On 4/21/2014 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:50:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, April 21, 2014 12:01:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:47:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Monday, April 21, 2014 10:11:36 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:

Very interesting, Wayne. The only concerned we have about fueling is which gas station has the best price to fill up before we hit the ramp at the lake.



Keeping our boat in a slip takes that opportunity away, so we have to pay the higher marina price for gas. Fortunately, my home marina has one of the best prices on the lake, so that's a plus. It still hurts.



You want to play, you got to pay. :-)



I guess you boys are not ethanolaphobes ;-)



I am the same way. I buy, whatever is the cheapest gas. We do keep it

moving. I worry more about the gas in my truck than the gas in the

boat. I run 50 gallons through the boat for every 10 that go through

the truck I haul it in.

That ends up being about 30-40 days depending on the weather.

Lately it has been so nice we are getting out 4-5 nights a week for an

hour or two..

The marina says their gas is ethanol free. Maybe, maybe not. Except for the "winter" season, we go through a 50 gallon tank every 2-3 weeks. A day of heavy use with a trip to one of the restaurants at the far end of the lake can eat most of that tank. I use a maintenance dose of Marine Stabil all season, with a storage dose in the cool weather. No issues yet.

There is a certain tolerance for some ethanol in gas labeled ethanol
free. I have heard it is up to 5% or so but I assume it is generally
lower.
I do think this ethanol thing has taken on a life of it's own, blaming
every malady on ethanol. They act like nobody ever had a problem with
stale fuel, gummed up carburetors and water in the fuel before.

Bear in mind "dry gas" IS ethanol and we were always told to put some
in the tank every winter as gas line antifreeze.


The initial problems with ethanol wasn't limited to engines or rubber
gas lines. Yellowfin had to recall a bunch of boats because it was
dissolving the resins used in the built-in fiberglass fuel tanks.

The last boat I had (that I bought as a panicked reaction to not having
a boat) was gas powered. The CG approved fuel lines were only a couple
of years old but the survey report said I should change them because
they were not the latest, ethanol rated types. I didn't bother because
I didn't keep the boat for even one full season.

On 4/21/14, 3:21 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2014 1:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:30:23 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:00:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven
Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from
the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit
next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from
time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the
early
1970s.


I am not familiar with that one but I was in the 5th district.
Pretty much all of the weather cutters were given to the Vietnamese in
the late 60s and early 70s.
I guess it was a tax write off ;-)

I often wonder what became of them.



The Chinese turned them into razor blades and Apple computers!

I would not be surprised. I am sure they were cut up for scrap by
someone.

I looked up the Absecon and the gooks were still using it as late as
2000.
I bet we took the ASW stuff off before we gave it to them. (at least
the torpedoes)

The AVPs were originally built as sea plane tenders during WWII,
designed to sit in a lagoon somewhere. They were round bottom tubs
that were tough to handle in 20' seas. We still cruised at around 18
kts.
The CG liked them because they were floating fuel tanks that had a lot
of endurance at sea.
I think we could have sailed around the world without stopping and
still had plenty of fuel. .



Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.




Why didn't you?

On 4/21/2014 4:34 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...


The USS Zumwald is just another potential step in the evolution of
destroyer technology and capabilities. It may or may not become the
"go-to" design of the future but in order to determine that, designs,
CAD drawings and schematics have to be turned into hardware for testing.


It shouldn't even be called a Destroyer. It's a Cruiser.
It's 600 feet long.
What next, 300 foot "patrol boats?"
Got a feeling that hull shape won't work well.

Nobody needs battleships or cruisers except the Russia and China. They
haven't been able to steal our designs for smaller missiles. Take a look
at a Soviet Cruiser and tell me what you see?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ch...raina1990a.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...03-N-5024R-003
_USS_Port_Royal_(DDG_73)_departed_on_deployment.jp g

The technological capabilities of the respective countries in on
display.

The Port Royal is designated a CG. It's about 5000 tons lighter and
40' shorter than the "destroyer" Zumwalt.

It is just a name. There are no more battleships and the Dreadnoughts
and Great White Fleet had "Battleships" that were a whopping 300' in
length.

Destroyers are meant for support of capitol ships and ASW.
Why call the Zumwalt a destroyer? It's not under previous and long held
definitions. Apparently they just "did it."
Pretty stupid calling a cruiser a destroyer.

It is just a name.

Even if the Navy no longer plans to build what they previously called
"destroyers" they should have called the Zumwalt a cruiser.
That's my humble opinion.

When are you going to be the CNO?

That it's named for Zumwalt is fitting. He transformed the Navy from
hard-asses to the "kinder and gentler" Navy.

When my dad had command of a DER he order that all crew would have clean
shaved faces in direct contravention of Zumwalt's new navy. Some in the
crew complained and he said he wasn't going to be writing letters to
mothers and wives of sailors who died from smoke inhalation during
damage control events.

It was hilarious when they change brig to confinement center and
prisoners to confinees.

Now his name is attached to redefining ship classes.

Ship classes changed long before Elmo got his 4th star.

Personally, I don't think that ships will fare well in heavy sea.
It's a cluster**** anyway.

Opinions are like assholes, every one has one and most stink.

Dead end, as the Navy has canceled them, and will build only 3 instead
of the originally planned 32.

Not uncommon at all.

They're going back to building Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

Cheaper, you should be glad.

If they have any sense they'll re-designate the 3 Zumwalt class they
build as cruisers.

Let us know what the CNO when he responds to your plea.



Funny that you mentioned your Dad and his reaction to Zumwalt as CNO.
Not everyone liked the policy changes he ordered. He also set in motion
changes that ultimately had women serving aboard certain types of ships,
a move that many crusty old career sailors had a tough time with. I
remember the debates that went on, discussing things like taking on
ammunition at sea where 50lb and heavier shells had to be loaded by hand
by a line of sailors, passing them from one to another.

By the time my older son served in the Navy women made up a good part of
the crew on the destroyer tender USS Puget Sound (AD-38) that he served
on. They called it the "Love Boat".

When I reported for duty on the USS VanVoorhis in Newport, RI, the
Puget Sound had just been commissioned, was brand spanking new and
initially homeported in Newport. Strange that many years later my son
would be stationed on her.

On 4/21/2014 4:48 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 3:21 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/21/2014 1:12 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:30:23 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:00:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/21/14, 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:03:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Do you remember the USS Coates, the DE that "guarded" New Haven
Harbor
during the 1960s?

I remember the USS Drum that kept the godless communists away from
the
Washington Navy Yard (called the gun factory at the time)

After that sailed away the mission was left to the USCGR unit
next to
the Wilson Bridge ;-)



I was a high schooler in New Haven when the Coates was assigned
there
as, if memory serves, a training vessel. We encountered it from
time to
time in the really small boats we used to play, fish, waterski, et
cetera, on Long Island Sound. Mostly, though, the Coates was docked.

Just looked it up...it was used as a target vessel and sunk in the
early
1970s.


I am not familiar with that one but I was in the 5th district.
Pretty much all of the weather cutters were given to the
Vietnamese in
the late 60s and early 70s.
I guess it was a tax write off ;-)

I often wonder what became of them.



The Chinese turned them into razor blades and Apple computers!

I would not be surprised. I am sure they were cut up for scrap by
someone.

I looked up the Absecon and the gooks were still using it as late as
2000.
I bet we took the ASW stuff off before we gave it to them. (at least
the torpedoes)

The AVPs were originally built as sea plane tenders during WWII,
designed to sit in a lagoon somewhere. They were round bottom tubs
that were tough to handle in 20' seas. We still cruised at around 18
kts.
The CG liked them because they were floating fuel tanks that had a lot
of endurance at sea.
I think we could have sailed around the world without stopping and
still had plenty of fuel. .



Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.




Why didn't you?


Because I am not on a crusade in life to influence political correctness
or correct the use of offensive racial names. I calibrate people by what
they say and do and that determines my willingness to be associated with
them. My responsibility to correct or influence was with my kids and,
in some cases, some who worked for my company although that was in the
form of policy.

For many who served in Vietnam the term "Gook" was an intentional
derogatory name for people who were trying to kill you, much like "Jap"
and "Kraut" were commonly used in WWII.

I agree that those terms are not appropriate today. But listening to
how people speak or reading what they write often provides calibration
of who you are dealing with and what makes them tick. When someone says
or writes three sentences with two or three, "****'in" (whatevers) in
them, you get a pretty good idea of what kind of mentality you are
dealing with.

I'd argue that it's better to let them rip than to listen to feigned,
political correctness. At least you know.

On 4/21/14, 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:48:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.




Why didn't you?

Maybe he sees it as more of a political statement than racial (like I
do) and as you have demonstrated here, almost every day, that you can
say the most offensive and hateful things you want about anyone you
disagree with politically.


I don’t use derogatory terms to insult people over those areas of their
being in which they had no choice, such as their race, their ethnicity,
their gender, their country of origin, et cetera.

If you are an uninformed, science-denying, ignorant, superstitious,
religious fundamentalist, racist conservative, you are that way because
of choices you have made, not because you were born that way.

"Gook" is a derogatory term ignorant people have used for generations to
describe Asians, not the politics of Asians.

On 4/21/2014 5:44 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:48:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Interesting.

Why haven't you expunged the word "gook" from your vocabulary?


I *knew* you were going to say that.




Why didn't you?

Maybe he sees it as more of a political statement than racial (like I
do) and as you have demonstrated here, almost every day, that you can
say the most offensive and hateful things you want about anyone you
disagree with politically.


I don’t use derogatory terms to insult people over those areas of their
being in which they had no choice, such as their race, their ethnicity,
their gender, their country of origin, et cetera.

If you are an uninformed, science-denying, ignorant, superstitious,
religious fundamentalist, racist conservative, you are that way because
of choices you have made, not because you were born that way.

"Gook" is a derogatory term ignorant people have used for generations to
describe Asians, not the politics of Asians.

Most prominently though during the Vietnam years by those trying to stay
alive in the jungles. I could understand it then, under those
circumstances but it's justification for use has long ended.

On 4/21/2014 5:44 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/21/14, 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:48:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Maybe he sees it as more of a political statement than racial (like I
do) and as you have demonstrated here, almost every day, that you can
say the most offensive and hateful things you want about anyone you
disagree with politically.


I don’t use derogatory terms to insult people over those areas of their
being in which they had no choice, such as their race, their ethnicity,
their gender, their country of origin, et cetera.


You seem to have problems with every single person of the female gender
who posted here. Was I imagineing that?

On 4/21/2014 5:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:40:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The initial problems with ethanol wasn't limited to engines or rubber
gas lines. Yellowfin had to recall a bunch of boats because it was
dissolving the resins used in the built-in fiberglass fuel tanks.

The last boat I had (that I bought as a panicked reaction to not having
a boat) was gas powered. The CG approved fuel lines were only a couple
of years old but the survey report said I should change them because
they were not the latest, ethanol rated types. I didn't bother because
I didn't keep the boat for even one full season.


The 1990 era USCG hose I put on my boat still seem to be doing fine.
When I repowered last time I cut off a short piece and opened it up.
Everything looked OK and since people with newer hoses report problems
I just stayed with what I had.
They are solid black material that looks like rubber but I am sure it
is some synthetic.



The ones on the boat I had were black and had "USCG Approved" stamped on
them along with the product number. According to the surveyor though,
they weren't current and should be replaced with those approved for use
with ethanol laced fuels.

I think the problem would be with an insurance claim if something happened.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...


Destroyers are meant for support of capitol ships and ASW.
Why call the Zumwalt a destroyer? It's not under previous and long held
definitions. Apparently they just "did it."
Pretty stupid calling a cruiser a destroyer.

It is just a name.


No. It's stupid. Not that I give a flying ****.
Apparently, others have noticed the inanity of it.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...alt-destroyer-
blog.html

Good pics he
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...712-Bath-Iron-
Works-Lays-Keel-of-First-DDG-1000-Zumwalt/page23

Butt ugly from any angle.
And I think the Navy called it a "Destroyer" for one reason.
It sounds cheaper to build than "Cruiser."
And it worked.

On 4/21/2014 6:44 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...


Destroyers are meant for support of capitol ships and ASW.
Why call the Zumwalt a destroyer? It's not under previous and long held
definitions. Apparently they just "did it."
Pretty stupid calling a cruiser a destroyer.

It is just a name.


No. It's stupid. Not that I give a flying ****.
Apparently, others have noticed the inanity of it.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...alt-destroyer-
blog.html

Good pics he
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...712-Bath-Iron-
Works-Lays-Keel-of-First-DDG-1000-Zumwalt/page23

Butt ugly from any angle.
And I think the Navy called it a "Destroyer" for one reason.
It sounds cheaper to build than "Cruiser."
And it worked.



Luddite.