Montgomery Sailboats List Archives Search Results

Menu Will Appear Here, Or Reload

Montgomery Sailboats List Archives Search Results

50 messages found for "centerboard" in the body, "ballast" in body, "iron" in body, follow:

Click on a link to jump to the corresponding message

Re: M_Boats: M17 old style CB
Re: M_Boats: M17 old style CB
Re: M_Boats: M17 centerboard stuck
Re: M_Boats: Keel
Re: M_Boats: M23
Re: M_Boats: M23 Centerboard
Re: M_Boats: M17 Centerboards
RE: M_Boats: M23 Centerboard
Re: M_Boats: CB for M15
Re: M_Boats: CB for M15
M_Boats: centerboard space question
M_Boats: Centerboard trials and tribulations
Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
M_Boats: Hula Pie's Keel
inspection ports
M_Boats: History of the M17
M_Boats: centerboard on 81' M17
M_Boats: CB & Ballast
M_Boats: Iron Ballast
M_Boats: Iron Ballast
M_Boats: Iron Ballast
(Continued next column)

Message 1 of 50

From: Fritz Stuneck
Subject: Re: M_Boats: M17 old style CB
Date: 13 Oct 1998 05:20:46 -0600
-----------------------------------

According to Jerry M, only about the first 20 or so M17's had the "old
style" centerboard which weighs around 500# and is cast steel or iron. This
heavy centerboard cranks up and down with a trunnion mechanism which means
that the board pivots on a fixed pin (which you can see at the bottom of
the centerboard tunnel) . As you turn the crank screw (which is also
fixed), the board moves up or down by means of a sort of clamp that
attaches to the screw. This mechanism has great power and I can tell you
that it WILL lift your boat out of the water when you are stuck in sand or
or rocks iff you crank the wrong direction! However, the centerboard
tunnel takes up substantial room in the cabin area. These boats also have
no extra ballast cast or moulded into the bottom of the hull. I would
imagine that the early 17's probably do better in heavier air, eh? There's
my .02 worth which should be pretty close.
There were a number of messages concerning this awhile ago and should be in
the archives somewhere.
Reply to: fritzs@minn.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 2 of 50

From: jerry montgomery
Subject: Re: M_Boats: M17 old style CB
Date: 14 Oct 1998 16:42:04 +0000
-----------------------------------

Hi Fritz
You've got it right except for details; the original M-17 of which you
right is a RETRACTABLE KEEL 17, and the "old style cb followed. We made
around 300 of them, and switched to the "new" cb model about 1990.
Jerry
Fritz Stuneck wrote:
>
> According to Jerry M, only about the first 20 or so M17's had the "old
> style" centerboard which weighs around 500# and is cast steel or iron. This
> heavy centerboard cranks up and down with a trunnion mechanism which means
> that the board pivots on a fixed pin (which you can see at the bottom of
> the centerboard tunnel) . As you turn the crank screw (which is also
> fixed), the board moves up or down by means of a sort of clamp that
> attaches to the screw. This mechanism has great power and I can tell you
> that it WILL lift your boat out of the water when you are stuck in sand or
> or rocks iff you crank the wrong direction! However, the centerboard
> tunnel takes up substantial room in the cabin area. These boats also have
> no extra ballast cast or moulded into the bottom of the hull. I would
> imagine that the early 17's probably do better in heavier air, eh? There's
> my .02 worth which should be pretty close.
> There were a number of messages concerning this awhile ago and should be in
> the archives somewhere.
> Reply to: fritzs@minn.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 3 of 50

From: AZYacht@aol.com
Subject: Re: M_Boats: M17 centerboard stuck
Date: 20 Jul 1999 21:22:05 EDT
-----------------------------------

Re: M-17 Stuck Centerboards.
I think you may need to investigate which is the actual culprit, I found
steel knock-outs in the keel area (sump) upon installing a thru-hull.(M-17
#319)
If water is allowed into this area I have seen steel rust in enclosed sumps
and literally 'blow' its way thru the fibreglas. I was dismayed to find steel
in the keel, but am resolved to keep the area sealed and dry. If the steel
gets wet and starts swelling (oxidizing) this could cause the sides of the CB
trunk to swell and make the board bind.
I dont know what if any differences there are in the ballast from model to
model or H.I.N.? Obviously a boat with lead would not exhibit the problem.
I think I would remove the board and check the CB trunk walls for square. Of
course the board should be refurbished at the same time. Question, has anyone
tried metal to metal filler used under powder coating to fair and powder coat
an iron underwater piece?? Good Luck and better Sailing.
Gary O.
M-17 # 319
Aoxomoxoa
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 4 of 50

From: mikit
Subject: Re: M_Boats: Keel
Date: 30 Jan 2000 21:33:09 -0700
-----------------------------------

>Harvey,
I believe you are confusing the keel with the centerboard. My 1983 M-17
advertised a ballast of 580lbs. The centerboard is only 170 lbs., a
fraction of the overall ballast. Those slugs are buried inside your keel.
Mike M-17 369
Hi Jerry..
>
>I have a 1979 M-17. I thought the centerboard was an iron plate.
>
>How was the steel punchings formed into a centerboard ??
>
>Anything to be aware of when I eventually drop it for cleaning ?? It was
>in the Gulf of Mexico, first in Texas, then Ft. Myers Fla., before I bought
>her. Now in fresh water, but am feeling the need to drop the board and
>check it out.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harvey/ Ga
>
>M-17 Stargazer #294
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 5 of 50

From: AirEvacLen@aol.com
Subject: Re: M_Boats: M23
Date: 20 Jul 2000 19:57:51 EDT
-----------------------------------

In a message dated 7/20/00 7:52:28 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
Mont15@aol.com writes:
<< How seaworthy is the M23? I sail on San Francisco Bay and want to
cruise
B.C. and Alaska. I previously owned a M 15. How rugged is the 23? Is she
stiff? How stable? Will a Honda 5 hp push her with ease? Any suggestions
for the iron center board when it's left in salt water? Is it
interchangeable with the fiberglass M 17 centerboard? >>
Bert
I have often described the M-23 as "BREATH TAKING"........for lack of a
better description. I had previously owned an M-17 and have found the M-23
to be not just 6 feet longer, but much, much, more boat. Well built and
stiff, the M-23 gives a smooth ride even in choppy conditions. In 15-20 kt
winds with main and working jib, you get about a 6 kt speed and 20* heel
angle. Going forward on deck is no problem. The boat is well balanced and
answers the helm responsively.
Headroom below ( 5'10") with a galley, HUGE icebox, and drop leaf table
make a quaint setting for those evening anchorage's or afternoon lunches.
At about 4000# loaded a 5hp motor would get you in and out of a slip, but
that's about it. As Sandy said, I have a 6hp on my boat and I'm really
looking at the 9.9 Honda or Yamaha four stroke. SF Bay is no place to fool
around with an underpowered boat, even if you're a great sailor.
As for the centerboard.........It's a good design with some minor
maintenance required. ( What's new?) The boards are not interchangeable with
any other models. Small wonder, when you consider the ballast of the M-23 is
as much as the entire displacement of the M-17.......hehehe.
If you're smitten with the traditional looks of a sailing vessel, the
M-23 will steal your heart away...............
Lenny
M-23#003
Sea Horse
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 6 of 50

From: Bob
Subject: Re: M_Boats: M23 Centerboard
Date: 02 Jan 2001 22:14:43 -0800
-----------------------------------

Hi Dick
Jerry and I are discussing installing a cast bronze centerboard.
I've looked at bronze boards in 35 year old boats and they look
good as new. Iron has its disadvantages. One is rust, another is
fittings tend to break off them, if drilled and tapped.
Fiberglass is always an option but they can have problems with
abrasion and still have to be bottom painted. Stainless could be
done with todays neat laser cutters but it would be hard to shape
an airfoil on a stainless steel plate. (not impossible but hard).
Cast silicon bronze is heavy and almost bullet proof . It can be cast
in a smooth airfoil shape and all the "Down stops" and "Up stops"
can be cast into the original board, eliminating extra machining and
avoiding drilling and tapping machine holes with disimilar metals and
the problems of corrosion. A proper Up stop (ledge) can be designed
into the shape and prevent the hypothetical (sp) problem of the centerboard
crashing thru the truck top. (hehehehe)
The one big disadvantage is cost. Its much more expensive to build a special
mold (for the foundry) and all the preparation and burnishing that would
have
to be done.
But in the long run, for an offshore boat that will be traveling to
distant waters,
the last thing you want to worry about is the centerboard.
Plus...Jerry really wants that perfect "Airfoil" shape....something
about kicking butt
going to windward ??? (sounds like a racing sailor ?) *smile*
So bronze will be our first choice.
Fair winds.
Bob
Nor'Sea
Richard Lane wrote:
> I think the only safe way to "lock" the cb down on a 23 is by means of a
> sacrificial long dowel inserted behind the Merriman winch to bear on the iron
> plate just forward of the tang. This dowel would break in a hard grounding but
> keep the keel in the maximum restoring moment position in a knockdown.
> I was once knocked down in SF Bay till water came over the cockpit coaming
> and my son almost went o'board, the plate did not come all the way up but was
> heard to clunk back down when the microburst relented.
> Regards, Dick
>
>
> AirEvacLen@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 01/01/2001 2:50:50 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
>> htmills@bright.net writes:
>>
>> << Theo......if the c/b is like mine on my M17 you don't
>> need to lock it down for safety....there is sufficient
>> ballast in the keel.
>>
>> Tod
>> >>
>>
>> Tod
>>
>> You have to understand where Theo is going with this.........despite the
>> ballasted keel, you have a c/b which is subject to the laws of
>> gravity..........roll the boat over beyond it's lateral stability point and
>> you have a c/b ready to crash through the trunk. I've thought about it too,
>> Theo.............
>>
>> Lenny
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 7 of 50

From: Fritz Stuneck
Subject: Re: M_Boats: M17 Centerboards
Date: 05 Jan 2001 05:27:15 -0600
-----------------------------------

>
>Curious to hear from the other 17 owners with cast iron cb's (or
>from Jerry), which design
>is most common...and, of these two types, which one most resembles
>the current fiberglass
>cb?
>
>Howard
>M17 #278
I believe Jerry M. stated once that there were only about 20 of us
that have the heavier centerboard with the heavy duty crank
mechanism. After the first 20 or so, a change was made to using some
sort of ballast in the full length of the keel (perhaps steel
pellets?) fiberglassed into the bottom and the addition of the
thinner, lead coated board. Maybe Jerry M. has the exact number and
the newer configuration. In shallow water, when I crank my board
down, I can lift the boat out of the water! The board doesn't flop
around as it is fixed with a screwthread device which can be seen in
those pictures mentioned.
I'm not racing my boat, but would think that it would tend to be
better suited to racing in heavier air as the weight is concentrated
lower.
Has anyone ever been knocked over and had their boat flop back up
into it's cavity in the keel??? (as you are rounding up, of course)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 8 of 50

From: Shawn Boles
Subject: RE: M_Boats: M23 Centerboard
Date: 13 Jan 2001 15:55:23 -0800
-----------------------------------

Jerry:
Concern is that if centerboard returns to trunk during capsize, boat may be
stable in inverted position... By the way, what is the point at which the
righting moment goes negative on an M-17? My guess is ca. 130 degrees...
cheers-
Shawn Boles
Grey Mist (M17 #276 1978)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 6:23 AM
You guys have to remember that the board won't try to come up unless the
boat is heeled more than 90 degrees. Even if it did, the trunk is
strong enuf to take a lot of slamming around. Don't worry about it!
Jerry
Richard Lane wrote:
>
> I think the only safe way to "lock" the cb down on a 23 is by means of a
> sacrificial long dowel inserted behind the Merriman winch to bear on the
iron
> plate just forward of the tang. This dowel would break in a hard grounding
but
> keep the keel in the maximum restoring moment position in a knockdown.
> I was once knocked down in SF Bay till water came over the cockpit
coaming
> and my son almost went o'board, the plate did not come all the way up but
was
> heard to clunk back down when the microburst relented.
> Regards, Dick
>
> AirEvacLen@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 01/01/2001 2:50:50 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> > htmills@bright.net writes:
> >
> > << Theo......if the c/b is like mine on my M17 you don't
> > need to lock it down for safety....there is sufficient
> > ballast in the keel.
> >
> > Tod
> > >>
> >
> > Tod
> >
> > You have to understand where Theo is going with this.........despite the
> > ballasted keel, you have a c/b which is subject to the laws of
> > gravity..........roll the boat over beyond it's lateral stability point
and
> > you have a c/b ready to crash through the trunk. I've thought about it
too,
> > Theo.............
> >
> > Lenny
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 9 of 50

From: Bob
Subject: Re: M_Boats: CB for M15
Date: 05 Apr 2001 08:21:01 -0700
-----------------------------------

--------------030802010704090808020302
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
We can build the 15 board as long as the centerboard trunk isn't
swelled up less than the 1.25 inches we need for the new fiberglass,
lead filled board.
The older 15 boards had steel shot for ballast.
The older 17s have the boards that we cannot do.
I called Larry with the 15 (thought he had a 17?) and he will
measure his centerboard trunk gap and if its 1.25 inches we can
supply him a board.
Your right about shipping costs for the boards. It is expensive to
ship a 50 pound lead filled board in a padded box.
UPS drivers have a habit of dropping the box and we have had
boards packed by Mail Boxes Etc. that arrived damaged and in
need of repair. (the edge airfoil shape is fragile on the fiberglass
board).
For the older 17s with the cast iron boards I think a plate-steel
laser cut board would fit. It wouldn't have to be as thick as the older
boards.
Bob
Randy Watkins wrote:
> Doug, do you know what year the boat is ( M15 ) in question?
>
> Randy W.
>
>>>> dking@vt.edu 04/04/01 10:28PM >>>
>>>
>
> I received an email from a fellow who recently lost his centerboard. He checked
> with Bob Eeg, who can't help on the older boards, since the molds were
> destroyed in circumstances beyond his, or Jerry M's control (as were the
> forward hatch molds) and the new FG boards don't fit--but some of you guys know
> more about that than I do.
>
> So, does anybody have any ideas on where/how someone can get another CB for an
> older M15?
>
> I found out this stuff when I was inquiring whether Bob minded if I proposed
> another solution, not just for 15s, but for the other boats, too. The idea
> would be to see if we could come up with the specs and dimensions for the
> boards and a fabricator who could make them based on those drawings. I know
> some of you have tried fabrication before and the costs were prohibitive, but I
> wonder if we had a set of design drawings that folks like me, who don't have
> much experience with this, could take around and get estimates by cast a wider
> net, we might find a workable solution.
>
> Bob was for the idea and mentioned that the price would probably come down if
> several were ordered at one time--probably difficult to do, unless enough
> people are looking now or will need one soon.
>
> I don't have a good idea what is involved or who would be willing to help, but
> it seems to me it's a problem that's not going to go away as the boats get
> older. I know we have some good smart people in the group: engineers,
> designers, CAD operators, a boatbuilder or two. I know it probably isn't easy,
> and I know there are variations caused by iron CBs' and iron keels' corrosive
> swelling and such, but you got to start somewhere; I would think the best
> place would be with the original design and modify from there. I also think
> that once it's done, it may be something none of us has to worry about again.
> I'd certainly take plans around here for estimates, prices tend to be cheaper
> for this sort of thing and nearby Roanoke, Virginia is a major
> maintenance/repair hub for Norfolk Southern, so there are several metal
> fabricators there.
>
> Any comments or corrections?
>
> Doug
>
> Doug King
> dking@vt.edu
> M-17 #404 "Vixen"
>
>
>
>
--------------030802010704090808020302
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
We can build the 15 board as long as the centerboard trunk isn't

swelled up less than the 1.25 inches we need for the new fiberglass,

lead filled board.

The older 15 boards had steel shot for ballast.

The older 17s have the boards that we cannot do.

I called Larry with the 15 (thought he had a 17?) and he will

measure his centerboard trunk gap and if its 1.25 inches we can

supply him a board.

Your right about shipping costs for the boards. It is expensive to

ship a 50 pound lead filled board in a padded box.

UPS drivers have a habit of dropping the box and we have had

boards packed by Mail Boxes Etc. that arrived damaged and in

need of repair. (the edge airfoil shape is fragile on the fiberglass

board).

For the older 17s with the cast iron boards I think a plate-steel

laser cut board would fit. It wouldn't have to be as thick as the older

boards.

Bob

Randy Watkins wrote:

Doug, do you know what year the boat is ( M15 ) in question?

Randy W.

dking@vt.edu 04/04/01 10:28PM >>>


I received an email from a fellow who recently lost his centerboard. He checked
with Bob Eeg, who can't help on the older boards, since the molds were
destroyed in circumstances beyond his, or Jerry M's control (as were the
forward hatch molds) and the new FG boards don't fit--but some of you guys know
more about that than I do.

So, does anybody have any ideas on where/how someone can get another CB for an
older M15?

I found out this stuff when I was inquiring whether Bob minded if I proposed
another solution, not just for 15s, but for the other boats, too.  The idea
would be to see if we could come up with the specs and dimensions for the
boards and a fabricator who could make them based on those drawings. I know
some of you have tried fabrication before and the costs were prohibitive, but I
wonder if we had a set of design drawings that folks like me, who don't have
much experience with this, coul!
d take around and get estimates by cast a wider
net, we might find a workable solution.

Bob was for the idea and mentioned that the price would probably come down if
several were ordered at one time--probably difficult to do, unless enough
people are looking now or will need one soon. 

I don't have a good idea what is involved or who would be willing to help, but
it seems to me it's a problem that's not going to go away as the boats get
older. I know we have some good smart people in the group: engineers,
designers, CAD operators, a boatbuilder or two.  I know it probably isn't easy,
and I know there are variations caused by iron CBs' and iron keels' corrosive
swelling and such, but you got to start somewhere;  I would think the best
place would be with the original design and modify from there. I also think
that once it's done, it may be something none of us has to worry about again.
I'd certainly take plans around here for estim!
ates, prices tend to be cheaper
for this sort of thing and nearby Roanoke, Virginia is a major
maintenance/repair hub for Norfolk Southern, so there are several metal
fabricators there. 

Any comments or corrections?

Doug

Doug King
dking@vt.edu 
M-17 #404 "Vixen"

--------------030802010704090808020302--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 10 of 50

From: "Randy Watkins"
Subject: Re: M_Boats: CB for M15
Date: 05 Apr 2001 10:23:39 -0500
-----------------------------------

Bob, thanks for the info,
no centerboard problems at this time.
Randy W.=20
M15 #194
>>> Bobeeg@earthlink.net 04/05/01 10:21AM >>>
We can build the 15 board as long as the centerboard trunk isn't
swelled up less than the 1.25 inches we need for the new fiberglass,
lead filled board.
The older 15 boards had steel shot for ballast.
The older 17s have the boards that we cannot do.
I called Larry with the 15 (thought he had a 17?) and he will
measure his centerboard trunk gap and if its 1.25 inches we can
supply him a board.
Your right about shipping costs for the boards. It is expensive to
ship a 50 pound lead filled board in a padded box.
UPS drivers have a habit of dropping the box and we have had
boards packed by Mail Boxes Etc. that arrived damaged and in
need of repair. (the edge airfoil shape is fragile on the fiberglass
board).
For the older 17s with the cast iron boards I think a plate-steel
laser cut board would fit. It wouldn't have to be as thick as the older
boards.
Bob
Randy Watkins wrote:
> Doug, do you know what year the boat is ( M15 ) in question?
>=20
> Randy W.=20
>=20
>>>> dking@vt.edu 04/04/01 10:28PM >>>
>>>=20
>=20
> I received an email from a fellow who recently lost his centerboard. He =
checked
> with Bob Eeg, who can't help on the older boards, since the molds were
> destroyed in circumstances beyond his, or Jerry M's control (as were the
> forward hatch molds) and the new FG boards don't fit--but some of you =
guys know
> more about that than I do.
>=20
> So, does anybody have any ideas on where/how someone can get another CB =
for an
> older M15?
>=20
> I found out this stuff when I was inquiring whether Bob minded if I =
proposed
> another solution, not just for 15s, but for the other boats, too. The =
idea
> would be to see if we could come up with the specs and dimensions for =
the
> boards and a fabricator who could make them based on those drawings. I =
know
> some of you have tried fabrication before and the costs were prohibitive,=
but I
> wonder if we had a set of design drawings that folks like me, who don't =
have
> much experience with this, could take around and get estimates by cast a =
wider
> net, we might find a workable solution.
>=20
> Bob was for the idea and mentioned that the price would probably come =
down if
> several were ordered at one time--probably difficult to do, unless =
enough
> people are looking now or will need one soon.=20
>=20
> I don't have a good idea what is involved or who would be willing to =
help, but
> it seems to me it's a problem that's not going to go away as the boats =
get
> older. I know we have some good smart people in the group: engineers,
> designers, CAD operators, a boatbuilder or two. I know it probably =
isn't easy,
> and I know there are variations caused by iron CBs' and iron keels' =
corrosive
> swelling and such, but you got to start somewhere; I would think the =
best
> place would be with the original design and modify from there. I also =
think
> that once it's done, it may be something none of us has to worry about =
again.
> I'd certainly take plans around here for estimates, prices tend to be =
cheaper
> for this sort of thing and nearby Roanoke, Virginia is a major
> maintenance/repair hub for Norfolk Southern, so there are several metal
> fabricators there.=20
>=20
> Any comments or corrections?
>=20
> Doug
>=20
> Doug King
> dking@vt.edu=20
> M-17 #404 "Vixen"
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 11 of 50

From: (Dale Williams)
Subject: M_Boats: centerboard space question
Date: Sun Jan 6 21:21:02 2002
-----------------------------------

>
David,
I bought my boat on consignment at an area boatyard in the middle of
February. On her maided voyage the following May I discovered that the
centerboard was firmly wedged in the up position (word of advice to new
sailors and first time boat buyers...make sure the damn board goes up
and down BEFORE you buy the boat!). I laugh now to think that I tried
diving under the boat with a screw driver to pry the board loose! I
eventually ended up drilling a hole in the bottom edge of the board.
inserting a clevus pin and jacking the board out of the slot with a car
jack.
While deciding on a plan of action, I called Hooper at Hooper's Yachts
near Minneapolis. He told me that the earlier Montys used iron shot as
ballast in the centerboards, and that mine had probably swelled. He
also said that some boatbuilders also added ballast into the centerboard
trunk as well, which could conceivably cause the slot to swell also. I
don't know if the Montgomerys used iron shot in the trunk, but it might
be something to consider.
Dale
"Sophie Mae" M15 #185
> -- David Rossi wrote:
> > I assume that if my old centerboard fit nicely into
> > the space that a new one
> > would too. They should be the same size, right. So
> > on a boat that had the
> > issue of a new centerboard not fitting, how did the
> > old one fit?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 12 of 50

From: M_Boats (Jerry Montgomery)
Subject: M_Boats: Centerboard trials and tribulations
Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 10:11:38 -0700
-----------------------------------

References: <164.ac6a2bf.29cbeb99@aol.com>
Message-ID: <004401c1f457$ec0ea780$b4e2de9e@jerry>
Hi- The shape of the cb is much less critical than that of the rudder
because of aspect ratio, but the cb should still have a reasonably blunt
elliptical entry and fine, non-rounded exit.
Don't get me wrong about the new replacement centerboards. These are not
^improved^; they are are meant only as replacements for lost or damaged
boards, or, if they are made thinner they should ease the pain on boats that
have swollen trunks. For how long, I don't know because if the leaks in the
boats with rusty ballast are not fixed they will probably continue to swell.
If your iron board works, use it.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 13 of 50

From: "Jerry Montgomery"
Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
Date: Tue Oct 15 00:18:19 2002
-----------------------------------

Jerry,
Any idea when on the new board might be ready? My M17 goes to the boatyard
in 2 weeks to have the stuck centerboard removed. I need to decide whether
to wait for your board or to have mine reworked. If you need a boat to test
fit or just to be first, mine is available, I could deliver it to Sacto.
Ken Wheeler
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:06 PM
> I think I'll get started on the centerboard project when things slow down
a
> little this fall. Looks like the way to go might be to tool up a glass
boat
> with a lead core, which would probably weigh less than 100 lbs. I will
> probably make the tooling so that I can make the board in a thickness to
fit
> the trunk. These will not be a cure for boards that stick because the
trunk
> is collapsing; in these cases the trunk will have to be fixed. Assuming
> that that problem is caused by rusting, the leak (where water is getting
in)
> will have to be fixed, the water removed, and the rusty ballast removed.
> This will be neither an easy nor a fun job, but the only sure way I can
see
> is to dig the rusty ballast out from the OUTSIDE of the keel, ram an
insert
> into the trunk to maintain the thickness, re-bond some ballast to replace
> that which has been removed, then repair the outside of the keel.
Probably
> several days' work. I wonder if a cast lead extension to the bottom of
the
> keel, making a fixed keel out of it, might be better in the long run. We
> have made two types of fixed keels for the 17 over the years, and both
> sailed very well. The first few 17's we made, in 73, had a cast iron
keel,
> kind of like a Cal 20 keel, with a bulb on the bottom, and they were very
> stiff because the weight (550 lbs) was concentrated very low, but, like
the
> Cal 20's, they hobby horsed a little going into a chop. In the early 90's
> we made two or maybe three fixed keel boats with a glass extension and
lead
> ballast; they went upwind like crazy. Bob Eeg has that extension mold,
but
> it wouldn't be a good way to change the boat after it was built.
>
> If any of you have any comments about any of this, speak up and I'll start
> another file. The file of respondants to the new CB thjread was lost when
> my old 'puter got sick, but I remember that most were in favor of a glass
> board rather than a cast one because of cost. When I get organized (!)
I'll
> come up with some options.
>
> Jerry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 8:21 PM
> Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
>
>
> > Jerry, did you get enough interest to justify the production of a new
> style
> > CB for the M-17? I know a few people responded, but I am not sure if I
> did. I
> > would like to be put on the list for a CB that will work when I want it
> to.
> > On the question regarding the CB trunk swelling, what are your thoughts
on
> > this...If the new CB does not cure the problem, can we remove some of
the
> > inside of the trunk and not compromise the integrity of the boat?
> > Congratulations on another win, this time in Monterrey Bay. You built
one
> > hell of a boat, but your sailing abilities are probably the key factor!
> > Tom Woodworth
> > M-17 "Wild Hare"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 14 of 50

From: "Ken Wheeler"
Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
Date: Fri Oct 18 02:54:21 2002
-----------------------------------

Jerry,
Are you going to a run of centerboards?
Irv
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:montgomery_boats-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Montgomery
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:38 PM
To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com
Would it be practical for you to have the boat hauled if you are going
to do it anyway, pull the board and see what the problem is? Measure
the inside of the trunk first, by sliding in a spacer. The original
board should be about 7/8"; could be it has swelled up with rust, or it
could be that the trunk has shrunk. You will need to come up with a
good measurement of the trunk anyway, as part of determining the
problem.
I probably will start on the trunk mold an about two or three weeks,
depending on work coming in.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:18 PM
> Jerry,
> Any idea when on the new board might be ready? My M17 goes to the
boatyard
> in 2 weeks to have the stuck centerboard removed. I need to decide
whether
> to wait for your board or to have mine reworked. If you need a boat
> to
test
> fit or just to be first, mine is available, I could deliver it to
> Sacto. Ken Wheeler
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Montgomery"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:06 PM
> Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
>
>
> > I think I'll get started on the centerboard project when things slow
down
> a
> > little this fall. Looks like the way to go might be to tool up a
> > glass
> boat
> > with a lead core, which would probably weigh less than 100 lbs. I
> > will probably make the tooling so that I can make the board in a
> > thickness to
> fit
> > the trunk. These will not be a cure for boards that stick because
> > the
> trunk
> > is collapsing; in these cases the trunk will have to be fixed.
> > Assuming that that problem is caused by rusting, the leak (where
> > water is getting
> in)
> > will have to be fixed, the water removed, and the rusty ballast
> > removed. This will be neither an easy nor a fun job, but the only
> > sure way I can
> see
> > is to dig the rusty ballast out from the OUTSIDE of the keel, ram an
> insert
> > into the trunk to maintain the thickness, re-bond some ballast to
replace
> > that which has been removed, then repair the outside of the keel.
> Probably
> > several days' work. I wonder if a cast lead extension to the bottom
> > of
> the
> > keel, making a fixed keel out of it, might be better in the long
> > run.
We
> > have made two types of fixed keels for the 17 over the years, and
> > both sailed very well. The first few 17's we made, in 73, had a
> > cast iron
> keel,
> > kind of like a Cal 20 keel, with a bulb on the bottom, and they were
very
> > stiff because the weight (550 lbs) was concentrated very low, but,
> > like
> the
> > Cal 20's, they hobby horsed a little going into a chop. In the
> > early
90's
> > we made two or maybe three fixed keel boats with a glass extension
> > and
> lead
> > ballast; they went upwind like crazy. Bob Eeg has that extension
> > mold,
> but
> > it wouldn't be a good way to change the boat after it was built.
> >
> > If any of you have any comments about any of this, speak up and I'll
start
> > another file. The file of respondants to the new CB thjread was
> > lost
when
> > my old 'puter got sick, but I remember that most were in favor of a
glass
> > board rather than a cast one because of cost. When I get organized
> > (!)
> I'll
> > come up with some options.
> >
> > Jerry
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From:
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 8:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
> >
> >
> > > Jerry, did you get enough interest to justify the production of a
> > > new
> > style
> > > CB for the M-17? I know a few people responded, but I am not sure
> > > if I
> > did. I
> > > would like to be put on the list for a CB that will work when I
> > > want
it
> > to.
> > > On the question regarding the CB trunk swelling, what are your
thoughts
> on
> > > this...If the new CB does not cure the problem, can we remove some
> > > of
> the
> > > inside of the trunk and not compromise the integrity of the boat?
> > > Congratulations on another win, this time in Monterrey Bay. You
> > > built
> one
> > > hell of a boat, but your sailing abilities are probably the key
factor!
> > > Tom Woodworth
> > > M-17 "Wild Hare"
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_bo
> > > ats
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boat
> > s
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 15 of 50

From: "Ken Wheeler"
Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
Date: Fri Oct 18 02:59:01 2002
-----------------------------------

Jerry,
The question is are you going to do a run of centerboards?
Irv
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:montgomery_boats-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Irv
Kooris
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:54 PM
To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com
Jerry,
Are you going to a run of centerboards?
Irv
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:montgomery_boats-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Montgomery
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:38 PM
To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com
Would it be practical for you to have the boat hauled if you are going
to do it anyway, pull the board and see what the problem is? Measure
the inside of the trunk first, by sliding in a spacer. The original
board should be about 7/8"; could be it has swelled up with rust, or it
could be that the trunk has shrunk. You will need to come up with a
good measurement of the trunk anyway, as part of determining the
problem.
I probably will start on the trunk mold an about two or three weeks,
depending on work coming in.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:18 PM
> Jerry,
> Any idea when on the new board might be ready? My M17 goes to the
boatyard
> in 2 weeks to have the stuck centerboard removed. I need to decide
whether
> to wait for your board or to have mine reworked. If you need a boat
> to
test
> fit or just to be first, mine is available, I could deliver it to
> Sacto. Ken Wheeler
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Montgomery"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:06 PM
> Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
>
>
> > I think I'll get started on the centerboard project when things slow
down
> a
> > little this fall. Looks like the way to go might be to tool up a
> > glass
> boat
> > with a lead core, which would probably weigh less than 100 lbs. I
> > will probably make the tooling so that I can make the board in a
> > thickness to
> fit
> > the trunk. These will not be a cure for boards that stick because
> > the
> trunk
> > is collapsing; in these cases the trunk will have to be fixed.
> > Assuming that that problem is caused by rusting, the leak (where
> > water is getting
> in)
> > will have to be fixed, the water removed, and the rusty ballast
> > removed. This will be neither an easy nor a fun job, but the only
> > sure way I can
> see
> > is to dig the rusty ballast out from the OUTSIDE of the keel, ram an
> insert
> > into the trunk to maintain the thickness, re-bond some ballast to
replace
> > that which has been removed, then repair the outside of the keel.
> Probably
> > several days' work. I wonder if a cast lead extension to the bottom
> > of
> the
> > keel, making a fixed keel out of it, might be better in the long
> > run.
We
> > have made two types of fixed keels for the 17 over the years, and
> > both sailed very well. The first few 17's we made, in 73, had a
> > cast iron
> keel,
> > kind of like a Cal 20 keel, with a bulb on the bottom, and they were
very
> > stiff because the weight (550 lbs) was concentrated very low, but,
> > like
> the
> > Cal 20's, they hobby horsed a little going into a chop. In the
> > early
90's
> > we made two or maybe three fixed keel boats with a glass extension
> > and
> lead
> > ballast; they went upwind like crazy. Bob Eeg has that extension
> > mold,
> but
> > it wouldn't be a good way to change the boat after it was built.
> >
> > If any of you have any comments about any of this, speak up and I'll
start
> > another file. The file of respondants to the new CB thjread was
> > lost
when
> > my old 'puter got sick, but I remember that most were in favor of a
glass
> > board rather than a cast one because of cost. When I get organized
> > (!)
> I'll
> > come up with some options.
> >
> > Jerry
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From:
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 8:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
> >
> >
> > > Jerry, did you get enough interest to justify the production of a
> > > new
> > style
> > > CB for the M-17? I know a few people responded, but I am not sure
> > > if I
> > did. I
> > > would like to be put on the list for a CB that will work when I
> > > want
it
> > to.
> > > On the question regarding the CB trunk swelling, what are your
thoughts
> on
> > > this...If the new CB does not cure the problem, can we remove some
> > > of
> the
> > > inside of the trunk and not compromise the integrity of the boat?
> > > Congratulations on another win, this time in Monterrey Bay. You
> > > built
> one
> > > hell of a boat, but your sailing abilities are probably the key
factor!
> > > Tom Woodworth
> > > M-17 "Wild Hare"
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_bo
> > > ats
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boat
> > s
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 16 of 50

From: "Jerry Montgomery"
Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
Date: Fri Oct 18 16:31:03 2002
-----------------------------------

Jerry,
Thanks for the advice. The original dimensions will really help. I had
planned on checking to see if the trunk is the problem or the board. I
figured if it was just a rusty board the money I would spend on the old
board might better spent on one of your new boards. If it's the trunk, I'll
probably just sail with the board in the raised position, sounds really
expensive to try to remove and replace the ballast in my 20 year old keel.
Thanks again, Ken Wheeler
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:38 PM
> Would it be practical for you to have the boat hauled if you are going to
do
> it anyway, pull the board and see what the problem is? Measure the inside
> of the trunk first, by sliding in a spacer. The original board should be
> about 7/8"; could be it has swelled up with rust, or it could be that the
> trunk has shrunk. You will need to come up with a good measurement of the
> trunk anyway, as part of determining the problem.
>
> I probably will start on the trunk mold an about two or three weeks,
> depending on work coming in.
>
> Jerry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Wheeler"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:18 PM
> Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
>
>
> > Jerry,
> > Any idea when on the new board might be ready? My M17 goes to the
> boatyard
> > in 2 weeks to have the stuck centerboard removed. I need to decide
> whether
> > to wait for your board or to have mine reworked. If you need a boat to
> test
> > fit or just to be first, mine is available, I could deliver it to Sacto.
> > Ken Wheeler
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jerry Montgomery"
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
> >
> >
> > > I think I'll get started on the centerboard project when things slow
> down
> > a
> > > little this fall. Looks like the way to go might be to tool up a
glass
> > boat
> > > with a lead core, which would probably weigh less than 100 lbs. I
will
> > > probably make the tooling so that I can make the board in a thickness
to
> > fit
> > > the trunk. These will not be a cure for boards that stick because the
> > trunk
> > > is collapsing; in these cases the trunk will have to be fixed.
Assuming
> > > that that problem is caused by rusting, the leak (where water is
getting
> > in)
> > > will have to be fixed, the water removed, and the rusty ballast
removed.
> > > This will be neither an easy nor a fun job, but the only sure way I
can
> > see
> > > is to dig the rusty ballast out from the OUTSIDE of the keel, ram an
> > insert
> > > into the trunk to maintain the thickness, re-bond some ballast to
> replace
> > > that which has been removed, then repair the outside of the keel.
> > Probably
> > > several days' work. I wonder if a cast lead extension to the bottom
of
> > the
> > > keel, making a fixed keel out of it, might be better in the long run.
> We
> > > have made two types of fixed keels for the 17 over the years, and both
> > > sailed very well. The first few 17's we made, in 73, had a cast iron
> > keel,
> > > kind of like a Cal 20 keel, with a bulb on the bottom, and they were
> very
> > > stiff because the weight (550 lbs) was concentrated very low, but,
like
> > the
> > > Cal 20's, they hobby horsed a little going into a chop. In the early
> 90's
> > > we made two or maybe three fixed keel boats with a glass extension and
> > lead
> > > ballast; they went upwind like crazy. Bob Eeg has that extension
mold,
> > but
> > > it wouldn't be a good way to change the boat after it was built.
> > >
> > > If any of you have any comments about any of this, speak up and I'll
> start
> > > another file. The file of respondants to the new CB thjread was lost
> when
> > > my old 'puter got sick, but I remember that most were in favor of a
> glass
> > > board rather than a cast one because of cost. When I get organized
(!)
> > I'll
> > > come up with some options.
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From:
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 8:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
> > >
> > >
> > > > Jerry, did you get enough interest to justify the production of a
new
> > > style
> > > > CB for the M-17? I know a few people responded, but I am not sure if
I
> > > did. I
> > > > would like to be put on the list for a CB that will work when I want
> it
> > > to.
> > > > On the question regarding the CB trunk swelling, what are your
> thoughts
> > on
> > > > this...If the new CB does not cure the problem, can we remove some
of
> > the
> > > > inside of the trunk and not compromise the integrity of the boat?
> > > > Congratulations on another win, this time in Monterrey Bay. You
built
> > one
> > > > hell of a boat, but your sailing abilities are probably the key
> factor!
> > > > Tom Woodworth
> > > > M-17 "Wild Hare"
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > >
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

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 17 of 50

From: "Ken Wheeler"
Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
Date: Sat Nov 2 01:38:08 2002
-----------------------------------

Would it be practical for you to have the boat hauled if you are going to do
it anyway, pull the board and see what the problem is? Measure the inside
of the trunk first, by sliding in a spacer. The original board should be
about 7/8"; could be it has swelled up with rust, or it could be that the
trunk has shrunk. You will need to come up with a good measurement of the
trunk anyway, as part of determining the problem.
I probably will start on the trunk mold an about two or three weeks,
depending on work coming in.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:18 PM
> Jerry,
> Any idea when on the new board might be ready? My M17 goes to the
boatyard
> in 2 weeks to have the stuck centerboard removed. I need to decide
whether
> to wait for your board or to have mine reworked. If you need a boat to
test
> fit or just to be first, mine is available, I could deliver it to Sacto.
> Ken Wheeler
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Montgomery"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:06 PM
> Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
>
>
> > I think I'll get started on the centerboard project when things slow
down
> a
> > little this fall. Looks like the way to go might be to tool up a glass
> boat
> > with a lead core, which would probably weigh less than 100 lbs. I will
> > probably make the tooling so that I can make the board in a thickness to
> fit
> > the trunk. These will not be a cure for boards that stick because the
> trunk
> > is collapsing; in these cases the trunk will have to be fixed. Assuming
> > that that problem is caused by rusting, the leak (where water is getting
> in)
> > will have to be fixed, the water removed, and the rusty ballast removed.
> > This will be neither an easy nor a fun job, but the only sure way I can
> see
> > is to dig the rusty ballast out from the OUTSIDE of the keel, ram an
> insert
> > into the trunk to maintain the thickness, re-bond some ballast to
replace
> > that which has been removed, then repair the outside of the keel.
> Probably
> > several days' work. I wonder if a cast lead extension to the bottom of
> the
> > keel, making a fixed keel out of it, might be better in the long run.
We
> > have made two types of fixed keels for the 17 over the years, and both
> > sailed very well. The first few 17's we made, in 73, had a cast iron
> keel,
> > kind of like a Cal 20 keel, with a bulb on the bottom, and they were
very
> > stiff because the weight (550 lbs) was concentrated very low, but, like
> the
> > Cal 20's, they hobby horsed a little going into a chop. In the early
90's
> > we made two or maybe three fixed keel boats with a glass extension and
> lead
> > ballast; they went upwind like crazy. Bob Eeg has that extension mold,
> but
> > it wouldn't be a good way to change the boat after it was built.
> >
> > If any of you have any comments about any of this, speak up and I'll
start
> > another file. The file of respondants to the new CB thjread was lost
when
> > my old 'puter got sick, but I remember that most were in favor of a
glass
> > board rather than a cast one because of cost. When I get organized (!)
> I'll
> > come up with some options.
> >
> > Jerry
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From:
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 8:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: M_Boats: Older M17 Centerboard
> >
> >
> > > Jerry, did you get enough interest to justify the production of a new
> > style
> > > CB for the M-17? I know a few people responded, but I am not sure if I
> > did. I
> > > would like to be put on the list for a CB that will work when I want
it
> > to.
> > > On the question regarding the CB trunk swelling, what are your
thoughts
> on
> > > this...If the new CB does not cure the problem, can we remove some of
> the
> > > inside of the trunk and not compromise the integrity of the boat?
> > > Congratulations on another win, this time in Monterrey Bay. You built
> one
> > > hell of a boat, but your sailing abilities are probably the key
factor!
> > > Tom Woodworth
> > > M-17 "Wild Hare"
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 18 of 50

From: (ron and cathryn goodspeed)
Subject: M_Boats: Hula Pie's Keel
Date: Sun Dec 22 19:56:21 2002
-----------------------------------

Hello Lenny,
She is a 1974 M17, Hull #025 and has the conventional keel with a cast
iron centerboard and a small winch inside just below the companionway
sill. I assume the ballast is iron rather than lead. She has a cutout
in the transom, port side, that looks like it is original as Jerry built
her. Large cockpit locker to port and small locker aft starboard- not
really lockers as both open directly to the hull. By going headfirst
into the starboard quarterberth I can access the single cockpit drain
and fittings. Do you think your '77 was original or modified? Jerry
wrote in his history that a few fixed keel boats were built but I don't
recall hearing about a swing keel model.
Ron

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 19 of 50

From: "Martin Johnson"
Subject: inspection ports
Date: Mon Jan 13 01:30:05 2003
-----------------------------------

Thanks Martin. I'm terrified of moisture in the ballast, given peoples'
problems with swelling centerboard trunks: I'm hoping it's a problem my '84
17' doesn't have. --Craig
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 5:51 PM
The only test I can think of is to put it on a trailer and watch for drips
out the bottom. If water got in, it should come out. My leak was tiny,
like one drip every ten seconds. this adds up to a lot if your boat stays
in the water. My leak was more troublesome to diagnose because the boat was
frozen half the time, so more water would appear as more ice melted.
Or you could drill a hole in your floor and insert a siphon hose...
Do you know of a non-intrusive test for moisture in this area (I'm
guessing
the iron ballast would skew a moisture-meter)?
Craig,
The little brass inspection ports allow access to the space between the
hull
and liner, which extends into the keel. Regarding my situation, several
gallons of water leaked into the keel before I saw it penetrating through
a
crack in the liner. Through my new ports I can check for more water
accumulating(hopefully none) and vacuum out any water in the fall and add
antifreeze to prevent damage from expanding ice in the keel. During daily
use these ports will be closed so spray, rainwater, beer, etc. doesn't get
below the floor.
Martin

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 20 of 50

From: Keith Diehl
Subject: M_Boats: History of the M17
Date: 05 Nov 1996 20:44:24 -0700 (MST)
-----------------------------------

First the apology. This article is stolen from the Spring 1995 issue of the
Montgomery Owner's Newsletter. Since this was complimentary issue, I hope the
publisher won't mind my unauthorized reproduction here.
Second, the commercial. If you aren't receiving the Montgomery Owner's
Newsletter then this is the kind of article that you are missing. Send a $15
check made out to Terry Schwarze to Terry at:
P.O. Box 1091
Winona, WI 55987
You can reach Terry by e-mail at schwarze@VAX2.Winona.MSUS.EDU
==============================================================================
DESIGN CHANGES THROUGH THE YEARS
by Jerry Montgomery
A HISTORY OF THE 17:
The Montgomerty 17 was designed by Lyle Hess, a well-known and highly respected
designer of blue-water cruising boats, as an able coastal cruiser; small enough
to be easily trailered but capable of moderate offshore passages. The first 17s
were made as fixed keel boats, with a 525 lb. cast iron, bolt-on keel, and we
took the first two to the Newport, RI, and Annapolis, MD boat shows in the fall
of �73 and sold over 30 of them between the two shows, strictly on the
reputations of the designer and builder and the obvious quality of the boat.
Several of these were fixed keel boats, but most were orders for the announced
keel/centerboard version. A total of about 20 of the early fixed keel 17s were
made and the remain very stiff, seaworthy boats. (These boats are now old
enough that keel bolts should be replaced for safety�s sake, and I still have a
supply of the old 5/8" hi-tensile galvanized steel bolts, which are very
difficult to find now). Soon after the shows, we finished the tooling for the
still-current keel/CB version. I believe that the M-17 was the first production
boat to use end-grain balsa coring in the deck.
In the late 70�s we made several flush deck 17s, which were a racing version
with a flat deck like a Soling or Etchells 22, with no house and a small, self
bailing cockpit. This started out as a lark, actually, because a good friend,
also a boat builder, agreed to make the plug (mock-up) for the new deck mold in
exchange for a 17 hull, which he wanted to finish off and sail to Hawaii. I
made a mold off the plug, and made the first boat, Coyote, for myself. [I
believe Coyote now belongs to John & Anne Lubliner in Tucson, AZ - kdiehl] I
took it to the October race in Guaymas, Mexico a few weeks later, and even
though I did not yet have a spinnaker, finished 6th boat-for-boat on the first
day and 2nd on the second day. A Venture 17 and I were the two smallest boats
in the fleet, and not knowing anything about a Montgomery 17, let alone a flush
deck 17, the race committee rated me the same as the Venture, which is a slow
boat, and I won by so much on corrected time the first day that I had only to
finish on he second day in order to take first overall. I also won the second
day.
Later in the year, I sold Coyote (to an incredible guy in Tucson who won the
Guaymas race the next two years with it) to help dig up money for the down
payment on a house. The flush deck was a little lighter than a normal 17, had
less windage because of the flat deck, and had a taller and higher aspect rig.
It was a handful in a blow, but a light air bomb! I ended up building 9 of
them, but destroyed the deck mold when I moved to the Sacramento area in 1987.
During the late 70�s we also made 15 or 20 tall rig 17�s; the mast was 1�9"
taller than normal. Most of these were sold in the light-air areas of southern
California and Arizona (mostly sailed in the Sea of Cortez).
In 1981 we retooled the 17, mostly because the molds had had several hundred
boats made form them and were getting worn out, but incorporated several minor
changes, like improving the windows, cockpit drainage, and the hull/deck joint,
and changing the toe rails, forward hatch details, etc. In about �84 we changed
from extruded aluminum toe rails to those of teak, mostly because of changing
market trends. In 1987 we made a centerboard change; from cast iron to
fiberglass with a lead core. The new centerboards were thicker in section but
smaller in profile, and I can�t tell the difference between the two types in
sailing them. This change was made in response to death threats and other
complaints resulting from the rusting problem common to cast iron. The new
centerboards are no better, but they don�t rust. The older ones are probably
more reliable, being cast iron, but we�ve had no problems with the new after 6
years. At the same time, we changed from steel to lead ballast, and increased
the total ballast weight from 55 to 600 lbs.
The older, pre-81 17s are nearly as good as the newer; the difference being
mostly that of cosmetics and other slight refinements, but they are usually a
good bit less expensive in the broker�s yards. The biggest improvement in the
1981 17 was the addition of the wet locker, and the resulting improvement in
cockpit drainage.
Other changes have been in the interior. Originally the 17 had a "three berth"
interior; a double berth forward and a quarter berth on the starboard. On port,
opposite the starboard berth, was a molded-in galley unit consisting of a sink
with storage under, and a place for a stove. A few years later (about �78 or
so) we tooled a new interior with four berths, replacing the galley unit with a
port side quarter berth which was a mirror-image of the starboard berth.
Neither of these interiors was perfect. The 3-berth lacked sitting room below;
two people could shoehorn themselves onto the starboard berth and sit there
like a couple of sardines, but it was far from comfortable. The galley/sink
unit was seldom used except in cold or wet weather. And its most valuable
qualities were the storage under, and even more important, the cockpit storage
behind it, accessible through the port side cockpit hatch. The 4-berth had
great sitting room for two people (or cramped room for four), but no galley for
storage, and since the portside quarter berth ran all the way back under the
cockpit, no storage there. To me, the 4-berth was the least desirable of the
interiors.
In about �87, we changed to the present interior, which is an adaptation of the
previous two. On port, instead of the galley, we have a shortened (5� long)
berth that allows the much-needed sitting room and is long enough for a
half-grown kid to sleep on, but still leaves enough room behind it for cockpit
accessed storage. This is by far the best interior of the three and we have
long since discontinued the other two.
COCKPIT DRAINAGE:
The 17 has a large cockpit with high coamings and has an unusual and highly
effective drainage system.
The cockpit drains into a "wet locker" which is at the aft end of the cockpit
next to the transom, through two �" drains. This wet locker drains our through
the transom, one of which can be used to pass out the fuel line for an outboard
(or the cable for an electric motor). These are above the waterline and involve
no hoses or clamps, and are intended to drain off a great volume of water
quickly. Two �" drains consisting of copper pipes bonded to the hull and the
underside of the wet locker portion of the deck, connected by hoses. These are
set lower than the primary drains, and are intended to bleed off any water left
in the wet locker. They are small in order to reduce any water backing into the
cockpit or wet locker from a heavily laden boat in rough water.
A great advantage of this system is that additional drainage can easily be
provided by simply cutting more holes through the back of the cockpit well,
into the wet locker, and our through the transom. A sailor planning on some
real blue-water sailing could add 6 or 8 additional holes, which would be an
extremely effective system for very rough conditions.
COCKPIT LOCKERS:
There are three cockpit stowage lockers in the 17; a port side locker that is
quite large and goes all the way to the bottom of the hull and is intended for
anchor, chain, and rode, but has plenty of additional room for fenders, dock
lines, etc; a starboard locker in the form of a 21"x8"x4" enclosed box that is
ideal for navigational gear, winch handles, etc. and the previously-mentioned
wet locker that is ideal; for fuel storage and a muddy anchor.
These three lockers all have identical hatch covers that are 12"x25"; the hatch
openings themselves are about an inch smaller in both dimensions. All hinges
are stainless, and we use an ingenious locking setup for the port and starboard
hatches using line and clam cleats, accessible from the interior, that is much
cleaner than the normal hasps and padlocks.
INTERIOR STOWAGE:
All interior storage areas in the 17 are sealed off by bulkheads, sanded
smooth, and painted with interior gelcoat. No rough edges and glass slivers! We
take great pride in our workmanship in areas where you cannot see, such as
underneath the berths and cockpit. The interior molding, itself, is engineered
not only for great strength but for utility and abundant storage.
There are three access openings into the storage area under the forward berth;
one large one on the starboard side over the head, and two smaller ones
(13x17), one on the port side for access to the battery and to the back side of
the master switch and switch panel, if so equipped, and the forward opening is
for access to the vast area forward of the head and battery. I load up this
area with as much as 20 gallons of water (mostly in 1 gal. plastic jugs) when
cruising in Mexico.
Under each quarter berth is storage that is p[perfect for anything heavy and in
small containers, like soft drinks, canned food, tackle boxes, and tools.
MASTHEAD RIG:
The 17 has a masthead rig, with spreaders, upper and lower shrouds, and a split
backstay. The masthead rig provides more sail flexibility than other rigs and
provides larger genoas and spinnakers for light air performance. The backstay
chain plates and the connecting triangle have extra holes to simplify the job
of adding a backstay adjuster. The 17, like most larger mast-headed boats, is
usually sailed with a 150% genoa.
ONE-PIECE RUDDER:
We have elected to use a vertical-sliding, one piece rudder on the 17 for the
sake of strength and reliability. The boat is made for severe conditions and we
didn�t want the rudder to be the weak link, as it is in most trailerables. The
rudder slides up and down on a �" bronze rod so that it can be installed while
the boat is on the trailer, before launching, in the up position, then dropped
to the down position after the boat is in the water. The rudder is made of
mahogany out of 1 �" thick stock.
KEEL BILGE:
In the aft part of the keel, behind the centerboard trunk, is an open bilge.
Any water that finds itself into the boat will collect in the bilge and can be
easily dipped or pumped out instead of sloshing around in the bottom of the
boat. Also, when cruising, I dump the chain of the spare anchor and rode on top
of it. This locks it in place where it becomes additional ballast but allows
the anchor to be taken out quickly if needed. Our 15 had this same ad
advantage.
BALSA CORE DECK:
We have more man hours in laying up the deck than we do in the hull! The 17
deck weighs less then 250 lbs yet is extremely stiff and strong. End-grain
balsa is expensive and labor-intensive but is worth every penny. The CG (center
of gravity) of the boat is lowered considerably, there is less strain on the
hull-deck joint because of the stiffness, and it insulates from heat and cold
and deadens sound. Spider cracks from flexing are eliminated. Unless my memory
fails me, we started using balsa in 1974 and were one of the very first
production builders to do so. Now, most of the more expensive builders use it,
but the builders of the price boats use plywood or particle board or a slurry
made from sawdust and resin, or nothing at all. Our decks are one of the
secrets behind our outstanding reputation. The 15 deck is built the same way.
PERFORMANCE:
I�m the kind of guy that from the first time I went sailing I tried to pass
every boat in sight, and I�m not alone. One of the fun things in life is to
work your way past a Catalina 22 and, once ahead and upwind, oversheet just a
bit to rub it in. The 17 is a giant killer. A well-tuned 17 is very
close-winded and excels in the extremes. She glides along beautifully in a
drifter and will outsail most trailerables of 20 to 22 feet in a blow,
particularly upwind. Boats like Potters and Compacs are so far behind they
might as well be going the other way, A slow boat is not fun to sail, and I
imagine that it�s not fun to have a couple of little kids in an 8� pram jeer at
you as they overtake and sail past. A boat that is a dog in light air or won�t
sail to weather against a 25 knot wind is frustrating and a real bore. Think
about it. I sometimes joke about "floaters" or "floating house trailers" (boats
that float around rather than sail), but they�re really not a joke if your are
trying to sail one. I have the attitude that the first requirement of a
sailboat is to sail well and I take great pains to make the 17 an outstanding
sailboat.
============
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 21 of 50

From: haudsley at tranquility.net (Howard Audsley)
Subject: M_Boats: centerboard on 81' M17
Date: Wed Apr 30 22:18:37 2003
-----------------------------------

Manuel:
If you have not already done so, you may want to visit the MSOG site, and
look at how the centerboard is attached:
http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m-17-cb.cfm
If you still have a board, and it will not come down...you need to know that
a problem on some of the older boats, with cast iron ballast...is the cast
ballast iron rusts..and swells the CB trunk tight against the board....which
may also be rusting...and for whatever reason, it will not drop down. Or it
may also have some mud or other debris keeping it lodged up. I think that
would be a better problem to have than it being gone.
But to find out for sure...you may have to haul the boat of the water. If
you have a trailer...it's easy to see into the trunk with it on the water.
It's either there or it's not...and then you proceed accordingly.
If it's gone...a welding shop can make a new one from plate steel. The
pattern is available.
Good Luck,
Howard
M17, #278
Audasea

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 22 of 50

From: msog at msog.org (Doug King)
Subject: M_Boats: CB & Ballast
Date: Thu May 8 01:02:09 2003
-----------------------------------

George and all,
I just set up a pre-selected topic for the stuck CB discussions and stored
in the archive (this subject recurs once or twice a year, as do many of them).
Click on the link below or go to
http://msog.org/cfmods/list_archive_search.cfm and choose "Centerboard
Stuck" from below the search form.
http://msog.org/cfmods/list_archive_results.cfm?first_srch_text=centerboard&second_srch_text=ballast&third_srch_text=iron
These searches are extremely useful, can save you days of inquiry, and is
as valuable a resource as writing to the list itself.
If anyone has trouble figuring out how to search the list archive or use
the pre-selected topics, please email me offlist at msog@msog.org and let
me know what you're having trouble with. I will be happy to help and it
could well be that I can make it easier to use based on the problems
reported. And don't be shy.
Doug
At 10:53 PM 5/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
Pre 1987 M17 Owners
I understand that pre 87 boats had a cast iron Center Board and iron shot
ballast. I would be interested in hearing from existing owners about any
problems they have encountered due to iron with the potential for rusting
and causing binding problems.
The 17's I have located are both fresh water boats an 82 and a 76
Thank you for the prior response on 15 Vs 17
George
Boatless
We cannot direct the wind,
but we can adjust our sails.
>_______________________________________________
>http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
------------------------------------------
Doug King
M-17 #404 "Vixen"
Montgomery Sailboats Owners Group Web site: http://msog.org
Email: mailto:msog@msog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/private/montgomery_boats/attachments/20030508/cacf31eb/attachment.html

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 23 of 50

From: "Irvin Kooris"
Subject: M_Boats: Iron Ballast
Date: Mon Jun 30 20:18:36 2003
-----------------------------------

Irv:
My boat is a 1986 hull number 406 and I have a glass board. Doug King's boat
is a 1986 hull number 404 and I believe has the iron centerboard. I may very
well have the first glass board 17 (can't find a listing for hull number
405.
Maria
----- Original Message -----
To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"

Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:23 PM
> Does anyone know the last year iron ballast was used in the 17?
> Thanks
> Irv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 24 of 50

From: kooris at rcn.com (Irvin Kooris)
Subject: M_Boats: Iron Ballast
Date: Mon Jun 30 22:10:14 2003
-----------------------------------

Maria,
Thanks for the information. Curious to see what others have to say.
Irv
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 07:18 PM, Maria Jorge wrote:
> Irv:
> My boat is a 1986 hull number 406 and I have a glass board. Doug
> King's boat
> is a 1986 hull number 404 and I believe has the iron centerboard. I
> may very
> well have the first glass board 17 (can't find a listing for hull
> number
> 405.
> Maria
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Irvin Kooris"
> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"
>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:23 PM
> Subject: M_Boats: Iron Ballast
>
>
>> Does anyone know the last year iron ballast was used in the 17?
>> Thanks
>> Irv
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 25 of 50

From: kooris at rcn.com (Irvin Kooris)
Subject: M_Boats: Iron Ballast
Date: Mon Jun 30 23:01:10 2003
-----------------------------------

Maria,
Any idea about the keel ballast is it lead or steel that can rust.
Irv
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 07:18 PM, Maria Jorge wrote:
> Irv:
> My boat is a 1986 hull number 406 and I have a glass board. Doug
> King's boat
> is a 1986 hull number 404 and I believe has the iron centerboard. I
> may very
> well have the first glass board 17 (can't find a listing for hull
> number
> 405.
> Maria
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Irvin Kooris"
> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"
>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:23 PM
> Subject: M_Boats: Iron Ballast
>
>
>> Does anyone know the last year iron ballast was used in the 17?
>> Thanks
>> Irv
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 26 of 50

From: "Irvin Kooris"
Subject: Re: M_Boats: Iron Ballast
Date: Tue Jul 1 00:40:26 2003
-----------------------------------

Irv:
The ballast is iron on the older boats. On the boats with the glass board, I
think the ballast is lead. There is also lead in the glass centerboard to
keep it down.
----- Original Message -----
To: "Maria Jorge" ; "For and about Montgomery
Sailboats"
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 10:01 PM
> Maria,
> Any idea about the keel ballast is it lead or steel that can rust.
> Irv
>
> On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 07:18 PM, Maria Jorge wrote:
>
> > Irv:
> > My boat is a 1986 hull number 406 and I have a glass board. Doug
> > King's boat
> > is a 1986 hull number 404 and I believe has the iron centerboard. I
> > may very
> > well have the first glass board 17 (can't find a listing for hull
> > number
> > 405.
> > Maria
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Irvin Kooris"
> > To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"
> >
> > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:23 PM
> > Subject: M_Boats: Iron Ballast
> >
> >
> >> Does anyone know the last year iron ballast was used in the 17?
> >> Thanks
> >> Irv
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 27 of 50

From: HarveyWilson at compuserve.com (Harvey Wilson)
Subject: M_Boats: Iron Ballast
Date: Tue Jul 1 22:51:04 2003
-----------------------------------

Hi Maria..
You may have a glass centerboard, but IIRC, Jerry still used iron/steel
pellets in the keel for ballast
Harvey/ Ga
M-17 Stargazer #294

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 28 of 50

From: "Harvey Wilson"
Subject: Re: M_Boats: Iron Ballast
Date: Tue Jul 1 23:09:38 2003
-----------------------------------

Harvey:
Oh well, you're probably right. Wishful thinking on my part. I wonder why
Jerry didn't use lead for ballast (cost?). Do the newer Montgomerys use
lead for ballast?
Maria
M-17 Halcyon #406
----- Original Message -----
To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"

Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:51 PM
Hi Maria..
You may have a glass centerboard, but IIRC, Jerry still used iron/steel
pellets in the keel for ballast
Harvey/ Ga
M-17 Stargazer #294
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 29 of 50

From: msog at msog.org (Doug King)
Subject: M_Boats: Iron Ballast
Date: Wed Jul 2 03:25:33 2003
-----------------------------------

Correct, Maria. And the magnet on the back of my beer bottle opener
confirms the ballast is not lead, so I'm assuming steel.
I should have pictures tomorrow. I figured I'd put up a page to some
pictures of the Bermuda trip for a short while, but I think the web site
should remain dedicated to M-boats. In this case, I invoke web master's
prerogative. It is an awesome power which I shall try not to abuse too often.
Doug King
At 07:18 PM 6/30/03 -0400, you wrote:
>Irv:
>My boat is a 1986 hull number 406 and I have a glass board. Doug King's boat
>is a 1986 hull number 404 and I believe has the iron centerboard. I may very
>well have the first glass board 17 (can't find a listing for hull number
>405.
>Maria
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Irvin Kooris"
>To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"
>
>Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:23 PM
>Subject: M_Boats: Iron Ballast
>
>
> > Does anyone know the last year iron ballast was used in the 17?
> > Thanks
> > Irv
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/private/montgomery_boats/attachments/20030702/6807b8cb/attachment.html

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 30 of 50

From: "Irvin Kooris"
Subject: Iron Ballast
Date: Wed Jul 2 23:06:06 2003
-----------------------------------

<5.0.2.1.2.20030702021837.00a88140@mail.msog.org>
I'd like to encourage you to exercise that power, Doug: I want to see those pics. --Craig
----- Original Message -----
To: Maria Jorge ; montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:25 AM
Correct, Maria. And the magnet on the back of my beer bottle opener confirms the ballast is not lead, so I'm assuming steel.
I should have pictures tomorrow. I figured I'd put up a page to some pictures of the Bermuda trip for a short while, but I think the web site should remain dedicated to M-boats. In this case, I invoke web master's prerogative. It is an awesome power which I shall try not to abuse too often.
Doug King
At 07:18 PM 6/30/03 -0400, you wrote:
Irv:
My boat is a 1986 hull number 406 and I have a glass board. Doug King's boat
is a 1986 hull number 404 and I believe has the iron centerboard. I may very
well have the first glass board 17 (can't find a listing for hull number
405.
Maria
----- Original Message -----
To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"

Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:23 PM
Does anyone know the last year iron ballast was used in the 17?
Thanks
Irv
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/private/montgomery_boats/attachments/20030702/7b57e2f3/attachment.html

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 31 of 50

From: kooris at rcn.com (Irvin Kooris)
Subject: M_Boats: Bermuda Trip
Date: Wed Jul 2 23:10:32 2003
-----------------------------------

I agree bring on the pictures
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 10:06 PM, Honshells wrote:
> ?
> I'd like to encourage you to exercise that power, Doug:? I want to see
> those pics.? --Craig
> ?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Doug King
> To: Maria Jorge ; montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:25 AM
> Subject: Iron Ballast
>
> Correct, Maria. And the magnet on the back of my beer bottle opener
> confirms the ballast is?? not lead, so I'm assuming steel.
>
> I should have pictures tomorrow. I figured I'd put up a page to some
> pictures of the Bermuda trip for a short while, but I think the web
> site should remain dedicated to M-boats. In this case, I invoke web
> master's prerogative. It is an awesome power which I shall try not to
> abuse too often.
>
> Doug King
>
> At 07:18 PM 6/30/03 -0400, you wrote:
>
> ?
>
> Irv:
> My boat is a 1986 hull number 406 and I have a glass board. Doug
> King's boat
> is a 1986 hull number 404 and I believe has the iron centerboard. I
> may very
> well have the first glass board 17 (can't find a listing for hull
> number
> 405.
> Maria
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Irvin Kooris"
> To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"
>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:23 PM
> Subject: Iron Ballast
>
> Does anyone know the last year iron ballast was used in the 17?
> Thanks
> Irv
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1773 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/private/montgomery_boats/attachments/20030702/e6583f07/attachment.bin

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 32 of 50

From: diklang32 at hotmail.com (dik lang)
Subject: M_Boats: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
Date: Sat Sep 13 09:04:15 2003
-----------------------------------

I have to ask the question. Has anyone considered using HDPE for a
centerboard on the m-17? It is cheap compared to the alternatives, can be
cut with a bandsaw, no corrosion, low friction, doesn't support maarine
growth, needs no maint. Stainless bushings and stops could be inserted as
needed. My only real concern is, will it be stiff enough laterally? If this
is a real option would the lack of weight be of concern? could add'l ballast
be placed elswhere? Jerry? Bob? any comments?
>From: John Fleming
>Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
>Sailboats
>To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
>
>Subject: Re: M_Boats: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
>Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:57:53 -0700
>
>Jerry Montgomery wrote:
>>Note that the M-17 centerboards were of cast iron- not steel, which is
>>much
>>more corrosion resistant. Does Mr. Warren talk about this? Also note
>>that
>>the stainless wire pennant is aftermarket; we used dacron.
>>
>>Jerry
>
>Hi Jerry,
>
>That's interesting, dacron rope. Is it stable when immersed in seawater?
>How often should it be checked and or replaced? Would I just tie a knot?
>
>Yes, Nigel Warren discusses cast iron, the complete discussion is below.
>To summarize, he says that iron and mild steel corrode at the same rate,
>but have different corrosion behavior. Cast irons with significant amounts
>of nickel, silicon, or chromium rust much more slowly than ordinary cast
>iron.
>
>Obviously, stainless corrodes more slowly, but it has problems with crevice
>corrosion, especially in areas of high flow or no flow. I'll scan that
>discussion in some other time.
>
>Regards,
>John Fleming
>M-17: "Star Cross'd"
>
>----
>
>While wrought iron is not much used today, cast iron is still popular. The
>various grades of cast iron are produced by varying the composition (and
>here carbon is important) and by varying the crystalline structure as seen
>under a microscope. The latter is done by various furnace procedures.
>Hence one sees names such as 'grey iron' and 'white iron', so called
>because of the appearance of a fracture. Grey iron is basic cast iron and
>under BS 1452 there are various grades with tensile strengths ranging from
>10 T/sq. in. (150 N/mm^2) to 27 T/sq. in. (400 N/mm^2). Then there is
>nodular cast iron with greater strength (BS 2789), 'nodular' meaning that
>the carbon in the iron is held in compact graphite nodules rather than
>flakes as in cast grey iron. Nodular cast iron is also called SG iron, the
>SG standing for spheroidal graphite. Other names for it are ductile iron,
>nodular graphite iron, and spherultic iron. Nodular cast iron is a
>steel-like metal easily machined and giving a smooth finish. It is the most
>modern development of cast iron; previously the only reasonably ductile
>cast iron available was 'malleable iron'.
>
>Malleable iron is a white iron which has been heat-treated to reduce
>brittleness. There are three groups, whiteheart, blackheart and pearlite
>(BS 309, 3 10 and 333 respectively). These terms refer to the process by
>which they are made and their resulting crystal structure.
>
>More sophisticated irons include the nickel cast irons and the high-alloy
>cast irons, both having enhanced strength and ductility.
>
>The corrosion rate of iron in seawater is much the same as that of mild
>steel, but the form of corrosion is very different. Whereas mild steel
>gradually wastes away and becomes physically smaller, iron tends to retain
>its shape and outward size but rots away from inside. Superficially it may
>look sound, but a sharp prod can reveal massive corrosion underneath. This
>form of attack is called graphitization because a graphite residue is all
>that is left.
>
>The ordinary cast irons have a poor resistance to shock and fracture fairly
>easily; they are also readily attacked by sulphate-reducing bacteria.
>
>Ductile iron is the modern equivalent of cast iron. It does not fracture
>as easily but its corrosion resistance is much the same. Nickel cast iron
>with 1-3% of nickel is a finer-grained iron but again the corrosion
>resistance is barely enhanced.
>
>There are families of high-alloy cast iron: irons with large amounts of
>chromium, or nickel or silicon. The austenitic nickel cast irons have a
>low uniform rate of corrosion in seawater and do not suffer from
>graphitization; they rust but slowly on deck. These cast irons are often
>called Ni-Resist, but this name is actually a trademark. The high-silicon
>cast irons (about 14% Si) also have a much enhanced resistance to
>corrosion, as do the high-chromium irons (12-35% Cr). (See Tables 8 and 9.)
>
>Unless a high-alloy cast iron is used, with much increased cost, the
>various 'cheap and cheerful' cast irons corrode at much the same rate as
>carbon and low-alloy steels.
>
>To Conclude
>
>Common mild steel and cast iron are excellent materials in many ways; they
>are strong and economical - but they rust. But at least the rusting is
>obvious and gradual and the metal is unlikely to fail suddenly as can
>happen to stainless steel or high strength metals. Some low-alloy steels
>like Cor-Ten are 'slow rusting' in a marine atmosphere but rust much like
>mild steel when immersed in seawater.
>
>All steels should have the mill scale removed before painting.
>
>Hot-dip zinc galvanizing is generally far superior and more 'cost
>effective' than zinc or cadmium electroplating. To get the best galvanizing
>ask for the work to be done to a standard, e.g. BS 729. If the galvanized
>item is to be immersed it is essential to paint it, preferably by using a
>self-etch primer for the first coat. Galvanizing gives a tough self-healing
>coating and one which is quite inexpensive.
>
>Electroplating is a waste of time unless a standard is specified, e.g. BS
>1706 Class A. Zinc electric plating is preferable to cadmium because the
>coating thickness is greater. Nevertheless hot-dip galvanizing will give a
>much longer life and yet its cost is only very slightly more than
>electroplating.
>
>Galvanized or plated steel makes a good base for paint which in turn gives
>a long life to the paint and the metal coating providing the paint is
>'keyed' to the coat.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
_________________________________________________________________
Use custom emotions -- try MSN Messenger 6.0!
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_emoticon

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 33 of 50

From: John Fleming
Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
Date: Sat Sep 13 13:34:06 2003
-----------------------------------

How would you keep it down?
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 11:04 AM
I have to ask the question. Has anyone considered using HDPE for a
centerboard on the m-17? It is cheap compared to the alternatives, can be
cut with a bandsaw, no corrosion, low friction, doesn't support maarine
growth, needs no maint. Stainless bushings and stops could be inserted as
needed. My only real concern is, will it be stiff enough laterally? If this
is a real option would the lack of weight be of concern? could add'l ballast
be placed elswhere? Jerry? Bob? any comments?
Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
Sailboats
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats

Jerry Montgomery wrote:
Note that the M-17 centerboards were of cast iron- not steel, which is
much
more corrosion resistant. Does Mr. Warren talk about this? Also note
that
the stainless wire pennant is aftermarket; we used dacron.
Jerry
Hi Jerry,
That's interesting, dacron rope. Is it stable when immersed in seawater?
How often should it be checked and or replaced? Would I just tie a knot?
Yes, Nigel Warren discusses cast iron, the complete discussion is below.
To summarize, he says that iron and mild steel corrode at the same rate,
but have different corrosion behavior. Cast irons with significant amounts
of nickel, silicon, or chromium rust much more slowly than ordinary cast
iron.
Obviously, stainless corrodes more slowly, but it has problems with crevice
corrosion, especially in areas of high flow or no flow. I'll scan that
discussion in some other time.
Regards,
John Fleming
M-17: "Star Cross'd"
----
While wrought iron is not much used today, cast iron is still popular. The
various grades of cast iron are produced by varying the composition (and
here carbon is important) and by varying the crystalline structure as seen
under a microscope. The latter is done by various furnace procedures.
Hence one sees names such as 'grey iron' and 'white iron', so called
because of the appearance of a fracture. Grey iron is basic cast iron and
under BS 1452 there are various grades with tensile strengths ranging from
10 T/sq. in. (150 N/mm^2) to 27 T/sq. in. (400 N/mm^2). Then there is
nodular cast iron with greater strength (BS 2789), 'nodular' meaning that
the carbon in the iron is held in compact graphite nodules rather than
flakes as in cast grey iron. Nodular cast iron is also called SG iron, the
SG standing for spheroidal graphite. Other names for it are ductile iron,
nodular graphite iron, and spherultic iron. Nodular cast iron is a
steel-like metal easily machined and giving a smooth finish. It is the most
modern development of cast iron; previously the only reasonably ductile
cast iron available was 'malleable iron'.
Malleable iron is a white iron which has been heat-treated to reduce
brittleness. There are three groups, whiteheart, blackheart and pearlite
(BS 309, 3 10 and 333 respectively). These terms refer to the process by
which they are made and their resulting crystal structure.
More sophisticated irons include the nickel cast irons and the high-alloy
cast irons, both having enhanced strength and ductility.
The corrosion rate of iron in seawater is much the same as that of mild
steel, but the form of corrosion is very different. Whereas mild steel
gradually wastes away and becomes physically smaller, iron tends to retain
its shape and outward size but rots away from inside. Superficially it may
look sound, but a sharp prod can reveal massive corrosion underneath. This
form of attack is called graphitization because a graphite residue is all
that is left.
The ordinary cast irons have a poor resistance to shock and fracture fairly
easily; they are also readily attacked by sulphate-reducing bacteria.
Ductile iron is the modern equivalent of cast iron. It does not fracture
as easily but its corrosion resistance is much the same. Nickel cast iron
with 1-3% of nickel is a finer-grained iron but again the corrosion
resistance is barely enhanced.
There are families of high-alloy cast iron: irons with large amounts of
chromium, or nickel or silicon. The austenitic nickel cast irons have a
low uniform rate of corrosion in seawater and do not suffer from
graphitization; they rust but slowly on deck. These cast irons are often
called Ni-Resist, but this name is actually a trademark. The high-silicon
cast irons (about 14% Si) also have a much enhanced resistance to
corrosion, as do the high-chromium irons (12-35% Cr). (See Tables 8 and 9.)
Unless a high-alloy cast iron is used, with much increased cost, the
various 'cheap and cheerful' cast irons corrode at much the same rate as
carbon and low-alloy steels.
To Conclude
Common mild steel and cast iron are excellent materials in many ways; they
are strong and economical - but they rust. But at least the rusting is
obvious and gradual and the metal is unlikely to fail suddenly as can
happen to stainless steel or high strength metals. Some low-alloy steels
like Cor-Ten are 'slow rusting' in a marine atmosphere but rust much like
mild steel when immersed in seawater.
All steels should have the mill scale removed before painting.
Hot-dip zinc galvanizing is generally far superior and more 'cost
effective' than zinc or cadmium electroplating. To get the best galvanizing
ask for the work to be done to a standard, e.g. BS 729. If the galvanized
item is to be immersed it is essential to paint it, preferably by using a
self-etch primer for the first coat. Galvanizing gives a tough self-healing
coating and one which is quite inexpensive.
Electroplating is a waste of time unless a standard is specified, e.g. BS
1706 Class A. Zinc electric plating is preferable to cadmium because the
coating thickness is greater. Nevertheless hot-dip galvanizing will give a
much longer life and yet its cost is only very slightly more than
electroplating.
Galvanized or plated steel makes a good base for paint which in turn gives
a long life to the paint and the metal coating providing the paint is
'keyed' to the coat.

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 34 of 50

From: "dik lang"
Subject: Re: M_Boats: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
Date: Sun Sep 14 10:02:09 2003
-----------------------------------

What is HDPE? How heavy is it?
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:04 AM
> I have to ask the question. Has anyone considered using HDPE for a
> centerboard on the m-17? It is cheap compared to the alternatives, can be
> cut with a bandsaw, no corrosion, low friction, doesn't support maarine
> growth, needs no maint. Stainless bushings and stops could be inserted as
> needed. My only real concern is, will it be stiff enough laterally? If
this
> is a real option would the lack of weight be of concern? could add'l
ballast
> be placed elswhere? Jerry? Bob? any comments?
>
>
> >From: John Fleming
> >Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
> >Sailboats
> >To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
> >
> >Subject: Re: M_Boats: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
> >Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:57:53 -0700
> >
> >Jerry Montgomery wrote:
> >>Note that the M-17 centerboards were of cast iron- not steel, which is
> >>much
> >>more corrosion resistant. Does Mr. Warren talk about this? Also note
> >>that
> >>the stainless wire pennant is aftermarket; we used dacron.
> >>
> >>Jerry
> >
> >Hi Jerry,
> >
> >That's interesting, dacron rope. Is it stable when immersed in seawater?
> >How often should it be checked and or replaced? Would I just tie a knot?
> >
> >Yes, Nigel Warren discusses cast iron, the complete discussion is below.
> >To summarize, he says that iron and mild steel corrode at the same rate,
> >but have different corrosion behavior. Cast irons with significant
amounts
> >of nickel, silicon, or chromium rust much more slowly than ordinary cast
> >iron.
> >
> >Obviously, stainless corrodes more slowly, but it has problems with
crevice
> >corrosion, especially in areas of high flow or no flow. I'll scan that
> >discussion in some other time.
> >
> >Regards,
> >John Fleming
> >M-17: "Star Cross'd"
> >
> >----
> >
> >While wrought iron is not much used today, cast iron is still popular.
The
> >various grades of cast iron are produced by varying the composition (and
> >here carbon is important) and by varying the crystalline structure as
seen
> >under a microscope. The latter is done by various furnace procedures.
> >Hence one sees names such as 'grey iron' and 'white iron', so called
> >because of the appearance of a fracture. Grey iron is basic cast iron
and
> >under BS 1452 there are various grades with tensile strengths ranging
from
> >10 T/sq. in. (150 N/mm^2) to 27 T/sq. in. (400 N/mm^2). Then there is
> >nodular cast iron with greater strength (BS 2789), 'nodular' meaning that
> >the carbon in the iron is held in compact graphite nodules rather than
> >flakes as in cast grey iron. Nodular cast iron is also called SG iron,
the
> >SG standing for spheroidal graphite. Other names for it are ductile iron,
> >nodular graphite iron, and spherultic iron. Nodular cast iron is a
> >steel-like metal easily machined and giving a smooth finish. It is the
most
> >modern development of cast iron; previously the only reasonably ductile
> >cast iron available was 'malleable iron'.
> >
> >Malleable iron is a white iron which has been heat-treated to reduce
> >brittleness. There are three groups, whiteheart, blackheart and pearlite
> >(BS 309, 3 10 and 333 respectively). These terms refer to the process by
> >which they are made and their resulting crystal structure.
> >
> >More sophisticated irons include the nickel cast irons and the high-alloy
> >cast irons, both having enhanced strength and ductility.
> >
> >The corrosion rate of iron in seawater is much the same as that of mild
> >steel, but the form of corrosion is very different. Whereas mild steel
> >gradually wastes away and becomes physically smaller, iron tends to
retain
> >its shape and outward size but rots away from inside. Superficially it
may
> >look sound, but a sharp prod can reveal massive corrosion underneath.
This
> >form of attack is called graphitization because a graphite residue is all
> >that is left.
> >
> >The ordinary cast irons have a poor resistance to shock and fracture
fairly
> >easily; they are also readily attacked by sulphate-reducing bacteria.
> >
> >Ductile iron is the modern equivalent of cast iron. It does not fracture
> >as easily but its corrosion resistance is much the same. Nickel cast iron
> >with 1-3% of nickel is a finer-grained iron but again the corrosion
> >resistance is barely enhanced.
> >
> >There are families of high-alloy cast iron: irons with large amounts of
> >chromium, or nickel or silicon. The austenitic nickel cast irons have a
> >low uniform rate of corrosion in seawater and do not suffer from
> >graphitization; they rust but slowly on deck. These cast irons are often
> >called Ni-Resist, but this name is actually a trademark. The high-silicon
> >cast irons (about 14% Si) also have a much enhanced resistance to
> >corrosion, as do the high-chromium irons (12-35% Cr). (See Tables 8 and
9.)
> >
> >Unless a high-alloy cast iron is used, with much increased cost, the
> >various 'cheap and cheerful' cast irons corrode at much the same rate as
> >carbon and low-alloy steels.
> >
> >To Conclude
> >
> >Common mild steel and cast iron are excellent materials in many ways;
they
> >are strong and economical - but they rust. But at least the rusting is
> >obvious and gradual and the metal is unlikely to fail suddenly as can
> >happen to stainless steel or high strength metals. Some low-alloy steels
> >like Cor-Ten are 'slow rusting' in a marine atmosphere but rust much like
> >mild steel when immersed in seawater.
> >
> >All steels should have the mill scale removed before painting.
> >
> >Hot-dip zinc galvanizing is generally far superior and more 'cost
> >effective' than zinc or cadmium electroplating. To get the best
galvanizing
> >ask for the work to be done to a standard, e.g. BS 729. If the galvanized
> >item is to be immersed it is essential to paint it, preferably by using a
> >self-etch primer for the first coat. Galvanizing gives a tough
self-healing
> >coating and one which is quite inexpensive.
> >
> >Electroplating is a waste of time unless a standard is specified, e.g. BS
> >1706 Class A. Zinc electric plating is preferable to cadmium because the
> >coating thickness is greater. Nevertheless hot-dip galvanizing will give
a
> >much longer life and yet its cost is only very slightly more than
> >electroplating.
> >
> >Galvanized or plated steel makes a good base for paint which in turn
gives
> >a long life to the paint and the metal coating providing the paint is
> >'keyed' to the coat.
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use custom emotions -- try MSN Messenger 6.0!
> http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_emoticon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 35 of 50

From: "dik lang"
Subject: Re: M_Boats: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
Date: Sun Sep 14 13:07:29 2003
-----------------------------------

High Density Polyethylene plastic. I don't have a density of that
particular plastic handy but it's probably very similar to UHMW (Ultra High
Molecular Weight) plastic which weighs 60 pounds/cu ft....too light to stay
down without some lead added to it...
Tod
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Montgomery
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:02 AM
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
What is HDPE? How heavy is it?
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:04 AM
> I have to ask the question. Has anyone considered using HDPE for a
> centerboard on the m-17? It is cheap compared to the alternatives, can
> be cut with a bandsaw, no corrosion, low friction, doesn't support
> maarine growth, needs no maint. Stainless bushings and stops could be
> inserted as needed. My only real concern is, will it be stiff enough
> laterally? If
this
> is a real option would the lack of weight be of concern? could add'l
ballast
> be placed elswhere? Jerry? Bob? any comments?
>
>
> >From: John Fleming
> >Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
> >Sailboats
> >To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
> >
> >Subject: Re: M_Boats: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
> >Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:57:53 -0700
> >
> >Jerry Montgomery wrote:
> >>Note that the M-17 centerboards were of cast iron- not steel, which
> >>is much more corrosion resistant. Does Mr. Warren talk about this?
> >>Also note that
> >>the stainless wire pennant is aftermarket; we used dacron.
> >>
> >>Jerry
> >
> >Hi Jerry,
> >
> >That's interesting, dacron rope. Is it stable when immersed in
> >seawater? How often should it be checked and or replaced? Would I
> >just tie a knot?
> >
> >Yes, Nigel Warren discusses cast iron, the complete discussion is
> >below. To summarize, he says that iron and mild steel corrode at the
> >same rate, but have different corrosion behavior. Cast irons with
> >significant
amounts
> >of nickel, silicon, or chromium rust much more slowly than ordinary
> >cast iron.
> >
> >Obviously, stainless corrodes more slowly, but it has problems with
crevice
> >corrosion, especially in areas of high flow or no flow. I'll scan
> >that discussion in some other time.
> >
> >Regards,
> >John Fleming
> >M-17: "Star Cross'd"
> >
> >----
> >
> >While wrought iron is not much used today, cast iron is still
> >popular.
The
> >various grades of cast iron are produced by varying the composition
> >(and here carbon is important) and by varying the crystalline
> >structure as
seen
> >under a microscope. The latter is done by various furnace
> >procedures. Hence one sees names such as 'grey iron' and 'white
> >iron', so called because of the appearance of a fracture. Grey iron
> >is basic cast iron
and
> >under BS 1452 there are various grades with tensile strengths ranging
from
> >10 T/sq. in. (150 N/mm^2) to 27 T/sq. in. (400 N/mm^2). Then there
> >is nodular cast iron with greater strength (BS 2789), 'nodular'
> >meaning that the carbon in the iron is held in compact graphite
> >nodules rather than flakes as in cast grey iron. Nodular cast iron
> >is also called SG iron,
the
> >SG standing for spheroidal graphite. Other names for it are ductile
> >iron, nodular graphite iron, and spherultic iron. Nodular cast iron
> >is a steel-like metal easily machined and giving a smooth finish. It
> >is the
most
> >modern development of cast iron; previously the only reasonably
> >ductile cast iron available was 'malleable iron'.
> >
> >Malleable iron is a white iron which has been heat-treated to reduce
> >brittleness. There are three groups, whiteheart, blackheart and
> >pearlite (BS 309, 3 10 and 333 respectively). These terms refer to
> >the process by which they are made and their resulting crystal
> >structure.
> >
> >More sophisticated irons include the nickel cast irons and the
> >high-alloy cast irons, both having enhanced strength and ductility.
> >
> >The corrosion rate of iron in seawater is much the same as that of
> >mild steel, but the form of corrosion is very different. Whereas
> >mild steel gradually wastes away and becomes physically smaller, iron
> >tends to
retain
> >its shape and outward size but rots away from inside. Superficially
> >it
may
> >look sound, but a sharp prod can reveal massive corrosion underneath.
This
> >form of attack is called graphitization because a graphite residue is
> >all that is left.
> >
> >The ordinary cast irons have a poor resistance to shock and fracture
fairly
> >easily; they are also readily attacked by sulphate-reducing bacteria.
> >
> >Ductile iron is the modern equivalent of cast iron. It does not
> >fracture as easily but its corrosion resistance is much the same.
> >Nickel cast iron with 1-3% of nickel is a finer-grained iron but
> >again the corrosion resistance is barely enhanced.
> >
> >There are families of high-alloy cast iron: irons with large amounts
> >of chromium, or nickel or silicon. The austenitic nickel cast irons
> >have a low uniform rate of corrosion in seawater and do not suffer
> >from graphitization; they rust but slowly on deck. These cast irons
> >are often called Ni-Resist, but this name is actually a trademark.
> >The high-silicon cast irons (about 14% Si) also have a much enhanced
> >resistance to corrosion, as do the high-chromium irons (12-35% Cr).
> >(See Tables 8 and
9.)
> >
> >Unless a high-alloy cast iron is used, with much increased cost, the
> >various 'cheap and cheerful' cast irons corrode at much the same rate
> >as carbon and low-alloy steels.
> >
> >To Conclude
> >
> >Common mild steel and cast iron are excellent materials in many ways;
they
> >are strong and economical - but they rust. But at least the rusting
> >is obvious and gradual and the metal is unlikely to fail suddenly as
> >can happen to stainless steel or high strength metals. Some low-alloy
> >steels like Cor-Ten are 'slow rusting' in a marine atmosphere but
> >rust much like mild steel when immersed in seawater.
> >
> >All steels should have the mill scale removed before painting.
> >
> >Hot-dip zinc galvanizing is generally far superior and more 'cost
> >effective' than zinc or cadmium electroplating. To get the best
galvanizing
> >ask for the work to be done to a standard, e.g. BS 729. If the
> >galvanized item is to be immersed it is essential to paint it,
> >preferably by using a self-etch primer for the first coat.
> >Galvanizing gives a tough
self-healing
> >coating and one which is quite inexpensive.
> >
> >Electroplating is a waste of time unless a standard is specified,
> >e.g. BS 1706 Class A. Zinc electric plating is preferable to cadmium
> >because the coating thickness is greater. Nevertheless hot-dip
> >galvanizing will give
a
> >much longer life and yet its cost is only very slightly more than
> >electroplating.
> >
> >Galvanized or plated steel makes a good base for paint which in turn
gives
> >a long life to the paint and the metal coating providing the paint is
> >'keyed' to the coat.
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use custom emotions -- try MSN Messenger 6.0!
> http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_emoticon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 36 of 50

From: John Fleming
Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
Date: Sun Sep 14 14:11:06 2003
-----------------------------------

I lined the insides of the cheekplates of my new kick-up rudder with UHMW to prevent scratches to the rudder
body varnish (my rudder's design mounts the cheekplates on the rudder BLADE instead of body): UHMW is known
as the "poor man's Teflon". My cheek plate liners have the added benefit of making the lifting and lowering
action of my rudder-blade VERY smooth. I am very happy with the result.
Wouldn't any weight that you might add to HDPE be subject to the same corrosion problems as the original cast
board? Could you round the edges of the HDPE (You can't round the edges of a piece of UHMW, at least with a
cutting tool: Perhaps with a "melting" tool.)?
Is cast bronze really prohibitively expensive? Especially when you consider that it would eliminate
centerboard maintenance for good?
----- Original Message -----
To: "'For and about Montgomery Sailboats'"
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 12:07 PM
High Density Polyethylene plastic. I don't have a density of that
particular plastic handy but it's probably very similar to UHMW (Ultra High
Molecular Weight) plastic which weighs 60 pounds/cu ft....too light to stay
down without some lead added to it...
Tod
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Montgomery
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:02 AM
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
What is HDPE? How heavy is it?
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:04 AM
I have to ask the question. Has anyone considered using HDPE for a
centerboard on the m-17? It is cheap compared to the alternatives, can
be cut with a bandsaw, no corrosion, low friction, doesn't support
maarine growth, needs no maint. Stainless bushings and stops could be
inserted as needed. My only real concern is, will it be stiff enough
laterally? If
this
is a real option would the lack of weight be of concern? could add'l
ballast
be placed elswhere? Jerry? Bob? any comments?
Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
Sailboats
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats

Jerry Montgomery wrote:
Note that the M-17 centerboards were of cast iron- not steel, which
is much more corrosion resistant. Does Mr. Warren talk about this?
Also note that
the stainless wire pennant is aftermarket; we used dacron.
Jerry
Hi Jerry,
That's interesting, dacron rope. Is it stable when immersed in
seawater? How often should it be checked and or replaced? Would I
just tie a knot?
Yes, Nigel Warren discusses cast iron, the complete discussion is
below. To summarize, he says that iron and mild steel corrode at the
same rate, but have different corrosion behavior. Cast irons with
significant
amounts
of nickel, silicon, or chromium rust much more slowly than ordinary
cast iron.
Obviously, stainless corrodes more slowly, but it has problems with
crevice
corrosion, especially in areas of high flow or no flow. I'll scan
that discussion in some other time.
Regards,
John Fleming
M-17: "Star Cross'd"
----
While wrought iron is not much used today, cast iron is still
popular.
The
various grades of cast iron are produced by varying the composition
(and here carbon is important) and by varying the crystalline
structure as
seen
under a microscope. The latter is done by various furnace
procedures. Hence one sees names such as 'grey iron' and 'white
iron', so called because of the appearance of a fracture. Grey iron
is basic cast iron
and
under BS 1452 there are various grades with tensile strengths ranging
from
10 T/sq. in. (150 N/mm^2) to 27 T/sq. in. (400 N/mm^2). Then there
is nodular cast iron with greater strength (BS 2789), 'nodular'
meaning that the carbon in the iron is held in compact graphite
nodules rather than flakes as in cast grey iron. Nodular cast iron
is also called SG iron,
the
SG standing for spheroidal graphite. Other names for it are ductile
iron, nodular graphite iron, and spherultic iron. Nodular cast iron
is a steel-like metal easily machined and giving a smooth finish. It
is the
most
modern development of cast iron; previously the only reasonably
ductile cast iron available was 'malleable iron'.
Malleable iron is a white iron which has been heat-treated to reduce
brittleness. There are three groups, whiteheart, blackheart and
pearlite (BS 309, 3 10 and 333 respectively). These terms refer to
the process by which they are made and their resulting crystal
structure.
More sophisticated irons include the nickel cast irons and the
high-alloy cast irons, both having enhanced strength and ductility.
The corrosion rate of iron in seawater is much the same as that of
mild steel, but the form of corrosion is very different. Whereas
mild steel gradually wastes away and becomes physically smaller, iron
tends to
retain
its shape and outward size but rots away from inside. Superficially
it
may
look sound, but a sharp prod can reveal massive corrosion underneath.
This
form of attack is called graphitization because a graphite residue is
all that is left.
The ordinary cast irons have a poor resistance to shock and fracture
fairly
easily; they are also readily attacked by sulphate-reducing bacteria.
Ductile iron is the modern equivalent of cast iron. It does not
fracture as easily but its corrosion resistance is much the same.
Nickel cast iron with 1-3% of nickel is a finer-grained iron but
again the corrosion resistance is barely enhanced.
There are families of high-alloy cast iron: irons with large amounts
of chromium, or nickel or silicon. The austenitic nickel cast irons
have a low uniform rate of corrosion in seawater and do not suffer
from graphitization; they rust but slowly on deck. These cast irons
are often called Ni-Resist, but this name is actually a trademark.
The high-silicon cast irons (about 14% Si) also have a much enhanced
resistance to corrosion, as do the high-chromium irons (12-35% Cr).
(See Tables 8 and
9.)
Unless a high-alloy cast iron is used, with much increased cost, the
various 'cheap and cheerful' cast irons corrode at much the same rate
as carbon and low-alloy steels.
To Conclude
Common mild steel and cast iron are excellent materials in many ways;
they
are strong and economical - but they rust. But at least the rusting
is obvious and gradual and the metal is unlikely to fail suddenly as
can happen to stainless steel or high strength metals. Some low-alloy
steels like Cor-Ten are 'slow rusting' in a marine atmosphere but
rust much like mild steel when immersed in seawater.
All steels should have the mill scale removed before painting.
Hot-dip zinc galvanizing is generally far superior and more 'cost
effective' than zinc or cadmium electroplating. To get the best
galvanizing
ask for the work to be done to a standard, e.g. BS 729. If the
galvanized item is to be immersed it is essential to paint it,
preferably by using a self-etch primer for the first coat.
Galvanizing gives a tough
self-healing
coating and one which is quite inexpensive.
Electroplating is a waste of time unless a standard is specified,
e.g. BS 1706 Class A. Zinc electric plating is preferable to cadmium
because the coating thickness is greater. Nevertheless hot-dip
galvanizing will give
a
much longer life and yet its cost is only very slightly more than
electroplating.
Galvanized or plated steel makes a good base for paint which in turn
gives
a long life to the paint and the metal coating providing the paint is
'keyed' to the coat.

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 37 of 50

From: diklang32 at hotmail.com (dik lang)
Subject: M_Boats: UHMW, HDPE, Cast Bronze
Date: Sun Sep 14 15:41:05 2003
-----------------------------------

The HDPE that I have used is readily machinable using standard woodworking
tools such as a table saw band saw, and router. I would like to know if the
newer glass center board is weighted internally, and what its weight is.
>From: "Honshells"
>Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
>Sailboats
>To: "For and about Montgomery
>Sailboats"
>Subject: M_Boats: UHMW, HDPE, Cast Bronze
>Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:11:06 -0400
>
>I lined the insides of the cheekplates of my new kick-up rudder with UHMW
>to prevent scratches to the rudder
>body varnish (my rudder's design mounts the cheekplates on the rudder BLADE
>instead of body): UHMW is known
>as the "poor man's Teflon". My cheek plate liners have the added benefit
>of making the lifting and lowering
>action of my rudder-blade VERY smooth. I am very happy with the result.
>
>Wouldn't any weight that you might add to HDPE be subject to the same
>corrosion problems as the original cast
>board? Could you round the edges of the HDPE (You can't round the edges of
>a piece of UHMW, at least with a
>cutting tool: Perhaps with a "melting" tool.)?
>
>Is cast bronze really prohibitively expensive? Especially when you
>consider that it would eliminate
>centerboard maintenance for good?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From:
>To: "'For and about Montgomery Sailboats'"
>
>Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 12:07 PM
>Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
>
>High Density Polyethylene plastic. I don't have a density of that
>particular plastic handy but it's probably very similar to UHMW (Ultra High
>Molecular Weight) plastic which weighs 60 pounds/cu ft....too light to stay
>down without some lead added to it...
>
>Tod
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com
>[mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
>Montgomery
>Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:02 AM
>To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
>Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
>
>What is HDPE? How heavy is it?
>
>Jerry
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "dik lang"
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:04 AM
>Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
>
>I have to ask the question. Has anyone considered using HDPE for a
>centerboard on the m-17? It is cheap compared to the alternatives, can
>be cut with a bandsaw, no corrosion, low friction, doesn't support
>maarine growth, needs no maint. Stainless bushings and stops could be
>inserted as needed. My only real concern is, will it be stiff enough
>laterally? If
>this
>is a real option would the lack of weight be of concern? could add'l
>ballast
>be placed elswhere? Jerry? Bob? any comments?
>
>
>From: John Fleming
>Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
>Sailboats
>To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
>
>Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
>Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:57:53 -0700
>
>Jerry Montgomery wrote:
>
>Note that the M-17 centerboards were of cast iron- not steel, which
>is much more corrosion resistant. Does Mr. Warren talk about this?
>Also note that
>the stainless wire pennant is aftermarket; we used dacron.
>
>Jerry
>
>Hi Jerry,
>
>That's interesting, dacron rope. Is it stable when immersed in
>seawater? How often should it be checked and or replaced? Would I
>just tie a knot?
>
>Yes, Nigel Warren discusses cast iron, the complete discussion is
>below. To summarize, he says that iron and mild steel corrode at the
>same rate, but have different corrosion behavior. Cast irons with
>significant
>amounts
>of nickel, silicon, or chromium rust much more slowly than ordinary
>cast iron.
>
>Obviously, stainless corrodes more slowly, but it has problems with
>crevice
>corrosion, especially in areas of high flow or no flow. I'll scan
>that discussion in some other time.
>
>Regards,
>
>John Fleming
>M-17: "Star Cross'd"
>
>----
>
>While wrought iron is not much used today, cast iron is still
>popular.
>The
>various grades of cast iron are produced by varying the composition
>(and here carbon is important) and by varying the crystalline
>structure as
>seen
>under a microscope. The latter is done by various furnace
>procedures. Hence one sees names such as 'grey iron' and 'white
>iron', so called because of the appearance of a fracture. Grey iron
>is basic cast iron
>and
>under BS 1452 there are various grades with tensile strengths ranging
>from
>10 T/sq. in. (150 N/mm^2) to 27 T/sq. in. (400 N/mm^2). Then there
>is nodular cast iron with greater strength (BS 2789), 'nodular'
>meaning that the carbon in the iron is held in compact graphite
>nodules rather than flakes as in cast grey iron. Nodular cast iron
>is also called SG iron,
>the
>SG standing for spheroidal graphite. Other names for it are ductile
>iron, nodular graphite iron, and spherultic iron. Nodular cast iron
>is a steel-like metal easily machined and giving a smooth finish. It
>is the
>most
>modern development of cast iron; previously the only reasonably
>ductile cast iron available was 'malleable iron'.
>
>Malleable iron is a white iron which has been heat-treated to reduce
>brittleness. There are three groups, whiteheart, blackheart and
>pearlite (BS 309, 3 10 and 333 respectively). These terms refer to
>the process by which they are made and their resulting crystal
>structure.
>
>More sophisticated irons include the nickel cast irons and the
>high-alloy cast irons, both having enhanced strength and ductility.
>
>The corrosion rate of iron in seawater is much the same as that of
>mild steel, but the form of corrosion is very different. Whereas
>mild steel gradually wastes away and becomes physically smaller, iron
>tends to
>retain
>its shape and outward size but rots away from inside. Superficially
>it
>may
>look sound, but a sharp prod can reveal massive corrosion underneath.
>This
>form of attack is called graphitization because a graphite residue is
>all that is left.
>
>The ordinary cast irons have a poor resistance to shock and fracture
>fairly
>easily; they are also readily attacked by sulphate-reducing bacteria.
>
>Ductile iron is the modern equivalent of cast iron. It does not
>fracture as easily but its corrosion resistance is much the same.
>Nickel cast iron with 1-3% of nickel is a finer-grained iron but
>again the corrosion resistance is barely enhanced.
>
>There are families of high-alloy cast iron: irons with large amounts
>of chromium, or nickel or silicon. The austenitic nickel cast irons
>have a low uniform rate of corrosion in seawater and do not suffer
>from graphitization; they rust but slowly on deck. These cast irons
>are often called Ni-Resist, but this name is actually a trademark.
>The high-silicon cast irons (about 14% Si) also have a much enhanced
>resistance to corrosion, as do the high-chromium irons (12-35% Cr).
>(See Tables 8 and
>9.)
>
>Unless a high-alloy cast iron is used, with much increased cost, the
>various 'cheap and cheerful' cast irons corrode at much the same rate
>as carbon and low-alloy steels.
>
>To Conclude
>
>Common mild steel and cast iron are excellent materials in many ways;
>they
>are strong and economical - but they rust. But at least the rusting
>is obvious and gradual and the metal is unlikely to fail suddenly as
>can happen to stainless steel or high strength metals. Some low-alloy
>steels like Cor-Ten are 'slow rusting' in a marine atmosphere but
>rust much like mild steel when immersed in seawater.
>
>All steels should have the mill scale removed before painting.
>
>Hot-dip zinc galvanizing is generally far superior and more 'cost
>effective' than zinc or cadmium electroplating. To get the best
>galvanizing
>ask for the work to be done to a standard, e.g. BS 729. If the
>galvanized item is to be immersed it is essential to paint it,
>preferably by using a self-etch primer for the first coat.
>Galvanizing gives a tough
>self-healing
>coating and one which is quite inexpensive.
>
>Electroplating is a waste of time unless a standard is specified,
>e.g. BS 1706 Class A. Zinc electric plating is preferable to cadmium
>because the coating thickness is greater. Nevertheless hot-dip
>galvanizing will give
>a
>much longer life and yet its cost is only very slightly more than
>electroplating.
>
>Galvanized or plated steel makes a good base for paint which in turn
>gives
>a long life to the paint and the metal coating providing the paint is
>'keyed' to the coat.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
_________________________________________________________________
Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 38 of 50

From: montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com
Subject: Re: M_Boats: UHMW, HDPE, Cast Bronze
Date: Sun Sep 14 19:31:30 2003
-----------------------------------

seems like when I had mine out a year or two ago I weighed it but I can't
recall what the figure was. Maybe a search of the archives would turn it
up...
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of dik lang
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 4:41 PM
To: montgomery_boats@mailman.xmission.com
The HDPE that I have used is readily machinable using standard woodworking
tools such as a table saw band saw, and router. I would like to know if the
newer glass center board is weighted internally, and what its weight is.
>From: "Honshells"
>Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
>Sailboats
>To: "For and about Montgomery
>Sailboats"
>Subject: M_Boats: UHMW, HDPE, Cast Bronze
>Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:11:06 -0400
>
>I lined the insides of the cheekplates of my new kick-up rudder with
>UHMW
>to prevent scratches to the rudder
>body varnish (my rudder's design mounts the cheekplates on the rudder BLADE
>instead of body): UHMW is known
>as the "poor man's Teflon". My cheek plate liners have the added benefit
>of making the lifting and lowering
>action of my rudder-blade VERY smooth. I am very happy with the result.
>
>Wouldn't any weight that you might add to HDPE be subject to the same
>corrosion problems as the original cast
>board? Could you round the edges of the HDPE (You can't round the edges of
>a piece of UHMW, at least with a
>cutting tool: Perhaps with a "melting" tool.)?
>
>Is cast bronze really prohibitively expensive? Especially when you
>consider that it would eliminate
>centerboard maintenance for good?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From:
>To: "'For and about Montgomery Sailboats'"
>
>Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 12:07 PM
>Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
>
>High Density Polyethylene plastic. I don't have a density of that
>particular plastic handy but it's probably very similar to UHMW (Ultra
>High Molecular Weight) plastic which weighs 60 pounds/cu ft....too
>light to stay down without some lead added to it...
>
>Tod
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com
>[mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of
>Jerry Montgomery
>Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:02 AM
>To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
>Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
>
>What is HDPE? How heavy is it?
>
>Jerry
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "dik lang"
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:04 AM
>Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
>
>I have to ask the question. Has anyone considered using HDPE for a
>centerboard on the m-17? It is cheap compared to the alternatives, can
>be cut with a bandsaw, no corrosion, low friction, doesn't support
>maarine growth, needs no maint. Stainless bushings and stops could be
>inserted as needed. My only real concern is, will it be stiff enough
>laterally? If this
>is a real option would the lack of weight be of concern? could add'l
>ballast
>be placed elswhere? Jerry? Bob? any comments?
>
>
>From: John Fleming
>Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
>Sailboats
>To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
>
>Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
>Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:57:53 -0700
>
>Jerry Montgomery wrote:
>
>Note that the M-17 centerboards were of cast iron- not steel, which is
>much more corrosion resistant. Does Mr. Warren talk about this? Also
>note that the stainless wire pennant is aftermarket; we used dacron.
>
>Jerry
>
>Hi Jerry,
>
>That's interesting, dacron rope. Is it stable when immersed in
>seawater? How often should it be checked and or replaced? Would I just
>tie a knot?
>
>Yes, Nigel Warren discusses cast iron, the complete discussion is
>below. To summarize, he says that iron and mild steel corrode at the
>same rate, but have different corrosion behavior. Cast irons with
>significant amounts
>of nickel, silicon, or chromium rust much more slowly than ordinary
>cast iron.
>
>Obviously, stainless corrodes more slowly, but it has problems with
>crevice corrosion, especially in areas of high flow or no flow. I'll
>scan that discussion in some other time.
>
>Regards,
>
>John Fleming
>M-17: "Star Cross'd"
>
>----
>
>While wrought iron is not much used today, cast iron is still popular.
>The
>various grades of cast iron are produced by varying the composition
>(and here carbon is important) and by varying the crystalline
>structure as
>seen
>under a microscope. The latter is done by various furnace
>procedures. Hence one sees names such as 'grey iron' and 'white
>iron', so called because of the appearance of a fracture. Grey iron
>is basic cast iron
>and
>under BS 1452 there are various grades with tensile strengths ranging
>from
>10 T/sq. in. (150 N/mm^2) to 27 T/sq. in. (400 N/mm^2). Then there
>is nodular cast iron with greater strength (BS 2789), 'nodular'
>meaning that the carbon in the iron is held in compact graphite
>nodules rather than flakes as in cast grey iron. Nodular cast iron
>is also called SG iron,
>the
>SG standing for spheroidal graphite. Other names for it are ductile
>iron, nodular graphite iron, and spherultic iron. Nodular cast iron
>is a steel-like metal easily machined and giving a smooth finish. It
>is the
>most
>modern development of cast iron; previously the only reasonably
>ductile cast iron available was 'malleable iron'.
>
>Malleable iron is a white iron which has been heat-treated to reduce
>brittleness. There are three groups, whiteheart, blackheart and
>pearlite (BS 309, 3 10 and 333 respectively). These terms refer to the
>process by which they are made and their resulting crystal structure.
>
>More sophisticated irons include the nickel cast irons and the
>high-alloy cast irons, both having enhanced strength and ductility.
>
>The corrosion rate of iron in seawater is much the same as that of mild
>steel, but the form of corrosion is very different. Whereas mild steel
>gradually wastes away and becomes physically smaller, iron tends to
>retain
>its shape and outward size but rots away from inside. Superficially
>it
>may
>look sound, but a sharp prod can reveal massive corrosion underneath.
>This
>form of attack is called graphitization because a graphite residue is
>all that is left.
>
>The ordinary cast irons have a poor resistance to shock and fracture
>fairly easily; they are also readily attacked by sulphate-reducing
>bacteria.
>
>Ductile iron is the modern equivalent of cast iron. It does not
>fracture as easily but its corrosion resistance is much the same.
>Nickel cast iron with 1-3% of nickel is a finer-grained iron but again
>the corrosion resistance is barely enhanced.
>
>There are families of high-alloy cast iron: irons with large amounts of
>chromium, or nickel or silicon. The austenitic nickel cast irons have
>a low uniform rate of corrosion in seawater and do not suffer from
>graphitization; they rust but slowly on deck. These cast irons are
>often called Ni-Resist, but this name is actually a trademark. The
>high-silicon cast irons (about 14% Si) also have a much enhanced
>resistance to corrosion, as do the high-chromium irons (12-35% Cr).
>(See Tables 8 and
>9.)
>
>Unless a high-alloy cast iron is used, with much increased cost, the
>various 'cheap and cheerful' cast irons corrode at much the same rate
>as carbon and low-alloy steels.
>
>To Conclude
>
>Common mild steel and cast iron are excellent materials in many ways;
>they are strong and economical - but they rust. But at least the
>rusting is obvious and gradual and the metal is unlikely to fail
>suddenly as can happen to stainless steel or high strength metals. Some
>low-alloy steels like Cor-Ten are 'slow rusting' in a marine atmosphere
>but rust much like mild steel when immersed in seawater.
>
>All steels should have the mill scale removed before painting.
>
>Hot-dip zinc galvanizing is generally far superior and more 'cost
>effective' than zinc or cadmium electroplating. To get the best
>galvanizing ask for the work to be done to a standard, e.g. BS 729. If
>the galvanized item is to be immersed it is essential to paint it,
>preferably by using a self-etch primer for the first coat.
>Galvanizing gives a tough
>self-healing
>coating and one which is quite inexpensive.
>
>Electroplating is a waste of time unless a standard is specified, e.g.
>BS 1706 Class A. Zinc electric plating is preferable to cadmium because
>the coating thickness is greater. Nevertheless hot-dip galvanizing will
>give a
>much longer life and yet its cost is only very slightly more than
>electroplating.
>
>Galvanized or plated steel makes a good base for paint which in turn
>gives a long life to the paint and the metal coating providing the
>paint is 'keyed' to the coat.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
_________________________________________________________________
Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 39 of 50

From: John Fleming
Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
Date: Sun Sep 14 21:48:56 2003
-----------------------------------

Jerry talks about the new board in his history of the M17, http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m17_history.cfm ,
but I don't know if he gives its weight. It is my impression that the new board is only weighted to keep it
down, that the weight of the board has nothing to do with stability.
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 5:41 PM
The HDPE that I have used is readily machinable using standard woodworking
tools such as a table saw band saw, and router. I would like to know if the
newer glass center board is weighted internally, and what its weight is.
Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
Sailboats
To: "For and about Montgomery
Sailboats"
I lined the insides of the cheekplates of my new kick-up rudder with UHMW
to prevent scratches to the rudder
body varnish (my rudder's design mounts the cheekplates on the rudder BLADE
instead of body): UHMW is known
as the "poor man's Teflon". My cheek plate liners have the added benefit
of making the lifting and lowering
action of my rudder-blade VERY smooth. I am very happy with the result.
Wouldn't any weight that you might add to HDPE be subject to the same
corrosion problems as the original cast
board? Could you round the edges of the HDPE (You can't round the edges of
a piece of UHMW, at least with a
cutting tool: Perhaps with a "melting" tool.)?
Is cast bronze really prohibitively expensive? Especially when you
consider that it would eliminate
centerboard maintenance for good?
----- Original Message -----
To: "'For and about Montgomery Sailboats'"

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 12:07 PM
High Density Polyethylene plastic. I don't have a density of that
particular plastic handy but it's probably very similar to UHMW (Ultra High
Molecular Weight) plastic which weighs 60 pounds/cu ft....too light to stay
down without some lead added to it...
Tod
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Montgomery
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:02 AM
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
What is HDPE? How heavy is it?
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:04 AM
I have to ask the question. Has anyone considered using HDPE for a
centerboard on the m-17? It is cheap compared to the alternatives, can
be cut with a bandsaw, no corrosion, low friction, doesn't support
maarine growth, needs no maint. Stainless bushings and stops could be
inserted as needed. My only real concern is, will it be stiff enough
laterally? If
this
is a real option would the lack of weight be of concern? could add'l
ballast
be placed elswhere? Jerry? Bob? any comments?
Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
Sailboats
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats

Jerry Montgomery wrote:
Note that the M-17 centerboards were of cast iron- not steel, which
is much more corrosion resistant. Does Mr. Warren talk about this?
Also note that
the stainless wire pennant is aftermarket; we used dacron.
Jerry
Hi Jerry,
That's interesting, dacron rope. Is it stable when immersed in
seawater? How often should it be checked and or replaced? Would I
just tie a knot?
Yes, Nigel Warren discusses cast iron, the complete discussion is
below. To summarize, he says that iron and mild steel corrode at the
same rate, but have different corrosion behavior. Cast irons with
significant
amounts
of nickel, silicon, or chromium rust much more slowly than ordinary
cast iron.
Obviously, stainless corrodes more slowly, but it has problems with
crevice
corrosion, especially in areas of high flow or no flow. I'll scan
that discussion in some other time.
Regards,
John Fleming
M-17: "Star Cross'd"
----
While wrought iron is not much used today, cast iron is still
popular.
The
various grades of cast iron are produced by varying the composition
(and here carbon is important) and by varying the crystalline
structure as
seen
under a microscope. The latter is done by various furnace
procedures. Hence one sees names such as 'grey iron' and 'white
iron', so called because of the appearance of a fracture. Grey iron
is basic cast iron
and
under BS 1452 there are various grades with tensile strengths ranging
from
10 T/sq. in. (150 N/mm^2) to 27 T/sq. in. (400 N/mm^2). Then there
is nodular cast iron with greater strength (BS 2789), 'nodular'
meaning that the carbon in the iron is held in compact graphite
nodules rather than flakes as in cast grey iron. Nodular cast iron
is also called SG iron,
the
SG standing for spheroidal graphite. Other names for it are ductile
iron, nodular graphite iron, and spherultic iron. Nodular cast iron
is a steel-like metal easily machined and giving a smooth finish. It
is the
most
modern development of cast iron; previously the only reasonably
ductile cast iron available was 'malleable iron'.
Malleable iron is a white iron which has been heat-treated to reduce
brittleness. There are three groups, whiteheart, blackheart and
pearlite (BS 309, 3 10 and 333 respectively). These terms refer to
the process by which they are made and their resulting crystal
structure.
More sophisticated irons include the nickel cast irons and the
high-alloy cast irons, both having enhanced strength and ductility.
The corrosion rate of iron in seawater is much the same as that of
mild steel, but the form of corrosion is very different. Whereas
mild steel gradually wastes away and becomes physically smaller, iron
tends to
retain
its shape and outward size but rots away from inside. Superficially
it
may
look sound, but a sharp prod can reveal massive corrosion underneath.
This
form of attack is called graphitization because a graphite residue is
all that is left.
The ordinary cast irons have a poor resistance to shock and fracture
fairly
easily; they are also readily attacked by sulphate-reducing bacteria.
Ductile iron is the modern equivalent of cast iron. It does not
fracture as easily but its corrosion resistance is much the same.
Nickel cast iron with 1-3% of nickel is a finer-grained iron but
again the corrosion resistance is barely enhanced.
There are families of high-alloy cast iron: irons with large amounts
of chromium, or nickel or silicon. The austenitic nickel cast irons
have a low uniform rate of corrosion in seawater and do not suffer
from graphitization; they rust but slowly on deck. These cast irons
are often called Ni-Resist, but this name is actually a trademark.
The high-silicon cast irons (about 14% Si) also have a much enhanced
resistance to corrosion, as do the high-chromium irons (12-35% Cr).
(See Tables 8 and
9.)
Unless a high-alloy cast iron is used, with much increased cost, the
various 'cheap and cheerful' cast irons corrode at much the same rate
as carbon and low-alloy steels.
To Conclude
Common mild steel and cast iron are excellent materials in many ways;
they
are strong and economical - but they rust. But at least the rusting
is obvious and gradual and the metal is unlikely to fail suddenly as
can happen to stainless steel or high strength metals. Some low-alloy
steels like Cor-Ten are 'slow rusting' in a marine atmosphere but
rust much like mild steel when immersed in seawater.
All steels should have the mill scale removed before painting.
Hot-dip zinc galvanizing is generally far superior and more 'cost
effective' than zinc or cadmium electroplating. To get the best
galvanizing
ask for the work to be done to a standard, e.g. BS 729. If the
galvanized item is to be immersed it is essential to paint it,
preferably by using a self-etch primer for the first coat.
Galvanizing gives a tough
self-healing
coating and one which is quite inexpensive.
Electroplating is a waste of time unless a standard is specified,
e.g. BS 1706 Class A. Zinc electric plating is preferable to cadmium
because the coating thickness is greater. Nevertheless hot-dip
galvanizing will give
a
much longer life and yet its cost is only very slightly more than
electroplating.
Galvanized or plated steel makes a good base for paint which in turn
gives
a long life to the paint and the metal coating providing the paint is
'keyed' to the coat.

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 40 of 50

From: John Fleming
Subject: Centerboard Corrosion Discussion
Date: Sun Sep 14 21:52:10 2003
-----------------------------------

<000c01c37b23$259995c0$2355b3cf@ajrogers>
>From Jerry's M17 history:
"In 1987 we made a centerboard change; from cast iron to fiberglass with a lead core. The new centerboards
were thicker in section but smaller in profile, and I can�t tell the difference between the two types in
sailing them. This change was made in response to death threats and other complaints resulting from the
rusting problem common to cast iron. The new centerboards are no better, but they don�t rust. The older ones
are probably more reliable, being cast iron, but we�ve had no problems with the new after 6 years. At the same
time, we changed from steel to lead ballast, and increased the total ballast weight from 550 to 600 lbs."
----- Original Message -----
To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 8:48 PM
Jerry talks about the new board in his history of the M17, http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m17_history.cfm ,
but I don't know if he gives its weight. It is my impression that the new board is only weighted to keep it
down, that the weight of the board has nothing to do with stability.
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 5:41 PM
The HDPE that I have used is readily machinable using standard woodworking
tools such as a table saw band saw, and router. I would like to know if the
newer glass center board is weighted internally, and what its weight is.
Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
Sailboats
To: "For and about Montgomery
Sailboats"
I lined the insides of the cheekplates of my new kick-up rudder with UHMW
to prevent scratches to the rudder
body varnish (my rudder's design mounts the cheekplates on the rudder BLADE
instead of body): UHMW is known
as the "poor man's Teflon". My cheek plate liners have the added benefit
of making the lifting and lowering
action of my rudder-blade VERY smooth. I am very happy with the result.
Wouldn't any weight that you might add to HDPE be subject to the same
corrosion problems as the original cast
board? Could you round the edges of the HDPE (You can't round the edges of
a piece of UHMW, at least with a
cutting tool: Perhaps with a "melting" tool.)?
Is cast bronze really prohibitively expensive? Especially when you
consider that it would eliminate
centerboard maintenance for good?
----- Original Message -----
To: "'For and about Montgomery Sailboats'"

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 12:07 PM
High Density Polyethylene plastic. I don't have a density of that
particular plastic handy but it's probably very similar to UHMW (Ultra High
Molecular Weight) plastic which weighs 60 pounds/cu ft....too light to stay
down without some lead added to it...
Tod
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Montgomery
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:02 AM
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
What is HDPE? How heavy is it?
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:04 AM
I have to ask the question. Has anyone considered using HDPE for a
centerboard on the m-17? It is cheap compared to the alternatives, can
be cut with a bandsaw, no corrosion, low friction, doesn't support
maarine growth, needs no maint. Stainless bushings and stops could be
inserted as needed. My only real concern is, will it be stiff enough
laterally? If
this
is a real option would the lack of weight be of concern? could add'l
ballast
be placed elswhere? Jerry? Bob? any comments?
Reply-To: For and about Montgomery
Sailboats
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats

Jerry Montgomery wrote:
Note that the M-17 centerboards were of cast iron- not steel, which
is much more corrosion resistant. Does Mr. Warren talk about this?
Also note that
the stainless wire pennant is aftermarket; we used dacron.
Jerry
Hi Jerry,
That's interesting, dacron rope. Is it stable when immersed in
seawater? How often should it be checked and or replaced? Would I
just tie a knot?
Yes, Nigel Warren discusses cast iron, the complete discussion is
below. To summarize, he says that iron and mild steel corrode at the
same rate, but have different corrosion behavior. Cast irons with
significant
amounts
of nickel, silicon, or chromium rust much more slowly than ordinary
cast iron.
Obviously, stainless corrodes more slowly, but it has problems with
crevice
corrosion, especially in areas of high flow or no flow. I'll scan
that discussion in some other time.
Regards,
John Fleming
M-17: "Star Cross'd"
----
While wrought iron is not much used today, cast iron is still
popular.
The
various grades of cast iron are produced by varying the composition
(and here carbon is important) and by varying the crystalline
structure as
seen
under a microscope. The latter is done by various furnace
procedures. Hence one sees names such as 'grey iron' and 'white
iron', so called because of the appearance of a fracture. Grey iron
is basic cast iron
and
under BS 1452 there are various grades with tensile strengths ranging
from
10 T/sq. in. (150 N/mm^2) to 27 T/sq. in. (400 N/mm^2). Then there
is nodular cast iron with greater strength (BS 2789), 'nodular'
meaning that the carbon in the iron is held in compact graphite
nodules rather than flakes as in cast grey iron. Nodular cast iron
is also called SG iron,
the
SG standing for spheroidal graphite. Other names for it are ductile
iron, nodular graphite iron, and spherultic iron. Nodular cast iron
is a steel-like metal easily machined and giving a smooth finish. It
is the
most
modern development of cast iron; previously the only reasonably
ductile cast iron available was 'malleable iron'.
Malleable iron is a white iron which has been heat-treated to reduce
brittleness. There are three groups, whiteheart, blackheart and
pearlite (BS 309, 3 10 and 333 respectively). These terms refer to
the process by which they are made and their resulting crystal
structure.
More sophisticated irons include the nickel cast irons and the
high-alloy cast irons, both having enhanced strength and ductility.
The corrosion rate of iron in seawater is much the same as that of
mild steel, but the form of corrosion is very different. Whereas
mild steel gradually wastes away and becomes physically smaller, iron
tends to
retain
its shape and outward size but rots away from inside. Superficially
it
may
look sound, but a sharp prod can reveal massive corrosion underneath.
This
form of attack is called graphitization because a graphite residue is
all that is left.
The ordinary cast irons have a poor resistance to shock and fracture
fairly
easily; they are also readily attacked by sulphate-reducing bacteria.
Ductile iron is the modern equivalent of cast iron. It does not
fracture as easily but its corrosion resistance is much the same.
Nickel cast iron with 1-3% of nickel is a finer-grained iron but
again the corrosion resistance is barely enhanced.
There are families of high-alloy cast iron: irons with large amounts
of chromium, or nickel or silicon. The austenitic nickel cast irons
have a low uniform rate of corrosion in seawater and do not suffer
from graphitization; they rust but slowly on deck. These cast irons
are often called Ni-Resist, but this name is actually a trademark.
The high-silicon cast irons (about 14% Si) also have a much enhanced
resistance to corrosion, as do the high-chromium irons (12-35% Cr).
(See Tables 8 and
9.)
Unless a high-alloy cast iron is used, with much increased cost, the
various 'cheap and cheerful' cast irons corrode at much the same rate
as carbon and low-alloy steels.
To Conclude
Common mild steel and cast iron are excellent materials in many ways;
they
are strong and economical - but they rust. But at least the rusting
is obvious and gradual and the metal is unlikely to fail suddenly as
can happen to stainless steel or high strength metals. Some low-alloy
steels like Cor-Ten are 'slow rusting' in a marine atmosphere but
rust much like mild steel when immersed in seawater.
All steels should have the mill scale removed before painting.
Hot-dip zinc galvanizing is generally far superior and more 'cost
effective' than zinc or cadmium electroplating. To get the best
galvanizing
ask for the work to be done to a standard, e.g. BS 729. If the
galvanized item is to be immersed it is essential to paint it,
preferably by using a self-etch primer for the first coat.
Galvanizing gives a tough
self-healing
coating and one which is quite inexpensive.
Electroplating is a waste of time unless a standard is specified,
e.g. BS 1706 Class A. Zinc electric plating is preferable to cadmium
because the coating thickness is greater. Nevertheless hot-dip
galvanizing will give
a
much longer life and yet its cost is only very slightly more than
electroplating.
Galvanized or plated steel makes a good base for paint which in turn
gives
a long life to the paint and the metal coating providing the paint is
'keyed' to the coat.
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 41 of 50

From: haudsley at tranquility.net (Howard Audsley)
Subject: M_Boats: New Old M-17
Date: Wed Oct 22 21:09:05 2003
-----------------------------------

Bill:
To get an idea of what it all looks like down there, take a look at the
centerboard pictures on the MSOG website:
http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m-17-cb.cfm
I too have often wondered if the sticking board problem on some boats is due
to marine growth and not a swelling of the cast iron ballast in the trunk.
Howard
M17, #278
On 10/22/03 6:37 PM, "Bill Sylvester" wrote:
> Larry,
>
> The old M-17 has been sitting in her slip, unused, for over two years.
> I am concerned that some marine critters have attached themselves to
> the inside of the trunk. If they are hard shelled they might bind the
> board. How much of the trunk is underwater? If it is only the first
> couple of inches, there might not be enough growth to matter. We will
> see.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 42 of 50

From: leyake at juno.com (Larry Yake)
Subject: M_Boats: New Old M-17
Date: Wed Oct 22 19:56:36 2003
-----------------------------------

Bill,
I don't know the exact measurements, but most of the trunk is underwater.
I've heard of guys using something like a hacksaw blade to slide up past
the centerboard to check and clean the trunk. It would have to be a long
one to reach all the way.
Larry
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:09:05 -0500 Howard Audsley
writes:
> Bill:
>
> To get an idea of what it all looks like down there, take a look at
> the
> centerboard pictures on the MSOG website:
>
> http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m-17-cb.cfm
>
> I too have often wondered if the sticking board problem on some
> boats is due
> to marine growth and not a swelling of the cast iron ballast in the
> trunk.
>
> Howard
> M17, #278
>
>
> On 10/22/03 6:37 PM, "Bill Sylvester" wrote:
>
> > Larry,
> >
> > The old M-17 has been sitting in her slip, unused, for over two
> years.
> > I am concerned that some marine critters have attached themselves
> to
> > the inside of the trunk. If they are hard shelled they might bind
> the
> > board. How much of the trunk is underwater? If it is only the
> first
> > couple of inches, there might not be enough growth to matter. We
> will
> > see.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>
>

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 43 of 50

From: mazemusic at yahoo.com (Rusty Knorr)
Subject: M_Boats: New Old M-17
Date: Thu Oct 23 20:23:11 2003
-----------------------------------

Hey, Howard.
Does the centerboard/trunk on the M-15 look and work
the same way?
Thanks, Rusty
--- Howard Audsley wrote:
> Bill:
>
> To get an idea of what it all looks like down there,
> take a look at the
> centerboard pictures on the MSOG website:
>
> http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m-17-cb.cfm
>
> I too have often wondered if the sticking board
> problem on some boats is due
> to marine growth and not a swelling of the cast iron
> ballast in the trunk.
>
> Howard
> M17, #278
>
>
> On 10/22/03 6:37 PM, "Bill Sylvester"
> wrote:
>
> > Larry,
> >
> > The old M-17 has been sitting in her slip, unused,
> for over two years.
> > I am concerned that some marine critters have
> attached themselves to
> > the inside of the trunk. If they are hard shelled
> they might bind the
> > board. How much of the trunk is underwater? If
> it is only the first
> > couple of inches, there might not be enough growth
> to matter. We will
> > see.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 44 of 50

From: Rusty Knorr [mailto:mazemusic@yahoo.com]
Subject: Re: M_Boats: New Old M-17
Date: Thu Oct 23 22:01:32 2003
-----------------------------------

Well, the M centerboards are similar in that they both drop out of a trunk located in the ballasted shallow draft keel, but how they lower/stay in the lowered position/raise is very different. The M15 is simpler and lighter and is lowered/suspended/raised and suspended in the raised position with a pendant. A knot in the pendant keeps the cb in the proper, lowered position.
The M17 cb is heavy and requires the assistance of a winch (or heck, a good wench will do the trick too probably) to lower/raise. The M17 cb is kept in its proper, lowered position by a tang that contacts a stopper bolt--the pendant is only used to lower it and raise it and secure it in the raised position.
There is probably no more discussed topic (aside from towing vehicles and outboard motors) in the M archives--search them for more info.
Tom Smith & Jane Van Winkle
Sandpoint, Idaho
M15-345, Chukar
M17-064, Unnamed
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:23 PM
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
Hey, Howard.
Does the centerboard/trunk on the M-15 look and work
the same way?
Thanks, Rusty
--- Howard Audsley wrote:
> Bill:
>
> To get an idea of what it all looks like down there,
> take a look at the
> centerboard pictures on the MSOG website:
>
> http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m-17-cb.cfm
>
> I too have often wondered if the sticking board
> problem on some boats is due
> to marine growth and not a swelling of the cast iron
> ballast in the trunk.
>
> Howard
> M17, #278
>
>
> On 10/22/03 6:37 PM, "Bill Sylvester"
> wrote:
>
> > Larry,
> >
> > The old M-17 has been sitting in her slip, unused,
> for over two years.
> > I am concerned that some marine critters have
> attached themselves to
> > the inside of the trunk. If they are hard shelled
> they might bind the
> > board. How much of the trunk is underwater? If
> it is only the first
> > couple of inches, there might not be enough growth
> to matter. We will
> > see.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
This message was scanned for viruses!!

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 45 of 50

From: haudsley at tranquility.net (Howard Audsley)
Subject: M_Boats: New Old M-17
Date: Fri Oct 24 05:52:57 2003
-----------------------------------

I think they are similar in most respects, except that the M15 doesn't have
the stopper pin. On that one, you tie a figure 8 (or other stopper) knot in
the pendant, and the centerboard hangs from that. Without the stopper knot,
the centerboard drops down too far, and eventually gets into a position
where one part leverages against another and breaks off a part of the board.
And of course the 15's and newer 17's have a lead weighted fiberglass board,
vs. the older 17's shown on the site below, which is cast iron.
Interesting that on the Rhoades site, they go over all the keel options for
trailerable boats, and come up with the same design as the M15 and M17.
Except they use a diamond shaped keel. I'd love to see some performance
tests done to see what the difference in lift is between the two designs.
Howard
On 10/23/03 9:23 PM, "Rusty Knorr" wrote:
> Hey, Howard.
> Does the centerboard/trunk on the M-15 look and work
> the same way?
> Thanks, Rusty
>
>
> --- Howard Audsley wrote:
>> Bill:
>>
>> To get an idea of what it all looks like down there,
>> take a look at the
>> centerboard pictures on the MSOG website:
>>
>> http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m-17-cb.cfm
>>
>> I too have often wondered if the sticking board
>> problem on some boats is due
>> to marine growth and not a swelling of the cast iron
>> ballast in the trunk.
>>
>> Howard
>> M17, #278
>>
>>
>> On 10/22/03 6:37 PM, "Bill Sylvester"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry,
>>>
>>> The old M-17 has been sitting in her slip, unused,
>> for over two years.
>>> I am concerned that some marine critters have
>> attached themselves to
>>> the inside of the trunk. If they are hard shelled
>> they might bind the
>>> board. How much of the trunk is underwater? If
>> it is only the first
>>> couple of inches, there might not be enough growth
>> to matter. We will
>>> see.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bill
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 46 of 50

From: Rusty Knorr [mailto:mazemusic@yahoo.com]
Subject: Re: M_Boats: New Old M-17
Date: Fri Oct 24 09:15:36 2003
-----------------------------------

Speaking of m17 winches, my winch handle was missing when I bought my boat &
the standard winch handles available at W. M. & BOATS US are too large to
fit in the socket.
Does anyone have one for sale or know of a source.
I'm not getting younger and the keel on my '76 weighs #350 I'm told.
Pulling that thing up by hand is a chore.
Wayne M17 "Intrepid"
----- Original Message -----
To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"

Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:01 PM
Well, the M centerboards are similar in that they both drop out of a trunk
located in the ballasted shallow draft keel, but how they lower/stay in the
lowered position/raise is very different. The M15 is simpler and lighter
and is lowered/suspended/raised and suspended in the raised position with a
pendant. A knot in the pendant keeps the cb in the proper, lowered
position.
The M17 cb is heavy and requires the assistance of a winch (or heck, a good
wench will do the trick too probably) to lower/raise. The M17 cb is kept in
its proper, lowered position by a tang that contacts a stopper bolt--the
pendant is only used to lower it and raise it and secure it in the raised
position.
There is probably no more discussed topic (aside from towing vehicles and
outboard motors) in the M archives--search them for more info.
Tom Smith & Jane Van Winkle
Sandpoint, Idaho
M15-345, Chukar
M17-064, Unnamed
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:23 PM
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
Hey, Howard.
Does the centerboard/trunk on the M-15 look and work
the same way?
Thanks, Rusty
--- Howard Audsley wrote:
> Bill:
>
> To get an idea of what it all looks like down there,
> take a look at the
> centerboard pictures on the MSOG website:
>
> http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m-17-cb.cfm
>
> I too have often wondered if the sticking board
> problem on some boats is due
> to marine growth and not a swelling of the cast iron
> ballast in the trunk.
>
> Howard
> M17, #278
>
>
> On 10/22/03 6:37 PM, "Bill Sylvester"
> wrote:
>
> > Larry,
> >
> > The old M-17 has been sitting in her slip, unused,
> for over two years.
> > I am concerned that some marine critters have
> attached themselves to
> > the inside of the trunk. If they are hard shelled
> they might bind the
> > board. How much of the trunk is underwater? If
> it is only the first
> > couple of inches, there might not be enough growth
> to matter. We will
> > see.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
This message was scanned for viruses!!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 47 of 50

From: Rusty Knorr [mailto:mazemusic@yahoo.com]
Subject: Re: M_Boats: New Old M-17
Date: Fri Oct 24 11:41:02 2003
-----------------------------------

Is the winch out of production? (Silly question,,, of course they are,
otherwise you'd just order one). Places carrying used gear like Bacon Sails
in Annapolis ( http://www.baconsails.com/index.html ) might be able to help.
There is somewhere else on Back Creek, but I can't remember the name right
now.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of wayne
yeargain
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:16 AM
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
Speaking of m17 winches, my winch handle was missing when I bought my boat &
the standard winch handles available at W. M. & BOATS US are too large to
fit in the socket.
Does anyone have one for sale or know of a source.
I'm not getting younger and the keel on my '76 weighs #350 I'm told.
Pulling that thing up by hand is a chore.
Wayne M17 "Intrepid"
----- Original Message -----
To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"

Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:01 PM
Well, the M centerboards are similar in that they both drop out of a trunk
located in the ballasted shallow draft keel, but how they lower/stay in the
lowered position/raise is very different. The M15 is simpler and lighter
and is lowered/suspended/raised and suspended in the raised position with a
pendant. A knot in the pendant keeps the cb in the proper, lowered
position.
The M17 cb is heavy and requires the assistance of a winch (or heck, a good
wench will do the trick too probably) to lower/raise. The M17 cb is kept in
its proper, lowered position by a tang that contacts a stopper bolt--the
pendant is only used to lower it and raise it and secure it in the raised
position.
There is probably no more discussed topic (aside from towing vehicles and
outboard motors) in the M archives--search them for more info.
Tom Smith & Jane Van Winkle
Sandpoint, Idaho
M15-345, Chukar
M17-064, Unnamed
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:23 PM
To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
Hey, Howard.
Does the centerboard/trunk on the M-15 look and work
the same way?
Thanks, Rusty
--- Howard Audsley wrote:
> Bill:
>
> To get an idea of what it all looks like down there,
> take a look at the
> centerboard pictures on the MSOG website:
>
> http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m-17-cb.cfm
>
> I too have often wondered if the sticking board
> problem on some boats is due
> to marine growth and not a swelling of the cast iron
> ballast in the trunk.
>
> Howard
> M17, #278
>
>
> On 10/22/03 6:37 PM, "Bill Sylvester"
> wrote:
>
> > Larry,
> >
> > The old M-17 has been sitting in her slip, unused,
> for over two years.
> > I am concerned that some marine critters have
> attached themselves to
> > the inside of the trunk. If they are hard shelled
> they might bind the
> > board. How much of the trunk is underwater? If
> it is only the first
> > couple of inches, there might not be enough growth
> to matter. We will
> > see.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
This message was scanned for viruses!!
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 48 of 50

From: rqlhgl at ieee.org (Richard Lane)
Subject: M_Boats: New Old M-17
Date: Fri Oct 24 17:47:17 2003
-----------------------------------

The winch and handle were made by Merriman, now defunct. Try Minney's
surplus in S.Cal or Doc Freeman's in Seattle.
Dick
Morris, Giles wrote:
>Is the winch out of production? (Silly question,,, of course they are,
>otherwise you'd just order one). Places carrying used gear like Bacon Sails
>in Annapolis ( http://www.baconsails.com/index.html ) might be able to help.
>There is somewhere else on Back Creek, but I can't remember the name right
>now.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com
>[mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of wayne
>yeargain
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:16 AM
>To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
>Subject: Re: M_Boats: New Old M-17
>
>
>Speaking of m17 winches, my winch handle was missing when I bought my boat &
>the standard winch handles available at W. M. & BOATS US are too large to
>fit in the socket.
>Does anyone have one for sale or know of a source.
>I'm not getting younger and the keel on my '76 weighs #350 I'm told.
>Pulling that thing up by hand is a chore.
>
>Wayne M17 "Intrepid"
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Smith, Tom"
>To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"
>
>Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:01 PM
>Subject: RE: M_Boats: New Old M-17
>
>
>Well, the M centerboards are similar in that they both drop out of a trunk
>located in the ballasted shallow draft keel, but how they lower/stay in the
>lowered position/raise is very different. The M15 is simpler and lighter
>and is lowered/suspended/raised and suspended in the raised position with a
>pendant. A knot in the pendant keeps the cb in the proper, lowered
>position.
>
>The M17 cb is heavy and requires the assistance of a winch (or heck, a good
>wench will do the trick too probably) to lower/raise. The M17 cb is kept in
>its proper, lowered position by a tang that contacts a stopper bolt--the
>pendant is only used to lower it and raise it and secure it in the raised
>position.
>
>There is probably no more discussed topic (aside from towing vehicles and
>outboard motors) in the M archives--search them for more info.
>
>Tom Smith & Jane Van Winkle
>Sandpoint, Idaho
>M15-345, Chukar
>M17-064, Unnamed
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rusty Knorr [mailto:mazemusic@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:23 PM
>To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
>Subject: Re: M_Boats: New Old M-17
>
>
>Hey, Howard.
> Does the centerboard/trunk on the M-15 look and work
>the same way?
> Thanks, Rusty
>
>
>--- Howard Audsley wrote:
>
>
>>Bill:
>>
>>To get an idea of what it all looks like down there,
>>take a look at the
>>centerboard pictures on the MSOG website:
>>
>>http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m-17-cb.cfm
>>
>>I too have often wondered if the sticking board
>>problem on some boats is due
>>to marine growth and not a swelling of the cast iron
>>ballast in the trunk.
>>
>>Howard
>>M17, #278
>>
>>
>>On 10/22/03 6:37 PM, "Bill Sylvester"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Larry,
>>>
>>>The old M-17 has been sitting in her slip, unused,
>>>
>>>
>>for over two years.
>>
>>
>>>I am concerned that some marine critters have
>>>
>>>
>>attached themselves to
>>
>>
>>>the inside of the trunk. If they are hard shelled
>>>
>>>
>>they might bind the
>>
>>
>>>board. How much of the trunk is underwater? If
>>>
>>>
>>it is only the first
>>
>>
>>>couple of inches, there might not be enough growth
>>>
>>>
>>to matter. We will
>>
>>
>>>see.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
>
>
>This message was scanned for viruses!!
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
>

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 49 of 50

From: "Richard Lane"
Subject: Re: M_Boats: New Old M-17
Date: Sat Oct 25 10:25:47 2003
-----------------------------------

<3F99BA05.1090009@ieee.org>
Thanks to Giles and Dick for their input on locating a winch handle.
I'll try the sources they recommend.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"

Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 6:47 PM
> The winch and handle were made by Merriman, now defunct. Try Minney's
> surplus in S.Cal or Doc Freeman's in Seattle.
> Dick
>
>
> Morris, Giles wrote:
>
> >Is the winch out of production? (Silly question,,, of course they are,
> >otherwise you'd just order one). Places carrying used gear like Bacon
Sails
> >in Annapolis ( http://www.baconsails.com/index.html ) might be able to
help.
> >There is somewhere else on Back Creek, but I can't remember the name
right
> >now.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com
> >[mailto:montgomery_boats-bounces@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of wayne
> >yeargain
> >Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:16 AM
> >To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
> >Subject: Re: M_Boats: New Old M-17
> >
> >
> >Speaking of m17 winches, my winch handle was missing when I bought my
boat &
> >the standard winch handles available at W. M. & BOATS US are too large to
> >fit in the socket.
> >Does anyone have one for sale or know of a source.
> >I'm not getting younger and the keel on my '76 weighs #350 I'm told.
> >Pulling that thing up by hand is a chore.
> >
> >Wayne M17 "Intrepid"
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Smith, Tom"
> >To: "For and about Montgomery Sailboats"
> >
> >Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:01 PM
> >Subject: RE: M_Boats: New Old M-17
> >
> >
> >Well, the M centerboards are similar in that they both drop out of a
trunk
> >located in the ballasted shallow draft keel, but how they lower/stay in
the
> >lowered position/raise is very different. The M15 is simpler and lighter
> >and is lowered/suspended/raised and suspended in the raised position with
a
> >pendant. A knot in the pendant keeps the cb in the proper, lowered
> >position.
> >
> >The M17 cb is heavy and requires the assistance of a winch (or heck, a
good
> >wench will do the trick too probably) to lower/raise. The M17 cb is kept
in
> >its proper, lowered position by a tang that contacts a stopper bolt--the
> >pendant is only used to lower it and raise it and secure it in the raised
> >position.
> >
> >There is probably no more discussed topic (aside from towing vehicles and
> >outboard motors) in the M archives--search them for more info.
> >
> >Tom Smith & Jane Van Winkle
> >Sandpoint, Idaho
> >M15-345, Chukar
> >M17-064, Unnamed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Rusty Knorr [mailto:mazemusic@yahoo.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:23 PM
> >To: For and about Montgomery Sailboats
> >Subject: Re: M_Boats: New Old M-17
> >
> >
> >Hey, Howard.
> > Does the centerboard/trunk on the M-15 look and work
> >the same way?
> > Thanks, Rusty
> >
> >
> >--- Howard Audsley wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Bill:
> >>
> >>To get an idea of what it all looks like down there,
> >>take a look at the
> >>centerboard pictures on the MSOG website:
> >>
> >>http://www.msog.org/models/m17/m-17-cb.cfm
> >>
> >>I too have often wondered if the sticking board
> >>problem on some boats is due
> >>to marine growth and not a swelling of the cast iron
> >>ballast in the trunk.
> >>
> >>Howard
> >>M17, #278
> >>
> >>
> >>On 10/22/03 6:37 PM, "Bill Sylvester"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Larry,
> >>>
> >>>The old M-17 has been sitting in her slip, unused,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>for over two years.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I am concerned that some marine critters have
> >>>
> >>>
> >>attached themselves to
> >>
> >>
> >>>the inside of the trunk. If they are hard shelled
> >>>
> >>>
> >>they might bind the
> >>
> >>
> >>>board. How much of the trunk is underwater? If
> >>>
> >>>
> >>it is only the first
> >>
> >>
> >>>couple of inches, there might not be enough growth
> >>>
> >>>
> >>to matter. We will
> >>
> >>
> >>>see.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Bill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> >http://shopping.yahoo.com
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
> >
> >
> >This message was scanned for viruses!!
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>

Go Top

Go Bottom

Message 50 of 50

From: southisland2 at earthlink.net (MC Carpenter)
Subject: M_Boats: Re: drawing
Date: Mon Nov 24 01:31:58 2003
-----------------------------------

<001001c3aa29$fba93fa0$83084bab@D60D0Q21>

I think I have the idea how to make a new drawing, it will be ready soon, its learning curve. You can buy blocks of almost any of plastic from companies like "Port Plastics" or "Piper Plastics", I think they have a web sight, I know they have a complete catalog on CD. I buy rods and plate Teflon and make bearings and any thing part I need that will better frictionless. Delrin comes in two main forms, one is especially for any kind of load bearing and will outlive the boat in salt water. Just hose it off . It can be readily machine with simple wood tools and but is best done on a lath or mill.
Until I get this drawing together,I now have a program called autosketch which may help. I will try to explain.
The existing board (old) can be center of effort marked and the area calculated. It comes to about 2.65 sq ft..
The depth remains the same, the width will be adjusted according to the area to match the existing center of lateral area . This can be done several ways but cost can be used to keep the number of ways limited.
For me and I am not concerned with hitting something, so I can use the simple screw method in the new board.
The new board will smaller in the truck but the same size when extended. A screw jack principal is used with the nuts buried in the lead weight. the round lead plug is inside the Teflon foil, which inch idea the trunk. it slides up and down on two easily cut to shape Teflon bushing the same foil shape as the board (dagger style). It would be wise at this point to use a stainless steel steer as this is already availed form trailer jacks, only the nuts an are special because they are buried in the lead weight.
Most parts can be made with simple tools and it easy to remove for cleaning or any repair. The top of the screw handle to fits through the top of the centerboard trunk. BUT again I will try to build a small model first.
The excess space in the trunk casing can be filled in, So water has no access to the iron ballast from the outside anyway. Silicone and bronze are great choices but are very expensive their cost could go as high as $1400.00. The difference in weight from old centerboard to new sliding board becomes the keel bulb, approx 61 lbs on each side. Its all a learning curve right now. What do you think of adding a soft rubber flap to either side of the board to wipe the board as it goes up and down.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/private/montgomery_boats/attachments/20031124/219678b3/attachment.html

Go Top

Go Bottom

Click on a link to jump to the corresponding message