Got excited and just started fabrication! I will sand them down later. G10 is really tough stuff. I love it!
Attachments
-
411.6 KB Views: 47
Some time ago I was researching using Groco adaptor plates & G10 backers on my boat. (The adaptor plates have the same foot print as the seacocks.). Some members suggested either tapping threads into the G10 or embedding nuts into the bottom surface of the G10 & screwing the adaptor plates or seacock down into the G10 plate to avoid having the threaded studs ( and nuts) protrude from the top of the plate. If the seacock or adaptor plates would ever have to be replaced, it would be very difficult or impossible to remove without cutting off the base of the seacock. The protruding studs would prevent rotation of the seacock to enable it to be disengaged from the thru hull fitting that is threaded into the seacock or adaptor plate.Got excited and just started fabrication!
I'll take your word for using oak. However, every time I walk through the Port Townsend boatyard, I'm reminded that wood is not a zero maintenance material with practically infinite life. It is less expensive and much easier to work than glass, most certainly. And it is true that G10 eats blades and laughs about it.Yes fiberglass (including G10) is ideal, but oak that’s been sealed with a coat of epoxy resin will last as long as the boat. No need for exotics.
G10 is an engineered form of fiberglass that has very high density and strength It is ideal for situations where resisting very high loads is a requirement (e.g. base for mounting an autopilot ram with forces over a thousand pounds ) or where you want to use a tap to screw bolts into it without backing (e.g. engine mounts). It’s overkill for a sea cock backing plate and expensive to buy if you don’t have a scrap piece available. It also will dull your woodworking tools pretty quickly.
What we are talking about is provisions for removing the seacock in the future if the need arises. With the seacock thru bolted thru the backing plate, as shown, how would you remove the seacock? I am assuming that your backing plate will be epoxied or adhered (4200/5200) to the inside of the hull. If the head on the bolts is between the hull & backing plate, you can hopefully remove the attaching nuts, but the studs will still protrude thru the seacock base, making it impossible the break the seacock loose from the thru hull fitting & backing plate. @mermike tapped threads into the G10 backing plate and screwed studs into the plate, that has nuts tightened onto the studs. If he has to remove the seacock, he can remove the nuts and then unscrew the stud from the G10 plate, allowing for means of removing the seacock.I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, tapping threads or whatever...
Thank you! I'm glad to hear it. Will sand it and fair it today.Looks like a job well done!
Still thinking about this post. I wonder why there is no mushroom flange on the supper and engine exhausts. Why did they glass them in a bit above the static water line? Would I just take an angle grinder to that little cone of fiberglass to get rid of it and drop in a groco thru hull?I'm in the process of replacing my first thru-hull. The summary, so far, is here.
The part of your posting that would worry me is this (I cut these pictures down a little in size):
View attachment 232472
View attachment 232473
Maybe there's a recessed head on the thru-hull or maybe you have something I ran into:
View attachment 232474
View attachment 232475
This was under the static water line so I was glad at least there was a valve there. Yours appear to be just above so that's up to you how you would handle it.
What concerns me is what I found. The flange base for mine was buried in the hull layup. The hull thickness at the flange is only about 3/8 inches versus about a 5/8 or 3/4 inch thick hull for the surrounding area. (Can't really tell because of the grinding I did to get the old one free.) What was worse, there was no thru-hull "head" (mushroom or recessed) there. Instead I found a plastic sleeve embedded in the hull. You can see it as a shadow in the first picture and it was visible once I sanded off the bottom paint. The 2nd picture shows what was left of the sleeve when I finally got it out. The rest was shavings all over the ground.
View attachment 232477
View attachment 232478
I'm not an old hand at this but I would be concerned if there wasn't even a bronze or Marelon thru-hull installed underneath those piles of fiberglass/epoxy. What I ended up with, after getting the plastic out, was a big hole 1/4" wider than the thru-hull fitting. A gap I'm going to have to fill in to get a proper seal.
View attachment 232479
Someone else mentioned the concern of the corrugated hose connected from the bilge pump. This is easily cut or broken off even when new. It may be above the waterline now but in choppy water or a big sea, they may not be.
Just some of my thoughts.
ETA: The rudder post appears to have a stuffing box so there must have been some concern by the builder of water ingress at a point higher than those other thru-hulls.
His profile lists a Morgan 321.What brand of boat and year is yours?