same on this boat with my general pickup crew from among friends. Fortunately at my advanced age and weight no one wants me on their foredeck in those conditions anymore.
Without an inner forestay on which to hank the SJ the only other option I know of is the ATN solutioni (aka Rolly Tasker) which uses a sleeve to wrap around the furled genoa. I had one onboard for years before I installed the Solent Stay, but never rigged it in anger. It's still a bitch to be in the bow pulpit trying to wrap that sleeve around the furled sail while the bow keeps plunging a few feet below the water surface. Better to be back near the mast when on deck in those conditions.
I don't think there's anything inheirently unsound in using the foil to secure the luff of an SJ. I think you'll find that the Volvo Around the World racers all use those sail configurations. Again the devil is in the details of of how you get it flying.
John
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:05 PM, < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:I don't care how many crew you have. I wouldn't want to be pulling down and stowing a large gennoa in a blow. There are ways to add an inner forestay to be used just for a storm jib. We've exchanged quite a lot of mail about this in the past.—
Rich Carter
Original message
<.. snip>Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Alan,
Not sure what works best, but I would think the full length luff would involve much less banging of the pendant against the foil. My SJ is hank on for the inner solent stay. The SJ on the Sweden Yacht 38 on which I used to do off-shore races was of the full length luff tape variety. It worked very well on the 2 times we ever hoisted it.Are you planning to drop your genoa on deck to raise the SJ? If so, my guess it will never be hoisted unless you have really good crew onboard. Might as well put the money elsewhere (IMHO).
John
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM, alan P < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Question about luff tape on a storm jib.
Two conflicting opinions.
One sail maker suggests having luff tape that runs from the tack point on the furler all the way to the top (masthead).
The other sail maker says luff tape just the length of the sail with pendants attached to bring the furler mechinisim up to the top.
What configurations of attachments are others using.
thanks
alan
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ()
For additional commands, e-mail: ()—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.comPost generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Paul,
I've not heard of that configuration, but I do know several owners filled in the forward companionway. Unless you've done something similar to what Rich Carter documented on his website those hatches were a major source of deck leaks. Some owners decided to switch rather than fight and glassed in the hatch. Can you tell if this deck was modified in that way?John
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Paul Audi < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Hello all,
I've been searching for a P424 (having sold my last one several years ago… big mistake) and recently found a very unusual 1983 ketch.
It appears to have the deck configuration from a c-plan cutter, tho it is a Ketch rig. Specifically, there is no mid-ship companionway (no hatch, no stairs, additional bomar hatch slightly forward of where the companionway “should be.”)
There are some additional oddities in the interior: no wash basin in the V-berth; but there is a hanging locker in roughly that location (port side of V). BUT the rest of the interior is standard ketch – centerline table, two settees, galley to port, head to starboard, etc.
Has anyone seen a 1983 Ketch with these anomolies?? I'm very curious to know more.
Thanks,
Paul Audi
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.comPost generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Rich,
I had not planned to leave the vice-grips on the drive shaft, just use it to hold it in place for a few seconds so the Maxprop would feather. In the past, once the prop is feathered it has not required any pressure on the shaft to prevent free-wheeling. All that was necessary to feather the prop was shutting down the engine in gear. That provided enough resistance on the shaft rotation to feather the prop. I then shifted to neutral while sailing and the prop remained feathered with no free-wheeling. So I hope the brief use of the vice-grips will be the same as shuting down the engine in grear. It will be a pain to have to lift up the floor board hatch whenever shutting down the engine.That said I haven't actually tried this approach as I've done so little sailing this year. If the answer from the VD factory rep comes back consistent with the manual – no problem with free-wheeling – then the only real problem would be the noise and vibration under sail. In that case I would only use the vice-grips when sailing off-shore. I'll live with the free-wheeling on sails of less than 24 hours.
