Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 44

Thread: No "planned obsolescence" here

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default No "planned obsolescence" here

    I am currently rebuilding the drive line on our Albin 27 (sorry-plastic ) mini-trawler. I'm trying to eliminate it's vibration problems by adding a mid bearing to the propshaft. There is close to 7 feet from the transmission coupling to the stern bearing, and that is WAY out of spec for a 1-1/4" bronze shaft.

    As is so often found in projects like this, the job quickly turns to a lesson in onion peeling. That is, the more layers you strip off, the deeper you find the need to go. It requires pulling the fuel tank to gain access to the area where the new bearing will be mounted. So -- why not remove it all the way for inspection and cleaning? While in there, why not remove the packing gland for inspection and re-packing? How old is that stuffing box hose? Better do that now too, and the perforated hose clamps? They've got to go.

    Before any of that stuff can be done though, the shaft coupling needs to be pulled off the transmission end of the shaft. This boat is equipped with a "Federal" flex coupling. And it's probably lucky that it is, because I suspect that unit has been absorbing the "whipping" of that long drive noodle since 1985, and, so doing, has protected the gearbox from bearing the brunt.



    So, how to pull it? As you can see, there is no room for a conventional gear puller. You could try using long bolts to the transmission flange with a socket between the shafts, but that could very well cause damage to the parts. Then I thought about cutting a round plate of thick steel to bolt to the face of the coupler with a big bolt in the middle to press the shaft out. Thinking about that, it brought to mind my Dad's old factory OMC flywheel puller, from back when he had a Gale outboard dealership around 1960. Then I wondered if that puller itself would work? As I remembered, all the outboards I did ignition work on (the points, condensers, and coils were all under the flywheel) had three tapped holes. Did that puller have any provision for 4 bolts? So I went down to the shop and dug it out, sure enough -- it was drilled for 4 bolts as well!



    I haven't tried it yet, so I'm not sure it will work, as I'm afraid the bolt circle of the coupler might be too big, but I'm going to give it a try. But here's the thing -- I got curious about the tool itself, what do they sell for the same job today? So I Googled it, and low and behold, this is what is sold to do this task today.



    Wow! A full 60 years later they are still making the exact same tool. I wonder how often that happens? I guess it's a kind of mechanical DNA that's involved there. Every new generation of engine design has been configured so that the flywheel can be pulled with the same old puller. Even more than that though, I guess the original puller was so simple and appropriate for it's job that it's never been replaced by something newer -- remarkable I think.

    Tom

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lindstrom, MN
    Posts
    3,025

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Looking at the lock washers in the first picture, the nuts are loose. I hope that you were working on it before taking the picture and that is not the way it has been running. Loose nuts can lead to bolt fatigue failures.
    Management is the art of counting beans. Leadership is the art of making every being count. --Joe Finch

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by MN Dave View Post
    Looking at the lock washers in the first picture, the nuts are loose. I hope that you were working on it before taking the picture and that is not the way it has been running. Loose nuts can lead to bolt fatigue failures.
    Fear not! I was working on taking it apart when I took that picture...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    96

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Looks like an interesting project. How do you plan to bed and mount the new mid bearing?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    32,967

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Wait a sec! One job leading to another (to another, to another, etc.) on a boat? Whodathinkit?

    A seven foot shaft is mighty long without a center support.

    Pretty cool on the puller - hope it works!
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by timber_cruiser View Post
    Looks like an interesting project. How do you plan to bed and mount the new mid bearing?
    I'm planning on glassing in a 3/4" plywood plate in the keel "shaft tunnel" area, somewhere around the mid point. Then I will mount this SS self-aligning flange bearing.



    As it requires periodic greasing, I'll have to jig-up some kind of remote zerk fitting, probably connected with a small hydraulic line to the bearing.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    se pa (Bristol PA)
    Posts
    4,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moTthediesel View Post
    I'm planning on glassing in a 3/4" plywood plate in the keel "shaft tunnel" area, somewhere around the mid point. Then I will mount this SS self-aligning flange bearing.







    As it requires periodic greasing, I'll have to jig-up some kind of remote zerk fitting, probably connected with a small hydraulic line to the bearing.
    I hope you're not going to use the old shaft if you are, I hope you have it trued,. My guess is the coupling and motor mounts were bad for many years and that's why you're getting the whip... Anyhow, why a flange bearing? could you go with a typical pillow block type bearing? a plywood flange mount will probably rot out in short order, no matter how much glass you put on it. just thinking with my fingertips 🙄

    if there's no room for that type of bearing at least use some kind of structural fiberglass lumber instead of wood? we all know how quickly the slightest moisture can get into a piece of plywood that's sealed in glass and epoxy,
    Denise, Bristol PA, Oday30, Anchor Yacht Club, On tidal Delaware River. my current project; http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...0-Ducker-Resto

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by DeniseO30 View Post
    ? a plywood flange mount will probably rot out in short order, no matter how much glass you put on it. just thinking with my fingertips 🙄

    if there's no room for that type of bearing at least use some kind of structural fiberglass lumber instead of wood? we all know how quickly the slightest moisture can get into a piece of plywood that's sealed in glass and epoxy,
    Well, if you don't mind me saying so, that's a hell of a statement to make on the WOODENBOAT FORUM

    This boat has a molded keel cavity, very much like a sailboat, so a mini-bulkhead is the best way to fit a bearing there. Also, a vertical member is much less likely to retain water. This particular boat was also built with glassed-in plywood bulkheads throughout, even down into the bilge, and they are all still perfectly sound.

    As for the true-ness of the shaft. I'd rather not pull it if I don't have to. Once the mid-bearing is fitted, I will rotate it with the drive end free, a dial indicator should tell the tale of it's straightness, or lack thereof.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    se pa (Bristol PA)
    Posts
    4,401

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    You don't have to use anything just because I write it. Glass or wood don't matter much when it comes to propulsion setups imo. If.. IF you get the shaft, cutlass bearing, coupling and motor mounts up to spec first, you just may not have the "whip" you are trying to fix, without pulling the shaft or adding another bearing We did the same in reverse in my truck, took out the support bearing and used the long drive shaft from a newer truck. smooth turning! long shaft need to be true.. only way to know is.. well you know. sorry I touched a nerve. Not my intent!
    Denise, Bristol PA, Oday30, Anchor Yacht Club, On tidal Delaware River. my current project; http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...0-Ducker-Resto

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    No worries -- I'm not upset, I just thought that cautioning on this site against the use wood was kind of humorous, that's why I put the smiley there!

    Funny, I replaced the two part driveshaft on my truck with one of those big, one piece aluminum ones as well -- I love it! It's not really the same thing at all though, for one thing there is no axial thrust involved on a truck shaft.

    Tom

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    32,967

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by DeniseO30 View Post
    You don't have to use anything just because I write it. Glass or wood don't matter much when it comes to propulsion setups imo. If.. IF you get the shaft, cutlass bearing, coupling and motor mounts up to spec first, you just may not have the "whip" you are trying to fix, without pulling the shaft or adding another bearing We did the same in reverse in my truck, took out the support bearing and used the long drive shaft from a newer truck. smooth turning! long shaft need to be true.. only way to know is.. well you know. sorry I touched a nerve. Not my intent!
    Just to be a contrarian... Your truck driveshaft is probably something like a 4" tube - or larger. As Tom mentioned, the shaft in the boat is 1.25" - which is going to have way more whip than something 3x the diameter. I too would want a mid bearing. That being said, you may be right about just how true the shaft is after all these years.
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    se pa (Bristol PA)
    Posts
    4,401

    Default

    Many boats have very long shafts for the prop very few have support bearings?

    not really comparing an automotive drive shaft to a propeller drive shaft I'm just saying if it was out of balance and the new newer one runs smooth .. the same could be true of the existing shaft. in the case of my old truck it was cheaper to get a newer drive shaft out of a yard then have the existing one balanced.

    Just saying, I'd go on the assumption that it once was a smooth running propulsion set up,
    Denise, Bristol PA, Oday30, Anchor Yacht Club, On tidal Delaware River. my current project; http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...0-Ducker-Resto

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by DeniseO30 View Post
    Many boats have very long shafts for the prop very few have support bearings?


    Just saying, I'd go on the assumption that it once was a smooth running propulsion set up,
    Well, ordinarily Iíd say the same thing, but according to several sources Iíve looked at, including Dave Gerrís ďPropeller BookĒ, going by the diameter of our shaft, we are at close to twice the recommended maximum support spacing. Also, to receive empirical input, I canvassed owners of boats like ours on the Albin owners group website. Only the earliest-produced boats (like ours) were equipped with a 1-1/4Ē shaft with no support. Next, the boats were produced with the same shaft, but also an intermediate bearing. On newer boats still, until the end of production for this model, all boats were equipped with no mid-bearing, but with a 1-1/2Ē shaft.

    Responding to my questions about the relative smoothness or their driveline (admittedly un-scientific) the only owners who reported significant vibrations were the owners of the earliest boats like ours. It sounds to me the the driveline was initially under-engineered, and that it was recognized by the builder.

    So the best solution for us would probably be to go to the larger shaft, but that would also be expensive and difficult. Removing and replacing the stern tube is something I donít even want to contemplate. Even with the maintenance issues inherent in servicing that mid-bearing (in never-never land under the fuel tank) I think itís the best way for us to go.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Australia and Tasmania
    Posts
    20,591

    Default

    What, you saying you don't need to cut out the cockpit and rebuild it to get at the shaft?

    Sent from my CPH1851 using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Y View Post
    What, you saying you don't need to cut out the cockpit and rebuild it to get at the shaft?

    Sent from my CPH1851 using Tapatalk
    No, I donít think so. The Albin 27 is a center cockpit mini-trawler. The main fuel tank (73gal) can be un-fastened and slid into the rear cabin. Then, access to the shaft tunnel can be had from either of the rear quarter berths. It looks tight, but other owners have gotten the tank out that way. There are a couple of panels to remove, but they are screwed in.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bainbridge Island WA
    Posts
    3,119

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    This:


    Made me think of a steering wheel puller

    I only interject this on the off chance somebody stumbles on this without access to the right "boat grade" tool.
    Steve

    Boats, like whiskey, are all good.
    R.D Culler

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    N.E. Connecticut.
    Posts
    6,625

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    I will be curious how easily the coupling comes off the shaft as I have two myself (same style - larger) that I need to pull off. While you have it off will you be replacing the neoprene bushings? I spoke to Federal and they recommend replacing them something like every 10 - 15 years (mine are 62!). That is why I'm pulling mine.
    The neoprene bushings are something like $35 each & then the sleeves that go in them are something like another $12 each. Not to bad until you realize I have 12 bushings & 12 sleeves. :O

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    32,967

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by nedL View Post
    I will be curious how easily the coupling comes off the shaft as I have two myself (same style - larger) that I need to pull off. While you have it off will you be replacing the neoprene bushings? I spoke to Federal and they recommend replacing them something like every 10 - 15 years (mine are 62!). That is why I'm pulling mine.
    The neoprene bushings are something like $35 each & then the sleeves that go in them are something like another $12 each. Not to bad until you realize I have 12 bushings & 12 sleeves. :O
    But... You saved a ton by going that long. $550 or so is serious coin!

    I realize that it's different - but I have a friend who used to insist that it was cheapest to run brake pads until they were metal to metal. Those grooves in the rotors just give more surface area for braking! Of course he used to go to the junkyard to buy used brake pads too. [no really - he did - paid $10 a set + the time to pull 'em & drive 45 min. each way. To top it off, I was working at an auto parts store at the time & could get him new ones for $15]
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by nedL View Post
    I will be curious how easily the coupling comes off the shaft as I have two myself (same style - larger) that I need to pull off. While you have it off will you be replacing the neoprene bushings? I spoke to Federal and they recommend replacing them something like every 10 - 15 years (mine are 62!). That is why I'm pulling mine.
    The neoprene bushings are something like $35 each & then the sleeves that go in them are something like another $12 each. Not to bad until you realize I have 12 bushings & 12 sleeves. :O
    So do your’s have 6 bushings per unit? Mine only has 4, and of course mine is single screw, not quite so bad. OTOH, our boat is “only” 35 yrs old, so by your standard, we should be good for another 27 years. ��

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Just to put a cap on this, I gave the puller a whirl today, and it bolted right up.



    There were some clearance issues, and pulling the shaft back to make more room was very difficult, perhaps related to temperature? A few turns on the center bolt though, and it was quite clear that the coupling was moving.



    We ran out of thread before the hub was all the way off, so then we added a socket inside on the end of the shaft. It moved easier and easier, but again we ran out of thread. So it came off again, and we added a stack of washers under the socket. Bolted back up, it was just a matter of another 1/4" movement or so, and off it came.



    Honestly, if you had to design a tool for this job, I don't think you could do any better than this one. So one more hurdle cleared, on to the next one....

    Tom

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    48,133

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by moTthediesel View Post
    Just to put a cap on this, I gave the puller a whirl today, and it bolted right up.



    There were some clearance issues, and pulling the shaft back to make more room was very difficult, perhaps related to temperature? A few turns on the center bolt though, and it was quite clear that the coupling was moving.



    We ran out of thread before the hub was all the way off, so then we added a socket inside on the end of the shaft. It moved easier and easier, but again we ran out of thread. So it came off again, and we added a stack of washers under the socket. Bolted back up, it was just a matter of another 1/4" movement or so, and off it came.



    Honestly, if you had to design a tool for this job, I don't think you could do any better than this one. So one more hurdle cleared, on to the next one....

    Tom
    Good on you.
    So, now what is stopping you from sliding the shaft back out for a thorough eyeball, straightness check and clean up?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Good on you.
    So, now what is stopping you from sliding the shaft back out for a thorough eyeball, straightness check and clean up?
    Just lazy I guess. I would need to disassemble the steering gear and drop the rudder first. If the shaft looks wanky, I’ll do it, but I’d rather not.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    48,133

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by moTthediesel View Post
    Just lazy I guess. I would need to disassemble the steering gear and drop the rudder first. If the shaft looks wanky, I’ll do it, but I’d rather not.
    Ah! Serious lack of forethought by the designer.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Belchertown, MA
    Posts
    195

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Usually the shaft is a bit worn at the packing and the exposed portion forward has enough corrosion buildup that it makes it nearly impossible to remove the shaft without disassembling the stuffing box and sometimes you run into the same issue with the cutlass bearing (if it is in decent shape and not worn out) as the exposed/weathered area of the propshaft enters it it can bind as well. Sometimes you need to polish the shaft with emery cloth so that you get rid of enough buildup to allow it to pass through the gland and cutlass bearing.
    Last edited by MalabarJr; 02-13-2020 at 07:30 PM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Belchertown, MA
    Posts
    195

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Also you could get a cheap dial indicator and just figure out a way to mount it securely to check the runout of the shaft. Would have been better to do that before disassembly but I guess you could do that once you mount your carrier bearing and get everything bolted back up.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    26,947

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    It is good to see a press fit into the coupling, and a proper puller to remove it. So many that I have seen are a slip fit.

    May I ask a couple of questions... What is inside this coupling?
    This first because I'm curious to the point of being deranged, and am sure I have been in one and forgotten. (And I would like to build one for a 5/8" shaft)

    The second because well, vibration.
    Is the propellor true? (An out of whack blade will "flex" or worry a long shaft)


  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    You're spot on in regard to the shaft being sticky. I have already backed off the packing nut, and I had to do a bit of cleaning in order to get it to slide forward on the shaft. I wouldn't say it was corrosion though, more like a scale build-up. Very likely it is as bad or worse inside the stern tube. The cutless bearing looks pretty new and it's quite tight, so that very well may be my issue. I need to pull it back another 6 inches or so to have room to slide the bearing on. So I may need to rig up some sort of harness on the prop that will allow me to pull it straight back with a come along or something.

    I have a good dial indicator, and I plan on using it at the end of the shaft once I get the mid bearing in place. There is no way that I can see to check it for true as things are now.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    It is good to see a press fit into the coupling, and a proper puller to remove it. So many that I have seen are a slip fit.

    May I ask a couple of questions... What is inside this coupling?
    This first because I'm curious to the point of being deranged, and am sure I have been in one and forgotten. (And I would like to build one for a 5/8" shaft)

    The second because well, vibration.
    Is the propellor true? (An out of whack blade will "flex" or worry a long shaft)


    The Federal coupling uses (in this case) 4 rubber bushings to allow for a bit of movement in shaft. It is in no way a CV or universal joint, as it still requires careful alignment of the faces, but it is also not ridged. If you are curious about them, take a look here: https://www.federalmarinetransmissions.com/100101.html

    As to the prop, it looks absolutely perfect, and quite new -- you can even still see some sharpie writing on the blades from a prop shop somewhere. That said, there still could be something amiss with it. I wouldn't rule it out, but it's low on my list of suspects right now.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    22,551

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoeyawl View Post
    It is good to see a press fit into the coupling, and a proper puller to remove it. So many that I have seen are a slip fit.

