HI Rick:
Impromptu has a hull number of 125, and according to my papers, she is a MKII.....to make matters worse, #125 was built in the Bruckman Custom shop for an owner in Chicago to race in the Mac races. The designation on the listing when I bought the boat called her a MKIIC...there's one more MKIIC somewhere and was named Blue Max but I never see anything about it. Rob Maclachan from South Shore told me back when I bought my build file that the MK I and MKII switch was somewhere in the #90's. Don't know how reliable that is.... Good topic for discussion, however. Ron Impromptu C&C 38MKIIC..'77 September, I think. Is a 38 named Program in that scratch sheet? Impromptu was buit as Program, thgen named Gannett in 1980, then Blue Chip, in 1983 and then Impromptu in 1997, _____ From: CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list-boun...@cnc-list.com] On Behalf Of Rick Brass Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:18 PM To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com Subject: Stus-List Does anyone know the HIN break between the 38 mk1 and 38mk2? I need some help in answering an inquiry from the handicapper of NCPHRF, based on the data I submitted in my recent PHRF application. Imzadi is a 38, HIN 047, with a build date of 01/76. I presume she is what we'd call a Mk1. Someone on the list has a boat with a HIN in the high 80's, and describes his boat as a Mk2. In submitting my most recent PHRF application, I used the tech specs from the photo album. The handicapper has asked for some clarification, because the PHRF base rating data shows the specs of the Mk1 and Mk2 to be the same and that there is a common base rating of 117 for both models.. A review of the available specs and brochures show that most of the data is common, but the data for beam varies over a range of 11'4" to 12'3". In my application for my Mk1, I used 11'4" for beam. That's the number in the tech specs for the Mk1 on the photo album. I also acquired two IOR rating certificates for my boat among the ship's papers aboard when I bought her. Both the 2/76 and 2/82 IOR ratings specify a beam of 11'6", which is consistent. (The IOR certificates also list the waterline beam to be 10'5", and that is pretty reasonable considering that the 38 has a pronounced tumblehome, with the widest part of the hull about 12 to 18" above the waterline.) An article from the November 1975 issue of Yacht Racing magazine describes the 38 as a "One Tonner with a comfortable interior" and describes how a 38 was optimized for the 1975 One Ton Worlds. The article lists the beam as 11'6". Now the brochures on the Photo Album, and a price list/spec sheet among my ship's papers that is dated 9/13/1976, show the beam of a 38 to be 12'0''. That is what is in the data for the PHRF base ratings of both the Mk1 and Mk2. I also looked at the Photo Album brochures for the early Landfall 38 - the version with the fixed aluminum portlights rather than the glued in portlights. The brochures say the hull is the same as the "racing" 38 and most of the dimensions correspond - except the beam of the Landfall is listed as 12'3". Now that is consistent with what is shown on the original Carpenter's Certificate that was in the build file for my boat. I recall learning someplace that C&C changed a few bulges and bumps between the hulls of the Mk1 and Mk2 to take advantage of the IOR rules. So it is possible that the beam of the Mk1 was 11'6", and of the Mk2 at 12'0". I might discount the measurement shown on my Carpenter's Certificate; a Landfall might be 12'3" and that model was about to go into production soon after my boat was built, so the statistic could be in error. Now my question is not intended to challenge the rating I'll get from NCPHRF. It is more of the nature or trying to determine if I have a Mk1 or Mk2, and trying to reconcile the inconsistent information. Does anyone know the break point (HIN and/or build date) between a 38 mk1 and 38 mk2? If you have a 38 or LF38, what is your HIN and build date? And what do you think the beam of your boat to be? Rick Brass Washington, NC PS. Some of you who are Great Lakes racers may be interested in some information also in my Ship's Papers. I have a scratch sheet for the 1978 Labatt's 100 race that my boat was in. Among the 21 boats in the two IOR divisions there were 13 C&C's ranging from 30 to 38 feet. (1-30, 6-33, 1-35, 1-36, 4-38) I'm impressed that 2/3 of the boats racing were C&Cs. Speaks pretty highly of the heritage of our boats. From: CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list-boun...@cnc-list.com] On Behalf Of Jim Watts Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 10:00 AM To: 1 CnC List Subject: Re: Stus-List Advise on a dinghy repair I'm not there, so I can't see it, but most plastic dinghies are made from rotomolded polyethylene or polypropylene. Walker Bay boats are made from UV-stable polypropylene. ABS is a very unlikely material. You can test it to see by dripping pure methylene chloride on the dinghy. If it is one of the poly materials it will evaporate without leaving a mark. If it is ABS it will etch the material and make it briefly sticky. ABS is glueable using a solvent-based chemical, or if prepared right, with epoxy. If it is ABS I would use a methacrylate adhesive for maximum strength (Plexus is one brand; small amounts are available as Devcon Plastic Welder). Polyethylene and polypropylene are generally considered non-glueable since nothing sticks to them. The most promising route to home repair would be with WEST System G-Flex, combined with corona treatment. See their literature for the full story. I give that approach about a 10% chance of working. Any decent plastics shop should be able to heat-weld a repair if you can get the dinghy to them. Done right, that will give you a 100% chance of working.
_______________________________________________ This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album http://www.cncphotoalbum.com CnC-List@cnc-list.com
