H36 shaft log question

[tmjb]

I removed the PSS stuffing box that came with my newly acquired boat because the rubber seemed to be too rigid and in need of a change. I decided to replace with a conventional stuffing box with 'dripless' packing (anyone need the rest of the PSS hardware? - new hose kit costs about $80).

When I came to install the new stuffing box I found that the four thru-hull bolts securing the shaft log extend past their nuts by a 1/4"
or so and are so tight on the outside of the stuffing box hose that they prevent installation of a hose clamp there. The result is that there is only about a clamp and a half length of shaft log to secure the hose to - not the recommended two.

I'm thinking I either have to cut at the nuts (tough for the lower two with shaft in) or remove and replace with shorter bolts.

Anyone dealt with this and/or have thoughts/advice?

 

[seadaddler]

info

What year boat and is the C for and was it leaking,I have 2007 H-36
installed the PSS when new and been very happy with i.
Nickt

 

[tmjb]

Sorry. Can't believe I missed stating year etc. it's a 1980 Cherubini 36.

As you probably know PSS recommends changing the rubber hose periodically. When I got the boat the hose on mine was hard and inflexible and therefore not applying pressure to the stainless bearing surface. I considered buying the maintenance kit with new hose but decided I preferred what I considered the greater redundancy of a conventional stuffing box with dripless packing which I've used successfully before (previous boat) and was little more $.

 

[rardiH36]

I will be a my boat tomorrow.

Mine is a standard setup: Buck Alonguin (spelling) type rubber hose over the stern tube fitting on one end and the stuffing box inserted on the engine side. I know that I have two clamps for each side = total of four.

I can relatively easily take a picture of my shaft log area. (Can't believe I haven't already done so through the years.) And will post.

rardi

 

[tmjb]

Thanks a lot. That would be very helpful. Buck Algonquin is what I purchased for the replacement - two clamps on each end of the hose.

 

[JoeWhite]

Longhorn stuffing box

Here is an image of Longhorn stuffing box on a 1" shaft. Do not let the remaining tool confuse you. I had made the device to remove the shaft from the coupler. The 1" wood dowel represents the shaft. It was not successful and I had to cut it.
Here is contact info. The stuffing box at $ 102.00 PT number 00PB100X
uses 1/4" flax - not included
Buck Algonquin Co., Inc.
100 Log Canoe Circle
Stevensville, MD 21666-2128, U.S.A.

410.643.7145 - phone

 

[RTB]

Here is a photo of our 1982 H36



Ralph

 

[tmjb]

Many thanks. That's pretty much how mine looks too except that it has four thrubolts rather than the two yours appears to havens mine (thankfully) do not appear to be as long as yours.

However the problem with mine is that the OD of the new hose (I also purchased s Buck Algonquin 00PB100) is so tight to the threads of the thru bolts that I cannot get the hose clamps between the hose and bolts.

 

[Dalliance]

The two photos attached show the new Buck Algonquin shaft log hose during and after installation in my '82 H30 last spring. I understand yours is is different with four bolts rather than than two, and perhaps you somehow have even less space between hose and bolts. My first thought. Can you shorten the bolts? Mine were clearly cut off and filed smooth. Probably by the P.O.

Second, the BA shaft log hose is very thick and stiff, but does compress quite a bit when the hose clamps are tightened down. In fact, I had tightened mine as much as I thought I could on a 60 degree day, then a few days later when it was 85 degrees, I was able to tighten them down so much more that it was disconcerting that I had thought they where tight the first time. So I wonder if softening the hose a bit with a heat gun might help you get the hose clamps on. I don't know if that makes it harder by expanding the hose or easier because it will be softer. Might be worth a try.

 

[rardiH36]

tmjb:

Attached is a pic of my shaft log and stuffing box area. As you described, the bolts extend past the nuts. Doesn't seem to be a problem for my installation. Maybe your hose has thicker walls? I have not actually had the hose off. So I don't know exactly how much the tube extends towards the stuffing box. I just have to assume that both the clamps do in fact cinch my hose firmly on the tube. Is the wall of your new rubber hose so thick that you can't finesse past the bolt ends? If you do need to cut the bolts off at the nut, a cut-off wheel on Dremmel tool should work well in the tight spot. If you haven't used these before: 1) they tend to break, so have more than several at hand. 2) They tend to break, and the pieces fly off fast. Eye protection is a must. http://www.dremel.com/en-us/Accessories/Pages/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=409


Our 1980 models have four bolts. RTB's 1982 build seems to have two. Yet another example of how construction changes between the years.

 

[tmjb]

The two photos attached show the new Buck Algonquin shaft log hose during and after installation in my '82 H30 last spring. I understand yours is is different with four bolts rather than than two, and perhaps you somehow have even less space between hose and bolts. My first thought. Can you shorten the bolts? Mine were clearly cut off and filed smooth. Probably by the P.O.

Second, the BA shaft log hose is very thick and stiff, but does compress quite a bit when the hose clamps are tightened down. In fact, I had tightened mine as much as I thought I could on a 60 degree day, then a few days later when it was 85 degrees, I was able to tighten them down so much more that it was disconcerting that I had thought they where tight the first time. So I wonder if softening the hose a bit with a heat gun might help you get the hose clamps on. I don't know if that makes it harder by expanding the hose or easier because it will be softer. Might be worth a try.

Many thanks for the photos and the advice. The four bolts do make it more difficult. I agree that the BA hose is thick and rigid. Softening may be worth a try as long as it doesn't expand it to - the hose barely fits between the log and the bolts let alone the nuts. I think cutting the bolts flush with the nuts will be a must but is likely impossible for the lower pair of my four so i may have to remove and replace those with shorter.

 

[tmjb]

tmjb:

Attached is a pic of my shaft log and stuffing box area. As you described, the bolts extend past the nuts. Doesn't seem to be a problem for my installation. Maybe your hose has thicker walls? I have not actually had the hose off. So I don't know exactly how much the tube extends towards the stuffing box. I just have to assume that both the clamps do in fact cinch my hose firmly on the tube. Is the wall of your new rubber hose so thick that you can't finesse past the bolt ends? If you do need to cut the bolts off at the nut, a cut-off wheel on Dremmel tool should work well in the tight spot. If you haven't used these before: 1) they tend to break, so have more than several at hand. 2) They tend to break, and the pieces fly off fast. Eye protection is a must. http://www.dremel.com/en-us/Accessories/Pages/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=409


Our 1980 models have four bolts. RTB's 1982 build seems to have two. Yet another example of how construction changes between the years.

Many thanks again for your input. I much appreciate the photos and advice. Ours do seem to be similar and I'm guessing the new hose is considerably thicker and likely more rigid than yours as it barely fits between the log and the bolts let alone the nuts.

I think I have to cut or remove and replace the bolts with shorter so much appreciate the Dremel advice as I have not used one before. Unfortunately I don't think cutting will be an option for the lower two as I think they are inaccessible. i might try and get away with just cutting the upper two and see if that works - particulalry since replacement of the lower two requires me to use sealant (4200 etc.) which I don't think I can do until Spring due to temperatures here in the NE.

 

[Dalliance]

The wall of the Buck Algonquin shaft log hose is about 50-60% thicker than the wall of the ordinary exhaust hose that was previously (Maybe originally?) installed as shaft log hose on my '82 H30….and apparently others. It also has two layers of fiber reinforcement rather than one.

Rardi, zooming way in on the photo you attached, it looks like you may have some dampness coming in at the log (thru-hull) end of the hose and the hose clamps look tighter at the stuffing box than they do on the log. Can you move the log clamps aft a bit and tighten them down to see if it make a difference or am I wrong in my assumption about the source of dampness?

 

[rardiH36]

Dalliance: Thanks for the observation. Not damp at all. Almost dusty dry actually. Appears that way due to years of dirt/grime buildup and moisture sweating which caused the staining.

When I had the boat hauled last May, I and the yard supervisor took a good look at the log rubber. I had scraped away most of the dirt and grime that had built up underneath the stern tube fitting over who knows how many years. Then he/I could detect no signs of cracking or delamination on the hose. So felt OK to leave in place until the next haul-out. I snugged up the clamps at the time. Maybe too much since as you noted the band looks to have over compressed the rubber.

Viewing that the wall thickness of TMJB's new hose won't fit between the stern tube and the thru-bolts, I am now suspicious that a PO (or more likely the yard staff he hired) might have used exhaust or fuel tank filler hose for the purpose. I definitely will take the area apart and replace the hose and clamps at the next haul-out.