April 2007 - montgomery_boats - mailman.xmission.com

Lake Michigan Get-together
by John and DesAnne Hippe 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

Reading some of the posts last week from Joe and Ron talking about sailing in Lake Michigan, I began to wonder if there were others in the area that might want to get together sometime this summer. Nothing too formal, just getting together some weekend for a couple days' sail. I live in Milwaukee but have family in South Haven, so maybe something in that area. Any interest? John Hippe Milwuakee, WI M-15 #405

2 1

Re: M_Boats: Lake Michigan Get-together
by EinkaufR43＠aol.com 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

John; Sure, just sail on over! Ha! (old family joke about heading to Milwaukee after cocktail hour) Where's the Milwaukee Clipper when you need her? "Immobile in Muskegon" is the answer. I heard from another M-boat owner in the UP interested in getting together too. 'Course I should learn to sail her first, right? My email is on that post, if you don't want to bother the Westerners with this stuff. Don't know why there shouldn't be a Lake Michigan informal rendezvous. Ron M-15 249 (couple of days, weather permitting) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Mast Antenna
by avalon6＠cox.net 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

The other downside of not using a masthead mounted antenna is that if you are dismasted, you have no radio.

1 0

Re: M_Boats: VHF boost
by Les Clute 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

Well, Robbin, as frequently happened during my career as a tech writer, I have to bow to an engineer's superior technical expertise. I hereby retract my two cent's worth of advice. I do remember from my even more remote career as a Navy ET that VHF communication can be kind of flukey at times. Back in 1956 (might have been 1957), I was the PO in charge of the electronics shop at the Naval Station on Guam. Among other duties, we maintained the mobile VHF transceivers in the fire trucks and security vehicles on the island. One day I got a call from the security officer up at Andersen AFB wanting to know who the hell it was that had a particular call sign (I think maybe it was "Smokehouse", but can't remember for sure.) Anyway, whatever it was, they were coming in loud and clear on Andersen's frequency and messing up their communications. I checked my records and couldn't find any such call sign. We contacted a fellow ET up at the Naval Communications Station, and they finally ran it down. Turned out to be the police net in Bakersfield, CA. Seems there was an unusual amount of sunspot activity at that time, which was causing uncharacteristic bounce transmission of the VHF signal. So Andersen just had to live with it for about two weeks, and then it stopped. Enough of off-topic rambling. I'm just getting old and senile. Thanks for setting me straight on my hypothesis. Fair winds, Les ---- Robbin Roddewig <robbin.roddewig(a)verizon.net> wrote: ============= Hi Les, what you are saying is true based on the stated approximation of the monopole antenna pattern. But the pattern would need quite a large antenna to look like a disc. It will actually look much like a fat donut (see below). With a 15-20degree change in the elevation pattern you would only loose a half dB (10%)or less. As a rule of thumb the half power points on an antenna pattern are defined by the size in wavelengths as Half_power_beamwidth(radians) = wavelength / dimension_antenna So if we give the VHF antenna a dimension in the elevation plane of one half wavelength (very generous indeed) the beam width is 2 radians. This amount to 115 degrees. This means that your boat would have to be heeled at about 55 degrees before the pattern would roll off by half. In general the VHF antenna is even less directive (fatter) than that of a half wave dipole so considering it a very fat donut is not a bad approximation. Robbin Les Clute wrote: > Hi, everybody. I'm a devoted lurker and very infrequent contributor to these discussions, and I came into this one late, so what I'm about to say may have been already covered. In which case, I apologize for my redundancy. When considering a mast-mounted VHF antenna, have you considered that a sailboat spends a good bit of its time on the water heeled over at 15 to 20 degrees? My M17 certainly did when I was sailing it on San Francisco Bay back in the '80's. When this happens, your transmitting range to stations directly abeam becomes very short indeed. > If we oversimplify by visualizing your radiation pattern as a relatively flat disk emanating from the top of your mast, the radiation on your leeward side at a 15- to 20-degree heel will be hitting the water at some 70 to 100 feet from your boat, while the radiation on your windward side will be heading rather quickly towards outer space. You will have your normal transmitting range only to stations directly ahead or astern of you. > On the other hand, with a hand-held unit, you can keep the antenna relatively vertical no matter what your heel angle is. So I'd think that you could avoid a fairly costly modification and obtain more consistent, if less enhanced, performance by using a supplemental antenna on your hand-held unit. That's my two cents worth. > Fair winds. > Les Clute > > ***************************************************************************** > > ---- Keith Diehl <kdiehl(a)xmission.com> wrote: > > ============= > Nothing like a prompt reply. > > A larger whip antenna would help some, but an antenna tuned for the ham > bands (146 MHz) probably won't have enough bandwidth to operate properly on > marine frequencies (160 MHz). It certainly won't double your range. I don't > think anything is going to double your range other than height. > > Remember that, over water, range is predominately limited by the radio line > of sight horizon, which is about 4/3 the optical horizon under "typical" > conditions. From memory (might be wrong!), that can be calculated as 4/3 * > sqrt(height in feet / .6) If your antenna is 6' off the water, then your > radio horizon is about 4 miles. If the station you're talking with has an > antenna height of 50', then his horizon is 12 miles. The two of you could be > about 16 miles apart and have radio light of sight. > > Larson used to make some large whips for portable radios that could be > ordered at the proper frequency. You may want to give them a call. > 1-800-ANTENNA (268-3662) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry E Yake" <leyake(a)juno.com> > To: <montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 5:08 PM > Subject: Re: M_Boats: VHF boost > > > >> I'm impressed, Keith. What is your opinion of the 24" replacement >> antenna option? Is the 2 meter band frequency OK, and would it double >> the range of the stock antenna as claimed? >> Larry >> >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:14:37 -0600 "Keith Diehl" <kdiehl(a)xmission.com> >> writes: >> >>> I've worked as a system engineer for a major communications >>> corporation for >>> more years than I care to mention. Here's my analysis: >>> >>> First, are we using the same antenna, but in one case mounting it at >>> deck >>> level and in the other case mounting it at masthead level? If so, >>> then all >>> we are concerned with is the additional line loss. RG8-X type cable >>> is a >>> manageable size and has reasonable loss - about 4 dB per 100 ft at >>> 100 MHz. >>> Marine radio operates at 160 MHz, so losses will be a little higher, >>> let's >>> call it 5 dB per 100ft. >>> >>> (Don't use RG58 or Radio Shack cable or connectors. Buy quality, >>> name brand, >>> low-loss cable and get help if you're not sure how to install a >>> connector. >>> Weatherproof all connections.) >>> >>> How high is your mast? 25 ft? Then loss is only 1.25 dB + maybe 0.5 >>> dB for >>> additional connectors to allow removing the mast. Overall, I think >>> you'd see >>> an improvement. >>> >>> If you're using a handheld radio with a little helical whip antenna, >>> then >>> you'll see a big improvement. Those rubber antennas have a loss >>> relative to >>> a reference dipole of 6 to 10 dB. A 5/8 wave antenna will be close >>> to the >>> gain of a dipole reference. Even with line loss, you should see a >>> net >>> improvement of 3 to 7 dB. >>> >>> There is a case to be made that you would like your radio to work if >>> you are >>> dismasted. There is also the danger of undetected corrosion or >>> damage to the >>> antenna and line at the masthead where inspection is difficult. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Larry E Yake" <leyake(a)juno.com> >>> To: <montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com> >>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:57 PM >>> Subject: Re: M_Boats: VHF boost >>> <<SNIP>> >>> >>> >>>> "I doubt the 3db gain -- double the >>>> radio's radiated power -- from a masthead antenna that's about 18 >>>> >>> feet >>> >>>> higher than the handheld's antenna will give much of an increase >>>> >>> in >>> >>>> range. >>>> >>> <<SNIP>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats >> > > > _______________________________________________ > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > > _______________________________________________ > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > > > _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

1 0

Re: M_Boats: VHF boost
by Les Clute 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

