Help trawler confusion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
refugio said:
I've never heard of Foggman, but that is indeed an attractive boat. I'm a little surprised that they don't provide any pictures of the interior - I'd like to see the quality of the joinery

As others have said, with a fiberglass covering it is unlikely to plane so that 14 kts is a fantasy.

I mention a lot of books, but there's one that is particularly relevant to this boat: "Covering Wooden Boats with Fiberglass" by Allan Vaitses. The book was written in 1981 and covered the author's 15 years of experience doing exactly that, mostly with Maine lobster boats though he does mention a Rybovich that he RE-fiberglassed and a few other yachts.

I talked to the author a few times in the mid-80s when I was considering covering my 32' Monk cruiser. I started with replacing the canvas covering over the saloon cabin top and used matt and roving, fastened with stainless steel staples. I also changed his technique of laying up wet, and then fastening - I laid up dry and fastened first before saturating. I'm not an accomplished craftsman, but the job turned out quite well - it just took an enormous amount of time so I decided against covering the hull. In the 90s I ended up spending $10K (the value of the boat) rebuilding the transom, and a subsequent owner spent about that redoing much of the hull in the following decade.

If you are seriously intersted in this boat, you should source a copy of the book and learn about terminating the covering, finishing tecnhiques, et cetera. One warning sign I see is that they didn't also cover the decks, the biggest source of the fresh-water intrusion that will ruin a wood boat.

Most fiberglass coverings that I have seen failed have used cloth, which IMHO has no place on a boat (Vaitses cautions against it as well). If the covering on this boat is substantial, you might get many years of use from this boat.

If the fiberglass covering scares you off but you are comfortable with a wood boat, you might look at the old Grand Banks 32 woodies - here's one from 1970 located in RI for $38K:
1970 Grand Banks Power Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
Click to expand...


Are you saying fiberglass cloth has no place on a boat?
 
psneeld said:
Are you saying fiberglass cloth has no place on a boat?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I said - but I was planning on going back and editing that to say CSM below the waterline. Sorry, brain fart.

update: Argh, I really shouldn't have made a blanket statement like that anyway. There are a lot of factors that go into a structural laminate, and throughly saturating cloth is one of them. And CSM being somewhat porous is another. And so on. Nevermind. :eek:
 
Last edited:
refugio said:
Yes, that's what I said - but I was planning on going back and editing that to say CSM below the waterline. Sorry, brain fart.
Click to expand...

You mean no chopped strand mat below the waterline????
 
psneeld said:
I know...just ground off my bottom...could peel large sections of CSM off by hand...and put back 6oz cloth with epoxy and 8 gallons of interprotect 2000
Click to expand...
Did you look at biaxial cloth? Or did you rotate the layers by 45 degrees?
 
Last edited:
Marin said:
I thought most if not all Bayliners have chopper gun hulls?
Click to expand...


Another Bayliner legend. :blush:

At one point Bayliner tried chopper gun laid up hulls. It was in the early 1980's if I remember the history correctly. I do not remember the exact models anymore, but it was a short lived experiment.
 
I suspect it was in their smaller models. A co-worker bought a 20-something foot Bayliner Trophy hardtop in the mid-80s and within a couple of years the entire bottom was seriously blistered. To the point where the hull had to be dried out for a couple of months and then completely redone. The warranty was up but my co-worker fought Bayliner tooth and nail until they eventually agreed to pay a portion of the repair cost. That parrticular boat had a chopper gun hull.

I know there was/is quite a difference between the construction and comoponent quality of their smaller boats and their larger motoryacht types, the ones that were built in Arlington. I have always heard their bigger boats were pretty well made.
 
Marin said:
I suspect it was in their smaller models. A co-worker bought a 20-something foot Bayliner Trophy hardtop in the mid-80s and within a couple of years the entire bottom was seriously blistered. To the point where the hull had to be dried out for a couple of months and then completely redone. The warranty was up but my co-worker fought Bayliner tooth and nail until they eventually agreed to pay a portion of the repair cost. That parrticular boat had a chopper gun hull.

I know there was/is quite a difference between the construction and comoponent quality of their smaller boats and their larger motoryacht types, the ones that were built in Arlington. I have always heard their bigger boats were pretty well made.
Click to expand...

I have to admit I've never had one of their ski or small fish boats. We started with the cruisers, and took them in some pretty serious places here in Alaska.

What I can say is that with the motor yacht series the quality and components seem to be approx equal to other production boats.

I've spent allot of time on some of the other popular Pacific NW built boats of the same age and the fit and finish seems on par with them.

Boats like the GB were and always will be in a separate category of fit and finish.
 
refugio said:
Did you look at biaxial cloth? Or did you rotate the layers by 45 degrees?
Click to expand...
just one layer as a waterproofer...no strength really needed..even the 5'x5' patch of 3 layers 18 roving plus 6 layers of the 6 oz...biaxial stuf is nice but overkill on a 80's vintage roving and mat hull...especially with good epoxy
 
ksanders said:
Boats like the GB were and always will be in a separate category of fit and finish.
Click to expand...

While GB certainly set a high standard for construction quality I think their real contribution, starting in the mid-60s, was consistency. Where many of the so-called Taiwan Trawlers varied all over the map in build quality within the same model due to the way the manufacturing and assembly was farmed out, American Marine, first in Kowloon and then in Singapore, turned out boat after boat identical in build quality. First in wood and then in fiberglass. Not just their Grand Banks line but their Alaskan line as well (which was only made in wood).

If anything sets GB apart I believe it is this consistency from boat to boat starting in 1966 up through today. Not that other makes do not exhibit the same degree of consistency. But I believe American Marine was among the first to set such high standards of consistency among production cruising boats.

What Bayliner did very, very well, perhaps better than any other boat manufacturer, was identify a market segment and then design and build a boat that met the requirements of that segment at an affordable price. This does not automatically mean corner-cutting and cheapo boats, although some of their entry-level runabouts were pretty inexpensively made.

As a result a lot of people who might not have been able to afford to get into boating, be it running about on a lake, fishing, or longer range cruising, were able to take up the pasttime. Bayliner in effect built both their boats and their market at the same time.
 
Last edited:
At one point Bayliner tried chopper gun laid up hulls. It was in the early 1980's if I remember the history correctly. I do not remember the exact models anymore, but it was a short lived experiment.

"early 1980's"

After 1973 , when the resin price went up (400%+) from .19 a pound the chop chop boats became too expensive as the thickness (there for weight of resin) was too hard to control.

A chop chop boat IS the basis for LLoyds approval. The use of woven roving and CSM allows a thinner,lighter hull.

FF
 
psneeld said:
Usually not good...but could be one that was done OK.....If done OK...there's so much glass on there with 120 hp diesel she's probably only displacement now.

I wouldn't probably even consider it.
Click to expand...
Hi - I know I am following up on an older post, with at least one question that may be somewhat inappropriate - if so - simply say you prefer not to comment. My intended use is gunk holing on the Mississippi.
I have been giving some serious thought to a Foggman 32 (currently listed on yacht world), but have great difficulty finding out much about the design, the builder, and - assuming I am correct that it is the same boat - most curiously, the reason(s) she hasn't sold. It appears that over a few years, a number of folks have looked hard at her - I've also found a few requests for shipping bids, some costly - etc. Yet, at what seems a reasonable fair asking price, this boat has not moved. I KNOW, there can be thousands of reasons, but those who have looked at her and stepped away, may know things that can help others - like myself - make better decisions. So much for the uncomfortable part of the question...
I've built a few (admittedly smaller, at 16 and 26Ft) wood-epoxy boats, and in principle that part doesn't scare me much. I appreciate the concerns about CSM vs. woven matt. Much would seem to depend on how well she was dried out before they glassed her.
So, ANY info re: Foggman vessels, and any concerns specific to older boats like this 1980 model being covered later in life, shall be very much appreciated! THe 120 Lehman (1980) with reasonable hours seems pretty straightforward. A thorough testing should tell most of what needs to be known. But what about Foggman's in general? Thanks so much!
 
