lilmurray
Member
Patience, the Romex story is coming. First, in the name of scrupulous, or perhaps ridiculous, accuracy I want to do a little nit picking. None of this may alter anyone’s conclusions, or is it intended to, but again it’s accuracy that is first in my mind.
I made a lengthy post on materials used and construction I observed on the “Hawaiian”. I want to clarify and add a few things.
1) I noted in a couple of posts that it is literally the case that every piece of lumber used on the boat started as a 2x4. The smaller pieces are cut from 2x4s and the larger pieces are glued up with an epoxy paste and fastened together with screws. The lumber used is rated for a limited structural application; it is, as I observed and my photos indicate, STUD grade. In an absolute sense the lumber is not “substandard” and it is suitable for a defined limited use in homebuilding. You should decide whether or not you think it is appropriate for the use observed here. I did not render such an opinion in my posts. Take a look at the Western Wood Products reference I cited in the post and you will find a detailed description of the standards applied, and the structural properties of this and other grades. As for the plywood in the hulls, as I described it is 3/8 C-D Sheathing Exposure 1. People commonly call this type of material CDX but this is not a plywood grade. None of the panels are or would be marked C-X as suggested by one poster, because such a marking is not used. BTW the deck plywood appears to be 19/32 C-D sheathing. I say “appears” because I could see only a few grade marks for this plywood. I will show some of these in a future post. One area that may be a higher grade is the forward sloping cabin top. If you look at the cabin photos I posted in post # 1607 you will see the underside of this area that displays what looks to be a C grade face. I suppose it is possible that this is C-D plywood with the D face outward but extending the benefit of the doubt maybe this is a better grade used in this area.
2) I want to say three further things about lumber and generally how they may apply to this discussion. First, is that even with STUD grade lumber a very experienced and discriminating carpenter could find some individual pieces in a unit of 2x4s that are likely to be stronger and more appropriate for certain uses than others. That doesn’t mean it was done here, and again both the species and the grain structure matter to how strong each piece is going to be. Second, construction lumber is graded for its structural properties not for how it looks. A clean looking knot free piece of STUD grade lumber can be considerably weaker than a tight knotted #2 or better piece of the same or superior species. Thus, the mere presence of knots and other visible defects is not an indication that the wood is cheap, weak or substandard. Third, I mentioned that the WWPA grades Douglas fir lumber as generally stronger in pretty much all respects over Hem Fir. Some will also know that Doug Fir has been used successfully for boat building on the west coast for generations. I should also note that both of the major local lumber yards here in town (These are big time wholesale/ retail concerns. ) that supply builders in a wide area had as of my last visit, Friday, multiple units of KD #1 & Btr Douglas fir 2x4s. (BTW tons of other lumber was also available. I didn’t see any KD Hem-Fir STUD grade on offer at either place.) My point is that were one to want a far superior piece of lumber in the immediate area it wouldn’t be that difficult to find, provided, of course, that you have the money.
3) With some moderate degree of certainty I can say a few things about the fiberglass reinforcement of the boat. The hulls above the waterline are reinforced with glass fabric tape or cut strips of fabric about 6 inches wide along the seams between the plywood sheets. A close up look reveals the texture of glass cloth around the perimeter of the plywood sheets. In the center of the sheets the texture suggests that only a layer of epoxy and paint have been applied. I didn’t see any evidence that chopper cut mat (CSM) was used anywhere on the exterior of the boat as described by a poster here. Of course it could be covered with fabric in places but I don’t think it was used, because the layup looks very thin and in some places so minimally wetted with epoxy that the texture of the fabric can be felt. The exterior surface of the cabin and decks is covered with a layer of fiberglass fabric. It laps over the gunwales and on to the upper Hull surface for maybe 8-10 inches. The sloping forward surface of the cabin may be an exception. The partial profile of the support beams that define the layout of this surface are visible and do not appear covered. Most other areas of the deck and cabin are quite obviously covered because you can see and feel the texture. There are bubbles, blisters and inconsistencies on various areas of the deck
4) Observers of my posted photos of the Hawaiian have remarked that they see a significant concave section on the inner surface of the port hull. This photo can be found in post #1865. I have closely examined the photograph and since it was taken the area of the hull discussed. While the lines of the hull are not fair and the surface could be described as wavy, the large depression described by some does not exist. It is a photographic anomaly produced by the light and the angle of the photo relative to the intersection between a chine and a flat surface of the hull.
5) There has been much discussion of the carriage bolt attachment of the bridge deck support beams. I have enjoyed reading it. However, I do want to make one bigger picture comment that some might find relevant. While I could find no beams in the boat that span the entire distance between the port and starboard hulls there are other “structural elements” that appear designed to hold the hulls together and preserve the “integrity” of the boat. I was thinking of drawing and posting for discussion a cross section through amidships to illustrate the complete structure. Again, my saying this doesn’t say anything about the adequacy of the additional structure, just that it’s there.
6) I made a recent post, #2150 that discussed some hoses exiting the port hull. Several people have picked up on this and at least one other poster observed a hose discharging water from the Hawaiian. Indeed this could be discharge from a bilge(s) pump, but I have no reliable information to indicate that the port hull is actually leaking or that it is awash as some have suggested. I haven’t observed a regular discharge from this hose(s). I suspect we would all be curious to hear from anyone who has recently been below deck in the port hull of the Flyin Hawaiian. The boat does list a bit to port, but this could be due to the fact that there is more weight on this side with the galley, head, batteries and holding tank all located port of the centerline.
New photos promised with my next post.
I made a lengthy post on materials used and construction I observed on the “Hawaiian”. I want to clarify and add a few things.
1) I noted in a couple of posts that it is literally the case that every piece of lumber used on the boat started as a 2x4. The smaller pieces are cut from 2x4s and the larger pieces are glued up with an epoxy paste and fastened together with screws. The lumber used is rated for a limited structural application; it is, as I observed and my photos indicate, STUD grade. In an absolute sense the lumber is not “substandard” and it is suitable for a defined limited use in homebuilding. You should decide whether or not you think it is appropriate for the use observed here. I did not render such an opinion in my posts. Take a look at the Western Wood Products reference I cited in the post and you will find a detailed description of the standards applied, and the structural properties of this and other grades. As for the plywood in the hulls, as I described it is 3/8 C-D Sheathing Exposure 1. People commonly call this type of material CDX but this is not a plywood grade. None of the panels are or would be marked C-X as suggested by one poster, because such a marking is not used. BTW the deck plywood appears to be 19/32 C-D sheathing. I say “appears” because I could see only a few grade marks for this plywood. I will show some of these in a future post. One area that may be a higher grade is the forward sloping cabin top. If you look at the cabin photos I posted in post # 1607 you will see the underside of this area that displays what looks to be a C grade face. I suppose it is possible that this is C-D plywood with the D face outward but extending the benefit of the doubt maybe this is a better grade used in this area.
2) I want to say three further things about lumber and generally how they may apply to this discussion. First, is that even with STUD grade lumber a very experienced and discriminating carpenter could find some individual pieces in a unit of 2x4s that are likely to be stronger and more appropriate for certain uses than others. That doesn’t mean it was done here, and again both the species and the grain structure matter to how strong each piece is going to be. Second, construction lumber is graded for its structural properties not for how it looks. A clean looking knot free piece of STUD grade lumber can be considerably weaker than a tight knotted #2 or better piece of the same or superior species. Thus, the mere presence of knots and other visible defects is not an indication that the wood is cheap, weak or substandard. Third, I mentioned that the WWPA grades Douglas fir lumber as generally stronger in pretty much all respects over Hem Fir. Some will also know that Doug Fir has been used successfully for boat building on the west coast for generations. I should also note that both of the major local lumber yards here in town (These are big time wholesale/ retail concerns. ) that supply builders in a wide area had as of my last visit, Friday, multiple units of KD #1 & Btr Douglas fir 2x4s. (BTW tons of other lumber was also available. I didn’t see any KD Hem-Fir STUD grade on offer at either place.) My point is that were one to want a far superior piece of lumber in the immediate area it wouldn’t be that difficult to find, provided, of course, that you have the money.
3) With some moderate degree of certainty I can say a few things about the fiberglass reinforcement of the boat. The hulls above the waterline are reinforced with glass fabric tape or cut strips of fabric about 6 inches wide along the seams between the plywood sheets. A close up look reveals the texture of glass cloth around the perimeter of the plywood sheets. In the center of the sheets the texture suggests that only a layer of epoxy and paint have been applied. I didn’t see any evidence that chopper cut mat (CSM) was used anywhere on the exterior of the boat as described by a poster here. Of course it could be covered with fabric in places but I don’t think it was used, because the layup looks very thin and in some places so minimally wetted with epoxy that the texture of the fabric can be felt. The exterior surface of the cabin and decks is covered with a layer of fiberglass fabric. It laps over the gunwales and on to the upper Hull surface for maybe 8-10 inches. The sloping forward surface of the cabin may be an exception. The partial profile of the support beams that define the layout of this surface are visible and do not appear covered. Most other areas of the deck and cabin are quite obviously covered because you can see and feel the texture. There are bubbles, blisters and inconsistencies on various areas of the deck
4) Observers of my posted photos of the Hawaiian have remarked that they see a significant concave section on the inner surface of the port hull. This photo can be found in post #1865. I have closely examined the photograph and since it was taken the area of the hull discussed. While the lines of the hull are not fair and the surface could be described as wavy, the large depression described by some does not exist. It is a photographic anomaly produced by the light and the angle of the photo relative to the intersection between a chine and a flat surface of the hull.
5) There has been much discussion of the carriage bolt attachment of the bridge deck support beams. I have enjoyed reading it. However, I do want to make one bigger picture comment that some might find relevant. While I could find no beams in the boat that span the entire distance between the port and starboard hulls there are other “structural elements” that appear designed to hold the hulls together and preserve the “integrity” of the boat. I was thinking of drawing and posting for discussion a cross section through amidships to illustrate the complete structure. Again, my saying this doesn’t say anything about the adequacy of the additional structure, just that it’s there.
6) I made a recent post, #2150 that discussed some hoses exiting the port hull. Several people have picked up on this and at least one other poster observed a hose discharging water from the Hawaiian. Indeed this could be discharge from a bilge(s) pump, but I have no reliable information to indicate that the port hull is actually leaking or that it is awash as some have suggested. I haven’t observed a regular discharge from this hose(s). I suspect we would all be curious to hear from anyone who has recently been below deck in the port hull of the Flyin Hawaiian. The boat does list a bit to port, but this could be due to the fact that there is more weight on this side with the galley, head, batteries and holding tank all located port of the centerline.
New photos promised with my next post.
