Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Scott Albany Modification

  1. #1

    Default Scott Albany Modification

    I decided to learn a little about fiberglassing and attempt a modification of my Scott Albany. The learning curve was very steep. The result is a little crude, but I hope it will be strong and serviceable. I used epoxy resin, a layer of 10 oz. cloth, two layers of 17 oz. cloth, and three more layers of 10 oz. cloth to finish. I covered the modification with two-part polyurethane paint.

    I think the stern cut out area was almost 5 gallons by volume. If so, enclosing it would increase buoyancy by 40 pounds. The weight of resin, plywood and cloth is probably 15 pounds. So I think I may have a net gain of 25 pounds of buoyancy at the stern with an improvement in the size and location of the effective planing surface.
    extended transom.jpgapplying cloth.jpg

  2. #2

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Looks like a good job to me.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,763

    Default

    look like a great job to me an it will help SID

  6. #6

    Default

    One thing I liked about the wineglass stern was how it did in following seas. I had its issues but on my 21 ft Hudson Bay was always impressed with how it handled stern waves.

  7. #7
    Member bobmikk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kk alaska View Post
    One thing I liked about the wineglass stern was how it did in following seas. I had its issues but on my 21 ft Hudson Bay was always impressed with how it handled stern waves.
    Yes....agree with you on the following seas with the HB.

    Not a big fan of the stern diving deep when I accelerate. Now....this project here is impressive to me, and would be interested in hearing how those two aspects (following sea and acceleration) are changed.

    I am thinking about adding a sport fin...may help reduce the amount of ballast I add to the bow to get things level. Anyone use this setup.


  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    3

    Default

    I have a sport fin on my HB. I think it helps with the stern on that initial acceleration. I can't see where it has hurt performance in any way. I also have a lift so my motor sits back a few inches further than a motor attached to the transom.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Me too Bob. Mine is a brand name "doel-fin" on a 15HP 4str on my Albany. I have to echo Tinker's results. Its all good.

    One possible downside is that with that fin on, my motor oil isn't so secure; the prop needs to be lower enroute to water. So I mount it on the boat with the boat on my flatbed trailer so no undue transom weight enroute. And off season the motor lives on a small homemade stand (still upright).

  10. #10

    Default

    I use the Hydroshield all the advantages of the Dole fin and it protects prop. Have checked GPS speeds with and without no decrease in performance.
    http://hydro-shield.com/

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,763

    Default

    I have a unit that will fit a 15 10 HP 2 or 4 cycle OMC out board , that will save your
    gear box & skage it bolts to the plate an will save the prop some , similar Hydro shield
    it is Stainless steel if some one would like it drop me a note an come pick it up [ Anchorage ] I have used one for a lot of years with out any problem
    PS : not much saves the prop SID

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    I use Mac's Rock Hopper for prop protection.

    But the only real prop protection for the user is to have multiple props. 3 isn't a bad number.

  13. #13

    Default

    Sid send me a PM very interested Kurt

  14. #14
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    great project rifleman, you've certainly fixed what I consider a major problem with that canoe. No more porpoising, and your fuel economy will improve at 3/4 to full-throttle range. On the river you intend to run(during low-water), you may even reduce damage because your not drafting so hard at the stern.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mainer_in_ak View Post
    great project rifleman, you've certainly fixed what I consider a major problem with that canoe. No more porpoising, and your fuel economy will improve at 3/4 to full-throttle range. On the river you intend to run(during low-water), you may even reduce damage because your not drafting so hard at the stern.

    Thanks, Mainer, your insights about the fiberglass and painting work were really helpful. I hope the new stern will work well with the Copperhead. I’m looking forward to testing the canoe next year.

    I had considered changing the shape of the stern’s bottom so that the sides became more vertical and the curves to the flat bottom gradually became sharper in order to widen the planing surface on the bottom.

    But because this was my first fiberglass project, and because I wasn’t sure if “squaring” the stern of a canoe would be a good idea, I kept the original lines of the hull, extending them aft to the transom.

  16. #16
    Member bobmikk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    359

    Default

    RM....once again the results look great. A question... did you frame in the cavity to add support (plywood or other) before glassing? Or is the glass strong enough to take care of that aspect. Thanks.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobmikk View Post
    RM....once again the results look great. A question... did you frame in the cavity to add support (plywood or other) before glassing? Or is the glass strong enough to take care of that aspect. Thanks.
    bobmikk,

    First, I had to install the plywood which would deepen the transom. I clamped the plywood against the existing transom, and traced the shape of the hull onto the plywood where the plywood would contact the old hull. Then I extended the longitudinal shape of the hull onto the plywood, marked it and then cut to complete the transom extension.

    I used a few layers of chop-strand mat and resin to sandwich between the old hull and the new plywood extension. I also added some cloth to form “L” brackets to help stabilize the extension and create a stop that would resist inward forces.

    Then I had to figure a way to span the gap between the hull and the edge of the new transom extension. I used 1/4 inch galvanized mesh to span the gap and create the shape of the modified stern. I used staples and tape to hold it in place until the first layers of cloth were applied.

    If I were to do it again, I might use cloth stretched across the gap and held with staples, tape, or push pins. Then I would apply epoxy, and after the epoxy cured, I would continue with more layers. Mainer recommends a material I think he called balsa core as a first layer in this application.

    The cavities remain hollow with no internal supports for the new fiberglass. The maximum span is approximately 12-14 inches if I recall correctly. The modification is stiff enough that I cannot see or feel any flex in the final result, although the original hull a few feet away shows very slight deflection if I press hard on a spot. So, I think the modification is stronger than the original hull.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    28

    Default

    What is the purpose behind the cut out on the Albany and the Hudson Bay? When we built our freighters it was to much work to ad that into the design.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by braley View Post
    What is the purpose behind the cut out on the Albany and the Hudson Bay? When we built our freighters it was to much work to ad that into the design.
    Calvin Rustrum ,,page 32 North American Canoe Country...... "The first consideration in the selection of a square stern canoe is to make sure that the flat face of the transom does not continue below the waterline. Some aluminum canoes have this serious defect, and the manufacturers should lose no time in correcting it. The flat area of transom below the water creates drag. kicks up a swirl and back-whips water into the canoe with water speed. When paddling the canoe, the flat area below the water creates a noisy suction churn,......"

    On page 33 he has a drawing diagraming two designs one proper the other Improper. The Proper stern looks a bit like the stern on a Scott.

    Our own Mainer seems to have the opposite opinion. I haven't noticed any issue with my own Hudson Bay with the cut-outs. Even with a lot of shallow water work this year with a 140 pound copperhead, 20pounds of gas and 290 pounds of operator the main scraping damage was to the front 2/3rds of the boat. Myself, I wouldn't bother with the modification though maybe there is an issue with the Albany that doesn't exist in the HB?

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    Well, one obvious answer is to "rocker up" the stern/transom. For river running the 'Y' stern certainly isn't the answer. That is a deep water design.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •