Picked up a Fortress Guardian 37 y-day

"I have never had to put out two anchors - not on any night no matter how nasty."

Anchoring in a reversing river ,or in a crowded harbor (Bahama moore) requires more than a watch fob a 7-1 scope and a huge harbor.

A hurricane set , another different requirement , that probably will require more than one anchor.

Where one cruises frequently determines how one must anchor.

That's the sucker Sarca I've got Bruce. Good choice. You won't regret that purchase. It will be good to not be the only one with one of those on here, but I shall say no more. However, we would invite progress reports as you go along.

FF, in a crowded situation like you describe a 3:1 scope works fine. However, I don't know about you, but I really try hard to avoid hurricanes (cyclones in our parts). I'm prepared to pack cruising in when they are about. They scare me.

Marin,
247? Don't know that number but I suspect it's that plane that has the windscreen faired to the nose more or less flush as if they designed the AC not to have windows at all. Didn't they call that AC and the DC-3 the C47? Was aerodynamically supreme but I much prefer the DC-3 nose w it's abrupt V style windscreen. Just looks better. But how many DC-3s did they sell? Millions it seems.
In northern Clarence Strait a DC-3 flew over me at about alt 180' and I was thrilled just like a little kid. .... HaHa

Eric-- This is the 247. It was an extremely successful airplane as an airplane.. Every airline at the time wanted them and had Boeing adopted a different sales strategy the DC-1 may never have happened. United Air Transport was part of Bill Boeing's huge aviation conglomerate that included Boeing Airplane Co., Pratt& Whitney, several airlines, etc. The 247 was a huge advancement over everything else in the air at the time but Boeing earmarked the first 50 (or whatever the number was) for United. This was to give that airline a major competitive edge over the others. Since the other airlines couldn't get 247s they went in search of something else which prompted Douglas to create the DC-1. If you don't know, "DC" stands for Douglas Commercial.

Douglas had the advantage of knowing what the 247 was, so they made their new airplane a little bigger and with features the 247 didn't have, just as Boeing and Airbus do to each other today. The advantages of the DC-1 were immediately apparent, even to United, so the 247's role in air transportation was relatively short. There is only one flying today--- it belongs I believe to the Museum of Flight.

Douglas nearly did it to Boeing again with the DC-8 but this time Boeing listened to the airlines and changed the 707 before Douglas could take advantage of their initial design advantage. But that's another story.

Eric, exactly the way I felt when I flew in a DC-3 from Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, Canada back in the '70s. We had a drill collar strapped to the floor under the seats. What a work horse!

Old DC3s pensioned off from NZ's NAC, (National Airways Corp, now merged with Air NZ) - replaced by Fokker Friendships, and now 737s, were often put to good use as top-dressing planes right up to quite recently. They could carry such a payload yet still work off a short strip. Certainly deserved of the term aeroplane icon.
Boy, we wandered off topic a bit there all right...how did we get from Fortress anchors to planes..? Flying fortresses perhaps..?

Eh its all good. I like airplanes, diesels, Jeeps, motorcycles, guns, tools, anchors, and boats. I was a mech's asst. for ERA helicopters in the '80s for my after school job. I got to go on all the test flights after we'd done maintenance and out to the rigs if it was just to ferry equip/parts! My latest job is a med. flight tech (Resp. Therapist) for an air ambulance/transport outfit. I don't get bent when my topics go off the rails. Carry on,but post pics!

Peter B said:

Boy, we wandered off topic a bit there all right...how did we get from Fortress anchors to planes..? Flying fortresses perhaps..?

Click to expand...

Off-topic trivia of the day. Boeing never called the B-17 the "Flying Fortress." The plane was developed in the 1930s in response to a mission specification set out by the Army Air Corps. The Boeing designation was Model 299. When the plane first flew reporters from the local papers trooped down to Boeing Field to watch it. One of them, on seeing the multiple gun positions on the plane wrote something like, "The plane is a veritable flying fortress." The name stuck.

The prototype crashed on takeoff during its first demonstration to the Army due to the crew's failure to remove the gust lock from the rudder. Needless to say this put the plane in a pretty bad light but it was the best of the contenders so got a continued lease on life. The story is that this crash led to new innovation called......... the check list.

First photo is the prototype Model 299.

