Conference unifix::sailing

    Just what I have been looking for a "Steel boat Forum."
    
    I do not have a steel boat at this time but I am working on getting
    on in two years. I have decided on the design and now I am working
    on the interior layout. I want to be sure all that has been worked
    out before the boat is built.
    
    I have decided on the Robert's 39 pilothouse, ketch rigged. I am
    planning to have the hull, decks, and major steelwork done in a
    yard and then I will finish off the interior.
    
    I am actively looking for a yard to do the work. Do you have any
    suggestion's of yard's in your area? If there is any other helpful
    hints that you may have it would be appreciated.
    
    Regards
    Jim

Greetings Jim,
	I am having some renovations done at the Clark Boat-Yard in Jamestown
Rhode Island. The quality of the welding appears to be high and the prices
have been reasonable. I would have some reservations about recommending them
to build a boat from start to finish without some guidance.
	There is a fellow next door to them who is a surveyor, claims to have
built steel boats in the past by the name of Bruce Livingston. Bruce seems
to be quite knowledgeable and would be worth talking to. Perhaps he could 
work with Clarkes or advise you of other yards that have more experience with
new steel construction.
	Danny Green (the naval architect who designed "Integrity") might be
another good source of references for yards in that area. Bruce did the
insurance survey for Danny's boat. You can write to Danny at the address
given in the steel boat ad in the back of Cruising World.
	No matter who builds your boat, I would strongly avoid any time and
materials arrangement. The risk of cost overruns seems to be great. I have
experienced this problem every time I have allowed yards to work that way.
Go for fixed bid if at all possible.
	There are also many steel boat builders in the Virginia and North
Carolina areas that you might check out.

	There are a few books that I would recommend reading prior to building
a new steel boat. The first is not about steel boats per se, but does recommend
steel as the correct material for world cruising. This book is "A Cruising
Boat Survey" by Jimmy Cornell. This book  interviews people who have been 
sailing for several years or more. It asks them about hull material, rig,etc.
	A second book that would seem invaluable to a new boat builder is
called "Steelaway". I don't have the name of the author handy, but it is a
super reference. If you have trouble finding it, let me know and I'll find
you the name of the author.

	Its great to know that there is at least one other sailor who reads
the notes files who thinks that steel makes sense. What are your long range
plans?
			Regards....................RicH

    Hello, my name is Johnson Waite and I have a Jeanneau 36 (fiberglass)
    boat on the Chesapeake Bay. I have an interest, long term, in Steel
    boats. However, they seem to be very out of favor. So much out of
    favor in fact that once you buy one, you will probably own it forever.
    
    I am concerned about the rust problem, although I have read a number
    of articles about flameing zinc (?) and polyeutherene (sic) coatings.
    Do you steel boaters have rust problems? What about condensation?
    What about resale?

re .1:

At the risk of reopening the arguments over the best rig ...... why a 
ketch? A 39' cutter would be simpler (less rigging) and therefore less 
expensive, perhaps easier to handle than a ketch, less crowded aft (no 
mizzenmast), and about as versatile in sail plan. Just a thought from an 
unrepentant cutter lover.

Ahoy Johnson,
	Its good to be skeptical about steel! Let me share my experiences
with you.
	As a consultant, I move around the country quite a bit. I spent
a year in San Diego working with ALCOA. While living in San Diego
 (about a year and a half ago) I received a letter from my boat yard in N.H.
Someone asked them to track me down so that they could make me an offer 
on my boat! Realize that this was in the same timeframe where friends 
with glass boats were unable to get a single offer.
	The real question with selling any type of boat is supply and demand.
There are those of us who believe that steel is the only material that we would
want for an offshore cruiser. Although this is a small group, there are very
few quality steel boats available (especially in the used boat market). 
	Yes, there are steel boats that are difficult to sell. In general I
believe these are home built boats where the quality of workmanship is
questionable, or  boats that have been badly neglected.
	It took me several years to find my present boat. I looked at many
boats. Some had been home built and never completed, others had been 
European boats that had been neglected or poorly renovated.

	Rust? Yes, it can be a problem. This is especially true if the boat
has not been hot zinc sprayed. You must be vigilant in looking for rust, and
eliminating it if if does appear. Several of the new steel boat builders
will guarantee that there will be no rust perforation of the coating system
for 5 to 10 years (depending on the builder). How many glass boat builders
will provide the same guarantee for gel coat blistering?
	When rust does become a major problem, it is possible to sandblast
the hull to white metal and use one of the modern coating systems. It would
be reasonable to expect a 3-5 year life for one of these paint jobs depending
on how well it is maintained.

	Condensation has been a bit of a problem for me. I was sailing in 
November, the outside temperature was 20 degrees F, and the pressure cooker
was steaming away. Exposed inside metal was dripping! Luckily, there wasn't
very much of it. There are several insulation systems available. The best
systems are the ones that bond the foam directly to the hull.

	I hope that I have answered your questions adequately, if not 
please let me know of anything that was missed. It is interesting to note
that I bought Wandelaar in your area (Hampton Roads). If I get down to the
Chesapeake this year, consider yourself invited for a grand tour of her.

				Regards.............RicH
	

In response to Alan Berens note, I think its interesting that the folks in
the cruising boat survey book agree with Alan....a cutter is the best rig.
On a scale of 1-10 (10=best) rated the rigs as follows:

sloop	8.58
cutter  9.25
ketch   8.10
yawl    5.00
schooner7.33

The ideal cruising boat according to this survey was
35-40 ft in length (Jim, you're right on!)
steel hull
cutter rig 
diesel engine 0.8 HP/ft for boats < 40ft


A friend recently returned the Jimmy Cornell book. The title I referenced
was wrong, it should have been "Modern Ocean Cruising".

			RicH

	If you don't mind inputs from an evesdropping stinkpotter, the
February issue of OFFSHORE NEW ENGLAND has an article on steel and Aluminum
hulls. It may make interesting reading.

Paul

    	My last reply contains an error. The March issue is the one
    with the article in it. 
    
    Paul

RE: .1

If you like steel, go for it.  I've sailed in several aluminum boats (and 
worked for an aluminum boatbuilder in a past life), but have a few
observations to share which apply to metal boats, even all boats I guess.

1)  Firstly, Steel vs. Aluminum:  You can weld either, though aluminum is 
somewhat more finicky.  But if a professional is building your hull, 
consider it.  It's more per pound, but less pounds (and therefore more in 
ballast.)  It has a higher modulus of elasticity than steel, which means 
it'll deform further before breaking, though either metal is obviously 
pretty strong stuff.  It doesn't rust, though you have to be a relentless 
watchdog for electrolysis -- with either material, though aluminum tends 
to corrode faster if you make a battery of it.  Resale is typically
higher, even as a percentage of construction cost (probably because of 
most people's irrational fear of rust.)

2)  If you have a yard build your boat, hire a competent experienced-with-
steel surveyor to oversee the process each step of the way.  It'll cost, 
but be worth it, especially if you negotiate a fixed-price contract that
isn't a gift to the builder.  Also, if and when you decide to sell, a
surveyor's report on the building may add substantially to a potential
buyer's confidence, and therefore to the price as well. 