John
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:26 AM, < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:I see no reason that freewheeling would damage the V-drive. Even the RV-26, which has a pressure oil pump should be OK. I would expect that the rattle from the freewheeling drive train would be an annoyance. It would drive me nuts. The vice-grip solution is simple and I'm sure effective, but what happens if you forget to remove the darn thing or have an emergency that doesn't give time to remove it?There has been some research into which has less drag, a freewheeling prop or a locked prop. I think the jury is still out. Either would provide more drag than a feathering or folding prop. I've heard some discussion about using the freewheeling propeller to drive a battery charger. I wonder if extracting power from the configuration would increase drag. I suspect there is no free lunch. This probably isn't an issue if your cruising grounds have a consistent breeze and you rarely go upwind.
Many feathering props will still freewheel. It must have something to do with the geometry of the blades. Folding props of course won't freewheel. Either of the last two types will be inherently less reliable than a fixed prop. I suspect that both choices would be more reliable than a fixed prop that is freewheeling however. IMHO, you need a brake if you have a fixed prop. Here's a link to shaftLock. Their web site is pretty crude.
http://www.shaftlok.comI have a folding 3-blade propeller. It's pretty simple in design and works very well. No brake needed.
—
Rich Carter
Original message
<.. snip>Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Rod,
Many of us have mounted the pump and switch on a board of wood or plastic hung from the inside frame of the floor hatch. You just cut the board to the depth of the bilge. Then it is relatively easy to pull the pump and switch up for periodic maintenance or replacement. My setup is described at: Cleaning up the Bilge Mess. I used a 1×1/2 wooded board that I painted. The board has lasted for over 6 years, but can be easily replaced. Maybe all that crud that collects in the bilge is really a wood preservative.:)John
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Robert Fine < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Hi Rodd,
Use a SS plate or aluminum plate – it sinks and and will stay down and won't corrode. You could also use 1/2 acrylic. Don't use wood. It floats. It rots. It smells bad.
Bob
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:03 AM, Rodd Leeds < ([email][/email])> wrote:
In preparation for in-water storage this winter I want to install a rule 500 bilge pump and a float switch in the deep bilge. My question is how best to anchor the pump and switch in the bilge. I thought perhaps to mount both items on a peice of wood and then screw the wood to the bottom of the deep bilge. Any ideas here would be helpful.
Thanks.
Rodd Leeds
Windseeker—
Bob Fine
s/v Pelican
Hull #8—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.comPost generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Tor,
I really don't want to go to a shaft brake – one more complicated piece of hardware. If I have to I'll stick with a vise-grip.
Actually I was surprised by the information on the trannies. I didn't think free-wheeling was a problem for the Paragon – just the V-Drive. Of course when I purchased Sarah it and the Paragon/V-drive had been in operation with a free-wheeling fixed prop for over 22 years. So this may just be one of those boatyard legends.With the Maxprop I could easily stop free-wheeling once the blades feathered. When I decided to go with the VD on the new Yanmar I didn't think about this issue, not realizing the VD is a pump not a clutch. Initially I was told the VD can be destroyed by free-wheeling – contrary to the VD document that Patrick provided. I'm still waiting on some definitive answers to the questions I've asked of the appropriate tech reps.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Silver Heels < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:John,Seems like the “better solution” you seek might be a shaft lock or brake, no?
Tor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Silver Heels, P-424 #17
http://www.SilverHeels.us
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Quote:
Original Message
<.. snip>Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
The Paragon tranny on my W60 was one of the reasons I went with a Maxprop (the other reasons was power in reverse). If I stopped the engine with the Paragon in gear, the Maxprop would featther. Then I just switched to neutral and no free-wheeling. That is not an option with the VD so the Maxprop free-wheels under sail as long as speed > 4 kts. Although the VD doesn't have problem with free-wheeling, I think the
V-Drive does. I can stop the free-wheeling by temporarily clamping the prop shaft with a vice-grips. That will cause the Maxprop to feather and the free-wheeling is no more. It's just a pain to pull up the aft floor board hatch when I shut down the engine. Unless I come up with a better solution, that will only happen for long passages (>24 hours).John
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Robert Fine < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:I'm here for ya, buddy! Of the three transmissions Pearson used, the Paragon is the only one that can't freewheel, but it's also able to be locked. The Hurth will freewheel in neutral just fine and so will the Velvet Drive. Ah, well. Lock 'er up! The only caveat for the Velvet drive is to not leave it in reverse.Bob
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Silver Heels < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:Smart. That's why I like running stuff by an engineer. I have a Paragon transmission, which I gather cannot be allowed to freewheel. Too bad. Otherwise, I'd put a generator or an alternator on the shaft, too.Tor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Silver Heels, P-424 #17
http://www.SilverHeels.us
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Quote:
Original Message
<.. snip>Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Bob,
Good to hear you don't see a problem. I'm not interested at the moment in using the prop to generated electricity, just avoid equipment failure. Of course if I just let the prop freewheel I've negated much of the value of the Maxprop I installed back in 2003. Not the first time I've been overcome by events.Jone
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Robert Fine < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:Hi John,I have the W58 and Velvet Drive and it does indeed freewheel with no problem – to be honest, rather than stop it, I want to use it to generate power. There is a company that makes the self-regulated (and programmable) alternator that needs an 8″ pulley on the propeller shaft.
