Stripping - start inside or outside?

[Larks]

On my H28 - I'm finally able to start some regular activity on restoring my H28 and am kinda' wondering where to start first.

I had planned to start by stripping and painting the interior, then basically rebuilding from the inside out: reframe the cockpit area for a bigger cockpit; repair a couple of deck frames; fit new stainless engine bed; new tanks; wiring and plumbing; furnishings and bulkheads; new deck; new cabin top etc.

The intent had been to leave the exterior of the hull relatively untouched until last, ie leave the existing paint on to protect it as long as possible until the very last job.








Externally I expect, when I strip back the paint, to possibly find a few dings and bog holes that may need attention of some sort, possibly cutting out some bog and fairing in some huon pine pieces. Also I intend to reduce the number of through hull fittings so will need to fill those with huon plugs as well.

As it turns out though the hull has dried out and opened up quite a bit along the deadwood, plus a few of the resorcinol glued huon pine strip planks have failed along the glue lines. There is also a bit of a mess along the hull/deck line where it's obviously had a bit of a nudge up against a jetty or another boat during a race at some stage, this might need a couple of new short huon pine strips glued amidships.





So my question is this: What would you do?

Proceed as planned and work from the inside out?

Or strip the hull paint and deal with the exterior first?

[RFNK]

Good question! In my case, I gutted the whole boat to expose everything, then I'm removing the deck, sheer planks and garboards to expose everything. I'll also remove anything else that's suspect so I'm removing several plank sections, about half the frames and a bit of the stern post and transom. I'll rebuild in the following order, I think:

1. Repair stern post but leave the drive shaft way til later
2. Reframing and planking, sort of staggered to maintain hull shape
3. Remove ballast and repair keel, if necessary
4. Sheath keel and hull below waterline IF I decide to go that way
5. Fit engine etc.
6. Rebuild rudder
7. Rebuild interior
8. Rebuild deck
9. Install hardware and complete finishing, including sheathing (IIGTW)
10. Repair and replace rigging
11. Go sailing

I think the only real bit of advice I can give you is to leave the deck replacement until as late in the process as possible as everything, just about, is easier with the deck removed. I'd also add an opinion - it's going to be easier to effect interior fitting, especially the cockpit, coaming etc. if any hull repairs are already completed and it's also going to be easier to get at the hull if you've taken out but not replaced interior fitting. I guess I'd suggest getting the hull in good shape first, whacking some sort of protective undercoat or something on it and then starting on the interior. . Rick

[SunshineBridge]

Hi Larks,
Wouldn't you complete the hull repairs before starting on any finishing of the interior, thus avoiding re-work. So I think that means strip the hull, fix as needed, prime then progress to the interior. This will also mean that the interior remains clean and as dust free as possible once finished.

This approach gets all the really messy work out of the way first. There may be an argument to paint it sooner than later to stop it drying out, but to my mind it's moisture content will be too high to get a good bond everywhere.

That's a hell of a gap on your dead wood. It looks similar to some areas of mine, but up nearer the stem on mine. What's your plan to deal with that?

[Larks]

I guess in truth I'm thinking along the same lines as you guys - ie get stuck into the nasty work of stripping the outside of the hull, 'just haven't been able to convince myself to change tack. I'd certainly planned to leave the deck and cabin off until the last thing when the interior is all rebuilt and painted up.

Graham, good question about the gaps and one which I'm still contemplating. There is some thought that it'll eventually close up again when wet, but I'll believe that when I see it.

A few on the forum have suggested soaking the hull with an irrigation system of some sort. Because I can't get plastic under the hull to form a "pool", I'm considering building a sort of close fitting dam around the hull from some cheap ply, maybe sikaflexed or silicon sealed to the steel beam that the hull is sitting on, and filling it with water and pool salt.

I'm tempted to get some "slick seam" into the gaps in the actual strip planking, as I won't be able to reglue them. I hope that this should provide a seal when the hull moves in future.

The alternative may be to do as Rick is thinking and glass below the water line, which is where the openings have occurred, presumably because the timber has swollen after build when wet and compressed the fibres and then shrunk back to it's "when glued" size.

[RFNK]

Greg
Your deadwood has opened up a lot more than the Twister (which is now bone dry) and a lot more than the Folkboat did in 3 years out of the water, and I'm sure it'd be a lot more humid where you are than it is here in sunny NSW. If I were you I wouldn't start wetting it all out etc., I'd start removing a bit of timber - maybe take off the garboard and see if you can find out what the problem is, if there is one. Do you know what timber the keel is made from? By the way, rather than glassing with all the possible problems associated with that, have you considered runing some soft splines into the gaps between your planking? That way, if the planks don't swell back to the right fit again, you'll still end up with a tight, dry hull. I should make it clear that I'm only considering sheathing the Twister as a way of strengthening the hull - I worry that the mahogany planks are a little light for the job I want this boat to do. If I do sheath, it'll be with at least 2 layers of biaxial and I'm still pondering whether to apply double-diagonal layers of a suitable timber instead. Rick

[PeterSibley]

What are the backbone /stem /stern timbers Greg ? Is she copper fastened in the backbone ?

[wizbang 13]

You mention strip planking but I can't tell that from the photos. If it is strip planked, I would grind it all to wood and get it to dry even more. Run a skilsaw down the cracked seams (1/3 depth to avoid fastenings) and pump epoxe /403 back in , sheath all af outside (not just to wl)with2 coats of dynel. Inside just resin (epoxe of course) You may be able to yard down on the keel bolts.

[Larks]

What are the backbone /stem /stern timbers Greg ? Is she copper fastened in the backbone ?

I "think" them to be possibly celery top pine, but only because that was suggested to me because of her age and where she was built (Tassie), however I don't know how to confirm that.

As far as I can tell the main keel bolts, those through to the lead at least, are stainless but there are also a number of what appear to be copper drifts that don't go right through to the lead. Though as Jay suggested in a much earlier post, the colour that I'm seeing in these keel drifts may be the result of electrolysis.

I will investigate aft of the lead tomorrow to see if I can tell what is holding that aft
length of deadwood with the huge gaps to the hull. I can see through the gap well enough to see the rods going through there (which I'd assumed were also stainless.)

Wizbang, I'd asked re splining the openings in the strip planking in an earlier thread and had been warned off of that option, I believe the argument against it being mostly because of the compression of the wood fibres as the timber swells again. Do you have experience with this concept where it has worked before? The hull is huon pine so the idea of glassing the hull is not really preferable, other than to resolve the problems of the large gaps in the deadwood.

I have also considered the possible need to replace that middle length of deadwood behind the lead (closest in the last photo that appears to be floating there) but would like to avoid that unless absolutely necessary.

[Larks]

This shows the strip planking where I have removed some bolts that were holding the sarboard quarter knee in place. Be the way, the quarter knee was bolted to the hull planking only on the side of the hull and the transom frame at the stern. Does that seem right to be bolted only to the hull planking?

[SunshineBridge]

You mention strip planking but I can't tell that from the photos. If it is strip planked, I would grind it all to wood and get it to dry even more. Run a skilsaw down the cracked seams (1/3 depth to avoid fastenings) and pump epoxe /403 back in , sheath all af outside (not just to wl)with2 coats of dynel. Inside just resin (epoxe of course) You may be able to yard down on the keel bolts.

I think the Epoxy idea is a sound one, but only if you make absolutely sure that you have waterproofed the deadwood (and all around it) by letting thin epoxy soak in. There is some special stuff to do this with you can get in the US, but not available here in the UK, http://www.rotdoctor.com/products/product.html#sealers

CPES Clear Penetrating Epoxy Sealer.

But that gap is mighty wide for filler... I think letting in a repair and running in some new bolts might be better.

I was looking at the photo again, is the hull resting on those essentialy unsupported bolts or is there something else taking the weight which I guess is roughly 8 tons? maybe you'll come into the shop one day and find the gap gone

[wizbang 13]

I have lots of experience with strip planked boats. Built my own 34'er 26 years ago (in 3 months) and that was not my first or last. If the boat was carvel planked I would not even begin to suggest to dry it out. As far as future swelling would crush fibers when the boat swells up, well you don't want the planking to get wet, never mind swell up.Those knees are not nessessary in a strip planked boat. Carvel,yes.I don't even put a clamp,shelf,stringers.or hook in mine, Ive sailed it 60,000 miles, been in countless gales and 2 hurricanes at sea. Plywood decks provide the same or better stiffness. I wonder if those keel bolts are monel, not SS.Slickseam is okay stuff for a temp repair to nuisance leaks ,but it lubricates the seams and can let the planks move on themselves. Your boat wants to be STIFF and DRY!Consider cutting kerfs in the deadwood, down to, but not into, any bolts,to dry it and stabilize it. Fill them in with same epoxe/403 when done. You have the advantage of being able to get it dry dry cuz' your home and have time.Many boats have dry bilges but the wood is wet. Of course this is normal for a carvel, but a truly dry boat is within your reach.

[PeterSibley]

Greg , I have no experience of strip planking so I'll let wizbang advise you there , but on the back bone ..I can't see how it will ever be dry .It's not that kind of construction ! Copper used to be the norm in Oz for backbone fastenings ,it had the advantage of being able to stretch as the timbers swell .

I Have to admit that pulling that backbone up a bit tighter is attractive ! Even though the timbers have shrunk and crushed they should take up ? or do you think I'm optomistic ?

I'd like to come and have a look one day .

[Larks]

Graham, it is pretty evenly blocked along the length of the hull but since the shrinkage all of the weight seems to be on the lead up forward, there may also possibly be some weight on the splayed arms of my cradle aft, (I haven't yet been game to loosen them off to test that theory though).

The reason that I'm somewhat hesitant about the CPES type of treatment is that the beauty of huon pine is that it won't rot, so other than wetting out the timber to epoxy in a spline (if I didn't use resourcinol), there wouldn't seem a need to seal it with CPES (would there?)

Wiz, I do like the concept of splining the strip plank seams where they have opened up but you're the first on the forum so far to encourage the idea. The planks, which are @1" square, are each vertically nailed, assumedly pretty much in their centres, so I should be able fit a 1/4" to 3/8" x 1/8" spline to those half a dozen or so openings in the planking that need it.

Peter, I'll get in and clean up under the hull today and get a clearer look and photos, also of the keel bolts.

I really don't know how well the dead wood timbers will take up, hence the thought of building a bit of a close fitting "dam" around it to soak it for a while and see what it does. The keel bolts all look, feel and "sound" solid, so I'd like to avoid pulling them if possible.

What would you think of splining those big deadwood gaps if they don't take up completely?

I'd like to come and have a look one day .

I really do need to organise a bit of an EBS up here soon, but I'd love to get you up here any time regardless of that. Do you have any reason to be up this way at any time that you could tie in a visit with?

[Larks]

Those knees are not nessessary in a strip planked boat.

I guess, then, explaining why they are bolted to the planking. I reckon I'll still replace them anyway for the experience. This restoration for me is equally about the investment in learning as it is in the outcome so I'm keen to cut and shape them and see them fitting nicely and properly before cobering them in again.

[PeterSibley]

Peter, I'll get in and clean up under the hull today and get a clearer look and photos, also of the keel bolts.

I really don't know how well the dead wood timbers will take up, hence the thought of building a bit of a close fitting "dam" around it to soak it for a while and see what it does. The keel bolts all look, feel and "sound" solid, so I'd like to avoid pulling them if possible.

What would you think of splining those big deadwood gaps if they don't take up completely?



I really do need to organise a bit of an EBS up here soon, but I'd love to get you up here any time regardless of that. Do you have any reason to be up this way at any time that you could tie in a visit with?

