| |
Main
Date: 24 Aug 2004 05:19:48
From: john cop
Subject: old Klepper report & polyurethane glue
|
We have an old Aerius (2 person) on its last legs. Typically, it has
only been used when we go to Hawaii (we have been able to check it as
normal bagage).
The skin is the old canvass stuff. I have waxed and later painted it
with stuff supplied by Kelpper with mixed results. A couple of years
ago, I got some paint from the hypolon reconditioning people. This
stuff is almost like rubber paint. Results were much better but we
made the mistake of not leaving it assembled. The coating did not do
very well at the crease points.
The real problem is that there is little for anything to stick to.
The rubber has degraded along with the canvass. The patches applied
during the rubber process (basically cotton tee shirt material
impregnated) are doing pretty well but the patches applied before
which were well stuck at the time are showing signs of lifting off.
That got me thinking of polyurethane glue. This stuff is supposed to
be wetted when applied, foams up to fill the voids as it dries, and
does a better job (although not very good) at sticking to things than
nothing else does, like UHMW. I tried it in a couple of areas and it
looks VERY good. The stuff expands into a foam so it probably grabs
whatever is there a bit better. Don't know if it will work long
range, but it did very well having been subjected to a short 1.5 hour
test trip which already makes it better than patches glued with the
stuff actually made for it.
Now to repair the rivet that popped off the stern thingy and to figure
out how to saw the the frame in half to get it under the airline max
dimensions. And, if I could find a new skin for a less than major
investment...
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2004 11:05:30
From: Brian Nystrom
Subject: Re: old Klepper report & polyurethane glue
|
If you allow polyurethane glue to expand and foam up, it has no
strength. When used for woodworking, it's necessary to fit the parts
closely and clamp them tightly to prevent the glue from foaming.
Otherwise, you end up with a weak joint. When used as a coating, it will
become hard when it cures fully and crack when flexed.
What it sounds like is that you need a new skin. If you just want a
cheap solution, polyurethane varnish is what's used on skin-on-frame
boats to seal the skin. I wouldn't use it on a boat that's going to be
folded, though. Aquaseal or thinned Marine GOOP would probably works
better than either the poly' glue or varnish.
I suggest that you do a search on "Ralph Diaz". He's an authority on
folding boats and has probably written on the subject of repairs like
yours many times.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2004 17:46:42
From: john cop
Subject: Re: old Klepper report & polyurethane glue
|
Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@att.net > wrote in message news:<_n_Wc.245486$OB3.122692@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> If you allow polyurethane glue to expand and foam up, it has no
> strength. When used for woodworking, it's necessary to fit the parts
> closely and clamp them tightly to prevent the glue from foaming.
> Otherwise, you end up with a weak joint. When used as a coating, it will
> become hard when it cures fully and crack when flexed.
>
> What it sounds like is that you need a new skin. If you just want a
> cheap solution, polyurethane varnish is what's used on skin-on-frame
> boats to seal the skin. I wouldn't use it on a boat that's going to be
> folded, though. Aquaseal or thinned Marine GOOP would probably works
> better than either the poly' glue or varnish.
No question you are right - just don't use the boat enough to warrant
the expense of a new skin.
The polyurethane is not used as a coating - just to reattach some
patches that are pealing up. Goop probbably lasted the shortest of
anything I have tried (in fact none of my GOOP repairs on anything
have lasted in the long term - and I have tried it on a bunch of
things - short term its great). The Polyurethane foam (has survived
two foldings - so its not that rigid - obviously not enough history to
claim a real fix.
Hay, I not selling anything - its just a wacko idea that appears to
work.
PS I was in contact with Raph Diaz a number of years ago whose opinion
was the same as yours - the skin had lasted considerably longer than
it was supposed to (its about 40 years old now). Having done the
rubber paint (about 3 years ago) followed by poloyurethane glue to
refix some raised patches resulted in a first in about 10 years - the
skin was almost the same weight after using it as before launch.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2004 06:41:52
From: Peter
Subject: Re: old Klepper report & polyurethane glue
|
john cop wrote:
> We have an old Aerius (2 person) on its last legs. Typically, it has
> only been used when we go to Hawaii (we have been able to check it as
> normal bagage).
...
> Now to repair the rivet that popped off the stern thingy and to figure
> out how to saw the the frame in half to get it under the airline max
> dimensions.
Why saw the frame? The airline maximum dimensions have been unchanged
at 62" (L + W + H) for many years (at least since before I got my Folbot
Aleut in '92) and as you report you've been able to check the boat as
normal baggage. That's been my experience as well even though my bag
also exceeds the nominal 62" limit. I've found the airlines to be much
more concerned about the weight of the bag and that limit has changed
with many airlines reducing it from 70 to 50 lbs per bag for US travel.
Fortunately my bag is still under the weight limit since they have
always checked that, but so far no one has taken out a tape measure and
charged me for exceeding the 62" sum of dimensions limit.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2004 05:11:26
From: john cop
Subject: Re: old Klepper report & cut in half
|
Peter <prathman@comcast.net > wrote in message news:<ZpSdnaYQz5o8z7bcRVn-sg@comcast.com>...
> Why saw the frame? The airline maximum dimensions have been unchanged
> at 62" (L + W + H) for many years (at least since before I got my Folbot
> Aleut in '92) and as you report you've been able to check the boat as
> normal baggage. That's been my experience as well even though my bag
> also exceeds the nominal 62" limit. I've found the airlines to be much
> more concerned about the weight of the bag and that limit has changed
> with many airlines reducing it from 70 to 50 lbs per bag for US travel.
> Fortunately my bag is still under the weight limit since they have
> always checked that, but so far no one has taken out a tape measure and
> charged me for exceeding the 62" sum of dimensions limit.
You are right, of course. However, before 9/11 I never heard of the
airlines enforcing this but since then, I have heard lots of reports
to the contrary. Costs are prohibitive if they chose to do it. The
minimum is $80 one way and some airline policies state it will be $80
per leg - could come close to the ticket cost in some cases. I assume
they are hot after more sources of revenue.
Once at the airport, you are stuck - pay $80 or what? We would seldom
have time to take the thing back home. Of course once there trying to
get the thing home, you are really stuck.
I think I have figured out how to do this for less than $50 in
materials. Basically all wooden stuff would be cut in half and then
reattached with two (actually 4) 1/8x1/2 SS strips. Probably the
outside one countersunk and the inside one tapped for #10(?). The
dowels and paddles would be done similarly except with SS tubing and
flat head wood screws. I am guessing it will take an hour or so to
convert it to its normal knocked down state or to take it apart again
and, on paper at least, it will be just a strong. The boat frame may
end up being 1/4 to 1/2" (maybe slightly more) shorter, but with this
old skin, that is probably not a bad thing either.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2004 07:28:53
From: Peter
Subject: Re: old Klepper report & cut in half
|
john cop wrote:
> Peter <prathman@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ZpSdnaYQz5o8z7bcRVn-sg@comcast.com>...
>
>>Why saw the frame? The airline maximum dimensions have been unchanged
>>at 62" (L + W + H) for many years (at least since before I got my Folbot
>>Aleut in '92) and as you report you've been able to check the boat as
>>normal baggage. That's been my experience as well even though my bag
>>also exceeds the nominal 62" limit. I've found the airlines to be much
>>more concerned about the weight of the bag and that limit has changed
>>with many airlines reducing it from 70 to 50 lbs per bag for US travel.
>>Fortunately my bag is still under the weight limit since they have
>>always checked that, but so far no one has taken out a tape measure and
>>charged me for exceeding the 62" sum of dimensions limit.
>
> You are right, of course. However, before 9/11 I never heard of the
> airlines enforcing this but since then, I have heard lots of reports
> to the contrary.
Actual reports of the charges being applied, or speculation that they
might be? I've been following the Folbot forum and this issue has
come up several times with lots of speculation about the possibility
of extra charges. But so far I don't remember a single case where
anyone actually had to pay extra based on the size (there were some
who had too many pieces of luggage and were charged for that).
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2004 18:36:22
From: john cop
Subject: Re: old Klepper report & cut in half
|
> Actual reports of the charges being applied, or speculation that they
> might be? I've been following the Folbot forum and this issue has
> come up several times with lots of speculation about the possibility
> of extra charges. But so far I don't remember a single case where
> anyone actually had to pay extra based on the size (there were some
> who had too many pieces of luggage and were charged for that).
I admit all my information is 2nd or 3rd hand. There is actually a
thread near here on others having problems. It may well be the luck
of the draw. Ihttp://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=Ped7b.818%24c35.812%40newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net&rnum=28&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dairline%2Boversized%2Bbag%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3DPed7b.818%2524c35.812%2540newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net%26rnum%3D28
|
|
