Stus-List '76 Landfall 42 Manual

[Gary Smith via CnC-List]

I see that the Landfall 42 Owners Manual is not listed on the
CnCPhotoAlbum,com site.

Anyone know where I can get one?

Thanks
Gary
___

The bills have started coming in for the year 2018 and have gone up again.  
October will be our fund raising month.  Please consider sending a small 
contribution to help keep this list running.  Use PayPal to send contribution 
--   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

All contributions are greatly appreciated!

Re: Stus-List The notorious C smile

[Gary Smith via CnC-List]

Did this problem affect all C's? I have a 1976 Landfall 42 and so far no
sign of it ... Touch wood.

On 17 Jul 2017 8:12 pm, "Dennis C. via CnC-List" 
wrote:

> The C smile?  I have one every time I walk down the pier and see Touche'.
>
> Dennis C.
> Touche' 35-1 #83
> Mandeville, LA
>
> ___
>
> This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you
> wish to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to:
> https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
> All Contributions are greatly appreciated!
>
>
___

This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to 
make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to:  
https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

All Contributions are greatly appreciated!

Re: Stus-List Preventer or boom brake for C/1

[Gary Smith via CnC-List]

There are some who advocate against using the vang attachment point and if
you think about it, it makes sense.

The vang is too close to the mast so all of the force on the sail will
result in huge leverage forces. I've heard of broken booms as a result.

The ideal is to use the main sheet eye so long as you can get enough of an
angle on the preventer line - as close as perpendicular to the boom as
possible.

On 15 Jul 2017 4:21 am, "Neil Andersen via CnC-List" 
wrote:

> I assume you have a hard vang?   We have one made of line an use it as the
> preventer.  We un clear it from the base of the mast and run it over to the
> toe rail.
>
> Neil C 32
>
> Neil Andersen, M.Sc., CISSP, CISM
> Auburn, NY 13021
> --
> *From:* CnC-List  on behalf of Tortuga via
> CnC-List 
> *Sent:* Friday, July 14, 2017 8:58:17 PM
> *To:* cnc-list@cnc-list.com
> *Cc:* Tortuga
> *Subject:* Stus-List Preventer or boom brake for C/1
>
> I'm looking for advice please. I've been thinking for a while about
> installing permanent preventers or a boom brake on my 30. In the meantime I
> attach a preventer, when I think it's required, to either the mainsheet eye
> or to the vang attachment.
>
> This week, as I was moving the preventer, we were overtaken by a rain
> squall which resulted in a nasty gybe. Nobody was injured, but it scared me
> into rethinking my preventer.
>
> Our boom has 2 eyes: one at the end, where the mainsheet attaches and the
> other about a third of the length from the mast, where the vang attaches.
> I'd like to make a third attachment for a preventer or boom brake about
> half way along the boom, but I don't know how to do it. A bale, I think,
> will not withstand the lateral strain of a gybe. A friend recommended a
> T-ball fitting, but it also is made to withstand strain from one direction
> only, I think.
>
> Can anyone recommend a fitting that will attach to the boom and withstand
> the strain of a forced gybe? Also is there collected wisdom about
> preventers vs boom brakes, etc.?
>
> Thanks
> Derek
> Tortuga, C 30 mk1 #553
> Ballantynes Cove, NS
>
> ___
>
> This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you
> wish to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to:
> https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
> All Contributions are greatly appreciated!
>
>
___

This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to 
make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to:  
https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

All Contributions are greatly appreciated!

Re: Stus-List Landfall 42 sails

[Gary Smith via CnC-List]

Thanks for the informative reply Russ,

My "go fast" comments were a little tongue in cheek. My main consideration
is to have a combination of sails for cruising.

>From your reply it sounds like the original yankee configuration for the
foresail is the way to go. I had sort of come to that conclusion and it is
good to get some affirmation.

So the question for me is really just about the staysail ... In the
situations where I am forced to sail close to the wind, I am thinking that
I would furl the headsail away and rely on the smaller staysail which would
be cut and sheeted for close-hauling. Does that sound practical? I don't
really want to go back to the self-tacking, club footed staysail unless the
reasons are compelling. The current staysail is furling and I like the deck
space that the boom would occupy.

Then what do you think about the increased sail area over the original
design? Would the boat not be "un-balanced"? Overpowered? I can't base
anything on performance of the current sails as they don't necessarily
match the originals anyway.

thanks
Gary


On 30 June 2017 at 06:08, Russ & Melody via CnC-List 
wrote:

> Hi Gary,
>
> It's important to be really honest with yourself at this time, of sail
> contemplation.
>
> For the question of: Do you want to sail fast? The answer is invariably:
> Yes!
>
> But you will be lead astray if your sailmaker doesn't ask questions like,
> "Will the helmsman be adjusting for changes in apparent wind?" or maybe "Do
> you want the boat to be forgiving?"
> Sailing fast is mostly dependant on the helmsman, for obvious reasons. So
> if you or your people don't sail with eyes glued to the tell-tales then get
> a soft entry jib and be faster much of the time. A fine entry is harsh sail
> if you're not paying attention.
>
> Now be really honest... are you going to bash to weather a lot? If not
> then that high clew jib is a gem. For she is mostly self-tending on the jib
> lead when going from a reach to off the quarter. Just adjust the sheet, no
> need to tweak the car for max performance. Same with furling. That is why
> those tracks are so short.. set & forget.
> Why do think the Yankee jib and stay s'l was invented?  Most sailors are
> inherently lazy.
> Come to think of it, if you insist on sailing with that stays'l, you
> should have a high clew jib and won't spend much time as close-hauled
> anyhow.
>
> I like the main with draft forward, lose foot and an outhaul car, even for
> a cruising boat. Good shape adjustment with all the strings (halyard,
> outhaul, cunningham & reef) and the ability to haul that sucker flat when
> you have to punch to weather just because... even with the motor on.
> And it's the only way it will work if the sailmaker convinces you to sheet
> the stays'l inboard and go racing. :)
> (BTW, not many sailmakers can cruise.)
>
> Get a gennaker and sock for the light stuff. It's tons of fun and stuff it
> at 10 knots as a rule, until you dare.
>
> Cheers, Russ
> *Sweet *35 mk-1
>
>
>
>
>
> At 12:09 PM 29/06/2017, you wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am in the process of acquiring a new set of sails.
>
> I've had North & Ullman give me quotes and they are within US$70 of each
> other for all three sails - furling headsail, furling staysail and main for
> their basic offers. The quoted prices are in the range of $6,600 for all
> three sails.
>
> One of them offered an alternative at $8,200 which had "better" material
> for the headsail and staysail options.
>
> As I am a novice sailor I need some assistance please...
>
> The original sail area according to Sailboatdata.com (
> http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=2144) is as follows:
>
> Original
> Main        318 ft2 / 29.5 m2
> Foresail   391 ft2 / 36.3 m2
> Â
> I don't have details on the size of the original Staysail.
>
> Here are the sail area values from the 2 vendors.
>
> Vendor 1
> Main        335 ft2 / 31.2 m2
> Foresail   558 ft2 / 51.8 m2
>
> Vendor 2
> Main        335 ft2 / 31.1 m2
> Foresail   466 ft2 / 43.3 m2
>
> Although the area of the main from both vendors is similar to the
> original, the shape of the main is different to the original (not the
> current). The boom is shorter and mast (P) is longer than the original.
>
> The original design has a VERY short foresail track which is well aft with
> the resultant foresail with a high clew as can be seen from the picture at
> the link. What worries me is that both vendors are offering a foresail
> which is significantly larger than the original. How would this impact on
> performance? Will I have the foresail partially furled most of the time?
>
> The original staysail was a self-tacking, club-footed jib. The proposal
> from one vendors calls for a new track to be installed roughly midships and
> the other believes that I can sheet from an existing padeye. Both propose
> sheeting on the inside of the shrouds.
>
> Both, in discussion, are advocating the headsail for 

Stus-List Landfall 42 sails

[Gary Smith via CnC-List]

Hi All,

I am in the process of acquiring a new set of sails.

I've had North & Ullman give me quotes and they are within US$70 of each
other for all three sails - furling headsail, furling staysail and main for
their basic offers. The quoted prices are in the range of $6,600 for all
three sails.

One of them offered an alternative at $8,200 which had "better" material
for the headsail and staysail options.

As I am a novice sailor I need some assistance please...

The original sail area according to Sailboatdata.com (
http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=2144) is as follows:

Original
Main318 ft2 / 29.5 m2
Foresail   391 ft2 / 36.3 m2

I don't have details on the size of the original Staysail.

Here are the sail area values from the 2 vendors.

Vendor 1
Main335 ft2 / 31.2 m2
Foresail   558 ft2 / 51.8 m2

Vendor 2
Main335 ft2 / 31.1 m2
Foresail   466 ft2 / 43.3 m2

Although the area of the main from both vendors is similar to the original,
the shape of the main is different to the original (not the current). The
boom is shorter and mast (P) is longer than the original.

The original design has a VERY short foresail track which is well aft with
the resultant foresail with a high clew as can be seen from the picture at
the link. What worries me is that both vendors are offering a foresail
which is significantly larger than the original. How would this impact on
performance? Will I have the foresail partially furled most of the time?

The original staysail was a self-tacking, club-footed jib. The proposal
from one vendors calls for a new track to be installed roughly midships and
the other believes that I can sheet from an existing padeye. Both propose
sheeting on the inside of the shrouds.

Both, in discussion, are advocating the headsail for reaching and the
staysail for beating and heavy weather.

I should add that I intend cruising although a little performance certainly
wouldn't go amiss :-).

Are there any Landfall 42 owners who could share the details of their sail
configurations?

Thanks
Gary
___

This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to 
make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to:  
https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

All Contributions are greatly appreciated!

Stus-List Landfall 42 plans/diagrams

[Gary Smith via CnC-List]

Hi All,

Does anyone have original information on the Landfall 42?

I'm looking for something which shows/describes the location and layout of
the Genoa tracks.

The tracks on mine appear to be original but are very far back and very
short - about 8 foot.

Thanks
Gary
___

This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to 
make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to:  
https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

All Contributions are greatly appreciated!

Re: Stus-List Openplotter finally installed

[Gary Smith via CnC-List]

I am going the same way. What did you use for the AIS receiver - rtl-sdr?

On 27 May 2017 07:52, "Josh Muckley via CnC-List" 
wrote:

> Hey y'all, I finally got a rainy day (4 actually) where it wasn't too cold
> or hot to be slaving away on the boat.  I had to completely deconstruct the
> navstation and the working NMEA 0183 network to install the OpenPlotter.
> It's done!
>
> I had to teach myself a pretty good amount along the way but the features
> and options are pretty cool.  It will definitely be a springboard for
> future projects.  Originally it was a cheap way to multiplex my NMEA data.
> Separately, using a laptop and OpenCPN was a cheap way to get up to date
> NOAA charts.  And independent from all of that the Raspberry Pi as an AIS
> was pretty cool too.  OpenPlotter tied it all together and added SignalK
> (for whatever that is worth).   Now that I have all of these things in one
> package I plan to expand in to publishing this data to the internet via
> MQTT.  The vision being that while at anchor, in a foreign port, and going
> ashore, the condition of the boat could be remotely monitored - anchor
> drag, hatch positions, fridge temp, battery voltage, bilge level/counter,
> fire/CO are all possibilities.  Even remotely controlling onboard devices,
>  particularly lights, is an option.
>
> Here's my latest video.
> https://youtu.be/C9DKu0P7-tM
>
> Oh and since low cost was the original motivation, total financial outlay
> is less than $200.
>
> Josh Muckley
> S/V Sea Hawk
> 1989 C 37+
> Solomons, MD
>
> ___
>
> This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you
> wish to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to:
> https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
> All Contributions are greatly appreciated!
>
>
___

This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to 
make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to:  
https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

All Contributions are greatly appreciated!