"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:H%Aid.60577$UA.17462@lakeread08...
All that said, I would use 5200 so the keel would break in half before
the
seal will be jeopardized.

I am sorely tempted because I laid up my own hull and built my own support
frames. 5200 would add a layer of comfort. OTOH, the strength of a
structure is limited by the weakest component. If the 5200 bond is
stronger
than the glass layup or the core material a small wiggle might cause more
damage than a simple leak.

Besides 5200 has a magnetic affinity for human flesh and any bright white
surface. :-)

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Seems to me the deciding factor would be what is the basis for the design?
And I'm not talking about loads, stresses etc. I'm more interested in if
it's designed so that it can be maintained, designed on the basis that
maintenance will not be required ( and if that's the case, is there any
point in asking the question, it's a boat ... ) , or on the basis that
maintenance is either something to be dealt with when required, or will be
someone else's problem. Sort of an informal failure mode analysis....

So if I was absolutely certain that I'd be removing the keel to check in say
5 year's time, I'd use something I could remove rather more readily than
5200. If I wasn't going to check, or had confidence in the design and
perhaps a non-destructive testing method ( x-ray or ultrasonics ?) or
thought that in 5 years ( or whatever inspection period the designer or good
practice recommends.. . ) I would no longer care ..... I'd use the damned
stuff.

And this tempered by the idea that "a small wiggle" which was not so small
would perhaps have totally unforseen consequences, and that cutting out a
5200 bond might be the least of the issues.

Of course none of this helps anyone in making a decision ......

DF