I wrote an earlier post about a point of leaking. Another H27 owner told me about another that was a lot more serious! He was about 1/2 mile out when he started taking on a *lot* of water. He motored and sailed back and the harbor master got a pump going on him. What he found was that one of his cockpit drain hoses had broken off and was letting Lake Michigan in! And from a 1" opening! You BETCHA I'm replacing those hoses this weekend! Remember, our H27's are 20 or more years old, and things like this are already starting to go.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
John Lynch
Where?
Where did the broken hose(s) leak? Inside the boat? Stern lazarette? I take possession of my H-27 Friday week the 4th of May. I will add that to my surprisingly small to do list! Hats off to John Cherubini! Our survey went well and no, I repeat no major items need work. I am so glad I steered myself away from a Pearson 30: she needed alot of work. Have a god one!
Where did the broken hose(s) leak? Inside the boat? Stern lazarette? I take possession of my H-27 Friday week the 4th of May. I will add that to my surprisingly small to do list! Hats off to John Cherubini! Our survey went well and no, I repeat no major items need work. I am so glad I steered myself away from a Pearson 30: she needed alot of work. Have a god one!
J
Jim Rice
Where? There!
Ok, Ok, the hoses lead from the back of the cockpit to two (normally) above-water thruhulls. You can get at them from the lazarette behind the wheel. Just lift up the shelf and you can see the hoses (and steering quadrant, etc.). Also--check for other stuff! I pulled out two buckets, a mop and a SuperSoaker (the latter counted as a gain).
Ok, Ok, the hoses lead from the back of the cockpit to two (normally) above-water thruhulls. You can get at them from the lazarette behind the wheel. Just lift up the shelf and you can see the hoses (and steering quadrant, etc.). Also--check for other stuff! I pulled out two buckets, a mop and a SuperSoaker (the latter counted as a gain).
One again my foot goes into my mouth.
One of the oft-stated criticisms of the early Hunter 25s was that the cockpit drains were too small, and several people have written in here that they had improved them or wanted to. I made the very adamant claim that using radiator hose connected with hose clamps between cockpit pan and hull was the stuff scummy outboard speedboats are made of, and here some are saying that's what their 27s have. Sheesh. I hope to make one thing PERFECTLY CLEAR for anyone (like you newbies) who might have any question about it. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are radiator hoses connected with hose clamps between cockpit pan and hull EVER to be considered seaworthy. The episode in which half of Lake Michigan was let into the bilge is rendered a healthy learning experience only because the dock was half a mile a way. Had it been 20 miles away we would not be snickering but lighting Mass candles for these people. The recommendation I made about the H-25 holds for other boats as well. Over a piece of schedule-40 PVC, well waxed, lay up a tube of mat reinforced with Fabmat or woven roving. Cut to rough length for the desired space between the cockpit and the hull. Install at both ends using PLENTY of fibreglass, slitting cloth tape and making "fingers" to bend down into the tube at each end to form a flange. Then don't grind it all off outside. This thing has to be structural-- it IS keeping the water out of your boat. Don't let it distort the hull– install it loosely (which is easier than making a tight fit anyway) and tape it into place with the fibreglass. If stoutly done it does not require a seacock (which is more likely to fail or leak than a good fibreglass bond). Also, don't even dream of cutting corners by just taping the PVC pipe itself into place as the drain tube. PVC and polyester resin make poor compatriots-- there is no permanent chemical bond taking place between them and (as on my uncle's beach house's roof drains) they will eventually part company and leak somewhere you had rather they didn't. PVC makes a very good mould however. Use any mould-release wax and re-use one piece for the second drain tube. A drain about 1-1/2" or 1-3/4" should be good for a 25; maybe 2" if you are that scared. For the Cherubini 44 I think they were 2", maybe 2-1/2". Some said those were too slow– don't ask me the maths about drain rate and so forth, because I don't care. [wink] Mr Lynch who is buying a 27 ought to look very carefully for stuff like hose being used for permanent drains. Whilst you are at it look over everything else as well. Anything you think might leak WILL-- take it as a fact. "If" is only for the optimist who never went to sea. The Almighty Father may work wonders but not for such idiots as cross seas in unfit sailing craft who soon find that Nature is a MOTHER! --JC
One of the oft-stated criticisms of the early Hunter 25s was that the cockpit drains were too small, and several people have written in here that they had improved them or wanted to. I made the very adamant claim that using radiator hose connected with hose clamps between cockpit pan and hull was the stuff scummy outboard speedboats are made of, and here some are saying that's what their 27s have. Sheesh. I hope to make one thing PERFECTLY CLEAR for anyone (like you newbies) who might have any question about it. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are radiator hoses connected with hose clamps between cockpit pan and hull EVER to be considered seaworthy. The episode in which half of Lake Michigan was let into the bilge is rendered a healthy learning experience only because the dock was half a mile a way. Had it been 20 miles away we would not be snickering but lighting Mass candles for these people. The recommendation I made about the H-25 holds for other boats as well. Over a piece of schedule-40 PVC, well waxed, lay up a tube of mat reinforced with Fabmat or woven roving. Cut to rough length for the desired space between the cockpit and the hull. Install at both ends using PLENTY of fibreglass, slitting cloth tape and making "fingers" to bend down into the tube at each end to form a flange. Then don't grind it all off outside. This thing has to be structural-- it IS keeping the water out of your boat. Don't let it distort the hull– install it loosely (which is easier than making a tight fit anyway) and tape it into place with the fibreglass. If stoutly done it does not require a seacock (which is more likely to fail or leak than a good fibreglass bond). Also, don't even dream of cutting corners by just taping the PVC pipe itself into place as the drain tube. PVC and polyester resin make poor compatriots-- there is no permanent chemical bond taking place between them and (as on my uncle's beach house's roof drains) they will eventually part company and leak somewhere you had rather they didn't. PVC makes a very good mould however. Use any mould-release wax and re-use one piece for the second drain tube. A drain about 1-1/2" or 1-3/4" should be good for a 25; maybe 2" if you are that scared. For the Cherubini 44 I think they were 2", maybe 2-1/2". Some said those were too slow– don't ask me the maths about drain rate and so forth, because I don't care. [wink] Mr Lynch who is buying a 27 ought to look very carefully for stuff like hose being used for permanent drains. Whilst you are at it look over everything else as well. Anything you think might leak WILL-- take it as a fact. "If" is only for the optimist who never went to sea. The Almighty Father may work wonders but not for such idiots as cross seas in unfit sailing craft who soon find that Nature is a MOTHER! --JC
...And I still can't shut up...
By the way– anything below the gunwale (top edge of hull under toe rail) is to be considered "under water" for purposes of seaworthiness, especially on sailboats (and for tax purposes by the US Government, who tax you for all that displacement for Federal Documentation). Therefore even though the cockpit drains of the 27 do technically exit ABOVE the waterline, they MUST be considered integral to seaworthiness, as though their failure could sink the boat. I'm not exactly a pessimist myself but some optimism can kill you and this might be one of those areas. Better safe than sorry– and no, I have never experienced a leak problem like this under way and maybe there's a reason for that. [wink] Thanks for getting the real gist of this.. JC
By the way– anything below the gunwale (top edge of hull under toe rail) is to be considered "under water" for purposes of seaworthiness, especially on sailboats (and for tax purposes by the US Government, who tax you for all that displacement for Federal Documentation). Therefore even though the cockpit drains of the 27 do technically exit ABOVE the waterline, they MUST be considered integral to seaworthiness, as though their failure could sink the boat. I'm not exactly a pessimist myself but some optimism can kill you and this might be one of those areas. Better safe than sorry– and no, I have never experienced a leak problem like this under way and maybe there's a reason for that. [wink] Thanks for getting the real gist of this.. JC
C
Connie Runge (Jim's other half)
And Now To The 37C's Scupper Hoses!
We were having a nice, dry winter on the deck when, to our utter horror and surprise, on a pleasant February Saturday we went to check out 'MIRA' and found an ice block in our bilge to within six inches of the floorboards! Needless to say, we turned on heaters, a heat gun, fans, whatever would produce some melt, and then scurried around to find the source. This turned out to be a two inch crack in the low bend of the port scupper hose. We replaced it in short order, inspected the starboard hose which was still whole, and put it's replacement at the top of our neverending 'to do' list. Thankfully, the several gallons of antifreeze we had dumped in during winter layup had saved us from a total, solid freeze. Over the course of the next weeks, we made frequent visits to remove as much water as possible, sometimes as much as 10 gallons. Thanks, I believe, to the sturdy hull construction, our only damage has been to some of the bilge hoses that were frozen into the ice. I KNOW we have added to our winter visit inspection list.
We were having a nice, dry winter on the deck when, to our utter horror and surprise, on a pleasant February Saturday we went to check out 'MIRA' and found an ice block in our bilge to within six inches of the floorboards! Needless to say, we turned on heaters, a heat gun, fans, whatever would produce some melt, and then scurried around to find the source. This turned out to be a two inch crack in the low bend of the port scupper hose. We replaced it in short order, inspected the starboard hose which was still whole, and put it's replacement at the top of our neverending 'to do' list. Thankfully, the several gallons of antifreeze we had dumped in during winter layup had saved us from a total, solid freeze. Over the course of the next weeks, we made frequent visits to remove as much water as possible, sometimes as much as 10 gallons. Thanks, I believe, to the sturdy hull construction, our only damage has been to some of the bilge hoses that were frozen into the ice. I KNOW we have added to our winter visit inspection list.
Of drain hoses and 'standing rigging'.
Don B made a good point to me in an EMail about the fibreglass being potentially overkill for cockpit drains when every other thru-hull uses hose. My thinking is probably woefully anal-retentive, but here goes. My brother and I once had a music studio in the house. Both of us got so frustrated with all the electrical wiring involved that we spent inordinate hours trying to get it all straight, not just in our heads but on the floor, etc. Once he actually dropped a Les Paul on a concrete garage floor trying to untangled stuff round his feet. It was sickening. So I arrived at the concept of 'standing rigging' vs 'running rigging'. Standing rigging was everything that never moves-- to and from amps and speakers, to and from tape decks, all the 115VAC, etc. --and running rigging was that subject to change either during performances or by altering set-upsÐ mic cables, guitar cables, stomp-box wires, etc. We soon found that the more standing rigging we could tuck under carpets, staple to walls, lead under amps, etc., the neater and safer the place got and the saner we were just being in the room. It took a lot of cable but when it was sorted right it was a breeze to get stuff done. To me, anything going to a piece of hardware is not exactly what you'd call a permanent part of the boat. You must always allow for the removal and replacement of the piece of fallible hardware, especially whilst at sea. But the cockpit pan and the hull ought never to be separated, especially at sea. My rule of thumb is to differentiate between stuff that MUST be kept accessible for maintenance and stuff that ought to be safeguarded from EVER needing maintenance. The more you can put into the latter category the safer you'll be and the more sleep you'll get. There was once a story of a British bloke who sailed across the Atlantic. Lacking the motivation or space to carry tools sufficient to repair EVERYTHING, he decided to simply throw overboard anything that could not be immediately fixed. He arrived at the dock with no engine, no toilet, no stove, half the winches missing, etc. Cute, possibly stupid, but consider how much stuff failed on him. And maybe it was all junk anyway. But even with decent equipment you can never guarantee that nothing will go wrong even with what you just inspected and maintained. It is therefore crucial that you avoid maintenance worries by eliminating the potential for failure as much as prudently possible. How many times do any of us inspect the cockpit drains on the boat? How many less prudent sailors may be surprised by some problem on their boat that they never realised COULD become a problem? This is my point. BTWÐ I don't know if I mentioned it but the Cherubini 44 used 2- or 2-1/4-inch fibreglass tubes (laid up over well-waxed cardboard tubes that the fibreglass cloth came on) from cockpit to hull. If anything they were too narrow but they did add rigidity (to an already rock-solid hull) and never leaked. JC Cherubini Art & Nautical Design Org.
Don B made a good point to me in an EMail about the fibreglass being potentially overkill for cockpit drains when every other thru-hull uses hose. My thinking is probably woefully anal-retentive, but here goes. My brother and I once had a music studio in the house. Both of us got so frustrated with all the electrical wiring involved that we spent inordinate hours trying to get it all straight, not just in our heads but on the floor, etc. Once he actually dropped a Les Paul on a concrete garage floor trying to untangled stuff round his feet. It was sickening. So I arrived at the concept of 'standing rigging' vs 'running rigging'. Standing rigging was everything that never moves-- to and from amps and speakers, to and from tape decks, all the 115VAC, etc. --and running rigging was that subject to change either during performances or by altering set-upsÐ mic cables, guitar cables, stomp-box wires, etc. We soon found that the more standing rigging we could tuck under carpets, staple to walls, lead under amps, etc., the neater and safer the place got and the saner we were just being in the room. It took a lot of cable but when it was sorted right it was a breeze to get stuff done. To me, anything going to a piece of hardware is not exactly what you'd call a permanent part of the boat. You must always allow for the removal and replacement of the piece of fallible hardware, especially whilst at sea. But the cockpit pan and the hull ought never to be separated, especially at sea. My rule of thumb is to differentiate between stuff that MUST be kept accessible for maintenance and stuff that ought to be safeguarded from EVER needing maintenance. The more you can put into the latter category the safer you'll be and the more sleep you'll get. There was once a story of a British bloke who sailed across the Atlantic. Lacking the motivation or space to carry tools sufficient to repair EVERYTHING, he decided to simply throw overboard anything that could not be immediately fixed. He arrived at the dock with no engine, no toilet, no stove, half the winches missing, etc. Cute, possibly stupid, but consider how much stuff failed on him. And maybe it was all junk anyway. But even with decent equipment you can never guarantee that nothing will go wrong even with what you just inspected and maintained. It is therefore crucial that you avoid maintenance worries by eliminating the potential for failure as much as prudently possible. How many times do any of us inspect the cockpit drains on the boat? How many less prudent sailors may be surprised by some problem on their boat that they never realised COULD become a problem? This is my point. BTWÐ I don't know if I mentioned it but the Cherubini 44 used 2- or 2-1/4-inch fibreglass tubes (laid up over well-waxed cardboard tubes that the fibreglass cloth came on) from cockpit to hull. If anything they were too narrow but they did add rigidity (to an already rock-solid hull) and never leaked. JC Cherubini Art & Nautical Design Org.
J
Jim Rice
Flexing in 'glass tubes
Consider this a followup to my original post: I inspected the hoses this weekend--and will not be replacing them soon. They are: old, sturdy, made for this application and curved. Really curved. They cross, such that the stbd drain goes out of the port thruhull. I will have to look for new hoses carefully. My marina, a very, very good one, only stocks that thin black corrugated hose that is used in the building trade for sump drain pumps. I won't have that stuff below my waterline (and I regard Mr. J's comments about what should be considered "below the waterline" to be spot on). I have two concerns about the proposed solid fiberglass hoses: one is making such a curved assembly in place, and other is about connecting the cockpit pan with the hull by a rigid tube. IF the tube were to break (without a cutoff valve installed in place of the glass-in thruhull), you would be in the same hot water (or very cold water in Lake Michigan). Also trying to fit the drains around the steering rack would be a pretty problem. The installation of the galley sink drain and engine water intake is superb: thruhull valves and both intakes contained in a dam of sorts. The exhaust and cockpit drains have no valves and in case of a leak vent into the hull as a whole. So what's the real-world answer to this? I'd love to throw the question out to HOW as a whole. In the mean time, I'm going to keep a close eye on those hoses....
Consider this a followup to my original post: I inspected the hoses this weekend--and will not be replacing them soon. They are: old, sturdy, made for this application and curved. Really curved. They cross, such that the stbd drain goes out of the port thruhull. I will have to look for new hoses carefully. My marina, a very, very good one, only stocks that thin black corrugated hose that is used in the building trade for sump drain pumps. I won't have that stuff below my waterline (and I regard Mr. J's comments about what should be considered "below the waterline" to be spot on). I have two concerns about the proposed solid fiberglass hoses: one is making such a curved assembly in place, and other is about connecting the cockpit pan with the hull by a rigid tube. IF the tube were to break (without a cutoff valve installed in place of the glass-in thruhull), you would be in the same hot water (or very cold water in Lake Michigan). Also trying to fit the drains around the steering rack would be a pretty problem. The installation of the galley sink drain and engine water intake is superb: thruhull valves and both intakes contained in a dam of sorts. The exhaust and cockpit drains have no valves and in case of a leak vent into the hull as a whole. So what's the real-world answer to this? I'd love to throw the question out to HOW as a whole. In the mean time, I'm going to keep a close eye on those hoses....
Re: rigid fibreglass drain tubes.
Jim's point about rigid fibreglass tubes actually FITTING into the place allotted for them is perhaps the best reason not to use them. As for them flexing-- I have two responses to that. 1. Yes, they CAN flex. It depends on where they are. Long thin-wall 'glass tubes connecting a flimsy cockpit pan bottom to a wide flat spot on a hull prone to oil-canning is definitely a recipe for flexing. The application I spoke of assumes that where they ought to go is at a 'corner' of the boat-- under the quarter, forward of the transom, near the curve of the skeg-- where flexing SHOULD be minimal. I honestly would have to look at your boat to see how it ought to be done. 2. My experience with this is limited to EARLY Hunters and the production of Cherubini 44s. The C-44 used rigid 2- or 2-1/2-inch tubes as drains connecting a VERY hefty cockpit pan to an even more heftily-laid-up hull. No one ever complained that a Cherubini 44 hull flexed. Those boats were built like tanks (and were still lightweight). The biggest fear I would have about rigid drain tubes is taking a VERY local hit by something VERY unforgiving at PRECISELY the spot where the end of the tube meets the hull. But if you think about it, how likely is that, and how likely is it that no matter what your drains arrangement such a hit would do damage to the drain outlets anyway? If you have smacked the quarter below the waterline with something that hard you are in serious trouble anyway. (That's what rosaries are for!) My point in the former post was that your effort ought to be to minimise any possibility of something requiring maintenance without yor knowing about it. That includes drain hoses hidden under quadrants and under cockpit pans (how often do you go prowling round under your cockpit? --yet I bet you check the head seacocks religiously). Jim's boat having 'dams' holding the seacocks in a semi-watertight area makes a lot of sense-- nice work, if you can get it. Blame me for being squeamish but relying SOLELY on hardware integrity or maintenance rather than design forethought is a little too much for a boatbuilder to accept. J Cherubini II Cherubini Art & Nautical Design Org.
Jim's point about rigid fibreglass tubes actually FITTING into the place allotted for them is perhaps the best reason not to use them. As for them flexing-- I have two responses to that. 1. Yes, they CAN flex. It depends on where they are. Long thin-wall 'glass tubes connecting a flimsy cockpit pan bottom to a wide flat spot on a hull prone to oil-canning is definitely a recipe for flexing. The application I spoke of assumes that where they ought to go is at a 'corner' of the boat-- under the quarter, forward of the transom, near the curve of the skeg-- where flexing SHOULD be minimal. I honestly would have to look at your boat to see how it ought to be done. 2. My experience with this is limited to EARLY Hunters and the production of Cherubini 44s. The C-44 used rigid 2- or 2-1/2-inch tubes as drains connecting a VERY hefty cockpit pan to an even more heftily-laid-up hull. No one ever complained that a Cherubini 44 hull flexed. Those boats were built like tanks (and were still lightweight). The biggest fear I would have about rigid drain tubes is taking a VERY local hit by something VERY unforgiving at PRECISELY the spot where the end of the tube meets the hull. But if you think about it, how likely is that, and how likely is it that no matter what your drains arrangement such a hit would do damage to the drain outlets anyway? If you have smacked the quarter below the waterline with something that hard you are in serious trouble anyway. (That's what rosaries are for!) My point in the former post was that your effort ought to be to minimise any possibility of something requiring maintenance without yor knowing about it. That includes drain hoses hidden under quadrants and under cockpit pans (how often do you go prowling round under your cockpit? --yet I bet you check the head seacocks religiously). Jim's boat having 'dams' holding the seacocks in a semi-watertight area makes a lot of sense-- nice work, if you can get it. Blame me for being squeamish but relying SOLELY on hardware integrity or maintenance rather than design forethought is a little too much for a boatbuilder to accept. J Cherubini II Cherubini Art & Nautical Design Org.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.