2)  Metal boats in small sizes are expensive for quality equivalent to 
glass and even wood boats.  If you doubt this, write for price information 
from Amazon and Kauilani -- and sit down when you read it!  Admittedly 
they do offer 10-year rust warranties and the like, but so does Hinckley, 
and the price is about the same.  Still, I'm quite sure that I'd prefer 
metal (apart from price) were I planning a year's cruise in the uncharted 
areas of the South Pacific.  For coastal cruising, though -- no way.

J.

    RE:2
    	I guess I should let you know that I am living in Atlanta and
    looking for a yard in the southeast. I am looking from Virginia
    south to Florida then west to Texas.
    
    	Thankx for the info. I will attempt to contact Bruce Livingston
    and write to Danny Green
    
    	I like your suggestion concerning time and materials arrangements.
    
    	I have already contacted the following four yards and i like
    what they have to say:
    schreiber Boats	St. Augustine Fl.
    North Carolina Steel Boats	 Bayboro N.C.
    Custom Steel Boats	Arapahoe N.C.
    Topper Hermanson Boatbuilding Fernandina Beach, FL
    
    	I am presently reading "Steelaway and I am finding it very helpful.
    i will see if I can find "Modern Ocean Cruising" through Intl. Marine
    Publishers.
    
    	My long range plans are to cruise the Caribbean an deventually
    end up in the central Pacific. i want to visit the islands that
    my father landed on during WW II. After that it will be open.
    
    RE:4
    	The main reason I like a ketch rig is the versatility in the
    sail plan ie more sailing configurations to chose from. The sails
    will be smaller therfore eaiser to handle. Also with two masts if
    I suffer a knockdown I have a better chance of righting with at
    least one mast.
    
    RE:9
    	The information I have been reading tells me that steel has
    a higher modulus of elasticity and higher tensile strength than
    aluminum. Also, unlike steel, the welds are the weak link with
    aluminum wheras with steel the plate will break before the welds.
    
    	As you say aluminum will not rust, but you have to be VERY careful
    about dissimluar metals and electricity. Steel also has the advantage
    that it can be repaired with an oxy-acetelene outfit wheras aluminum
    requires a TIG or a MIG outfit.
    
    	I like your idea about a surveyor and I am going to look into
    that.
    
    	I'll admit that prices for Amazon and Kauilani are high but
    prices for a custom built glass boat are also very high.
    
    PLEASE EXCUSE THE SPELLING ERRORS

re .10:

>>> Also with two masts if I suffer a knockdown I have a better 
>>> chance of righting with at least one mast.

This really depends on the details of the ketch rig. If the backstay
from the mainmast goes to the top of the mizzenmast, then losing either
mast will bring down the other. If the mainmast backstay is split and
brought to the deck, then you'll probably have problems with either the
main boom or the mizzen boom hitting the mainmast backstay under some
conditions. Having two masts doubles the amount of standing rigging,
which probably at least doubles the chances of a failure, to say nothing
of doubling the cost of the rig and doubling the maintenance required.
Since masts and rigging are expensive (I was just quoted $2.42 per foot
for 5/16 1x19 ss wire), and since cost is always a factor, there will be
a strong incentive to skimp on the rigging. 

If the boat is heavily enough rigged, the mast(s) will stay up even if 
the boat is rolled 360 degrees. All or almost all of the boats in the 
last BOC race were capsized, and none lost a mast as a result (though 
some lost masts for other reasons). 

Also, while a ketch rig may offer more sail combinations, that may or
may not be an advantage. It would not be an advantage if changing wind
and sea conditions required constantly changing sail configurations,
especially with a small crew. With a cutter under 40' or so, the sails
are quite manageable by one person. Dan Bryne sailed a Valiant 40 cutter
in the first BOC race when he was in his late 50s or early 60s. I talked
to him at length after the race and he didn't mention any particular
problem handling the sails. The size of boat and sails that you can
handle depends a lot on your experience with the boat. The first time
Julie and I sailed our 32' cutter in a brisk breeze many years ago the
boat frightened us -- the sails and other equipment seemed almost
overwhelmingly large and heavy. Now I'm happy singlehanding the boat in
any weather less than a gale. 

Just some thoughts.

Alan

    I am thinking of a round the world cruse in 10 years. I want to
    buy a boat in 5 years. I have been looking at steal. It seems that
    I will have to have one built, no much in the way of used steal
    boats out there.  I am thinking of 36 to 40' size. I live out here
    in sunny California, does any one know of any yards in San Francisco,
    LA or even Washington state?
    
    Like .1 I plan to have the hall professionally built and do the finish
    work my self.  Reply .? said that small boats are expensive to build
    in steal, what is small?
    
    The reasons I am thinking steal is:
    
       o strength
       o Repair almost any where in the world
       o No blusters
    
    Does any one know about the insurability of steal boats? 

>>> I have been looking at steal. <<<

This is certainly the lowest cost method of obtaining a boat (smile).

Steel is undeniably the strongest (reasonably priced) material with 
which to build a hull. It seems to me that the primary reason to own a 
small steel boat is its ability to survive collisions and groundings. 
Let me hasten to add that I fear sinking as much as the next person. 
But ..... there many, many imponderables in this. To start (I hope) some 
controversy, does the strength advantage of steel outweigh its 
drawbacks?

If a steel boat hits a floating object, the boat probably won't be 
holed. But, many boats today are built very lightly. I don't know the 
impact loads on a hull when colliding with a floating object (such as a 
container), but the loads aren't infinite. A moderate displacement (say 
a displacement-length ratio of 300 to 350) wood or fiberglass hull can 
be very strong, quite possiblely strong enough to withstand hitting a 
massive floating object. Due to its construction, I have access to the 
inside of the first 8' or of my fiberglass boat's hull, which is already 
quite strong. If I epoxy a couple of layers of Kevlar on the outside of 
the hull, add stringers, foam core, and then several layers of 
fiberglass/Kevlar over the foam core and stringers, I would cease to 
worry about hitting things. Moreover, it is possible to build collision 
bulkheads into any boat. 

And yes, a steel boat will survive hitting a reef better than other 
boats. But, some percentage (anybody want to hazard a guess?) of boats 
that hit reefs cannot be gotten off the reef without outside help, help 
which may or not be available in remote areas. If the boat cannot be 
gotten off the reef or beach or whatever, then the hull material doesn't 
matter. Too, now and certainly in ten years, electronic navigation 
systems (such as Satnav) provide sufficiently good position information 
that the probability of hitting reefs should be greatly reduced.

Another impression I have is that most boats that sink in bad weather 
sink because too much water gets below through ports, hatches, lockers, 
etc. Sinking is rarely due to hull structural failure. (Or is it? Does 
anybody know?) The hatches, etc, of a steel boat are just as vulnerable 
(weak) as the hatches, etc, of any other boat.

Small steel boats (under say 40') tend to be heavy displacement vessels, 
and, as such, indifferent sailors. 

Repair is an interesting question. Since (personal opinion) no one in 
their right mind would carry filled welding tanks aboard a small boat, 
you are dependent on other people for repairs. With a couple of gallons 
of epoxy and a roll of fiberglass cloth, quite major repairs can be made 
by the boat's owner almost any time or place. Plus, the heat of welding 
will damage the interior in the vicinity of the repair so that the 
interior will have to be removed prior to any welding. I personally fear 
rust more than fiberglass blisters. Blisters I can (relatively) easily 
repair myself. Strength lost to rust is lost forever. Any time a fitting
is added to a steel boat, the rust protection coating is compromised.
I've moved and added many fittings on our boat since it arrived from the
builder. 

Anyone else care to comment?

Alan

    re.12:
    If steel is what you like and you feel comfortable and secure with by
    all means go for it! How rasty the boat would be after,or even during,
    your circumnavigation shouldn't enter your mind becuase if it does you
    may have spoiled your trip before you started.Besides you will have all
    the time in the world to take care of the cosmetics,including the rust,
    when you feel bored while at ancor at theese South Pasific Islands.
    I am looking for a boat myself this year and because,and only,of the 
    upkeep costs it is going to be glass,period.-
    If I had the means for a yard to take care of my boat I would get a
    seaworthy wooden boat for it's warmth,traditional lines_yes they show
    better in wood-and the ...smell of the wood.
    Finally if I was to take the trip around the world I would get a steel
    boat for it's strenth of couse but also because physiologically(sp;)
    I would feelmore secure.Let's don't forget glass can crack like an egg
    steel may bend and although you can reenforce and make 8' of the bow of
    a glass boat watertight what you do for the sides of the hull?
    Good luck to you and keep your dream going.I do envy you
    

RE: .13

>>controversy, does the strength advantage of steel outweigh its 
>>drawbacks?
Perhaps this question needs  to be addressed in the context of 
	How will the boat be used, where will it be sailed?

Cruising Cape Cod and the Islands or LI Sound or familiar places	
is the ideal spot for most fiberglass cruisers.

The Falkland Islands, Reef infested waters of the Pacific, or
transoceanic cruising seem a bit safer (to me) in a steel boat.

Any offshore work, where help is far and collision with a partially
submerged object is possible.....seems to be another area where
I would sleep better on a steel boat.

It could be argued that many respectable passages have been made without
incident on glass boats, but it's the worst case scenarios that one
may eventually address that affect ....peace of mind. 

Some of us might worry on a steel boat with 1" plating where others might
be content to attempt ocean crossings in a sailing dingy without concern...

So the bottom line here would seem to be personal preference based on 
life experience....risk/reward assessment....and perhaps a latent death wish.



>>			Due to its construction, I have access to the 
>>inside of the first 8' or of my fiberglass boat's hull, which is already 
>>quite strong. If I epoxy a couple of layers of Kevlar on the outside of 
>>the hull, add stringers, foam core, and then several layers of 
>>fiberglass/Kevlar over the foam core and stringers, I would cease to 
>>worry about hitting things. Moreover, it is possible to build collision 
>>bulkheads into any boat. 

It would seem if they were done, they would imply considerable cost to
be done professionally, add additional weight, cause the loss of storage
space, and perhaps adversely affect the resale potential of the boat.

All in all, I would think that these modifications won't get done for the
above reasons.

>>And yes, a steel boat will survive hitting a reef better than other 
>>boats. But, some percentage (anybody want to hazard a guess?) of boats 
>>that hit reefs cannot be gotten off the reef without outside help, help 
>>which may or not be available in remote areas. If the boat cannot be 
>>gotten off the reef or beach or whatever, then the hull material doesn't 
>>matter. Too, now and certainly in ten years, electronic navigation 
>>systems (such as Satnav) provide sufficiently good position information 
>>that the probability of hitting reefs should be greatly reduced.

	One key factor that might be considered is abrasion resistance
in the event of going up on a reef. Even in a relatively small sea
a fiberglass hull can be worn through by abrasion in a few hours.
Certainly any boat should get her anchors out as quickly as possible in
the event of a grounding to prevent getting driven further up onto a reef.
	It would seem as though steel would provide an indefinite amount
of time in most cases to withstand the abrasion phase of a grounding on 
a reef. At least there is a significant chance of having the boat intact
if you do get off.
	You are indeed correct in asserting that if you can get her off
hull material won't make a bit of difference.


>>Another impression I have is that most boats that sink in bad weather 
>>sink because too much water gets below through ports, hatches, lockers, 
>>etc. Sinking is rarely due to hull structural failure. (Or is it? Does 
>>anybody know?) The hatches, etc, of a steel boat are just as vulnerable 
>>(weak) as the hatches, etc, of any other boat.

	The loss of small boats has been covered in a number of books and
reports. A few that come to mind are:
 Adlard Coles:  Heavy Weather Sailing
 Jimmy Cornell: Modern Ocean Cruising
 The Fastnet Report
	If I have time, I'll scan these and get back with a summary...
it won't be for awhile.

In large seas....it is possible that a small boat can be dropped off of 
a large wave...dropping 40...60 ......ft. If this should occur the
ports on most boats would go....and possibly the hull to deck joint
on many glass boats.

	I also met a sailor on Nantucket who was sailing on his boat in
the company of a 40' boat which hit a submerged object halfway to Bermuda.
The 40' boat split open on the seams and sank in less than a minute according
to his account (he rescued his friends). Yes, this is a collision situation,
not related to heavy weather...but perhaps the real question is:

If we summarized all sources of boat losses...how many would be minimized 
by sailing on a steel boat?
			
			collision with a submerged object
			grounding in conditions other than  calm seas
			fire


>>Repair is an interesting question. Since (personal opinion) no one in 
>>their right mind would carry filled welding tanks aboard a small boat, 
>>you are dependent on other people for repairs. With a couple of gallons 
>>of epoxy and a roll of fiberglass cloth, quite major repairs can be made 
>>by the boat's owner almost any time or place. Plus, the heat of welding 
>>will damage the interior in the vicinity of the repair so that the 
>interior will have to be removed prior to any welding.

	Emergency repairs could be made using epoxy/fiberglass on steel.
Steel work is commonly done in most areas of the world.


>>							 I personally fear 
>>rust more than fiberglass blisters. Blisters I can (relatively) easily 
>>repair myself. Strength lost to rust is lost forever. Any time a fitting
>>is added to a steel boat, the rust protection coating is compromised.
>>I've moved and added many fittings on our boat since it arrived from the
>>builder. 

	The Practical Sailor published a letter from the owner of a 
40' boat (might have been a Valiant) which had a bad case of blisters.
If my memory serves me correctly, a yard wanted $40K to repair the hull
...and even then would not guarantee against future blistering

So...you pay your money....you take your chances
Blister to blister ....rust to rust.

RicH

    Let's not forget the fate of AIRFORCE, the kevlar re-inforced WEST
    system boat which was built for last years BOC 'round the world
    race.
    
    If my memory serves me right, she was considered to be at least
    as strong as any glass hull.  She hit a submerged log off Bermuda
    and sank in minutes at night.  
    
    If I were planning to sail around the world...especially short handed,
    there is no way I would go in anything other than a steel, or VERY
    heavy wood boat which was built with both heavy scantlings and at
    least 1.5" thick oak or teak (hardwood) planking.  If money were
    not a consideration, steel would win every time.
    
    Steel maintenance is requires a lot of time and attention.  Rust
    is a problem even with the new alloys which are designed for the
    application.  I thing that .15 is right tho, you do have time to
    do the maintenance on a long cruise and there is no way to ensure
    that you will not hit something at sea.  Well off shore there is
    all sorts of debris floating...from containers to trees to little
    stuff like fishing floats that are only a couple of feet across.
    In a seaway, at night it is impossible to see these things.  For
    my money, steel is the answer for really extended off shore work
    far from home!

re .15: 

Any major work (steel, fiberglass, wood) is expensive if done by a yard.
I have the skills and tools to make major structural changes to a
fiberglass boat. I lack both skills and tools to do heavy steel work.
The reinforcing I suggested is really quite easy to do and not terribly
time consuming. The added weight and loss of storage space are minimal. 

Speaking of storage space .... how much space is lost to the insulation 
needed to make a steel boat liveable? 

The costs of long distance voyaging are quite considerable. To me it is 
important that I be able to do virtually all repairs to my boat without 
paid outside assistance and as little dependence on outside supplies as 
possible.

>>> In large seas...it is possible that a small boat can be dropped off of 
>>> a large wave...dropping 40...60 ......ft. If this should occur the
>>> ports on most boats would go....and possibly the hull to deck joint
>>> on many glass boats.

And on many wood boats. And the chances of ANY boat surviving such seas 
aren't terribly good. It is interesting to note that the survival rate 
of BOC and Whitbread racers is rather good, and these are boats that are 
minimally strong. And they are driven extremely hard in the worst seas 
in the world. However, if one is circumnavigating, one would choose to 
make passages during times when extremely bad weather is uncommon. I've 
sailed in worse weather in the Gulf of Maine than some people have 
encountered during an entire circumnavigation.

>>> I also met a sailor on Nantucket who was sailing on his boat in
>>> the company of a 40' boat which hit a submerged object halfway to Bermuda.
>>> The 40' boat split open on the seams and sank in less than a minute ...

Sounds like a boat insufficiently strong to be offshore. There was a 
published story of some unfortunate sailors surviving a hurricane in a 
liferaft. They were in the liferaft because their steel boat sank. Yes, 
real data on why boats are lost would be extremely valuable in deciding 
what material to use in the hull. Obviously, some or many boats are lost 
for reasons unrelated to hull material.

One of the problems here is that the evidence is mostly anecdotal. Who 
really knows why boats are lost? There are many, many fiberglass boats I 
would not sail offshore (and probably some steel ones too). Production 
boats, in general, aren't designed or built heavily enough to be safe 
offshore. The usual displacement for a 32' boat designed for coastal 
sailing is around 8000 lbs today. The displacement of the Valiant 32 is 
12 000 lbs and the Westsail 20 000 lbs. This implies substantially more 
hull strength than the norm.

re .16:

>>>    Let's not forget the fate of AIRFORCE, the kevlar re-inforced WEST
>>>    system boat which was built for last years BOC 'round the world
>>>    race.
    
>>>    If my memory serves me right, she was considered to be at least
>>>    as strong as any glass hull.  She hit a submerged log off Bermuda
>>>    and sank in minutes at night.  

But she was a light race boat and definitely not as strong as any 
fiberglass boat. My contention is that a cruising circumnavigator 
would build a heavier, much stonger boat. It is both possible and 
practical to build a fiberglass boat as strong or stronger than a wood 
boat. Indeed, a fiberglass boat could be built as strongly as a steel 
boat (whether or not it is practical from a cost perspective I don't 
know), though the steel boat would be much more abrasion resistant.
    
I would argue that hull strength is only one consideration in choosing a 
boat for offshore sailing. A system view is important. If the weight of 
the hull is excessive, fewer supplies can be carried, for example. Heavy 
boats sail less well, increasing the time required to make a passage, 
increasing the amount of food and water that must be carried, which 
further reduces sailing performance .... There is no point in having a 
steel hull with flimsy ports or hatches. And on and on. Another strategy 
that is possible with a reasonably light boat is sufficient positive 
floatation to keep it afloat even if holed. 

Alan

    There were other factors in the loss of Air Force. The skipper was
    injured in the collision (he hit something large HARD), and didn't
    feel he could manage a repair attempt. The boat had three watertight
    compartments, 2 of which flooded (a nominally watertight bulkhead
    apparently broke loose). The boat was still afloat, in decent weather
    conditions. A cruiser might have attempted repairs. Cross (name
    right?) decided to abandon, and actually flooded and sank the boat
    so it wouldn't be a hazard to navigation. A hard choice, obviously;
    we;ll never know what he hit or how extensive the damage actually
    was (except that it was clearly serious).
    
    Many curcumnavigators have expressed a preference for steel which
    is based on South Pacific groundings, which usually result in the
    total loss of wood or fibreglass boats. Navigational error and
    grounding is apparently the commonest cause of loss for very long
    distance circumnavigators (based on a survey which I can quote at
    greater length if I ever remember to bring it in).
    
    I prefer heavily built WEST over steel; but that's only natural,
    since I'm building one.
    
    Note that a steel boat will survive a grounding longer than glass
    or wood, but not indefinitely; and will suffer significant damage
    which only a yard can repair. An extended grounding will not produce
    large dings, but holes and leaks. I saw a 50' alumunum ocean racer
    in Falmouth a few years back which had grounded on Block Island
    when the skipper decided to make his Atlantic coast landfall at
    night. One side looked like giants had beat on it with very large
    hammers; some of the dents were up to 2 feet deep, with torn plating.
    The boat had arrived in Falmouth with the interior torn out and
    the leaks foamed. It don't know whether she floated over on her
    own bottom or on a salvage barge. She was eventually repaired and
    returned to service. I'll bet the cost was 1/3 to 1/2 of her original
    cost.
    
    The point is that stell may survive a grounding where wood or glass
    won't, but you're hardly home free.
    
    Ross Faneuf
    

Some data from Modern Ocean Cruising by Jimmy Cornell:

In the Pacific Cornell surveyed a large number of boat owners who had
sailed at least several thousand miles. Among the questions he asked was
one about hull material. On a scale of 1 to 10, the responses were: 

			   overall
hull material	number	satisfaction

steel		   5	     10
light alloy	   1	     10
fiberglass	  41	      9
ferrocement	   4	      9
wood		  19	      7.9
plywood		   4          5.6

total		  74

Cornell discusses the causes of the loss of 30 boats. Hull materials
were not given. Four boats sank after hitting flotsam. Two sank after
hitting or being hit by whales. No boats were sunk as the result of
being hit by ships (though two unexplained losses could have been caused
by this). Three or more were lost in heavy weather (hurricanes probably
since the boats were sailing in hurricane areas during hurricane
season). Eight were lost on reefs through navigational errors. Three
were lost on reefs due to engine failure. Six were lost when struck by
squalls or hurricanes while anchored and blown ashore. The great majority
of the boats lost were lost due to crew error or negligence. 