That's the way I'm going.
Bob
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:38 PM, John Stevenson < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:Patrick,
Let me add my thanks for your scanning these documents. With my re-power I now have a Velvet Drive tranny and the problem of the propeller free-wheeling under sail. Withe Paragon tranny I just had to shut down the engine in gear and the Maxprop would feather. That is not an option with the V-D. I was very interested to see the statement in the manual that free-wheeling is not a problem under sail or at trollng speeds. Of course this is just the opposite of what all the experts advise so I'm not ready to just ignore the problem, but I sure don't want to have to add a shaft brake. I have questions into my installer and the V-D people on this issue.John
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Patrick Walters < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:The Warner Velvet Drive Transmission 70C 71C Service Manual is now posted.I just realized how faint that owner's manual came out. I'll have to redo that one.
-p
s/v Deep Playa | Pearson 424 #152 | http://www.DeepPlaya.comPatrick's Sailing Blog | http://www.shipsrecord.com/blogs/patrick
________________________________________
<.. snip>Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Patrick,
Let me add my thanks for your scanning these documents. With my re-power I now have a Velvet Drive tranny and the problem of the propeller free-wheeling under sail. Withe Paragon tranny I just had to shut down the engine in gear and the Maxprop would feather. That is not an option with the V-D. I was very interested to see the statement in the manual that free-wheeling is not a problem under sail or at trollng speeds. Of course this is just the opposite of what all the experts advise so I'm not ready to just ignore the problem, but I sure don't want to have to add a shaft brake. I have questions into my installer and the V-D people on this issue.John
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Patrick Walters < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:The Warner Velvet Drive Transmission 70C 71C Service Manual is now posted.I just realized how faint that owner's manual came out. I'll have to redo that one.
-p
s/v Deep Playa | Pearson 424 #152 | http://www.DeepPlaya.comPatrick's Sailing Blog | http://www.shipsrecord.com/blogs/patrick
________________________________________
<.. snip>Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
My understanding is that the only difference between conventional and extended life coolants is the type of corrosion inhibitors used. I guess it is possible that the metallurgy in some older engines might not be compatible with the new product, but I doubt that it would be an across the board issue for older engines. It should be something that could be easily checked with the engine manufacturer. As I said I think the engine manufacturers are recommending the extended life product for their current engines (Yanmar does) so they should know if there are any compatibility problems.
John
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Adam MacNeill < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:Gentlemen,
I was told by a respected diesel mechanic not to use extended life antifreeze in older motors. From what he told me it will create a leaking nightmare due to lack of certain ingredients.
Adam
Fifth Child #219Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:27:09 -0400
<.. snip>Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Thanks, Tor.
Great to hear it is of value to you.John
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Silver Heels < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:John,I use your inventory program regularly and value it highly. Still entering stuff a bit at a time and have a ways to go before it's complete, but even what I have helps me find stuff often. Needless to say, I'll be downloading and using your maintenance schedule program, too. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Tor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Silver Heels, P-424 #17
http://www.SilverHeels.us
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Quote:
Original Message
<.. snip>Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Rodd,
I think all manufacturers are now recommending the extended life coolants, but then they want you to replace it every year – go figure.John
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Rodd Leeds < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Time to change my antifreeze again after 3 years. Does anyone know the latest thinking if I should add the green prestone type again, or go to the extended life formulas?
Rodd Leeds
Windseeker—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.comPost generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Not sure what the current recommendations are, but I allowed my previous boat (Columbia 8.7) to dry over winter in Maryland (4 months) after the bottom was peeled. If you leave the old gelcoat or barrier coat on it will likely take a year to dry effectively. That work was done in 1987 and the boat still does not have blisters (it is in the marina next to the one where I am berthed at the moment).
John
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Silver Heels < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:What kind of dry-out time do the experts recommend before doing a peel & seal on the bottom?Tor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Silver Heels, P-424 #17
http://www.SilverHeels.us
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Quote:
Original Message
<.. snip>Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
My PO also had the gelcoat removed and a barrier coat applied after drying the hull over the winter. This was done sometime back in the 90s. Had the boat hauled 2 weeks ago and still no blisters. The radical approach is the most expensive and time consuming, but if done right it appears to last.
John
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Joseph Steiner < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:Rich,Half Moon was on the hard for 4 years ( 1994-1998 ) and the bottom had ample time to dry out. An epoxy coat was applied to replace the polyester gelcoat. All this was done by the previous owner at considerable expense. But I can report that after 10 years, there is not one pimple on the bottom.
The most important consideration is whether the boat gets hauled out in below freezing weather which will cause freeze thaw action to deteriorate your gelcoat increasingly each year. A barrier coat only makes the situation worse as the bottom can not dry out if the barrier coat is applied with the gelcoat saturated with moisture. A thorough drying out period, prior to the application of the barrier coat, may be a suitable approach, but it takes a very long time to ensure you achieve this dry condition.
I suppose that the spyder cracks may be either very superficial or deep, a question that should be answered first before a decision on which approach is best for you. Sometimes these spyder cracks are not deep at all and a good sanding can eliminate them, and, stop there further propagation.Best regards,
Joe Steiner,
Half Moon #71— On Fri, 9/26/08, () < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:<.. snip>Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Well you all forced me to go dig out my old Calder (actually it is a new one, my old one wore out).
Calder recommends against bonding bronze thru-hulls and other bronze plumbing so long as they are isolated from other metal components or not immersed in seawater that could contain stray electrical current (e.g., the bottom of the bilge). His reasoning is that bronze is so much more noble that most other metals that may be bonded to the zinc that the bronze will only accelerate the destruction of the zinc then the destruction of the bonded metals that the zinc was supposed to protect.
That seems to let me off the hook for my manifold, except he goes on to recommend against bronze ball valves with SS balls (my Grocos).
I've decided to exercise my right to selectively accept the advice of experts. So I'll stay with my unbonded manifold with SS ball valves. I'm pretty comfortable with the latter position as it appears all of the original valves on my 424, with the exception of one, are bronze ball valves with SS balls. The one exception is the valve for the deck scupper under the aft berth. That is a true bronze seacock. Having lived on board for nearly 5 years and cruised for 3 years I got out of the habit of closing and opening the valves on a regular basis. This year before my haulout I found nearly all were frozen so during the haulout I worked on all of the valves. Power washing the hull freed up most of them – just a few barnacles on the ball. Others only required a light tap with a hammer to open. I checked the balls in all of these valves and could see no deterioration. If they have lasted with about zero maintenance for 30 years I'm not worried about the valves I just installed.
Anyway that's my rationale and I'm sticking to it :).On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Silver Heels < ([email][/email])> wrote:
Quote:Thanks, Rich. I guess you saw Bob's comment that bronze valves in seawater are electrically connected by the
seawater so no strapping is necessary. The plot thickens.I'd be surprised if a home sprinkler system was made of bronze or stainless steel. Seems like an unnecessary
extravagance, but would be delighted to learn otherwise.Tor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Silver Heels, P-424 #17
http://www.SilverHeels.us
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Quote:
Original Message
<.. snip>Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum