Vino
Quote:
What year and model of each?
|
I couldn't say. The Formosa I'd guess late 70s. The CT was probably newer, but the owner had put more love into her. Both had
Perkins engines IIRC.
There's a guy who used to post on CF,
CharlieCobra, who knows
a lot more than me about these boats. I think he makes/made a business working them.
Quote:
How extensive was the work you did on these two boats?
|
I've done small projects on several of these boats, but I got familiar with two.
On the Formosa, I scarfed in several patches on the cabin-top and house. I bid to re-do the decks, which had been "fixed" horribly by the previous owner (they simply laid another layer of plywood over the rotten decks and bondo'ed over the stanchion bases, etc. The mizzen was stepped in the
cockpit and not blocked down to the
hull. I epoxied a frame into the
hull to brace under the mizzen and replaced some of the rotten/crushed plywood in the area. It was teak over plywood in the
cockpit, as I
recall. I removed the rotten ply around and rebed several opening
ports.
The CT was a buddy's job last year, initially with a crew. Having been around a lot of these boats, I wanted to size her up compared to others I've been on. So I was just rubbernecking. They took her teak off, had a company template her decks (wish I could remember their name) and pre-cut/assemble the teak to be glued down on site. This boat's decks were punky, but after drying and filling all the old screw holes, then putting on the new decks (3/8") it was stiff enough to satisfy the owner. He wasn't interested in crossing oceans. Reminds me, the cleat the connected the side decks to the house (there's a name for it that escapes me) was a big problem on this boat. The owner had little troughs hanging on wire along most of it because it leaked so regularly. They also rebuilt the rotten mainmast step, in the fwd cabin. There was some rot in the sprit and a large Dutchman was let in, without removing the sprit.
Quote:
How did you determine the quality of the plywood?
|
Very few plys is a good indicator of bad plywood. I'm not sure when good quality
marine ply became commonplace, but this problem isn't unique to these boats. Lots of asian-built boats from the 70s/80s use low ply, soft mahogany plywood. I owned a Mariner, Japanese built, with the same kind of stuff in it. I have no idea where it came from, you can't buy anything like it these days.
When I
sold my Mariner last year the only original plywood was the cabin sides (and they had some patches). If you're looking at one of these boats and they've been cared for, there will be extensive repairs/rebuilds of all the plywood structures. The materials are well past their
service life.
Quote:
How can you tell what resin was used?
|
Polyester resin was standard on boats of the era. I know
epoxy was around in the 80s, but you'll only find it on these boats if someone has repaired them. The bond with wood sucks. I've peeled off polyester skin by hand, even on dry/unrotten areas.
"Low-tech" in that I doubt much, if any, engineering went into them. No stringers, few, if any, frames and half-hearted bulkhead tabbing. I'm speaking in generalities here and your boat may be different; HOWEVER, every one of these boats I've inspected has, if not all of these issues, some of them. People rave about their "thick hulls", but there are much more efficient ways to impact rigidity and strength than just making the hull thicker.
No disrespect to the owners of these boats. I've been on Tayana's with the same issues and my Mariner also. They can be corrected if you love the boat, but prospective owners should be aware of the burden.
One Formosa had concrete poured in the aft-most part of the
keel sump, around the (bronze?) shaft log, making it a huge pain to replace the stuffing box when the threaded part of the log sheared. I had to cold chisel the concrete back a few inches. Why did they pour a couple hundred pounds of concrete in the stern? They didn't bother to glass over it, either. I assume the boat didn't sit on her lines when launched.
"Low-tech" doesn't mean "terrible", but no matter how you feel about Bene's, J-boats, etc, they're a modern industrial product. Lots of folks will tell you that a modern 40 footer is weak because it's only 1/4" thick or whatever, but
not all laminates are created equal. Higher glass to resin ratios, better resin, better cloth, cleaner working conditions (modern factory) can create a 1/4" sheet of GRP stiffer than a 1/2" sheet made in a dusty shop with boatyard resin.
Quote:
Can you explain what constitutes poor tabbing?
|
I already talked too much, so here's an image I found on CF:
If you're checking, all of these boats (and most from that era, including American), will have the joint on the left. Whatever, probably not that big a deal. What you'll usually find though, is that the tabbing didn't actually stick to the bulkhead (or isn't sticking anymore), so you can put a putty knife in between and the bond is gone. I just varnished the sole on a Tayana and the tabbing below the sole was still sticky (meaning they didn't properly catalyze the resin). Another peeve of mine is that often the joint with the deck (wood to wood joint) isn't even cleated, just butted, what the heck?
Some of these issues are technological, because
epoxy is a million times better in this secondary-bond-with-wood scenario, so it's no entirely the builder's laziness.
I hope this helps. I've no intent to insult anyone's baby, but a boat this size could be a
serious project for anyone, even someone who does this for a living. I've seen too many cruising dreams crushed or hamstrung by extremely high maintenance boats.