Hi, everybody. I'm a devoted lurker and very infrequent contributor to these discussions, and I came into this one late, so what I'm about to say may have been already covered. In which case, I apologize for my redundancy. When considering a mast-mounted VHF antenna, have you considered that a sailboat spends a good bit of its time on the water heeled over at 15 to 20 degrees? My M17 certainly did when I was sailing it on San Francisco Bay back in the '80's. When this happens, your transmitting range to stations directly abeam becomes very short indeed. If we oversimplify by visualizing your radiation pattern as a relatively flat disk emanating from the top of your mast, the radiation on your leeward side at a 15- to 20-degree heel will be hitting the water at some 70 to 100 feet from your boat, while the radiation on your windward side will be heading rather quickly towards outer space. You will have your normal transmitting range only to stations directly ahead or astern of you. On the other hand, with a hand-held unit, you can keep the antenna relatively vertical no matter what your heel angle is. So I'd think that you could avoid a fairly costly modification and obtain more consistent, if less enhanced, performance by using a supplemental antenna on your hand-held unit. That's my two cents worth. Fair winds. Les Clute ***************************************************************************** ---- Keith Diehl <kdiehl(a)xmission.com> wrote: ============= Nothing like a prompt reply. A larger whip antenna would help some, but an antenna tuned for the ham bands (146 MHz) probably won't have enough bandwidth to operate properly on marine frequencies (160 MHz). It certainly won't double your range. I don't think anything is going to double your range other than height. Remember that, over water, range is predominately limited by the radio line of sight horizon, which is about 4/3 the optical horizon under "typical" conditions. From memory (might be wrong!), that can be calculated as 4/3 * sqrt(height in feet / .6) If your antenna is 6' off the water, then your radio horizon is about 4 miles. If the station you're talking with has an antenna height of 50', then his horizon is 12 miles. The two of you could be about 16 miles apart and have radio light of sight. Larson used to make some large whips for portable radios that could be ordered at the proper frequency. You may want to give them a call. 1-800-ANTENNA (268-3662) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry E Yake" <leyake(a)juno.com> To: <montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: VHF boost > I'm impressed, Keith. What is your opinion of the 24" replacement > antenna option? Is the 2 meter band frequency OK, and would it double > the range of the stock antenna as claimed? > Larry > > On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:14:37 -0600 "Keith Diehl" <kdiehl(a)xmission.com> > writes: >> I've worked as a system engineer for a major communications >> corporation for >> more years than I care to mention. Here's my analysis: >> >> First, are we using the same antenna, but in one case mounting it at >> deck >> level and in the other case mounting it at masthead level? If so, >> then all >> we are concerned with is the additional line loss. RG8-X type cable >> is a >> manageable size and has reasonable loss - about 4 dB per 100 ft at >> 100 MHz. >> Marine radio operates at 160 MHz, so losses will be a little higher, >> let's >> call it 5 dB per 100ft. >> >> (Don't use RG58 or Radio Shack cable or connectors. Buy quality, >> name brand, >> low-loss cable and get help if you're not sure how to install a >> connector. >> Weatherproof all connections.) >> >> How high is your mast? 25 ft? Then loss is only 1.25 dB + maybe 0.5 >> dB for >> additional connectors to allow removing the mast. Overall, I think >> you'd see >> an improvement. >> >> If you're using a handheld radio with a little helical whip antenna, >> then >> you'll see a big improvement. Those rubber antennas have a loss >> relative to >> a reference dipole of 6 to 10 dB. A 5/8 wave antenna will be close >> to the >> gain of a dipole reference. Even with line loss, you should see a >> net >> improvement of 3 to 7 dB. >> >> There is a case to be made that you would like your radio to work if >> you are >> dismasted. There is also the danger of undetected corrosion or >> damage to the >> antenna and line at the masthead where inspection is difficult. >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Larry E Yake" <leyake(a)juno.com> >> To: <montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com> >> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:57 PM >> Subject: Re: M_Boats: VHF boost >> <<SNIP>> >> >> > "I doubt the 3db gain -- double the >> > radio's radiated power -- from a masthead antenna that's about 18 >> feet >> > higher than the handheld's antenna will give much of an increase >> in >> > range. >> >> <<SNIP>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

2 1

Re: M_Boats: M-17 Spongy Floor
by GILASAILR＠aol.com 08 Apr '07

08 Apr '07

Jeff, My 17 # 316 1980 model has a very similar cabin sole, - little flex and will pump a little water that I have not been able to track down. Very annoying but - I cut a small hole ( 1" square) in the sole at the centerline 2 inches behind the v-berth vertical 'bulkhead', this was to 'explore' and ventilate the sole area. Got dry after a verrrrrrrrrrrrrry long time (no rain, sailing,sprinklers- nothin. just real slow to dry!) I am considering a removeble section (inspection port type) to dry out when not in use. When I was really insane and made my living selling repairing etc. sailboats - the standard line was - Sean remembers this - "A boat without leaks is like a car without squeaks". Watching eagerly for a solution - not holding my breath - I live in Arizona - soon the average temperature will be somewhat shy of boiling according to CNN and the UN report on global warming! It will dry out. GO Sean are you thinkin SCA Cruiser Challenge? M-17 #316A ( they asked for a HIN rubbing AGAIN the other day when I renewed registration!!) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Re: M_Boats: VHF boost
by Larry E Yake 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

I'm impressed, Keith. What is your opinion of the 24" replacement antenna option? Is the 2 meter band frequency OK, and would it double the range of the stock antenna as claimed? Larry On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:14:37 -0600 "Keith Diehl" <kdiehl(a)xmission.com> writes: > I've worked as a system engineer for a major communications > corporation for > more years than I care to mention. Here's my analysis: > > First, are we using the same antenna, but in one case mounting it at > deck > level and in the other case mounting it at masthead level? If so, > then all > we are concerned with is the additional line loss. RG8-X type cable > is a > manageable size and has reasonable loss - about 4 dB per 100 ft at > 100 MHz. > Marine radio operates at 160 MHz, so losses will be a little higher, > let's > call it 5 dB per 100ft. > > (Don't use RG58 or Radio Shack cable or connectors. Buy quality, > name brand, > low-loss cable and get help if you're not sure how to install a > connector. > Weatherproof all connections.) > > How high is your mast? 25 ft? Then loss is only 1.25 dB + maybe 0.5 > dB for > additional connectors to allow removing the mast. Overall, I think > you'd see > an improvement. > > If you're using a handheld radio with a little helical whip antenna, > then > you'll see a big improvement. Those rubber antennas have a loss > relative to > a reference dipole of 6 to 10 dB. A 5/8 wave antenna will be close > to the > gain of a dipole reference. Even with line loss, you should see a > net > improvement of 3 to 7 dB. > > There is a case to be made that you would like your radio to work if > you are > dismasted. There is also the danger of undetected corrosion or > damage to the > antenna and line at the masthead where inspection is difficult. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry E Yake" <leyake(a)juno.com> > To: <montgomery_boats(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:57 PM > Subject: Re: M_Boats: VHF boost > <<SNIP>> > > > "I doubt the 3db gain -- double the > > radio's radiated power -- from a masthead antenna that's about 18 > feet > > higher than the handheld's antenna will give much of an increase > in > > range. > > <<SNIP>> > > > _______________________________________________ > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats > >

2 1

Re: M_Boats: M-15 Trail-Rite bearing specs?
by EinkaufR43＠aol.com 07 Apr '07

07 Apr '07

Joe; I live between Midland and Saginaw, but my roots are in the Kalamazoo area. I expect to break-in on the Saginaw Bay, then get on some of the larger inland lakes before heading to Lake Michigan. I'm still hoping to get reliable bearing info, so I can be sure they are available before making the pick-up trip. The recent tow vehicle flurry was useful. My choice of M-15 relates to my Audi wagon 4cyl as tow vehicle. Same engine as Conbert's GTI, but AWD, roof racks and room for stuff in back. Are you thinking South Haven, Saugatuck, Holland or more south than those? I'm game. Ron Stanton Freeland, MI EinkaufR43(a)aol.com M-15 249 (soon). ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

6 7

RE: M_Boats: M-17 Spongy Deck
by bownez＠juno.com 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

Hey Listers, All this talk about spongy floor is reminding me I have to eventually repair the spongy starboard side of my foredeck on the M17. I might even take it a bit further and address the cabinhouse chainplate mounting area as well. I think it was the bow pulpit mounting holes or bow cleat bedding compound that dried over the years and allowed water to creep in. Still thinking about the best way to approach this job. Attack from the top and leave the top layer of the V-berth in place or attack from the bottom, leaving the foredeck fiberglass in one piece but have to work on my back and getting epoxy to stick to the ceiling! Larry Yake and I had this same discussion, seeing he has gone through the process and we have sisterships of the same year (and color). BTW, the North Channel charts I purchased are #2257 and #2207. I've been entering waypoints into my Garmin GPS. Later, Bones

1 0

wheel bearings etc.
by Thebaldyone2＠aol.com 06 Apr '07

06 Apr '07

Hi all, with regard to wheel bearings and seals. Our best bet is an annual inspection. On the road or at home Walmart carries the two most common bearing sets and seals for both. Most auto parts stores carry those bearings in stock. Kragen etal. Buy and use good grease, DO NOT BE CHEAP THERE. I have found that installing repacked bearings with a pair of "channel lock" pliers works best for me. Tighten until the hub is hard to turn, that seats the bearings, loosen and retighten with your fingers. recheck that the hub is free to turn. If the castle does not line up with the hole in the axle back off the nut, retighten to the nearest castle. Recheck everything, install the new cotter pin. Too tight and too loose are equally bad. Too tight forces the grease out of the bearing and creates metal to metal contact. Put you on the side of the road quick. Too loose will not allow the bearings proper contact. Wheels wobble, seals go away, grease too, back to the side of the road. Why Walmart? They are open until 9:00 PM. that can get you home. This advise is free, worth every penny we all pay for it. Fair winds to us all, Ken Dado, M17 want to be ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0