Roustabout

Once the cabin itself is completed and engine/running gear installed I can then launch and bring closer to home. Trying to prepare from 100 miles away does present a few restrictions, but with the cabin complete then the security level is significantly increased as the intention is to only "template-cut" any window openings (leaving only a few 1inch areas left to cut) while the boat transforms from a boat to a home.

Thank you to all replies, all are gratefully noted. The lump DID come from a coastal craft and I believe it to be a factory marinisation. I WAS considering staying with the OEM circulation pump due to long-term reliability over the Jabsco, however I'm happy to be corrected if the flow rate will make a difference.it all going to end upin its own room ahead of the back-cabin so pipe runs SHOULD be reduced. Its rather awkward as the build-site is unsecure somewhere up in the Black Country

Just to add that its a SLOW build and engine not yet fitted, and although time is fairly unimportant economy is so apart from the ground rent all other expenses are on a shoestring budget. Still yet to "make" the engine room forward of a trad back-cabin and source prop shafts, PRM 150 in-hand although also considering hydro-drive (for headroom) or a bigger box if a bargain comes up. Hydro-drive is such a dark-art that cheap solutions are like hens teeth as there's little known reliable details for an economical nb install.

Thanks Bee, its currently just sitting on a low dolly (ex flower shop rack) with no fan hoses or wire of an sort. Its mainly for reassurance really as it would be easier to fix prior to fitting IF it suggests anything less than ideal. A blank plate now covers where the Jabsco WAS and going to twist a vaselined drill-bit down the heater-plug'oles as it looks a bit grim (new plugs going in). Still to fit are leak-off pipes, hoses when they're sourced and any relevant wire as in starter/solenoid heaters temp/oil senders and maybe a load on the alternator ? Some sort of silencer would be beneficial to placate the neighbours, and I expect to use a ratchet-strap over the rocker-cover with a small tank to gravity feed the diesel hanging over it (like a hospital drip set-up). Still to go over the finer points etc.

Before the winter gets too much for comfortable work I'm considering trying to fire up the engine prior to installation. Can anyone suggest some practical tips for success ? I'd like to temporarily fit a silencer to the Bowman to draw less attention, and hopefully rig up a basic cooling circuit with either a rad or 5 gallon can. The engine was purchased "used" with a couple of parts sold prior, so I'm hoping just to make-do for now with hoses from a breaker for trialling.

In THAT respect I agree gentlemen, and thanks again for your input.

Fair point Richard, I hope to be getting back up there sometime soon as the bulk of the cabin framework is in place. With a lightweight "dummy" engine that I can toss around with ease I'll be better informed of some parameters and can make a more informed decision for the engine position and aft bulkhead. I'll try and take some more pics too, to try and show what I tried to explain with mere words. Thank you everybody for your input whether it was pro, con or just curious. I'm a great believer in constructive critism (no pun intended) and I've got some food for thought. With luck and good judgement it'll all come good.

Thank you Paul, you've detailed it better than me in those few lines. If I remove the relevant area keelson it will be replaced by a twin version that will become the engine bearers. Of course I'll have to take a long hard look first with another better qualified than me before doing anything, but until I get some geometry sorted it might not even cone to that in the end.

Some of the chequerplate is gone already so to some extent can be altered more, its just a matter of where to draw (cut) the line. While its at the stage it is it should be easier to build it to any desired spec, unless I'm mistaken. Yes it WAS a cruiser stern but does it have to stay that way because the way I see it a trad is just a cruiser that's been enclosed and the floor removed. The point I'm trying to make is that a trad stern is desired, is there a logical reason why it cannot be one ?

Murflynn, I apologise if I come across as "unreasonable" that's certainly far from my intention. I know little about hull design other than the basics of displacement & planing and that swims are as important at the stern as well as the bow. I've come here to ask advice of better people than me and of course for MY part I've not offered much by way of evidence for diagnosis (old pics). I probably wrongly assumed the pics might of been swaying opinion with regards to a cruiser stern going by the previous cabin that is no longer there, but if (as has been suggested) the hull looks like it was built FOR the purpose of an engine under the counter I wouldn't recognise it being a layman. Having said that though I DO recognise that it WAS built previously as a cruiser, from the gunnels down would there be a difference between this and a more traditionally built hull ? I ask this because I honestly don't know and I am more than happy to be made aware, and thanks everyone for advice so far.

