|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|08-30-2007 11:24 PM|
Originally Posted by Cruisingdad View Post
|08-30-2007 07:19 PM|
|CharlieCobra||TSteele65, that's a nice looking boat but it's a bit pricey and not any improvement over the PCC as far as I can tell. I like the Kettenburg's cockpit and fiberglass deck better (there's enough to varnish already) as well as the PCC's v-berth. The PCC is also faster at 120 and you wouldn't believe how much cheaper. I made the offer and am waiting for the response. I'd post a pic but the forum won't let me. I posted them up in my photo album instead. I'll let you guys know if the offer's accepted.|
|08-30-2007 06:14 PM|
There's a 41' Hinckley Cutter that's been for sale FOREVER in SF. The asking price is down to $69K - it had been as high as $120K. Looks like a gorgeous boat, if you're looking for a classic woody.
|08-30-2007 03:56 PM|
What is the outcome?
Did you bite the bullet?
(Way too much work/time/money for me,
I would much rather sail a boat than work on a boat)
|08-27-2007 05:28 PM|
Oh, BTW, a little excerpt by Bill Lapworth himself about a Kettenburg PCC (K-46) in the 1964 Transpac:
As a side note, it is my impression that the best sailed boat that year got virtually no attention. It was the PCC "Undine", sailed by Norm Dawley. The PCC's have a PHRF rating of 120, as compared with 114 for the Cal-40's. This 1946 Kettenburg "woodie" that was not designed to surf, out sailed all of the Cal-40's, even finishing ahead of Ariana. They ended up 3rd in class "B". The IOR rule was not kind to that sort of design.
Here's the link:
Regardless, I love the lines of the boats of that era and plan to keep this one in bristol condition. She'll be making the rounds at the wooden/classic shows in the area and competing once again in events like the Swiftsure and maybe the Vic Maui.
|08-27-2007 05:26 PM|
|CharlieCobra||Actually, the PCC or K-46 rates at 114 to 120 depending on the region, which ain't exactly slow. Six to nine seconds a mile can easily be picked up by a decent crew.|
|08-27-2007 04:27 PM|
That is my point, the Kettenburgs proportionately foot less distance (I'll take your word for it) is what makes the Kettenburg a fin keel with attached rudder.
As to the relative speed between the Cal 40 and the Kettenburg 46, you and I don't have to hypthetically repeat history. All you need to do is look at the race results from the mid-1960's when the Cal 40's hit the water. Before the Cal 40 showed up on the scene, boats like the Kettenburgs dominated the race course, but in the first few years that Cal 40's were around, (before further advances were made) the Cal 40's dominated nearly ever major regatta in the country making fin keel/ attached rudder boats (or if you prefer, extremely cut away forefoot and rudder post boats) like the Kettenburgs instantly obsolete as high level race boats. For that matter simply look at PHRF ratings. In So Cal PHRF there are no Kettenburg 46's but there is a Kettenburg 40 which rates 156. Cal 40's rate 114. There is a Kettenburg 50 (which I believe has a skeg hung rudder rather than a keel hung rudder) that rates 114, which would suggest that the Kettenburg 46 probably rates somewhere down around 121. For a boat that is six feet longer giving away 9 seconds a mile does not sound like the 46 is all that fast nor would it beat the Cal 40 around a race course.
Look, I've spent a lot of time on boats like these. They are gorgeous to look at but they are very hard and uncomforable boats to sail, and certainly are slow compared to the boats that followed them.
|08-27-2007 03:14 PM|
Don't confuse keel-hung rudders with skeg-hung rudders. Skegs are an underwater appendage that is separate from the keel and having the rudder further aft, hanging off of a skeg will drastically improve the handling of the boat, especially when compared to the rudders on the Kettenburgs, which are hung off a relatively short fin keel and almost under the center of the boat.
The reason transon hung spade rudders work so well is that they are so far aft that they have far more effect on the steering of the boat than the rudders on the Kettenburgs ever could. Given that the rudders on the Kettenburgs are also keel-hung, it is very likely that they will suffer from a heavy helm than a more balanced spade rudder would.
Originally Posted by CharlieCobra View Post
|08-27-2007 03:03 PM|
Wow Jeff, there must be a whole foot of difference in horizontal length between the Cal 40 and K-46 keels if ya take into account to cut 6' off the K-46's bow for comparison. While I agree the spade rudder is better for handling I seem to recall a certain poster here espousing the virtues of a skeg hung rudder with regards to strength and safety. I wonder who that was....
Tell ya what, bring your Cal 40 and I'll bring my K-46 and we'll see who kicks who's ass around the cans, heavy or light. I'll bring a case of good IPA for later.
|08-26-2007 03:34 PM|
"Jeff, these don't have fin keels, they have full keels with a cutaway forfoot and skeg hung rudder. They point with the best and have one more races than many designs out there. I think you confused the K's with something else. Go to http://www.kettenburgboats.com and check it out."
With all due respect, I know the lines of a Kettenberg quite well. While there is a tendancy these days to call any boat with an attached rudder a "full keeled" boat, there is no resemblance between the keel on the Kettenburg and a full keel. In the days when the Kettenburg was designed (and I began sailing) a fin keel was any keel whose bottom was less than 50% of the length of the boat (sometimes quoted as 50% of the horizontal length of the sailplan) whether or not the boat had an attached rudder or not.
Look at the profile of the Kettenberg 38,(visualizing it without its rudder)
Or the Kettenburg 46 for that matter:
and compare it to the Cal 40.
You will see that the Cal 40, which no one denies is a fin keel, actually has a longer horizontal proportion than the Kettenburg. If you read Lapworth's contemporary descriptions of why he went to a spade rudder on the Cal 40, it was because he had been racing fin keeled/attached rudder boats like the Kettenburg and they were so foul handling that he sought a better underbody design that would improve handling and tracking. The Cal 40 was a revolation compared to these fin keeled/attached rudder boat (as they were called at the time that they were designed) because these early fin keeled spade rudder boats actually tracked better and were much easier to steer by virtue of having a much greater longitundinal monent of interia to their lateral plane than the boats with attached rudders.
In terms of hull sections the Kettenburgs had very similar cross sections as well, with comparatively firm bilges for that era, with a comparatively large fillet whether the keel joins the hull.
So while it is popular to rewrite history and deny that these are fin keels and these days to go so far as to call them full keels, that whatever you may chose to call them, it does not change the fact that these extremely short length keels/ with attached rudder boats are a real bear to sail in light conditions and at the heavier end of the wind spectrum. Add in the full ends and short waterline you end up with a boat that will not hold a course without a lot of tending and which is hard on a crew. There is real virtues to a well designed full keel, but calling a boat like this a full keel, even though it lacks all of the virtues of a full keel, is insulting to real full keels.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|