Used restoration parts......

[gcarter]

Wow! Look what I got today! An almost brand new Latham steering column for use on a Char-lynn hydraulic helm.
I'm delighted w/this purchase which came from a member. It shows no sign of wear except the marks from bolting on a wheel hub. Other than that it shows no sign of ever being used.
But that's the point, it has been used.
Now, I'm OK w/this, but there are some here who would NEVER use anything on their boat that is used.
I remember recently somone here said (I'm paraphrasing here) that only a new external hydraulic system should be used for safety reasons.
Well, that got my attention!:wink:
I started thinking about the used parts I'm planning on using on the TR restoration I'm doing.
Well, first there's the hull and deck! After all, they're over 20 years old!!!!!!:eek!::eek!: I've substantially reinforced and refinished both, but they're used. There's no way around it. Old fiberglass!
Then there's the built engine that was installed in '93. I'm gonna rebuild it, but it will be used.....
After that comes the gimbal and outdrive. I'm planning on totally rebuilding and refinishing the gimbal, after all, all the NEW parts involved don't cost very much. The outdrive I'll refinish, but as far as I know, it's in pretty good shape internally.
The steering cylinders are in good shape and I've located seal kits for them.
Well, you get the picture....I'm happy doing things this way. I'm really happy knowing my stuff inside and out.
I guess what I don't care for is being told what I do just isn't good enough in some way.:popcorn:
BTW, the helm that will be attached to this steering column is being built to the requirements of my cylinders by another member and may or may not contain a certain number of used parts.

Anonymous restorer of vintage bits and pieces.

[gcarter]

Some of us value our lives a bit more than others..
Not you too!:(

[onesubdrvr]

Well, I agree; I think it depends on your intentions.

Example, if I were going to build a "Mighty Mouse" 18, you'd better bet your arse that I'm going everything new, and rated AT LEAST 25% stronger / etc. than I need it to be.

However, conversely, if I'm just restoring to factory spec / stock, I would be comfortable using parts that were properly rebuilt.

Wayne

[gcarter]

But, I draw the line on some things, I'll only go new, and steering is one of em. ESPECIALLY stressed parts..
So, would you like to speculate on what would fail????
The 1/2" SST plate outdrive brackets?
The 7/8" diameter SST cylinder rods?
The cylinders have a 950 PSI working pressure, proof pressure of 4500 PSI, and a 6800 PSI burst pressure. The effort per cylinder @ 950 PSI is 1350 lb force, well, minus the rod area as the cylinders are unbalanced.
You know, it's not like I bought the system sight unseen on Craigslist, this system has been on this boat since '93. If you were to follow through with your line of thought, you'd need to replace the steering cylinders at some frequent interval as they would no longer be new! When would that be? One year? Five years? Ten years? Well, these cylinders have been on this boat for 15 years. They have maybe 100 hours on them. Do the rest of you need to replace your systems??

[VetteLT193]

as also stated earlier, hydraulics are simple. how many big boats with Hynautic steering are there with thousands of hours of run time on them?

with that said...

I'll go used on most items... Although, I feel the same way as poodle does about hurting passengers... When it comes to safety everything gets checked and re-checked.

[gcarter]

Well, thirty years ago I designed hydraulic systems for trucks relating to the geophysical research industry (exploring for oil for the rest of you) including designing cylinders for raising and lowering masts...big masts. I've been out of that game for a long time and I would NOT undertake the rebuilding of these cylinders myself. I'll let the local Aeroquip dealer do it. They do this type of work all the time and are very highly qualified...you know steering and bucket cylinders for construction equipment, it's their bread and butter.
And as Vette said, Hynautic cylinders, and these K5B cylinders are still available @ $750 each, have a strong reputation.

[gcarter]

(that was obviously tossed out there to get a reaction)
Would I do that?:propeller::wink:

[BUIZILLA]

The 78" diameter SST cylinder rods?
welp, you certainly shouldn't worry about those..

[RedDog]

why don't you (ALL, YALL, YOU ALL) cut out the cheap shots all the way around?

don't take the bait

You guys are better than this


PS - new doesn't mean it is good. It could be said that used has demonstrated that it is functional and proven

[ky-donzi]

I wouldn't worry about it. If you do want to check it get some dye pentrant from a welding supply shop and check for cracks, the stuff is cheap and you can check the rods and the cylinders. As far as the cylinders go they are as big or bigger than what is on my big case tractor, and my case back-hoe.. for steering. I'm guessing that they are under much less stress than any part of my BH, or tractor steering.

I buy used quite a bit. I bought a used procharger this winter simply because it was 2000-2500 cheaper than new, had 25 hours on it. I did this so if I didn't like it it didn't hurt so bad when I took it off and sold it.

Some things are not a good deal at any cost tho. I was at a flea market this winter and they had boxes of stuff that said "OUT OF DATE 1/4 PRICE" would you believe that there were ribbons of condoms for sale in it... Man that $.50 you save wouldn't be worth it!!!!!

[zelatore]

I've been both the guy scratching for used parts and the guy who just put down the cash and bought all-new.

Usually, when I did the latter it was because it was soooo much easier. At least it's supposed to work that way. Of course, there was always a certain amount of guilt knowing I could have spent the time and energy to save some money but instead chose the easy way out. Right now I'm looking into a number of pretty expensive upgrades for my boat and I'm leaning toward new just because it's easier...and I'm dealing with some things I'm not especially familiar with (like blowers) so new offers a higher level of support.

But I have no problem going with used gear in most applications and I've got my eyes open for used parts for this project as well.

Now I think we all know George isn't your average garage tinkerer. We've seen what he did with the Minx and what he's currently doing with the TR. While some people go used strictly because it's the only way they can afford it, (and that usually ends poorly) I think it's safe to say George does it more on principal...he just likes rebuilding things. Of course, the savings don't hurt.

For some people (and I think George is one of them) the thrill isn't in the competed project, so much as the project itself.

He's very Zen....it's the journey, not the destination.

(he'll love that coming from a left-coast hippy California guy!)

Wrench On, George!

[98shovel]

so in my world we get boat parts and car parts that are new and bad ,so a good rebuilt part that is done properly by qualified techs is as good or better than new

[Rootsy]

George,

At the least I'd replace the hardware (bolts, nuts & washers) in the system. If Anything else is going to fail mechanically that would cause serious and immediate life threatening danger I'd put my money on mounting points, fasteners or clevis ends. More so on fasteners and mounting hardware.

But then again I once made my own external hydraulic system, except for the cylinder. So I'm goofy too... :nilly:

[The Hedgehog]

I think that there is a great deal of merit in used parts. Heck, all of our stuff is used after a season, do we take it off and replace it every year? No, we go through everything and have used parts the next year. I think that is is all relative to the part and the application. Would I take a used drive, run a bunch of hp through it and drive over 80mph? No. Would I do it knowing some history and stick it on my X at 70? For the right price, heck yes.

Congrads on the steering deal. I probably would have taken that one too.

Now if someone would buy my used manifolds!!!

[gcarter]

George,
At the least I'd replace the hardware (bolts, nuts & washers) in the system. If Anything else is going to fail mechanically that would cause serious and immediate life threatening danger I'd put my money on mounting points, fasteners or clevis ends. More so on fasteners and mounting hardware.
But then again I once made my own external hydraulic system, except for the cylinder. So I'm goofy too... :nilly:
Yep Jamie, I agree.
As a general rule, I replace every fastener on the boat.
I love living. I have a great life and I intend to continue to enjoy it.

[BUIZILLA]

there are tens of thousands of airplanes taking off and landing every day, with used and reconditioned hydraulic cylinders...

[gcarter]

there are tens of thousands of airplanes taking off and landing every day, with used and reconditioned hydraulic cylinders...
My point exactly, Jim.
I kept wondering to myself, why is pleasure boating exempt from the rules of hydraulic system longevity, reliability, and strength.
I was just walking through the shop and looked at the transom where I had not only corrected some issues Donzi had caused, but filled all the existing holes in the transom, and also had reinforced the transom w/two additional layers of 24 oz. Knytex stitchmat.

[roadtrip se]

there are tens of thousands of airplanes taking off and landing every day, with used and reconditioned hydraulic cylinders...

but I would think the design, materials, manufacturing, and required maintenance cycles are a bit different for plane parts than boat parts, so what is the point Buiz?

If I could get boat parts built to aircraft standard, even if they were more expensive, I would buy them every time over the cheap, niggly junk that constantly has to be checked and replaced that we put up with in our hobby.

And remember, with the exception of the occassional gem in the rough, cheap junk is still cheap junk. The hours spent rehabbing cheap junk could have been spent out on the water, which is the point of having these boats to start with.

[gcarter]

The hours spent rehabbing cheap junk could have been spent out on the water, which is the point of having these boats to start with.
You are obviously speaking for yourself. If I felt that way, I wouldn't have sold the Minx.
I used to collect cameras,years ago, but I wouldn't have considered myself much of a photographer, I enjoyed the mechanical mechanisms.
I've built some pistol kits, not because I'm a shooter, and if I were an avid gun collector, it would be solely for the machines and the engineering.
I love antique engines, I study them religiously, especially aircraft engines and triple and quadruple expansion steam engines. I have a pretty serious library of these things.
Elaine makes fun of me because I go to sleep at night reading engineering books.

[ky-donzi]

I was just surfing around... Has anybody used these before. They look like Lathem or MM. Just wondering
http://www.sweetmfg.biz/products2.asp?edit_id=63

[VetteLT193]

...
And as Vette said, Hynautic cylinders, and these K5B cylinders are still available @ $750 each, have a strong reputation.

And what I was also kind of getting at is 40,000+++ pounds running at 30 knots is no walk in the park for these parts.

I think our little Ol' 3,000 or so pound boats running even 80 is no big whoop. I'd like to see the calculations on force to figure out what the differences are. This goes back to me saying that a single external ram on a Classic is beyond overkill... Any member have the formulas handy? I'd love to run them to see how things come out.

[gcarter]

I agree w/you. Just take a look at the large motor yachts and work boats that have Hynautic standard as steering and autopilot cylinders. Also hydraulic remote engine management systems. These things cost a ton of money. They're awfully proud of them.

[roadtrip se]

You are obviously speaking for yourself. If I felt that way, I wouldn't have sold the Minx.


I bought the boat, and a second one for Jill, so we could go boating.
I do think I can go out on a limb here and state that most folks here probably bought a boat to go do the same thing.

I will also state that the great riggers in the business, past and present, spend a lot of time on the water "testing", but really just boating. Tinker and re-construct all you want, but sooner or later, the boat has got to go to the water. Until then, you won't know what worked and what didn't.

[Rootsy]

but I would think the design, materials, manufacturing, and required maintenance cycles are a bit different for plane parts than boat parts, so what is the point Buiz?
If I could get boat parts built to aircraft standard, even if they were more expensive, I would buy them every time over the cheap, niggly junk that constantly has to be checked and replaced that we put up with in our hobby.
And remember, with the exception of the occassional gem in the rough, cheap junk is still cheap junk. The hours spent rehabbing cheap junk could have been spent out on the water, which is the point of having these boats to start with.

The words "aircraft quality" are nothing but buzzwords in the engineering and machining world. Just words used by the bean counters and sales folks in order to swoon an otherwise ill informed and ignorant public in order to increase prices to pad their wallets some more. As an example.. 6061 and 7075 aluminum are both used extensively, every day to make a lot of things NON aircraft related. Yet you see this gimmicky bullcrap ... Made from aircraft quality aluminum, blah blah blah blah Fin blah. Made to aircraft tolerances... I didn't know there were "special" tolerances for an airplane... Last I knew fit and function dictated required tolerances and any engineer worth his piece of paper would not intentionally "tighten" tolerances just for the heck of it... The smaller the number or more zeros behind that decimal, the more expensive and difficult that part is to make... especially if you have to make more than one, in production...

I don't do much for the aircraft industry but we're headed in that direction. Yet every part that goes through this place still conforms to material specifications and print tolerances. Every part is inspected, dimensionally, as well as anything additionally required before it ever leaves the door... Does that mean it's junk because it isn't destined for a box with wings?

Therefore when someone blurts out "aircraft quality" I just roll my eyes and think... get a clue dude...

[roadtrip se]

So the term built to "aircraft quality standard" is bunk?

"Sale-sy" talk aside and your being our resident engineer here, you are implying that a specification is a specification. Okay, I'll buy that. I deal with specifications all of the time, too.

But a spec is a spec is a spec, set aside for a moment, aircraft quality has to mean something. Other than miss use as a marketing term by over zealous sales people, the spec could be and most likely is different for an airplane part than something that goes into my bilge. A bit of a reach I know, but I think the duty cycles and the inherent costs and risks associated with each application are a bit different.

This is the nature of a spec in the first place. My original point, in response to Buiz, was I would like to have something built to a better quality level, such as aircraft quality spec for example, than the stuff we put up with in the boat biz. Much less increase my chances of failure, a tow, and a crap day on the water, or something worse due to the failure of a safety part, based on rehabbing something that shouldn't have been used to start with.

[The Hedgehog]

So the term built to "aircraft quality standard" is bunk?
"Sale-sy" talk aside and your being our resident engineer here, you are saying that a specification is a specification. Okay, I'll buy that. I deal with specifications all of the time, too.
But a spec is a spec is a spec, set aside for a moment, aircraft quality has to mean something. Other than miss use as a marketing term by over zealous sales people, the spec could be and most likely is different for an airplane part than something that goes into my bilge. A bit of a reach I know, but I think the duty cycles and the inherent costs and risks associated with each application are a bit different.
This is the nature of a spec in the first place. My original point, in response to Buiz, was I would like to have something built to a better quality level, such as aircraft quality spec for example, than the stuff we put up with in the boat biz. Much less increase my chances of failure, a tow, and a crap day on the water, based on rehabbing something that shouldn't have been to start with.


You are right, as a pilot I can tell you that it is not necessarily bunk. It is sort of like the difference between marine grade and standard. I am sure that it is improperly used on some parts there as well.

[onesubdrvr]

I think the point is, when someone states that my hydraulic cylinder is made to aviation standards, using aircraft grade aluminum, yes it is all hype. They are saying that because the same aluminum happens to be used on an similar part on an airplane. The biggest note here being that aviation stuff, used in the aviation industy generally goes through a higher degree of QA than stuff that "goes in your bilge", but tolerances are designed for the functionality of the part, not the assembly; when you state your given clearances, it's to prolong life of the part, and maximize efficiency. Again, the part isn't made any differently, just more heavily inspected.

I spent a good portion of my life working on submarines, the nuclear power side of things, the "sub-safe", side of things, pretty much anything mechanical, and there are many systems that a classified as "sub safe" that use parts that are used in other non sub-safe systems, the only thing that makes the entire assembly sub-safe is the QA required when doing the repair.

The point about the hydrualics is valid. Tolerances too large, oil leaks by the sealing ring (whether it's a "o" ring or a "quad" ring), tolerances too small excessive wear on the seals, and excessive drag on the cylinder; again, tolerances are given for the functionality of the part. As Jamie eluded to, tolerances can be made tighter, but at the cost of machining, with little (or no) return on functionality of the part.

I have been a mechanic by trade for my entire working life, and have worked on the "spec" sytems and components the entire time. What is most frustrating is going behind another "trained" individual to see that the most basic of mechanical practices has been neglected (a very simple example, using the correct torque sequence on head bolts). Will it run? sure it will. Will it explode or fail catastrophically? most likely not, was it done right to maximize life and operational efficiency? No.

This is why I am a pretty strong believer in doing as much of my own work as I can (on mechanical systems). It's not that I'm better at fixing stuff than the "trained" professional, but I know exactly what I've done, and that it was done right, may take me 10 times longer, but I know if it's right. If tolerances are supposed to be .008-.014, I'm not going to let .016 "slide" because I know it'll work, it's not right. Heck, I've met a lot of mechanics that don't know how to use calipers, dial indicators or even FEELER GAUGES!!

Just my thoughts,.... but don't listen to me,... I'm fat

Wayne

[BUIZILLA]

I can categorically state that the diesel injection industry is FAR tighter on tolerances than an aircraft memo....

we go out to 10 thousands of an inch, on most tight tolerance items..

[The Hedgehog]

I was kind of thinking about stepping up to aerospace grade products in my boat. I have been talking to General Dynamics and Boeing and they have pointed out a few flaws in the aviation grade stuff.:hangum:

Then I am going to scrap the 850 for a nuclear power plant.

I agree with Poodles comment.:popcorn:

[roadtrip se]

Skip nuclear, try a turbine, or a couple of turbines.

We saw the Geico boat run on the StClair River last weekend at the OPA races. It was amazing. The helicopter flying overhead made more racket than the boat did going by at insane speeds. It was like somebody had turned off the volume to the TV, but I was standing on the river bank.

Great example of aircraft standard making a real impact in the boat biz, at least for those of us with unlimited sponsorship money.

[onesubdrvr]

OK, I wasn't, but:

A spec is a spec.. Agreed..

Aircraft specs, while still material wise, dimensionally, torsionally and whatever are just specs.. Agreed..

However, anyone who says that a component built to aircraft specs is the same as any other component built to go on a 1972 vega is full of bullsh!t to no end. I am in and out of a couple of FAA certified overhaul / repair facilities weekly, sometimes daily, and I can tell you that there is no way your hynautic, or even my Latham, cylinder's are built to the specs and tolerances these guys hold on a daily basis. Nor, is the quality of the materials the same. Yes, it's whatever classification of metal the spec calls for, but has it been sonic tested/ x-rayed to ensure that it doesn't have voids, pockets etc? Has the heat treating been verified? Has anyone x-rayed the welds on the brackets? Has anyone verified and certified that the plating on the rod is the correct material, let alone the correct thickness?

As far as comparing trawlers to high speed performance boats? GMAFB, I'm not even going to dignify that with a response..

Again Poodle, I agree, alot of the the difference is in the testing / building.

And as far as comparing anything in commercial aviation with anything we deal with, we are all talking apples and oranges :wink: landing gear for a 100,000 lb aircraft, traveling at speeds of well over 400mph, powered by two engines that develop well over 20,000lbs of thrust (in the case of a 737-800) a piece MUST be made / engineered to handle more stresses than any of us can imagine on any donzi out there, and thus the tolerances are going to be tighter, materials stronger, etc.

You are right, Latham / etc. is not going to do NDT X-Ray testing on their cylinders, and may not even hyrdostatically test them before sending them out, and that was kind of my point behind my response, the difference is in the testing, and requirements when building. I would hate to think of the additional cost of a Latham system if they took the extra time, and expense of x-raying the welds, hydro testing the cylinders / etc.

Back in my "submarine" days, we would go through weeks on end of x-raying hull welds, and many welds were re-done because of POSSIBLE, not necessarily even known problems. Again, this would not be done by any non regulated business (ie, there isn't a Federal High Perfomance Boating Adminstration like there is the FAA), and I can GUARANTEE you that more "engineering" has been done with aircraft parts before they are even prototyped than just about ANYTHING we put on our boats.

I think part of the problem is that there are manufactures out there that say their parts are made to aviation standards, and I agree, that's BS (unless they are for use in the aviation industry).

A better comparison, would be to compare the standards required on a small prop plane like a Piper Cub or one of the cropdusters. I can tell you that these aircrafts have a MUCH higher failure and crash rate than ANYTHING commercially used in the flight world.

The important thing to consider here is what are you comfortable with? I for example wouldn't reuse a critical load point part (bracket, pivot point / etc.) that was corroded / rusted as I know it was originally engineered for that use, just to that use, and not beyond that use, and any kind of questionable wear that would compromise strength is a concern. If I'm going to exceed the loads at that point due to higher power, more weight / etc, then I must look into replacing it with a part that was designed for the increased stresses, etc. In the case of doing a stock resto, I would be more than comfortable rebuilding the parts (that can be rebuilt) than just putting them on used and not rebuilt. I can't fabricate much stuff either, so the structural metal parts would have to be replaced if questionable. Again, stock vs. higher performance is a different issue.

Boats can be dangerous - and the danger increases pretty exponentially up to about 60, and over 60, forget about it. I would never want anyone (including myself) to get hurt because of my negligence (or the shops negligence), but will end by saying that if due diligence is used in inspecting and rebuilding parts, that in a stock application, I would feel comfortable with using stock, properly rebuilt parts.

Wayne

[gcarter]

Having spent a few years myself at NASA in the '60's and at Cameron Iron works where they forged turbine wheels, I've diddled w/MS and AN specs a bit. The major difference is traceability of digging the ore out of the earth, to processing that ore, to the finished metal alloys that the parts are made from.
I seriously doubt we need the expense of all that.
The stuff we deal w/is seriously low tech. The most technologically advanced items on a new boat is the components of the engine management system and by and large we don't fool w/them. I'm glad it's low tech. It keeps the cost down. IMHO, the major differences in the hardware we use and other boating systems is bling. I know we love it, but it doesn't necessarily make the parts any better or stronger.
Scott, I beg to disagree w/you. The steerinng systems in real work boats and fishing trawlers are designed for much worse loading than the stuff we would ever submit our boats to. I have a bunch of anecdotal evidence but I don't want to bore everyone w/it.

[The Hedgehog]

Again Poodle, I agree, alot of the the difference is in the testing / building.

And as far as comparing anything in commercial aviation with anything we deal with, we are all talking apples and oranges :wink: landing gear for a 100,000 lb aircraft, traveling at speeds of well over 400mph, powered by two engines that develop well over 20,000lbs of thrust (in the case of a 737-800) a piece MUST be made / engineered to handle more stresses than any of us can imagine on any donzi out there, and thus the tolerances are going to be tighter, materials stronger, etc.

You are right, Latham / etc. is not going to do NDT X-Ray testing on their cylinders, and may not even hyrdostatically test them before sending them out, and that was kind of my point behind my response, the difference is in the testing, and requirements when building. I would hate to think of the additional cost of a Latham system if they took the extra time, and expense of x-raying the welds, hydro testing the cylinders / etc.

Back in my "submarine" days, we would go through weeks on end of x-raying hull welds, and many welds were re-done because of POSSIBLE, not necessarily even known problems. Again, this would not be done by any non regulated business (ie, there isn't a Federal High Perfomance Boating Adminstration like there is the FAA), and I can GUARANTEE you that more "engineering" has been done with aircraft parts before they are even prototyped than just about ANYTHING we put on our boats.

I think part of the problem is that there are manufactures out there that say their parts are made to aviation standards, and I agree, that's BS (unless they are for use in the aviation industry).

A better comparison, would be to compare the standards required on a small prop plane like a Piper Cub or one of the cropdusters. I can tell you that these aircrafts have a MUCH higher failure and crash rate than ANYTHING commercially used in the flight world.

The important thing to consider here is what are you comfortable with? I for example wouldn't reuse a critical load point part (bracket, pivot point / etc.) that was corroded / rusted as I know it was originally engineered for that use, just to that use, and not beyond that use, and any kind of questionable wear that would compromise strength is a concern. If I'm going to exceed the loads at that point due to higher power, more weight / etc, then I must look into replacing it with a part that was designed for the increased stresses, etc. In the case of doing a stock resto, I would be more than comfortable rebuilding the parts (that can be rebuilt) than just putting them on used and not rebuilt. I can't fabricate much stuff either, so the structural metal parts would have to be replaced if questionable. Again, stock vs. higher performance is a different issue.

Boats can be dangerous - and the danger increases pretty exponentially up to about 60, and over 60, forget about it. I would never want anyone (including myself) to get hurt because of my negligence (or the shops negligence), but will end by saying that if due diligence is used in inspecting and rebuilding parts, that in a stock application, I would feel comfortable with using stock, properly rebuilt parts.

Wayne

Those are some good points. FYI- the 737 does not land at anywhere close to 400 mph but it does have some serious stresses involved.

I am still sticking with aerospace grade. At least on my drive. I am liking SE's turbine concept for speed and reliability....at least until I have to pay to get the hot section overhauled!

[gcarter]

at least until I have to pay to get the hot section overhauled!
Or buy the fuel used at sea level.

[onesubdrvr]

Those are some good points. FYI- the 737 does not land at anywhere close to 400 mph but it does have some serious stresses involved.

I am still sticking with aerospace grade. At least on my drive. I am liking SE's turbine concept for speed and reliability....at least until I have to pay to get the hot section overhauled!
Yeah, it'd be hard to stop that beast if it touched down at 400, but I think you understood my point.

As far as the turbines, you should be in good shape, but from some stuff I've read (though I can't remember when or where), they were having some issues with reliability in salt water.

I envy you if you have that kind of budget ;) Heck, at my budget, I may be looking at a remote control engine to put into my next donzi lol

Wayne

[The Hedgehog]

Or buy the fuel used at sea level.

Lots of fuel....for safety sake I probably need to convert it to run on JP 8. That is probably hard to find around the dock though.

[roadtrip se]

IMHO, the major differences in the hardware we use and other boating systems is bling. I know we love it, but it doesn't necessarily make the parts any better or stronger.
.

I'll stay away from the steering discussion, as I envision seeing some sort of tiller arm from a trawler on the back of red head Donzi someday soon.

It is not about bling, it is not about expense, it is about performance and function.

The very design of our hulls is engineered for performance and function, when there are so many designs that could carry more people and be less expensive to build. A pontoon can get the job done with less bling.

The Six, NXT, Bravo, and TRS Drives were all designed for performance applications. An Alpha can get the job done with less bling.

The K-plane was designed for quick response on the race course. The Bennett tab can get the job done with less bling.

Stainless props provide more torsional rigidity, durability, and options.
The aluminum prop can get it done with less bling.

Zero effort throttle controls allow shifting and rev control for when the performance boat leaves the water. A tiller arm on a five horse Johnson can give you throttle control and steering to boot, eliminating the need for a steering wheel. Less bling and bonus, less expense due to no steering wheel.

Yes, there is the shiney stuff, but the real bling comes from being able to take performance pieces and make them sing on the water. If it were about lowest cost and utilizing common marine parts, we would be running around in Bayliners, not Donzis.

[Last Real Texan]

Well, thirty years ago I designed hydraulic systems for trucks relating to the geophysical research industry (exploring for oil for the rest of you) including designing cylinders for raising and lowering masts...big masts. I've been out of that game for a long time and I would NOT undertake the rebuilding of these cylinders myself. I'll let the local Aeroquip dealer do it. They do this type of work all the time and are very highly qualified...you know steering and bucket cylinders for construction equipment, it's their bread and butter.
And as Vette said, Hynautic cylinders, and these K5B cylinders are still available @ $750 each, have a strong reputation.
I run the Hynuatic K5B cylinders ( 2 ) dual ram steering on my ride, I have to say these things are stout! and work flawlessly...not the pretty set up like IMCO but hey it is in the water when anyone sees it....plus I kind of like the Mad Max set up.

Tex

[gcarter]

Maybe there's a historical aspect to this we haven't investigated. For instance, there're some products Hynautic developed in the past that didn't continue in production a long time.
For instance;
http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31339&d=1188329004
They probably weren't a hit because of price, they build some pricey stuff, but the design is beautiful and seems to be a lot cleaner than K-Planes.
Here's a page that maybe some of haven't seen, these have been on the market since the late '70's. How long has Latham been building stern drive steering systems? I'm curious because I don't know.
And as far as cheap goes, I think the price of these are in the same ball park as Lathams or anyone else at about $750/copy.

[BERTRAM BOY]

The words "aircraft quality" are nothing but buzzwords in the engineering and machining world. Just words used by the bean counters and sales folks in order to swoon an otherwise ill informed and ignorant public in order to increase prices to pad their wallets some more. As an example.. 6061 and 7075 aluminum are both used extensively, every day to make a lot of things NON aircraft related. Yet you see this gimmicky bullcrap ... Made from aircraft quality aluminum, blah blah blah blah Fin blah. Made to aircraft tolerances... I didn't know there were "special" tolerances for an airplane... Last I knew fit and function dictated required tolerances and any engineer worth his piece of paper would not intentionally "tighten" tolerances just for the heck of it... The smaller the number or more zeros behind that decimal, the more expensive and difficult that part is to make... especially if you have to make more than one, in production...
I don't do much for the aircraft industry but we're headed in that direction. Yet every part that goes through this place still conforms to material specifications and print tolerances. Every part is inspected, dimensionally, as well as anything additionally required before it ever leaves the door... Does that mean it's junk because it isn't destined for a box with wings?
Therefore when someone blurts out "aircraft quality" I just roll my eyes and think... get a clue dude...


EXACTLY what Jamie said. If you saw what went into a flying remaned Pratt and Whitney PW4000. You'd probably never get on a plane again.

[gcarter]

Latham started his business because he couldn't buy steering that would survive the rigors of offshore racing. And he was tired of breaking crap..
Scott, if I EVER go ocean racing in a boat that I own,:nilly: I assure you that I will use NOTHING but Latham steering on it! :propeller::doh:

In the mean time, I'm planning on using the Hynautic setup that came w/the boat.:smash:
It HAS to be 20-30 times stronger than the hydraulically boosted, cable operated system that came w/the Bravo...(Todd, Bravo is NOT an Alpha...why do you keep saying Alpha??) Earth to Todd:shocking:

Just so everyone knows;
I'm NOT going ocean racing.
I DON'T have a secret (or otherwise) quest to go 80 MPH, or 90 MPH, or 100 MPH. (but 75 would be OK)
I'll leave that to the 3 or 4 people that it is important to.

I am building a very strong (at least 100 lb of extra fiberglass in the bottom) restoration of a 1988 22C Testa Rossa that will be as safe or safer than 99% of other 22C's in existance.

[The Hedgehog]

Here is a hynautic setup on a 27ZX with 800 hp or so. It is a fusion of hynautic and IMCO.

Notice the big planes. They look very important and I am jealous.

He used aeorspace quality gears in that IMCO drive!:smash:

Tex gets the bang for the buck award. This boat does 90 and has a number of used parts. I would ride in it anyday!

[gcarter]

He used aeorspace quality gears in that IMCO drive!:smash:
Well, I'm gonna use aerospace quality fasteners on mine!!!:wink:

[BUIZILLA]

and in this corner... :smash:




there's more planes in the ocean, than submarines in the sky....




so take that to the fastener/steering/hydraulic quality corner

[gcarter]

Here is a hynautic setup on a 27ZX with 800 hp or so. It is a fusion of hynautic and IMCO.
Notice the big planes. They look very important and I am jealous.
He used aeorspace quality gears in that IMCO drive!:smash:
Tex gets the bang for the buck award. This boat does 90 and has a number of used parts. I would ride in it anyday!
I give Tex a hard time about the "Last Real Texan" thingie, since I've been a Texan a lot longer than he has...., but he does have a very nice boat w/a very impressive transom.

[The Hedgehog]

I give Tex a hard time about the "Last Real Texan" thingie, since I've been a Texan a lot longer than he has...., but he does have a very nice boat w/a very impressive transom.

Tex needs a hard time! I do think he has done a masterful job of fusing new and used stuff together at the same time generating strong results. I am pretty sure that someone will basically give him a tall deck and an arneson this winter. Then the madness will continue.

BTW, I think that the Testarossa will be one cool boat!

If you will excuse me now, it is Friday and I am heading out for a couple of beers. Or maybe I will get crazy and get some big drinks so I can fly one of Buizilla's subs:rock::thewave: or better yet:pimptwo::hi5::drinkbeer:

[wannabe]

I mostly lurk here but from what I've seen of George's two major projects I would ride on his boat anytime!:wink:

[Last Real Texan]

I give Tex a hard time about the "Last Real Texan" thingie, since I've been a Texan a lot longer than he has...., but he does have a very nice boat w/a very impressive transom.



Hey I deserve a hard time for most of the stupid stuff I do on a regular basis:smash: I know its all in good fun and actually really kind of enjoy the abuse in a strange kind of way, fo some odd reason I can not put my finger on.



Thanks for the kind words about the transom....kind of sucks that it is not visible in the water since we only do't boat in gin clear water, like you guys down in Fla.



I was reading the hynautic stuff you posted and I have the other componants to the hynuatic system in the PDF file, when I bought this set up used it came with the H41 Helm, ( this thing is HUGE ) , the preassure tank and the relief valve, I chose to eliminate all of that stuff and just use the rams. Whan I say the system was used it was actually used about 3 hours on a 26 Ft Firehawk Cat and the owner figured out that non power assist was not for him, I cant' blame him.....$ 500 smackers bought the whole set up including the IMCO end cap. So I peiced the rest together with IMCO and Charlynn and ended up with about $ 1200 in a full dual ram set up stern to helm.....like I said not as pretty but very effective and I think it will take anything I can throw at it.




Can't wait to see the resto you are working on finished ...I am sure it will be top notch! Did you ever get the gel coat straight?
My vote is for used parts
Tex

[gcarter]

The TR come w/the whole setup in the PDF except someone put some different clevices on the transom ends. It's five turns of the wheel lock to lock!!!!! And the effort will make a man of you.
My plan is to round up some of the original clevices, go w/the Char-lynn helm and boost it. W/the helm we worked out, it will be 3 1/2 turns lock to lock.
Those are BIG cylinders...1 1/2" diameter X 9" stroke....15.9 cu. in. and slightly less going the other way.

[Last Real Texan]

The TR come w/the whole setup in the PDF except someone put some different clevices on the transom ends. It's five turns of the wheel lock to lock!!!!! And the effort will make a man of you.
My plan is to round up some of the original clevices, go w/the Char-lynn helm and boost it. W/the helm we worked out, it will be 3 1/2 turns lock to lock.
Those are BIG cylinders...1 1/2" diameter X 9" stroke....15.9 cu. in. and slightly less going the other way.
I am 3.25 lock to lock

[BigGrizzly]

Tex nothing ugly about you transom. Me I prefer the slower steering at a higher speed not always good docking but I only do that a couple times a day so I don't care. At speed over correcting gets you in trouble.

[ITTLFLI]

I mostly lurk here but from what I've seen of George's two major projects I would ride on his boat anytime!:wink:

I have ben on George's boat...and with a BIG grin! I would do it again!

....."lurking skunkworks"