Two boats hit whales and suffered no major damage. One fiberglass boat
survived pounding on a reef for twelve hours with no structural damage.
Another fiberglass boat was brought to a standstill after hitting a
floating tree trunk at 6 knots. Again no structural damage. 

It is not obvious to me what conclusions to draw from this. 

    re.12
    
    I believe Amazon is in Vancouver, BC. I would think they would build
    you a hull and deck and let you finish the interior.

    I live on the West coast. One of the first places I want to go on
    my round the world trip is the south Pacific. I am still think steel
    because of the fear of hitting a log in the middle of the ocean.
    
    I have do not have the skills to work on Fiberglas or steel. I
    plan to have the hall constructed professionally and do the inside
    my self. I have the tools and skill to work with wood. The major
    percentage cost of a new boat is the labor in the finish word work.
    

    George

RE .17
	My boat has sheets of 1/2" polystyrene foam insulation between the hull
and the the interior as well as between the overhead and the deck.
Yes, a bit of room is lost.


RE .19
	The following might provide additional insight into the selection of
a hull material beyond the numerical ratings listed:

From Jimmy Cornell's "Modern Ocean Cruising"

" HULL CONSTRUCTION

As in the case of their rig, skippers were very precise when asked to a give
a rating to the material of their boats construction. Over half of the boats
(53 per cent) were of fibreglass, a material which received the overall 
average rating of 9; the four ferrocement boats also got the same rating.
Metal boats were rated the highest, each of the five steel boats being rated
the maximum 10, as was the only light alloy hull. As bight be expected in
tropical waters, wood received the lowest rating; the fifteen boats (24 %)
were given an average rating of 7.9, whereas the four plywood boats were rated
even lower at 5.6. In the few instances where the hull was sheathed, being made
either from either solid wood or ply, the material attracted higher marks from
the owners. I later learned that one of the plywood boats, the 46ft trimaran
Antigone, who had rated his construction material very low and complained to
me about it, did in fact run into trouble after leaving Suva on  the passage
to New Zealand. The hulls were in danger of breaking up and the boat had to
put into New Caladonia for major emergency repair.

Among the 12 circumnavigators surveyed, 4 boats were wooden, while the rest
were of fibreglass, one being fibreglass on ply. I had not asked their opinion
on the construction material of their present boats, but when I questioned
them on their future plans and boats, an interesting point emerged.
There was a definite changeover to metal hulls. Either by choice or from
financial considerations 4 crews were keeping their present boats. Out of the
rest, 4 were changing to steel and one had his hopes pinned on light alloy. 
Even so, one of those keeping his present wooden boat told me that his 
hypothetical ideal boat would be a steel version of his present boat, but
increased in size to 38-40ft. Not all the future plans of the circumnavigators
were just pipe dreams as two to them have already purchased or nearly completed
their new steel boats. "


NEW DIRECTIONS?
	Reviewing this forum .....

There appear to be several directions it is going in..

	Folks contemplating new boats
	Concerns about steel, discussion of intrinsic problem resolution
	Discussions of the virtues of steel vs. other materials
	Offshore considerations...why were boats lost,etc

It might be interesting to try a few new tacks...
1) We could start a new notes file "OFFSHORE FORUM" for discussion of issues
which go beyond hull material and would be of interest to a larger group of
people.
	such as: 	OFFSHORE EQUIPMENT RENTAL (ie  liferafts, EPIRBS, etc)
			CREW DIRECTORY OF FOLKS WITH EXPERIENCE WANTING TO
				DO LONG PASSAGES
			PLANNED VOYAGES THAT MIGHT NEED CREW
			SEA ANCHORS....ARE THEY OF ANY VALUE
			HEAVY WEATHER TACTICS
			WEATHER PREDICTION
			EMERGENCY REPAIR STRATEGIES
			VOYAGE PLANNING
			CELESTIAL NAVIGATION
			BOOK REVIEWS
			MEDICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSES
			HAM RADIO
	
I realize that people do post themselves as crew, and that some of these 
issues do already appear within the notes file...but it might be worthwhile
to have it all in one place, with one focus...offshore voyaging.
What do you folks think? Perhaps Alan Berens could kick it off. As one of 
the prime contributors to the sailing notes file, Alan has provided a wealth
of information to many queries. If you're not up for it Alan, I volunteer
as a second...as long as folks think it is worth doing.

2) It would be great if this file could grow beyond the basic questions of
		rust, strength of material,etc 

	New directions we could consider...
		Merits of new steel designs 
		Directory of: steel builders, yacht yards
		Bibliography of books related to steel boats
		Electrolysis
		Compass deviation/ adjustment for steel boats
		Wiring strategies
		Listing of steel boats presently for sale on the open market
Any other ideas?	

re -.1:

Thank you for the compliments.

I personally would vote for a single SAILING notes file. Much of what is
discussed in the current SAILING notes (such as roller furling) is
equally germane to both coastal and offshore sailing. The topics you
suggest, Rich, for an offshore sailing notes could easily be discussed
here. 

I think it would be a great benefit to the readers and contributors to
SAILING to maintain and use keywords and have a convenient directory
of existing notes (as is done in WOODWORKING_AND_TOOLS for example). I
have observed lately a tendency for questions to repeat. I'll try to 
find time to look into how this could be done.

Alan

    These questions are not all specific to steel boats but since I
    plan to build a steel boat, I thought I would ask them under the
    "FORUM".
    
    Has anyone ever had any experience with internal keel coolers to
    cool the aux. engine? I am seriously looking into this route fro
    several reasons. Two of the best reasons are less holes in the boat
    and no water in the exhaust.
    
    I am also considering going completely hydraulic, ie hydraulic motors
    to run the refrigeration, air compressor, anchor windlass and A.C.
    generator. It is so much more efficient than anything else and it
    is very simple. There was an article in Cruising world by Walter
    Schultz concerning this very application. Has anyone had any experience
    with a "hydraulic" boat?
    
    The last question is regarding fresh water making on a small boat.
    Has anyone had any experience or heard of using evaporators instead
    of R.O. gear to make fresh water? I read an article in the Australian
    magazine "Cruising Skipper" about evaporators. It seems very practical
    as it uses waste heat from the engine to operate it. Even better
    news, they ran a test using raw sewerage as the supply and the
    resultant fresh water caem out mor pure than R.O. using just plain
    seawater!

    I don't have a steel boat, but I do have a hydraulic drive to the
    prop shaft (Volvo).  You haven't truly examined the bilge of your
    boat until you have the pleasure of cleaning up hydraulic oil left
    by an exploding hose fitting or a blown o-ring.  I HATE HYDRAULICS!!
    Everybody who has them has a horror story.  In theory they're great.
    In practice, my next boat will not have a drop of hydraulic oil
    on board (with the exception of a self contained, outboard backstay).
    
    Dave

Er, how big a boat are you going to build?

Re internal keel coolers: I assume you are thinking of welding pipe to 
the hull and running the engine cooling water through the pipe. I would 
expect that many, many feet of pipe would be needed to provide 
sufficient cooling, especially in warm water. You will also have to 
insulate the pipe to prevent engine cooling water heat from heating the 
inside of the boat. There will be significant pressure drop through the 
pipe so that you will probably need a much bigger than normal water 
pump. You will also have to very carefully insulate the exhaust gas line 
(which will have to be metal pipe to withstand the heat of the gas). All 
in all, this idea sounds like more complication and cost than it is 
worth.

Re hydraulics: Not only do they always leak at least a little, the 
internals must be kept free of all contamination (water, dirt, and air). 
Repairs (which are inevitable) will be messy. I am very unfond of 
working on simple hydraulic systems (the brakes on my cars and the fuel 
system in my diesel). Besides, what is going to run your hydraulic
pumps, the main engine? You are likely to wind up with a very
complicated, hard to maintain system which could be crippled by a small
failure. I wouldn't do it. 
    
Re evaporators: It takes a lot of heat to evaporate or boil a 
significant amount of water. That heat must then be dissipated 
somewhere to condense the water vapor. I've never seen an advertisement 
for anything except osmosis systems for yachts, which indicates that 
evaporators are either large, expensive, complicated, or all three. Hot 
seawater is quite corrosive, and you'd almost certainly need exotic alloys 
(expensive) to achieve any kind of long term reliability. 

All in all, what you are proposing sounds like a tremendous amount of 
special design, engineering, and fabrication, all of which means high 
cost. Plus, you are proposing considerable complexity, which means high 
maintenance costs (time and/or money). In so far as possible, I believe 
in keeping systems simple with some form of backup. For example, a manual 
anchor windlass may be slower than a hydraulic windlass, but it is much
simpler to install and maintain, to say nothing of costing a few hundred
dollars rather than a few thousand dollars. 

Alan

    A historical note (I can't resist this sort of thing, no matter
    how irrelevant)
    
    The 19th century was when hydraulic equipment became widely available,
    particularly in heavy engineering and manufacturing. It was adapted
    to use in naval vessel in the late 1800s for heavy machinery (mostly
    guns). As the name implies, these hydraulics used water as their
    hydraulic medium. It had various additives, usually including some
    glycerine and other soapy compounds to improve lubricating qualities,
    making it look like thin milk.
    
    Leakage was an accepted fact of life, particularly since most piping
    was steel, with mechanical swivel joints; modern high pressure flexible
    hose was still in the future. In ships, this caused no great note
    because everything else leaked too. The sea came in around guns
    and other poorly sealed parts of gun installations, and engine rooms
    with large reciprocating engines were like a combination of foundry,
    steam bath, and that walkway under the spray in Niagara Falls.
    Hydraulics were NOT used in yachts.
    
    By the 1920s and 30s, there was a transition from water to something
    like modern hydraulic oils. This was due to several factors; better
    lubricating properties, the advent of flexible hose and less leaky
    systems (oil is a LOT more expensive), and the desire to end corrosion
    problems. Leaking oil was felt to be less hard on the environment
    of the equipment than water (by now ships had turbines, and engine
    rooms were like a reading room at the library, with a whine, but
    hotter). Leakage was still an accepted fact of life.
    
    To a large extent, it still is. Hydraulic oil under high pressure
    has an incredible talent for finding the least leakage path and
    oozing through it in surprising quantities. It would take a LOT
    of persuading to convince me that something as conceptually simple
    and effectively nightmarish as a custom-fitted hydraulic system
    has any place on a small boat. (I helped design and build a
    hydraulically operated robot some years ago, and we ending up casing
    it in plastic sleeves to confine the leaks, and a cute little sump
    pump to keep the wretched thing from forming large puddles of oil
    throughout its operating area).
    
    For running compressors, pumps, etc off your engine, I would recommend
    designing a jackshaft system and a good, sturdy set of brackets
    for the power takeoffs as part of your initial engine installation.
    This sort of thing can be done very neatly if designed and engineered
    from the outset rather than added on later.
    
    Ross Faneuf

another thought: wouldn't all that oozing hydraulic oil be a terrible 
fire hazard?

    Another positive thought :-)!!!
    
    Spares parts might be a real problem, especially if you go very
    far from the US/Canada/Western Europe.
    
    Ed

    Hydraulic oil has a very high flash point, and doesnt't evaporate
    easily. It will burn, of course, but more reluctantly than any fuel
    oil.
    
    Ross Faneuf
    

Unless you're planning a huge yacht, there should be an electric version 
of everything you need available.   And while hydraulic windlasses may be 
able to outpull electric ones on a per-pound basis, you'll be hauling 
anchors, not tree stumps.

While I worked on Star Island as Second Engineer years ago, we had 
received a "gift" of a pair of non-working WWII evaporators, quite large
(10'x6'x6'), from which we set out to put together one that worked.  From 
that exercise, and from helping maintain the thing, I can tell you that 
next to belts breaking and parts giving up (which a modern unit supposedly 
might be less prone to), the biggest problem was mineral build-up in the 
condenser cooling tubes.  As salt water was brought in to cool the 
condenser tubes, not only did the steam cool to form liquid water, but the 
cooling water was heated to near boiling.  Various chemical reactions 
unknown to us resulted in a fast build-up of seawater minerals in the 
cooling section, which rapidly (in days) reduced the efficiency as 
measured in output.  Removing the crust from each tube required boring it 
out -- 10 min per tube, about 300 tubes total.  Guess how much use that 
evap got after the first season?  ;-)  

Consider how the design of any unit you might choose handles this problem. 

J.

>Re internal keel coolers: I assume you are thinking of welding pipe to 
>the hull and running the engine cooling water through the pipe. I would 
>expect that many, many feet of pipe would be needed to provide 
>sufficient cooling, especially in warm water.

	I have seen at least a few commercial dragging boats that use
the external cooling pipe method.  The surface area was less that I
might have thought.  It was a couple of 1 to 1.5 inch pipes mabye 15 foot
long each.  There was a faring block at the front of the pair to fend
off warps and such.  I'll ask my lobster fishing brother-in-law about
the details when I see him again.  Mind you that this is in Downeast
waters that are garenteed to be cold enough............

	Dave

    RE: Hull mounted engine coolers
    
    I had an opportunity to use a Navy LCPL for about 1 year while I
    served.  This boat was about 36' steel hull and had a single 
    supercharged 6 cylinder Grey Marine diesel engine. The heat exchanger
    was a series of U shaped channel welded to the INSIDE of the hull.
    
    It should be possible to do something similar without causing the
    turbulence mounting outside the hull would cause. An added advantage
    is that the hull protects the exchanger which would be exposed
    to all kinds of damage and corrosion if outside.
    
    Walt  

Thanks for all the comments on my proposals. Please let me explain a
    bit more about a few things.
    
    RE: Keel coolers
    
    The cooling that has been suggested to me is more like the holding
    plate refrigeration that is used on present day yachts. The heat
    exchanger will be welded to the inside of the hull. It will have
    pipes inside for the engine cooling water to circulate. The heat
    exchanger will have a gel inside it that will dissipate heat better
    than the standard coolant.
    
    RE: Evaporative Fresh water system
    
    The system that I am looking runs off of the engine cooling water.
    So when the engine cooling water reaches the above mentioned keel
    coolers the temperature will already be reduced. The system has
    two engine driven pumps and produces 15 gal. of fresh water per
    hour.  The salinity of the water produced is less that 500 ppm.
    The size of the unit is L 29.5" X H 20" X W 16". The down side of
    this unit is that a descaling polymer is injected to the system
    automatically and the cost of that is .22 cents (AUS) per 24 hour
    day of operation. There are no membrane filters or pre filters to
    worry about. The cost of the unit is approx. $4700.00 US. When I
    compare the cost of an R/O unit plus the generator to run it, this
    option is worth alot of consideration.
    
    Regards,
    Jim

    I suspect the reason less pipes than expected are needed to produce
    the required cooling is that the steel hull itself distributes and
    dissipates the heat into the water.
    
    This brings me to an idea I had.  Many boats have external cast
    lead keels.  Why not snake some tubing in the keel when it is cast?
    This would allow the entire keel to act as a heat sink and radiator.
    Lead has good heat conductivity so the whole surface of the keel
    could dissipate heat.  To reduce corrosion in the pipes and block,
    coolant would be circulated instead of water and tubes would be
    made of brass or stainless.  The tubes would be "tinned" prior to
    casting to insure good thermal contact with the lead.
    
    The benefits would be:
    
    	-Elimination of seacocks and associated problems.
    		-No concern about failure
    		-No concern about cloging
    		-No concern about forgetting to close     
    		-No snaking ground lines
    		-No danger of sinking an unattended boat 
    		 through plumbing leaks
    
    	-Elimination of heat exchanger, no longer needed.
    
    	-Elimination of seawater circulation
    		-no corrosion in exchanger or block
    		-no filters needed
    		-no winterization anti-freeze hassels 
                -better water pump life
    
    I suspect that not all that much tube would be needed as the heat
    transfer should be fairly efficient. (Should need no more pipe than
    in a heat exchanger)  If the technique proved effective, it might
    be possible to cool the genset and fridge the same way, eliminating
    more seacocks.
    
    The only possible drawback I can think of is that the dry exhaust
    would be hot and might cause some difficulty routing.  Maybe there
    is a use for the waste exhaust heat.  (evaporator?)
    
    Comments?
    
    Rick,                                                      
    

    Well Gang, after all the input I received from my question of "What's
    too tiny for the Atlantic", LOTS of reading, and discussion with
    people who have traveled the globe by boat, I too have been looking
    into steel. A few questions for you...
    I've become facinated by Thomas Colvin's 42' radius chined hull
    designed boat. It's designed to have a gaff rig or a chinese lug
    sail design. Being a cutter rig fan myself (primarily for looks
    and ease of handling) I began checking out the above rigs. Alan
    mentioned gaff rigging having many more parts, therefore more chances
    at failure. Joshua Slocum in his book "Voyage of the Liberdad(sp?)
    mentions the chinese lug being one of the easiest to handle sail
    plans he'd ever used. Other articles I've read bear this out as
    well, although they mention pointability suffering. The design also
    has a distinct lack of cockpit. The aft is a flat deck, with HEFTY
    steel lifelines around the edge. Now the questions...
    
    If circumnavigating, primarily following the trades, would lack
    of pointability be a major problem? Since a chinese lug is supposed
    to be so easily reefed, and indeed reefed most of the time unless
    on a run,would this design pose problems I cannot yet see?
    
    For those of you who have looked at this design, do you see a way
    to convert it to a cutter? What would the ramifications be?
    
    Would you want a boat without a cockpit? A helms chair would need
    to be built unless you wish to stand days on end. Any other problems
    here?
    
    Are radially chined hulls better or worse than rounded hulls? Is
    astetics the only difference? I have found both in steel, the rounded
    ones being significantly more expensive, due probably to more waste
    in the steel and more labor involved in rolling it.
    
    Finally, for those who are now building your own boat...Do you,
    as I hope, really save a significant amount of $$ doing it yourself?
    I've read that you should never build your own boat to save money...
    It won't happen. The cost of materials is more for you, etc. What
    you will get is a boat that EXACTLY meets your needs. Any truth
    to this? These articles were 8 years old.

    
    re: -.1
    
    Not that I am in any way, shape, or form an authority on
    circumnavigation, but I'll offer my 2 cents on one or two of
    your questions.
    
    The ability for the boat to point to windward is important if you
    are being blown into a lee shore.  I understand that the region
    from Northern Chile to the Horn is particularly inhospitable in
    this regard.
    
    If you were to stay in the trade winds, pointing ability would
    not generally be a problem, although a marconi rig with "twin"
    headsails also have good downwind performance.
    
       - Jim
    

RE: .36,

>>>  What you will get is a boat that EXACTLY meets your needs. 

Ah, the myth that drives most boat dreams, and dashes them as well!

Years ago I was enamored of Colvin's designs, and after buying the Seven 
Seas Press book about the Gazelle, I actually sought one out.  While the 
"cockpit" is an open deck (it drains pretty rapidly, and the drains won't
ever clog), the one I saw had an after cabin as per the original design, 
and thus provided more of a feeling of protection.  Seating was on welded 
pipebenches, with laced canvas sides and backs --  cheap, utilitarian, and 
marginally comfortable, though one felt more up in the wind than I like.  
You realize, of course, that Colvin used this technique to get useful 
space below, to create a cavernous world cruiser in only 42'.  No engine; 
just one or two sweeps (which tells you something about the man himself.)

I doubt the design would take well to being cutter-ized, for the following 
reasons:

1)  She was tender.  A higher rig would have to be smaller, and she wasn't 
a spectacular (though adequate) sailor to begin with.  That, or reef early 
and often.

2)  With the junk rig Colvin designed, the mainmast is near the eyes of 
the ship, and the mizzen aft, and similarly in schooner configuration.
A cutter requires a single mast close near midship, and this placement 
might be problematic given the deck rocker and bulkhead location.  

3)  She's also rather narrow for her length, which increases the rigging 
stresses due to having a narrow base.

Rather than spend years working out the compromises, why not find a 
Gazelle to sail (better yet--charter!) and check it out directly?  Either
go with the junk rig (or gaffs if you like them), or pick from among many
excellent cutter designs, including many hardchine designs for backyard
builders. 

J.

    Actually, I don't agree you won't save money building yourself. If
    your're striving for qualiy work, you're bound to save some time. Most
    materials you'll put into the boat are cheap compared to the labor
    cost, which you'll avoid. This saving diminishes to the extent you buy
    outside, for instance, if you buy the hull all built.
    
