1973 19-6 Rebuild

[SJWiley]

I just picked up a 73 19-6 in pretty bad shape. Some prior owner made a lame attempt at rebuild. I have since removed deck/coaming; next move is to cut floor out and really get a look at what I've got.
[/img]  
 
   
 

 

[RickK]

Hull and cap seem to be in decent shape with the exception of the patch on the transom.  Looks like the boat will be like Shine's boatin the beginning.  Hopefully it turns out as nice as that one did.

[SJWiley]

That transom is going to be gone at some point so I'm not too worried about it.

I have seen Shine's thread and that boat came out beautifully. I think I am looking at a similiar scope ie, new longitudinals and transverse structure. I'm going to do it in all composite.

I am curious about removing the inner hull liner. I noticed Shine and some others have done it. I dont see the point in keeping it at this stage other than it adds some thickness to the hull at the deck joint. I plan on re-using the existing deck

I am also curious about cockpit floor heights. Seems like some people are raising them; what for? better drainage?


SW

[compcrasher86]

Hey I have a 73 aqua as well, cept mines a 22-2 Lots of the shaping and designs look similar so if theres any area you need to model off of, mine is 100% stock and in good shape. I have some pix on my work log (http://classicaquasport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3556) or you can PM me as well

[SJWiley]

Thanks CC86

I've seen your pics and yes the boats are very similiar...wish I had the 2 extra feet. Also wish mine were in the water like yours but I think that is at least a year away.

SW

[SJWiley]

Today I got up and decided it was a good day to cut the sole out of that boat.

What I found was 1" pressure treated plywood nailed and screwed into the longitudinals along with some goop. It was actually really well stuck which made the job a little tougher. The whole thing was covered in mat and 18 oz roving and the sides were taped to the inner hull liner with some biax.

Circular saw, sledge hammer and pry bars got it out. Took about 4 hours and I have a little bit left to go. I also removed the inner hull liner, so I am going to be down the shell only.

The Longitudinals do not actually look that bad; the foam inside is exposed in some places, but I actually expected much worse. I think at the end of the day they are coming out anyway. The remainder of the glass work looked fine with the exception of some soft spots in the bottom which I have not fully explored yet. I need to explore that and bore some holes in the bottom to see exactly how the laminate has stood up over the years.

The plan is to move the boat into a shed in the next month or so. I'm not going to be able to work on it outside for very long. Longitudinal removal will probably have to wait until she in inside, leveled, and blocked up. The boat has already become very flexible from removing deck and line but she seems to retain her shape well. Here are some pics of todays follies:
 
 
 
 
   
 
The whole job actually went pretty quickly which was a nice surprise; I'm sure the rest of it wont be that easy.

SW

[slippery73]

I would recommend leaving original stringers in, you probably aren't going to build anything that is as substantial as the ones that are in there, if there is any delaminating  I would grind it out and reglass the stringers to the hull bottom. The holes cut in the stringer top is standard and were there from the factory so they could pour in the two part expandable foam. If your foam isn't waterlogged you can glass over these areas to prevent water from getting in there now that its exposed to the elements. You should be able to drill some holes in the stringers to check to see if your foam is wet. Just make sure if its dry you cover it as it soaks up water like a sponge once it exposed. If it is wet there are quite a few rebuilds on here where people just cut the tops of the stringers out and dug out the wet foam, then repaired cuts and refoamed. This is by far way easier than a total gut job and will leave you with a stronger hull.

[SJWiley]

Thanks Slippery.

I do like the heft of the original stringers; they are certainly large enough, but I'm not sure about the stiffness of them. Some of the glass on the side walls is comprimised and the tops have been well comprimised by previous saw cuts and the square holes for pouring foam (wonder why they didnt use a hole saw?)

Of course all of that can be fixed, so I need to do a little more grinding and clean up to get a closer look at their condition. As you say, it may be easier to repair and reinforce them than to cut them out and add new ones. I do think I could make new ones which would be stronger and probably lighter and never have to worry about pour foam in the boat again. I have a real aversion to pour foam in boats (the same way I do about balsa in boats)..

SW

[slippery73]

Unless you make a mold mimicking the trapezoidal design of the originals you aren't going to get near the strength of this system. Its why there are so many of these boats still around after 30-40 yrs and in still good condition. A simple box stringer wont provide as much strength as this system would without a ton of bulkheads, that equates to more weight and as a result you would want to beef up the hull with laminations of glass as well. I have heard that these boat hulls were made to flex and if you put in a rigid stringer system without reinforcing the hull to match you have the possibility of getting your hull cracking. Research stringer design and "hard spots." There is a lot more to boat design than just beef it up.

[SJWiley]

Well, thats a good point. I am a little concerned about a longitudinal with a smaller foot print creating hard spots. I do like the enormous footprint of the original structure.

SW

[Mad Dog]

Thanks Slippery.

I do like the heft of the original stringers; they are certainly large enough, but I'm not sure about the stiffness of them. Some of the glass on the side walls is comprimised and the tops have been well comprimised by previous saw cuts and the square holes for pouring foam (wonder why they didnt use a hole saw?)

Of course all of that can be fixed, so I need to do a little more grinding and clean up to get a closer look at their condition. As you say, it may be easier to repair and reinforce them than to cut them out and add new ones. I do think I could make new ones which would be stronger and probably lighter and never have to worry about pour foam in the boat again. I have a real aversion to pour foam in boats (the same way I do about balsa in boats)..

SW

I have the same stringer set up on my rebuild.  I left them in place but had to remove the flotation foam which meant cutting rectangular holes for access.  After refilling the stringers with closed cell foam I capped the cut outs with a couple layers of DB1700 Biax.  I also re-inforced the hull to stringer connection with more 1700 Biax.  If you are concerned about the stringers then once you close the holes you can wrap them completely with the biax which will beef them up and secure them again.

I know you said the transom is going, are you putting back a closed transom or cut out version?  Not sure what the previous owner was thinking but that one was not going to work with a bracket.

The old foam that these boats were built with was open cell spray in foam.  That stuff would soak up water (and other stuff) over time.  Then newer two part polyurathan closed cell foam will not absorb water.  Check this link for more info.  http://boatbuildercentral.com/proddetai ... _foam_2gal  I would replace the foam for safety.

MD  

[SJWiley]

Mad Dog,

I think you and Slippery are right and I am probably going to leave the existing stringers, gut them, refill and reinforce. My first inclination was to put everything new in the boat, but Slippery's comment about there being alot of 35 year old boats still going strong with this sytem made a lot of sense.

I'm not sure which way I am going on the transom yet. I need to do a little research (I've sailed my whole life and dont know squat about power boats and outboards). I do like the look of the closed off transom and bracket, but I dont know the benefits of one way over another

SW

[compcrasher86]

Either way, that transom derfinately looks like it needs to be rebuilt. Having an open transom has its benefits and drawbacks. With my stock open transom, It is quite easy for people to climb out of the water right into the back of my boat. The engine is bolted directly to the transom, So I feel safer with my engine's weight resting on my boat, and not some third party metal and hydraulics. (Although yes I know they are totally safe and stable) I also like how my engine tilts up and in towards the boat, makes me feel like the weight is being distributed better when I leave it. On the downside, I have had multiple occasions where people have driven by while I am stopped and their wake splashes over the back and into the boat. It also happens if I give my engine too much reverse. The look is more classic feeling to me.

The closed transom allows you to have a porta bracket. I have no experience with them but from what I can see, it allows you more control of the height of your engine in the water in addition to the motor's tilt. The closed transom allows for much more options in the back. Because it is more closed off, I would be less worried about people sitting or hanging out in the back, especially children. Plus, then you could make some seating back there or add lockers/cabinets/ access hatches, whatever works. Plus, with a closed transom, your engine wires and cables and hoses can more easily be concealed for an extremely clean look.

Its your choice man, think it over well!