Classic AquaSport
Aquasport Model Rebuilds, Mods, Updates and Refreshes => Osprey Style Hull Rebuilds => 240 Rebuilds => Topic started by: Tx49 on May 30, 2013, 10:46:58 PM
-
Well it begins. Sort of. I finally got a trailer so that I can go pick up the Aquasport I bought. The problem I had was that I live in a HOA subdivision and I can't park a trailer in front of the house and no room beside the house for it. If I leave the boat on the trailer its too high. But I found a galvanized trailer from a 21' boat that was just the ticket. It has drop spindles, center roller popup bunk, low profile tires, and best of all the axle suspension assembly is a removable/adjustable truck. The trailer sits low, is a flatbed type rather than a vee frame and if the boat is too high I can remove the truck and sit the trailer on frame on blocks and put the truck in the garage.
I plan on picking up the boat Saturday, unless the present owner's wife goes into labor. she is due any day.
I probably payed too much for the trailer at 395.00, but with a light kit, 3 hours of rotten wood and rust removal and a couple of cans of cold galvanize voila, a galvanized boat trailer for under 450.00. it is not the long-term trailer I need, ut it will get the boat here and not break the bank. I will add fenders and permanent chine bunks later and then use it for a smaller boat for me and my boys' next lake boat. Here are a few pics of the trailer with my older son working on it.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Trailer/6085447b-8135-46a9-b4ad-477ca2a05487_zpsc5f566d9.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Trailer/134_zpsbfbc5f72.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Trailer/890d11e7-5c86-4845-8713-d2f0a22360cd_zps4b2150f0.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Trailer/136_zpsdc84e455.jpg)
-
sorry about the size on that last pic. fpr some reason it won't load the smaller version.
-
Good deal!
The 240 to me is the queen of the 70's fleet...and under-appreciated at present. Good on you for finding one, and here's a prediction.
In the not-so-distant future there will be strong demand for this hull. You guys that own them...cherish what you have.
PS....trailers are great...but show us the Seahunter :thumright:
-
I originally picked it out because it was cheap and long. I had some plans and it seemed to fit them. But as I started researching, it really started to grow on me. In addition, from what I am figuring out from this site primarily, is that these 60-70's Aquasports were really great on the design, but by the time the 70's were rolling around, the construction quality was getting hit ot miss. I like the idea of taking a great classic hull and, using what the boating community has learned in the 40 years since, building the boat that could have been built. I have some pretty ambitious plans. We'll see how it turns out.
On Edit
I know its just a trailer, but its the official start if you will. :cheers: I'm hoping to get the boat picked up Saturday. Crossing fingers. Be great to finally get started. I've been working on this for close on a month.
-
These boats off the line were never the rebuild quality we see today. Many factors enter into that.
First, they didn't have today's synthetic, high-tech materials. Secondly, it was a numbers game...a production game. Hullside print-through was a given. Weird measurements side-to-side were a given. Part of the charm of owning these boats...although they are beautiful...was that they were built so the average working man could buy one. And they built thousands of them.
Our boats were made to compete with other production boats of the era....Mako, Grady-White, Hydrasports, Proline....and also smaller production houses out of Florida and Carolina. To compete....they had to offer bang for the buck topsides.
A major difference is...the Aquasport featured a foam filled fiberglass stringer system from the start. The Flatback, the original ride?....foamed stringers. And a solid (not plywood-cored) fiberglass deck.
This is why they're still here today, and able to be rebuilt.
Good on the trailer.... :salut: ....and we're looking forward to seeing your new gal in the driveway :thumright:
-
On issues of power:
My previous boat was a 22 ft deep vee runabout with a 270 hp OMC King Cobra, I/O. Always liked that drive, but I'm not sure if there are parts available anymore. I have never owned or even been around outoards much. That being said, I am still trying to decide what is the best way to go. I/O, Inboard Vee-drive, Inboard stern drive, or outboards. obviously this all effects how I handle the transom and stringer work.
The original sea hunters came with twin 125 outboards or a 140 horse inboard. I think the only inboard options were inboard/outboard and vee drive, but I don't know for sure. I think with my rebuild having a stringer floor and more weight, I will go with something like 150-250 horse outboard or 240-260 horse inboard.
If I go outboard should I go twins. I like the idea of having an "extra" engine should one breakdown.
What are the reasons for twin power beyond the typical "2 engines are better than one" theory. Are their handling issues, fuel mileage, weight? I see some boats with a single 300 horse o/b and others with twin 90's. Are there inherent complications or maintenance issues with twins? Do you have to buy them as a pair or can you get them seperate. I am not made of money so my motor purchase will be remanufactured or used. I may just end up buying a donor boat for the power.
What are some of your thoughts on Outboard vs. Inboards (all type inboards). If outboard, would twin 125-135 power be a good setup, or just a single and if so how much power.
Are my thoughts about power just out of whack? If so, how much power should I be looking at. I know this post is long and all over the place, but there is just so much about the engine choice side that I am an idiot about.
I look forward to hearing all thoughts and even seeing a little good natured arguing or debating as that helps me learn.
Thanks.
-
If it were my boat...I'd set her up open transom with twin Merc 115 two strokes. Check out Fitz's ride...that's where I'd be on your 240.
My 22-2 with twin Merc 75's is a ball o' fire out of the hole. And runs strong to WOT, 38 mph. These hulls weren't designed to haul ass. They run a beautiful cruise at 4100 rpm, 29 mph.
Keep adding value to other threads. Added value and interesting commentary is not a de-rail.
:thumright:
-
Ok, who is fitz. As far as the 2-strokes? What are the advantages of 2 vs 4 stroke. I generally have never had good luck with 2-strokes, wheher they were lawnmowers or weedeaters or anything else. HaHa. I guess I just don't understand them. Before i get flamed I do understand the 2 cycle process. Just seems like a lot more work and maintenance to take care of them. Am I right about that or are they actually less maintenance and operation? Are they a lot lighter. What about weight?
-
Glad you're with us :thumright:
-
I should finally pick up the boat sometime between today and Saturday. So, after studying costs of used, re-mfg, and used power/drives I think I will be best off going with an I/O setup. I would prefer to have twin 3.0 165 horse 4 cylinders, but that may get too bulky both in controls and just physical space for the blocks. This would give me the 2 is better than one safety factor. More likely I will go with a 5.7 and a small aux o/b for emergency power. I am attaching a sketch of my concept boat. The great thing about this project i have planned is that once the hull, transom, and floor are complete, I can stop my planned build at numerous points. I could make it a CC, a Side console cuddy, a pilothouse, etc. But when looking at the concept and recognizing that i am not independently wealthy nor retired, you can see why I have given this a 3-7 year time frame to complete.
The drawing is give or take to scale with approximate dimensions.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Concept%20drawings_photos/4a2cde59-8d4c-4303-9687-1244d3c84a81_zps598abe23.jpg)
-
Tx,
You seem to be leaning towards the I/O end of the deal, which is fine. You're comfortable with them, you know the maintenance routine (bellows, u-joints, risers/elbows), so all that is nothing new to you. That being said, the perfect motor/drive combo for your project would be a Merc 350MAG coupled to a Bravo 3 drive. Gives you 300 honest HP, and you're gonna need it due to the weight of the motor and drive, and all the weight you'll be adding building the cabin and flybridge (assuming you do). The weight of the motor and drive will come in at right around 1000 lbs, the equivalent of a couple 2S 150s. Twin 3.0s will probably get you close to that weight at only 260 HP combined, plus 2 Alpha drives causing drag issues.
Scott and Farley's 22-2s are kinda light-weights compared to what you have planned, you need some power behind your rig!
-
Who you callin light weights skinny man! Me and Scotty are quite comfortable with our 30 BMI's !
-
:lol: :lol: :thumright:
-
Tx,
You seem to be leaning towards the I/O end of the deal, which is fine. You're comfortable with them, you know the maintenance routine (bellows, u-joints, risers/elbows), so all that is nothing new to you. That being said, the perfect motor/drive combo for your project would be a Merc 350MAG coupled to a Bravo 3 drive. Gives you 300 honest HP, and you're gonna need it due to the weight of the motor and drive, and all the weight you'll be adding building the cabin and flybridge (assuming you do). The weight of the motor and drive will come in at right around 1000 lbs, the equivalent of a couple 2S 150s. Twin 3.0s will probably get you close to that weight at only 260 HP combined, plus 2 Alpha drives causing drag issues.
Scott and Farley's 22-2s are kinda light-weights compared to what you have planned, you need some power behind your rig!
I prefer the single 5.7, but I don't like the idea of going offshore of any distance without having 2 motors. The 5.7 with the aux is probably a better plan than the twin 4's. I'll be honest the only reasons i am leaning towards the i/o is that I am familiar with them , and more importantly the cost of outboards is insane. I also assume i need to buy them as a set don't I? I'm seeing prices in the 20-40K range. If I had twin 150's sitting on a bracket I would have more cockpit room. I guess what I'm saying is that right now I think i am only going with the devil I know. The only reason it matters at this point is how I build the stringers and floor. Hell thats even a ways out. But since I haven't got the boat here yet, I need something to occupy me, so i plan.
I'm surprised no one has screamed at me for chopping up a 240 like I plan to. LOL
-
X2 on what SeaBob said, I have close to that setup, 280 HP with the Bravo3, on my 25' WC http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery ... hp?cat=661 (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=661)
She flys with about 5000 lbs of displacement.....great fuel rate too, around 6gal per hour at 3000 rpm cruise.
-
X2 on what SeaBob said, I have close to that setup, 280 HP with the Bravo3, on my 25' WC http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery ... hp?cat=661 (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=661)
She flys with about 5000 lbs of displacement.....great fuel rate too, around 6gal per hour at 3000 rpm cruise.
Appreciate it. I think I might be another 500 pounds or so, but that seems close to what I am looking for. I want to be able to get into the mid 30's+ and cruise at around 25 -30 if I want to.
-
I run WOT between 44mph and 49mph depending on conditions and load, cruise is around 28-32mph....I love this setup....mine is 1997 throttle body injected 5.7, newer one's are mutiport injected and have 300+ HP. I can take off and outrun most 18-20 ft runabouts....but mostly I just putt around and get good fuel mileage.
-
Tx, the stringers are no big deal, just have to space them properly and incorporate engine beds for the front mounts. Decide mid-stream to swap over to bracket mounted O/Bs? No prob. The point of no return is when you cut the big ole hole for the transom assy... :shock:
-
Bob, what was the difference in the transom layup schedule, inboard vs. outboard? Should be some money saved on the thinner inboard transom, right?
-
Scott, don't confuse I/O with I/B. Inboards, hell, you just need enough material to keep it stiff (well, a bit more, but you get my drift :wink: ). I/Os? The transom is just as stout as an O/B transom. Remember, you've got that drive hanging back there, the transom plate on the inside, the motor attached to that via the rear engine mounts. You're looking at about 2 1/2" to 3" thick with the inside and outside lam schedules...
-
The great thing about Inboards is the incredible simplicity of components and installation, as opposed to an I/O. Engine and tranny, shaft, shaft log, shaft strut, rudder port. That's it. Of course, getting all that chit in right place?
This is a little vid that I think is kinda neat, what I used to do all the time at Stamas...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD3g-BvAwh0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD3g-BvAwh0)
As you can figure, with an I/B, the transom really doesn't come into play. We used to install what we called a rudder board, basically a shelf glassed to the transom and supported on the sides that the rudder post passed up through (and through a roller bearing), provided upper stiffness to the rudder post. A lot of force is exerted on that rudder at speed when turning hard....
-
That's what I was getting at...the difference in the lam schedule between inboard and outboard. That is to say, how much thinner was the Genmar transom for an inboard than the same boat outboard version?
-
Lam schedule, regardless of builder, for an inboard, is going to solid glass for the most part, probably some coremat thrown in there for a bit of stiffness. Overall, 1/2" thick down to about a foot above the hull bottom, then of course increases in thickness where the 2 meet.
As far as Genmar goes? It would be basically the same as I described above. The only inboards we had in '94 were on the Wellcraft side, the 32 and 36 Martiniques, and the 33 Coastal. Aquasport had none...in fact, not even an I/O, until the 215 Explorer was offered as an option, which I believe was around '98, maybe '97. I really don't think the 290 SF was still in production when Genmar bought AS, but, if so, that most likely was the last I/B they built...
-
Well, I was going to bring it up later, but since it has come up, I had some thoughts on transom replacements. It seems there are basically 2 ways to do it. One is to scarf out the inside of the existing glass and with a combination of glass and core laminates build up the transom to anywhere between 1.5 and 2.5 inches. This seems like it would hold the shape of the existing hull very good.
If i go this route I would be looking at mixing up a thinner version of fillet putty type resin and set the first layer of glass in it then add a 1/2" core ply. then glass over it with another layer of 1/2", then another layer of glass and 1/2" with a final layer of glass over the 3d layer. At 1/8" per glass layer, this would give me a total of 1/2" of new glass and another 1/8" of the existing transom glass, 1-7/8" of ply for a total thickness of 2-1/4". Would this work. i could also use 2 layers of 3/4 for a total thickness of 2". I am a big fan of multiple thinner laminations as they provide greater strength for the same thickness of like materials. They also make for a more stable material.
My concern about doing it this way is that I am not sure how square and plumb the new cores will sit in the existing transom shell. If it is somewhat uneven in its attachment there it seems that the plane of the interior side of the transom could be off a little. could that effect the install of the outdrive or the outboards if i went that way?
The other way I have seen is to just make a pattern of the existing transom, make a new one, cut out the old and insert the new. from the standpoint of a nice new square transom, this appeals to me more, but I have concerns about the tabbing it in and retaining the hull shape.
I know that both ways are successfully done all the time, and that there are numerous threads on each method, and that it will be my decision in the end. I was just wanting to hear what are the different schools of thought?
thanks again.
-
Glass ain't my deal Tx, but the mechanical? Gonna go with a 350MAG and B3?
-
Tx,
The transom layup will pretty much depend on what you choose for power, as we've been chewing on. If you go straight inboard...no need for the two inch transom layup schedule and associated cost.
BTW...where do you hail from? Please post to your avatar your home port, region group, etc.
Thanks :thumright:
-
Its a long way off for power, but yeah, Im thinking the 350 mag. Although i would rather find a 351 ford. I don't want to get into politics on a build thread, but Let's just say that i don't buy GM products.
-
Don't worry, there are a bunch of Ford fans here :salut: My yet-to-be born grandkid's children are going to be paying for that bailout.. :ncool: :ncool:
Windsor or Cleveland?
My vote and I know I don't have one is for the Bravo 3 or Volvo Duoprop. Efficiency/bollard pull numbers are really nice! Just don't hit anything! :shock:
-
I wonder if you could put that new style chrysler Hemi in front of a bravo3 or volvo dualprop....I think that would be awesome :cheers:
-
Don't know about adapting the current hemi Paul, sure it could be done if someone wanted to...more likely in I/B form than I/O. As far as dropping a Ford in, remember, Volvo was using Ford blocks up until, I think, the early 90s. 302s, 351s. and 460s. PCM (Pleasure Craft Marine) was using them on the I/B side (Nautique (Correct Craft) used them), the Ford blocks on the I/O side were mated to OMC outdrives...
-
I would love to have a 351 cleveland mated to a OMC King Cobra outdrive, but I am sure that i will end up with a 350 on a Bravo 3 or a windsor on a Penta. I don't know about parts availability for the king cobra. I don't know much about the Pentas, but didn't them or volvo invent the I/O drive as we know it back in the 50's? I hear they are pretty good.
With any of the drives mentioned, can I get rid of the bellows and run thru-hull exhaust. I just love the sound of a through hull gurgling.
I had forgotten about those Penta dual props. What is the thought there? Pros-cons?
-
I would stay away from the Cobra and King Cobra drives as parts availability is very difficult.
Yes on the t/hull exhaust, both the SX and DP drives. We did them all the time at WC/AS. The smaller Scarabs outfitted with VPs (5.7 in the 23) came standard with an SX drive, DP as an option. Most Scarab owners opted for t/hull exhaust.
One thing you might want to consider if you want t/hull is to employ a diverter like Corsa's Captain's Call or Quick and Quiet. Believe it or not, some people don't like the sound of a tuned V8 singing! :cheers: :cheers:
Sorry, forgot, DPs. Excellent drives, excellent attributes in regards to handling, both low speed and on plane. Suffer none of the zinc problems that the Bravo 3 does (do some research on the B3 eating up zincs). The steering rams are also much beefier than the Merc rams. We used to drop twin 600HP Volvo/Innovations in the 33 Scarab mated to DPX drives. Volvo did NOT require external steering and a tie bar, although we used to do the tie bar anyway...
-
I would love to have a 351 cleveland mated to a OMC King Cobra outdrive, but I am sure that i will end up with a 350 on a Bravo 3 or a windsor on a Penta. I don't know about parts availability for the king cobra. I don't know much about the Pentas, but didn't them or volvo invent the I/O drive as we know it back in the 50's? I hear they are pretty good.
With any of the drives mentioned, can I get rid of the bellows and run thru-hull exhaust. I just love the sound of a through hull gurgling.
I had forgotten about those Penta dual props. What is the thought there? Pros-cons?
These guys cover the topic a bit..
http://www.boatered.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=117346
-
I might add, I was fortunate enough to go on a water test on one of those Scarab 33 AVSs with the twin Volvo install...93 MPH on the GPS from Manatee Av bridge N into Tampa Bay, and she still had a bit left in her... :thumleft: :thumleft: :thumleft:
-
Tx a huge bonus on the Volos is that the raw water pump mounts on on the front of the fly wheel and can be changed when the boat is overboard (as long as it is valved for it).. 30% increased efficiency and higher bollard pull, doesn't sound like that's a bad deal.
Propaganda...
http://www.volvopenta.com/volvopenta/na/en-us/marine_leisure_engines/drives/dps_duoprop/pages/the_benefits_of_duoprop.aspx
-
Thanks dburr. That thread was great. Well a B-3 or a penta it is. I actually didn't know the B-3 was a duo prop until now. SeaBob, 90+ on water must feel like being in a fighter jet.
-
It's a thrill, that's for certain... :shock:
Funny thing is, when the driver makes a hardover at, say, 45, then brings her back up to 70, you think why are we going so slow?
-
BOAT PORN BEGINS
Took 5 of us a front end loader and 2 hrs, but we got it loaded and home.
Backing the trailer in
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_1301_zps96eaa0fa.jpeg)
Loading up
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0164_zpsce172c02.jpg)
Trailers too short. Couldn't get the bow down with all the waterlogged ass hanging off the back. Removed the jack and slid the bow support forward.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_1302_zpsc4643136.jpeg)
Con't. next post
-
working on the jack
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_1295_zps38742465.jpeg)
finally got the stern off the ground
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_1298_zps95f171e7.jpeg)
making progress. putting blocking on
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_1297_zpsedbbb122.jpeg)
it was insane trying to get it off that starboard list
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_1300_zpsc2735929.jpeg)
finally got the stern squared away
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0165_zpsc34ee9fa.jpg)
con't.
-
con't.
Beer:30. All tied down
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0166_zps0aefddd4.jpg)
Stopped at the restaurant to get some Iced Tea and check the boat for the ride home. You can read the previous use of the boat barely--"Parasail Shuttle"
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0167_zps452c8aea.jpg)
bow damage
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0170_zpsb4fcceec.jpg)
what's with all the through hulls?
seriously, what are they? first pic starboard stern, second pic near bow starboard.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0171_zpsaabc368b.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0172_zpsabea5538.jpg)
FINALLY HOME-UP YOURS HOA, ITS BELOW THE FENCE LINE
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0173_zps7ed94246.jpg)
-
cap deck at bulwark cracked on bow
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0184_zps362e6203.jpg)
cap appears to be fiberglassed on. wasn't that way from the factory was it?
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0183_zpsdb9b8333.jpg)
coffin box. excuse the bunking lumber
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0188_zps1fd29885.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0182_zps5e4d3fe0.jpg)
inside the outboard well
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0192_zps511b6a09.jpg)
outboard well
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0178_zps20964ded.jpg)
starboard transom and well. I need to figure out what all the holes are for.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0177_zps924d144a.jpg)
stern view
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0175_zpsc93401c4.jpg)
con't.
-
I think this was a nav light socket?
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0190_zps02ddebb3.jpg)
Is this a grommet for a stern line. The other side has a hole in this location with a cleat down underneath the cap?
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0191_zps7c1c3b21.jpg)
rod holder?
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/IMG_0185_zpsfa3ba6db.jpg)
That's all for now
-
Kind of feel like I got a tiger by the tail. Finally got it home and am scratching my head and saying now what. Well the first step is to go build a comfortable thinking chair complete with cupholder for tea or other adult beverage. Then just sit and stare and think. Then I'll start cleaning. Then I'm sure I will get around to string-lining, measuring and building templates to mark where the hull shape is right now.
-
Well now you got something to play with! Once she's cleaned up, then you'll have a better idea of what you're looking at.
All those t/hulls! Hell, that ain't chit! What you have is bilge pump discharges up high, most likely drains down low. I would definitely replace all of them, but don't worry about it yet until you get the boat configured the way you want. In fact I'd pull them out and chuck them now, just makes it easier when you start to sand the hullsides to get her looking pretty again.
The larger holes in the interior are generally for access, whether to install a t/hull, fasten a hose, terminate some wiring, that sort of thing. It looks, from the hole patterns, that they once were covered with square or rectangular fiberglass panels to cover them.
Yes, that is an anchor light base, and those "grommets"? Those are called Hawes pipes, used to pass the dock lines through and down to the cleats. Remember, in nautical speak, a line is called a Hawser, hence the name.
Can't say for certain that someone glassed the hull-to-deck joint. The way that looks in the pic, almost looks like a lot of 5200 was used when the last owner decked her, then smeared the squeeze-out along the joint.
So now the fun starts. It's pretty evident what has to be replaced or just removed and chit canned. Then you'll find out the condition of the stringers, the transom, the cockpit sole, the b/heads, all that good stuff. Good luck! :thumleft: :thumleft:
-
Oh chit, just saw it has the funky a$$ end, with that indentation that makes it damn near impossible to install a set of tabs...which you're most likely gonna need.
-
Oh chit, just saw it has the funky a$$ end, with that indentation that makes it damn near impossible to install a set of tabs...which you're most likely gonna need.
I was just outside looking at that myself. 2 things about that came to mind. 1. Can someone help me narrow down the year based on the hull details. It was a cC also. 2. If i am replacing the transom, can I not just cut all that out and put in a straight flat full height transom. Maybe build the new one with a little concave to it?
-
Now you're thinking! :thumright:
-
I will start cleaning and prepping for the build today. I am trying to plan the hull work and have been studying the hull extensions i have seen, 2 here and one on iboats that another CAS member pointed me to. If you remember from my previous posts I want to extend the hull 3'-0". I have tried to use what I have seen on these threads and others to come up with my plan. I would like to spell it out and hear some reviews from you guys.
Because keeping the shape is critical whether you are doing an extension, a floor/stringer repair, or anything else, I think I should build a cradle and brace system to hold the hull in its current shape. I would do this by caulking (good temporary glue, easy to remove) 2x bracing linearly down the sides, in the chine areas, the bottom. Then I would build the cradle frames to the outside of the 2x ledgers I have glued on. I would make the ledgers run 5' wild aft. Here's a rough sketch of the transom view looking forward. (http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Concept%20drawings_photos/transomviewboatcradle_zps3f077de0.jpg)
Once this is completed, securing the hull shape, I would rebuild the transom. Because i have the "funky" transom, I foresee removing it completely and then rebuilding the new one from scratch. I would match the existing profile at the keel, chines, and sides, but I want to put about 2-3 Inches of crown front to back in the top of it. After the transom is replaced, I would take the inner hull down to nothing. Liner, floor, stringers, everything gone. clean it completely and line the entire hull with one layer of glass. Then I would cut off the stern 16" to 3'-0" forward of the transom(depends on where the straightest lines are). I would then slide the transom section back 3'0" to to create the space for the extension. after forming the mold, I would perform the glass extension similar to what was detailed in the iboat thread. After the extension glass is complete then I would stringer it and perform the rest of the underfloor work. I am not going to replace the factory liner and i am going to remove the cap, so I also want to extend a few bulkhead pieces up the sides as side/gunwale supports at this time, similar to a frame on a framed boat.
I have tried to take what I know of carpentry and concrete formwork, boats, and the best of the different threads to come up with this plan. I also hope that you guys will point out any holes or overkill in my plan. Although I might not use all the input all the time, I do want to hear it so i can weigh it out against all the information I have and make the best decision. I have also noticed that on these build threads, even if the advice doesn't help the OP, there is usually someone reading the thread who gets some good info for their own use.
-
http://forums.iboats.com/boat-restoration-building-hull-repair/hull-extension-progress-pics-234392.html
link to the iboats hull extension.
-
Just curious while I ponder the way I would do this.. Why do you want the extra 3 feet? Interior space or longer planing surface?
Reason for the question is it changes how I would do the extension and even though you like the Bravo III, a water jet may be a better solution..
standing by..
-
Just want a bigger boat. :D When you say waterjet are you referring to a jet drive? Like a Berkeley? Ther's a 455 olds with a berkeley for sale a couple of hours away from me right now. I just didn't think they were a good option for these type boats. if you are concerned about the "patch" of extending the hull, I understand why, but I am not. I have seen some outstanding lengthening projects and have talked to a few boatwrights who say similar alterations are not uncommon. its just all in how you do it.
-
This is going to be an exciting project. Your original posted design...is it 24 or 27 feet?
-
This is going to be an exciting project. Your original posted design...is it 24 or 27 feet?
Thanks. Its pretty daunting too. But I look at it like a building any building I build. It ain't rocket science. Just be patient, careful, and farm out the stuff that will cost you as much to do yourself and it should hope fully all work out. (Yeah right- I'm scared to death trying this, but i'm going to do it) The drawing was was taken from the brochure and then I lengthened it amidships and drew the cabin and bulwarks in. Its close to scale. After seeing the depth of the stringers, I know I will have plenty of room for the cabin i want.
-
The good news is we have excellent Master Rebuilders, Eugene at Shipoke who gives freely of his time, and access to other professional builders for guidance and advice. So although daunting and a lot of work...this is going to be fun :wink:
A potential time saver regarding the extension; leaving the deck cap (gunnel cap) on while the extension work is done may cut down on the amount of exterior cradle needed.
When the time comes to remove the liner; there is a thread here on removing the liner (deck and floor) in one piece. The entire part was lifted out from above with come-alongs and rope. Pretty much the reverse of assembly. It was an ingenious idea, you just flip it over and re-core the deck from underneath. This may or may not be applicable to your needs, but wanted to mention it. It is possibly a big money saver.
Looking forward to your project! :salut:
-
There is no problem with stretching the hull. With the number of guys here that dig skinny water rides, I am surprised that this hasn't been done more often or that someone hasn't put a tunnel on a flatback :shock:..
The question is where to put the plug and that depends on where you want the room. The term “plug” refers to the built on/in hull extension.. A longer cockpit and the plug goes aft, if you want more room forward for a larger cuddy or a big inboard, then the plug can go amidships. It would be harder to do there because of the flare and you don't want to interrupt the sweep of the sheer, but if that is where it needs to go then there are ways to fair it in.
The important part, and it looks like you have a solid on it, is the bracing to keep the hull shape as designed. WRT the picture you are going the route of over kill but there is nothing wrong with that. Go easy on the number of glued pieces (would be called ribbands in new construction) fastened to the hull, a little glue goes a long way when there is no shear load and she will be sitting static on a cradle. When it comes time to take it apart with every piece glued you will be using language unbefitting a gentleman :oops: :mrgreen: . If you are going to fasten them together, then by all means go easy on the glue. Unless you plan on moving the hull or are worried about an earthquake it isn’t going to move.
For just adding 3 feet really think through your power options first. If you are going with outboards and are going to use a bracket, that will add almost 30 inches to overall length. It sounds like you are leaning towards an I/O, if so going straight off the stern will work. Just measure carefully, if there is a significant decrease in the beam, to make it look “right” that decrease will have to continue and you don’t want to lose space or create a flat spot so the plug would go forward of the point that the decrease starts. You would be essentially building a custom engine box and that opens up a pile of cool options to include adding more tumblehome to the shape of the stern, and with your desire for some deck camber add that to the flare and sheer she will look more Down East and that would be COOL!!
If you extend the chine and wetted surface you are going to increase you L/B ratio and that will make for a slightly lower power requirement for similar speed (long narrow= good/ short fat= bad). Lots of really cool stuff going on.
Trim is going to be effected as well based on the location of the plug and if you are going to add a house/cuddy keeping track of weight is going to be a big deal to keep from putting things too far out of whack, all that work to have her down by the head would not be cool.
As far as water jets, yes, the Berkley type is what I am referring to, Berkley is one among many and they will work well on our hull types with little modification..
Not sure if any of this helps but you are going to have a cool project for sure.. Seems your on your way to a mini Bertam 32 and that is cool too!! :shock: :shock: :mrgreen:
-
Thanks dburr. That's a lot of the info I have been thinking about, but I was wanting to hear from others to tighten up and/or redirect my thought processes. As for the cradle, that is one thought I have had, but i would really like to come up with another because I have it sitting on the trailer and i would like to keep it there as long as possible. One thing I thought about was possibly leaving the cap and liner in place as long as possible, cutting out the floor and replacing the transom, but leaving all that bulk of the outboard well.and the casting deck in for the time being. Then do some lighter bracing to hold it together while I cut and install the plug. As to the hull shape matching up, I want to find the place aft where the beam, chines etc., are the most consistent and cut it there so that it will be very little fairing necessary. If there is not a good spot like that, if the lines are continually varying amidships to stern, then I might as well just chop off the ass end and continue the lines out and build an entirely new stern, don't you think?
My big concern about the hull shape has more to do with the cap than anything. I am going to build a new cap and I think I need to save the existing one as a pattern. But if I lose any shape at all, I don't know how I will get it back, without the old cap. Thats why I am thinking about leaving the cap on until I frame the floor including gunnel support/side braces running up the sides. What I was thinking was making them out of cypress and above the floor just soaking and coating them with epoxy, for a clean natural wood look. These would not be every bulkhead, they would just be about 3 each side in the cockpit, aft of the cabin. The cabin will provide the structural support for the sides and gunwales forward. I hope this is making sense.
-
...For just adding 3 feet really think through your power options first. If you are going with outboards and are going to use a bracket, that will add almost 30 inches to overall length. It sounds like you are leaning towards an I/O, if so going straight off the stern will work. Just measure carefully, if there is a significant decrease in the beam, to make it look “right” that decrease will have to continue and you don’t want to lose space or create a flat spot so the plug would go forward of the point that the decrease starts. You would be essentially building a custom engine box and that opens up a pile of cool options to include adding more tumblehome to the shape of the stern, and with your desire for some deck camber add that to the flare and sheer she will look more Down East and that would be COOL!!
I understand what you are talking about here just enough to get confused. If I go Inboard, it will be Inboard/outboard, unless I decide on the jet drive you mentioned. I would love to go with a more central inboard, but I think that would cause 2 problems-Not enough room to get it under the deck and not too much weight forward. So that opens the question about some of the customization you mention. I would like to discuss that with you in more detail. What are the benefits or advantages to adding tumblehome. I can see where I could just flare the existing in with the new and through the existing stern piece and have more tumblehome and pull it and hold it all together with my gunwale supports and a different shape to the transom, but won't that take away usable cockpit space. How does all of this tie in with your comment about a custom engine box, or is that just a general statement because I obviously have to have one and ther's not one now?
-
One thing I thought about was possibly leaving the cap and liner in place as long as possible, cutting out the floor and replacing the transom, but leaving all that bulk of the outboard well and the casting deck in for the time being. Then do some lighter bracing to hold it together while I cut and install the plug. As to the hull shape matching up, I want to find the place aft where the beam, chines etc., are the most consistent and cut it there so that it will be very little fairing necessary. If there is not a good spot like that, if the lines are continually varying amidships to stern, then I might as well just chop off the a$$ end and continue the lines out and build an entirely new stern, don't you think?
If there is a constant change of dimension along the length of the hull then to get it “right” you will be most easily be adding to the stern. The only way to figure that out is to get out the tape measure and a straight edge and have at it.. If you have a beam dimension of like 9’11 for the space of a foot or so that would be a likely spot to try.. Don’t just look at the topsides, look at the bottom too, it would not do to make her profile look pretty, too only build in a yank that you don’t want. The only other way I know of to try and make sure that it would be correct is to take the extra step and pull off a set of lines and creating a table of offsets. That way you can draw out a set of waterplanes and do a profile view and then stretch it how it looks best. This step however adds a considerable amount of “non productive” work/time but would allow you to really see what was going to happen if you can’t walk up to the boat and see it in your head.
My big concern about the hull shape has more to do with the cap than anything. I am going to build a new cap and I think I need to save the existing one as a pattern. But if I lose any shape at all, I don't know how I will get it back, without the old cap.
If you pull off a set of lines you can horse an empty hull back into shape by measuring out to the baseline so you could tie the hull in a knot, pull it back into shape and still be ok as long as you have support AND have not glued stuff to it when it is out of shape..
Thats why I am thinking about leaving the cap on until I frame the floor including gunnel support/side braces running up the sides. What I was thinking was making them out of cypress and above the floor just soaking and coating them with epoxy, for a clean natural wood look. These would not be every bulkhead, they would just be about 3 each side in the cockpit, aft of the cabin. The cabin will provide the structural support for the sides and gunwales forward. I hope this is making sense.
Cypress knees epoxy coated would still need UV protection of something like varnish for the natural look or the epoxy will turn a gross milky white. The knees will look great but will be toe smashers like the rod holders on my Osprey.. Look at what Scotty had done on Miss D for knees, great support but no smashed toes.
If you are going to take the deck off to get at the stringers you will lose lateral support for the hull and it is easy to unknowingly build in a twist without good support. I think others may chime in, if you are really going to open her up then you will need a little more than trailer bunks to keep the shape right, not a lot more, but at least stringers and chine area with support under the forefoot. Especially when it is time to cut in for the plug
I understand what you are talking about here just enough to get confused. If I go Inboard, it will be Inboard/outboard, unless I decide on the jet drive you mentioned. I would love to go with a more central inboard, but I think that would cause 2 problems-Not enough room to get it under the deck and not too much weight forward.
The engine of a straight inboard will not fit under the deck unless you use an old VW bug or Porsche 914 opposed piston rig.. Engine weight goes forward, fuel and battery weight can come aft. And yes it is worth worrying about..
What are the benefits or advantages to adding tumblehome. I can see where I could just flare the existing in with the new and through the existing stern piece and have more tumblehome and pull it and hold it all together with my gunwale supports and a different shape to the transom, but won't that take away usable cockpit space. How does all of this tie in with your comment about a custom engine box, or is that just a general statement because I obviously have to have one and ther's not one now?
Tumblehome has no real advantage other than looking pretty to some folks, others don’t like it and yes it will narrow up the stern.. If you want to pull existing panels in to get more shape you have to be really careful how you do it and which way you pull. I am not a structures guy so I don’t know all the cool words. Best way to illustrate it is to get a stiff piece of paperboard (cereal box) and eyeball the shape of the side of the boat and form the cardboard to the shape of the hull. Then move it the way you want to and see if a panel will even bend that way. You may be surprised at the ways that laminated panels will and wont bend..
Just thinking you have a chance for a way custom engine box, cool shape, built in tiki bar, "dancing" pole, that sort of thing.. What ever you want.
This project will make you a custom, one off Sea Hunter 24+. Again, WAY COOL!!
:salut: :salut:
-
Dave, that was excellent :thumright:
Tx49....any friends that are good with 3D CAD?
-
LOTS of good stuff up there ^ :salut: And don't forget, Form Follows Function!
-
Well it rained yesterday. i am going to try to get a lot of measuring and control lining done today. I think right now everything hinges on the lines of the boat and where the extension is going to occur. That will decide what gets torn out first, how I support it, etc. So I need measurements to decide that.
-
Dave, that was excellent :thumright:
Tx49....any friends that are good with 3D CAD?
A few actually. I need to get one over and see what we can come up with.
-
Ok let me get this straight if I can-
dburr is Dave, Gran is Scotty Matt is dirt wheels. OK. thanks for all The input. As well as SeaBob and others. You guys are really giving me confidence on this build.Now another question.
The stringers on this boat are TALL. There is an insane amount of what appears on the surface to be wasted space. I know that under the cabin I will be lowering the floor to make a step down. Is there any reason I can't lower the rest of the floor also. Right now the self bailing, the best I can tell just runs bails into the bilge. Are the high stringers solely for purposes of self bailing? Seems like if I lowered the floor, that with the extra weight I am adding, it would help on both the center of balance or flotation (I think that is the correct term) and would also effectively make an increase in freeboard. Or should I actually want to be raising the floor in the back. I am mainly concerned with sea worthiness and bilge pumping/self bailing in regards to that, not the maintenance side of getting the water out.
-
[/quote]I am mainly concerned with sea worthiness and bilge pumping/self bailing in regards to that, not the maintenance side of getting the water out.[/quote]
The 2 are hand in hand... a dry boat is gong to be much more sea-worthy, whether thats when the boat is sitting at the dock in a down pour or your are underway and have waves coming over the bow, or have a bunch of people sitting in the boat at the sand bar. remember even on the water- gravity is your friend and water will look for the easiest way to flow- so I would not lower your stringers if possible. the benefit you will gain in weight will be marginal at best and the benefits to having the floor as high as possible far outweigh that... I would suggest having some kind of scupper so the water on the deck flows directly out through the transom or gunwale (as some have done)...
you will see when you start re-foaming- the foam is extremely light when dry- so I would concentrate on keeping your foam dry by building/rebuilding strong/solid stringers and making sure to seal them up when you re-do your floor.
given that you'd like to add the big cabin on a fairly narrow boat-I think the seahunters are under 9' wide,,, your COG is going to be pretty crazy even if you drop the floor a couple inches- might as well have the higher floor to compensate for that extra weight.
-
Tx49,
I added a 3' extension to the hull of my 240 seahunter. I am still rebuilding it, bit I am pretty much done with the extension, just finishing up with the stringers now. If you want to talk and get some ideas, you can give me a call. Private message me for my number.
As for the stringer height, I would not monkey with the stringers, except to get the old foam out, refoam, and possibly retab them back to the hull up in front of the console. As far as the height goes, I agree with the others, having a higher freeboard will help the boat self bail better. To me, it is kinda like a tug boat that can take huge amounts of water over the sides onto the deck, but the deck is so high, it runs off very quickly, through the ample sized scuppers/drainage holes.
The 240, especially stretched, has many of the characteristics of the dorado 30. Beam to length ratio, bigger bow, lower deadrise, higher freeboard. This does allow for alot of storage under the deck. Check out the dorado 30, that is where I am getting alot ideas for my rebuild.
-
Tx49,
I added a 3' extension to the hull of my 240 seahunter. I am still rebuilding it, bit I am pretty much done with the extension, just finishing up with the stringers now. If you want to talk and get some ideas, you can give me a call. Private message me for my number.
As for the stringer height, I would not monkey with the stringers, except to get the old foam out, refoam, and possibly retab them back to the hull up in front of the console. As far as the height goes, I agree with the others, having a higher freeboard will help the boat self bail better. To me, it is kinda like a tug boat that can take huge amounts of water over the sides onto the deck, but the deck is so high, it runs off very quickly, through the ample sized scuppers/drainage holes.
The 240, especially stretched, has many of the characteristics of the dorado 30. Beam to length ratio, bigger bow, lower deadrise, higher freeboard. This does allow for alot of storage under the deck. Check out the dorado 30, that is where I am getting alot ideas for my rebuild.
Orb,
Yours is what got me originally thinking of a aquasport 240. I was going to build a wooden boat 26-27 feet. I saw this boat on craigslist and decided to research it. i saw your extension project and decided to buy it and build my boat based on this hull. I will be removing the entire stringer system. While there are good aspects to the AS Stringer system, there are many downfalls also. I will be going back with a stringer and bulkhead system. i have many reasons for getting rid of the trapezoids. Too many to go into here, suffice to say its not arbitrary and has been well researched and thought out.
Freeboard-Maybe I am misunderstanding the term. I thought that freeboard referred to the height from the waterline to the cap. If so I don't understand how raising the floor will increase freeboard.
Orb and love2fish--I have actually considered raising the floor in the cockpit as much as 3"-6". I think it would be really cool to have a couple of bronze scuppers a couple of inches above the waterline self bailing. With a bulkhead across the cabin entry, I think it would stay pretty dry that way. The beam on a seahunter is 8-0. As orb said, the L:B:Draft ratios of an extended seahunter is very similar to the dorado 30. That being said, I think love2fish may have misunderstood what I was saying about the weight and center of balance. Because i am adding some high weight with the cabin, If i lowered the floor it would bring that weight's moment down lower in the hull, stabilizing it more. I wasn't trying to lessen the weight by lowering the floor, I was trying to literally lower the weight. I have to lower the floor to make the cabin work, and that is a common condition with any kind of cabin, but maybe your right in regards to the cockpit floor and i should go ahead with raising it. I assume the weight of the inboard being at the rear and low will also help counter some of that extra cabin weight. Keep in mind that these came with an option for a flying bridge tower that was at least a foot taller than the cabin flying bridge I have planned.
-
You definitely want to keep the stringer height in the cockpit area the same. You could raise it some, but 5 inches IMO would be unnecessary. You are killing the freeboard (the height from the deck to the top of the gunnel) by raising the deck that much. Don't want your crew falling out if you can help it.
A way to increase the freeboard yet still raise the deck would be to increase the height of the gunnel cap. Take a look at the CCP's....they have plenty of freeboard due to taller deck caps (gunnel caps)
The cabin is another story, you could lower the stringers there so you "step down" into the cabin as you would in most cabin boats. Just remember to install a good bilge pump in the forward bilge.
-
You definitely want to keep the stringer height in the cockpit area the same. You could raise it some, but 5 inches IMO would be unnecessary. You are killing the freeboard (the height from the deck to the top of the gunnel) by raising the deck that much. Don't want your crew falling out if you can help it.I may have forgotten to mention that I will be adding a 4"-6" bulwark
A way to increase the freeboard yet still raise the deck would be to increase the height of the gunnel cap. Take a look at the CCP's....they have plenty of freeboard due to taller deck caps (gunnel caps)
The cabin is another story, you could lower the stringers there so you "step down" into the cabin as you would in most cabin boats. Just remember to install a good bilge pump in the forward bilge.
Yes had definitely planned to have good bilge pumps. also will have good bilge drainage to the rearWill be installing plenty of limbers and at least a couple of limber chains.
-
Id probably raise the deck a few inches to ensure a self bail with the weight being added. As far as keeping the weight down in the hull, you can play around with different materials to get lighter up top. If you decide you want more freeboard after the deck is in you can add some rails to the inside of the cap. Youre going to be doing a lot of cap mods anyway with the cabin and whatnot.. Chris by the way...
-
:mrgreen: We’re starting to hack up a few terms I think..
Not being a dink, this is right out of my old ABS/MARAD stability book.
Freeboard: height of the deck above actual waterline ie surface of the water.
Topsides: height of rail (gunwale-gun'nl-gunnel) above the water.
Center of Mass (Cm): the actual center of mass of the vessel.
Center of Buoyancy: (Cb) actual center where all buoyant forces act on the vessel.
That way when I start going all yankee on you southern boys none of us will get confused..
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Lowering the deck a few inches will not get you a less tender (softer/slower) rolling moment, keeping the house light, adding an I/O (think all that steel) and of course batteries/ fuel/water tanks as low as possible will. The deck as a unit of mass, if you use light materials, really will not be a significant factor effecting the rolling moment distance between Cm-Cb. The boys that have done cored decks will tell you that 2 big deep cycle marine batteries will weigh more than the deck will. Put those on a battery flat in the bilge and issue is moot. 3 250 guys on the Fly Bridge will….
All good!! Lets see some numbers!
-
OK. I am starting to see that while my thought process of the lower cockpit floor theory was right, the actual real world application was going to be negligible. So raising the floor it is. But this suddenly brings another item into play. Right now the stringers at front of the old CC are 20". If I were to raise the stringers 4" (Remember I will have the added 6" bulwark.)I could fit a central inboard under the deck, maybe a small step needed. Then I could run a direct drive. is this a better drive system or should i stick with a stern drive be it I/O or jet. Would this make it excessively hard to plane with 900-1100 pounds 8-10 feet from the stern? I know I'm probably being a PIA, but I just need to review so many options before I start cutting.
To recap though-right now I am still looking at a cockpit floor that will be raised 4"amidships, 3"at the stern, and 3" at each side. This will give me a crown center to side and cabin to stern. I will be using a 350,351,454,455, or 460 with a jet or I/O drive. I will not be using a plug, I will be cutting off the transom and extending from the stern.
And yes whoever it was that said I was looking similar to a Bertram 31 (Dave, I think), That's the exact look I was going for.
And thank you to all. I appreciate everything I'm learning from you guys and your patience.
Johnny
-
I would love to see what this would do with your plan as now. Hey, its only 593 lbs with no running gear! Although, then again the jet would be cool. Are you going to run the bays over there or more outside?
http://www.yanmarmarine.com/theme/yanma ... asheet.pdf (http://www.yanmarmarine.com/theme/yanmar/uploadedFiles/Products/Engine-files/Pleasure-Engines/Technical-datasheets/PDF/Yanmar-4BY3%20datasheet.pdf)
-
But I'm not sure if I can't count high enough to get to the price. :roll: It will be a trailered lake, coastal boat, but I wanted the ability to go offshore aways too.
-
No problem Johnny!
There was a guy from Connecticut(?) on here that posted about an inboard 222 center console. (just did a search of the member gallery look up OldSchool) Putting a motor amidships with a straight drive is a perfectly fine option.. A point of trivia, putting in a gas inboard (straight or I/O) will affect insurance a bit. I guess they underwriters get nervous that the internal combustion part is going be on inside of the hull :bom: and not hanging from the stern and bang you for it.. Some folks have no sense of adventure :shock: . Makes no damn sense but that is business I guess.. If you opted for diesel they start giving you back bonus points, I guess because it won’t backfire and burn your face off.. (flew a guy to a burn unit two days ago that had that happen to him, it was gross)
The engine box, if you don't raise the deck to much, is a fine place for the Admiral and the dog to catch some sun. Options and selling points!
:thumright:
For a straight drive options check out http://www.evolutionmarine.com/. These guys are in Rockland Maine and have the most advanced, yet low tech/ low friction shaft system around. Why them? They have about 0 friction power loss because they use mechanical seals not a friction seal like a standard stuffing box. Quiet, because of real honest soft engine mounts and they have less turbulent water flow to the wheel and that gets you better efficiency. NO I do not sell them, nor am I tight with the folks that own the place.. I have worked on boats with their shaft systems and ones without. Hands down Evolution was smoother and quieter and nowhere near as hard on your back and feet at the end of the day..
6 inches to the rail height is going to be alot.. Whazza plan for flairing that in so it doesn't look chunky?
There is a picture in the gallery of a West Coast style house top on an Explorer and boy did it turn out pretty (serious workboat look), I wish I could remember who did it. It wouldn’t look like a Bertram, but it would look good! Hopefully one of the more senior Brethren will remember, he was/is a west coast member.
-
Well finally got to do a few things.
First, I lowered and leveled the trailer left to right.. We took the tires off and set it down on 4x4’s directly on the axles. Sorry no pics of that.
Then after leveling it at the transom, My youngest son and I eye-balled the center of the transom VEE and plumbed up from there attaching a 2x marking the C/L. It looks caterwauled in the photo, but that is an optical illusion
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/046_zpsd60a11de.jpg)
Then we eyeballed a centerline on the front. This was a little difficult to get right as the hull vee, the rubrail point, and the cap point were all about ¼” different from each other. That’s why went with eyeballin instead of measurements.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/049_zps1958142a.jpg)
After we set those 2 centerlines, we added cross member supports to the cap at specifically measured points making sure they were perpendicular to the center string line.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/048_zpscff5af66.jpg)
After doing this, I got some good news. We measured a series of diagonals, aft to stern control points, and beam measurements from the centerline outwards, up and down the boat. None of our measurements were more than 1/8” different. This boat is square, plumb, and centered. That is due to the factory, not me is what I am trying to point out.
After we got the centerlines completed, we jacked up the boats bow to let yesterday’s rain out. Probably a hundred gallons or more in there. It was well over 6 inches deep in the bilge all the way to the bow. (That was obviously not just yesterday’s rain). This photo is after over an hour’s draining.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/052_zps6a1bed84.jpg)
You can see the water draining from the transom here. (http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/045_zpsc1208d2a.jpg)
After finding this water I decided to make a ridgeback to support a tarp. Just used some 1x1/4 nominal cutoff pieces that I have kept around here in case I ever needed them. Well they came in handy for this.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/047_zpsae5ac3f2.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/048_zpscff5af66.jpg)
Here is the first cut. Across the deck to casting deck intersection. Started sawzalling and a kajillion ants came running from below. Probably can’t see them in the pic. They were tiny little boogers. Haven’t seen those kind around here. Hope I haven’t brought an invasive species in. That’s what stopped my work for the day-I sprayed the crap out of them and that area with pesticide.Then it started raining and now I have fresh pesticide everywhere. Figure I will give it 24 hours to dissipate some.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/054_zpsf65c1a60.jpg)
More coming.
-
If you look in the coffin box- it was in good shape until someone cut a big hole in the bottom of it. Then if you look through the hole you will see that there is a lot of glass there that wasn't exactly soaked with resin. I'm wondering if it was some kind of repair at some point given that its where the cutout was.You can see several weird things there. Among them, the rotted bulkhead, the garden hose being used for something, Fuel line? I don't know. But I am finding in several of the areas up front.(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/040_zpsc746e4ae.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/052_zps6a1bed84.jpg)
another garden hose.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/041_zpsf2acc905.jpg)
Then you can see that the coffinbox bottom was weak where I stepped on it.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/Boat%20Before/039_zpscfff5cc5.jpg)
-
The garden hose was original for some of the in deck compartments.
My 74 22-2 has this same hose going from the casting deck insulated hatch to the forward thru hull.
-
The garden hose was original for some of the in deck compartments.
My 74 22-2 has this same hose going from the casting deck insulated hatch to the forward thru hull.
So was it a drain for the hatches in the casting deck. Don't know if you would call them fish boxes or not?
-
After you get it gutted, drill a small drain hole thru the bottom where the water is deepest. Gonna be up near the bow if the boat is level on its waterline. Saves you from bailing the thing out everytime water gets in it. Not a big deal to fill later compared to all the other work youre planning :o
-
That sounds simple enough. Should have thought of that. I know there is that low spot at the base of the bow. I'm sure there was a lot there in addition to what rain has fallen.
-
Well,
I have re-thunk the cradle idea and have it on hold for now. I have some hook in the port chine and I think that the cradles would prevent it from straightening. I have locked down the gunwales with cross members and for the time being the transom and outboard well have the rear locked down tighter than :*:'s hatband, so I am going to follow what Shipoke did and use a couple of posts with a 2x and let the gravity bring the hook out. I am still struggling with how to demo everything and keep good hull shape integrity because of how tight my working space is, but I am making progress. I will remove the deck between the casting deck and outboard well along with the CC base and coffin box. After that I will be making some decisions about the permanent bunking supports for the rest of the demo and the extension/transom/floor rebuild.
-
Started on the floor removal. Got the perimeter cut on each side and the base of the outboard well and the base of the casting deck. Tore out a chunk of floor between the coffinbox and the casting deck. That was all de-lammed and came out just by me stepping on it. Then i had to stop cause I was getting rained on. The rest of the floor seems to be glued down pretty well. Is the best way to get this out to cut from front to back between the stringers and take those strips out? Then just cut out the stringers with the remaining strips of floor still glued to the top? Just wondering if there's any tricks any of you are aware of?
-
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0213_zps203dc42b.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0217_zpsd09d7924.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0214_zps6cf64c9b.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0215_zps6373e8be.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0216_zpse5a111eb.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0218_zps5f725a6c.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0219_zpse2d38c87.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0220_zps27d378ef.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0221_zpsb3724034.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0222_zpsf8fa06e3.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0223_zps615803b7.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0224_zps857e66ad.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0225_zpsf3450589.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0226_zpsb6e6a1ea.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0228_zpsd9bdaaf6.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0231_zps88f03ee8.jpg)
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m492/txshadow49/The%20BOAT%20BUILD/demolition/IMG_0232_zps6d4dc8ed.jpg)
-
I can already tell that there is going to be a big grinding job ahead.
-
Question- I was expecting to find foam filled voids under the floor. Most of what i have read online about these is that they were supposed to be "full flotation" boats. That they were supposed to have foam everywhere. Could it be that this boat was redone before. I had read somewhere about some sealed airbags that you could install under the deck to get the same effect as what the foam tries to do. Should i worry about recreating these floatation chambers. I thought that boats nowadays were required to have flotation so they would float while swamped. is that a myth.
-
In your boat the foam is/was in the stringers only. It has never been redone based on the pics.
When you go to rebuild...lay closed cell sheet foam between the stringers and the gunnel. This way, if water ever gets in this area, the foam will float above the water.
-
In your boat the foam is/was in the stringers only. It has never been redone based on the pics.
When you go to rebuild...lay closed cell sheet foam between the stringers and the gunnel. This way, if water ever gets in this area, the foam will float above the water.
I don't have anything between the gunwale and the stringers. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean under the deck between the stringers?
-
Yes, exactly. That area is empty now, empty originally. Lay sheet foam in there when you rebuild.
Great work :thumright:
-
Something you might consider since you are at this point is making use of all that space from the stringers outward. I noticed on the higher end new boats they would make fish boxes or storage lockers out of those areas. Very hand place for storage. just line the areas with 2" foam insulation board and glass over them, add a drain in the rear of compartment, and make a access door in your deck. It's just a though I am trying to incorporate something like this in my build.
-
Re: 197? 240 Sea Hunter Build
Postby fishinonthebrain » Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:53 pm
Something you might consider since you are at this point is making use of all that space from the stringers outward. I noticed on the higher end new boats they would make fish boxes or storage lockers out of those areas. Very hand place for storage. just line the areas with 2" foam insulation board and glass over them, add a drain in the rear of compartment, and make a access door in your deck. It's just a though I am trying to incorporate something like this in my build.
I had been wondering about the feasibility of that. Thanks for confirming that I can use that space like that.
-
Question about blocking up. I am going to re-do my bunking/blocking for the support of the boat for the time being. What I wanted to find out is how the boat should sit for purposes of establishing "LEVEL". Should chines be set level and then I can use offset measurements fom that for my "control level". Should I use the tops of the existing stringers and establish a control line off of that before i remove them? The reason this came up again is that I found the mercruiser installation instructions for both stern drive and straight/vee drive online. They give dimensions for the crankshaft centerline at the transom. i need to carry that measurement level through the engine bed to figure out where to put the mounts and stringers. So before i know what is the crankshaft line I need to know what I am orienting it to. So I need to know how to "LEVEL" the boat. I know this is awful wordy, sorry for that, I hope i wasn't too confusing.
-
Natural waterline is what id try to level off of. Get a couple points on each side of the hull and use a water level to get all the points the same.
-
Thanks Chris. By Natural waterline do you mean the waterline stripe which is the intended waterline or the actual waterline. If actual is what you mean, well I can't splash it to find out and the hull has been out of the water too long and is too weathered to find it. I think as far as the final ride attitude, I am going to have to just spread things out and hope for the best. Then add ballast if i need to. but for figuring out the crankshaft centerline, use the waterline as intended from the factory as my leveling control?
-
Johnny,
Obviously what you're looking at is your X dimension (on I/Os), and subsequently wanting to glass in the fwd engine beds such that the motor will fall into the adjustment range of the mounts to allow the drive shaft to easily slide into the tranny. Once you have your X dim, you can use the dimensions given here (in this case, a 350 MAG for illustration purposes) to get a real close estimate in regards to stringer height, width, and engine bed location...http://www.mercurymarine.com/media/merc ... 57-009.pdf (http://www.mercurymarine.com/media/mercury/drawings/drw57-009.pdf)
-
Johnny,
Obviously what you're looking at is your X dimension (on I/Os), and subsequently wanting to glass in the fwd engine beds such that the motor will fall into the adjustment range of the mounts to allow the drive shaft to easily slide into the tranny. Once you have your X dim, you can use the dimensions given here (in this case, a 350 MAG for illustration purposes) to get a real close estimate in regards to stringer height, width, and engine bed location...http://www.mercurymarine.com/media/merc ... 57-009.pdf (http://www.mercurymarine.com/media/mercury/drawings/drw57-009.pdf)
Bob, that is part of what I'm doing and that pdf is a lot of help. but I still need to figure out a total control line. Should i just base it off of the existing stringers. I need to get the control line before I start pulling stringers and cutting out the casting deck and outboard well.
-
Think you're just pretty much gonna have to go with your gut on this one. There really isn't a lot out there to compare to. So this is what I would do. Pull the trailer onto a "known" level surface. Now raise or lower the jack until the boat looks...right. See where the existing stringers lie in regards to level. If they are close, run with a control height based off the stringers. If they are way out of whack, may think about bringing the boat up or down until they get close, see how she looks from the outside, attitude wise.
Regardless, at some point in time, you're just gonna have to bite the bullet and say...X marks the spot! Keep in mind, a lot of smaller fishboats that offered both I/O and O/B configurations, the stringer grid was the same, the I/O just had engine beds glassed to the inboard stringers...
-
Think you're just pretty much gonna have to go with your gut on this one. There really isn't a lot out there to compare to. So this is what I would do. Pull the trailer onto a "known" level surface. Now raise or lower the jack until the boat looks...right. See where the existing stringers lie in regards to level. If they are close, run with a control height based off the stringers. If they are way out of whack, may think about bringing the boat up or down until they get close, see how she looks from the outside, attitude wise.
Regardless, at some point in time, you're just gonna have to bite the bullet and say...X marks the spot! Keep in mind, a lot of smaller fishboats that offered both I/O and O/B configurations, the stringer grid was the same, the I/O just had engine beds glassed to the inboard stringers...
Believe it or not, that answer actually helps me out a ton. between that and Chris's, I know exactly what to do now. thanks. i will try to permanently bunk it today and start on the stringer removal tomorrow.
-
No problem Johnny!
...
There is a picture in the gallery of a West Coast style house top on an Explorer and boy did it turn out pretty (serious workboat look), I wish I could remember who did it. It wouldn’t look like a Bertram, but it would look good! Hopefully one of the more senior Brethren will remember, he was/is a west coast member.
Anybody know this boat. I have been searching all kinds of terms and kind find it.
-
No problem Johnny!
...
There is a picture in the gallery of a West Coast style house top on an Explorer and boy did it turn out pretty (serious workboat look), I wish I could remember who did it. It wouldn’t look like a Bertram, but it would look good! Hopefully one of the more senior Brethren will remember, he was/is a west coast member.
Anybody know this boat. I have been searching all kinds of terms and kind find it.
If this is what you are referring to then,
Here's the Gallery link.
http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery ... se&cat=500 (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=6281&title=1997-225-explorer-custom-pilot-house&cat=500)
Here's the thread.
viewtopic.php?p=88810#p88810 (http://www.classicaquasport.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?p=88810#p88810)
Search term: pilot house.
If not, there are others.
Good luck.
-
Re: 197? 240 Sea Hunter Build
Postby fishinonthebrain » Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:53 pm
Something you might consider since you are at this point is making use of all that space from the stringers outward. I noticed on the higher end new boats they would make fish boxes or storage lockers out of those areas. Very hand place for storage. just line the areas with 2" foam insulation board and glass over them, add a drain in the rear of compartment, and make a access door in your deck. It's just a though I am trying to incorporate something like this in my build.
I had been wondering about the feasibility of that. Thanks for confirming that I can use that space like that.
You can check out classic mako's website to get some good ideas for your rebuild. there are some really talented guys over there doing their own mods to their boats and have some good ideas.
"MOJO" '78 Mako 25 - 6/10, William Dean Sr. Rebuild - 6/14/2013, and The Mako 261 Saga - updated 5/21/13 have been pretty good at giving step by step pictures. I wish I had added a euro transom to my boat but not now to far a long.
Looking at all these rebuild has added a lot of time to my rebuild due to changing my mind and giving me a lot of ideas so be warned. :mrgreen:
-
No problem Johnny!
...
There is a picture in the gallery of a West Coast style house top on an Explorer and boy did it turn out pretty (serious workboat look), I wish I could remember who did it. It wouldn’t look like a Bertram, but it would look good! Hopefully one of the more senior Brethren will remember, he was/is a west coast member.
Anybody know this boat. I have been searching all kinds of terms and kind find it.
If this is what you are referring to then,
Here's the Gallery link.
http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery ... se&cat=500 (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=6281&title=1997-225-explorer-custom-pilot-house&cat=500)
Here's the thread.
viewtopic.php?p=88810#p88810 (http://www.classicaquasport.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?p=88810#p88810)
Search term: pilot house.
If not, there are others.
Good luck.
CB the one I was thinking of I saw in a post in the last 6 months (I think :oops: ). It had a west cost style forward raked windshield. From the gist of the thread the owner had been an active poster but went dormant for a while... I am terrible with names.. :cry:
-
CB the one I was thinking of I saw in a post in the last 6 months (I think :oops: ). It had a west cost style forward raked windshield.
Explorer or Osprey?
Here's Fishhead's Osprey conversion.
http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery ... &protype=1 (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/member.php?uid=290&protype=1)
-
CB the one I was thinking of I saw in a post in the last 6 months (I think :oops: ). It had a west cost style forward raked windshield.
Explorer or Osprey?
Here's Fishhead's Osprey conversion.
http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery ... &protype=1 (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/member.php?uid=290&protype=1)
Yessir that's it!!!! :cheers: :cheers:
Can't past the picture on my iPad...
Johnny here is another option for the house/cabin...
http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery ... er_275.jpg (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/data//500/thumbs/290boat_-bradys_field_trip-soccer_275.jpg)
-
That's pretty cool, but won't work for my plan. I am constantly looking at different sites like mako, seacraft, hull truth, bateau, iboats, etc. for ideas. you gotta remember i've been thinking about this for a dozen years. :D I have the basic layout figured out, my main issue on the grand design, is deciding the cabin and vee berth floor heights, which won't come for a while when i can mock it up. the details, well thats why I lurk around here so much is to fill my brain with all you guys boat godness. :cheers: :salut: LOL
-
(http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/data//500/0829021820.jpg) (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=6280&title=1997-225-explorer-custom-pilot-house&cat=500)
Little boat...Big house.
If you're cold on this boat....BYO propane :wink: