367 keel

[gvolos]

Can anyone please tell me if the keel on the 367 (cutter) is bolted on or is the ballast integral? Is it lead? Does she also have the hollow part in the rear section as the 365? Any schematics showing differences between the two models?
Thank you for your help.

[SailingSeaDragon]

The keel on the P367 is encapsulated lead or iron (not sure) with a very deep hollow section (bilge) in the aft portion of the keel. Below is a link to a detail drawing of our 367 taken from the original drawings. In it you can see the area behind the ballast in the drawing, this roughly marks the bilge.  You can also get a sense of the size in some the project pictures such as the Shaftlok install.

http://www.sailingseadragon.com/Drawing.htm


Below is a link to a summary of the differences in the various 365/367 models and with each you will find a link to the brochure for each model.

http://www.sailingseadragon.com/Specs.htm


The two (2) key differences between the 365 b& 367 are a) the underbody, the 367 has a deeper fin keel vs. the shallow modified full keel of the 365 and b) the 367 mast is located 18" aft of the 365 (it is slightly taller with a long boom).

Garner

[Dale Tanski]

When I drilled new holes to install new lag bolts on my mast base, I hit lead.  This finding was on a Ketch.

Dale

[gvolos]

Thank you both for the answers and that great schematic of the 367 Seadragon. . I would imagine that there is lead in the 367 also, since I think both versions (365 and 367) where built concurrently through 1981 to 1982 (years the 367 was built). Is this correct?
Regards.

[SailingSeaDragon]

Everything I read "lead" me to believe the ballast was lead... I feel much better knowing someone has confirmed that it is lead. I would have been surprised if Bill Shaw would have used an iron ballast in an encapsulated keel. Dale thank you for confirming this.

Yes the 365 & 367 were built concurrently. With that said, I am confident that the ballast is lead.

Garner