26 new messages in 7 topics - digest

rec.boats.cruising
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising?hl=en

rec.boats.cruising@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Fishing - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/128424592204be2e?hl=en
* I decided - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/f7810e6f3c24ad17?hl=en
* Suzuki DF4 vs. DF6 - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/414efb80f8d1028f?hl=en
* Rollovers without masts - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/130063b6fe40cb87?hl=en
* The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass - 8 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/c5d10393efc6b38d?hl=en
* Anti fouling paint - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/ea83d4d8891304d1?hl=en
* sailboat electric motor - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/ebc2304d85cc3e19?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fishing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/128424592204be2e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 7:17 am
From: Dry1

Dropping into New York on Friday to pick up my new Cadillac XLR, say
good by to the Audi TT. Question any good fishing in the Cod area this
time of the year. I will be driving back to Nova Scotia at a leisurely
rate. Don the Regal is almost ready for Mahone Bay.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 8:11 am
From: "Don White"

"Dry1" <dry@xcountry.tv> wrote in message
news:4804B913.E9D402B@xcountry.tv...
> Dropping into New York on Friday to pick up my new Cadillac XLR, say
> good by to the Audi TT. Question any good fishing in the Cod area this
> time of the year. I will be driving back to Nova Scotia at a leisurely
> rate. Don the Regal is almost ready for Mahone Bay.
>
>

That's good news. you should see me at that public launch in the town of
Mahone Bay in a month or so......... and also at the Graves Island launch
ramp.
Any other public ramps compare to those two?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I decided
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/f7810e6f3c24ad17?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 7:24 am
From: "Roger Long"

"Bruce in Bangkok" <b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote

> Certainly the weight of the rig slows the roll speed by some figure
> but whether it has an effect on the boat rolling over I seriously
> doubt.

Roll period isn't the issue in this case (breaking wave). The inertia of
the rig is a pretty strong counterforce at the speeds of a wave induced
capsize. The Fastnet study was able to find a statistical relationship
between the rotational inertia of the various yachts involved and the
capsize incidence but I have my own doubts about the methodology, sample
size, and applicability of the findings to the real world.

--
Roger Long

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 7:47 am
From: dougking888@yahoo.com

> JimC wrote:
> > To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that, other
> > than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and
> > sarcasm, there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments
> > regarding the Mac26M. - As I initially noted.

You're just like the little old lady who has 47 cats... anybody who
thinks it's not great just plain HATES KITTYS, and must therefor be a
barbarian.

I've had cats, and still prefer dogs. I've sailed a Mac 26X, sailed in
company with the 26M (which despite all ad copy, and your
protestation, is pretty much the same boat)... and they don't sail
very well, period.

BTW I've also sailed the older Mac 26 which was a much better sailing
boat, and a number of the yet-older Ventures.

Martin Baxter wrote:
> If I use your methodology, since no one has directly disproved the
> ability of Mac26 to be a perfectly survivable and utile manned orbital
> vehicle, one would be remiss to suggest that to try this would be folly.
>

Obviously you have no knowledge or experience with the heat-shielding
properties of un cored fiberglass, with a high proportion of chopper
gun. The Mac 26X (or the MUCH BETTER 26M) would be far better as a
reentry vehicle than most conventional sailboats.

DSK

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 7:59 am
From: dougking888@yahoo.com

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
> However discussing the ability of any boat to withstand the sea is a
> highly subjective subject as in a serious storm any boat can be
> overwhelmed.
>

And don't overlook or underestimate the knockdown. I've seen this
happen on small & medium sized
keelboats: the a heavy gust blows the boat over far enough to put the
boom in the water, at which point the keel has lost effectiveness as a
foil & the boat is being shoved sideways... putting increasing
pressure from water flow on the mainsail & boom, dragging the rig
under... boat inverts and may have a pretty strong tendency to stay
that way. No wave action necessary.

> Heaving to, for example is a good tactic... until the waves get high
> enough that they are breaking and you may well be rolled. On the other
> hand, running off is a good tactic until the waves become steep enough
> that your drogues cannot slow you sufficiently and you bury the bow in
> the trough of the wave and pitch pole.
>

And if the drogue *does* slow you sufficiently, then you are being
pulled through a breaking crest and being hammered by truckloads of
water at 60+. There is no bulletproof "right answer."

Furthermore, the sea can be destructive beyond belief. I've seen one
of those V-shaped depression gales generate sea conditions that ripped
welded steel fittings off a US Navy vessel. IMHO there is *no*
cruising sailboat... or racer either, for that matter... which could
have survived those local conditions, no matter what her equipment or
tactics. The only answer is to be elsewhere when it gets that bad.

DSK

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 10:10 am
From: "Capt. JG"

<salty@dog.com> wrote in message
news:07v804phaiqab5p2938alam0k7cmdup66j@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:51:14 -0700, "Capt. JG" <jganz@sailnow.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>"JimC" <avocat5@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>news:nQUMj.684$26.360@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> That's quite a consession. Would you concede that if we drop it off a
>>>> 10-story apartment building it might "break up"?
>>>>
>>>> Careful how you answer....
>>>
>>>
>>> OK.- Being very, very careful .... I suspect that if the Mac were
>>> dropped
>>> off a 10-story building, it might suffer severe structural damage. Once
>>> again, however, I don't know how I would manage the logistics of such an
>>> experiment.
>>
>>Try going out in a storm. Water isn't so soft as you think, and when your
>>nice little Mac goes flying off the top of 30 foot wave, then gets pounded
>>by another one, and another, and another, you'll know the answer.
>>
>>>
>>> To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that, other
>>> than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and
>>> sarcasm,
>>> there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments regarding
>>> the
>>> Mac26M. - As I initially noted.
>>
>>You're right. It just takes common sense. The Mac is a great boat for
>>protected waters and light winds with small waves. Any place else, and you
>>can't blame the boat for the consequences.
>
> Yeah, blame the sales brochure!
>
>

I was blaming the salesman with the slicked back hair.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 10:12 am
From: "Capt. JG"

<dougking888@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a0243cb6-3cfb-4f8d-9118-35e6f29c8a09@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> JimC wrote:
>> > To summarize this little discussion, it's become quite clear that,
>> > other
>> > than anecdotes, hearsay, speculation, and the usual ridicule and
>> > sarcasm, there is no evidence supporting 99% of the negative comments
>> > regarding the Mac26M. - As I initially noted.
>
> You're just like the little old lady who has 47 cats... anybody who
> thinks it's not great just plain HATES KITTYS, and must therefor be a
> barbarian.
>
> I've had cats, and still prefer dogs. I've sailed a Mac 26X, sailed in
> company with the 26M (which despite all ad copy, and your
> protestation, is pretty much the same boat)... and they don't sail
> very well, period.
>
> BTW I've also sailed the older Mac 26 which was a much better sailing
> boat, and a number of the yet-older Ventures.
>
>
> Martin Baxter wrote:
>> If I use your methodology, since no one has directly disproved the
>> ability of Mac26 to be a perfectly survivable and utile manned orbital
>> vehicle, one would be remiss to suggest that to try this would be folly.
>>
>
> Obviously you have no knowledge or experience with the heat-shielding
> properties of un cored fiberglass, with a high proportion of chopper
> gun. The Mac 26X (or the MUCH BETTER 26M) would be far better as a
> reentry vehicle than most conventional sailboats.
>
> DSK
>

Not after I hack it up with a chainsaw... LOL

I have a friend who has one of the older Macs. He reinforced a lot of stuff
and sails in the bay. Does fine... knowing the limitations of his boat.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 10:15 am
From: "Capt. JG"

"Bruce in Bangkok" <b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote in message
news:je19045s27uogdantsan3ao49jhk0m96es@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:04:14 -0700, "Capt. JG" <jganz@sailnow.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>"Bruce in Bangkok" <b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote in message
>>news:27g8041if045lq5r02dtcbn9av4naq2prg@4ax.com...
>>>>> I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in
>>>>> heavy
>>>>> seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the
>>>>> ocean
>>>>> in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that
>>>>> shows
>>>>> this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to
>>>>> side
>>>>> in
>>>>> ocean conditions? I have.-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>>
>>> Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast
>>> is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I
>>> would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my
>>> understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and
>>> lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in
>>> place.
>>>
>>> It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of
>>> the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above
>>> the deck line.
>>>
>>> I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this
>>> single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce-in-Bangkok
>>> (correct email address for reply)
>>
>>
>>If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in
>>storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to
>>heave
>>to, rather than lying ahull. This implies some sail up. Thus, some ability
>>to sail and greater stability while doing so. Even running before the
>>storm,
>>you might be able to do that with bare poles, but I don't think you could
>>do
>>it dismasted. You need something up to heave-to.
>
> I apparently misunderstood the situation you were describing.
>
> However discussing the ability of any boat to withstand the sea is a
> highly subjective subject as in a serious storm any boat can be
> overwhelmed.
>
> Heaving to, for example is a good tactic... until the waves get high
> enough that they are breaking and you may well be rolled. On the other
> hand, running off is a good tactic until the waves become steep enough
> that your drogues cannot slow you sufficiently and you bury the bow in
> the trough of the wave and pitch pole.
>
> Even in the Fastnet race there were vastly different experiences with
> some boats overcome and others merely having a "spot of heavy weather"
> as the British put it.
>
> But all things considered I suspect that the hatchway and ports of a
> lightly built boat wold be the weak points and the boat would probably
> have serious problems not being swamped.
>
>>
>>Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in
>>heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging. Seems to me
>>it
>>would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight
>>aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at least
>>dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around.
>>
>>If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare
>>poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it
>>was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the
>>political
>>pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail up,
>>that'll
>>be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails.... heaving to, making
>>some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes your way.
>>
>>All this said, I can't imagine someone purposefully dismasting to improve
>>stability. Wow... great idea... a collapsible mast that you could just
>>fold
>>up and stow. I think this would be perfect for the Mac enthusiast who
>>wants
>>to go offshore. LOL
>
> Bruce-in-Bangkok
> (correct email address for reply)

Bruce, thanks for turning this into a "real" discussion vs. my rant
(according to Jim) against Macs. You're destroying people's expections about
the lack of quality of a.s.a.

Seriously though... sure, there are going to be times when, as Doug and
others have said, it's best to not be there... nothing is for sure.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Suzuki DF4 vs. DF6
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/414efb80f8d1028f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 7:28 am
From: salty@dog.com

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:08:57 -0400, Martin Baxter <baxter-m@rmc.ca>
wrote:

>Jay wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 5:50 pm, Jere Lull <jerel...@mac.com> wrote: If you've got
>> the electric already, why not try it and see how it works? From what
>> you say, it sounds good enough, but only you can accurately assess
>> that. 30 pounds continuous could get our 28 footer moving at perhaps
>> a knot or two in flat water.
>>> Jere Lull
>>
>>
>> <<<I'll give it a try. Does anyone know of a formula to roughly
>> equate electric motors to horsepower? Would be curious as to the
>> horsepower equivalent of my Minn-Kota Endura 30. -J
>>
>
>The easiest way would be to find out much current the thing uses.
>
>I*E=P, assume about 90% effeciency, so HP= (P*0.9)/746
>
>If you want that in simpler terms HP= ((volts x amps)*0.9)/746
>
>Cheers
>Marty

Don't leave out the fact that the electric trolling motor power is
produced directly at the prop. There is significant power loss in a
gas outboard between where it is produced and the prop that does the
work.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 7:54 am
From: Martin Baxter

salty@dog.com wrote:
>>>
>> The easiest way would be to find out much current the thing uses.
>>
>> I*E=P, assume about 90% effeciency, so HP= (P*0.9)/746
>>
>> If you want that in simpler terms HP= ((volts x amps)*0.9)/746
>>
>> Cheers
>> Marty
>
>
> Don't leave out the fact that the electric trolling motor power is
> produced directly at the prop. There is significant power loss in a
> gas outboard between where it is produced and the prop that does the
> work.

Hmm, I don't really know, but I don't think the losses should be all
that big, one little water pump to turn, on set of crown and pinion
gears. Intuitively I don't think you'd lose more than 15%..

I'll bet that most outboard manufactures measure output of just the
head, no shaft, no water pump.

Cheers
Marty
>
>
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm

----

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 9:36 am
From: "Edgar"

"Martin Baxter" <baxter-m@rmc.ca> wrote in message
news:4804bfbc$1@win9.rmc.ca...
>> Don't leave out the fact that the electric trolling motor power is
>> produced directly at the prop. There is significant power loss in a
>> gas outboard between where it is produced and the prop that does the
>> work.
>
> Hmm, I don't really know, but I don't think the losses should be all that
> big, one little water pump to turn, on set of crown and pinion gears.
> Intuitively I don't think you'd lose more than 15%..
>
> I'll bet that most outboard manufactures measure output of just the head,
> no shaft, no water pump.

It would not be as much as that. 3-5% would be about the right amount.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rollovers without masts
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/130063b6fe40cb87?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 7:48 am
From: Skip Gundlach

On Apr 15, 9:30 am, Skip Gundlach <SkipGundl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> WRT the ability to roll with or without mast, I commend the Heavy
> Weather Sailing (Hiscock and Coles) treatment of the subject, complete
> with tank tests, for your perusal.

Sorry, that's Coles and Bruce.

Hiscock is Cruising (and, later, Voyaging) Under Sail; also worthwhile
reading...

L8R

Skip

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 7:52 am
From: Bob

On Apr 15, 5:30 am, Skip Gundlach <SkipGundl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ironically, the deeper the keel, the more likely, in certain
> circumstances.  So, the lowly Mac26 might actually bob (pardon the
> pun)

> Skip

Appolgy accepted.. Eureka ! an applogy from SKip and Roger in the same
week :) What is this world comming too?

Bob

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 10:15 am
From: "Roger Long"

Two apologies from me but, who's counting:)

--
Roger Long

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/c5d10393efc6b38d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 8:32 am
From: Gogarty

In article <ll0804le2rl60mksk6hm7uh2kip8s9i6ok@4ax.com>,
b*paige*125@g*mail.com says...
>

>
>My point exactly. But you don;t have two year's supply of engine
>spares, a spare propeller, a complete set of mechanics tools, a fair
>sized chest of carpenter's tools and all the other bits and pieces
>that you "might need" if it breaks in PagoPago, or some other remote
>place.
>
And if my experience is any guide, every last one of those tools no matter how
exotic will get used for just about any job you undertake. I long ago
learned that sorting tools into often used to almost never used was a waste of
time.

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 8:38 am
From: Gogarty

In article <dil704lo0j7mb46lmusf6b6bf6mjiufp5k@4ax.com>, Bloody@Horvath.net
says...

>
>I have a thirty-five foot yacht, and NO electric windlass. I have no
>problem pulling up the anchor. IMO you don't need one until you get
>40 foot or larger.
>
I think it is astonishing that windlasses are standard on even the smallest
cuddy cabin power boats while even on sail boats well over forty feet there
may be no provision for one at all.

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 8:41 am
From: Gogarty

In article <is18041v61bhuu2ov46kl16fgc93b40gje@4ax.com>,
waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:46:54 -0400, "Roger Long"
><strider@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>I have no
>>qualms about my Fortress standing up to the strains that sand, mud, or
>>gravel can put on it.
>
>They're OK for certain conditions but I regard them as a special
>purpose anchor. They will frequently not set in adverse conditions
>such as:
>
>- from a moving boat (anchor planes through water or skips along the
>bottom).
>
>- strong currents (see above).
>
>- unfavorable bottom (hard, weedy, rocky, etc).
>
>All danforth type anchors have a strong propensity for becoming fouled
>in reversing tide or wind conditions. They excel however in high
>holding power for their weight *if* properly set, and if the load
>direction does not change more than a small amount.
>
I agree with all of the above. I recall traying to anchor in ten feet of
water, a sand bottom and a strong current with a Fortress. Took 300 feet
of rode before it would bite. Our primary is a Delta 35. Never fails.
Backup is a Fortress 23 and also a lunch hook a Fortress 11. The 11 will
hold the boat very well if it sets.

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 8:45 am
From: Gogarty

In article <mmr7041tkhoo6a8raenl4jascqa1dvvlp7@4ax.com>, Bloody@Horvath.net
says...

>
>35 lbs. is hardly more than a sixteen pound bowling ball in each hand.
>If you can't handle that... shape up or ship out.
>
>My sixteen year old nephew can pull up the anchor.
>
Well, goody for your sixteen year old nephew. I am sure my 21 year old
grandson would have no trouble either. He goes up the past like a monkey. But
I am somewhat older and shorter of breath than those guys are and I find a
Delta 35 with all chain rode to be a bit of chore by hand.

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 8:51 am
From: Gogarty

In article <n6080419lhdo7p0d65qkj0524qebkm8f6r@4ax.com>,
b*paige*125@g*mail.com says...
>
>
>On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:41:41 GMT, richardcasady@earthlink.net (Richard
>Casady) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:08:09 -0400, Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu.ie>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>One could run the rode back to the primary winches but I don't
>>>think they would handle chain very well.
>>
>>The sailing battleships had a hemp rode something like four inches in
>>diameter, They would attach a length of smaller stuff to the rode and
>>lead that to the capstan.
>>
>>Casady
>
>They also had a crew of 400 men.

In a 100 ft. vessel.
>
>Bruce-in-Bangkok
>(correct email address for reply)

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 9:01 am
From: Wayne.B

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:08:51 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
<b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote:

>On my next boat I'm going to about 50 - 100 ft. of chain and a nylon
>rode. Actually the rope is stronger then the chain and you don't have
>to rig a snubber every night.

That will certainly work but all chain has its advantages also:

- less scope required for average conditions

- resulting smaller swing radius

- almost no chance of being cut by an errant prop on an other boat

Nylon also loses a great deal of its original strength when it is wet,
abraded, or as it ages. I regard rigging a snubber as an advantage
because it off-loads the bow pulpit and lowers the effective freeboard
height.

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 9:19 am
From: "Edgar"

"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu.ie> wrote in message
news:20080415-154154.60.0@Gogarty.news.bway.net...
> I agree with all of the above. I recall traying to anchor in ten feet of
> water, a sand bottom and a strong current with a Fortress. Took 300 feet
> of rode before it would bite. Our primary is a Delta 35. Never fails.
> Backup is a Fortress 23 and also a lunch hook a Fortress 11. The 11 will
> hold the boat very well if it sets.

Yes, of course it will. But to drop anchor and hold your breath to see if
it will set is no way to go even for a lunch hook

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 9:44 am
From: "tsmwebb@gmail.com"

On Apr 14, 7:30 pm, Bruce in Bangkok <b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote:
> I don't believe that there is a correct definition of "cruising" so no
> correct definition of a "cruising boat".

Amen.

-- Tom.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anti fouling paint
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/ea83d4d8891304d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 9:19 am
From: Herodotus

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:00:44 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
<b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:04:13 +1000, Herodotus <peter.hendra@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Hi Bruce,
>>Did you try Chulia Street?
>>On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:30:38 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
>><b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The last time I was in Penang and talked to a chemical shop there the
>>>owner said "I'll keep selling TBT as long as the Malaysian Navy uses
>>>TBT based anti fouling".. So you are probably correct. unfortunately I
>>>can't buy it.
>
>Yup, that's the guy - known as the "Chemical man".
>
>Bruce-in-Bangkok
>(correct email address for reply)

Yes, Mr Ong of Langtrau Traders.

