when are you going to buy one?

"****Head" wrote

A good boat gives a better chance.


Poor scotty! Remember when you e-mailed me long ago and said you wanted a C&C?
Go ahead and lie and say you didn't!
Now you own the absolute bottom boat!

Poooooor Scottty!!! Bwahahahahahaha!

RB

If he wants the boat to float with even half a foot of freeboard above the
water line, and that would be necessary to make it possible to bail the boat
in even in moderate seas, he would need more than that.
I have made a few design sketches of boats with positive flotation, and yes,
it does take up a lot of space.
As Binary Bill say's, his inflatable lovers might do the job if they are
tied down low enough, but are they puncture proof?

I don't know whether his boat actually has positive floatation or not, but,
unwise as this might seem, and since I'm not at risk here, I have just taken
his word for it.

Peter S/Y Anicula


"Jeff Morris" skrev i en meddelelse
...
In order to cancel the weight of his keel (3200 pounds?) Neal would need
roughly
50 cubic feet of foam. If the boat were constructed with this in mind, it
would
have a layer of foam about 2 inches thick on the entire hull. It seems
highly
unlikely that Neal could have installed that much foam after the fact.

I don't know whether his boat actually has positive floatation or not, but,
unwise as this might seem, and since I'm not at risk here, I have just taken
his word for it.

A coronado 27 is a coronado 27. Look at the pics at his website. They give no
indication that the boat is modified in any significant way. It was designed
for near coastal and that's where it should remain. Neal claim that the thing
is a match for a true blue water boat is nothing more than a fun troll we've
all enjoyed.
Neal knows enough about boats to know the true limits of his craft. If he had a
real boat, anyone here with a Coronado would be his target. And fare game it
would be.

RB

Oh, yeah, the time I e-mailed you.......riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

SV

"****Head" wrote


Poor scotty! Remember when you e-mailed me long ago and said you wanted a
C&C?
Go ahead and lie and say you didn't!
Now you own the absolute bottom boat!

Poooooor Scottty!!! Bwahahahahahaha!

RB

Oh, yeah, the time I e-mailed you.......riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


Just clearing up who the liar really is. It's you. Before I made an ass of you
with my Catalina 30 joke, you were e-mailing me and were asking advice on what
boat to get next. You told me you didn't like the look of the Pearson 30 and
the C&C which you did like, was out of your range.
I have a good memory, Scotty.
You are exposed AGAIN as a liar and an ass.

Bwahahahaha!

RB

Oh, riiiiiight, now I remember. You recommended a siedelman 30 or a
Coronado 27.
thanks, e-mail buddy.

SV


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Oh, yeah, the time I e-mailed you.......riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


Just clearing up who the liar really is. It's you. Before I made an ass of
you
with my Catalina 30 joke, you were e-mailing me and were asking advice on
what
boat to get next. You told me you didn't like the look of the Pearson 30
and
the C&C which you did like, was out of your range.
I have a good memory, Scotty.
You are exposed AGAIN as a liar and an ass.

Bwahahahaha!

RB

Heavy seas to Alaska you wrote about:

http://www.tv-antenna.com/heavy-seas/



otnmbrd wrote in message hlink.net...
BG Comments interspersed .... I see you didn't want to touch the
subjects of tsunami's and stability. Your lack of knowledge and
inexperience showing again?

Simple Simon wrote:
I'm not the one bragging about being aboard boats that
get structure stove in by large waves am I?

Didn't see any bragging on my part, and considering the potential for
damage to that ship, what she sustained and survived would be considered
acceptable.

I've sailed
up and down many a fifty footer with no problem. Any and
all structure aboard my boat is still intact and shows
no wave damage.

Doubt you've ever seen a 50 footer. You haven't done enough deep sea
sailing. If by chance you had seen even a 30 footer ..... we all get lucky.

I'll admit I've never even seen a hundred-footer in person
but that's because I'm smart enough to avoid them. Can
you claim the same?

Once again, your lack of experience showing. If you go to sea long
enough, where you are trying to get from point A to point B, you are
bound to run into conditions that mean you will have to deal with some
serious weather. You can avoid some things, but others you just have to
deal with.
I remember a picture which was making the rounds of the web, showing a
tanker in heavy weather, going to Alaska. I have been Master of that
tanker, on that run, and seen the same .... sometimes you are stuck
dealing with what you are dealt, and in the case of a rogue, you
generally have no fore warning, which means, in your case, odds on, we
wouldn't be having this discussion if you had ever run across one.
BG Try as you might, Neal, you will never see the conditions, I've
seen.... and to be honest, I hope you don't.

otn

Oh, riiiiiight, now I remember. You recommended a siedelman 30 or a
Coronado 27.
thanks, e-mail buddy.

Nope, I tried to tell you that a Pearson 30, C&C 30 would be a far better
boats. Better built, faster, more fun to sail and bulletproof. Even better
you'd never lose a dime if you wanted something else. You'd also have avoided
all the torture over owning a renowned joke of a boat.

RB

HarryV wrote:
Heavy seas to Alaska you wrote about:

http://www.tv-antenna.com/heavy-seas/

BG Thems the ones. Considering the angle they are meeting that sea, it
wouldn't surprise me that they where broaching at the time these were taken.

otn