    May I ask a couple of questions... What is inside this coupling?
    This first because I'm curious to the point of being deranged, and am sure I have been in one and forgotten. (And I would like to build one for a 5/8" shaft)

    The second because well, vibration.
    Is the propellor true? (An out of whack blade will "flex" or worry a long shaft)

    I canít imagine as I will EVER have need to apply such to any boat, and Iím still curious as hell.

    Now I need to know, too.

    Peace,
    Head FULL Of Weird Stuff

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    se pa (Bristol PA)
    Posts
    4,401

    Default

    Another comparison, this old truck I bought really cheap about 2 years ago basically the cost of "new" tires that were on it.

    They "looked" great! The next 6 months to almost a year still had wheel hopping bouncing shaking finally I was having the drive shaft installed he said "Denise look" "what?" "flat spots in the tires! But they look new!!" (It was in gear with the wheels off the lift and you could see the out of roundness of the tires easily more than 1/2 inch on two of them

    A month later, replaced the "new" tires that came with a truck, were probably parked on concrete for how many years no one will ever know,. No more shake rattle roll or (at least very little!)

    So between new tires to replace new tires and a new old drive shaft, the old truck can do 75-80 mph and not shake too bad at all! And all along I thought it was the ring and pinion.
    So the moral is, no matter how new something looks doesn't mean it's okay especially rotational balancing like shafts wheels couplings propellers fan blades..
    Denise, Bristol PA, Oday30, Anchor Yacht Club, On tidal Delaware River. my current project; http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...0-Ducker-Resto

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    I canít imagine as I will EVER have need to apply such to any boat, and Iím still curious as hell.

    Now I need to know, too.

    Peace,
    Head FULL Of Weird Stuff


    Rob,

    Imagine that what you have attached to the end of the prop shaft is a cross unit rather like the spider in a U-joint. Instead of bearings on the ends, there are rubber bushings pressed into a big steel collar attached to the transmission. Those big hex heads you see are compressing the rubber bushings inside the collar. I probably am not doing a good job of describing it, so click on this link and you will see a picture of how it is made.

    https://www.federalmarinetransmissions.com/100101.html

    Tom

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    22,551

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by moTthediesel View Post
    I canít imagine as I will EVER have need to apply such to any boat, and Iím still curious as hell.

    Now I need to know, too.

    Peace,
    Head FULL Of Weird Stuff


    Rob,

    Imagine that what you have attached to the end of the prop shaft is a cross unit rather like the spider in a U-joint. Instead of bearings on the ends, there are rubber bushings pressed into a big steel collar attached to the transmission. Those big hex heads you see are compressing the rubber bushings inside the collar. I probably am not doing a good job of describing it, so click on this link and you will see a picture of how it is made.

    https://www.federalmarinetransmissions.com/100101.html

    Tom
    Ah! Excellent. Thank you. I am, after all, one of THOSE monkeys. I just HAD to know.

    Peace,
    Robert

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    48,713

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    I'd go with the larger shaft, which means either turning the ends to use the coupling and prop, or getting new. Even at that, installing a pillow bearing is a huge pain and it's harder to keep things properly aligned. Were this my boat, I'd get a flexible coupling that fits the shaft and turn the back end to fit your prop unless there's some other reason to change props while you're at it.

    The good news is that the Kedgers Club approved method for removing the old shaft is just cut right behind the couple and, if working space is a problem, right ahead of the prop.

    G'luck

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    26,947

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Thank you for the link to Federal Coupling.
    And yes I have been there before, and yes, I had forgotten...

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: No "planned obsolescence" here

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian McColgin View Post
    I'd go with the larger shaft, which means either turning the ends to use the coupling and prop, or getting new. Even at that, installing a pillow bearing is a huge pain and it's harder to keep things properly aligned. Were this my boat, I'd get a flexible coupling that fits the shaft and turn the back end to fit your prop unless there's some other reason to change props while you're at it.

    The good news is that the Kedgers Club approved method for removing the old shaft is just cut right behind the couple and, if working space is a problem, right ahead of the prop.

    G'luck
    Sure, a larger shaft would be best, but a 1-1/2" shaft would nearly fill the stern tube, and even if it did squeeze through, you would not be able to fit a cutless bearing in the end.

    And -- I would rather push a lit cigar up my nose than even contemplate replacing that stern tube

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •