Help with removing washdown thru hull seacock

[Swatski]

5200 does NOT provide any more sealing properties than 4200. 5200 DOES provide more adhesion and makes the installation permanent. 5200 was not designed or intended for marine applications, but the fear-filled who think overdoing everything is the solution to future problems made it into an internet norm. 5200 was made for the aviation industry to fasten thin, lightweight veneers & panels to aircraft frames, interior walls, & bulkheads. People who use 5200 in their boats should state that when selling so buyers can walk away or have the owner at his expense and time, remove every instance of 5200 and rebed thru hulls and other items with the proper sealant so the prospective buyer doesn't have a future problem and come on the multiple boards searching for a solution on how to remove an item without botching it up.
5200 bubba's a job. View attachment 29007

View attachment 29008


View attachment 29010

complete horse ****. More people misuse silicone products than 5200, if you look around.
And that is why, my good sir, God gave us marine appraisers, so we don't need to fix other people's mistakes unless we choose to.

and by the way, I dont know if know that but 5200 has been manufactured and marketed by 3M specifically as a marine product before there was internet. But I'll admit - I'm not an aviation expert, lol.

 

[pelagic2530]

This hull has enough wood in stringers, transom, water intrusion anywhere will find it through fiberglass delamination.

If my factory mounted ducer ever becomes obsolete I would think twice about removing it; more likely cap it and leave it alone.

--

I'm glad the OP got his problem solved before this turned into another sealant thread.

You'd be real hard pressed to get water intrusion into the cored surfaces through fiberglass delamination unless the cored surface is pretty much immediately adjacent to the delaminated spot and is also compromised. All of the wood surfaces are independently encapsulated before being installed and are usually segregated from the hull layup, with the possible exception of the transom. If you've got that much delamination where water is wicking for extended distances through the hull, you've got bigger problems. Like, time for a new boat problems.

Besides that, we can circle back to the fact that 5200 doesn't keep water out any more effectively, or for any greater length of time, than 4200 or other similar sealants. It just sticks harder, which is irrelevant because the transducer or through hull (if properly installed) is mechanically fastened in place.

All of the polyurethane adhesive sealants were indeed originally formulated for the aerospace industry as adhesives. They may have tweaked the formula a bit for marine use (or not), but their original purpose was to stick things together, very durably. As they also serve as very good sealants in most applications, they were marinized during the early years of fiberglass boats as a very reliable way to bond and seal components in applications where traditional caulking materials weren't effective. Hence, their marketing as a marine product. Doesn't make them any less suited for that application- but a glue that is also good at sealing water out is still at it's heart a glue.

You're also not wrong about silicone being abused just as much as 5200. They suck in different ways: using silicone, you'll never get anything to bond to that surface again if it needs to be removed. With 5200, you're likely to destroy that item and the surfaces around it trying to remove it. BOTH are great examples of using the wrong product for the application.

Let me get this straight: should your transducer ever malfunction or become obsolete, your plan is to abandon it in place and drill another hull penetration to install a new one? That approach seems... questionable.

I'm as guilty here as anyone else. I'm about to pull a thru-hull transducer that I mounted maybe 5 years ago as part of an electronics upgrade. I installed it with 5200, not really knowing any better. I'm not looking forward to that job.

 

[Swatski]

Let me get this straight: should your transducer ever malfunction or become obsolete, your plan is to abandon it in place and drill another hull penetration to install a new one? That approach seems... questionable.

I have been boating for over thirty years now, started with boats that... needed some work, lol, I think I have seen a lot of things go wrong over the years, first new boat I ever bought was in 2016, also had a lot of issues, actually. I worked on all of them to various degrees, and mod-ed every single one of them.

I don't recall ever installing anything under waterline that I would not consider permanent, and act accordingly, which includes using 5200 in many instances.

--

 

[Swatski]

You'd be real hard pressed to get water intrusion into the cored surfaces through fiberglass delamination unless the cored surface is pretty much immediately adjacent to the delaminated spot and is also compromised. All of the wood surfaces are independently encapsulated before being installed and are usually segregated from the hull layup, with the possible exception of the transom. If you've got that much delamination where water is wicking for extended distances through the hull, you've got bigger problems. Like, time for a new boat problems.

Besides that, we can circle back to the fact that 5200 doesn't keep water out any more effectively, or for any greater length of time, than 4200 or other similar sealants. It just sticks harder, which is irrelevant because the transducer or through hull (if properly installed) is mechanically fastened in place.

I wouldn't use anything else but 5200 under water line. I don't love it, but it simply is the strongest and best sealant I know of.

Re: water intrusion, yes, it happens and it happens very quickly through delamination. It is a huge problem for boats with wood in transom and stringers, and especially Parker which uses old polyester resins. They do it right, and there is nothing wrong with it as long as the protective skin is on; but if you crack open gelcoat anywhere in this boat water will find the way to wood quickly; not to mention it will also soak into foam, cause tank corrosion, you name it, along the way.

Water delaminates and penetrates raw fiberglass, or even the newer FRP, very quickly, even quicker in climates where it can freeze as it will crack/fracture; it penetrates under fiberglass tabs and in between layers easily - "encapsulation" of wood stringers in fiberglass does not waterproof them without multiple layers of protective bilge paint of the inside and gelcoat on the outside.

Do a couple of rotten transoms, it can be very revealing.

 

[Swatski]

Let me get this straight: should your transducer ever malfunction or become obsolete, your plan is to abandon it in place and drill another hull penetration to install a new one? That approach seems... questionable.

Would I try to save $100 reusing an old ducer potentially risking the hull???
No.
It is not questionable to me, at all. I view old electronic as expandable, the hull - not so much.

--

 

[pelagic2530]

Would I try to save $100 reusing an old ducer potentially risking the hull???
No.
It is not questionable to me, at all. I view old electronic as expandable, the hull - not so much.

--

Maybe I misunderstood. I took your statement to mean that should a new transducer become necessary, your approach would be to leave the old transducer in place (hence the "permanent" installation) and install a new one elsewhere, vice removing the old transducer (which is obsolete and therefore saving it is irrelevant) and reusing the original hull penetration.

 

[Swatski]

Maybe I misunderstood. I took your statement to mean that should a new transducer become necessary, your approach would be to leave the old transducer in place (hence the "permanent" installation) and install a new one elsewhere, vice removing the old transducer (which is obsolete and therefore saving it is irrelevant) and reusing the original hull penetration.

Depending on specific circumstances, yes, I would consider capping an old thru-hull, leaving it behind, in some cases.

Let me give you a specific example, a (real live) case (from my own experience):

An old bronze thru-hull ducer, installed a decade earlier by someone, a prior owner(s?), and covered with (?)who-knows-what (?) barrier/epoxy paint(?); say, the ducer is not working but it is flush with the hull and non leaky.
Q: What to do?
A: In the above case I would argue - whether or not given fitting should be removed (recovered) - is a legitimately debatable matter.
Whether or not that thing had been mounted with 5200, or whatever, is pretty much a moot point - as I see it.

--

 

[pelagic2530]

Depending on specific circumstances, yes, I would consider capping an old thru-hull, leaving it behind, in some cases.

Let me give you a specific example, a (real live) case (from my own experience):

An old bronze thru-hull ducer, installed a decade earlier by someone, a prior owner(s?), and covered with (?)who-knows-what (?) barrier/epoxy paint(?); say, the ducer is not working but it is flush with the hull and non leaky.
Q: What to do?
A: In the above case I would argue - whether or not given fitting should be removed (recovered) - is a legitimately debatable matter.
Whether or not that thing had been mounted with 5200, or whatever, is pretty much a moot point - as I see it.

--

I would argue that, if it's being replaced with another thru-hull transducer and the stem dimension of the new transducer is equal to or greater than that of the existing one, it's a no-brainer to remove and replace, in order to avoid making another hull penetration and introducing another potential water ingress point. As you've just said, the sealant state of the existing installation is unknown, and despite popular opinion 5200 is NOT a permanent SEALANT... all flexible adhesive/sealants will eventually lose their active components, "dry out", and fail to prevent water intrusion, albeit they'll last much longer in the absence of UV rays. The problem with that is that even after degrading/failing as a sealant, 5200 still maintains significant adhesive strength. This makes it almost impossible to remove and reseal the fitting if desired (as the OP likely discovered with his seacock) and significantly more difficult to simply remove and replace without risking substrate damage either due to tear-out from the adhesive or from mechanical means (saws, chisels, prybars, etc.) used to remove it.

 

[warthog5]

Dude......Swatski.......Now known as Mr. 5200.....It's obvious you haven't work on many boats...except maybe your own..... Got Christ? nailed it!

People who use 5200 in their boats should state that when selling so buyers can walk away or have the owner at his expense and time, remove every instance of 5200 and rebed thru hulls and other items with the proper sealant so the prospective buyer doesn't have a future problem and come on the multiple boards searching for a solution on how to remove an item without botching it up.

 

[Swatski]

(as the OP likely discovered with his seacock)

Was it mounted with 5200?

There are other assumptions I don't quite follow but frankly, as far as I am concerned, we have exhausted the topic.

--

 

[Swatski]

Dude......Swatski.......Now known as Mr. 5200.....It's obvious you haven't work on many boats...except maybe your own..... Got Christ? nailed it!

Ok Karen.

--

 

[Mpellet]

What troubles me the most about this thread is not the debate over the different situations that might warrant 5200 over 4200 but rather the wanton disregard of proper etiquette for applying the 52 or 42 hundo to your watch, decent clothes, both uppers and soles of your favorite pair of shoes and of course hair and glasses that you didn’t bother to change or protect before touching the squeeze tube or God forbid caulking gun of 42/5200 because you were going to be “careful“.

Years back we just took what we could get when working with variants of the 3m marine sealant but the breakout for change came with the popularity of touch screen phones and touch screen marine electronics. Now there was an opportunity to really do some fine work with the 5200/4200 smear and the advent of the thumbprint reading devices on the phones took it to a new level. We still had a significant group of stalwarts that let the cards fall in the manner in which they were dealt regarding the smearing of marine sealant but from what was once a small faction of radicals an ever growing movement of 42/5200 users began to emerge , folks who believed and vehemently professed that it was best to budget for and apply the 4200/5200 smear intentionally to all the aforementioned areas before even starting the actual sealant job on the vessel.

This preemptive 42/5200 smearing eliminates all worry as to how and when the 4200/5200 will make it’s way into and onto all those areas mentioned above and also eliminates what a lot of old timers worked hard to perfect, the technique of the “tube tear” (TT) . The TT typically occurred when the sealing job was almost completed and the 42/5200 jockey hadn’t yet smeared the 4200/5200 on everything. The best old school TTers are frugal and always attempted to roll and squeeze the somewhat fragile aluminum foil tube till completely EMPTYING the 1.25 ounce vessel of 3M paste, typically bought hastily by the TTers wife JUST before closing at West Marine for $15.95. While not essential, it did help if the tube of 42/5200 had been previously opened a couple weeks prior, and begun to “cure” in the nozzle region of the tube. Getting that last dab of 42/5200 from the tube required ever increasing violence on the part of the “tube squeezer“. Eventually the tube itself would rupture and before the squeezee realized the flow of sealant was no longer coming out the nozzle but rather from a ruptured seam along side the tube, the 3M paste was everywhere.

A lot of folks have spent a lot of time establishing the old school 42/5200 smearing practices and a lot of innovative folks have done their due diligence developing the newer protocols and practices for handling the 42/5200 smearing. Some might accuse me of being a social justice warrior and for that I apologizes for in advance BUT the fact that this discussion has gone on as long as it has with 42/5200 being the subject matter without anyone addressing the essential issues of collateral 42/5200 smearing is nothing short of appalling.

Then there is the oversight of discussion regarding the practice of bringing a can of acetone into the shower with you after working with 42/5200 and if there is a difference between acetone effectiveness on dried 42/5200 using ace hardware branded acetone vice the walmart brewed vintage but alas that is a matter that requires a more lengthy essay then I have the time and patience to write at this juncture.....

 

[pelagic2530]

What troubles me the most about this thread is not the debate over the different situations that might warrant 5200 over 4200 but rather the wanton disregard of proper etiquette for applying the 52 or 42 hundo to your watch, decent clothes, both uppers and soles of your favorite pair of shoes and of course hair and glasses that you didn’t bother to change or protect before touching the squeeze tube or God forbid caulking gun of 42/5200 because you were going to be “careful“.

Years back we just took what we could get when working with variants of the 3m marine sealant but the breakout for change came with the popularity of touch screen phones and touch screen marine electronics. Now there was an opportunity to really do some fine work with the 5200/4200 smear and the advent of the thumbprint reading devices on the phones took it to a new level. We still had a significant group of stalwarts that let the cards fall in the manner in which they were dealt regarding the smearing of marine sealant but from what was once a small faction of radicals an ever growing movement of 42/5200 users began to emerge , folks who believed and vehemently professed that it was best to budget for and apply the 4200/5200 smear intentionally to all the aforementioned areas before even starting the actual sealant job on the vessel.

This preemptive 42/5200 smearing eliminates all worry as to how and when the 4200/5200 will make it’s way into and onto all those areas mentioned above and also eliminates what a lot of old timers worked hard to perfect, the technique of the “tube tear” (TT) . The TT typically occurred when the sealing job was almost completed and the 42/5200 jockey hadn’t yet smeared the 4200/5200 on everything. The best old school TTers are frugal and always attempted to roll and squeeze till completely EMPTY the 1.25 ounce tube of 3M paste, typically bought hastily by the TTers wife JUST before closing at West Marine for $15.95. While not essential, it did help if the tube of 42/5200 has been previously opened a couple weeks prior, and begun to “cure” in the nozzle region of the tube. Getting that last dab of 42/5200 from the tube required ever increasing violence on the part of the “tube squeezer“. Eventually the tube itself would rupture and before the squeezee realized the flow of sealant was no longer coming out the nozzle but rather from a ruptured seam along side the tube, the 3M paste was everywhere.

A lot of folks have spent a lot of time establishing the old school 42/5200 smearing practices and a lot of innovative folks have done their due diligence developing the newer protocols and practices for handling the 42/5200 smearing. Some might accuse me of being a social justice warrior and for that I apologizes for in advance BUT the fact that this discussion has gone on as long as it has with 42/5200 being the subject matter without anyone addressing the essential issues of collateral 42/5200 smearing is nothing short of appalling.

Then there is the oversight of discussion regarding the practice of bringing a can of acetone into the shower with you after working with 42/5200 and if there is a difference between acetone effectiveness on dried 42/5200 using ace hardware branded acetone vice the walmart brewed vintage but alas that is a matter that requires a more lengthy essay then I have the time and patience to write at this juncture.....

Finally, Mpellet coming in with something we can ALL agree on.