Tally ho

And I’ve used it! (Unless you’ve put a new one in?)

Bloody awful thing! On the way out, this winter. along with the bloody awful seacocks. Rebuilt Blake’s Victory (once sat on by Churchill!) sitting ready to go in along with Blake’s seacocks.

Mind you, the spare seat was a nice touch!
 
Man, this obsession with old toilets……
my boat came with a vintage Wilcox Crittenden. I replaced it with a Lavac, and luckily the new owner of the WC(!) lost it in a fire. Result all round I’d say
 
I just watched the latest video, the initial layout looks ok, but having just one head? If Leo is planning to take passengers in the future as he indicated, perhaps another head should be planned in?
He has spent an absolute fortune on this rebuild, it's just a little thing but could make all the difference.
My take is a single heads, accessible close to the companionway is best for a "normal sized" yacht. The fewest through hulls the better and the nearer the heads to the CG of the boat the better too.

Boo2
 
My take is a single heads, accessible close to the companionway is best for a "normal sized" yacht. The fewest through hulls the better and the nearer the heads to the CG of the boat the better too.

Boo2
I don’t see any real need for the heads to be near the companionway. I also think that whilst one might not want to drill holes in the hull for fun, it’s easy to be overly paranoid about through hull fittings. Our boat has 19 through hull fittings only a few of which are in the topsides above the waterline. (This count excludes the rudder stock, exhaust and stern tube!)
 
it’s easy to be overly paranoid about through hull fittings.
Not so sure. Isn't failure one of the major claims on insurance? I know first hand of a couple of sinkings on our river through failure.
My surveyor inspected all the Blakes scrupulously asked for several to be replaced. One that was not being used (used to be for a saltwater galley intake - which I don’t use at present) he recommended was removed and blanked-off. I think that tells you what you need to know.
 
Not so sure. Isn't failure one of the major claims on insurance? I know first hand of a couple of sinkings on our river through failure.
My surveyor inspected all the Blakes scrupulously asked for several to be replaced. One that was not being used (used to be for a saltwater galley intake - which I don’t use at present) he recommended was removed and blanked-off. I think that tells you what you need to know.
Please reference these multiple claims on skin fitting failure.

I think being scrupulously careful about through hull fittings is common sense. Not sure what was happening with the Blake’s ones. I’ve had Blake’s that were 60 years old and as good as new and never questioned by any surveyor.
 
I remember “Mirelle”‘s original exhaust outlet. It was technically just above the waterline, and considered of a steel pipe elbow with a flange held to a copper outer flange with brass bolts. No seacock. It dissolved in a shower of rust and verdigris when struck with a hammer, after fifty years of hot sea water and exhaust gases. Blanked and replaced with a Blake’s higher in the topsides.
 
Not so sure. Isn't failure one of the major claims on insurance? I know first hand of a couple of sinkings on our river through failure.
My surveyor inspected all the Blakes scrupulously asked for several to be replaced. One that was not being used (used to be for a saltwater galley intake - which I don’t use at present) he recommended was removed and blanked-off. I think that tells you what you need to know.
Also millions of boats with multiple holes in haven't sunk. This argument comes up every time when seacocks are discussed.
I'm pretty sure Leo would fit the best money can buy. Also I can't imagine him neglecting them to the extent they sink the boat, isn't this the problem?
 
Also millions of boats with multiple holes in haven't sunk. This argument comes up every time when seacocks are discussed.
I'm pretty sure Leo would fit the best money can buy. Also I can't imagine him neglecting them to the extent they sink the boat, isn't this the problem?
I agree. I’m a little cynical about citing examples of boats on rivers. In my experience some of the worst maintained boats I’ve seen are used on rivers. Perhaps it’s the sense of being so close to dry land that brings in the relaxed attitude to normal best practice. (Brass fittings are fine as they don’t rust do they….!)

I believe Leo has a proper appreciation of the requirements for an ocean going vessel. I think he’ll fit as many through hulls as he thinks necessary and appropriate and they’ll be of a high quality fitted well.
 
I don’t see any real need for the heads to be near the companionway. I also think that whilst one might not want to drill holes in the hull for fun, it’s easy to be overly paranoid about through hull fittings. Our boat has 19 through hull fittings only a few of which are in the topsides above the waterline. (This count excludes the rudder stock, exhaust and stern tube!)

counting…
below waterline, with seacocks:
heads - 3
Galley - 1
Engine cooling inlet - 1
cockpit drains - 4
fire pump inlet - 1 *
generator cooling inlet - 1
Eberspacher cooling inlet - 1
in topsides, with seacocks:
bilge pump outlets -3
engine exhaust - 1
generator exhaust - 1
eberspacher exhaust - 1
in topsides, no seacocks:
gas bottle locker drain - 1
spare gas bottle lockers drains** - 4

* What was that all about? Two inch seacock, bronze pipe, Camlock coupling in cockpit!

** eight additional gas bottles can be stowed in the compartments outboard of the two valise liferafts in the cockpit lockers.

- some of the seacocks require the services of a highly trained and very fit ferret. ( I am obliged to the late Peter Brown, FRSNA, yacht designer and surveyor, of Woodbridge, for that useful phrase, but I cannot mimic his Yorkshire accent.)

- there is a laminated diagram showing the location of each skin fitting, on a bulkhead. Alas, it is a work of fiction.
 
Last edited:
Top