Association Forum - Original Wing Keel?

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

Catalina 25 Specific Forum

Original Wing Keel?

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

gop711
1st Mate

Member Avatar

Armenia
83 Posts

Initially Posted - 04/20/2006 : 08:04:21

Could a 1987 with a sail number of 5616 be a factory wing keel or do you think it was a conversion?

Thanks
Greg

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 04/20/2006 : 08:15:51

Greg,

I believe Catalina Yachts started offering the wing keel option around 1986 so it is entirely posssible that yours is a factory wing. You should be able to call Catalina Yachts and get that information. They have also been known to send out a copy of the documentation pertaining to ones boat. I'd give them a call.

Also, if it were a conversion, you'd probably would see evidence of of the swing keel setup such as holes in the cabin steps for the winch, cable tube in the bilge, the trunk under the floor,...etc.

Edited by - dlucier on 04/20/2006 08:19:12

atgep
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

1009 Posts

Response Posted - 04/20/2006 : 08:47:30

The wing became available in 87.

Tom.

Edited by - on

Ben
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1234 Posts

Response Posted - 04/20/2006 : 10:28:51

I would think that you could tell real quick if your boat is a retrofit. If it was, there would be a keel trunk where the old swing keel pivoted up into when the keel was lowered, and there would be evidence of the keel cable "volcano" under the stairs.

Edited by - on

gop711
1st Mate

Members Avatar

Armenia
83 Posts

Response Posted - 04/20/2006 : 12:18:05

I have not actually seen the boat.

Thanks for the input.

Greg

Edited by - on

tinob
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1883 Posts

Response Posted - 04/20/2006 : 12:50:00

Hi Greg,

There is another clue to the boats original configuration. Behind the steps, on the quarterberths deck and cushion there would be a cut out of about 3" by 6", an area in which the cable and hose in which the cable used to raise the keel passed. Of course this might have been modified as well, but on my swing/wing conversion it hasn't. Hey best of luck on your Catalina and welcome to the forum.

Val on the hard DAGNABIT # 3936 Patchogue, N.Y.

Edited by - on

farrison
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
166 Posts

Response Posted - 04/21/2006 : 20:53:09

Greg;
I have a 82 WK/SR that was built as a fin keel and converted by the factory in 1989. There is evidence by a slight offset of a few of the keel bolts in the bilge. I confirmed this by sending in a request for information to the Catalina web site and giving them my sail/hull number. It took about 7-10 days for them to respond to me by e-mail.

Paul

Edited by - on

lcharlot
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Antigua and Barbuda
1301 Posts

Response Posted - 04/21/2006 : 22:55:25

I have been compiling a database of Catalina 25's for several years, and while it contains records on only about 10% of all 6031 hulls built, it is a random enough sample to give us some clues as to approximately which hull numbers represent the transitions from Mark I to Mark II to Mark III to Mark IV. Your question as to whether your wing is an OEM or a Retrofit also implies the question "is my boat a Mark IV or Mark III?". The first Mark IV hull, with the lowered cabin floor, is probably #5803, or possibly #5800. These were built in the late summer of 1987. The first Mark III hull is somewhere around #5200, built sometime late in 1985. The first Mark III with an OEM Wing Keel in the database is either #5409 or #5562. Unfortunately, the database is not detailed enough for me to distinguish an OEM wing with a late model Mk. III swing-to-wing conversion, of which there have been several. As one of the other posters in this thread pointed out, the surest way to tell is to look in the bilge just behind the companionway ladder for the remains of the keel cable thru-hull and turning ball mount, and also at the top step itself. If you see evidence of three filled-in 1/2" diameter holes in that step, or a large hole in the trim board in front of the step, then there used to be a cable winch mounted and your boat is a swing-to-wing conversion. FYI: Checking the database, the boat just before yours, #5615, is an '87 Wing Keel Tall Rig Mk. III. This implies yours is also an OEM Wing Keel Mk. III. If your boat has the lowered cabin floor with a narrow sump above the keel instead of a wide bilge space under the floor, it is a Mark IV, and I'd like to update the database to reflect this. We have had some reports of hull numbers prior to #5803 that the owners thought were Mk. IV's.

Edited by - lcharlot on 04/22/2006 10:45:49

atgep
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

1009 Posts

Response Posted - 04/22/2006 : 00:07:09

It is not as simple as that Larry. There were a run of 3.5 boats that have the lower floor and the old deck. It is the new deck mold that makes a mk4

The mk3 got the wing in 87 as an option. 88 was wing or fin only and a lower floor. 89-90 had all the goodies.

It would be very useful to have a complete list of HN's and options from factory.

Tom.

Edited by - on

Champipple
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
6855 Posts

Response Posted - 04/22/2006 : 05:58:35

no such thing as an mk anything with our boat....

dw

Edited by - on

lcharlot
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Antigua and Barbuda
1301 Posts

Response Posted - 04/22/2006 : 10:57:21

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by atgep
 There were a run of 3.5 boats that have the lower floor and the old deck. It is the new deck mold that makes a mk4
Tom.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I've heard about those "transitional" hulls from a couple of other ownwers too. They have the lowered floor, but retain the Mk. III deck and old-style stern pulpit. If someone knows which hull numbers these boats are, please let me know and I'l add them to the database. I wish my boat had the old style pulpit as it is longer and therefore has more space for mounting items like solar panels or a barbeque and tray table. OTOH, the Mk. IV pulpit has the much-improved mainsheet traveller. My ideal - a pulpit with both the longer "legs" and the new traveller.

BTW - my first launch for 2006 set for next weekend! It is the first Folsom Lake cruise for our club this year.

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 04/22/2006 : 21:56:06

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Duane Wolff
 no such thing as an mk anything with our boat....

dw
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ditto

Edited by - on

jdk9185
Deckhand

Members Avatar

16 Posts

Response Posted - 04/23/2006 : 10:16:50

Greg, I just read your post. Guess what? My hull number is 5617 year 1987 TR.
I have a wing keel that is factory. My boat does not have the flat floor that the newer boats do. I bought the boat used from a catalina dealership and they told me the boat was a factory wing.After reading your post i went and checked for signs of the old cable hole. I did not see anything in mine. I also looked in the bilge(not sure what I was looking for)and checked the cabin step for the patched holes that would have held the winch. After this investigation I tend to believe the dealer that the wing is factory. Let me know what you find out about your boat. I guess they are sister ships.
Thanks
John

Edited by - on

Gloss
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1916 Posts

Response Posted - 04/23/2006 : 13:01:43

the Grand Poobah of fleet 89 (that be me

) has officially declared that Larry's "Mark" system is valid.

Edited by - on

Champipple
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
6855 Posts

Response Posted - 04/23/2006 : 21:32:29

Frank,

Poobah and all, I outrank you as the Pro from Dover or something like that. I'd love to post an anthology or chronology of sorts about our boats somewhere on our websites...BY YEAR. I have four general reasons why I adamantly abhor this MK system.

First - There aren't any true lines of demarcation. The majority of the upgrades you mention over time are the equivalent of Volkswagon putting inthe Monsoon sound system instead of the standard radio. The MK II or mark is used for new production runs with new hull mold, or a modified hull mold (not keel, not tabs, deck or cabin...the hull). I don't believe any major modification was ever done to the hull mold. (Deck and floor don't count)The C250 is the best scenario of a MK II, and Frank and the gang decided not to use that nomenclature.

Second, people who purchased their boat in 1980, for example, could have purchased the options that equate to the same guys 1984 who purchased the standard options.

Third, Catalina opted to use different naming conventions, they call the next model the 250. Their models utilize the lunar calendar. a 1978 is a 78 and a 89 is an eighty nine.

And lastly, utilizing this mythical methodology can create, and in some cases has started to create a valuation model that incorrectly skews the offering prices for the early model boats. And before you claim that this statement might be far fetched, think about how many newbies come here before they even purchase and think about how many put a lot of faith in this forum and this association.

The 1980 Harley's had the belt replace the chain on the final drive. 1974 Camaro - aluminum bumbers, forward sloping grill and wrap around tail lights. The 1987 Catalina 25 - wing was an option

I think the history is better suited using the calendar!

dw

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5902 Posts

Response Posted - 04/24/2006 : 08:08:37

Well said, Duane. Larry's collection of a database on all the years and factory modifications to the C25 has been a real accomplishment. But no useful purpose is served by arbitrarily assigning them a "Mark" designation. There already is an accurate method for designating them, i.e., the year of manufacture. The Mark designation is pretentious and bound to cause confusion. The only people who have a clue as to what the Mark designation means are the regulars on this forum. Most C25 owners don't frequent the forum, and don't know that the designation is a figment of someone's imagination. As Duane pointed out, the imaginary designation can be used as an argument to ratchet sales values up or down, as if it means something. It falsely implies that there are such significant differences between the years of production that they are given "Mark" designations to distinguish them. I can't see anything good coming from it, and can anticipate it being troublesome, and that's ample reason to discard it. When in doubt, false is bad, and truth is good.

Edited by - Steve Milby on 04/24/2006 08:12:05

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 04/24/2006 : 09:30:38

I'm with Duane and Steve on the "MK" issue and agree with them on all points.

I literally cringe whenever I see its use, especially when I see it referenced by someone other than the originator. What I find particularly disturbing is that this misinformation is usually thrown out there in response to a question by newer owners/members, or worse yet, prospective C25 owners.

Most longtime participants of this forum are probably aware of how deeply divisive this subject is ad nauseam, but it is amazing to me that those perpetuating this inane system, even in jest, know how disconcerting it is to their fellow sailors, yet simply appear not to care. That is what I find especially troubling about this issue.

(I don't expect a response)

Edited by - on

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.