Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:28:04 -0700, dave
wrote: I recently purchased a 30 odd year old hartley queenslander ferro cement sloop. I love it and so does my family and friends. Its a funny old thing, everything works, but all the know alls who own boats built of other materials look down their noses and all have some anecdotal story about the woes of ferro construction. It sails beautifully, motors with ease, is very comfortable. Could someone who has owned , or does own a ferro share with me their trials and tribulations. I don;t own one but have a mate that owns a 50 footer. He used to sail it to Perth every year and back to Thailand six months later. No problems with the hull. The reason that ferocement boats have a bad reputation is because people used to b build them in their back wards and when it came time to plaster them would get a bunch of beer and all their mates in. some of these were pretty horrible. Other people were smart enough to have a professional plasterer do the job and never have a problem. They are heavy for their length though and you'll probably find that you can carry a lot more sail then the fiberglass boats. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote
They are heavy for their length though and you'll probably find that you can carry a lot more sail then the fiberglass boats. But a LOT less than a cored glass boat of the same shape and equal displacement with the weight saved in the hull carried as ballast. The glass boat will also be much stronger if some of the weight savings is used to add material. I once figured out that a typical ferrocement hull was the material equivalent of 1/64 of an inch of steel on each side of a 1/2 inch concrete core. Does that sound like a way to build a boat? Worse the steel, which should be the tensile material on a thin shell, was on the inside and the concrete, a material most effective in compression, was on the outside. Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up. That doesn't mean you can't built a good boat out of it, just that it will not be as strong or well performing as other materials which are not significantly different in cost when you consider the full investment. -- Roger Long |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 17, 2:52 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
.... Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up. That doesn't mean you can't built a good boat out of it, just that it will not be as strong or well performing as other materials which are not significantly different in cost when you consider the full investment. .... Indeed, particularly with yachts where most of the total cost is in the fit-out. But that's new builds. From time to time there are some really good deals on the used market in fero and I know some folks who have cruised happily in big stone boats that cost them far less than an equivalent used boat in metal or plastic would have. I am aware of the many arguments folks make against fero and am not a big fan of it myself, but some cruisers have been very well served by their cement craft. -- Tom. |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:25:38 -0700, "
wrote: Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up. Steel is lighter than wood. of equal strength. Aluminum is lighter than wood. For the same weight aluminum and steel are equally strong. |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 18, 2:18 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote: On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:25:38 -0700, " wrote: Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up. Steel is lighter than wood. of equal strength. Aluminum is lighter than wood. For the same weight aluminum and steel are equally strong. I didn't write that. I was quoting Roger. My feeling is that the word construction is implied in his statement. As built to typical scantlings wooden boat construction is lighter but weaker than steel construction. In small craft the difference is very significant because of minimum practical plate thickness. -- Tom. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:45:11 -0700, "
wrote: As built to typical scantlings wooden boat construction is lighter but weaker than steel construction. In small craft the difference is very significant because of minimum practical plate thickness. Lots weaker. As I said, steel has a better strength to weight ratio than wood If you build similar boats, of equal strength, wood will be heavier not lighter. My experience with 16 foot boats is that wood is a lot heavier than riveted aluminum. Same with the canoe. No maintance whatever for fifty years, with the aluminum boats. It is true that welded construction does require a minimum thickness. Not so riveted, you get to use all of the weight, instead of unnecessarily strong and heavy steel. Aluminum is thicker than steel for equal strength, so it is stiffer, strength to weight ratio being the same as the steel. For equal strength wood is stiffer than metal, because it is thicker. I much prefer metal to wood or fiberglass. Light weight, zero maintance what more could one want? Metal is noisier. Wood is quieter, give or take the moaning and groaning, which the engine and/or wind will drown out. In conclusion, welded steel is not optinum for boats under about fifty feet. Steel tends to warp from the expansion when you weld it, so you have a minimum thickness and a minimum sized boat, assuming you want to use the strength of the steel efficiently. At one hundred feet, you can use 1/4 inch plate. That is much easier to weld than sheet metal. Casady |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 18, 5:44 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote: .... As I said, steel has a better strength to weight ratio than wood If you build similar boats, of equal strength, wood will be heavier not lighter. My experience with 16 foot boats is that wood is a lot heavier than riveted aluminum. ... Volumes have been written on matteral's properties. It isn't a simple subject and I am not a master of it. The properties of complex structures in a complex environment are very, very difficult to grasp from first principles. The strength of a structure is only loosely connected to the strength of it's materials. Thus, comparing a single property of steel and wood isn't a great guide to that property in a complete boat. Cruising boats aren't 16 foot tinnies. Also, you are comparing a lightly built tin boat with a heavy wood one. Right up until the 70's racing dingies, rowing shells, unlimited hydroplanes &c. built of wood were lighter, stiffer and faster than glass, aluminum was not competitive and steel was never considered. In practice, boats built as lightly as permissible to any of the classification societies rules to a given service will be heaviest in steel and then aluminum and then solid fiberglass and then wood and lightest in cored glass or exotic fiber. So, while I will not argue that a steel boat couldn't be made as lightly as a wooden boat for a given service, such a craft would be revolutionary. In practice, steel boats are heavy but very durable and wood ones are light and less durable and in that context Roger's statement seems very reasonable to me. I don't mean to dis metal boats, many of them are great. I've got an aluminum RIB that I'm very fond of. Riveted aluminum can be very light and I know a guy who built a catamaran of cor-ten steel with an ingenious space frame system that was reasonably light. On the other hand, I remember a lovely evening in Apia Samoa when I shared dinner and a couple of jugs of wine with three world cruisers who had voyaged there on their steel boats. We got to talking horror stories and they each had one to tell about putting a finger or dropping a hammer through a bit of the hull or deck on their own boats. Localized corrosion can be a real problem for steel boats and thin plates will make it worse. Steel boats are always rusting and thick ones last longer too. A riveted thin skinned aluminum boat with an electrical system that was in the water full time is almost certain to have major electrolysis problems. So, I'd advise caution when you attempt to make a steel boat as light as a wooden one. Scantlings take into account mistakes other folks have made for you... -- Tom. |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Richard Casady" wrote: Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up. Steel is lighter than wood. of equal strength. Aluminum is lighter than wood. For the same weight aluminum and steel are equally strong. Compared to an Airex cored hull with epoxy and knitted glass skins, all of the above are a joke. Lew |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:19:58 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: "Richard Casady" wrote: Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up. Steel is lighter than wood. of equal strength. Aluminum is lighter than wood. For the same weight aluminum and steel are equally strong. Compared to an Airex cored hull with epoxy and knitted glass skins, all of the above are a joke. The very best plastic may be stronger. I think if Boeing is using it that says something. Be interesting to see a table comparing the S/N for various materials. I know the latest fiberglass [and other plastic] is a lot better than it used to be. Been my experience that the older fiberglass boats are heavier than a comparable aluminum boat. In any case, I got a 22 foot aluminum boat, in the usual good shape, for two grand, instead. I laughed all the way to the bank. If the available steal had been a plastic boat I might well have bought that. It is well known that you can build a decent boat from any of the popular materials. That is why they are popular, after all. The family has a plastic boat that has been in use for fifty years. It is pretty heavy. A turbocraft, first of the jet boats, SN 10. It finally got painted after forty years. On the other hand, the local aluminum boats of that vintage are still doing fine with the original bare metal. We have a couple of neighbors with 1940's fiberglass sailboats. The material was not well understood, they used too much, and the boats are way heavy. They are, however, still in good shape. Something called Rebels, they are among the earliest of the production glass boats. Plastic [not necessarily glass], _is_ lighter than aluminum if it is done right, the aircraft industry is proving that. As for glass, it is heavier than graphite or kevlar, and you can get those materials in boats. Titanium is lighter than aluminum, for that matter. Ever hear of the Russian Alfa class subs? Titanium. They didn't build many of them. Where you really want the lightest construction is in canoes that are destined to be portaged. Early fiberglass canoes were way heavier than aluminum, and the wooden ones were heavy. While metal and wood haven't changed, the plastic is a lot better than it used to be. Casady |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Richard Casady" wrote: The very best plastic may be stronger. I think if Boeing is using it that says something. Be interesting to see a table comparing the S/N for various materials. I know the latest fiberglass [and other plastic] is a lot better than it used to be. Been my experience that the older fiberglass boats are heavier than a comparable aluminum boat. snip Most existing "fiberglass" boats are polyester resin with woven roving and mat. Woven roving is coarse compared to knitted material and requires the mat to retain the polyester resin. About the best glass/resin ratio you can expect is 35%Glass/65%resin which produces a heavy laminate. Polyester is also more brittle than epoxy resin. Polyester is also NOT an adhesive which is why you see holes thru the plywood used for bulkheads with the glass going thru the hole. It provided a mechanical means of bonding. OTOH, epoxy is an adhesive, can take advantage of knitted glass which means much higher glass content with less resin required. A 50%glass/50%resin ratio is easy to obtain with hand layup techniques, vacuum bagging can achieve even higher glass/resin ratios. The result is a much lighter as well as stronger laminate. Add Airex foam as a core material to the mix and it is a whole new ball game. You could build a dynamite hull for a 15'-20' boat using 1/2" thick Airex foam core(6.3lbs/ft^3), and 3 layers of 17OZ double bias(+/-45degree) glass. Translation: 3 layers of 17 Oz with a 50/50 G\R ratio= (17*3)*2=102 Oz for each laminate skin or 204 Oz/sq yard for both skins. The Airex: (1/2)(6.3*16*36*36)/1728 = 14.2 Oz/sq yard for 1/2" Airex. 204 + 14.2 = 216 Oz/Sq Yard = 216/9 = 24.0 Oz/Sq Ft = 1.5 Lbs/Sq ft. Pick a metal, you will need at least 1/4" plate to provide equalivant strength which means a lot more weight. BTW, add a layer of 17OZ glass, say 6"-8" wide along the keelson for a wear strip, and you are good to go. The only problem with epoxy is that it has no UV resistance so a coat of paint is required. Lew |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ferro-Cement | General | |||
Ferro Cement Boat Restoration | General | |||
Ferro Cement Boat Restoration | Tall Ships | |||
FS: Ferro cement hull with provenance in San Francisco, CA | Marketplace | |||
ferro cement boats | Boat Building |