# 1976 41'' TA CHIAO CT ??????



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*1976 41'''' TA CHIAO CT ??????*

Am seriously considering this boat. It''s a ketch and priced at $107,000, looks beautiful and other than that, thats about all I know of this model boat. Would appreciate any and all opinions. 
Thanks, Hyway


----------



## schnitz (Mar 17, 2002)

*1976 41'''' TA CHIAO CT ??????*

Sign up for "ct-list" on this site''s email lists. Post this question there. There are 60 to 70 CT owners on the ct-list. There has been quite a bit of email inter-change on this list lately and all the CT41 owners seem to be pretty happy with the performance of there boats. The price mentioned seems a little high unless the boat is in pristine condition and very well equipped for cruising. But, then, who am I to say, I have a CT35 pilot house. And, yes, I''m very happy with it. Cynthia (Ketch Me Kate)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*1976 41'''' TA CHIAO CT ??????*

Cynthia ------ thanks for the reply. From what little I have been able to find the price does seem to high. On the web it does look prestine. We will be boarding her today for a better look. The boat can be seen at
http:www.enbonline.net/ketch/. Thanks again, hyway


----------



## schnitz (Mar 17, 2002)

*1976 41'''' TA CHIAO CT ??????*

Yes, the price seems high unless there is a great mark up for a center cockpit. I see you are local. There is a center cockpit on a dock(E) near us (Downtown Long Beach Marina). The owners have always been there when we have visited that dock on a weekend (maybe live aboards?). They seem friendly and might be able to comment on the premiun for a center cockpit.  There are also two other CT41s on that dock. Join ct-list and let us know what you think of the CT41CC for sale when you see it. Cynthia


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*1976 41'''' TA CHIAO CT ??????*

To me these are boats that are about ''show'' rather than go. There are designed to look like serious offshore cruisers but with a 32% ballast to displacement ratio, low density ballast, on a short waterline and the high center of gravity of a wooden sparred boat, this is not an offshore boat by my definition. Those kind of numbers suggest a rolly boat with relatively poor stability. Its great mass sends a false message about real performance in a blow. By the same token this is not a coastal cruiser either.

CT''s are very much a cult sort of boat. Over the years I have run into owners that love them and owners that really hate them. In the 1980''s when my mother was building and importing boats from Taiwan TA CHIAO was not considered to be a ''quality yard''.

Then there is the issue of painted masts. As someone who has owned and restored old wooden boats with wooden spars, I personally would never but a boat with painted wooden spars. As much as varnish requires a lot more maintainance, it serves a very critical purpose of allowing you to track changes in the mast; to tell if water is getting into the wood and rotting it out. As someone who has lost a mast over the side that had rotted out from the inside while having few visible signs on the outside, it is important to keep the mast in a condition where it can be inspected. This is especially true on CT''s which are notorious for having problems for rot problems in their masts, rot that can easily be masked by a paint job until its too late.

I won''t even go into the performance aspects of these boats because you would not be looking at a boat like this if you cared at all about performance.

Jeff


----------



## schnitz (Mar 17, 2002)

*1976 41'''' TA CHIAO CT ??????*

We need to separate fact from fiction here. Jeff, who is very knowledgeable, has made several assumptions about CT''s that are incorrect, in our opinion. Perhaps he has not sailed on a CT41. His conclusions follow from his arguments, but his arguments do not apply to CT41''s.

Jeff claims that a boat "with 32% ballast to displacement ratio, low density ballast, on a short waterline ... high center of gravity of a wooden sparred boat ... is not an offshore boat....". He goes on to state, "Those kind of numbers suggest a rolly boat with relatively poor stability".

Our problem with Jeff''s conclusion is that the boat is not rolly, does not hobby horse, gives a stable ride, and performs quite well given modest winds. Why the discrepancy between Jeff''s expectations and reality, one may ask?

First, the only number Jeff cites is the 32% ballast to displacement ratio. Nigel Calder recommends a ballast ratio of 0.3 as a lower limit. However, this ratio, by itself, is insufficient to determine stability, as Jeff has eloquently argued elsewhere. If this ratio told all, life would indeed be simple. A better measure of stability is the "capsize screening formula" which can be looked up in most good cruising handbooks. The CT41 at 1.6 easily passes this measure of stability (less than 2.0).

Jeff assumes that a CT41 has a high center of gravity, partly because of the low density ballast and because of wooden masts, which are heavier than aluminum masts. Neither he nor we know the distribution of mass for a CT41, but I have several observations that contradict his assumption of a high center of gravity. Firstly, the hull is solid fiberglass and is quite thick by todays standards. This implies that a lot of mass is distributed relatively low, particularily compared to cored hull boats, the type Jeff favors. Secondly, fuel and water tanks and other heavy structures are located relatively low on the centerline in the heavy displacement ratio CT41. A light displacement ratio boat doesn''t have the shape or room on the centerline to place weight as low. Thirdly, while lead ballast is generally superior to scrap iron, there are many successful cruising boats using encapsulated scrap iron ballast. Lastly, there is the question of wooden masts. True, they are approximately 25% heavier than aluminum masts. But, the CT''s wooden masts are not nearly as tall as in the high aspect ratio sail boats Jeff favors and, therefore, the smaller wind heeling moment is sufficiently balanced by the scrap iron ballast. Of course, if mast weight were as important as Jeff implies, he would advocate only carbon fiber masts which are another 25% lighter than aluminum. The problem with this ever lighter structure is that at some point the boat becomes too stiff and has an uncomfortable motion. The weight of the masts provide the rotational moment of inertia that is needed for dynamic stability. Yes, if you lose your masts, your boat is more dynamically unstable and more subject to capsize in heavy weather!

As to the quality of the Ta Chiao yard, we have heard conflicting stories. Our surveyor, a rather knowledgeable person, had some good words to say about boats that he has surveyed that came out of the Ta Chiao boatyard.

We agree that wood spars are best coated with varnish or a varnish substitute. If you are planning to buy a boat with wooden spars, be sure to hire a surveyor who is experienced at inspecting wooden masts. Remember, wood rots and aluminum corrodes. If I remember correctly, Jeff has lost two "aluminum" masts. Perhaps he will tell us the stories some time.

In our opinion, CT''s make excellent cruising boats.

Russ & Cynthia


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*1976 41'''' TA CHIAO CT ??????*

Like I said, there are owners who love their CT''s and then there are other. Russ raises some good and valid points. I would like to address them a bit. While it is true that I have never sailed on a CT 41 I have observed them underway. Having had ample opportunity top watch and comment on the behaivor in a short but not especially high chop and on a gusty day in winds below 20 knots, I stand by my comments that these are tender, rolly boats that tend to pitch a lot as compared to the other boats that were around it. I think that the heel angle might have been improved if with vangs on the main and mizzen but that said they showed more heel than an offshore boat should and looking at the numbers that is quite understandable.

With regard to the "capsize screening formula", as I have stated before, this is a totally useless number that tells nothing about a vessels real likelihood of capsizing or recovering. Nowhere in the formula are the real factors that affect whether a boat will capsize or recover. It does not include the big factors like weight distribution, ballast ratio and ballast location, freeboard and cabin volumes, dampening factors or excitation factors or even minor determinants like waterline beam or beam distribution.

While neither of us do have an accurate finite measurement of the vertical center of gravity relative to the center of buoyancy, there are a number of factors that do come into play here that are easy to assess. While Russ is right that the hull is very heavy fiberglass it should be remembered that the center of buoyancy is quite low in traditional designs compared to more modern designs. As a result far more of this heavy hull and deck structure occurs above the center of buoyancy than below helping to raise the center of gravity. When you add in the low density ballast, comparatively shoal draft, heavy interior appointments and wooden spars, these boats would have a higher center of gravity than I would consider ideal and their actual behaivor as observed would suggest that this speculation about their center of gravity is probably pretty close to right.

While it is true that the CT41''s spars are shorter than the taller rigs that I prefer, the height and weight of the duplication of staying and the second mast of a ketch rig generally will offset the increased height of a similar drive taller rig.

I think you are miss-using the term ''stiffness''. Stiffness really applies to form stability. A boat with too much stiffness has a quick jerky motion. But a boat that gets its stability from a low center of gravity generally has the most comfortable motion rolling at a slower rate and through a narrow angle. Heavier masts will slow the roll rate but at the same time cause the boat to roll through a wider roll angle.

The real problem with high inertial masses is excitation, a property where a series of waves roll a boat through ever wider angles of heel.

In U.S. Navy studies of seasickness, people were found to have varying susceptiblity to seasickness with nearly equal numbers of the samples more profoundly affected by roll angle and others profoundly affected by roll rate. Roll angle is a bit more tiring as it requires more muscle movement.

If carbon fiber was a cost effective and reliable as aluminum I would probably advocate its use more vociferously. But Aluminum is a very cost effective and durable material for spars and that does not seem be to be likely to change soon. For the record the first mast that I lost was a wooden mast that rotted out from the inside at the partners and I was too young to recognize the teletale signs beneath the near perfect varnish job. The second mast that I lost was an almost new aluminum spar in which the rigger forgot to install an compression tube at the shrouds. Under load the mast crimped together and down it went. This mast replaced a wooden spar that had buckled where water had gotten into the mast and rotted it out behind the gooseneck track. Again with proper vigilence the prior owner could have saved that mast. While I think that there is nothing prettier than a wooden mast, and with proper care a wooden mast can last 30- 40 years (I owned a 1939 Stadel Cutter with its nearly 40 year old wooden spars.) it takes a lot more care to maintain and a lot more ballast to support a wooden spar.

I agree that there seems to be a diversity of opinion about CT''s. Some of my opinion came from my mother, which I know sounds strange. After living on board sailboats for a number of years she and my stepfather went into the boat business starting thier own company. Working with Taiwan yards, They commissioned and developed designs, chose yards to build thier boats, oversaw development and construction, and inported the boats to the US. In those days the Oriental boat building industry was a pretty tight knit bunch so that pretty quickly you developed a sense of who was legit and building a high quality product and who was run of the mill. Ta Chiao built a range of quality products but CT''s were not terribly highly regarded. In talking about them with an experienced surveyor friend, in his words, Quality construction was not CT''s strong suit.

I have a particular gripe with the use of encapsulated cast iron scrap metal ballast. Sooner or later moisture will get to the iron, either through the bilge or capillary action through the keel and the corroding iron will pry the ballast and encapsulation appart. A boat with this encapsulated cast iron scrap ballast would be a deal breaker for me even in the days when I owned traditional boats.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*1976 41'''' TA CHIAO CT ??????*

First, allow me to thank you guys for the response and the education, it is really appreciated. The information given was more than one could hope for. You really did give us alot to think about as we boat shop. We did visit the boat and she is a beaut. She has quite a bit of bright work and I found that to be a little intimidating. This and some other things about her will keep us looking until we find a boat we''re more comforable with. Thanks again ------- Hyway


----------



## senn (May 31, 2002)

*1976 41'''' TA CHIAO CT ??????*

I was thinking about taking a look at the Blue Swan too. Anything you noticed that might be of use? Thanks!


----------



## schnitz (Mar 17, 2002)

*1976 41'''' TA CHIAO CT ??????*

Only that, if you get serious, you should have the surveyor look closely at the bow sprit. Looks a little odd (maybe repaired?). Haven''t seen the inside. If you have joined the CT-list (this site), you might ask there. I believe at least one member has looked at the boat.

Let us (especilly the CT-list) know what you think of it after looking.

Cynthia


----------



## bzac (Jul 1, 2002)

*1976 41'''' TA CHIAO CT ??????*

Re: Formosa 35

I just bought a CT 41, built by Ta Chiao, which was the boat yard 
right next to Formosa. They shared a lot of resources and often built 
almost identical designs (the Formosa Yankee Clipper is the same 
basic design as the CT41). I did a lot of research into these boats 
and give you a bit of insight that might help you out.

The hulls of these boats are generally overbuilt, and well laid up. 
The keels are usually encapsulated iron and cement, but do not seem 
to be a problem area (I haven''t heard of any keel problems, at 
least). I do not believe that the sailing qualities are as poor as 
they are often described, but these are heavy, full keel boats, 
designed for comfort, not speed, and you just have to accept that. 
These boats are designed and built for blue water, but they do have 
problem areas that you need to look at carefully.

The biggest problem area is the deck and cabin trunk. The older boats 
were made with plywood cored decks and cabins. The teak decks and 
hardware were often screwed directly into the deck right into the 
plywood, without proper sealant and there is often rot, often 
serious. Later models boats were built with balsa cored decks instead 
of plywood (this is one of the first things you should check). If 
there is major deck rot, you need to seriously question whether the 
boat is worth it. If there is rot in the cabin trunk, you may be able 
to repair it, but if it is major, the whole cabin may have to be 
rebuilt.

Other potential problem areas:

Chainplates - sometimes poorly forged, check carefully.

Fuel tanks - usually made of "mild-steel", sometimes incorrectly 
called Black Iron. These are limited life tanks and should be check 
very carefully. Best to check them empty, use swabs to take samples 
from the interior of the tanks. Have a professional do this. Also, 
make sure that the tanks can be easily removed, without having to 
tear up the interior.

Wiring - often substandard, but not always.

Teak decking - if it is time to replace it, or if there is any 
possibility of deck delamination and rot, suggest removing it and 
putting in non-skid.

Wood masts and mast steps - The wood masts should be surveyed 
unstepped. In particular you should check the base of the mast and 
mast step for rot, as well as entry and exits for wiring.

Regardless of the titles sometimes given them ("leaky teaky", "Taiwan 
turkey"), these can be great world cruisers. However, if the problem 
areas have not been addressed, or the boat has not been taken care 
of, they can be more trouble than they are worth. 
From Todd J on Cruising World message board: 
[Re: Island Trader 41:]

I own the CT 41 equivalent.

I looked a number of Formosa, Island Trader and CT 41s before buying 
the one I chose. They tended to be in either beautiful shape or 
crappy condition. This design was one of the most popular built in 
the 70s (a number were built in the early eighties), and they come up 
for sale quite often. You should not need to compromise. If this is 
the design you are looking for, you should wait until you find one in 
really good condition.

These boats are designed to be blue water cruisers, and have very 
comfortable accomodations. They have overbuilt hulls and heavy, full 
keels. They make great liveaboards, and are a popular 
circumnavigator. They are not fast (though not as slow as some make 
them out to be). Being a full-keel design, they don''t sail into the 
wind nearly as well as a fin-keel (and can be a bit difficult to tack 
in really light air), but with the ketch rig, they can really do well 
off the wind. If you are looking for a performance cruiser, this is 
not the right boat. However, if you are looking for comfort at sea, 
something that can take rough conditions with grace, this is a great 
boat. Few boats get the kind of looks that these beauties do, and the 
interior woodwork is exquisite. There is lot of teak to take care of, 
so prepare yourself for that. I am learning the joys of Cetol right 
now.

Supposedly the CTs were known for a bit better construction quaility 
than the others, but I''m not really sure what that means in terms of 
exactly how they compare. There was a lot of variance in the quality 
of the work done on these boats, depending on when they were built 
and how well the owner supervised the construction.

Problem areas to look for:

First and foremost, the decks and cabin house. During most of the 
seventies, the decks and cabin house were made cored with plywood. 
For CT, in 1977 they began building with balsa cored decks, but still 
used plywood (covered with fiberglass) for the cabin trunk. Somewhere 
around 1980 they switched to a one-piece molded deck/cabin trunk for 
some of the boats. I don''t know what the schedule was like for 
Formosa / Island Trader. The reason this is all important, is because 
these boats are notorious for deck problems. Often the deck hardware 
or the teak overlay was poorly installed, leading to leaks into the 
deck coring, and subsequently rot (they don''t call them Leaky Teakies 
for nothing). This is the single most important thing you need to 
have looked at. Make sure the deck is in really good shape. If it 
isn''t, walk away, you''ll find another.

The teak overlay itself can be a real headache. Personally, I intend 
to remove most of the teak deck on my CT41.

The quality of the stainless steel on these boats was often not very 
good. If it has the original chainplates, they should probably be 
replaced.

These boats were built with wooden masts. Sometimes the masts are in 
great shape, often they are not. Look for rot at the base of both 
masts, and also where cables feed in and out of the mast for the 
anchor and steaming lights. IMPORTANT: Look for rot in the mast step 
itself! This is a common problem area, though fairly easy to fix. If 
you find a boat that has had its masts replaced with aluminum, mark 
that as a BIG plus.

The fuel tanks: Usually made of mild steel (sometimes incorrectly 
called "black iron"), there are often problems. These tanks corrode 
more quickly than others, and have a decidedly limited lifespan. What 
is important here is that you look at the tank layout and determine 
how easy it will be to replace them. You don''t want to have to rip up 
that beutiful teak interior to do it. On my CT41, the tanks lift 
straight out, without any cabinet removal. However, the fuel tanks on 
my boat are in good shape, but the water tank needs to be replaced.

Steering hardware: On the center cockpit boats, it is hydraulic, on 
the aft cockpit boats it is usually mechanical. The hardware used 
varied. Sometimes it was genuine Edson, sometimes a pretty good 
knockoff, sometimes a really crappy knockoff. Have it checked 
carefully.

On the aft cockpit boats, the lazarette construction was poor, and 
will probably need to be re-built (if it has not already been done). 
This is NOT a major project.

The electrical wiring was sometimes (but not always), sub-standard. 
Usually there is no GFI on the AC power.

...

From Stinger: The deck of the CT 47 "Stinger" is fiberglass balsa 
core. The teak is attached on top but the screws do not penetrate the 
core. No leaks. I have never done anything but clean them well with 
detergent and clorox. Works fine for a light tan natural look. Less 
maintenance for the strong Carib. sun.

From Todd J on Cruising World message board: 
I own a CT 41.

Pros: Generally well-made, seaworthy design. Good fiberglass work. 
Gorgeous interior woodwork. A lot of boat for the money. They look 
great. Nice liveaboard interior. Lots of tankage. Very seakindly, and 
tracks well. Not as slow as some critics claim. Same basic design as 
the Formosa 41, but the Ta Chiao yard generally had better 
workmanship and QC than Formosa.

Cons: This is NOT a fast boat by any means. With their stock sails 
they are undercanvassed (really needs a big genoa). This is a full 
keel ketch, and its performance to weather does suffer (though not as 
bad as often claimed). There is a lot of exterior woodwork to take 
care of, make sure you are prepared for that.

There are often deck core problems because of leakage. This needs to 
be checked out very carefully (and should be a deal breaker). "Black 
Iron" used for the fuel tanks has a limited lifespan (have a pro 
check the tanks). If the tanks need to be replaced, make sure they 
can be removed without ripping up the interior (this varies depending 
on interior layout). Wooden masts and mast step need to be checked 
VERY carefully for rot. When doing the survey, have the masts 
unstepped and examined. Carefully check the condition of the 
chainplates (and the deck core around the chainplates, as they often 
leak), and all fittings, particularly at the bowsprit and the 
masthead. The Taiwanese steel quality was very inconsistent (ranged 
from decent to crap).

From Zac Brown: Since my CT 41 was ordered as a bare shell, the 
original owner did the fit out and avoided CT''s famous shortcomings 
as listed by others in your site (leaking teak decks and black iron 
tanks). Also the wood trim at the trunk cabin deck interface was 
removed when new and glass-reinforced to avoid rot and separation.

Sailing a CT 41: Bill Garden got a lot of things right when he penned 
the CT 41, the hull is well-balanced and smooth and stable in all 
conditions. If you have ever sailed an Endurance 35 you will know 
what a boat with too much overhang feels like (rocking horse action). 
I''ve had my CT in 40 knot winds in a following sea and can only 
describe the experience as fun and filled with a sense of solidness. 
At no time was there the slightest indication of her coming unglued.

Being a ketch the variety of sail plan options is helpful in big 
seas. One can drop the main and balance well under just mizzen and 
genoa. Reefing the main is an option as well.

CT 41s are cutter rigged from the factory and I would recommend 
removing the inner forestay and staysail and using a big (140%) 
Genoa; roller furling is nice too. My boat is fitted out with self- 
tailing winches and a Profurl unit. This setup allowed the original 
owner of the CT 41 to sail from Vancouver to Tahiti and back solo.

Docking this full-keeled girl can be tricky particularly maneuvering 
in reverse. I intend to add six inches to the rudder to give a little 
more paddle and increase the bite of the rudder in reverse. The 
fiberglass work is first rate and to Lloyds spec. The surveyor of my 
boat had surveyed many CTs over the years and said that he had never 
found a CT with hull problems or delamination. Deck rot is CT''s 
weakest link.

Other things I like: 6 foot 4 or more of headroom, lots of storage 
and fuel capacity, great motor access, huge cockpit, clipper bow and 
romantic counter stern (I pull into an anchorage and get looks no 
plastic fantastic Hunter could get). Classic looks without the wooden 
boat maintenance!!

Wooden masts?? Well, more maintenance but look great and I''ve not had 
to revarnish them since I''ve had the boat. No cracks or structural 
problem; if replacement becomes necessary I would consider aluminium 
but wouldn''t rule out wood. Mine are 28 years old and no problems yet 
so wood is not so bad.


----------



## erinnolyrr (Mar 30, 2004)

*Ta Chiao Misimpressions*

This yard has done top quualty vessels. I own one, 1979 Germania 40 CC ketch. They've also done Hans Christians and others.
My experience; Bought and equipped vessel in 1988 for crossing to and cruising Med. Left Bermuda with 10 or 12 other others after a depression held things up. Arrived in Horta 13 days later (6 hours before the others started arriving). Not bad for a ketch. Have cruised the Med 6 summers. If there's anything wrong with the construction of this boat I have'nt found it yet. This vessel has aluminum masts and a good SA/Displ ratio. 
My only problem is the 6'-1" draft won't fit too well in South FL where we live in the winter.


----------



## Cruiserwannabe (Jan 28, 2006)

Guys I just came acroos this link re: the Ta Chaio everybody has an opinon! http://www.irbs.com/lists/worldcruising/0110/0051.html


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Hi Folks, I'm considering a Ta Chiao 41 project boat ( about 1/2 complete) and wondered if anyone out there knew where I can get my hands on a set of blueprints/plans? I'm especially interested in rudder configuration. It looks like some work was done by the previous owner and I want to make sure its correct.


----------



## daurin (Jul 15, 2009)

The CT41 is a comfortable, stout, blue-water cruiser with classic, clipper lines that (when properly maintained) turns a gratifying number of heads. Though slow in very light airs (<10-12kts), I've averaged better than 9 kts over 24 hours on several offshore passages. Stubborn to windward (genoa and main stays'l are a must on this boat), on any kind of reach, she digs her shoulder in - considerably lengthening her waterline - and flies (mizz'n stays'l also a nice addition). Ketch rig offers excellent balance (lock wheel, read book), and versatility, particularly in heavy weather.
I've cruised ours (built 1972) since 1976 between Maine and Trinidad. We've sailed her through a hurricane off Bermuda in 1985, and at least two knock-downs over the years with only the loss of a kerosene running light off the cabin trunk.
At her age, and with that kind of mileage, some relatively major work is expected. Currently refitting for more offshore adventures. Happy to give details on projects including teak deck removal, stainless hardware woes, cabin trunk repair, steering gear replacement, bulkhead retabbing, mast step replacement, tank replacement, portholes, moving chainplates outboard (in progress), etc.
Cheers,
Daurin
PS. Newbie to Sailnet (although my boat was actually featured on the website cover page and in an article called "Offshore Preparations" back in 2001), and unable to find this so-called "ct-list" referred to in earlier posts. Where do I find that?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

The lists have been discontinued as of a while ago... and they're only mentioned because the bulk of this thread is over SEVEN YEARS OLD. Welcome to Sailnet. I'd highly recommend you read this *POST* to help you get the most out of sailnet.


----------



## danyboy (Feb 5, 2010)

*Considering a Germania CT 40*

First of all, Hi everyone as I am new on this forum

That's a great source of information you've provided us with (the best one I've seen so far

I am considering buying a Germania 40 CT ketch from 1979 and I'll be really happy to get some infos about it (evetually in pm)

thanks in advance 
Dan



bzac said:


> Re: Formosa 35
> 
> I just bought a CT 41, built by Ta Chiao, which was the boat yard
> right next to Formosa. They shared a lot of resources and often built
> ...


----------



## arf145 (Jul 25, 2007)

Welcome danyboy. It would be best if you posted your inquiry as a new thread--you might get more responses than on this old thing!


----------



## danyboy (Feb 5, 2010)

will do
thanks!


----------



## Jonathon (Jul 28, 2016)

I recently purchased a CT 41, with the rigging down. On the mainmast there are two extra tracks, onme on the front of the mast, one on the back adjacent to the track for the mainsail. These tracks only go as far as the spreaders, not to the top. Can anyone clue me in as to what they are used for?


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

Storm sail or anchor ridding sail on the aft side of mast so you do not have to remove the mainsail. the one on the front is for spinnaker pole which can also be used for attach point for other sails and covers. If it goes up high it can be used for an attach point to store the spinnaker pole on the front of the mast


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

i have found no need for storm sail in my main. mizzen boom of 14 ft is an awesome sailing sail. i donot use a sail while at anchor..no need. keel is long and deep. split rig is preferable to the hard to manage oversized sloop sails and booms in blows and weather. yes i have sailed in weather in sloop s cutters and ketches. hands down the ketch is best., ,this is second ketch i have sailed, first was a devries lynch steelie. 
as for alleged materials issues-- find another boat with 40 yr old stainless chainplates that has not had fail in oceanic sailing. find another boat with original stainless water tankage that has no leakage., the fuel tank was not black steel, sorry, nor was it chinese anything. if you have a memory at all, you will remember that taiwan was NATIONALIST china, dealt with usa, and mainland china was and still is communist china with bad work habits. oops. 
the wood spars are thai cedar, not sitka spruce, for obvious reasons--check your geography. far superior to spruce, thai cedar is most rot resistant and insect resistant. 
as for tender while underway, granted that was written in 2002, long time ago-- sorry i have not found tenderness an issue with my formosa 41. perhaps the old naysayer didnt load the boat appropriately, taking into consideration heft and balance. 40.9x12.2x6;6 is a decent non tender boat. mebbe writer was used to barges. when ALL tankage is empty, thereis some roill. loading and filling an dprwpping will take care of this, i learned. a prepared cruising formosa 41 is not tender. these boats LOVE added weight, as opposed to racing boats. to which most folks compae them. apples and oranges, folks. keep it real.
i have been underway in sea ways in different boats- the other boats made me miss my formosa 41 so much that i took mine out in open ocean and sailed the boat 3000 miles before i brought her in for repairs. awesome boats. designed to sail trade winds and do their job well. LOVE mine. and all is with easy access for under way repairing, which is not able to be said for most of the boats i have seen cruising to date. there is a lot to be said for easy access repair capability when yer in an ocean and have issues. yeah stuff broke onmy boat-- but in 60 +kt chubasco i didnt lose chainplates, as have production boats in 30 kts. nor did i suffer knockdown nor near knock down nor other issues than a broken taff from having prevented my mizzen boom to it.. ha ha ha ha never prevent your boom to a taff--- use hawse -- mine now prevent to hawse--if that breaks we in deep ****e so is all goood. 8.4 kts with that breeze. was sooo much fun.
ALLLLL boats have issues. 
it is only a matter of choosing with what marque boat you wish to deal with these issues.
i am most pleased with my choice.


----------

