No, not quite. I've used Fortress as my second anchor for 12 years, on two
boats. Although they have much in common with Danforths, there are significant
differences.

The Fortress has a much higher area to weight which means that it can "sail"
like a kite in a strong current. I experimented without no or little chain and
found that I couldn't even get it to the bottom in a current with no chain. On
the other hand, you can use this ability to glide the Fortress out away from the
boat, by pointing the flukes toward the boat as you lower it.

The light weight, (if you use minimal chain) allow you to "fish" for the bottom,
especially in sand or hard mud, since you can feel the flukes as dig in.
Perhaps I've practiced this more with a Fortress, but with a regular Danforth I
usually can't feel it until it fully grabs. I haven't had the problem of
skipping on a hard bottom - I've had just the opposite experience: In a few hard
places where the Delta won't bite, the Fortress grabs quickly. (BTW, the
solution for the Delta is to let it sit for 10 minutes - it will slowly dig in
if you give it a chance. This is an advantage over the CQR, which will
sometimes land on its side or up-side-down, and never dig in.)

The lighter Fortress allows you to go up a size, and thus use a "full size"
anchor with the ease of a lunch hook. This is why I like it as a second
anchor - having set the primary, its very easy to position it (especially when
your boat has two bows!). Its also nice to be able to row it out. Another
benefit - the Fortress has a 45 degree "mud setting." We switched to that in
the Chesapeake where our Delta would sometimes do the "slow drag" in soft mud.

Now the downside: The light weight of the flukes means that a clump of mud can
get caught between them and prevent the flukes from dropping down. While this
has only happened to me once with the larger FX-23, the smaller Fortress I used
on my last boat did it several times. On two occasions, I had set firmly, let
out scope, and an hour later was drifting completely free. For this reason, I
never trust a Fortress in an "unattended" situation in anything other than soft
mud. I've never had this problem when using it as a second anchor, because in
this situation is doesn't seem to release the same way in a wind shift.

For the record: My primary is a Delta 35 with 50 feet of 5/16 chain spliced to
9/16 NE 3-strand. The secondary is a Fortress FX23 with about 15 feet of chain.
I carry a Danforth style 20 pound anchor as a spare, plus 2 spare rodes, and a 8
pound dinghy anchor.


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
... Fortresses, *IF* they can get a bite, will hold
very well. The problem is they are so light that they skip over the surface
of
all but very soft mud.

BittyBill, you don't know WTF you're talking about. A Fortress works
just like any Danforth.

DSK

My father's boat (a big cabin cruiser) always had danforths. When he wanted
some quiet time he would tell me to "go check the anchor," which was really
a challenge-type game to me. I'd jump in, grab the line and pull myself down
to the anchor to see how it "looked." Sometimes I'd go down and dig it out
and clean the mud off, when we were ready to get underway. They always dug
deep in sand and mud, as I recall. This was the same guy who would tell me
if I wanted beach time to swim ashore, and he'd make it easy for me by
getting within a mile of long beach island. I guess he knew what he was
doing because I got good enough at swimming to get a lifeguard cert at 15.
He was a tough old sailor (the U.S.N. kind), I wonder if they still make
dads like him.
Scout


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
No, not quite. I've used Fortress as my second anchor for 12 years, on
two
boats. Although they have much in common with Danforths, there are
significant
differences.

The Fortress has a much higher area to weight which means that it can
"sail"
like a kite in a strong current. I experimented without no or little
chain and
found that I couldn't even get it to the bottom in a current with no
chain. On
the other hand, you can use this ability to glide the Fortress out away
from the
boat, by pointing the flukes toward the boat as you lower it.

The light weight, (if you use minimal chain) allow you to "fish" for the
bottom,
especially in sand or hard mud, since you can feel the flukes as dig in.
Perhaps I've practiced this more with a Fortress, but with a regular
Danforth I
usually can't feel it until it fully grabs. I haven't had the problem of
skipping on a hard bottom - I've had just the opposite experience: In a
few hard
places where the Delta won't bite, the Fortress grabs quickly. (BTW, the
solution for the Delta is to let it sit for 10 minutes - it will slowly
dig in
if you give it a chance. This is an advantage over the CQR, which will
sometimes land on its side or up-side-down, and never dig in.)

The lighter Fortress allows you to go up a size, and thus use a "full
size"
anchor with the ease of a lunch hook. This is why I like it as a second
anchor - having set the primary, its very easy to position it (especially
when
your boat has two bows!). Its also nice to be able to row it out.
Another
benefit - the Fortress has a 45 degree "mud setting." We switched to that
in
the Chesapeake where our Delta would sometimes do the "slow drag" in soft
mud.

Now the downside: The light weight of the flukes means that a clump of mud
can
get caught between them and prevent the flukes from dropping down. While
this
has only happened to me once with the larger FX-23, the smaller Fortress I
used
on my last boat did it several times. On two occasions, I had set firmly,
let
out scope, and an hour later was drifting completely free. For this
reason, I
never trust a Fortress in an "unattended" situation in anything other than
soft
mud. I've never had this problem when using it as a second anchor,
because in
this situation is doesn't seem to release the same way in a wind shift.

For the record: My primary is a Delta 35 with 50 feet of 5/16 chain
spliced to
9/16 NE 3-strand. The secondary is a Fortress FX23 with about 15 feet of
chain.
I carry a Danforth style 20 pound anchor as a spare, plus 2 spare rodes,
and a 8
pound dinghy anchor.


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
... Fortresses, *IF* they can get a bite, will hold
very well. The problem is they are so light that they skip over the
surface
of
all but very soft mud.

BittyBill, you don't know WTF you're talking about. A Fortress works
just like any Danforth.

DSK

You only use it to anchor occasionally
in one general spot, when serving as a committee boat for a few hours, while
you
are awake and watching. The cheapest piece of crap anchor in the world would do
as well for that use.

I was told by anyone and everyone that I asked that the Fortress was not a good
anchor due to it's weight. We used the Bruce twice this weekend and it worked
really well, though there wasn't much weather to test it.
Not surprising that Loco ends up with the anchor that also has the biggest ads.
Same way he picked his car!

RB

Because of its weight, the Fortress is a "different" anchor. It is not good as
a primary, overnight anchor, especially if you use bottoms other than soft mud.
However, if you mostly race and daysail, and just need an anchor for occasional
use, the Fortress is an excellent choice. Also, as I've pointed out before its
a great second anchor.

The Bruce, on the other hand, relies largely on weight, so its not a great
choice unless you have a windlass or a foredeck slave. You should have a Bruce
44, but you could get the same holding (and better setting) with a Delta 35. As
I've mentioned in previous dissertations, I favor the lightweight, high tech
approach because I want an anchor I don't mind hauling and resetting if the
original set doesn't work out. If you only anchor a few times a year this makes
little difference, but I've found that about a third of the time I'd rather be
"over there" than "here" and I don't want an anchor that's too heavy changing my
mind.



"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
You only use it to anchor occasionally
in one general spot, when serving as a committee boat for a few hours, while
you
are awake and watching. The cheapest piece of crap anchor in the world would
do
as well for that use.

I was told by anyone and everyone that I asked that the Fortress was not a
good
anchor due to it's weight. We used the Bruce twice this weekend and it worked
really well, though there wasn't much weather to test it.
Not surprising that Loco ends up with the anchor that also has the biggest
ads.
Same way he picked his car!

RB

One plough (best bower) one fisherman/admiralty (Kedge). Both
rigged ready. CHain rode on the best bower (or at least for the
depths I'm anchoring in), 10m chain on the kedge

Joe wrote:

Do you have?

I have 5... is that to many.

2 Danforths, a fisherman, a folding 4 spade grapple, and a 5 spade non
folding grapple.

My favorate all around is the folding 4 spade made in Norway, stores
easy and sets good enough in most conditions, but will drag some thru
mud. A good lunch hook.

Id like to have a plow type, but with what I have do you think it
would be overkill?

Joe

--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Faint echoes, sometimes inaudible, of the newsgroup's glorious
past are downloadable at http://music.download.com/internetopera

It's very well made, but it's too light. The measure of quality in an
anchor is
how well it holds the boat. Fortresses, *IF* they can get a bite, will hold
very well. The problem is they are so light that they skip over the surface of
all but very soft mud. By your own admission, you have never trusted it to hold
your boat overnight in a strange harbor. You only use it to anchor occasionally
in one general spot, when serving as a committee boat for a few hours, while
you
are awake and watching. The cheapest piece of crap anchor in the world would do
as well for that use.

Well now we have another guy trying to play Boobsprit & mooron the dimwits.
That skipping crap is just that - crap. It's an urban myth. I've never
experienced that problem. I would also suspect that if this skipping over mud
story was started by a real user of the anchor they probably bought their
anchor used and they didn't have the optional mud palms attached which Fortress
includes with every anchor. As far as "not trusting" the Fortress I never said
that. As far as only anchoring in one spot I never said that either. Back to
the drawing board.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

You are wrong, as usual. If you were right, why would someone spend
all that extra money on something that works "just like a danforth"?

Because it's lighter, it dissasembles, it's better looking and it's a
quality product.

Fact is, people buy
them for the same reason they buy pellets that are supposed to increase gas
mileage.

Nice try. Cheap people buy that stuff. The same people who buy from the
J.C. Whitney catalog. Upscale people buy the Fortress over the Danforth. You
probably own a Mini Supercharger.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

The Fortress has a much higher area to weight which means that it can
"sail"
like a kite in a strong current. I experimented without no or little chain and
found that I couldn't even get it to the bottom in a current with no chain.


I guess this is another way the myth started. Who uses any anchor WITHOUT a
chain?
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

Not surprising that Loco ends up with the anchor that also has the
biggest ads.
Same way he picked his car!

LOL........................ That's a laugh and you sure make yourself look
bad again. Lincoln does very little advertising on that car. Unlike the
teenybooper car you drive which is advertised everywhere.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

Not surprising that Loco ends up with the anchor that also has
the biggest ads. Same way he picked his car!

Oh, I forgot to mention that I love the new Subaru ads that state "We know
the little boy that's hiding inside the man" I thought .......... how fitting
in the case of the Boobster. ROFLMAO!!!
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"