Cold weather pondering-hull design '70's SN
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: Anything Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=42183
Printed Date: April-29-2024 at 12:56am
Topic: Cold weather pondering-hull design '70's SN
Posted By: MourningWood
Subject: Cold weather pondering-hull design '70's SN
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 12:45am
|
Have a chance to screw around with (or screw up) an '82 SN hull. Chatting over beers discussing hull shape and resultant wake shape. Question: what part of the hull is most responsible for the wake shape? Forgiving the bow and perhaps the 1st 3rd of the hull, is the middle impactful or just the rear-most portion? Thinking of 'filling in' the rear side scallops, and removing the keel 'v' from prop shaft back. Wondering how this will affect the wakes..... |
Replies:
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 12:47am
| Oops. Meant 80's SN. |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 12:57am
|
The thread title may be appropriate, lol. I would recommend studying older and newer SN hulls relative to the one you’re considering modifying. Also familiarize yourself with how the different generation hulls handle and ski. You might find that the modifications you’re considering would be a step backwards in terms of hull evolution rather than a step forwards. |
Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 8:29am
|
Sounds like something I would do! However, I usually end up with a dog that won't hunt, after pouring considerable money & time into it. I'd just glue on some wood strips (5200 works good) & try it before doing massive fiberglass work. ------------- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Ben Franklin |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 9:31am
Me too. I say just do it 
|
SNobsessed wrote:Posted By: Fl Inboards
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 10:18am
|
Coming from someone that has been There and done that I would leave it alone and find something more productive to do. Again working in the Engineering Dept and now a corporate field tech at Nautique boat's/Correct Craft now for over 25 years seeing post's like this scare me. The Inboard boat is a fine balance of executed Genius. The problem when modifying the bottom of an inboard is you have no clue of what you are doing and results could be catastrophic! We don't like to use words like chine lock, rudder stall and misbehaving. If you are looking to make a bigger wake for wake-boarding use water bags or other known weight bags. If you are looking to make a better surf wake there are many after market devices that enhance the surf wake. If you are looking for a better slalom boat then get a modern slalom boat. Hopefully this sinks in and you and your family and fellow boaters do not get put in a compromising position due to Blind experimentation. ------------- Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise. 1993 Shamrock "fat" 20. 2008 Nautique 196 5.0 |
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 12:48pm
| So that's a no, then........ :) |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 12:58pm
|
And Brian, don't even think about messing with the X55 bottom especially the steps. If you don't know already, there' was a patent on the hull ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 1:46pm
|
How old is that patent? Is he selling his hull design? Wtf |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 3:21pm
| Someone jump on that patent if it is timed out. Lots of money to be made there. |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 3:35pm
|
The patent "BalanStern" & "Stepless-hydro hull" was in the early 60's. when Dunphy used it to made the X55's. ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 3:51pm
The only problem is finding authentic contaminated mahogany plywood. That is if you want to keep it original ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 4:08pm
|
I think M/W should combine features of an 82 2001 and a Dunphy. He could call it a Dunph Nautique or maybe a Ski Dunphtique. |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 4:13pm
| Make it a Wood/Glass hybrid. |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 4:48pm
| I got to think that messing with the hull is not nearly hazardous as increasing the factory hp by 50%-75%. |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 4:53pm
In that case I'd use the Kanye West system to tart it up a bit ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 5:39pm
Extra hp won’t cause bad behavior at normal (stock equivalent) speeds like a hull modification might. I am not afraid of modifying a hull but it’s not something to be taken lightly. It would probably help to understand the purpose of certain hull features before adding, eliminating or changing them. |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 5:45pm
Are you saying "Just because you have the horse power you don't have to use it"? . |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 6:24pm
Yup, all the work on the engine and never a WOT!!!!  ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 6:32pm
| I’m saying I’d rather have a 55mph boat that might behave badly at the limit than a 45mph boat that might go up on shore in the slalom course. Presumably boats with engine modifications are still used to ski at normal speeds... I know mine are. |
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 6:34pm
Pete, I swear, your bottom is safe with me....or from me. I spent good money to have the bottom, keel, stringers, and a few questionable frames redone by a renowned Tahoe builder. I'm convinced the Dunphy ski wakes are better than SN up through the 196 at least. |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 6:55pm
 Brian, Yup, the ski wake of the X has been notorious at least in this area for years. The countless times compliments have been made go back to the mid 60's when the X first came out. Our local ski club even had one as their tow for around 8 years. I believe it's the steps at the aft that flattens the wake so much. I'd say it's even better than a 196! ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 6:58pm
|
Oh boy.
|
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 7:00pm
"Oh boy" what??  ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 7:16pm
|
Not even December yet,whats going to happen between now and June when the ice finally melts? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 7:32pm
|
It's a world class tubing wake that Pete's talking about here.
|
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 7:50pm
Someone put the course too close to shore |
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: November-29-2017 at 11:40pm
Good one!! I managed to replicate the original mahogany mold strain in a petri dish, and introduced it into the new wood prior to assembly, so it can come apart as if it's 1965......... :) |
Posted By: Fl Inboards
Date Posted: November-30-2017 at 12:47pm
|
I thought this thread was about modification of 80's Fiberglass CC hull's not floating furniture! LOL!!!! ------------- Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise. 1993 Shamrock "fat" 20. 2008 Nautique 196 5.0 |
Posted By: Duane in Indy
Date Posted: November-30-2017 at 2:06pm
Truer words were never spoken. A small change can make a huge difference. Start with taping paint stir sticks along the transom bottom and see what difference it makes Feel sure it will surprise you, it did me!! ------------- Keep it as original as YOU want it 1978 Mustang (modified) |
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: December-08-2017 at 1:47pm
Like when Rob Shirley cut a Nautique in half to widen it and create Mastercraft with smaller wakes? (kidding...sort of)... I appreciate and respect your expertise. I have the resources to fool around a bit with this, plus the help of a retired USN sub 'designer.' Have actually abandoned the sacrificial '82 Nautique and have opted to jack with an '81. Lightweight is the first goal. |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-08-2017 at 2:00pm
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=submarine+ski+boat&qpvt=submarine+ski+boat&view=detail&mid=3C5B9A1CE9FF0050DCBD3C5B9A1CE9FF0050DCBD&FORM=VRDGAR" rel="nofollow - Going for this design?? ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: December-08-2017 at 2:16pm
| Gawd!! Oh I hope not.... |
Posted By: FredWSauer
Date Posted: December-08-2017 at 2:23pm
Was that underwater boat on purpose? Also, I'd like to thank this thread for making me think about wake quality and now I am looking for my next SN. Wife will hate me. Finally got the lift in for the first SN (1993). The 93 color matches the trailer house so I can't get ride of it and why would you? - Fred ------------- - FWS 1993 Ski Nautique 1978 Glastron T-160 1994 Weeres Pontoon - Wife's Boat |
Posted By: 75 Tique
Date Posted: December-08-2017 at 3:54pm
My neighbor's project. Good Hull design, does not porpoise at WOT, which is nice.   ------------- _____________ “So, how was your weekend?” “Well, let me see…sun burn, stiff neck, screwed up back, assorted aches and pains….yup, my weekend was great, thanks for asking.” |
Posted By: FredWSauer
Date Posted: December-08-2017 at 4:15pm
|
Not for me! I am very happy on top of the water. ------------- - FWS 1993 Ski Nautique 1978 Glastron T-160 1994 Weeres Pontoon - Wife's Boat |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-08-2017 at 5:14pm
Don't forget he had help too,I believe Art was involved ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: December-08-2017 at 9:37pm
|
Looks like a good way to die. ------------- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Ben Franklin |
Posted By: Blamey
Date Posted: December-09-2017 at 9:26am
|
Before I had kids I did a bit of Skydiving. During that time someone showed up on the forums stating he wanted to build his own parachute. Most, including myself poo pooed the idea. Saying he was only likely to fail and probably kill himself. The kid went a head and did it. Built his own ram air parachute. And jumped it. Last time I looked he was onto his 3rd chute. So while before i would've thought your plan was a bad idea, now I say go for it. Understand the risks, prepare for failure but if you want to modify a hull and learn what these boats do, I say go for it. Just be as safe as you can when testing. ------------- 96 Super Sport Previously: 95 Sport Nautique, 1980 Ski Supreme |
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: December-09-2017 at 7:26pm
That's really how this idea for hull-work began.....(bench skiing over a couple beers). A 1964 Dunphy X-55 has an unbelievably shallow, soft wake that would rival many dedicated 3-event boats up through the late '90's. The Dunphy is @ a foot shorter than an '81 SN and with the large steps in the rear of the hull, has much less running surface at ski speeds. Yes it's wood, but the Ford 312 Y-block is no featherweight. However, Interceptor chose to fit aluminum front cover, intake, oil pan, exhaust manifolds, and bell housing. The resulting total weight (dry) is only 1815 lbs. There is an obvious correlation between weight and running surface. Now, I'm not interested in turning an '81 SN into a Dunphy X-55 (I already have one), but I think significant slalom wake improvements can be achieved with some subtle modifications including many lightweight drivetrain components (available over-the-counter), a few custom-fabbed pieces, and maybe the incorporation if an adjustable rear plate (ala Supra ts6m). Will post results as we go.... first up, the engine... |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-09-2017 at 8:03pm
 ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Orlando76
Date Posted: December-09-2017 at 9:16pm
|
So the humpty dunphy has a flat wake but how does it track? Hold speed? Better than a 196, pffffffttt. MC has a flat wake, maybe even flatter than SN but it’s as hard as a curb. ------------- Please support The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation 1976 Ski Nautique 351 Escort 1993 Ski Nautique purple and black 351 HO PCM |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-09-2017 at 9:33pm
Todd, Have you ever driven a X55? Have you ever skied behind one? ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Orlando76
Date Posted: December-09-2017 at 9:55pm
|
Never even seen one in person. That’s why I’m asking. Flat wake is only part of the equation. I’ll take a larger wake that’s like butter over a small hard curb. ------------- Please support The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation 1976 Ski Nautique 351 Escort 1993 Ski Nautique purple and black 351 HO PCM |
Posted By: 75 Tique
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 1:24am
|
Remember this guy/project? http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39808&KW=&title=1997-carbon-tsc" rel="nofollow - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39808&KW=&title=1997-carbon-tsc ------------- _____________ “So, how was your weekend?” “Well, let me see…sun burn, stiff neck, screwed up back, assorted aches and pains….yup, my weekend was great, thanks for asking.” |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 7:16am
Todd, What I can say about the wake is to confirm what Brian stated. It's flat soft and shallow. Since you have never skied behind a X, I don't feel this statement you made is fair:
------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Orlando76
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 8:52am
May not be fair but I bet it’s fairly accurate. I just can’t imagine a wood boat from the 60’s outperforming the advances and technology put in the 196. When I say 196, I mean a true 196 (TSC +) and not the NWZ. And I can’t imagine it tracking nearly as good with a 190lb skier heavy on the line. I would love to ski and drive one in the course as I’m always wanting to ski different boats especially vintage.. bring yours to Sunnyland and give me a pull so I can eat crow! There were definitely some vintage boats with great wakes but tracked like crap. ------------- Please support The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation 1976 Ski Nautique 351 Escort 1993 Ski Nautique purple and black 351 HO PCM |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 10:21am
|
So, to summarize, we need a Dunphy/196 ski-off on a course that's 10 ft. away from shore and Larry's neighbor will film underwater hull performance from his sub. I've never seen a Dunphy either. I think it's ok for me to say that I'm pretty confident a 196 is better to ski behind, just like Todd. Some things just are common sense. A lot more than raw wake height goes into evaluating a slalom boat. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 11:17am
|
One item I find interesting is Dunphy incorporated tracking fins on the X55 hull design and that was years before CC used them. ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 12:32pm
|
Pete, are you familiar with our reference section? What was the first year for the x55? http://correctcraftfan.com/reference/bview.asp?id=52#image2 |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 1:08pm
Tim, Wow, thanks for the information. I never knew CCfan had a reference section. ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 1:22pm
|
Pete, If you read what he referenced you might notice the tracking fin option on the SN before the x55 ever existed |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 3:03pm
Ken, Thanks for the civil response. I now stand corrected that Leo did utilize a tracking fin and CC carried that through as an option when the they started building the 1st generation SN in 61. The X55 was produced between 63 and 65. ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 3:12pm
I think I limited my performance 'comparison' to specifically wake shape. No claim was made that a Dunphy X-55 would "outperform" a mid-to-late 90's era ski boat in every respect. Just that the wake height, shape, and softness would be on par with, or in some cases, exceed those craft. Let's keep things there. |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 3:56pm
Excellent idea Todd only one problem, Google Illinois route 176, he doesn't go any further south than that ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 4:59pm
Gary, 176?? It's more like Wi. 29!!!  ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: December-10-2017 at 11:37pm
|
Picked up the '81 on Monday evening. Had a couple other projects (cars) to wrap up, but managed to pop out the motor/trans and teardown. Some of the Ford industrial engine/PCM marine conversion pieces are HEAVY! I'll post a tally of weights of some of the components I'd like to replace. I think I can get 150+ lbs. out of the drivetrain. |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-11-2017 at 9:54am
|
Yea those exhausts and a stock intake are not on the light side, velvet drives are not either. Spend the bucks and get some Hi Tek's to lighten the load ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: December-11-2017 at 2:07pm
|
Some weights so far: Intake: 47 lbs. Heads, complete: 50 ea. Ex maniforld (stock PCM): 50 ea. Water pump (iron) 14 Timing cover: 13 Motor mounts (compl): 13 ea Trans mounts: 12.5 ea. Starter: 17 Thermostat hsg: 9 |
Posted By: Duane in Indy
Date Posted: December-11-2017 at 2:12pm
|
I definitely would and did go to aluminum on at least the first three items.. Water pump housings and timing covers are a little more difficult to scrounge the proper parts in aluminum ------------- Keep it as original as YOU want it 1978 Mustang (modified) |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: December-11-2017 at 2:55pm
|
You could slap in a new style permanent magnet starter, it weighs about half of what your old one does. Advertised weight of 9 pounds, compared to advertised weight of 18 pounds for the old style. |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-11-2017 at 3:59pm
|
Doubtful you'll find an aluminum timing cover with a water pump mount but you could go with a crank mount pump. Ditch the circulation pump like HM did but be prepared that they cool differently. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: December-11-2017 at 4:21pm
|
Maybe you should weigh the hull, or check under the floor, there could be a lot of water weight in the foam Or you could just tell yourself it's an 81 that's bone dry under the floor and hasn't packed on any pounds over the years. |
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: December-11-2017 at 10:33pm
|
Yes, I do plan on weighing the hull while motor/trans are out. As nice as the boat appears to be, pretty sure it has picked up some ballast in 36 years..... |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: December-11-2017 at 11:13pm
|
I figure the complete engine with manifolds and transmission weighs 856 pounds This http://www.correctcraftfan.com/downloads/PCM_Owners_Manual_Ford_and_Chevy.pdf" rel="nofollow - link explains where I came up with that number. see page 15 I think the 856 is with a B/W transmission since that's what the diagrams in the manual show The whole boat according to CC weighed 2100 pounds dry. I borrowed Pete's abacus and came up with a hull weight of about 1250 pounds as a ball park number for the hull, just to give you an idea. |
Posted By: uk1979
Date Posted: December-12-2017 at 5:16am
|
I found working on my gen 2 SN http://correctcraftfan.com/forum/uploads/2819/stats.jpg" rel="nofollow - Weights ------------- Lets have a go 56 Starflite 77 SN 78 SN 80 BFN |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: December-12-2017 at 9:17am
Roger, Looks like documentation used for calculating flotation!  EDIT: Keith, How about putting the document Roger found in the misc./reference section? ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: 75 Tique
Date Posted: December-12-2017 at 11:54am
|
Nobody acknowledged or said anything about that old thread I linked above about reducing weight. But recent posts have talked about weight reduction other than the engine components. Just by hull adjustments look how Paul was able to change how his boat sat in the water.  ------------- _____________ “So, how was your weekend?” “Well, let me see…sun burn, stiff neck, screwed up back, assorted aches and pains….yup, my weekend was great, thanks for asking.” |
Posted By: tryathlete
Date Posted: December-13-2017 at 3:48pm
| In that case we can settle this on Deep Lake. Quinner will need to set the course up and this could be his motivation. |
Posted By: Gneil
Date Posted: December-13-2017 at 6:26pm
|
Hey guys, Im new to the group and have been loving the conversations through the forums. Thank you! I recently picked up an 81 with less than 1K hours, and considering the age, its in good shape. As most of the early fiberglass SN its likely that ill be doing a stringer job in the near future. With this in mind, Im currently doing some research into Coosa board as a substitute for doug fur stringers. I've read many forums and understand the different arguments pro and con. One topic i haven't seen is the one where modern materials like Coosa are used with carbon fiber or kevlar. Any thoughts in this direction? Additionally, I'm interested in fully documenting my rehab and recording the updates and improvements including pattern making for the stringers and related bulkheads. unless i can buy them form a reliable source. Any one know of such a thing? As I've worked in the design field for the past 25+ years, I'm computer capable. (CAD Sketch-up etc.) Any info would be greatly appreciated. ------------- G. Neil 1980 SN |
Posted By: KENO
Date Posted: December-13-2017 at 6:55pm
|
Hi Greg My first thought is that you should start a new thread you can call your own, instead of tacking on to this one It'll be easier to keep track of things that way without other peoples issues/problems mixed in. Otherwise if you've lurked here a while, you know somebody (most likely named Pete) will want to know where the pictures are. |
Posted By: Gneil
Date Posted: December-13-2017 at 8:02pm
|
Hi Keno, Thanks for the sage advice. I'll start a new thread and not confuse this one. I was thinking about weight with the new floor/stringer/foam etc was concerned. That was the logic. I'll start a new thread and not confuse this one. Cheers! ------------- G. Neil 1980 SN |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: December-13-2017 at 8:16pm
| Good luck. Nobody seems to have wanted to pay for Kevlar or carbon fiber but they sure would be the best fabrics available. I am looking forward to your build! |
Posted By: Donald80SN
Date Posted: December-13-2017 at 8:36pm
|
Greg, Several on this site, Tim B., Joe F have used CAD to design and cut the stringers and such from composite board. They put the stringers back as composite. Donald ------------- 1980 Ski Nautique SOLD Back to Cypress Gardens 2002 Sport Nautique, GT-40, FCT2, Cover Sports, Tower Bimini, Inc., Wet Sounds Audio System, Star Gazer Wake Edition S. 1968 Ski Nautique, Project. |
Posted By: Gneil
Date Posted: December-13-2017 at 8:43pm
|
Donald, Thanks for the tip to Tim B and Joe F. Just doing some materials research and would like the stringer fix (if necessary) to last. I got a good price on the boat and thought the fix could afford some good planning before I start buying stuff. Thanks again. ------------- G. Neil 1980 SN |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-13-2017 at 8:48pm
|
http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5635&PN=4&title=a-351w-stroker-from-scratch" rel="nofollow - Here is Joe's build- The fiberglass work does not start until page 4 but the whole thread is a great read ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: MourningWood
Date Posted: December-13-2017 at 10:55pm
|
Here are some more weights: Alternator w/ bracket: 11.0 Velvet drive 71c: 95 Battery: 51 Rear center floor: 26 Motor box (upholstered): 59.5 Biggest surprises so far, the cast iron timing cover, the super-heavy exhaust manifolds, and the motor box. And the Velvet drive. So with the changes I plan to make, this will take almost 300 lbs. off the water. I don't know if a 14.5% weight reduction alone will get the hoped-for results in wake improvement. Also, without Photobucket, what other easy ways can I post pics? Thanks ------------- 1994 Ski Nautique "Riot" 1964 Dunphy X-55 "One 'N Dun" 'I measured twice, cut three times, and it's still too short!" |