Does anyone know a source of bronze pipe caps that could be used to
blank off old through hulls without fiberglassing up the holes? I'd
fill the hole with something solid as well but I'd like that solid cap
on there.

--

Roger Long

Roger
I do not know where you are in the world, but try a real plumbing
supply house. There is usually one where ever I have been. BoatUS or
some place like them, might have them too.
Greg Luckett

Roger Long wrote:
Does anyone know a source of bronze pipe caps that could be used to
blank off old through hulls without fiberglassing up the holes? I'd
fill the hole with something solid as well but I'd like that solid
cap
on there.

--

Roger Long

Do yourself and the boat a major favor. Do a professional job and glass
the hole. For safety sake if for no other reason. You won't have
electrolysis issues and potential leaks. If you plan to reuse it at
some time, just close it and take the handle off. Caping it might not
be the right move.

A bronze cap of the same material and schedule will be just as
reliable as the thru hull which is a no back up component. Filling
the space with something resilient and flexible will exclude water and
also serve as a plug. I'd much rather depend on this with the thru
hull and inner nut sandwiching the glass that grinding back the hull
structure and depending on secondary glass bonds.

I would just leave the seacocks as you suggest except that they are
gate valves that I'm replacing and relocating at the same time.

--

Roger Long



"chuck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Do yourself and the boat a major favor. Do a professional job and
glass
the hole. For safety sake if for no other reason. You won't have
electrolysis issues and potential leaks. If you plan to reuse it at
some time, just close it and take the handle off. Caping it might
not
be the right move.

Here is one source:
http://www.stright-mackay.com/pages/...5&CategoryID=5

http://www.stright-mackay.com/
--
Ken Heaton & Anne Tobin
Cape Breton Island, Canada
kenheaton AT ess wye dee DOT eastlink DOT ca

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
A bronze cap of the same material and schedule will be just as
reliable as the thru hull which is a no back up component. Filling
the space with something resilient and flexible will exclude water and
also serve as a plug. I'd much rather depend on this with the thru
hull and inner nut sandwiching the glass that grinding back the hull
structure and depending on secondary glass bonds.

I would just leave the seacocks as you suggest except that they are
gate valves that I'm replacing and relocating at the same time.

--

Roger Long



"chuck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Do yourself and the boat a major favor. Do a professional job and
glass
the hole. For safety sake if for no other reason. You won't have
electrolysis issues and potential leaks. If you plan to reuse it at
some time, just close it and take the handle off. Caping it might
not
be the right move.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...

A bronze cap of the same material and schedule will be just as
reliable as the thru hull which is a no back up component. Filling
the space with something resilient and flexible will exclude water and
also serve as a plug. I'd much rather depend on this with the thru
hull and inner nut sandwiching the glass that grinding back the hull
structure and depending on secondary glass bonds.

I would just leave the seacocks as you suggest except that they are
gate valves that I'm replacing and relocating at the same time.

--

Roger Long

Roger,

I agree with the other posters. If you read about boats sinking, it's
seldom from secondary bonds popping off. More often than not it is a
seacock failing in some way. I figure you have a number of failure
points with a capped off seacock (cap coming loose, corrosion of
thru-hull, long term failure of caulking (like in 10 years).

I would go so far as to say it would not pass a survey with just a cap
on thru hull.

Evan Gatehouse

From a strength, corrosion, and functional standpoint:

If it isn't safe with a cap on it, it isn't safe with a seacock and a
hose.

(I'm talking about capping the bronze through hull; not the seacock.)

OTOH there is no way a scarfed out and secondarily bonded plug will be
as resistant to flexure and impact as the original hull. I would
agree that it would be acceptably safe and strong but still not to the
original standards. The capped seacock, especially with seawater and
the electrical path isolated from the inside of the pipe by proper
plugging, would be more reliable than it was originally.

--

Roger Long



"Evan Gatehouse" wrote in message
...
"Roger Long" wrote in message
...

A bronze cap of the same material and schedule will be just as
reliable as the thru hull which is a no back up component.
Filling
the space with something resilient and flexible will exclude
water and
also serve as a plug. I'd much rather depend on this with the
thru
hull and inner nut sandwiching the glass that grinding back the
hull
structure and depending on secondary glass bonds.

I would just leave the seacocks as you suggest except that they
are
gate valves that I'm replacing and relocating at the same time.

--

Roger Long

Roger,

I agree with the other posters. If you read about boats sinking,
it's seldom from secondary bonds popping off. More often than not
it is a seacock failing in some way. I figure you have a number of
failure points with a capped off seacock (cap coming loose,
corrosion of thru-hull, long term failure of caulking (like in 10
years).

I would go so far as to say it would not pass a survey with just a
cap on thru hull.

Evan Gatehouse

I asked a well regarded and experienced surveyor about the through
hulls. Here is his response:

"The standard response to unused thru hulls is to cap them. The
removal
and reglassing is suspect. I think your approach is the proper
solution and
will last beyond any other approach."

--

Roger Long

Roger Long wrote:
I asked a well regarded and experienced surveyor about the through
hulls. Here is his response:

"The standard response to unused thru hulls is to cap them. The
removal
and reglassing is suspect. I think your approach is the proper
solution and
will last beyond any other approach."


I don't understand how "reglassing is suspect." As for capping
thru-hulls, one very rarely sees that and it leaves a vulnerable point.
You might consider asking the ABYC.

When it comes to holes in your hull, the "more is better" approach
doesn't sound good.

DSK

Well, the hole in this discussion is already there. The question is
how it get's plugged up. It's either going to get plugged up with
fiberglass or with the existing bronze fitting designed for this
critical service and mechanically locked into the fiberglass by the
flange and nut.

As someone who has been designing boats (including fiberglass ones)
and figuring out how to keep the water out for over a quarter century,
I'm in favor of the latter.

If cost and time were not issues, and I wanted the inside and outside
of the boat to look like nothing was ever there, I would have no
qualms about a properly done fiberglass fill in. This is a case though
where, as an engineering judgement, I think the easy way out is
actually the most reliable by a small margin.

I find it very interesting what a minority I seem to be on this
(except for the single professional second opinion I've obtained).

--

Roger Long



"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

I don't understand how "reglassing is suspect." As for capping
thru-hulls, one very rarely sees that and it leaves a vulnerable
point. You might consider asking the ABYC.

When it comes to holes in your hull, the "more is better" approach
doesn't sound good.

DSK