The Boeing 299/B-17 did not carry an anchor. But the Boeing 314 did (second photo). Third photo is a 314 anchor. It's a 70-pound folding Northill. I believe this one was recovered from a sunken 314. The anchor was designed by Jack Northrop.

Wonder if they retrieved them or just cut-n-run?

I suspect they were never actually used. A 70 pound anchor probably isn't going to do much of a job of holding an 84,000 pound airplane (loaded weight) although the plane would streamline into the wind very nicely. The Clippers operated from purpose-built docks and landing stages almost everywhere they went. At the locations where docks were not practical or possible they used big mooring buoys and the passengers, crew, and supplies were ferried to and from the plane by boat.

Some more info on the anchor used by the Boeing 314. The one pictured above is actually in the Museum of Flight in Seattle and was not recovered from one of the two sunken 314s. It is simply an example of the type of anchor the 314 carried.

It is stainless steel and was designed by John Northrop and Harry Gesner for use on all manner of seaplanes including the PBY Catalina. The patent was issued in 1941

When one reads the designers description of what they were trying to achieve it's almost as though they were talking about today's Fortress anchors. Below is a quote from the designers describing their objectives.

Interestingly, the inventors were pursuing a design where the weight of the anchor did not play any significant role in setting. As they put it "Practically all existing anchors depend, to a large extent, on their weight for the holding power developed. Various types and shapes of fluke have been evolved in the past to furrow the bottom and resist dragging of the anchor by the moored craft. In general, it may be stated that the fluke sizes and shapes and their relation to the shank and line of pull in existing anchors, are such that comparatively great anchor weight is a vital necessity to the proper engagement of the fluke in the bottom, and that the fluke alone would be relatively ineffective to develop any considerable holding power if the anchor weight was substantially decreased."

Have to agree, we use two FX55 off the stern and they are fine in the mud and sand, but about worthless in the gras. Between them and a 60# bruce in the front we don't move much. But getting them up is not for the faint of heart.

If you guys sharpen the tips of your Fortress anchors, you'll have better luck in grass.

The first USCG helo I flew, the HH-52A, had both a danforth and sea anchors behind the pilot's seats...never anchored one but made plenty of water landings including full autorotations to the water both visual and hooded.

The Northill is a very popular anchor in BC, especially on fish boats. Most are home made now but they must work very well even w the variables that undoubtably get into the finished products of these home made Northill's. Most all the home builts are NOT lightweight anchors and the better ones are probably better than the originals. Very few retain the folding feature of the original Northill and many have external braces on the stock. The only thing I personally don't like about them is that they don't store very nicely.....not very nicely at all. I do think ther'e holding power is excellent but not ultra high, however I can't think of a bottom that they should have trouble with. Like the Claw they obviously have a very high percentage of the anchor's weight on the fluke. This should be a feature of any "ideal" anchor....I think. But some high performance anchors don't have this feature. But as long as they set high fluke weight isn't needed.

My new Super Sarca no. 6, 22kg, arrived; it has what I might call a "marin bolt" fitted to the shank slot, giving the option to restrict the connecting shackle sliding along the shank slot. There`s a decision to ponder.
I may have the reliable but slow Muir "Cheetah" windlass serviced, retrieve rate is already a concern in crowded anchorages, the added weight may make it even slower. BruceK

Good onya Bruce, I have the exact same size/weight SS, and I'm tempted to advise, especially if your winch is a bit tired, lose the slot bolt and just trust it. You won't break out at anchor accidentally, but it takes quite a load off the winch to actually use the slot to trip it out when raising, as the suckers dig in so tight it takes some force to break them out otherwise. Also good practice for if/when you do foul something and have to back it out in earnest. JMHO, mind you.

"it takes quite a load off the winch to actually use the slot to trip it out when raising,"

Breaking out a set anchor is not approved for an electric winch ,
tho it might be an OK risk with a HYD unit.

Power up to the anchor till its straight down, and retrive the slack as you go.

Cleat the line ( Or if using chain , engage the chain stopper) then power slowly till the anchor is free .

Use the windlass to raise the anchor , that's all they are built to do.

FF

FF said:

Use the windlass to raise the anchor , that's all they are built to do.

FF

Click to expand...

I don't even bother trying to explain this anymore. I had a neighbor in the Keys who smoked two windlass motors the first year he bought his boat. He had more money and pride than knowledge of needing a little instruction. Seems that if the way he was doing it "worked" then he didn't need some backwoods whippersnapper telling him the proper way to do things. But that windlass company sure had some rinky-dink motors!

I've broken out my annchors w cheap and very small capstan but when doing it I didn't notice a drop in winch rpm or a change in the sound either so it was basically an "accident". Sometimes I do use the little thing to pull the boat up to the anchor and it dosn't seem to mind that either. Perhaps I'm hop'in to smoke the thing so I can get a better one. But it works.

manyboats said:

Perhaps I'm hop'in to smoke the thing so I can get a better one.

Click to expand...

Well in that case it will last forever...........or until its 2 a.m. and a storm has brewed up on you and you desperately want to reposition!

HaHa 71 We went to a small boat show yesterday and ran into those wonderful people that towed us to Comox w our engine out. Wish I could have been ther'e to help them w their anchor winch packed it in. They have all chain and a big anchor. They said they were glad they had the nice tow line that they towed us w but I'm not sure how the line helped them. Perhaps the winch had a capstan on the side that was still working and they had a chain hook.
My little capstan dosn't SOUND like it's going to last at all. It's VERY noisy. But it's hard to complain much about something that's working ... on ones boat.

Keith said:

If you guys sharpen the tips of your Fortress anchors, you'll have better luck in grass.

Click to expand...

So why don't they come from the factory sharp? I wonder if anyone has ever suggested this to them? I wonder if they tried it?

Always have sharpened the tips on my danforths as well...made them OK...up from barely acceptable when working on bottoms with hard sand, shells, mussels, grass or seaweed. In those bottoms, they rarely caught easily in my experience on all of my boats and assistance towing boats I've run.

Had a friend I told about my distrust in the lightness of the fortress, even with chain....one day his 26 hydrosports went dead and he drug over 1/2 mile and through a bridge at over 2 knots before it caught...he got rid of it the next day as his primary.

I don't think fortress/danforths are bad...just tough to set...once set are tigers. That's why I sharpen the tips to the point where I think if the manufacturers did it that sharp....there would be way to much gel damage and blood.

Psneeld,
When you sharpen the tips of your Dans do you get them regalvanized? I think the Fortresses are fairly sharp from the man but I'm quite sure they aren't sharper from the factory as they must be thinking they'd get damaged too soon. My Dan has only failed once (totally) in very shallow water on dense weed and hard sand.

manyboats said:

Psneeld,
When you sharpen the tips of your Dans do you get them regalvanized? I think the Fortresses are fairly sharp from the man but I'm quite sure they aren't sharper from the factory as they must be thinking they'd get damaged too soon. My Dan has only failed once (totally) in very shallow water on dense weed and hard sand.

Click to expand...

Spray cold galvanizing is what I have used...not great but I don't see a choice...left unsharpened...I wouldn't even carry a danforth/fortress....but true the fortress is pretty sharp to begin with.

The times we have used our FX23 in its stern anchor role the bottoms have been weedy-ish. Not dense weed but with eelgrass and such on a mud bottom. Not hard, not ooze, but in between. We do not have the flukes set at the greater "mud" mud angle.

Each time I've deployed and "set" the anchor by hand from the dinghy, later pulling on the rode as hard as we could from the GB. And it always dug right in and held very well even on the occasions the wind did a 180 and we hung on the Fortress instead of the mooring buoy.

The ends of the flukes on the Fortress are certainly sharper than the flukes/fluke on a Bruce, CQR, etc. so we've never seen any reason in the way we've used the anchor so far to wish they were sharper.

But perhaps on a really hard bottom it would make a significant difference, I don't know.

Peter B said:

Good onya Bruce, I have the exact same size/weight SS, and I'm tempted to advise, especially if your winch is a bit tired, lose the slot bolt and just trust it.

Click to expand...

Peter, I`ll do just that. Odd,only the no.6 on display( sold and tagged) had the slot bolt, the one delivered (not the display one) has one too. Should have asked Rex.
Maybe I was unkind to the Muir windlass; I checked retrieval speed: Cougar(>42ft) 46ft/min, Cheetah (42-55ft) 48ft/min. Slow enough for mine to be within normal limits, still slower than I`d like. Moral of the story: a fit cheetah will probably just catch a cougar (except they live on different continents). BruceK