Skin Fitting Removal and replacement

[Gary Luxton]

I'm the proud and delighted owner of a 1986 HC 41 which I bought in May this year. When purchasing her, I knew she had osmosis and factored the pealing of the hull, epoxy treatment etc into the price. I live in Guernsey in the Channel Islands and found an apparently reputable yard in Falmouth (uk) to do the work. This was not the cheapest quote, but I decided to go with them because they have been around most of last century and do a lot of work for the RLNI. I was prepared to accept the higher costs to ensure a proper job is done and reduce the chances of being messed around! In my view and those of my surveyor, in order to do a "proper" job, all skin fittings should be removed in order to peel the hull fully. The yards view is that its ok to peel around the skin fittings and fair in new laminate once the hull has dried out. Given the amount of equipment (air conditioning, generator, water maker etc) there are 31 skin fittings which require removal. The yards quote for doing what they consider additional work equates to one month man hours to remove and replace these skin fittings. An average of five hours per skin fitting seem rediculous to me (even allowing for some which are difficult to access). One other issue is that the yard has also been contracted to replace the teak decking (other than coach roof) and I'm concerned that "if" the yard is trying to boost their profits on this work then they will do the same with the work on the deck. Having been out in some rather lumpy weather I know I have at least one leak around the side decks which may have compromised that balsa core (work not factored into the original estimate). Any advice would be much appreciated. Many thanks Gary Luxton
Symphony jpsholl@aol.com

[Bob Pleischl]

Gary, my boat an HC33T has been on the hard for over 1 1/2 yrs. I too suffered from an osmotic problem. I had her peeled one year ago last Oct. but did not remove all the thru hulls, laziness and it wasn't deemed necessary. Well just last week i decided that for the refinish and barrier coats to be applied properly i would remove the remaining thru hulls. What a problem. As you know none of these are located where easy access is an option. I must have spent five hours on just my sink drain thru hull. I finally ended up using a dremel tool on the outside thru hull to cut the mushroom square inorder to use a pipe wrench, that worked and had i known and accepted the cost of replacement the job may have gone much quicker. The point...my guess that the yard rates are much higher than the thru hull mushroom, so direct the yard just to destroy the mushroom part of the thru hull and replace with new, you may continue to use the original valve, assuming it operates ok. Hope this is of some value to you. Bob rpleischl@sailtime.net

[Lewis Whitesell]

Gary,
The mushroom can be ground off with a small hand grinder in just a few minutes. As Bob pointed out, the threaded shaft can be removed and after passing inspection and being cleaned and lubricated, the old seacock can be reused. Reinstallation should not take very long but is best done with two people. That could account for some of the 5 hour estimate. Sometimes the hardest part is getting the old hose off without messing it up, so if the hose is old, I usually just cut it off and replace it and the clamps, saves time and I have new hose. Won't have to go down there again for awhile!
LW
Lewis

[Stephen Carstensen]

Gary, What Lewis said! I've been there on my HC33T. The thing is the mushrooms can be replaced (sometimes) cheaper than the cost of trying to replace them. Also, consider replacing the thru-hulls themselves if they are original or are starting to bind up. The first ones to give me trouble were the galley sink exhaust and the head exhaust (seems obvious). We stripped the gel coat and then used the Interlux 1000/2000 products (IIRC). That was 1988 (on a 1986 hull), and all has been fine since. - Steve warmrain@rockisland.com

[Mike Coates]

Garry, As an ex UK boatyard owner I would agree the time factor is rediculous. I would guess the skin fittings on your hull will possibly be the same as our 43t Use to be i.e with a cone shaped flush fitting.I changed all mine during an osmosis traetment. I found it (as I did min the yard) cheaper to destroy the fitting rather than spend hours trying to remove it, replacement of a 1 1/2" skin fitting in bronze is circa

[Gary Luxton]

Thanks to everyone for there comments. I am trying to arrange for a friend to do the work for me and shall look at removing the skin fittings by cutting them if they do not come off easily (which maybe hoping for too much. I'm assuming that I will have to replace the hoses to take into account uk sizes (which I assume are different from US). Although thats a lot of hose, other than those connected with the engine, I can do when I get her back to Guernsey. Many thanks again Gary
Symphony jpsholl@aol.com

[Lewis Whitesell]

Gary,
Why would you have to replace the hoses (if they are in satisfactory codition). Removing the skin fittings/mushrooms won't change the nipple sizes on the seacocks (and I dont have any through hulls without a seacock on them).
The US hoses seem to be a little off-size from the original equipment nipples anyway...you may have better luck in UK!
I used a hand grinder last time and it took about 10 minutes to grind the mushroom off, hold the (4") grinder at about a 45 deg angle to the fitting and rotate it around until it eats through right where the threaded shaft meets the flange. That way you cut a minimum of material and produce less heat. Watch the heat.
Lewis

[Gary Luxton]

Thanks Lewis I suppose the answer to that question is "a fundamental lack of understanding as to how skin fitting and sea cocks fit togethr". Having just done the sensible thing and had a look on the web, I suppose my question should have been about seperating the remaining part of the cut thru hull fitting from the sea cock ie do they tend to bond to each other. If not I could probably get a friend to pick up the sea cocks for me and bring them back to Gsy for me to seperate the remaining part of the thru hull fitting and refurbish. Does that sound more sensible or am I off on the wrong track again? Thks again
Gary
Symphony jpsholl@aol.com

[Stephen Carstensen]

The mushroom simply threads into the seacock. If you grind the exterior raised portion off then the seacock lifts easily out of the hull. The remaining pipe section of the thru-hull can be unthreaded, perhaps using a pipe wrench or a vise if required. This is how we did it on the 33. If you have flush mounted (racing type) thru-hulls (which it seems some here do) than I do not know how to remove those by cutting on the outside of the boat. - Steve warmrain@rockisland.com

[Mike Coates]

Steve, I found the only way to remove them was with a sharp cold chissel, just cut in horizontally about 1/4" in from the hull surface - takes about 10 -15 minutes per fitting. I glassed all the cone shape recessas up in our hul & started again using conventional mushroom headed skin fittings. Mike - Jolly Swagman mike@laughingwhale.co.uk

[Stephen Carstensen]

Agreed, on a cruising boat the mushrooms heads are much easier to deal with. Additionally there is more "hull" left to support them...
- Steve warmrain@rockisland.com

[Peter Hentschel]

Gary: I also have a 1986 HC41T, "Cassotis" and was perplexed by your mention of "balsa core" around (or under) the side decks? The only core in my boat is in the structure of the coach top and that is comprised of plywood blocking. I know this because we recently replaced all of the teak decking on the coach top and had to repair several areas where water had penetrated into the core. I have investigated the fiberglass structure under the side decking and to the best of my knowledge this area is solid fiberglass with wood "stringers" glassed underneath to accept the screws for the teak decking. Those are spaced at the same spacing as the bungs in the decking above. Please let me know if you have determined some other structure for your hull and deck. I would be very interested in hearing what you have observed. Peter peterh@tectonpc.com

[Gary Luxton]

Peter My understanding was that HC's had balsa cores for the side decks. This is certainly the case at least with some of the early ones. The side decks on mine have not yet been lifted. I shall let you know what I find when the are. Gary Luxton Symphony jpsholl@aol.com

[Stephen Carstensen]

So many models, so many yards. I suspect we can't make blanket statement about coring...
- Steve warmrain@rockisland.com

[Peter Hentschel]

Gary: let me know your hull # and model of interior layout. if you were constructed close to Cassotis they may be the same. The subdeck contruction of Cassotis is visible by removing the ceiling panel in the port-side cabinet next to the forward head (Molokai edition). At that point you are looking directly at the underside of the deck structure and can clearly see the stringers that have been let in to provide a point of attachment for the teak decking. The chain locker deck structure is also a good place to view. A few pilot holes drilled from below should tell the picture. Peter peterh@tectonpc.com