Search options (Page 2 of 5)

Beverly, Massachusetts is my best guess.

"MDZ" is a code issued by the State of Maryland and generally issued to home built boats.  Yours, built before 1973 had no HIN and the State required one for some silly reason. The wooden board appears to be and offici9al number for either Canadian or US "Documented" vessels.  The FRP headliner generally indicated that it is JJT built.

Gawwd, if I'd known that it was so easy, I wouldn't have spent half of a day making mine.  I'll send the next one to you. By the way, the shaft house that I know of has two CNC milling centers and three turning centers.  Maybe they bought them from Bucky.  I'll bet that they winter in Costa Rica.

The theoretical hull speed is about 6kts. Get the prop re-pitched and try it out.  That will be a lot cheaper than buying a new one.

The engine is rated at 3400 rpm. The calculations are at 94% full power. If you use the 2.21 transmission ratio column and change the 10 pitch to 9, the theoretical speed is 5.36kts. A 10" pitch appears to be ideal resulting in a 5.95 theoretical speed. Your prop can be re-pitched from 9 to 10.

Don't worry about compromising the strength of the mast.  You would have to drill a helluva lot of holes (and all in one place) to weaken it.
When painting my mast last year, there were many holes to fill.  I used West epoxy with aluminum powder added.  The powder is a West product that I got from a friend in the glass biz.  You mix it with a touch of silica into a stiff paste. I over-drilled the holes and then opened them up with a countersink and then added the goop. 

We did a "test" routine first using a piece of aluminum and checked the strength after curing. Beating on ten holes, with a hammer, didn't loosen anything.  I also tried to pop them out, from the back, using a punch and that didn't work.

By real rough back yard calculations, beefing up the rigging will add 10 lbs max aloft.  At 15 ft above the center of buoyancy, that would equate to (more back yard calcs) 150 ft lbs.  While the added ballast (down 4’+) would provide 1200+ ft lbs to counter that.

In my humble opinion, the JJT boats are not overbuilt.  The many comments that I’ve heard over the years, e.g. bullet proof, bomb proof, are all based on myth.  On close inspection, the boats that I’ve surveyed, including my own, are of average construction quality with examples of sloppy workmanship here and there.  The strength of the boat is in its design where the narrow wineglass hull and fine entry keeps hull and rigging loads low in rough conditions.   

Your comments on amenities are well taken.  Getting the boat there with her crew half-dead would probably not be considered a totally successful venture.  Good thinking.

You got it, Chris. Keep in mind that the rum tank should be the first priority.

The heavy rudder places its weight at the extreme end of boat.  Any weights at either end of any boat causes hobby-horsing.  That's why, when using all chain for the anchor, the chain is lead via a pipe to a storage area (ideally) at the center of the vessel.  The heavy rudder also contributes to pintle and gudgeon loads that increase as the mass of the rudder increases.  In sloppy seas, this can be significant.  Weight is seldom a component of strength.  I mentioned the use of carbon fiber for construction.  Kevlar is another possibility.  With proper design and construction, it would not be unusual to half the weight (mass) and double the strength.

I didn't say anything about attaching the additional ballast with bolts. I said "FRP encapsulated".

My fuel tank is well restrained and would easily survive a roll. 

"Design/build an engine restraining mechanism".  I should have been more clear with this.  The restraining gear would have to be such that the engine would not shift during a roll.  It would not always be in-place but quickly put into operation when needed.