    You will definitely be a victim of two things: one is your own skill.
    While many amateur-build boats challenge a good professional job for
    quality, many more suffer. The other is time. Unless you have no job
    and no family, building a boat in the 42' range will take a LONG time.
    If, like me, you work long hours and spend a significant amount of time
    doing anything else than building, it could easily take a decade.
    
    Ross Faneuf

re .36:

Caution, opinion follows:

I wouldn't even consider a boat without a deep, small aft cockpit, for
both comfort and safety reasons. I wouldn't consider a center cockpit, 
either.

Modern sail handling gear makes handling even large sails relatively 
easy. Slocum was writing at a time of heavy canvas sails, most likely 
gaff rigs, no winches, and the like. Today, a crew of one can sail 
a 60' boat around the world without undue difficulty (especially if your 
name is Phillipe Jeantot). I would not compromise windward ability to 
make sail handling a little easier.

I second Ross' estimates of the time involved in building a boat. Based 
on the time it takes me to complete even relatively minor modifications 
to my boat with reasonably good craftsmanship, there is no way I'd try
building a complete boat. You could easily spend one to two years of 
night and weekend work just modifying and preparing a used boat for 
extended cruising.

    A fellow in the Brisbane office took seven years to build his steel
    yacht.  I seem to remember it was around 43ft. 

    Boy, talk about a knock into reality! That's what I appreciate about
    you guys (seriously!) 
    John, thanks for your input. Finding one to charter is a good idea.
    I had some reservation of safety about the lack of cockpit that
    you refered to Alan, so I was interested in your opinion...could
    you expound on it some? 
    Were I to ever get a hull of steel, it would be professionally built.
    I am pretty good at wood work, electrical, etc. but forget welding!
    Never even done it! I bought the book "Steel away" for more
    information. Hopefully this will answer several other questions
    that have been roaming the bowels of my mind!
    
    By the way, Since you brought up modifying, let me ask this. Am
    I to infer that you think buying a steel boat (or some other medium)
    and modifying it to suit my needs could be a way to meet my big
    dream and meager budget in a way that perhaps building myself could
    not (besides taking 2 - 7 years to complete)!

RE: .42, 

I recall now that the Gazelle I saw was aluminum -- Colvin preferred 
aluminum to steel, when the builder/buyer could afford it.  

As the risk of rehashing the question:  Why is steel so attractive?  Yes, 
if you hit a coralhead hard in the South Pacific, you may well have fewer 
survival concerns with a big dent than with a leaking fracture or big hole 
in fiberglass or wood.  

But if money's the main issue, the balance changes.  Homebuilding becomes 
the major path to making such a project affordable.  But if you prefer not 
to, or can't, learn welding and do it up in your backyard, then I'd 
suggest the rationale should be closely examined.  Here are some things 
that jump to mind; there are many others, of course:

  1)  Rustproofing steel is difficult, especially for the amateur 
      homebuilder.  Corten slows the corrosion, but is more expensive 
      (there goes the price up again) and more difficult to weld, and it 
      still is a bear to manage cosmetically, unless you *want* to look
      like tramp steamer.  If you sail in cold waters, you'll have to 
      insulate the hull unless your crew prefer living in a damp frig.

      Hard chine designs generally don't sail as well as round chine 
      designs optimized for performance -- would you want to buy a slug 
      of a car to spend a few years driving around the country?  Round 
      chines take more time and skill, ergo more $.  Add in the insulation 
      and rustproofing, and you'll begin to understand why Amazon Yachts 
      and other high quality steel yacht prices are *well* into Hinckley 
      territory!  (If I were going to spend that much, I'd go for aluminum 
      to save the weight and gain the higher modulus of elasticity -- it'll 
      stretch further on major impact before breaking, in the right alloy 
      and hardness.) 

      Steel makes more sense in larger boats when certain scale effects of 
      fiberglass begin to appear, and the cost of steel per ton displ.
      rises more slowly than that of fiberglass (after starting much
      higher!)  Also, if you want to meet USCG Subchapter S or T specs,
      then steel may make the job easier, but not for small (<50')
      pleasure yachts, especially sailing yachts. 

  2)  Wood is least expensive, but arguably requires the most skill and
      experience to do a good job in.   But it's easy to maintain if 
      you're living aboard and reasonably conscientious, and most easy to
      repair underway, anywhere.  Plank on frame or cold-molded, they're 
      tough and long-lasting, with materials available almost anywhere.

  3)  Fiberglass (in it's various forms, according to your preferences) is 
      really pretty cheap if you don't want a highly-tooled appearance, 
      and it's near the bottom of the "Skills required" scale.  And you can 
      carry repair materials very easily, and work on them most anywhere.
      (You may even fix that huge reef hole with water-catalyzed resin; 
      workable if not pretty.)  Maintenance is again quite easy, especially 
      if you're aboard and watchful.

Well, there is a rationale to escape some of this quandary; try it and see
if it fits:  Buy/build/complete a fiberglass hull.  You get all of #3's
advantages, and it probably will maintain more value over time than any metal
or wood hull will do for you.  And take the money you save over having the
same quality hull in steel (or whatever) and spend it on the best
navigation equipment you can to *avoid* the catastrophe one imagines
preparing for, plus at least one spare of each -- loran, satnav, GPS, SSB,
VHF, radar, etc.  Comparing an Amazon 37 (steel) sailaway without any nav
gear to a Crealock 37 (fiberglass) loaded with *everything* mentioned,
you'd probably be able to count most of $100K in savings by choosing the
Crealock.  Both will perform similarly, sailing and otherwise.  Guess
which choice I (and most all of us) would make? 

You can reduce the scale of the above example to your own actual budget,
and count your potential savings. 

J.

    I am starting in on a 1968 vessel with a .125" steel hull.  It's a
    freshwater boat that has suffered from lack of maintenance.  There is
    some pitting, apparently not major, and areas where minor galvanic
    corrosion has occurred.
    
    I'm considering a couple approaches:
    
    	o Sandblast to bare metal, prime, etc.
        o Use a reducing primer such as Rust Destroyer
        o Use phosphoric acid, then prime, etc.
    
    I'm also concerned about damaging a .125" hull with, say, a needle
    scaler.
    
    Any real experience out there?  Any references on maintenance of steel
    surfaces?
    		J

I've no experience removing rust from steel hulls, but my experience 
removing rust from other things with Rust Destroyer, Naval Jelly, 
phosphoric acid, etc, has not been satisfactory. I've never been able to 
remove all of the rust in pits, and rust has always reoccurred quickly 
even after proper painting with a zinc-rich primer. I'd sandblast. 

    The only way I have ever really conquered it in other projects was by
    back driving the corrosion with electric current; lye solution as
    electrolyte, zinc electrode.  That created a really bulletproof fix.
    
    I have considered rigging up a pump with a zinc nozzle for work within
    the hull, reversing the rust and plating the steel, but I'm not
    sophisticated enough in regards to electrochemical reactions to select
    initial current densities so as to get the job done at a reasonable
    rate while avoiding dendrite formation.  There are also environmental
    and safety concerns while playing with such a rig...
    
    In the meantime, I'm calling various paint companies to solicit their
    recommendations (guess how they'll be biased...).