HI Victor,
Let me see what I can answer: (1) Was this version also produced with the dinette interior with the forward or aft galley layout. Sorry I never got a good handle on this, I think both. (2) What engine was usually fitted I believe they were using the Universal Diesel but they changed a lot. Our C270 is a Perkins but they eventually went Yanmar. (3) Does the propeller shaft exit from a skeg or supported in a "P" bracket. It is supported by a bronze strut. (4) Is it necessary to reef early and is the TR WK version tender. I note from the 1980 brochure that the WK ballast is 3150 lbs but the 1998 brochure quotes only 2600 lbs. Actually it describes an early wing less shoal keel. The static righting moment of a WK is approximately same as the fin but they sail in a more dynamic manor. You feel puffs more with a wing but steady blow feels about the same. (5) I assume that two reefing lines, by how much does the sail area reduce for each reef? ? (6) When did this version cease production 1989-1990 (7) I had a lot of problems with water ingress into the stern locker due to inadequate side and non-existent rear drainage channels. Was this fault rectified by the new superstructure design Yes (8) Having been caught out in F'8's on numerous occasions, I took the view that the flimsy forehatch securing points could be easily ripped off. Were these fittings beefed up? I built a cross bar from a handrail across the centre of the hatch for added security in bad weather. The hatch became a commercial marine hatch rather than fabricated in-house. (9) Because of leaks through the forward part of the main hatch, we were offered a molded hatch garage as an optional extra. Was this also available on Cat 27's. I call it a dog house. It's on the C270 but I don't believe it was ever on the C27. Please chime in if I answered anything incorrectly. Phil Agur s/v Wing Tip Commodore, Call Sign WCW3485 IC27/270A MMSI 366901790 <http://www.catalina27.org> www.catalina27.org Vessel Doc# 1039809 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of victor NICHOLSON Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:40 AM To: [email protected] Subject: catalina27-talk: Catalkina 27 specs Hi Guys & Girls, Greetings from a former Catalina 27 ( Jaguar 27) owner across the pond. I owned a 1975 model for 23 years whose specs differed from the U.S.version. The displacement was quoted as 5600 lbs against the US 27 of 6500 lbs. This may well have been a GB brochure mistake that was never altered. Our sail area was 150 sq.ft main and 156 sq.ft.jib. The No: 1 Genoa was 288 sq.ft and pulled my Jaguar lime a train. The No: 2 Genoa was 220 sq.ft. I could hold working canvass up to F4-5 and could regularly obtain 6 kts indicated on a beat and 8 kts on a reach. Draft was 4'6" Cast iron bulbous keel. My engine was a 12hp twin inboard two stroke that purred like a tom cat after he'd had his oats.This engine was so small you could take it home for the winter. I named my Jaguar TI AMO which to any red blooded Italian translates to " I Love You". My wife that was, said I loved my Jag more than her. Even now I cannot tell a lie.. Yachts can be a little tetchy at times but that do not NAG. I have been guesting on the Catalina 27 website to obtain info on the 1998 version the revised superstructure shown on the 1998 brochure from sail number 6456. I am retiree now and have no ties. I have in mind to buy a TR WK version and keeping it stateside. I have a number of questions: (1) Was this version also produced with the dinette interior with the forward or aft galley layout. (2) What engine was usually fitted (3) Does the propeller shaft exit from a skeg or supported in a "P" bracket. (4) Is it necessary to reef early and is the TR WK version tender. I note from the 1980 brochure that the WK ballast is 3150 lbs but the 1998 brochure quotes only 2600 lbs. (5) I assume that two reefing lines, by how much does the sail area reduce for each reef (6) When did this version cease production (7) I had a lot of problems with water ingress into the stern locker due to inadequate side and non-existent rear drainage channels.Was this fault rectified by the new superstructure design (8) Having been caught out in F'8's on numerous occasions, I took the view that the flimsy forehatch securing points could be easily ripped off. Were these fittings beefed up. I built a cross bar from a handrail across the centre of the hatch for added security in bad weather. (9) Because of leaks through the forward part of the main hatch, we were offered a moulded hatch garage as an optional extra.Was this also available on Cat 27's ` I would appreciate any online photos and welcome any information Regards to everybody Lewis Nicholson
