No. 51 - December 1982


Herman Stegemen (#280)


The ideas of swapping houses and boat-swaps have been around for some time. How­ever, each has some limitations for a family which 1) wishes to sail, and 2) has a 3 1/2 year old who requires a fair amount of running space. The idea of combining house and boat swapping seemed much more on-target for our needs. Being members of the T-22 Class Association provides a perfect vehicle for working out a swap of both.


1)  Hundreds of T-22 sailors read the newsletter.

2)  A Class Association member is likely to be serious about his/her boat and therefore, can be trusted with Tapestry (our well-loved T-22 #280).

3)  A T-22 family is likely to be a nice bunch and so can be trusted with our home.

4)  T-22 sailors thrive in some of the most desirable vacation areas ­Pacific Coast, Great Lakes, St. Lawrence, New England, Lake Champlain, etc.


A March trip to Quebec City and many stories of the charms of Montreal worked my fantasy into action and I wrote Barbara Charters proposing a swap with a family from Montreal or Quebec City areas. Barbara wrote us back a very encouraging letter and passed our proposal on to Ray and Barbara Lewis of Montreal. In addition, she published our letter in the Newsletter. Ray Lewis called us almost immediately and Jim Salmon of Hudson (near Montreal) called us as soon as he got the Newsletter. We had already sewn up a swap with Ray and Barbara before Jim contacted us but hearing from him confirmed that this was a good idea. We were pleased to get one response - a second was proof of the pudding.


By phone, Ray and I talked about our houses and boats. We both checked with our boat insurance people and learned that there is no problem with such a loan of one's boat so long as it is not a commercial venture. My insurance company wanted Ray's name, etc. and actually "covered" him for the week at no expense.


The preparations were almost without a hitch but the postal service in one or both of our countries provided a little anxiety by holding up maps, directions, and keys at both ends. But all did eventually arrive at last.


As the summer progressed, we became increasingly excited about our trip. The weekend before we were to leave provided a last whetting of the appetite. It was the weekend of the New England Regional Championships and John and Barbara Charters were there (with a slightly overweight Red Baron V - but excellent spinnaker handling made up for the "extra waterline length", and John and his Crew made off with 2nd place for the three day series. . . I wonder where there will be room for the new flag?) and told us of the Lewis' lovely home on Lac St. Louis.


What a beautiful place "Our Montreal House", as Zack (the 3 1/2 year old) called it, was situated right on the lake with a large lawn, huge elm trees, and just a short walk from the Baie d'Urfe Yacht Club where Honey Belle II is moored. We had the extra benefits of a nicely producing garden and Sandy, a big, playful dog who does wonderful flying leaps off the wall and into the lake to fetch anything tossed in - the farther the better. "Let's go jump Sandy" was Zach's favorite suggestion if he felt things were getting a little slow around the house.


Though we have yet to actually meet Barbara and Ray face-to-face, we did have the real pleasure of meeting and getting to know the 3 young Lewises; John (16), David (18), and Lenore (20). John was at home working at a summer job while we were there and was a most willing and courteous host. David spent most of the week with his parents in Maine developing his sailboarding skills in the ocean surf. He was with us for a few days during which he and his friend taught (even) me the basics of sailboarding. He also took Zach on a thrilling sailboard ride. Being a bouncier and wetter and seemingly much faster ride than a Tanzer ride, Zach loved it. He crouched in the bow of the sailboard looking like a fat little grinning figurehead in a yellow life vest. His mother and father were a bit anxious in the "chase boat" alongside as Zach would catch a face full of spray - but the wetter, the better for the figurehead as he squealed with delight. Lenore, who was away most of the week redecorating an apartment, and David invited Zach to supper and swim downtown, allowing Sharon and me to get out for a leisurely dinner at a fine restaurant. Some people considering a swap arrangement may question the desirability of having members of the "host" family present. In our happy experience, having the three younger Lewises around was of nothing but positive benefit. They added greatly to our enjoyment.


We found Montreal to fully live up to our high expectations. We walked, drove, and "subwayed" all about the area. As we played tourist, we visited the Children's Zoo, "Expo Island", the Botanical Gardens, Olympic Village, Mount Royal by day and night, St. Joseph's, etc. We spent several evenings amongst the street performers and spent a day in the Laurentians. We shopped and ate and looked and toured to our heart's content.


