we are putting a second reef in our mainsail and looking for a smaller headsail, we were thinking of ordering a 60 percent jib, as a storm sail, as often it blows 25 where we live, any recommendations on a better size headsail, or sailmaker for the job? Doug&Ariane, the spitfire. On 2015-08-25, at 11:00 AM, montgomery_boats-request@mailman.xmission.com wrote:
Send montgomery_boats mailing list submissions to montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to montgomery_boats-request@mailman.xmission.com
You can reach the person managing the list at montgomery_boats-owner@mailman.xmission.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of montgomery_boats digest..." Today's Topics:
1. Re: Smanll Boats in a Big Boat Mag. (stevetrapp) 2. North Carolina Cruising (Michael Murphy) 3. Re: sorry to bring it up again Towing (stevetrapp) 4. Re: sorry to bring it up again Towing (Tyler Backman) 5. Re: M-17 Trailer Bunks (GILASAILR@aol.com)
From: "stevetrapp" <stevetrapp@q.com> Subject: Re: M_Boats: Smanll Boats in a Big Boat Mag. Date: 24 August, 2015 12:22:03 PM PDT To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com>
Try the magazine, "Small Craft Advisor", published in Port Townsend, Washington. Contact them at: P.O. Box 1343 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-1930 Or buy a copy at your local boating store or book and magazine store. Steve M-15 # 335
----- Original Message ----- From: "Conbert Benneck" <chbenneck@gmail.com> To: <griemmolo2@gmail.com>; "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 3:50 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: Smanll Boats in a Big Boat Mag.
On 7/16/2015 4:58 PM, George Iemmolo wrote:
Hi George,
Now that is surprising news about SAIL.
In the past, and that's when I quit subscribing, they just talked about bigger and ever bigger sailboats till the only "acceptable" sailboats in their eyes were something in the 40 foot and up size that cost at least $150K - without equipment.
Maybe they lost so many subscribers that they had to rethink their editorial policy, and swallowing their pride, now can talk about a 21 foot boat. Oh what a denouement ....!
Connie
Imagine my surprise when I opened my mailbox and found a Wrinkle Boat on the cover of the August issue of SAIL. It tuned out to be a Norseboat 21.5. Not only that, but there were a number of articles on our kind of small boat sailing. “Beach Cruising” by Roy Hoddinolt about sailing in a Sea Pearl 21, “Nuts & Bolts of Sail Camping” by Ida Little & Michael Walsh in the Bahamas for months. “Yrvind the Swede” sailing in home built boats 14’ to 19’ across oceans and even around the Horn. A Side Bar in which most of the small boats we subscribe too were mentioned, Sage 17 even had an ad in this issue. It also contained an article “Something for the Weekend” about a ½ dozen boats one would read about in SCA or GOB which I also subscribe to.
Since the cat is out of the bag about my getting SAIL you might as well know that I also get “Cruising World” and have been thinking about getting “Classic Boats” :-)
George
Merry Helen II
96 M15 #602
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4365/9875 - Release Date: 05/26/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
From: Michael Murphy <paulaandmike48@gmail.com> Subject: M_Boats: North Carolina Cruising Date: 24 August, 2015 6:50:27 PM PDT To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com>
Perquimans River to Pasquotank River:
Most of the launch sites for cruising the Albemarle Sound are located two to four miles up one of the ten rivers that feed the Sound. Perquimans River has 2 public ramps: one at downtown Herford across from the Police Station and the other on the west side of the river at New Hope. The Hertford ramp has limited parking on-site but offers a large lot about a block away. If you wish to raise the mast on the hard you have to do it on a slope right at the ramp, or on the street next to a whole set of NO PARKING signs. Best to avoid the weekend when sport fishermen keep the ramp crowded.
The New Hope site is a double ramp. A single channel was recently deepened for access to the main waterway. The excavator used to dredge the channel crushed the south side ramp. The north ramp is short but steep for easy launching. The challenge is to warp the boat around and get out without snagging overhanging bushes and trees while staying in the channel. It seemed a good idea to raise the mast after launching and motor past the trees into the river. With the masthead in a temporary X-frame gallows I can use the rudder for better maneuverability. The butt of the mast is cinched down on the pulpit. When the waves are less than a foot it is easy to raise it as long as you remember to walk in a straight line down the center line of the boat. Widely placed steps induce unnecessary rocking which is not fun with the mast ½ way up.
Once on the river it was a short 5 mile reach to the Sound and then a 10 mile beat to the Pasquotank River. With winds about 8 knots it was possible to sail the 2’ chart contour approximately 300 yards off-shore and enjoy the scenery. Rounding the daymark at the Pasquotank I headed to Big Flatty Creek where I hoped to anchor.
I seldom discourage people to use their M-15 for gunkhole exploration but Big Flatty is not recommended. If the shoals don’t get you the mass of wire grass can bring you to a stop.
Although I tried to follow a crab boat into the local fish house he made more turns than I could follow. The good news was that a sheltered anchorage was only 5 miles away in Little River. With winds aft it was a fast 4.5 knot finish to the day. Sunday also brought 8 knots winds for a fast trip (i.e. minimal tacking) back to the ramp.
From: "stevetrapp" <stevetrapp@q.com> Subject: Re: M_Boats: sorry to bring it up again Towing Date: 24 August, 2015 7:38:12 PM PDT To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com>
I know by the date that this topic has come and gone, but I have been away from responding to M-Boats for awhile. I attempted to tow my M-15 with my Subaru Forrester and found it simply not up to the task, so I resumed towing my M-15 with my old but reliable Ford Ranger V-6, which does the job fine. Steve M-15 # 335
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Schinnerer" <john@eco-living.net> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 3:28 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: sorry to bring it up again Towing
Always a useful topic... :-)
You're talking about a brand new car of one of these? In any case... The Subaru is all-wheel drive (AWD) whatever Outback model (engine, trans) you get. The Mazda has 2WD or AWD options, 2WD at the lower price point.
AWD is really nice to have on slippery boat ramps, so if you go for the Mazda, I say get the AWD (it's also nice to have for a lot of other adventures and for winter driving if you live in snow country).
Either one should not be at all stressed to tow an M-15. If it were an M-17 I would say go with the extra margin the Subaru claims (2700 vs. 2200 for the Mazda). And remember a lot of it is about brakes! See if you can find info on which has the better rated (actual testing, by e.g. Car & Driver or similar) brakes.
I have an older Outback (2001), which is only rated 2000 lbs. towing. I have rear overload springs and slightly better-than-stock front brakes. I would be confident towing an M-17 or equivalent; beyond confident for an M-15.
Daniel may want to chime in, he tows his M-15 with a newer Impreza (same carcass and engine, different body than Outback) rated same as you are looking at (2700). I recall he said it is more than adequate.
cheers, John S.
On 07/19/2015 03:12 PM, Karen & Smiley wrote:
I am about ready to pull the trigger on either of these two cars that is capable of towing +2000 lbs.
Mazda CX 5 w 2.5 liter engine good to 2200 lbs
Subaru Outback w 2.5 liter engine good for 2700 lbs if trailer has brakes on it (no need for brakes below 2000 lbs)
Any actual confirmed feedback on experiences with these cars or hp of your tow vehicles engine. Thanks Smiley M15 # 616
Karen & Smiley
Magoo252@comcast.net <mailto:Magoo252@comcast.net>
-- John Schinnerer - M.A., Whole Systems Design -------------------------------------------- - Eco-Living - Whole Systems Design Services People - Place - Learning - Integration john@eco-living.net - 510.982.1334 http://eco-living.net http://sociocracyconsulting.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4365/9875 - Release Date: 05/26/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
From: Tyler Backman <casioqv@usermail.com> Subject: Re: M_Boats: sorry to bring it up again Towing Date: 24 August, 2015 10:56:05 PM PDT To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com>
Steve,
What was the problem with the Forester? Too little power to keep up with traffic or something else?
Tyler
On Aug 24, 2015, at 7:38 PM, stevetrapp <stevetrapp@q.com> wrote:
I know by the date that this topic has come and gone, but I have been away from responding to M-Boats for awhile. I attempted to tow my M-15 with my Subaru Forrester and found it simply not up to the task, so I resumed towing my M-15 with my old but reliable Ford Ranger V-6, which does the job fine. Steve M-15 # 335
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Schinnerer" <john@eco-living.net> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 3:28 PM Subject: Re: M_Boats: sorry to bring it up again Towing
Always a useful topic... :-)
You're talking about a brand new car of one of these? In any case... The Subaru is all-wheel drive (AWD) whatever Outback model (engine, trans) you get. The Mazda has 2WD or AWD options, 2WD at the lower price point.
AWD is really nice to have on slippery boat ramps, so if you go for the Mazda, I say get the AWD (it's also nice to have for a lot of other adventures and for winter driving if you live in snow country).
Either one should not be at all stressed to tow an M-15. If it were an M-17 I would say go with the extra margin the Subaru claims (2700 vs. 2200 for the Mazda). And remember a lot of it is about brakes! See if you can find info on which has the better rated (actual testing, by e.g. Car & Driver or similar) brakes.
I have an older Outback (2001), which is only rated 2000 lbs. towing. I have rear overload springs and slightly better-than-stock front brakes. I would be confident towing an M-17 or equivalent; beyond confident for an M-15.
Daniel may want to chime in, he tows his M-15 with a newer Impreza (same carcass and engine, different body than Outback) rated same as you are looking at (2700). I recall he said it is more than adequate.
cheers, John S.
On 07/19/2015 03:12 PM, Karen & Smiley wrote:
I am about ready to pull the trigger on either of these two cars that is capable of towing +2000 lbs.
Mazda CX 5 w 2.5 liter engine good to 2200 lbs
Subaru Outback w 2.5 liter engine good for 2700 lbs if trailer has brakes on it (no need for brakes below 2000 lbs)
Any actual confirmed feedback on experiences with these cars or hp of your tow vehicles engine. Thanks Smiley M15 # 616
Karen & Smiley
Magoo252@comcast.net <mailto:Magoo252@comcast.net>
-- John Schinnerer - M.A., Whole Systems Design -------------------------------------------- - Eco-Living - Whole Systems Design Services People - Place - Learning - Integration john@eco-living.net - 510.982.1334 http://eco-living.net http://sociocracyconsulting.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4365/9875 - Release Date: 05/26/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
--
From: GILASAILR@aol.com Subject: Re: M_Boats: M-17 Trailer Bunks Date: 25 August, 2015 9:09:38 AM PDT To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com
++1
GO
In a message dated 8/24/2015 9:38:06 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, casioqv@usermail.com writes:
Moving bunks are okay on a trailer with hinged bunks or rollers designed for that purpose, but I wouldn't leave any bolts loose as they will just cause unstable bunks, and the nuts could rattle off. I've had good luck using galvanized lag bolts, applied with double nuts tightened against one another. I also apply thick waterproof green grease to the entire thread surface beforehand, which seems to last years in the water and prevent it from ever rusting. Cold dipped galvanized bolts will last longer in a wood bunk than stainless steel, as stainless steel fails to be stainless in a wet and salty low oxygen environment- instead it corrodes rapidly (sodium ion crevice corrosion).
If the bunks don't currently match up to the hull, you could modify the bunk support posts to make them match up better.
Tyler
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Makela" <richmak@makelaperformance.com> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats" <montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 12:05:14 PM Subject: M_Boats: M-17 Trailer Bunks
I am re-carpeting and generally refurbishing the bunks on my 1977 vintage M-17 trailer. The bolts that attach the bunks to the posts are badly rusted and a bit loose. Should the bunks be firmly anchored to the posts, or should they be allowed to rock sideways a bit to match up with the hull?
Rich Makela
M-17 #233 - Harmony
_______________________________________________ montgomery_boats mailing list montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
Remember, there is no privacy on the Internet!