Attention: Have only 1 page to see today

Author Topic: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?  (Read 2396 times)

December 21, 2015, 02:24:34 PM
Reply #15

Levi

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2015, 02:24:34 PM »
Yea my half tower will be on top of the pod in the picture of my last post so without a transom livewell and only two batteries and a motor in the stern should be fairly balanced correct or will I end up with too much weight forward?

December 21, 2015, 02:53:26 PM
Reply #16

Aswaff400

  • Information Offline
  • Master Rebuilder
  • Posts: 1627
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2015, 02:53:26 PM »
with both of my livewells empty and a full tank of fuel my boat rides about perfectly level, doesnt "feel" like theres too much weight forward, where as if i have less than a 1/4 tank of fuel and both wells full the bow does feel a little light. so i put the tabs down slightly. i also have a coffin box in front of the console that i keep my 3 cast nets in(18 lbs each). if you are near the tampa bay area(dont know your location) your welcome to check out my flatback and take it for a ride.

heres a couple pics showing the boat and weight differences

both wells empty, full tank of fuel






both wells full and full fuel





Aaron
1996 200 Osprey SOLD
1968 22-2 Flatback SOLD
1993 210 Explorer SOLD
1991 Fountain 31TE SOLD
1989 Fountain 12-meter SOLD
1992 Talon F-20 SOLD
2021 Fountain 38TE QUAD 400's

December 21, 2015, 11:17:19 PM
Reply #17

Levi

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2015, 11:17:19 PM »
That's a SWEET looking boat there! I think I was reading through your build thread the other day.
I think I should have about the same balance as you because the footprint of the pod will cover about the same footprint as your console and livewell leaning post though I may move it and the fuel tank sternwards a bit.
How far from the bow ( or stern) is the front ( or rear ) of your fuel tank?
I've noticed all of the build threads including yours have had wide transoms? Is there a reason or for this or is it to facilitate the transom livewell?
I'd like to keep the transom narrow at least at the corners if not all the way across though it will be at least 10" wide to fit the oil tank porta-bracket pump and two batteries but I will probably do a removable front to the transom area to make it easier to get in there and work on things.
My buddy said these boats don't like much weight in the back end and to avoid a transom livewell?
Is he correct?
Thanks for the all the replies I really appreciate the input and expertise.

December 22, 2015, 07:37:47 AM
Reply #18

Aswaff400

  • Information Offline
  • Master Rebuilder
  • Posts: 1627
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2015, 07:37:47 AM »
That's a SWEET looking boat there! I think I was reading through your build thread the other day.
I think I should have about the same balance as you because the footprint of the pod will cover about the same footprint as your console and livewell leaning post though I may move it and the fuel tank sternwards a bit.
How far from the bow ( or stern) is the front ( or rear ) of your fuel tank?
I've noticed all of the build threads including yours have had wide transoms? Is there a reason or for this or is it to facilitate the transom livewell?
I'd like to keep the transom narrow at least at the corners if not all the way across though it will be at least 10" wide to fit the oil tank porta-bracket pump and two batteries but I will probably do a removable front to the transom area to make it easier to get in there and work on things.
My buddy said these boats don't like much weight in the back end and to avoid a transom livewell?
Is he correct?
Thanks for the all the replies I really appreciate the input and expertise.

the aft fuel tank bulkhead is 8 ft forward of the transom, and the forward bulkhead is about 13 ft forward of the transom, my fuel tank is 59-3/4 inches long

yes, the transom is wide because of the livewell, there needs to be enough room behind for access to the porta bracket bolts. i also had mine slightly wider so it doubles as stern seating when just cruising around. and theres enough room to stand when fishing. its 24 inches from the transom-forward. my oil tank and engine rigging is in the starboard side, jack plate pump and trim tab pump are on the port side. my only complaint about my transom well is it is a little too deep so when i leave the boat in the water like i do most of the year there is always 2 or 3 inches of water in the bottom.

they definitely dont like a lot of weight aft, but at the same time they dont like weight forward and will bow steer like crazy if theres too much weight forward. i'd try to get most everything centered weight wise around the console. i also shortened the casting deck for more deck space and allows me to use a dock box as a coffin box for more storage. my 3 group 24 deep cycle batteriesfor the trolling motor are below the forward hatch under the coffin. my forward tower leg is 3 ft from the casting deck, and the aft tower leg is 2 inches forward of the aft fuel tank bulkhead.



also, i raised my deck about 5 inches which puts the deck about 3-1/2 inches above the waterline. even with both wells full, and someone standing in the aft corner, the deck stays dry and she still drains completely with the garden hose going full blast.
Aaron
1996 200 Osprey SOLD
1968 22-2 Flatback SOLD
1993 210 Explorer SOLD
1991 Fountain 31TE SOLD
1989 Fountain 12-meter SOLD
1992 Talon F-20 SOLD
2021 Fountain 38TE QUAD 400's

December 22, 2015, 10:56:19 AM
Reply #19

Levi

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2015, 10:56:19 AM »
Did you do the keel extension? Is there any reason it should not be done?
my buddy said I  should lean towards a 70 gallon tank? do you think that is necessary? what kind of mpg do you get and what should expect given the lighter lower displacement E-tec? 3mpg ? 4mpg? is anyone on here running the small block?

December 22, 2015, 11:24:33 AM
Reply #20

Aswaff400

  • Information Offline
  • Master Rebuilder
  • Posts: 1627
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2015, 11:24:33 AM »
i did extend the keel and with any kind of setback  bracket its a must do. my tank is 62 gallons and is enough for a full day of running. i only average 2mpg with my older 225 EFI. i have about 110 mile range with a little reserve. with any of the 150hp E-tec's, Optimax's, or any of the 150hp 4strokes you should easily get 4mpg. Captain Matt gets i believe 5.2mpg at cruise with his new Mercury 150 4stroke after testing a bunch of props. he was getting 5pmg with a 175 pro xs Optimax i have ran Matt's boat with the Optimax and she ran like a scalded dog. his boat his boat balanced out perfect. heres a link to his photo bucket for pics of his build http://s836.photobucket.com/user/captmattmitchell/library/?sort=3&start=all&page=1
[/URL]

about the only reason i haven't repowered wit a 2.5L Optimax or 150 4stroke is i do kinda like having a 40 mph cruise on glass days  :thumright:

heres an idea for the transom if you want to keep it simple, this is on a 24 Morgan at my work and the box in the center is completely removable. and large scuppers out the transom.
Aaron
1996 200 Osprey SOLD
1968 22-2 Flatback SOLD
1993 210 Explorer SOLD
1991 Fountain 31TE SOLD
1989 Fountain 12-meter SOLD
1992 Talon F-20 SOLD
2021 Fountain 38TE QUAD 400's

December 22, 2015, 06:12:04 PM
Reply #21

Levi

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2015, 06:12:04 PM »
That's pretty much what I had in mind.
I also like this minus the livewell and a little narrower and I don't want to fight the livewell to get to the porta-bracket bolts been there done that no fun....
What kind of top end did Matt get on the 175 opti? I was leaning 175 or 150 HO E-tec depending on which I can get a better deal on though I haven't taken the 175 opti off the table either.

December 22, 2015, 06:55:19 PM
Reply #22

Aswaff400

  • Information Offline
  • Master Rebuilder
  • Posts: 1627
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2015, 06:55:19 PM »
175 is the perfect HP for flatbacks, Matt's boat topped out at i believe 44 mph, which is the point where it starts getting scary on a flatback. i have seen 47 mph on mine with a 225 and she gets real squirrely above 44 mph.
Aaron
1996 200 Osprey SOLD
1968 22-2 Flatback SOLD
1993 210 Explorer SOLD
1991 Fountain 31TE SOLD
1989 Fountain 12-meter SOLD
1992 Talon F-20 SOLD
2021 Fountain 38TE QUAD 400's

December 22, 2015, 08:19:34 PM
Reply #23

dirtwheelsfl

  • Information Offline
  • Master Rebuilder
  • Posts: 808
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2015, 08:19:34 PM »
Looks like were in the same zipcode?!

Mines on the lift if ya wana check her out/go for a spin.   You grab the sixer! 


December 23, 2015, 03:45:32 PM
Reply #24

Levi

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2015, 03:45:32 PM »
Dirt,
Sounds good man you're in Jensen? Probably have to wait until the wind lays down a bit though right? Been BLOWING here lately between the wind and the  the high temps I haven't even bothered to fish except for last Thursday where I got pretty much skunked pompano fishing.
Aswaff,
That's PLENTY fast for me.
What exactly do they do above 47 mph?

January 22, 2016, 11:11:55 AM
Reply #25

Levi

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2016, 11:11:55 AM »
Got started Wednesday by blocking up the hull on the trailer  and moving the bunks so that the hull is sitting on the keel and the chines instead of the outside skin.
Chris (dirtwheels) came over yesterday to get a poly tank I had and gave me some pointers on getting the hull blocked  up square and true and how to get the hook out of the bottom and the bow out of the transom. After he left I finished getting it blocked up and started the transom tear down with went well because what wood that wasn't rotten wasn't bonded to the outter skin and ALL the secondary bonds were BARELY stuck down.
I got most of it out before I ran out of daylight. Need to get my cutoff wheels and my sawzall back from my brother today so that I can hopefully finish this up when the weather clears either tomorrow or Sunday.

January 22, 2016, 06:58:07 PM
Reply #26

dirtwheelsfl

  • Information Offline
  • Master Rebuilder
  • Posts: 808
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2016, 06:58:07 PM »
Didn't think getting that transom out would be a problem  :035:

January 24, 2016, 01:58:29 PM
Reply #27

Levi

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: 1968 Coburn and Sargent?
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2016, 01:58:29 PM »
No I didnt think i was going to be bad at all and it was even easier than I thought I guess it's a testament to the previous owners craftsmanship or lack thereof...

 


SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal