The Pearson Current
VOL. 7, #4
2002
The Pearson Current |
 Bill Shaw answers the mail
1.) Is there any benefit, other than aesthetic, to the outboard motor being in an enclosed well? I want to take the motor out of the well, seal it up, and hang the motor off the transom in the usual way. Then I could tilt it out of the water when I’m sailing and it wouldn’t drag. I think the boat speed would improve and the outboard wouldn’t collect barnacles. 2.) Another question involves my boat listing to starboard; I can’t figure out what’s causing it. 3.) Third, the boat has a (regular-type) spinnaker but no pole. What size pole should I get? 4.) "Pelican" has very old-fashioned winches and only one winch handle! I can’t find another handle of the same type. I’ve tried new or used marine hardware outlets. The handle is flat and inserts into a slit at the top of the winch, like a two-part prong. Any ideas? Thanks. — Jane Fitzpatrick The well was put there for convenience purposes. We recall some owners turning the space into an icebox. You can hang a motor on the transom and many have done so. You would need to reinforce the transom as it was not originally made to hold an engine. I would recommend 3 layers of mat and 2 roving placed to cover the entire area where the engine mounts would be placed. Of course, the boat was designed to sit level on her waterline. If the boat is listing to starboard while at rest, there must be a logical reason related to weight. If you are tied up to starboard, you might just be witnessing the pull of your dock lines. Your winches are no longer made, so you will have to give the handle you have to a machine shop to make another for you. Please help me with the feasibility of installing 3/4-inch outboard genoa tracks on my P31 Mk II to gain important off wind sheeting advantages. Principally, opening the genoa leach area exit off wind, moving the reaching draft forward for more power, eliminating drag from the clew area, and better leverage angle on the spinnaker guy. (Naturally, it also involves scheming to acquire a standard spinnaker to gain useful range beyond my cruising chute). The central question is whether the out-board-extending deck-to-hull joint flange is strong enough, as it appears to be, to accommodate modest off wind loads on genoa cars—and higher lateral loads on spinnaker guy leads forward of the primaries. The teak toerail appears bolted through the deck-hull flange extending outboard from the upper topsides. The rubrail finishes the outboard edge of the flange structure. A removable covering strip shrouds the underside of the flange joint. (Incidentally, I’m aware that the boat should not be pressed hard on a tight spinnaker reach because of a tendency to wipe out due to the wing and shallower rudder blade). — David Breasted gilhickey@aol.com It is feasible to place another Genoa track on the rail. However, I think a 3/4-inch will prove to be too light. I would recommend a 1-1/4" to be safe. I do not recall the precise type of toerail used on this model, but you would need to reinforce the flange if you decide to undertake this refit. A Genoa generates considerable stress and you would not want to risk exposing the flange without the proper support. My problem is a small leak, which appears to be coming from the area of the rudder shaft. The water dribbles down and collects in the sump below the stuffing box. The shaft picks up the water and sprays it all over the place, including the engine. The rudder shaft does not have a gland nut or stuffing box to prevent the water from being forced around the bearings and up into the boat. The problem only seems to happen when we are powering. The rudder sleeve (which supports the rudderpost itself) passes down thru the liner which is throughout the boat, so, I can not see the area where this sleeve joins the hull. Everything that I can get to in the transom area seems totally dry. Wherever the water is coming in, it is under the liner. Has anyone else had this problem? It is a 1985 36.6 centerboard, hull #84. — John Dieselman Without actually inspecting the problem myself I have no idea what might be causing this leak. I can however state that you can cut through the liner without concern. It is not structural. You would only need to take special care not to cut through the hull itself. I would hope that by exposing the area behind the liner, you will be able to figure out what is causing the problem. I posed this question on the members’ forum, but got no response. The small "fin" just forward of the spade rudder on my Renegade is gone. What was its purpose? A few have suggested it was a "stop" to prevent the rudder from rotating. I thought maybe it was an attempt to lessen turbulence just before the rudder. I’m thinking of replacing it, but would like to know its purpose! Also, my boat, hull #26, evidently starred in the brochure for the Renegade. Any idea whether any of the color/original versions of the brochure still exist? I have a (poor) black and white copy of it. One final question, my boat did sit on some rocks in the early eighties and there has been some repair to the keel. We are thinking of making some corrections to the keel shape, as the previous repair, although solid, did no justice to the original contour/shape. Was the lead ballast bolted on to the keel/hull? It appears to be the case (external as opposed to internal). Was the lead then "encased/enclosed" in fiberglass? Thanks for your help on these issues. — John K. Bouchard That fin was not a stop for the rudder, nor was it to lessen turbulence. Its purpose was actually quite functional. We put the fin on the leading edge of the rudder to prevent underwater objects such as lobster pot tail lines from jamming between the hull and the top of the rudder blade. Replacing the lost fin would be a good idea. The Pearson Association is building an online Marina of all the models produced by the company. They have not as yet been able to get hold of the Renegade brochure. Please let them know if you come across one. We do not recommend altering the keel shape. Each model Pearson was subjected to many tests on all design components. Only the design elements that survived the tests made it into the production phase and were our best estimates for the model. Many thanks for your helpful and prompt reply to my e-mail regarding the mast pumping problem on my Pearson 39. I took your advice and rigged a line around the mast just above the lower spreaders (which is where the maximum fore and aft pumping seemed to be occurring) and tensioned this up to my bow cleat. It didn’t completely eliminate the vibration but it dramatically reduced it. Based on this, I think I will go ahead and get a baby stay fitted. I would be most grateful if you could take a look at your old drawings, etc. to confirm any info you have on the exact location of the baby stay both on the deck and mast. Thanks again for your help. — Mike Upton I assume you will install a removable baby stay given the fact that the pumping action only occurs while at a slip. You can place the stay on the mast at or around the location for the Spinnaker pole, and on deck as far forward as you can. You might consider reinforcing the deck if you think you will be cranking it up excessively or using the baby stay for a storm sail or other strain-inducing activity. A pelican hook with a pad eye on deck should do the trick. A couple of years ago, my parents purchased a P365. The boat had been modified from the original keel design to a deeper configuration adding a foot to the depth. The original owner’s name is Bruce Purdey. The boat is an original 1979 model (hull #265) named "Debunaire." Mr. Purdey said that you yourself designed the modification. I am trying to do some research on the boat and was wondering if you knew Mr. Purdey and whether you really did a one-off modification for him, or if you had done similar modifications on other 365s. I would be grateful for any information you could give me. — Steve Taylor; P365, #265, "Act V" I do not recall this modification and frankly doubt that we did it at all. As a rule, we tended to shy away from undertaking changes of this nature. We did make some changes to the next generation of 365s. They had shoal drafts and were rigged as cutters, all of which required changes to the mold. I have a question about the replacement engine on my P26. Is a Yamaha 9.9 25" okay, or should I go with a 20" 2002 new? My boat is a 1971, hull #346—I think that’s right. Awaiting your reply. Thanks. — Jim Brennan The longer the shaft, the better the bite your prop can take. You will also find that when under power, as people move forward (thereby lifting the stern), you will have considerably less cavitation with the longer shaft. In Volume 6, Number 4 of The Current, you described the reasoning behind the false trailing edge on the 10M keel. You identify the reason as necessary to release the hull from the mold. This implies that the ballast is internal, i.e. encapsulated within the fiberglass hull form. I own a 1979, hull #224 10M that has external ballast with keel bolts. A hull to ballast seam needs some attention every spring, but there does not appear to be any fiberglass encapsulation. I also refer you to the "External Ballast" section of my Owner’s Manual. Did Pearson change from internal to external ballast somewhere in the production run of the 10M or am I misinterpreting your article? — Ernest Greer; Marblehead, MA; ernest.greer@neg.pge.com Indeed, as you correctly point out, the 10M keel is an external ballast design. Something must have been lost in transmission during the discussion of this issue. The mold I referred to was the iron casting into which the molten lead for the keel was poured. To obtain the desired shape of the keel to preserve its lifting foil design properties, it required that the keel be made in two sections. The aft end of the cast keel had to have a different shape compared with the forward leading edge and in order to be able to pull the casting out of the iron mold, we had to add the fiberglass fin after the lead was pulled from the mold. The Current apologizes for any confusion. We recently purchased a 1984 Pearson 38.6 center cockpit. We discovered while replacing all of the plumbing, that the forward head overboard discharge thru hull is beneath the water line. Can you explain how the head discharges overboard with the thru hull located below the water line? Thank you. — Gina Godfrey When you pump the WC, it has enough pressure to clear the line. I have a Pearson 30' vessel and would like to attach a permanent stern ladder to the transom for easy access to water/boat. However, I have a stern pulpit and think I can accomplish my mission by cutting the stern rail between the starboard and port stanchion, then plugging the cavity with a hook on each side for a safety chain. I do not feel the remaining stern pulpit will be weakened, as there will be a single stanchion and rail on each side remaining, the ends of which are anchored to the deck. Do you see a problem with my solution? Has anyone ever done this the way I am suggesting or any other way? I have beautiful coaming boards re-varnished (seven coats) and do not want to use a mobile As always, thanks for your input. — Skipper Ron Consultsvi@aol.com I would not recommend altering the present stern rail. I would however, suggest a folding ladder such as the Garelick Stainless Steel Transom Ladder. I have a 1985 Pearson 303 that I bought last year. While the survey went well, all last season, I had a weeping bilge. Upon haul-out, I discovered a crack at the trailing edge of the keel at the fairing to the hull. Has anyone else had this problem? Any ideas on repair? I can’t just tighten up on the keel bolts because the 303 doesn’t have any. Thanks. — W. Grabenstetter; The P303 has an internal ballast. The crack you discovered is most likely the source of the leak you are experiencing. Do not, however, take that for granted because water leaks have a unique, peculiar "mind of their own" way of starting and revealing themselves. You should have your yard inspect the problem for you. My wife and I own a 1985 P36, hull #72, which we have rigged for flying a spinnaker. Since the boat is a masthead rig, the halyard sheave is not in alignment with the halyard when the spinnaker is set. What recommendations do you have for fixing this problem? I have considered installing either a masthead crane, or a bail or ring to attach an external halyard. Can an extra halyard be installed internally? Also, the baby stay is in the way when jibing the pole. Would it be advisable to disconnect it when sailing downwind? This could be done by installing a quick release at the deck fitting and securing the baby stay to the mast when it is released. Could the boat be sailed upwind with the baby stay released? I know this would not please my sailmaker, as baby stays cause a lot of wear and tear on the genoa when taking. — Roger Bateman
When sailing downwind it is OK to release the baby stay. When gibing, be sure to reset it before heading up. Also, add a roller to the baby stay.
|
Index for this issue
|
