Venture of Newport

[abruzzi]

If you like the lines of the old Venture of Newport, there is one on eBay at the moment on one of those charity sales:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1973-Mac ... 0576212601

A bit of a fixer upper, but a potentially pretty boat.

Geof

[Catigale]

If this boat belongs to anyone on this Board, please pony up for an ad.

I like the bow sprit mod!

[abruzzi]

If this boat belongs to anyone on this Board, please pony up for an ad.

I like the bow sprit mod!

I'm not sure that's a mod, judging from this pic:



( http://www.sailingtexas.com/sventure23101.html )

And a bunch of other pictures if you do a google image search for "venture of newport."

Geof

[heinzir]

The pictures of the boat on ebay were taken with a wide angle lens, making the bowsprit look longer than it really is. But yes, the bowsprit was a standard feature of the Venture of Newport. The interior is about the same as the Venture 222, the underbody is similar to that of the Venture 21, and the topsides and rig are pure tradition. Patterned after the pilot cutters of the nineteenth century, the VN23 is not only a pretty little ship but is faster than almost any other boat near her size and vintage. The cutter rig allows a great variety of sail combinations making her suitable for nearly any weather. In addition to the three working sails, I have a big drifter and a cruising spinnaker I can fly from the headstay in very light air. She can be snugged down to just a storm staysail and double reefed main for the really heavy stuff.

Lots more information and pictures at the VN23 web site: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/venturenewport

and in my Webshots album: http://sports.webshots.com/album/230613770IXBurv

Henry

[abruzzi]

Nice pics. I was looking at the eBay ad thinking that the boat would really nice with dark color sails--and the maroon sails on your's are very pretty. If it was closer, and I didn't already have my 25 to worry about fixing up, I'd probably be all over that one. It looks rough, but not too bad.

Geof

[TheJoe]

heinzir, how'd that boat sink? Was this the boat I read an article about, bottom line being, always lock down the keel?
Joe

[heinzir]

The article "Gone In Three Minutes" can be found here:
http://macgregor.sailboatowners.com/ind ... odel&mn=25

I think the primary lesson was KEEP YOUR FLOTATION. I still don't lock the keel down. Our lake has a noxious weed problem (Eurasion milfoil) that infests most of the waters less than 10' deep. It grows so thick that it will literally stop the boat. I have to be able to raise the keel quickly if I stray into an infested area.

[Catigale]

Primary lesson for me was sailing a 23 in Minnesota lakes in early June with only 2 of 5 crew wearing PFDs.....

Russian Roulette with 6 bullets.....

[heinzir]

You are right about the life jackets, of course. There were many mistakes made that day and my only excuse is stupidity. The accident happened back in 1991, over 20 years ago. I know I've learned a lot since then.

The article in Great Lakes Sailor was reprinted in Small Craft Advisor in 2010. A reader wrote to the editor wanting more information. Here is a copy of the reply I sent:


> I appreciate your comments, John. You make some valid points. Most man-made disasters/crashes/sinkings are not the result of a single failure or mistake but rather are caused by the cumulative effect of a number of smaller errors. Chiquita's capsize and sinking happened a number of years ago; I like to think I've learned a lot since then. There are a number of things that, had I done them differently, would have caused a different outcome. Woulda Coulda Shoulda. Hindsight is 20-20.
>
> To answer your specific questions: No, Chiquita's keel was not locked down. I don't lock the keel down when sailing on my local lake even now. There is just too much raising and lowering involved. The keel must be raised every time I approach a dock, and whenever I stray into water less than 12' deep because of an invasive weed problem. But that's my home puddle. The only Big Water Chiquita has seen are Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. I certainly do lock the keel down when sailing the Great Lakes and would naturally do so if she were ever to see salt water.
>
> The keel did swing back into the trunk during the capsize but it did not do so with force. Still, I don't think the boat would have been pinned on her side long enough for water to enter the cabin had the keel stayed deployed. Pilot Error # 1.
>
> The hatch boards were not in place, the sliding hatch was open, and neither the forward hatch nor the cockpit locker lid were latched. The wind seemed to be slowing down, not increasing. Pilot Error # 2.
>
> My mainsheet is the original triangular Crosby rig but with much improved hardware. I'm using a Harken 144 ball bearing swivel base with a Harken 150 cam cleat. The cleat is mounted upside down on the base with an angled riser adjusted so that just a slight downward twitch on the sheet releases it. A traveler is on my to-do list but I can't get past my wife's objection to having the mainsheet tackle in front of the companionway.
>
> No, my mast does not have a cap to seal out the water. It has a cast aluminum masthead fitting with lots of holes. My topping lift and main and jib halyards are run internally. Given the weight of the boat and gear, I don't really think preventing water from entering the mast would have saved the day. I'm actually on my third mast. The original was bent when it hit the water during a knockdown with the spinnaker up. This happened several years before the sinking incident. The second mast was bent in half when Chiquita was rammed at her mooring by a drunken hit-and-run power boater in the middle of the night.
>
> The rig, and my sail selection that day, were another contributing factor. Picture a fractional rigged Venture 22 or 25. The forestay runs from the bow to a point several feet down from the masthead (7 feet in the case of the Venture 23.) The upper shrouds also attach at this point. Now add a bowsprit and run an outer forestay from the end of the bowsprit to the same point (or within a foot or so) on the mast. This is how the Venture 23 is rigged. The previous owner of my boat had replaced this outer forestay and connected it to the very top of the mast. This made the two forestays parallel and had several advantages: it opened up the slot between the jib and staysail, allowing for better air flow. It made tacking the jib between the stays easier. The jib could also be flown higher in light air. The longer stay also allowed use of larger light air sails, including a spinnaker.
>
> The only problem with this arrangement is that the top 7' of the mast has no side support. A sudden squall can put lateral loads on the top of the mast that are beyond its design limits. I learned this the hard way; hence mast # 2. I decided to keep the outer forestay to the masthead arrangement when rigging the new mast. I moved the upper shrouds to the masthead to provide the needed lateral support, raised the spreaders and lower shrouds 3-1/2 feet, and added intermediate stays/runners to counteract the pull of the inner forestay. These intermediate stays have several attachment points on deck and also serve as baby stays when raising or lowering the mast.
>
> So how did this contribute to Chiquita's capsize? The heeling force of the wind in the jib exerts considerably more leverage at the top of the mast than it would if attached 7' lower. I was sailing with a reef in the main but both jib and staysail were set. The first sail reduction on my boat should always, always, always be to drop the jib and continue on with just the main and staysail. This is easy to do on Chiquita since both the downhauls and halyards are led to the cockpit. The second sail reduction would be to reef the main. Then, if conditions worsen: reef the staysail, put a second reef in the main, drop the staysail, go home. If I had followed normal procedure and dropped the jib instead of reefing the main first the leverage on the top of the mast would have been reduced considerably. Pilot Error # 3.
>
> Pilot Error # 4 is obvious: I should have made sure everyone was wearing life jackets.
>
> As for flotation, I'm a little more confident in the amount I have added. I had not done all of the math regarding the specific gravities of the components when I wrote the article.
>
> Again, thank you for taking the time to comment. I invite you to view my slide show of pictures of Chiquita in the link in my signature below. Unfortunately, the pictures are not in any particular order. Some are over 30 years old and some were taken last summer. They show the boat with various mods; some of the mods shown have been discarded in favor of other ideas. The more recent pictures are the ones that show Chiquita with tan colored non-skid on the decks.
>
Henry
http://sports.webshots.com/slideshow/230613770IXBurv

>

[Hugh17]

Henry,

If I've posted this reply twice I apologize. I can't find my first post. I owned a VN-23 back in 1973 and remember that the boat was supposed to have positive flotation. Had the flotation been removed from your boat, or is my memory playing tricks on my?

James

[Catigale]

James ...I think that is covered in the article as well as how Henry rebuilt Chiquita

This article should be required reading for every lake sailor and I want to thank Henry again for sharing the experience

[FinallySailing]

That is one amazing story to read, indeed. Makes me wonder how much flotation/foam was in our boat originally. I have no way knowing how much, if at all, has been removed by previous owners . something for a new thread, I guess ...

[Catigale]

Gorgeous 1973 on eBay....currently 3200 USD in Florida

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1973-MAC ... 884wt_1196

[heinzir]

That one is a Venture 24, a classic in its own right, but very different from the 23' Venture of Newport.

Henry

[Catigale]

Henry - where the two companies different - I thought they were the same???