I know...just ground off my bottom...could peel large sections of CSM off by hand...and put back 6oz cloth with epoxy and 8 gallons of interprotect 2000

I appreciate the concerns about CSM vs. woven matt. Much would seem to depend on how well she was dried out before they glassed her

The key here is the resin used to do the job , not CSM or cloth or roving.

Polly resin is for building new polly boats ,

EPOXY is the only choice after the boat is built.
 
DutchProf said:
Hi - I know I am following up on an older post, with at least one question that may be somewhat inappropriate - if so - simply say you prefer not to comment. My intended use is gunk holing on the Mississippi.
I have been giving some serious thought to a Foggman 32 (currently listed on yacht world), but have great difficulty finding out much about the design, the builder, and - assuming I am correct that it is the same boat - most curiously, the reason(s) she hasn't sold. It appears that over a few years, a number of folks have looked hard at her - I've also found a few requests for shipping bids, some costly - etc. Yet, at what seems a reasonable fair asking price, this boat has not moved. I KNOW, there can be thousands of reasons, but those who have looked at her and stepped away, may know things that can help others - like myself - make better decisions. So much for the uncomfortable part of the question...
I've built a few (admittedly smaller, at 16 and 26Ft) wood-epoxy boats, and in principle that part doesn't scare me much. I appreciate the concerns about CSM vs. woven matt. Much would seem to depend on how well she was dried out before they glassed her.
So, ANY info re: Foggman vessels, and any concerns specific to older boats like this 1980 model being covered later in life, shall be very much appreciated! THe 120 Lehman (1980) with reasonable hours seems pretty straightforward. A thorough testing should tell most of what needs to be known. But what about Foggman's in general? Thanks so much!
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are asking...don't know anything about Foggman boats...and I would personally never own a cruising wood boat

If I bought an older wooden boat that needed glass to keep her afloat, she would never leave the dock. Can it be done? Sure...just not by me and I really don't recommend it with all the glass boats out there.
 
Foggman 32

Sorry if I was unclear. Was tiptoeing around the real question...
My interest has been seriously peaked by the Foggman 32 on Yachtworld. I have done a fair bit of digging, and came to a number of conclusions:
1. She seems at a fair asking price (Photographs are deceiving, but assuming they are as representative as they usually are).
2. Little is published about the design itself
3. Best info I found was at Tuesday Afternoon
(Tuesday Afternoon)
4. There the (then?) owner provides a link to Lowell Builders (Looks to be a high quality builder)
5. I am not scared by the fact that a cedar hull is sheathed in Epoxy (Epoxy will grip dry cedar beautifully), but when was it done, and why - appears to be a question of interest.
SO:
Why does it appear that this fairly priced, classic design, presumably built by a reputable builder has sat on the market for a LONG time, located in a densely populated area - with presumably a fair number of qualified buyers...
I must be missing something? Any ideas, comments?
(Only other thought I had was that she suffered in the hurricane, and they are trying to maintain interest using older pictures...)
 
Jeff Fogman operated his shop in Barrington, NH starting in the mid 1970's. I did not know him but many considered him a master builder. He was a sculptor, had a master's degree in Fine Arts, built a FC ketch and cruised around for a bit, then apprenticed to well known boat builder and designer Bud McIntosh before opening his own shop. Fogman built McIntosh designs and the 32' is Bud's design. I believe the fastenings in that hull may be copper rivets (a very good thing).

You are correct to question why the fiberglass sheathing was done. It may be a bad thing, or it might be fine. A good surveyor who has experience with wooden boats will be able to give you a lot more informed information(once he has looked at the subject vessel) than a bunch of internet forum guessers.....

Reasons she's still on the market? The market for wooden boats is tiny, the market for one-off wooden (as opposed to say a GB 32) boats is smaller than tiny. The market is flooded with older production glass "lobster" yachts at very reasonable prices. Wooden boats need maintenance that most of today's boat buyers don't understand and can't be bothered to figure out. Hard stuff like painting, I have to paint my wooden boats (even though one of them is fiberglass sheathed)......
 
Bugmon said:
That's just wrong...

Back then the hulls were stronger - the interior layouts were a masterpiece of space conservation - the engines ( mostly 6-cyl) were economical ; built to last and easy to fix - the Taiwanese wood crafting was second to none , and they were alot sexier than the plastic crap built today.

...sure they installed mild steel fuel tanks , but stainless tanks werent invented untill 1993 :flowers:
Click to expand...

Yes, I have a 1978 Eurobanker sedan helm/saloon 28ft =pulpit and rear bathing platform, 80hp lehman ford engine and the fuel tank in mild steel and leaky so have to replace it ,its molded in as part of the vessel in thick ply and soundboard so will have to cut it out first and then cut out the old tank ,at 68 yrs young Im not looking forward to the job but it has to be done the fresh water tank it on the other side and when its full the vessel heals over to port by about 10/15 Degrees so not seaworthy at this time . I cannot find a brochure on the vessel or plans and no other vessel like it ,any helpful suggestions .
 
troutbridge said:
Yes, I have a 1978 Eurobanker sedan helm/saloon 28ft =pulpit and rear bathing platform, 80hp lehman ford engine and the fuel tank in mild steel and leaky so have to replace it ,its molded in as part of the vessel in thick ply and soundboard so will have to cut it out first and then cut out the old tank ,at 68 yrs young Im not looking forward to the job but it has to be done the fresh water tank it on the other side and when its full the vessel heals over to port by about 10/15 Degrees so not seaworthy at this time . I cannot find a brochure on the vessel or plans and no other vessel like it ,any helpful suggestions .
Click to expand...

Find a mechanically inclined, reasonably priced, willing to really work youngster (I know that is hard to find these days) to assist; you guide him/her through required processes. Let that person contort... they can take it! All tough jobs loose their intimidating factors when assistance is available... and especially after the project gets good results.

Don't forget that tanks can be crushed inward (made smaller for close quarter maneuverings) by applying ample suction (i.e. negative-inside-pressure) via one opening having sealed all other openings.
 
Marin said:
While GB certainly set a high standard for construction quality I think their real contribution, starting in the mid-60s, was consistency. Where many of the so-called Taiwan Trawlers varied all over the map in build quality within the same model due to the way the manufacturing and assembly was farmed out, American Marine, first in Kowloon and then in Singapore, turned out boat after boat identical in build quality. First in wood and then in fiberglass. Not just their Grand Banks line but their Alaskan line as well (which was only made in wood).

If anything sets GB apart I believe it is this consistency from boat to boat starting in 1966 up through today. Not that other makes do not exhibit the same degree of consistency. But I believe American Marine was among the first to set such high standards of consistency among production cruising boats.
Click to expand...

One of the worst bottom blistered hulls I've ever seen was on an early 80's Grand Banks.
 
Art said:
Don't forget that tanks can be crushed inward (made smaller for close quarter maneuverings) by applying ample suction (i.e. negative-inside-pressure) via one opening having sealed all other openings.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine the amount of vacuum required to collapse a mild steel fuel tank, but I have great confidence that several folks here will know precisely what is required.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
 
Last edited:
Greetings,
Mr. FW. Depending on the geometry of the tank and how it's well its air tight integrity is maintained during collapse even a cheap vacuum pump might be able to collapse it significantly. Absolute vacuum is only one atmosphere (14.7 psi). It's not really an "amount" of vacuum. Vacuum is vacuum. One can achieve 2 atmospheres of pressure (dive to 66' underwater is it?) but it is not possible to achieve -2 atmospheres of vacuum.
 
Last edited:
In regards to collapsing a fuel tank, I have seen a 12 volt barrel pump, put a significant dent in a 500 gallon round storage tank. That is what happens when you forget to open the vent. The sound it makes gets your attention.
 
RT Firefly said:
Absolute vacuum is only one atmosphere (14.7 psi). It's not really an "amount" of vacuum. Vacuum is vacuum.
Click to expand...

YGTBFSM!! You've never seen a vacuum gage provide a quantified measure of vacuum?

You just seem to want to argue semantics. Read a book instead.
 
FlyWright said:
I can't imagine the amount of vacuum required to collapse a mild steel fuel tank, but I have great confidence that several folks here will know precisely what is required.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
Click to expand...

If she's old, already leaking, and afflicted with rust otherwise... suck, baby suck! Diesel tanks seem to have little to no flammable potentials under nearly any conditions.

I can not recall from where I got info on this vacuum technique... believe it was Tollycraft forum... but, as I remember the results sounded great for minimizing tank size in a tight space. The owner then put in slightly down-sized tanks for EZ fitting. If I ever need to do so on our gas powered Tolly; I'd fill the tank with water and suck the water out with a really big pump. Don't see how it could explode filled with water only??? I'd sure do research before doing so on a "gas" tank.

Will be interesting to hear comments from others!

Happy Tank-Removal/Replacement Daze! - Art :dance:
 
That reminds me of that "Aha!!!" moment in my young daughter's life. She was about 4-5 and we were talking at our regular 6PM family dinner about the temperature of the winter air back east. We were discussing the sub-zero temps and my daughter had this deep thought look on her face. Then it changed to one of wide-eyed understanding! "I never thought of something less than zero before. Things really can be less than zero!"

It was something I had never seen the same way, but she showed me her way. At such a young age, it was a real eye opener for me, too!
 
skidgear said:
One of the worst bottom blistered hulls I've ever seen was on an early 80's Grand Banks.
Click to expand...

American Marine/Grand Banks had trouble with their hull layups in the later 70s-early 80s because they were not following the hull layup process that the man who got the company into fiberglass in mid-1973 had set up.

Howard Abbey designed and built the original molds for the GB36 and 42, and those to models were switched to fiberglass construction in mi-73 in their Singapore yard. For the first year every GB36 and 42 hull layup was personally supervised by Abbey. He quit the company in mid-74 or thereabouts when he suspected the company was on the road to financial difficulty, which it was.

After his departure their hull layup processes slipped from Abbey's high standards. The situation eventually got so bad that the company brought Abbey back twice in the ensuing years to correct all the problems and get the hull layup process back on track. The second time he returned he found things being done so poorly that he told them how to correct the problems and then, after suggesting that they not call him ever again, he left.

At least this is the story as told by Abbey in an interview I read.

Whether or not these hull layup difficulties had anything to do with the problems you observed on the early 80s GB you mentioned I have no idea.

Our own GB36 is from the first batch of fiberglass GBs and its hull layup was personally supervised by Howard. It's probably overbuilt given the newness of using fiberglass for larger boats back then, but it's an incredibly strong hull, something which we have had an occasion to prove.
 
Greetings,
Mr. FW. Of course vacuum can be quantified but only to 1 atmosphere. I suspect we are discussing the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
Indeed, my high vacuum technique is a bit rusty but I will fore go the literature search.
Ah....I see where your coming from. I suppose the most accurate answer would be pump on it until it either collapses sufficiently or ruptures to the point of losing vacuum. Gotcha.
 
Last edited:
Art said:
Don't forget that tanks can be crushed inward (made smaller for close quarter maneuverings) by applying ample suction (i.e. negative-inside-pressure) via one opening having sealed all other openings.
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight, you're claiming you can crush a properly baffled square/rectangular fuel tank with vacuum, install it and then re-inflate it back to its original shape!?

Oh I'd pay to see you try that. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Curious About My Cabinetry
Replies
8
Views
969
DWJensen
DWJensen
S
First Boat Confusion - Insurance & Boat Length Help
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Osprey69
Osprey69
S
insuring a trawler cruising trawler
Replies
18
Views
2K
Capt Ray
C
T
GB 36 wisdom inquiry
Replies
18
Views
2K
Cigatoo
Cigatoo
E
Spare prop?!
Replies
27
Views
2K
ronobrien
R

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom