Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1389Boat Register

Expand Messages
  • olivershaw4229
    Mar 27, 2017

      We are gradually building up a picture of the various Privateers that are in circulation,  summarised in a Boat Register which is available on this site as an Excel spreadsheet.   (Files > Privateer Boat Register.xlsx )

      Within the last few days I have received information pertaining to two more members' boats,  with apologies that the information is incomplete as yet,  but more will be supplied if it becomes available.

      I would encourage all members to contribute to building as full a picture as we can,  by supplying (or updating) the details for your own boat,   and you can do this by one of two ways.     Method 1:  download and update the spreadsheet from the site,  then save it to a convenient location on your own computer,  delete the original spreadsheet from the site,  and upload the new version from your own computer.   Alternatively Method 2:   email the information to me (acapella13934 "AT" talktalk.net) and I will make the update.

      This is most helpful in building a full picture,  but the result is only as good as the data that owners choose to supply.

      Meanwhile an interesting detail has come up today,  from Tony Glover.    We have known for some time that the profile of the drop keel changed part way through the production run,  when the pivot bolt was moved from a low position to a high position.    We have also known for some time that some Privateers have built-in ballast,  possibly concrete (or encapsulated in concrete) beneath the cabin sole,  whereas others do not,  and we have thought that it is the later ones which do have it and the early ones which don't.  

      However Tony's boat seems to be a transitional one;  the later pattern drop keel (with the high pivot) but no built-in ballast in the space below the cabin sole (so possibly the earlier design in that respect).     I don't think any of us had considered whether these two changes were or were not simultaneous,  but it seems reasonable that the builders may have thought of the two things separately.     Had it been the other way round it could have been explained as using up old stock (of the drop keels) before implementing the intended change,   but that seems not to be the case here.




    • Show all 12 messages in this topic