[C38] Thru Hulls

[Joseph Launie]

Larry,
     Did it float? Joe

On 9/23/2011 6:45 AM, Larry Malmberg wrote:
> Steve, could be the engine weight and the required second anchor.  Our 
> second anchor was a very light one.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Larry Malmberg
>
> Team Hassle
> Does anyone have any experience with Shakewell type designed thru 
> hulls or the Forespar Flotech?  Im considering closing up four thru 
> hulls and replacing at least 1 of the 3 remaining  with the Forespar 
> all in an effort to find that elusive 1/10 of a knot of boat speed.   
> The plan is to close up the one under the Vee berth, the head sink, 
> the macerator and the one where the knot meter use to be on the stbd 
> side of the keel.   Then to tee the macerator into the head outlet 
> along with the Head and sump pump,  abandon the head sink alltogether, 
> pull water from the engine intake for the head and galley sea water 
> pump, and use the galley sink thru hull for sink discharge and 
> watermaker.
> Also another question I would like input on, for Transpac we had to 
> get the boat measured in the water, the rater then compared our boat 
> with Larry's to see how close they were.  Interesting that our stern 
> was about an inch lower in the water than Hassle.  If you look at 
> Peregrine from the side you can see the stern boot stripe is in the 
> water or very close.   She does not have any other gear other than the 
> radar post in the stern.  I did notice on our last haul out that the 
> skeg seeped the entire time she was out, Im wondering if it isnt water 
> weight or something else.   Thanks.
> Steve
> #312 Peregrine
> Seattle
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Listserve mailing list
> Listserve at catalina38.org
> http://catalina38.org/mailman/listinfo/listserve_catalina38.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://catalina38.org/pipermail/listserve_catalina38.org/attachments/20110923/90f0c8b3/attachment-0001.htm>