Those gaps are pretty big ! I'd imagine from here that the timber has been crushed when wet and not returned to size on drying .Perhaps more of the same species ? Celery top or even western red as it's rot resistant and pretty soft ? If you wind on the nuts can you close things up at all ? Qld red ? Beech ?

I'm not planning on going up that way for any other reason but I'm taking it pretty easy at the moment (post flu ) and it might be good time before I get right and feel able to put in full time work again .

When I look at that strip planking I always think of it as the perfect base fpr cold moulding .That would solve a multitude of problems !

[wizbang 13]

Whoa back up a sec. I do not encourage splining. I said epoxe /403. Which is epoxe brand a,b or c with west 403microfibers. Solid epoxe, hydraulicly pumped ( good putty knife technique) into the saw kerfs.

[Captain Connor]

nice looking boat. I dont have any comment to your questions, but would like to ask a question of my own.

Im restoring a Herreshoff Fish right now in Chatham and i'd like to deck to look like yours, as in not be there at all.

What was your method for removing the deck while leaving the deck beams in such good condition?

My deck is cedar with an 1/8" layer of ply then canvas over that. The canvas rips up easily, and I can chisel and peel away the plywood pretty well also. But most of the fasteners I find in the cedar are either buried in epoxy or break when I try to remove them...any advice?

[Larks]

CC, my deck lifted off reasonably easy, leaving some resorcinol residue and most of the screw fasteners behind. Fortunately I've been able to remove most of the screws with either a screw driver or a pair of multigrips (where the screw heads had busted apart). I do still have one or two to remove that broke close to the frame but I expect that I'll drill them out and plug the frames with some dowell plugs.

One of the other guys on here used an impact screwdriver and it sounds like that was quite succesful in a similar situation to yours: http://www.makita.com.au/products/po...ver?Prodid=143

My rub rails that I'm about to remove have had the holes plugged with epoxy and I've found that I need to dig the wood out around them and then tap out the remaining epoxy with the tip of the screwdriver to get to them.

[PeterSibley]

That impact driver could be very good at shearing off small sb screws ...but then who cares ! They're gone !

[Larks]

Hans seemed to indicate that it was actually a bit more succesful at getting them out wthout breaking them than brute force, here's the thread:


".when I bought this impact driver, I honestly thought it was going to have a bit more torque. It is listed as having 165nm. Whatever that number means() it has enough for most of my needs, but starts 'impacting' a lot earlier than I was suspecting it would. Whatever the case, torque-wise I suppose mine is a pretty weak one. I can't conceive of any screw that I could not easily remove by hand that this thing would shear or strip- yet at the same time it will easily drive or un-drive with no damage to screw or bit, a screw into/out of something that my regular drivers (electric and hand) will likely fail at (by shearing, stripping the head, damaging the bit, etc)."

http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/show...t=99288&page=2

[Larks]

My apologies Wiz', you did say that, I just didn't read it properly, (doh!).

A few more photos with the crap cleared away to see if they shed any more light on what I have here.

The weight seems to be completely on the lead keel and the three sets of blocks that it is sitting on, which it has been doing quite happily for the last 2 1/2 years while the deadwood aft of it has gradually shrunk away.





Keel bolts "seem" to be a mix of copper and stainless or monel. Those that only run into the deadwood appear to be copper but any forward that also run into the lead appear to be stainless or monel.






and the one forward of that




those last two together:

[Larks]

You might notice in some of the photos above that there are some traces of glass over the top piece of deadwood, that is the one above the middle piece that has lost all of its paint, and on up to the hull a bit. It doesn't run very far up the hull, maybe an inch or two, and didn't come down over the unpainted piece of deadwood (which, by the way I haven't actually stripped, this one seems to have shed most of its paint all on its own). The glass covers what I assume to be oakum in the top seam.






As for the deadwood itself, I'm really not sure what it is, it's certainly too dark to be celery top. The shoe aft of the lead seems to be a different and far more dense timber than that above it, but both appear to be quite dark after a quick sand back to check it. I thought I might be able to pick up the smell when sanding it but couldn't. When I get a bit more serious about stripping the paint and sanding it back might havemore success.



(sorry, couldn't rotate the above picture for some reason, right is bottom)

[PeterSibley]

OK noted !

Hans seemed to indicate that it was actually a bit more succesful at getting them out wthout breaking them than brute force, here's the thread:


".when I bought this impact driver, I honestly thought it was going to have a bit more torque. It is listed as having 165nm. Whatever that number means() it has enough for most of my needs, but starts 'impacting' a lot earlier than I was suspecting it would. Whatever the case, torque-wise I suppose mine is a pretty weak one. I can't conceive of any screw that I could not easily remove by hand that this thing would shear or strip- yet at the same time it will easily drive or un-drive with no damage to screw or bit, a screw into/out of something that my regular drivers (electric and hand) will likely fail at (by shearing, stripping the head, damaging the bit, etc)."

http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/show...t=99288&page=2

[PeterSibley]

I reckon a close up look would be worthwhile Greg .

[Larks]

I'll put the kettle on!

[RFNK]

Hans seemed to indicate that it was actually a bit more succesful at getting them out wthout breaking them than brute force, here's the thread:


".when I bought this impact driver, I honestly thought it was going to have a bit more torque. It is listed as having 165nm. Whatever that number means() it has enough for most of my needs, but starts 'impacting' a lot earlier than I was suspecting it would. Whatever the case, torque-wise I suppose mine is a pretty weak one. I can't conceive of any screw that I could not easily remove by hand that this thing would shear or strip- yet at the same time it will easily drive or un-drive with no damage to screw or bit, a screw into/out of something that my regular drivers (electric and hand) will likely fail at (by shearing, stripping the head, damaging the bit, etc)."

http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/show...t=99288&page=2
__________________
Larks

I followed Hans' idea and am very happy with it. For removing screws, slotted or Phillips, impact drivers are fantastic!

The whole idea of whether a strip planked boat can be completely sealed by sheathing to become a stiff and dry `monocoque' is a very interesting. It's the dilemma I face with the Twister as the splined carvel setup is similar to strip planking. Cold-moulding over the whole lot is attractive too but with your boat Greg, I think you'll need to find ways to deal with that very unstable keel area. If you sheath, you'll need to fill all those gaps in the keel, remove the ballast and wrap the sheathing right around the timber keel. I think ..... Rick

[Larks]

OK, so my first priority is to get some more paint off of the hull and give the deadwood a good long soaking in salty water to see if/how much it will take up. While that's stewing away I think I'll get inside and start stripping and undercoating in there.

Interestingly, after a bit more of a play this arvo, I found that most of the deadwood above that "floating"piece of deadwood is glassed over, including the deadwood in front of the rudder pintals up as far as the top pintal.

I'm prepared to fit some splines into the gaps if they don't take up or worst case, as Peter suggested on the phone this arvo, cut the keel bolts IWO of that floating bit of deadwood and replace it altogether. With the weight on the lead that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Meanwhile, here are some old pics t show the gradual shrinkage:

17 Jul 07, when she came out:




5 July 08, when I started to become concerned with it (but couldn't do much about it, being based in Darwin for work):


25 Oct 08 - it had been a dry winter:

[donald branscom]

The deck of the boat is like the foundation of a house. Imagine the boat upside down.

I would agree not to do anything to the deck until all the other work is done.

Looks like a lot of work. very scary!!

[donald branscom]

The deck of the boat is like the foundation of a house. Imagine the boat upside down.

I would agree not to do anything to the deck until all the other work is done.

Looks like a lot of work. very scary!!
Good luck.

[Larks]

The deck of the boat is like the foundation of a house. Imagine the boat upside down.

I would agree not to do anything to the deck until all the other work is done.

Looks like a lot of work. very scary!!
Good luck.

I don't quite get you on the deck/foundation analogy Don', I would have thought the keel timbers to be the foundations. Certainly nothing is going to happen with the deck until hull and interior are sorted, but thanks for the good wishes.