Now in his 80's and speaking perfect Oxford English (though I wouldn't
expect that you as an American would appreciate well spoken English),
he has had a very interesting life. His father died when he was 9
leaving his mother to scrape a living for the family unassisted. When
the Japanese occupied Malaya, they set up a medical school at Melaka
and he was chosen to attend. After his 3rd year the British returned
and the school was closed down, thus terminating his medical studies.
Returning to Penang his Doctor friends suggested that, as drugs and
medical supplies were hard to get hold of, he should think of buying
them in Singapore on the black market and smuggling them back to
Penang (the best city in the universe where the most beautiful women
are just that - women) where they would buy them off him.

Subsequently he somehow obtained a military uniform and a weekly pass
(forged or otherwise acquired) and made the weekly round trip by
train. At the time Singapore was a military area and was no go to just
anybody. He went on to found the largest chemical company in Malaysia
and when he reached his 60's retired, handed it over to his sons and
started selling all kinds of chemical supplies from that shop house.

He is an easy person to make any excuse to sit and have a cup of tea
with and just ask questions. The prices of his TBT and other useful
boaties' chemicals is ridiculously low.

I was planning to leave Curacao today bound for Panama and have only
just found out that there is at least an 8 week delay for transiting
the canal. Only 3 yachts are allowed transit each way on 3 days per
week. This delay means that I would have to go hell for leather to
reach your end of the world before the cyclone season starts in
November - and with La Nina.... I am thinking of heading home for a
few months. Damn!!

Asalaam
Peter

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 9:32 am
From: "Edgar"

"Bruce in Bangkok" <b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote in message
news:49d9041k2g0hhfshmhrq83dq9mbs8r4unn@4ax.com...
> I must have the remnants of 15 years of anti fouling on the bottom so
> this time I';m going to scrape it all off, prime and a tie coat and a
> couple of coats of bottom paint. Probably be 5 knots faster :-)

You make it sound simple but I have taken all the a/f off a 34' boat and it
is not an experience I ever plan to repeat.
I used a paint remover that was guaranteed not to harm fibreglass and it did
not , but this meant it was not all that brilliant at dissolving paint
either.
It left behind some thin residues which I washed off with the thinners
appropriate to the a/f. We used a lot of it and although the job was done in
the open air we were seriously affected by the fumes.
Get a (really) experienced professional firm to sand blast it off in
controlled conditions. .

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 10:13 am
From: "Roger Long"

"Bruce in Bangkok" <b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote
>
> Heck, I used to sail from Muscungus bay up to S.W. Harbor with a
> compass and one chart.

Me too. Clock and compass over much more of Maine than that. Not even a
depth sounder.

I wouldn't bother putting a speedometer in a boat at this point, but, since
it is there, it's a nice source of amusement for guests and helps better
with sail trim than the GPS. The other useful thing it does is give a
handle on current when there are no pot buoys visible.

Also, if the GPS should go out, my speed guesstimating skills will have been
seriously degraded after these years of navigating with it. My unit has a
distance function which would be helpful if Homeland Security suddenly shuts
down the GPS system some day.

--
Roger Long

==============================================================================
TOPIC: sailboat electric motor
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/browse_thread/thread/ebc2304d85cc3e19?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 15 2008 10:05 am
From: mister b

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:04:04 -0400, salty wrote:

> Is that the one from Glacier Bay?
>
> http://www.ossapowerlite.com/

not quite...I guess serious is a relative term. This model was shaped
like the motor section of any submersible electric motor, but larger -
perhaps 2-2.5ft overall. The thrust ratings on these would be
appropriate for a smaller boat like mine (HR28) The one I was looking at
had a mount with two large bolts that would go up through the hull into
backing plates...I'm still hunting but not finding...

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.boats.cruising"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.boats.cruising-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.cruising/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en