That isn’t a typical configuration. My shroud chainplates are ¼” stainless plate 2” wide by probably 18” long bolted through the bulkheads in 4 places (that is the older kind, the newer ones are bolted in more places) with big fasteners (1/2” or so). The lower shrouds are ½” eye bolts into ¼” stainless plate that is probably 5”x7” or so on the bottom of the deck, that may be what you were looking at on that ’85.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jack Brennan Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [IC27A] Judy - C27 CE Hi Judy: Thanks for the welcome. You folks out in San Francisco remind me of Vito Dumas in "Alone Through the Roaring 40s." The difference is that Leeg II was a double-ender built like a tank. Not so the C27s. On the '85 I looked at, the chainplates for the forestay and the backstay were stainless steel straps a couple of inches wide. The chainplates for the shrouds were L-shaped brackets supported solely by the deck. This isn't equipment built to take the strain of 35 knots from any point of sail, in my opinion. On my old C&C 25 (which, for the record, didn't sail as well as a C27 does), the shroud chainplates were six inches wide, a foot long and through-bolted to the main bulkhead. To combat this problem, Patrick Childress had custom chainplates built and strapped them to the topsides because he was frightened by the pulsating deck where the shroud chainplates were. Even then, his sail plan for 35 knots of wind was a storm jib. I briefly traded e-mail with Childress a couple of years back on an unrelated topic. At one point, I suggested that he write a book about his circumnavigation. He said he had decided against it because he didn't want to encourage anyone to do what he did. He said that while the C27 is a great boat, it just isn't built for offshore-like conditions. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]on Behalf Of Judith Blumhorst, DC Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [IC27A] Judy - C27 CE Hi jack, Welcome to the C27/270 Association list. I agree that it's a little crazy to fly a spinny in 30+ knots, but I think you'd be surprised at how much canvas a C27 can carry sailing downwind in those conditions. I've been sailing 49 years, and so far I haven't yet lost a rig, nor twisted any hulls nor put a smile at the front of the keel. My hubby and I regularly fly a 95% (equivalent to a 110% on a std rig) or 135% (equivalent to a std 150%) with full mainsail downwind in 30 knots from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Bay Bridge. That's enough canvas to get the boat surfing on the waves. It's scarey fast. It takes considerable skill to drive in those conditions, because you steer the boat mostly by heeling one way or the other as the waves pass under her, with only minor correction with the rudder. If you over react with the rudder, the boat will round up violently or round down spectacularly and broach. I certainly agree with you that a flat boat is a fast boat on a reach or a beat. We reef and shake out reefs all day long depending on our point of sail if we wanna go fast and flat. We can put one in and or shake one out in under 60 seconds from the cockpit without even rushing. It's second nature to us. I'd go even further and say that a well trimmed boat is a flat boat is a safe boat is a fast boat. Even though we don't race, we can shift gears with the best of 'em. We play the traveller and the sheet leads to put twist in the sails, outhaul to control the lower profile, backstay on for upwind to shape the draft in the jib, cunningham for acceleration or high end speed. That's probably even more important than reefing. Fair winds, Judy B 1977 C27 Tall Rig #3459, "Bijou" San Francisco Bay http://www.blumhorst.com/catalina27/catalinahomepage.htm ________________________________
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
