cheoy lee 41 sailboatdata

• New Sailboats
• Sailboats 21-30ft
• Sailboats 31-35ft
• Sailboats 36-40ft
• Sailboats Over 40ft
• Sailboats Under 21feet
• used_sailboats
• Apps and Computer Programs
• Communications
• Fishfinders
• Handheld Electronics
• Plotters MFDS Rradar
• Wind, Speed & Depth Instruments
• Anchoring Mooring
• Running Rigging
• Sails Canvas
• Standing Rigging
• Diesel Engines
• Off Grid Energy
• Cleaning Waxing
• DIY Projects
• Repair, Tools & Materials
• Spare Parts
• Tools & Gadgets
• Cabin Comfort
• Ventilation
• Footwear Apparel
• Foul Weather Gear
• Mailport & PS Advisor
• Inside Practical Sailor Blog
• Activate My Web Access
• Reset Password
• Customer Service

• Free Newsletter

Ericson 34-2 Finds Sweet Spot

How to Sell Your Boat

Cal 2-46: A Venerable Lapworth Design Brought Up to Date

Rhumb Lines: Show Highlights from Annapolis

Solar Panels: Go Rigid If You have the Space…

Leaping Into Lithium

The Importance of Sea State in Weather Planning

Do-it-yourself Electrical System Survey and Inspection

When Should We Retire Dyneema Stays and Running Rigging?

Rethinking MOB Prevention

Top-notch Wind Indicators

The Everlasting Multihull Trampoline

What Your Boat and the Baltimore Super Container Ship May Have…

Check Your Shorepower System for Hidden Dangers

DIY survey of boat solar and wind turbine systems

What’s Involved in Setting Up a Lithium Battery System?

The Scraper-only Approach to Bottom Paint Removal

Can You Recoat Dyneema?

How to Handle the Head

The Day Sailor’s First-Aid Kit

Choosing and Securing Seat Cushions

Cockpit Drains on Race Boats

Re-sealing the Seams on Waterproof Fabrics

Safer Sailing: Add Leg Loops to Your Harness

Waxing and Polishing Your Boat

Reducing Engine Room Noise

Tricks and Tips to Forming Do-it-yourself Rigging Terminals

Marine Toilet Maintenance Tips

Learning to Live with Plastic Boat Bits

• Sailboat Reviews

Cheoy Lee Offshore 41

An innovative ray richards design built by the earliest asian yard is a rock solid cruiser, but with a lot of teak to maintain as well as potentially troublesome metalwork..

Cheoy Lee Shipyards of Hong Kong was one of the first molders of fiberglass boats in Asia, constructing sailboats for export to the US in the early 1960s. It introduced its first model, the Bermuda 30, in 1963. By 1965 it offerred 11 different models.

The company enjoyed a reputation as one of the better builders of offshore boats, characterized by traditional designs and the extensive use of wood. Teak hulls were offered as an option, decks were usually planked with teak, spars were Sitka spruce, and interior joinerwork was all teak.

Though the company developed a reputation for building solid hulls and decks, like many Asian builders of the period it also had a reputation for manufacturing lower quality accessories—winches and other stainless steel and bronze components were fabricated in the company’s shop, and were considered inferior to mainstream US and European hardware because of a tendency to corrode.

One Californian went so far as to order a boat delivered without mast, rigging, or winches so he could install higher quality gear.

Wiring systems also were prone to corrosion, especially those on exterior lights, so owners are often frustrated in attempts to maintain functional circuitry.

Design Naval architect Raymond H. Richards was commissioned by Cheoy Lee to design the Offshore 41, which replaced the classic Phil Rhodes-designed Reliant 40 in the company’s line-up.

Richards first established himself as a corporate designer in Seattle. In 1961 he became the first architect to design a fiberglass hull that met Lloyd’s construction standards. He was responsible for 10 Cheoy Lee designs, including the 39, 32 and 38-footers, and several Ranger and Pacific sloops.

By the time he accepted the commission for the Offshore 41 in 1972, he had abandoned the rigors of the corporate world for private practice, and moved to Avalon, on Catalina Island. These days he operates from a studio in Newport, California, where he has designed, among other vessels, a commercial passenger boat called the SWATH (Small Water Area Twin Hull) that is characterized by buoyant, sub-surface struts that produce a smooth, stable ride.

The Offshore 41 was conceived as a 40-footer but grew to 40′ 11″, just 2″ longer than the Reliant, but with a significantly different underwater shape.

“We were looking toward a more updated offering, both in style and performance, giving only a slight nod to the now infamous IOR,” Richards said of the re-design.

It was offered in sloop, yawl, and ketch configurations, though the sloop is the best performer of the three. Sail area for the sloop is 833 sq. ft., compared to 863 and 880 sq. ft. for the yawl and ketch, respectively. The sail area/displacement ratio (SA/D) for the sloop is 17.5, typical of cruisers of this vintage; the SA/D is 18.1 for the yawl, 18.4 for the ketch.

The displacement/length (D/L) ratio of 275 is on the high end of the moderate scale, and the ballast/displacement ratio is 41%. Richards describes the boat as being “stiff as a church.”

A radical departure from many cruisers of this era was the design of the keel. The traditional full keel was replaced by a 6′ deep cruising fin in which the forefoot is cutaway. The rudder is attached to a skeg.

The first boats were commissioned in 1972, and the production run produced about 100 boats.

Construction The Offshore 41 was designed to meet Lloyd’s specifications, and Cheoy Lee marketed it as meeting that standard; however, “there was not a Lloyd’s inspector on the premises during construction,” Richards said.

Hulls of the Offshore 41 are solid fiberglass that Richards says are heavier than designed.

“They (the builders) took a lot of license with the drawings,” he said, describing a trial-and-error method of adding layers of fiberglass and resin until the boat floated on its designed waterline. The process may have inadvertently produced a thicker, heavier hull than intended.

Richards’ lamination schedule for the hull was not followed by Cheoy Lee, he said, instead calling for six plies of 2-ounce mat and an additional six plies with widths graduated to produce a taper at the hull/deck joint. It is unusual not to use woven roving, which builds up thickness much quicker than just mat. In any case, Richards said that Cheoy Lee assured him the boat was built to Lloyds standards.

The deck, cockpit and cabin sides were cored with mahogany encapsulated with skins comprised of two layers of 2-ounce mat. The deck was overlaid with 3/8″ teak planking.

“The hull/deck joint is an inner facing flange forming a shelf onto which the deck was laid in wet mat and through-bolted,” Richards said. “The joint is a combination of resin and mat to prevent leaks. The teak toerail, rabbeted to take the thickness of the deck, is bolted through the deck and shelf. This is a method I created with the Pacific 30 and have used ever since. It has proved itself in both labor saving construction and structural integrity.”

The company replaced solid fiberglass stringers he designed with “joinerwork flats and aprons,” so berths and cabinetry act as hull stiffeners. Veteran owners of bluewater boats related no problems with hull flexing or oilcanning.

Bulkheads are “dropped in and bolted to related webs and floors, and bolted at the tops of the floors and glassed to the hull.”

The bottom consists of a molded grid system that provides structural support for the hull, framework for flooring, and a cavity for the internal keel. Ballast is an 8,700-pound slurry of lead and concrete; the top of the keel also functions as tankage for 50 gallons of fuel, small for extended cruising. Owners report fuel consumption of less than 1 gallon per hour with the Perkins 4.108 turning at 2,500 rpm. As a consequence, an optional 40-gallon fuel tank was offered under the cockpit. Water tanks are below the cabin sole forward of the engine and in tanks port and starboard aft of the galley.

In typical Richards fashion, the engine was mounted below the cabin sole amidships on solid fiberglass beds. Though that’s an excellent location for keeping weight out of the end of the boat, the arrangement is criticized by several owners, one of whom complained that, “The flywheel brings up bilge water and requires the construction of a metal shield to prevent continuous starter and alternator malfunctions.”

Like many boats of this era, the Offshore 41 was susceptible to blistering on the bottom and rudder. Owners report blisters ranging in size from “quarter-sized blisters I repair every spring,” to “several larger than my hand on the rudder that required a $2,500 repair.”

One owner told us that his boat survived Hurricane Hugo with substantial damage, “but the strength of the components kept it in good structural shape.”

Deck Unless a used boat has been retrofitted with modern winches, turning blocks and rope clutches, skipper and crew will find themselves hoisting and trimming sails the old fashioned way.

Original equipment included four sheet winches in the cockpit and two at the mast for halyards. This arrangement is adequate for daysailors, but we’d place a high priority on moving halyards and sail controls to the cockpit for offshore work.

All three models of the boat have the same 9′ 11″, T-shaped, cockpit with the helm well aft of the winches, and mainsheet controls located on a traveler forward of the companionway. It takes several steps to move from wheel to mainsheet, which mandates a wheel brake or autopilot when sailing shorthanded.

The cockpit has 6′ long benches with 14″ high back rests, and a 24″ high “saddle seat” for the helmsman. The width of the cockpit, however, makes it difficult to find a comfortable position on the rail from which to steer. Richards’ design incorporated seats with an elevated lip that provides better leg support than a flat surface, and a sloped sole that allows the helmsman to stand upright when the boat is heeled.

“We were on the cutting edge of ergonomic designs,” he said.

Proponents of ketch and yawl rigs crow about the ability to balance a sail plan, and they are good on a reach. But the sloop remains the most efficient rig, certainly upwind. Add the intrusion of the yawl or ketch’s mizzen mast in a cockpit (that is best suited to six persons), and the sloop becomes even more appealing.

Wide side decks allow for easy movement fore and aft. A teak handrail on the cabin top and double lifelines provide a high measure of security. Both the bow and stern pulpits have double stainless steel rails.

The Sitka spruce main mast has conventional single spreaders while the mizzen has swept back spreaders.

Spruce masts on a used boat present three potential problems: they’re not as sturdy or weather-resistant as aluminum; they are prone to rotting at the base if water is allowed to stand; and, though they have eye appeal, they require varnishing at least once a year in most areas. One owner felt he had a new lease on life after coating the mast with Awlgrip; others told us they use white Z Spar enamel, which requires repainting every 4-5 years.

Teak decks also are a high maintenance item. Owners of the Offshore 41 say decks require frequent re-caulking; many reported leaks between the teak and fiberglass. And if the teak requires replacement, you’re looking at around 20 grand.

Belowdecks Compared to most cookie cutter boats with compartmentalized interiors, the 41’s interior has personality. Depending upon the size and age of the crew, it will either be ideal or totally unsuitable for extended cruising.

Richards designed an 18′ long, nearly wide-open cabin that provides sleeping accommodations for a crew of six, and seating for 6-8 at an 8′ diameter dinette.

Enclosed berths in the fo’c’sle are accessed by removing a panel in the dinette back. Berths are laid out in what Richards describes as a “toe-over-toe arrangement,” the port berth being higher than its counterpart, which eliminates the possibility of creating a second double berth. As an alternative, the space will work well for storage of tools, spare sails, and anchor rode, since the boat has no anchor locker.

“I saw the forward berths as a place to get a little private time away from the madding crowd, and for the same reason a place to read,” Richards said.

Also a bit unusual, especially for its time, is the skipper’s enclosed stateroom, located to starboard and aft of the head and saloon, which has a double berth to starboard and hanging locker.

Wide open quarter berths are located opposite to port; the lower serves double duty as a seat for the navigator; an upper folds out of the way against the hull when not in use.

All of the berths are at least 6′ 6″.

Because the boat was designed before the era of pocket-sized navigational instruments, the navigator has a large, hinged chart table on which to work. However, adding electronics may necessitate reconfiguration of a cabinet located outboard of the table.

Forward of the nav station, the galley is equipped with two stainless steel sinks, a gimbaled four-burner stove outboard, and a 11-cu. ft. freezer/refrigerator below a Formica counter. A cover fitted over the sinks increases the size of working surfaces to that of a typical small apartment, and there’s an abundance of storage cupboards and shelves.

The head is a one-room toilet and shower combination opposite the galley. Compared with more contemporary boats, it is smallish, though Richards describes it as having the “space an adult needs when he drops the soap.” The holding tank has a 50-gallon capacity.

Natural light flows in from eight ports and three hatches, doing its best to brighten the dark teak cabinetry and sole. Fresh air also circulates through two Dorades located over the saloon.

Performance Performance of the Offshore 41 is a function of the rig, skipper’s ability, and condition of the sails. Owners of sloops told us that their boats perform to weather as well as similarly sized boats, and sail at 5.5-6.5 knots in 10-15 knots of breeze; owners of two-masted boats say they are slower.

The sloop also points higher than the ketch or yawls, tacking through 85°-90°, while the others will tack through 100°-110°, at best.

All agree that the best performance is achieved when sailing at 120° to the apparent wind flying a genoa, when speeds reach 7.5-8 knots in 10- to 15-knot winds.

She also tracks well. The skeg helps in this regard.

Owners log 150-mile days; in the 70’s that was generally considered the standard for bluewater cruising.

Conclusions The Cheoy Lee Offshore 41 was conceived for use in offshore conditions, constructed to endure extended bluewater passages, and designed to provide a crew with comfort above and belowdecks. Though a typical used boat is at least 20 years old, we would consider a purchase with the following caveats: a) look for a boat with an aluminum mast or closely inspect a wood mast for rot and be prepared to maintain it; b) closely inspect the bottom for blisters and plan an annual inspection; c) closely inspect all electrical systems for corrosion and failures; d) carefully consider your crew requirements vis-à-vis the accommodations plan.

Boats sold new in 1977 for $63,500, FOB Seattle, and today used boats of that same year are selling for slightly more, depending upon upgrades and sails.

Raymond H. Richards, Naval Architect, PO Box 3271, Newport Beach, CA, 92663; 949/642-6592, [email protected].

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Interesting write up – we live aboard and cruise on our Cheoy Lee 41 “Avocet” which is a Frankenstein monster of the Offshore and Pedrick designs. My husband and I are on the hunt for more history on not only our vessel but also Cheoy Lee itself, and this article provided useful information. Thank you! Fair winds, ~ the crew of S/V Avocet (www.svavocet.com)

Great write up.. I have a 1977 RR offshore 41ketch “Sidartha”. Love the boat, its beautiful design, but it is endless upkeep.

Does anyone know if the choey Lee had additional ballast via a small hole port side near the propeller? Or know what that is there for. Seems a lot of water drains from that area on pull outs. Also any knowledge of a fiberglass tube encasing the shift. I have a small leak coming in under the battery box space under the gangway ladder.

We have a 41 Sloop version berthed in Cyprus. We are having real problems with our starter motor which is not repairable and cannot find a suitable replacement. I’d welcome any advice on a suitable replacement.

I’m trying to find a cross-section for the 1978 Offshore 41 Ketch ….to see what’s under the teak decking? I am looking for deck replacement alternatives.

Let me know what you find I’m not sure what I’m going to do about my decks I have a 78

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Log in to leave a comment

Latest Videos

What’s The Best Vinyl Window Cleaner for Your Boat?

40-Footer Boat Tours – With Some Big Surprises! | Boat Tour

Electrical Do’s and Don’ts

Bahamas Travel Advisory: Cause for Concern?

• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell My Personal Information
• Online Account Activation
• Privacy Manager

Offshore 41 cheoy lee

The offshore 41 cheoy lee is a 40.92ft masthead sloop designed by ray richards and built in fiberglass by cheoy lee shipyard since 1972., 100 units have been built..

The Offshore 41 cheoy lee is a moderate weight sailboat which is slightly under powered. It is very stable / stiff and has a good righting capability if capsized. It is best suited as a bluewater cruising boat. The fuel capacity is average. There is a good water supply range.

Offshore 41 cheoy lee for sale elsewhere on the web:

Main features

Login or register to personnalize this screen.

You will be able to pin external links of your choice.

See how Sailboatlab works in video

We help you build your own hydraulic steering system - Lecomble & Schmitt

Accommodations

Builder data, other photos.

Modal Title

The content of your modal.

Personalize your sailboat data sheet

Click Here for Owners Listing

BACK to C.L. MODELS PAGE

PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE) Detailed Review

If you are a boat enthusiast looking to get more information on specs, built, make, etc. of different boats, then here is a complete review of PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE). Built by Cheoy Lee Shipyard and designed by David Pedrick, the boat was first built in 1982. It has a hull type of Fin with rudder on skeg and LOA is 12.44. Its sail area/displacement ratio 15.69. Its auxiliary power tank, manufactured by Perkins, runs on Diesel.

PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE) has retained its value as a result of superior building, a solid reputation, and a devoted owner base. Read on to find out more about PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE) and decide if it is a fit for your boating needs.

Boat Information

Boat specifications, sail boat calculation, rig and sail specs, auxillary power tank, accomodations, contributions, who designed the pedrick 41 (cheoy lee).

PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE) was designed by David Pedrick.

Who builds PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE)?

PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE) is built by Cheoy Lee Shipyard.

When was PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE) first built?

PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE) was first built in 1982.

How long is PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE)?

PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE) is 9.91 m in length.

What is mast height on PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE)?

PEDRICK 41 (CHEOY LEE) has a mast height of 14.4 m.

Member Boats at HarborMoor

Great choice! Your favorites are temporarily saved for this session. Sign in to save them permanently, access them on any device, and receive relevant alerts.

• Sailboat Guide

Cheoy Lee Pedrick 41

Cheoy Lee Pedrick 41 is a 40 ′ 9 ″ / 12.4 m monohull sailboat designed by David Pedrick and built by Cheoy Lee Shipyard between 1982 and 1994.

Rig and Sails

Auxilary power, accomodations, calculations.

The theoretical maximum speed that a displacement hull can move efficiently through the water is determined by it's waterline length and displacement. It may be unable to reach this speed if the boat is underpowered or heavily loaded, though it may exceed this speed given enough power. Read more.

Classic hull speed formula:

Hull Speed = 1.34 x √LWL

Max Speed/Length ratio = 8.26 ÷ Displacement/Length ratio .311 Hull Speed = Max Speed/Length ratio x √LWL

Sail Area / Displacement Ratio

A measure of the power of the sails relative to the weight of the boat. The higher the number, the higher the performance, but the harder the boat will be to handle. This ratio is a "non-dimensional" value that facilitates comparisons between boats of different types and sizes. Read more.

SA/D = SA ÷ (D ÷ 64) 2/3

• SA : Sail area in square feet, derived by adding the mainsail area to 100% of the foretriangle area (the lateral area above the deck between the mast and the forestay).
• D : Displacement in pounds.

Ballast / Displacement Ratio

A measure of the stability of a boat's hull that suggests how well a monohull will stand up to its sails. The ballast displacement ratio indicates how much of the weight of a boat is placed for maximum stability against capsizing and is an indicator of stiffness and resistance to capsize.

Ballast / Displacement * 100

Displacement / Length Ratio

A measure of the weight of the boat relative to it's length at the waterline. The higher a boat’s D/L ratio, the more easily it will carry a load and the more comfortable its motion will be. The lower a boat's ratio is, the less power it takes to drive the boat to its nominal hull speed or beyond. Read more.

D/L = (D ÷ 2240) ÷ (0.01 x LWL)³

• D: Displacement of the boat in pounds.
• LWL: Waterline length in feet

Comfort Ratio

This ratio assess how quickly and abruptly a boat’s hull reacts to waves in a significant seaway, these being the elements of a boat’s motion most likely to cause seasickness. Read more.

Comfort ratio = D ÷ (.65 x (.7 LWL + .3 LOA) x Beam 1.33 )

• D: Displacement of the boat in pounds
• LOA: Length overall in feet
• Beam: Width of boat at the widest point in feet

Capsize Screening Formula

This formula attempts to indicate whether a given boat might be too wide and light to readily right itself after being overturned in extreme conditions. Read more.

CSV = Beam ÷ ³√(D / 64)

A keel/centrboard option was also available: (draft - BU 4.33’, BD 9’ - most often had a shorter rig.)

Embed this page on your own website by copying and pasting this code.

• About Sailboat Guide

©2024 Sea Time Tech, LLC

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Eastern Europe
• Moscow Oblast

Elektrostal

Elektrostal Localisation : Country Russia , Oblast Moscow Oblast . Available Information : Geographical coordinates , Population, Area, Altitude, Weather and Hotel . Nearby cities and villages : Noginsk , Pavlovsky Posad and Staraya Kupavna .

Information

Find all the information of Elektrostal or click on the section of your choice in the left menu.

• Update data

Elektrostal Demography

Information on the people and the population of Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Geography

Geographic Information regarding City of Elektrostal .

Elektrostal Distance

Distance (in kilometers) between Elektrostal and the biggest cities of Russia.

Elektrostal Map

Locate simply the city of Elektrostal through the card, map and satellite image of the city.

Elektrostal Nearby cities and villages

Elektrostal weather.

Weather forecast for the next coming days and current time of Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Sunrise and sunset

Find below the times of sunrise and sunset calculated 7 days to Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Hotel

Our team has selected for you a list of hotel in Elektrostal classified by value for money. Book your hotel room at the best price.

Elektrostal Nearby

Below is a list of activities and point of interest in Elektrostal and its surroundings.

Elektrostal Page

• Information /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#info
• Demography /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#demo
• Geography /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#geo
• Distance /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#dist1
• Map /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#map
• Nearby cities and villages /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#dist2
• Weather /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#weather
• Sunrise and sunset /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#sun
• Hotel /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#hotel
• Nearby /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#around
• Page /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#page
• Terms of Use
• Copyright © 2024 DB-City - All rights reserved
• Change Ad Consent Do not sell my data

A Chronicle of Current Events

For human rights & freedom of expression in the ussr, the podrabinek case, dec 1977 to feb 1978 (48.7).

<<No 48 : 14 March 1978>>

On 1 December 1977, the brothers Alexander and Kirill PODRABINEK (CCE 47) and their father Pinkhos Abramovich PODRABINEK were summoned for a chat by Yu.S. Belov, chief of a department at the Moscow City and Regional KGB. Alexander refused to appear.

“On behalf of the Committee for State Security ” (Belov told Kirill and his father Pinkhos Podrabinek)

“I suggest that you and your families leave the Soviet Union and go abroad via Israel within 20 days. There is enough material against you, Kirill Pinkhosovich, to institute criminal proceedings. You, Pinkhos Abramovich, are also known to us for your anti-social activities. An act of humanity is being offered to you both. I advise you to make use of it.”

Alexander (b. 1953) and Kirill Podrabinek (b. 1952)

The same evening Alexander Podrabinek was arrested on the street and taken to the KGB. Belov presented him, too, with an ultimatum: all three must leave the country, otherwise criminal proceedings would be instituted against both brothers.

Belov let it be understood that the absence of an invitation and difficulties with money would not be obstacles. Belov stressed that they could only leave all together.

HOSTAGE-TAKING

Many painful disputes have sprung up around the moral problems arising from KGB’s ultimatums and blackmail. The Chronicle cannot present the arguments but at least it can accurately convey the stance of participants in such events by reproducing all their statements in sufficient detail.

On 6 December 1977, there was a press conference at Andrei Sakharov ’s flat. Pinkhos PODRABINEK read out a “Statement for the Belgrade Conference [note 1] and the Press”:

“A distinctive feature of this case is the KGB’s use of the hostage system. Not one of us can determine his own fate independently, and a decision about the fate of three people has been placed by the KGB on Alexander Podrabinek alone, in whose departure the authorities are most of all interested. “We categorically refuse to accept such conditions and insist on our right to make our choices independently…”

Then Alexander PODRABINEK read out his “Reply” to the KGB’s proposal:

“I would like to draw the attention of the world public to my brother’s painful position and to the dirty tactics of the KGB — tactics of intimidation and terror. The whole world condemns the hijacking of aeroplanes and the taking of passengers as hostages, yet the KGB is using the very same method with regard to my brother, a method commonly used by terrorists. In the situation that has arisen the most painful thing for me is my brother’s fate. “At the KGB they insistently advised me to take advantage of this ‘humane act of the Soviet government’, as they expressed it. I regard this proposal as unconcealed blackmail by the KGB. “They have given me four days to reflect. On 5 December I have to give my reply. A reply that means a great deal to me. “This is my reply.

“I do not wish to go to prison. I value even the semblance of freedom which I possess now. I know that I would be able to live freely in the West and at last receive a real education. I know that there I would not have four agents at my heels, threatening to beat me up or push me under a train.

“Over there, I know, they will not put me in a concentration camp or a psychiatric hospital for attempting to defend people who are denied their rights and oppressed. Over there, I know, one breathes easily. While here one does so with difficulty, and they stop your mouth and stifle you if you speak too loudly. I know that our country is unhappy and doomed to suffering.

“And that is why I am staying.

“I do not want to go to prison, but neither do I fear a camp. I value my own freedom as I value my brother’s, but I am not bargaining for it. I will not give in to any blackmail.

“A clear conscience is dearer to me than material well-being. I was born in Russia. This is my country, and I must remain here, however hard it may be and however easy in the West. As far as I am able, I will go on defending those whose rights are being so brazenly trampled on in our country.

“That is my reply. I am staying.”

After this Alexander Podrabinek added that he would agree to leave the country only if Kirill were to ask him to do so.

On 7 December 1977, Kirill PODRABINEK made a statement:

KGB Blackmail

1. The KGB is using the hostage-taking method. They are basically blackmailing my brother Alexander, while I am the hostage. 2. The very formulation of the question: ‘leave or we will put you in prison’, is contrary to the law. If a man has committed a crime he must be prosecuted. However, in this case the KGB does not want to stage a new political trial but prefers to dispatch us abroad. The KGB has employed a well-calculated device — to exploit the insolubility of a situation with a hostage. All this blackmail is patently a consequence of the public stand taken by our family … “If any one of the three of us is arrested and any charge whatsoever brought against him, it can only be viewed as an act of revenge by the KGB and not as a requirement of justice.”

On 12 December 1977, Kirill Podrabinek informed Belov that he had decided to leave. Belov replied that Kirill could hand in his emigration documents, and on the same day Kirill did so. On 14 December Kirill Podrabinek made an addition to his previous statement:

“On 12 December, I telephoned investigator Belov at the KGB. Permission to go abroad has been granted; there was no mention of my only being able to leave only with my brother. Does this mean that the KGB has given up its hostage-taking and will really allow me to leave? In the very near future this will become clear … In view of all the circumstances, and fearing for my life” (see CCE 47) “I have taken the decision to leave.” *

KIRILL PODRABINEK (b. 1952)

On 27 December 1977, the police in Elektrostal (Moscow Region) brought charges against Kirill Podrabinek under Article 215 (RSFSR Criminal Code: “Illegal possession of arms, ammunition” etc). Kirill refused to sign the record of this charge. Investigator Radygin obtained his written undertaking not to leave town but said he would not need Kirill before the middle of January and, if need be, he could go to Moscow.

When Kirill Podrabinek came out of the Elektrostal police station he was met at the door by KGB Investigator Belov, who had arrived from Moscow. The condition of Kirill’s departure remained unchanged, Belov said, and gave him three days in which to persuade his brother to agree to leave.

From that day onwards, KGB employees began trailing Kirill Podrabinek . (His brother Alexander had been under a similar “escort” since 10 October 1977, see below). The same day 22 Muscovites issued a statement:

“Wishing to force Alexander Podrabinek to leave the country, the KGB is openly blackmailing him with his brother’s fate. A method of hostage-taking used thus far only by irresponsible criminal-terrorists is in the present case being adopted as a weapon by the official representatives of a powerful State. This blackmail clearly demonstrates the value of the charges brought against Kirill Podrabinek. “We call upon our fellow countrymen and world public opinion to protest against the use of hostage-taking, unprecedented in the practice of civilized states. We call upon our fellow countrymen and world public opinion to follow attentively the fate of the Podrabinek family.”