[SunshineBridge]

Hi Larks,
If the keel bolts haven't streached and if the bottom of the keel hasn't bent, I wonder if something else has given out to create that gap. It could just be the deadwood compressing, but it seems likely that the force applied by such a large piece of wood expanding would have shifted something else. Can you get to the top of those bronze bolts to see if the heads have sunk in?
Perhaps you'll see more by removing the paintwork above the deadwood.

A great thread this, very interesting, I do hope you can get this sorted.
Best regards,

[donald branscom]

I don't quite get you on the deck/foundation analogy Don', I would have thought the keel timbers to be the foundations. Certainly nothing is going to happen with the deck until hull and interior are sorted, but thanks for the good wishes.

The hull does not have much strength from changing shape UNTIL the deck is built.
I understand that since the keel is heavy and is on the bottom that you would normally think of that as the foundation. But it really is the deck that is the foundation of the boat hull.

One half of all the Liberty ships built in the USA during WWII suffered deck fractures(1500 to be exact), that cracked at the corners of the hatches and then the crack opened to the bullworks and that was it. The hull then broke apart. That is WHY hatches now have very specific methods of construction.
I gave a book about all of this WITH PHOTOS to the Sausalito, CA., public library.
IT may be in special collections.

Read Howard Chappelle's book, "BOATBUILDING" if you get a chance.
Also "American Small Sailing Craft" by the same author.

Think about this way...... If the keel (heavy part) came off the boat, would the hull break apart? NO.

[Larks]

Can you hear the sound of a penny dropping Don? That does make sense when you explain it like that.

I guess as a house builder I've thought as the deck frame much like the trusses for a roof, holding the walls together from splaying apart when the weight of the roof goes on.

Graham, the movement is definately shrinkage (on a very large scale) of that piece of deadwood in the centre. The keel bolts haven't moved and still feel quite firm.......actually everything still feels quite firm, even that shrunken piece of deadwood stills sits there quite firmly, ia no lateral movement at all. I've been off helping my brother in law today but I'll hopefully get a bit of time tomorrow or on the weekend to strip a decent amount of paint along the keel, as well as the bit of glass around the rudder post area.

[Larks]

Bit of an update after talking to a local boat builder mate (my old boss at Azzura Yachts), he's pretty confident that the gaps in the deadwood will close up when she gets properly wet, if not completely than at least very close to it. After it's been well and truly soaked and I can see what gaps may are going to remain I could fill them with splines.

Because the hull is quite stable and solid, despite appearances, his suggestion is to get to work on the interior and then the deck etc and leave the hull until last. He's not too fussed about the idea of soaking the hull in a plastic "dam" while doing the work (ie I can if I feel the incliation), but suggests that when I do drop her in the drink to fill the cracks with the cheapest mastic that I can find so that it can be squashed out easily as it takes up without wasting money on sikaflex or anything like that (though I like the idea of using slickseam as it has the rot resistant properties of beeswax - or so I understand).

[py]

Hiya greg. Hard to tell from the photos (hard to tell in the flesh too I guess) but working on the deck as foundation theory, is it possible that the whole hull has shrunk and pulled up, leaving the keel/deadwood kind of hanging off it? Has the lead ballast dropped at all, or is that well supported.
Phil

[Larks]

Hi Phil, no it's all well supported and solid and sitting firmly on the lead. The deck framing is still all in place, except where the cabin was removed where I've braced it from splaying apart. None of the deck framing or ribs have moved as far as I can see. It really is a case of that centre piece of deadwood (that looks like it is floating in the middle there) having shrunk more than anything else. All the other deadwood and keel timbers have shrunk somewhat as well but not to that extent. Some of the huon strip plank below the waterline has also shrunk slightly leaving a few small cracks along failed glue lines.

[py]

Hmm looks scary, but hopefully it'll just swell back up with a pool around it. Sounds like a good start.
Good luck
Phil

[wizbang 13]

Larks,I think the deck strength analogy applies very little to a strip plank hull. That the boats deadwood was built as a carvel boat ( probably per His Highness LFH) then strip planked ,could be the source of the problem. That being said, the shrunken deadwood is not really a problem. Your decision is whether to swell it back up or stabilize it @ maximum shrinkage. The same goes for the rest of the boat, wet it or go dry. I like dry, but it sounds like you're going wet. I've seen many old wrecked carvel boats on the beach and all that was left was the deck. I've seen a few wrecked strip planked boats , they tend to have their shape intact even on the beach.

[RFNK]

Greg, I wouldn't sit the boat in a bath - I think this effort is just not worth it! You already know that the timber will swell - that's how it was when you took her out of the water. I'd just use caulking or soft splines or both to seal it up a bit prior to launching, as long as you're sure there's no other problem such as broken keel bolts etc. These bits of deadwood can take 6 months to swell back to their wet shape. Sitting the whole thing in a bath for 6 months could create other problems with condensation etc. Rick

[Larks]

That sounds like good advice Rick, as with Wizbangs and my boat builder mate's thoughts, wetting now seems like more work than the benefit it might bring. I'd wondered about the time it might take to swell again and what other problems a bath full of pool salt might create. While I spend my time fitting out I reckon I need to keep an eye out for a good 240V run dry emergency sump pump for when I leaveit to take up - I had a couple when I worked on Hayman and they had great output and could be left unattended as they could happily run dry without fear of burning out.

[SunshineBridge]

That sounds like good advice Rick, as with Wizbangs and my boat builder mate's thoughts, wetting now seems like more work than the benefit it might bring. I'd wondered about the time it might take to swell again and what other problems a bath full of pool salt might create. While I spend my time fitting out I reckon I need to keep an eye out for a good 240V run dry emergency sump pump for when I leaveit to take up - I had a couple when I worked on Hayman and they had great output and could be left unattended as they could happily run dry without fear of burning out.

I'm just installing a second and larger bilge pump operated by a float switch. For such a critical system I can't understand why people only install one bilge pump. That way if something bad does happen, I've got more than double the bailing capacity to keep her electrics etc. dry.

[Larks]

I'm just installing a second and larger bilge pump operated by a float switch. For such a critical system I can't understand why people only install one bilge pump. That way if something bad does happen, I've got more than double the bailing capacity to keep her electrics etc. dry.

Good move. Do you have them wired directly to your batteries? And seperate battery for each?

[SunshineBridge]

Bear in mind Sunshine Bridge is moored on a river (or will be if it kills me!!!) with a perm mains elec supply. So the batteries are continualy charged & optimised.

I plan to also fit one of those mobile network alarms so that the unit sends me an SMS if the water level trips the second bilge pump, the charging stops or whatever. These units are so cheap when compared to the damage that can get done by the bilge failing. Therefore I don't see the need for seperate batteries. My electrical setup is 3 leisure batteries and one stating battery.

There are some switchless bilge pumps which I want to fit as the primary, these run intermittently, if they have more than free load current going to the motor it keeps running till the current drops to free load. i.e. if there's no water in the bilge it just switches off. These use a very small amount of electricity but have the advantage that there is no switch to fail, get jammed etc. My secondary bilge pump is perhaps 3 x the size it needs to be.

Having seen the damage that was caused to the interior of Sunshine Bridge by a blocked bilge pump filter (oil extractor) for me this is a no brainer. The total cost of the pump, alarm and controller is maybe £250. The damage to repair at a yard would have been at least £3,000.

If the boat was moored without mains power I would certainly split the electrics, if I could into three. Alarm and monitoring off one battery, and the two bilge pumps off the other two. In the worst case it might take a couple of days to organise someone to go and check out the problem if the alarm goes.

Of course I'd have a decent charging system as well.

After all the tender care and hundreds of hours spent on the woodwork, what else would you do?

[Larks]

Sounds like a good system, I like the idea of the SMS alert. What powers that? ie is it a seperate power source to the first bilge pump? I think there may have been previous discussions on bilge pump systems but with the availablility of these SMS alert systems it may be a good time to run a new one to discuss any other new systems on the market.