<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>George,Lee and Stephen.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><U>George</U>,yes,rigid tubes are not a good idea,
the Pearson has in fact short connections of rubber hose at each
end intended to act as vibration compensators.I think the idea of
drains low down in the cockpit stern bulkhead through to the transom to
shift a lot of water quickly out of the cockpit is worth considering but needs
to be thought through.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><U>Lee</U>, one of the things I did while Tait Tait
was still in the water was to run a clear plastic hose from the cockpit through
hull,via the port locker to the scupper drain. This gave me an accurate
method of marking the locker bulkhead and the interior of the hull with the
water level so I shall be able to see if the fall from the cockpit sole
to an outlet above the waterline is enough for effective drainage.One of
the objectives is to reduce the number of holes in the hull below water level.
If the fall is not enough I shall go ahead and resite them anyway to get better
access.Also the present relative positions of the drain and through hull
make it difficult to fit hose between them without kinking and good quality hose
being stiff exerts a permanent lateral pressure on both items.I'm using auto
radiator hose now with a moulded bend in it( this is not a recommendation)
which works for me but Tait Tait is out of the water for six months a year.When
I shift the through hulls one of the factors that decide the new position will
be a comfortable run for proper marine hose.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><U>Stephen</U>, thank you for the propellor
information,I've learned something and I'm beginning to get an idea of how
to work out which propellor would give a good performance.My thinking goes like
this: take an Alberg 30 known to have good performance under power like yours as
a benchmark.The diameter and pitch of the propellor is known, also the shaft
speed can be calculated from the engine speed and the transmission reduction.
For illustration lets say that at 3000rpm your performance under power is
6knots.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Your reduction is 2.5: so shaft speed is 1200rpm.To
get the same performance I need the same propellor as yours turning at the
same shaft speed,so if my reduction is 2:1 I need 2400rpm.Other factors
like weight differences ,relative cleanliness of hulls just mean that more(or
less) engine power has to be applied to get the same rpm's. Why do I get the
feeling this logic is too simple.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If anybody out there is really pleased with their
performance under power I would like to know what engine speed gives them
6knots,their propellor diameter,pitch,number of blades,whether machine pitch or
sail pitch and transmission reduction.To avoid clogging up the group with lots
of e-mails I suggest this info is sent to me direct.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Peter Amos Tait Tait #478</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>p.a.amos@tesco.net.u.k</FONT></DIV>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<hr>
<!-- |@|begin eGroups banner|@| runid: 7654 crid: 3864 -->
<a target="_blank" href="http://click.egroups.com/1/7654/10/_/476031/_/966440742/"><center>
<img width="468" height="60"
border="0"
alt="Don't Just Travel. Travel Right."
src="http://adimg.egroups.com/img/7654/10/_/476031/_/966440742/"></center><center><font color="black"></font></center></a>
<!-- |@|end eGroups banner|@| -->
<hr>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
</BODY></HTML>