On 28 December Kirill Podrabinek made a statement:

State Terrorism

“… The KGB has resorted to hostage-taking. My brother Alexander has made a statement for the press saying that he does not wish to leave, but he will leave if I so demand. “Under no circumstances will I make this demand of Alexander. In the first place, that would mean becoming a blind instrument of blackmail in the hands of the KGB, exploiting a situation created by them for my own sake. In the second place, it is impossible for me to even ask, let alone demand such a thing. “However, I have resolved to pursue my chosen line of action and try to obtain permission to leave.”

On the evening of 29 December 1977, Kirill Podrabinek was arrested.

On the day of his arrest, he declared a hunger strike. After a few days he was transferred from Elektrostal to Moscow, to the MVD’s detention centre on Matrosskaya Tishina Street.

The first response to Kirill’s arrest was “The Christmas ‘Feat’ of the KGB”, a short article by Victor Nekipelov [note 2]:

“… The arrest of Kirill Podrabinek is an act of deliberate, demonstrative revenge. The authorities know full well that they are thereby dealing the severest blow to both Alexander Podrabinek – Take that for not accepting our offer! – and to his father — While you didn’t steer your sons to a compromise!”

On 1 January 1978, Yevgeny Nikolayev (see “In the Psychiatric Hospitals”, CCE 48.12 ) sent a letter to the RSFSR Procurator’s Office, protesting against the arrest of Kirill Podrabinek.

On 4 January 1978, Alexander and Pinkhos Podrabinek asked Belov for a meeting with Kirill.

Belov refused but promised to pass Kirill a note from them, “if there are no objections on the part of the investigator”. In the note Alexander and his father asked Kirill: “Do you agree to leave if there is no need to ask Alexander to do the same?”

On the same day, at 11.30 pm, Belov came to Elektrostal to see Pinkhos Podrabinek . He informed him that the investigator “had not allowed” the note to be passed to Kirill. If Alexander handed in his application to emigrate within three days, however, all three could leave the USSR. Otherwise, Alexander  would also be arrested. Belov suggested that P.A. Podrabinek go at once to Moscow and persuade Alexander to change his mind: he even gave Pinkhos Abramovich a lift back to Moscow in his car.

On 5 January 1978, Alexander Podrabinek appealed in an open letter to Amnesty International, calling on the organisation to speak out in Kirill’s defence.

On 9 January Alexander Podrabinek telephoned Belov at the KGB. When Belov asked if he intended to leave, Alexander replied that he could only decide this matter together with his brother.

On 15 January 1978, the Christian Committee for the Defence of Believers’ Rights in the USSR called upon “world public opinion” to speak out in defence of Kirill Podrabinek and condemn the policy of hostage-taking.

At the beginning of February 1978, the Podrabineks were summoned to Elektrostal for interrogation in connection with Kirill’s case.

Pinkhos Podrabinek replied to questions about Kirill but refused to sign a record of the interrogation. Alexander declined to answer questions, stating that the case was inspired by the KGB and was being conducted with violations of norms laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ALEXANDER PODRABINEK (b. 1953)

From 10 October 1977, Alexander Podrabinek was under constant KGB surveillance. Round the clock he was pursued by two cars carrying seven or eight employees of the security services.

Whenever he was inside a building the cars stood in front of the doorway. Whenever he walked along the street or travelled in public transport there were always several agents at his side. They threatened Alexander’s acquaintances and took photographs of them. Sometimes they interfered more actively with the life of their charge: on Sunday 18 December the escort prohibited Alexander from going skiing with friends in the Orekhovo-Borisovo district [Moscow Region]. Podrabinek wrote about this incident to [KGB chairman] Andropov:

“… Since 10 October of this year I have been under the continuous and unconcealed observation of our glorious Chekists. Defending the State’s security, I understand, it is essential for the KGB to search my home, call me as a witness in the case of Yury Orlov, suggest that I leave the USSR, blackmail me, make an attempt on my brother’s life, and do much else to ensure that I do not, accidentally, undermine the foundations of the Soviet political and social system. All this I understand. “I am not even particularly annoyed when one of the eight officers who perpetually watch over me swears he will break my legs or push me under a train. I understand the full difficulty of this highly complex, responsible and dangerous work and do not get angry with these heroic young people who, performing their civic duty, freeze on cold December nights outside the entrance to my house or squeeze after me onto a city bus in the rush-hour. I am enraptured by their daring, their persistence and their indifference to the cold … “Citizen Andropov! On behalf of myself and six of my friends I beg you: Provide your employees with skis and toboggans and, please, teach them how to use them, if they do not know. Then I shall be able to enjoy my on Sundays and the KGB will be able to work normally and not violate the Soviet Constitution. This can only enhance the reputation of our valiant organs and promote their physical development.”

From January 1978, the constant “escort” was replaced from time to time by ‘ordinary’ shadowing.

The security services are trying by any means to prevent Alexander Podrabinek from continuing his activities on the Working Commission (to Investigate the Use of Psychiatry for Political Purposes). In particular, they are hampering him from meeting, in the flats of his Moscow friends, people who have been subjected to “psychiatric persecution” and their relatives. Podrabinek and his friend Dmitry Leontyev , in whose flat he was living, were fined for violating the city residence regulations. Podrabinek was forbidden to continue residing at the flat.

Alexander Podrabinek was warned that he was liable to be charged with “parasitism”. In February 1978, having given his shadow the slip, he managed to get a job as a medical orderly (he is a qualified paramedic).

The pre-trial investigation of Kirill Podrabinek ’s case was completed in February 1978.

=======================

[1] Representatives of all 35 member-States of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) assembed in the Yugoslav capital Belgrade to discuss the implementation of the 1975 Helsinki Accords five years on.

[2] Victor Nekipelov

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Rosatom Starts Production of Rare-Earth Magnets for Wind Power Generation

TVEL Fuel Company of Rosatom has started gradual localization of rare-earth magnets manufacturing for wind power plants generators. The first sets of magnets have been manufactured and shipped to the customer.

In total, the contract between Elemash Magnit LLC (an enterprise of TVEL Fuel Company of Rosatom in Elektrostal, Moscow region) and Red Wind B.V. (a joint venture of NovaWind JSC and the Dutch company Lagerwey) foresees manufacturing and supply over 200 sets of magnets. One set is designed to produce one power generator.

“The project includes gradual localization of magnets manufacturing in Russia, decreasing dependence on imports. We consider production of magnets as a promising sector for TVEL’s metallurgical business development. In this regard, our company does have the relevant research and technological expertise for creation of Russia’s first large-scale full cycle production of permanent rare-earth magnets,” commented Natalia Nikipelova, President of TVEL JSC.

“NovaWind, as the nuclear industry integrator for wind power projects, not only made-up an efficient supply chain, but also contributed to the development of inter-divisional cooperation and new expertise of Rosatom enterprises. TVEL has mastered a unique technology for the production of magnets for wind turbine generators. These technologies will be undoubtedly in demand in other areas as well,” noted Alexander Korchagin, Director General of NovaWind JSC.

For reference:

TVEL Fuel Company of Rosatom incorporates enterprises for the fabrication of nuclear fuel, conversion and enrichment of uranium, production of gas centrifuges, as well as research and design organizations. It is the only supplier of nuclear fuel for Russian nuclear power plants. TVEL Fuel Company of Rosatom provides nuclear fuel for 73 power reactors in 13 countries worldwide, research reactors in eight countries, as well as transport reactors of the Russian nuclear fleet. Every sixth power reactor in the world operates on fuel manufactured by TVEL. www.tvel.ru

NovaWind JSC is a division of Rosatom; its primary objective is to consolidate the State Corporation's efforts in advanced segments and technological platforms of the electric power sector. The company was founded in 2017. NovaWind consolidates all of the Rosatom’s wind energy assets – from design and construction to power engineering and operation of wind farms.

Overall, by 2023, enterprises operating under the management of NovaWind JSC, will install 1 GW of wind farms. http://novawind.ru

Elemash Magnit LLC is a subsidiary of Kovrov Mechanical Plant (an enterprise of the TVEL Fuel Company of Rosatom) and its main supplier of magnets for production of gas centrifuges. The company also produces magnets for other industries, in particular, for the automotive

industry. The production facilities of Elemash Magnit LLC are located in the city of Elektrostal, Moscow Region, at the site of Elemash Machine-Building Plant (a nuclear fuel fabrication facility of TVEL Fuel Company).

Rosatom is a global actor on the world’s nuclear technology market. Its leading edge stems from a number of competitive strengths, one of which is assets and competences at hand in all nuclear segments. Rosatom incorporates companies from all stages of the technological chain, such as uranium mining and enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, equipment manufacture and engineering, operation of nuclear power plants, and management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. Nowadays, Rosatom brings together about 350 enterprises and organizations with the workforce above 250 K. https://rosatom.ru/en/

Norway’s Massive Floating Wind Turbine Wall Will Be Funded by the Government This Year

Top 10 Countries in Wind Energy Capacity

Australia Adopts Policy for Development of 1.2GW Wind Project

Highest Self-Supported Wind Tower Ever Built

EGYPT: West Bakr Wind Farm goes into Operation After Nearly 2 Years of Construction

Renew Power Deploys India’s 1st 3X Platform Wind Turbine Generators