Blue Moon's keel

[junkman]

I've been having a good look at the keel repairs Troppo did. I'm interested because Blue Moon seems to have an issue with the underside of the keel as well. I am not sure what is going on down there. It is not leaking, but the starboard side of the keel, for two-thirds of its length from the front, is about 10mm lower than the port side. Shaun says it was like that when he bought the boat and it has never given him any trouble, but it makes me uneasy. From what I can understand, these boats were built in two halves and then joined afterwards. I wasn't sure if that was correct, but there appears to be a join in Troppo's photos of the underside of his keel. I am not sure if Blue Moon's keel has been patched or if the joint has split and the starboard side is bulging down. There appears to be glass tape over the stepped centreline.

Are there any reports of other Top Hats with similar issues?

I was also a bit dismayed to see Troppo's photos of the ballast, with its mixture of lead and ferrous scrap, and what appears to be significant airspace down there. I sure wish I had a Baker-built Mk 1 with a solid lead casting! Solid all over in fact! As a young man working in the boatbuilding industry in Sydney in the 1970s, I heard stories about the quality of boats built by Formit Fibreglass. Shipwrights used to make cruel jokes about them. It doesn't mean the boats are unseaworthy. Alan Nebauer's boat was built the same year as Blue Moon and did some hard sailing on the way to Canada and back. But there was certainly some economising.

Once again, has anybody other than Troppo (and maybe me!) had issues with the ballast?

[steve]

I think most of the Mark 3s had the ballast installed by the first owner, so there is probably a lot of variation in the quality of the installation.

I have no explanation for one side of the keel being lower than the other but as long as it is not soft I, like Shaun, wouldn't worry about it.

I am not an expert in boatbuilding but I think it is highly unlikely that the hull was made it two halves. It is more likely that the mould was in two halves. The two halves of the mould would be painted with release agent before being joined together. Then the fiberglass is laid into the mould. When removed from the mould, there would be an imperfection in the gelcoat where the two halves of the mould joined. The imperfection is often still visible and may mislead people to think that it is a joint.

I have owned a Mark 3 for over 30 years and have generally been impressed by the quality of the design and of the build. I have drilled into many areas to attach fittings and always found well made solid fiberglass of adequate thickness. I suppose the quality of the build depends on the individual who did it. Maybe I have been lucky as my boat seems to have been well made. Of course the quality of the fit-out (bulkheads, etc) is dependent on the skills of the first owner.

Steve

[junkman]

I was a bit afraid the first owner might have installed the ballast. Perhaps he did not support the keep properly while doing it and it split. He would then have reglassed it from the outside. I can see glass tape along centreline. There is definitely something very weird down there. His workmanship was pretty rough in places. I will just have to keep an eye on it. At least no water was dripping out of the keel, and if the ballast has not fallen out in all the miles Shaun sailed, hopefully it will stay there! I also hope he put in the right weight of ballast, though I wonder how they managed to fit the same amount into the shallow keel versions. BM seems initially very tender to me, even when I step aboard from the dock, but then my last boat was twice the displacement and three feet wider on the waterline for the same LOA, so that affects my judgement.

Phil says we cannot believe everything we read in Wikipedia about Top Hats, but that august body clearly states the hulls were built in two halves, then bolted together before being heavily glassed along the centreline. That is not uncommon, and if done properly is just as strong. It makes it a lot easier for the workers to lay up the hull with their chopper guns. And it is hard to imagine that the hull would split along the centreline if it was heavily glassed together. But it sure looks like it has, or someone has put a plywood patch or something over the starboard side of the keel.

Luckily the hull-deck joint looks very well done, almost certainly by an experienced fibreglasser. I agree with Shaun that the internal furniture hull liner adds some stiffness to the boat, it is like an egg-box construction. I'd love to rip it out and put in a different interior (we all have our ideas) but won't as the work required would be too much.

[Phillip]

Firstly do not believe anything on the Wikipedia site. I've tried many times to correct it only to find later that the original poster has changed it back!

As far as I know, as this is the first time I've heard it mentioned otherwise [old wives tale?], all Top Hats where sold with the ballast in place.
The type of ballast differed from solid lead, to lead ingots, to steel plugs immersed in oil(?). Doesn't really matter as all ballast was enclosed in fibreglass!

The only variation on this is that I know of about 6 Formit Top Hats went out as separate hull and deck with the owner attaching deck to hull'
That was a disaster and soon stopped. I do know one TH has had the deck/hull joint repaired to a high standard. Some may have been repaired by Formit.

The hulls were built as one piece and its the slack workmanship in putting the moulds together that we see on some Top Hats.

[junkman]

Thanks for that response, Phil. I'd love to know why one side of my keel is lower than the other on the bottom, but it was not showing any signs of leaking or cracking, and until it does I plan to leave it alone! It is about 10mm lower on the starboard side, with the step pretty much along the centreline. There is some glass tape along the step. It tapers away to nothing for the aft third of the keel. Shaun says it was like that when he bought BM. I didn't photograph it, which I regret now, but will next time I slip.

BM's hull and deck joint is very nicely glassed and I'm happy about that. I have inspected too many boats with leaky, bolted hull and deck joints, that seem to have just had the flanges bedded in GRP putty, especially if the joint incorporates a through-bolted aluminium toerail. BM is a dry boat. There is some rough glassing in places where the furniture is bonded in, and in the cockpit well, but the rest of it looks very good. I found no osmosis bubbles when I slipped, though the gelcoat was not perfect.

I have a friend at Marmong Point Marina, Lloyd (forget his family name offhand, on a Joubert designed Magpie called Water Rat, who worked for Geoff Baker building Top Hats. He later took ove,r construction of Currawongs and Magpies himself before going on to work at McConaghy Boats for many years. He could be a good source of early Top Hat info. I have not spoken to him for a while but will call him soon and report back anything I learn of interest.

[Phillip]

Lloyd actually built Seaka, and I did meet him at Marmong Marina in 2017 but he wouldn't talk to me, if you can get him in one place for an afternoon I'd love to interview him to round out Baker's roll in producing Top Hats.

[junkman]

I tried to call Lloyd but he didn't answer the phone. I know he can be reticent. We had a mutual friend he liked (recently deceased), which helped, plus I tend to keep to myself, like he does. He commented on that when we met. I'm not sure if I can persuade him to talk if he does not want to,though! If I was there it might be different. I'll let you know if I have any success.

[Phillip]

We can only try.
If you go south to Sydney I'm willing to meet you there.
We will see what happens

[Tales]

The hull is made in two halves and joined together before the deck moulding is attached.
I saw that join on Tales when I repaired the bow while fitting a new bow roller/head stay fitting.
This was discussed at length years ago and I consulted the Shipwright who owned the moulds. The keel would be impossible to lay up in one piece.
The shoal draft hulls were made in the same moulds as the normal hull but a plug was placed in the mould to fill the bottom part of the mould while laying up.
It’s possible that the plug in one half of your hull wasn't pushed down all the way before waxing and laying up.
Cheers,
Tom

[junkman]

Hi Tom, Thanks for your feedback. Phillip believes the hulls were built as one piece, as you can see in his post above, but what you say about the keel being impossible to lay up in a single mold makes sense. And also the split plug not being evenly fitted to the mold. If that is the case, then it might still be perfectly sound structurally, but I confess to feeling uneasy about it. Formit Fibreglass had an uneven reputation for build quality. My boat has some rough workmanship in numerous places. Also, when I cut out the bottom of my cockpit well recently, not only did I find voids that needed filling but I discovered that there is a 50mm difference between the centreline of the hull at the transom and the centreline of the deck. As a consequence, when I fitted my Windpilot Pacific Light windvane last week, I placed it on the deck centreline but the paddle is slightly off to one side. Blue Moon is likely to be my last boat and will serve its purpose (pottering around the coast) but there is no way I would ever buy or recommend another boat built by Formit.