Coming from Maine, sailing Lac St. Louis was very different but very enjoyable. It seemed like we were sailing in a country club as the shores of Pte. Claire, Beaconsfield, Baie D'Urfe, and St. Anne's are lined with lovely homes, nice lawns, and tall elms. It is really very pretty and has a very nice "feel" about it. The lake is shallow so I expect a good chop can occur in a strong wind, but we had nothing but warm, gentle breezes. I did receive a fright when suddenly I saw "seaweed" reaching toward the surface around us, (in Maine, that means you've already hit the rocks), but later learned I had only approached a "grass line". It was great fun to grab a lunch and go sail. The preparations in Maine usually includes a check of the tide table, weather radio, being sure there is at least one set of warm day clothes per passenger, grabbing foul weather gear and a few sweaters, etc. I didn't realize how much preparation there was in normal practice locally, until I had that strong sense of "forgetting something" when climbing aboard Honey Belle with only sandwiches and sodas. It is a fun sailing area and there seemed to be some very keen boat handling in the regattas we watched.


Our week in Montreal was very enjoyable. We loved the area and want to go back again and again.


I encourage anyone considering a house and boat swap to pursue it. It is a great way to have a vacation in a new (or old favorite) area with the advantages of: saving tons of money on accommodations, having much more living room than any hotel offers, great flexibility in such matters as meals in or out, and of course, having a boat just like yours to sail as much as you want, whenever you want.




John Charters (#1000)


Volumes have been written on anchors, much of it contradictory. If one were to believe each manufacturer's claim, one would soon conclude that each anchor is better than all the rest. In an attempt to shed a little light on this apparent confusion, the following is submitted.


First and most important, no one anchor is best. Period! Most anchors will hold under some conditions and some anchors will hold under most conditions. It is those in between conditions, those difficult conditions where differences begin to show up between anchor designs. But, before we discuss these differences, let us divide anchors into three basic categories.


First the lightweight burying anchors. FOB H.P., Danforth, Benson & Viking are examples. Pound for pound, these anchors have a larger fluke area than all the others. Under load they literally bury themselves, sometimes shank and all.


The second group, the "ploughshare" anchors. C.Q.R. and Bruce are examples of this type. And as their name suggests, these anchors plough their way through the bottom, rather than burying their way into the bottom.


Lastly, the "hookers". The best known being the yachtsman, the Swedish Sea-Grip and the Northhill. These are the anchors that have the smallest fluke area for their weight. Both an advantage and a disadvantage, as we shall see.


Now, let us examine each type and see where they fit into the scheme of things.



The best known, in this country in any case, is the Danforth lightweight anchor. Invented just before World War II, by Messrs Ogg and Danforth. I guess their original patents have run out, as there are now many look alikes. Some of which are definitely inferior, others may very well be the equal. I once did an experiment. Two anchors, one a genuine Danforth, the other a look alike, both the same weight. I attached a nylon line to each and proceeded to drag both around the back yard. The Danforth never gave up, constantly kept trying to dig in. The other slid across the grass, never giving any indication that it even wanted to try.


The other day I repeated the experiment, this time using the new FOB H.P. and a Danforth. To my surprise, the FOB out performed the Danforth by a wide margin. I realize these tests are hardly

scientific, after all how often do you anchor in the back yard anyway. But Interesting!


In sand and mud, and even clay, the lightweight anchors are supreme. Both the Danforth and the FOB H.P. will hold long after all others have tripped or dragged. Once the lightweight anchor has buried itself into the bottom, it will hold almost indefinitely, because of its large fluke area. An added bonus, the lightweight anchors are the easiest to stow.


However, neither the Danforth nor the FOB is too happy with weeds and kelp. The FOB, because it is more compact, that is heavier for its size, does a slightly better job. Nevertheless, I cannot recommend either where there are heavy weeds or kelp. Especially kelp! Those nice large flukes that did such a good job of holding when buried, now work in reverse. They are just too large to penetrate through the weeds and reach the bottom. Nor are the lightweights too effective on a rocky bottom. Remember, to be effective, all lightweight anchors must bury them­selves to reach their maximum holding power.


One last word of caution. These anchors, again because of their large flukes, do not like to be lowered when the boat is moving at any speed. Particularly the Danforth and its look alikes. They tend to "water ski" if towed too fast. The FOB H.P. is slightly better in this respect. The manufacturer claims it can be dropped at boat speeds of up to four knots. My own observations would tend to confirm this.



The best known plow anchor is the CQR, invented by G.I. Taylor in the early 1930's. Like the Danforth, there are many look alikes. Some good, some bad. Long the favourite of many cruising skippers, the CQR has many faithful adherents. Because it is heavier, for its size, it will often penetrate weeds, when the lightweights won't. As a rough guide, the plow anchor should be two to three times heavier than the light weight anchors, for equivalent holding power. The main drawback to the plow anchor is its shape. It is difficult to stow, anywhere except on a bow roller. It is also expensive!


My feelings on the Bruce anchor are mixed. I have read rave reports and damning reports. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the Bruce. I am adopting a conservative wait and see attitude. If you were only going to carry one anchor (not a good idea) the CQR should certainly be considered. Any anchor that has been around for forty years must have something going for it.



If you have ever tried to anchor in heavy weeds, or on a rocky bottom, you will have wished for a Yachtsman anchor. Without a doubt, when the going gets really tough, nothing, but nothing, will take the place of the old fashioned yachtsman, or fisher­man anchor. You may only use it a few times a year, but for those few times, you'll be thankful you had one aboard. Because of its small fluke for its weight, the yachtsman will dig through weeds and kelp like no other. Again, as a rough guide, a yachtsman anchor should be some five times heavier than a lightweight, for equivalent holding power.


The Swedish Sea-Grip is a new design that cleverly folds to a compact shape. My own informal testing would suggest it may very well be the equal of the yachtsman. Too soon to know for sure.


To summarize then: In sand and mud, first choice should be a lightweight anchor. A plow anchor is a good second choice. The yachtsman a definite third. In hard sand and heavy clay, the plow and the FOB H.P., followed closely by the Danforth. Third, once again, the Yachtsman. In weeds and rock, the yachtsman is head and shoulders ahead of all the rest. Second choice the plow. Then the FOB and lastly the Danforth.



The question I have been most often asked about anchors is, "what weight of anchor do I need for my boat?" The simple, if somewhat facetious, answer is - "the biggest (heaviest) you can carry". For regardless of which anchor you favour, and regardless of type of bottom, the heavier the anchor, the better it will hold.


Remember, using the lightweight as a basis for comparison for equivalent holding power, then the plow should be two to three times heavier, and the yachtsman, five times. In any case, follow the recommendations provided by the manufacturer of whatever anchor you choose. And if possible, go one size heavier.


Finally, my own feelings as to what anchor(s) you should carry. If you have read this far, you will probably already know the answer. One anchor is not enough But if you insist, I would have to recommend the plow, as probably the best all around anchor, if you find a suitable place to store it. If not, then second choice would be the FOB H.P. Because of its compact design (an 18 lb FOB takes up less room than an 8 lb Danforth) it is much easier to stow. Better still, carry a plow and FOB or Danforth. And promise yourself you'll add a yachtsman to your inventory, just as soon as possible.


Suggested reading for more in depth information'. "Anchors, Selection and Use" by Robert A. Smith, and "Anchors and Anchoring" by R. D. Ogg. Also interesting to read are the tests done by l'Auto-Journal on 13 anchors including the CQR and Danforth, and "Seven Anchors on a Mooring Line" by a French magazine "Bateaux". The CQR got top rating in the l'Auto-Journal test and the FOB H.P. got the best score by Bateaux.




C. Jordan (#1768)


I found the area aft of the cabin step (under the cockpit floor) to be almost 6 cubic feet of largely non-accessible storage. It seemed anything I wanted was at the back and awkward to crawl for, hence I tended not to use this space. To solve this problem I made a 1/4" plywood box with outside dimensions 36" long, 17 1/4" wide and 11 1/2" deep. Since 1/4" plywood does not nail together well, I used 5/8" by 5/8" pine "nailing strips" and lots of glue at all the inside corners and edges. On each side at the top of the box is a 5/8" x 5/8" "runner". These runners engage in two notched, 36" long "stringers" which are screwed to the top edges of the teak strips along the sides of the two quarter berths. The stringers carry the weight of the box and guide it as it slides in and out of the storage area somewhat like a very deep dresser "drawer. Handholds cut in the ends of the box make it easy to carry ashore for emptying/re-stocking.