Chris Pink

..

Then, enjoy. There's plenty of 'unkind' on here, it's that kind of place. Do not confuse with the real world. - just as an example, exactly how much hostility did you experience in your 350 miles?

For the third time in two days I see people mixing up this forum with real life. Where exactly do you get the paranoia from Dean? No-one gives a toss whether you stay there as long as you're not abusing someone else's desire to use those facilities. Except.... the mass whingers of CWDF. As you demonstrated CRT don't care. The law on Visitor Moorings is obscure anyway (cue 15 pages of 'discussion' on the meaning of the words 'service' and 'restriction'. You are simply setting yourself up by bringing this real world non-problem into this hate filled cesspit. Perhaps counselling could get to the root cause of that?

After seeing your pictures I am reassured by the advice to cyclists to dismount before entering the tunnel.

Maybe they've been to Venice.

HURRRAYYYYYY! 32 posts before some wally kicks in with their fantasy violence. Is that a forum record?

Speaking as someone who cruises regularly in an area you would consider to be full of so-called 'CM-ers' ( i loathe this abuse of language) you are bringing your own prejudice to the table. I have almost never seen hostility based on boating patterns and that I have seen usually speaks of the protagonist. The hostility I do see from time to time, and it is very occasional, is usually about the appearance of a boat and that tells you nothing of it's cruising style.

Please don't confuse this forum with real life. - or make the same mistake yourself with vastly generalised assumptions " confuse CCing with CMing". There is no 'great deal of hostility' on the canals, in the vast majority it's a bunch of disparate people who get on well with each other, paupers and kings. A forum like this tends to attract the more extreme views, perhaps that's its value.

Strewth. Give me strength. It's people who behave like this that are causing CRT to want to take more draconian action. Why do you need to wait to be told to move? Are you incapable of working it out for yourself. It's really not difficult.

It would take a braver man than me to argue with Captain RW Rowe, FNI

Don't make the mistake many of the posters above are making, which is to confused this forum with real life. Community in its many faceted and heterogeneous forms is alive and well on the canal out in the real world.

I quite like this; Prop walk or transverse propeller thrust is caused by the helical discharge from the propeller and its interaction with the rudder and hull. With an ahead movement of a right handed propeller: The helical discharge from the propeller creates a larger pressure on the port side of the rudder. A slight upward flow from the hull into the propeller area puts slightly more pressure onto the down sweeping propeller blades. The net result is a tendency for a right handed propeller to give a small swing to port when running ahead. Transverse thrust is of much greater significance when using an astern movement. The helical discharge from a right handed propeller working astern splits and passes forward towards either side of the hull. In doing so it behaves quite differently. On the port quarter it is inclined down and away from the hull whilst on the starboard quarter it is directed up and on to the hull. This flow of water striking the starboard quarter can be a substantial force capable of swinging the stern to port, giving the classic kick of the bow to starboard. (With acknowledgements to The Shiphandler's Guide, by Captain RW Rowe, FNI, published by The Nautical Institute) There is even a small chance if I read it enough times, I'll understand it.

As well as being confused, you're wrong. Forum member Cotswoldman's cruising pattern is an example which contradicts your statement. There are also many boats without home mooring that are not liveaboard.

I'm not quite grasping here what disturbs the symmetry of the forces. Blade pushes water one way at the top, pushes water the opposite way at the bottom - why is the bottom force stronger?

It's wonderful the breadth of experience on this forum.

Indeed Porky, though I would substitute "do boating-type stuff" for "travel" - I'd even substitute something more elegant if I could come up with it.

And by making erroneous assumptions in this statement you demonstrate to me how your point of view is loading your 'questions'. "Bona-fide for navigation" and " genuinely wanted to travel as much of the system as you could" are not synonomous.

Thanks Richard, I'm interested because I'm thinking of selling my HA2. As a seller ;-) £850 does seem like a very good deal for that one if it's a good runner. I would have probably snapped it up when I was looking for one.

Sorry!! mouth before brain moment.

Do you had a link for that?

Well it's very very smooth and sweet at normal cruising speed, 5mph on a 24" x 21" prop - as the OP I don't know what revs this is at. I would be surprised if a cylinder was missing and there's certainly no discontinuity when increasing revs. It just gets to a point and everything rattles like hell. If there is an issue it's something like the flywheel or drive plate loose. But the mounts, now I've looked carefully, don't seem to me to up to the job for such a heavy engine. For instance I have an HA2 bolted through two Russian railway sleepers widthways and those bolted to 10mm angle and that doesn't shake at all. This, bolted through a piece of 10mm steel and 12mm rubber onto 8mm C section, is not the same thing at all.

running the engine again at vibration speed with particular regard to the mounts, the amount of vibration on the front mount is noticeably more than in the engine bed at that point indicating they are not fully coupled. With the rear mounts which, now I've got them unburied, look far more messy, the vibration is the same on the mount or on the bed. So I'm going to work toward beefing up the front mounts as a first step.

It's not great access but possible. Your post is the plan for the front ones, i've still got a bit of digging to get at the back pair. The steel insert wouldn't foul the mounting on its top face but may foul it to the side (it finishes just forward of the mounting), there's not much clearance but, yes, a nice bit of French oak is the plan. 16mm is 5 thou larger so I reckon it will fit (and be a lot cheaper).

We are sorry to report that at this point mayalld's batteries ran out. His pontifications will continue once his recharge is complete.