As far as the pics are concerned EVERYTHING above the gunnels has been removed, is there something to suggest if this was designed specifically for one layout or another with regards to cruiser/trad ? If there IS then please excuse my ignorance as I didn't know. The back cabin plan was to make it more possible to get afloat quicker under its own independent power.

I managed to grab an opportune PRM150 on another deal elsewhere prior to any required research in the hope it would suffice, but second thoughts point me towards a 260. Due to distance and weight I've not yet made the effort to analyse any of the physicals regarding engine placement and alignment, other than knowing that the trend is for the lump to go down almost to the baseplate. I figured there's a good reason for this as it seems to be the norm amongst others, the BMC is the OEM marinised lump with the full sump. This is the reason why I was hoping to make a "fake" engine (dimention-wise) to give me something easy to push/pull around while I try to get the position right, even though it weighs plenty I can't leave the engine there to be vandalised/stripped/weighed in.

Unfortunately not Paul, but hopefully will have sometime soon. Also I'll try to make an effort on recording "specific" measurements throughout, then at least that way I can start getting some more precise planning underway even if it means painting a full size outline on the grass with emulsion.

Good grief Ditchcrawler it appears that we share the same birthday, albeit 10yrs apart !

Correct Ditchcrawler

Its currently situated not far from the Black Country Museum

Sorry Mike maybe this will help explain the logic. Got it cheap(ish) enough to make it feasible and its sited in a yard 100 miles away making it difficult to attend and work with. Substandard cabin now removed and being rebuilt (part-time) with a view to "getting it home" (lower GU) to enable more frequent attendance to finalise any works. My best plan is to fit all associated propulsion and controls (fit for purpose engine-gearbox-shaft-propellor-rudder) to enable the movement, and a back cabin to act as a "bedsit" to enable full-time attendance. When the cabin gets "skinned over" it will then gain security, as the window apertures will only be cut like a stencil, that's to say that half a dozen or so areas will remain to retain the steel panel where the windows will be (offering security until windows fitted). Until I have a secure "container" I cannot leave anything onsite which also limits progress. As soon as its ready for baptism and launch then the RCD/BSS and licence can be arranged.

Thank you everyone for your comments, even though some of them I don't relish all comments are welcome whether I like them or not. I like the idea of the hydro pods but in my opinion too overkill for an nb, plus it puts the hydro fluid close to the water with only the integrity of any hoses/seals seperating the fluid from the environment. I don't have a problem with a through-hull fitting but just cannot afford to go "bespoke" which is what just about everyone has so far offered (during research) for the hydro option which would of been preferred for headroom/engine position/through hull alignment wear. The hull itself is of unknown build and year, not ideally designed but workable with a 12mm baseplate.

Sorry guys, its probably MY interpretation of a cruiser/trad stern thats confusing issues. The pics are from when the nb was aquired BEFORE the existing cabin was removed (due to quality/distortion), new cabin is currently being fabricated with a box-iron framework that will extend further towards the rear (with the counter adapted to suit). I've spoken with Ditchcrawler previously with regards to hydraulics but its still a "dark art" to me, but it would certainly be of benefit to me for exactly the same reasons.

The rear deck (at this stage) is still up for "adjustment" and the hatch thats visible in some pics is a weed hatch so unless I'm mistaken then a trad stern is preferred. Sorry for not keeping up with replies but hadn't realised there were updates. I'm also planning to "angle" the forward face of the weedhatch to make it easier to get my whole arm in from the front side, if I go ahead with that I'll show the results.

I don't know if this will work, here are some of the pics when first purchased. Since then the complete cabin has been removed from the gunnels up and currently has new framework ready for fitting new sheets upon them. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/q23zyvgtgg4q2lk/AABeStOry0NqfxPZmGNxzzFea Not much to show sternwise I'm afraid, 58" with basic swims but should suffice for canal work.

Murflynn, that's what I was expecting to do regarding the keelson. There IS a fuel tank fitted (integral) across the stern but not sure of its integrity as yet and I'm considering its removal due to not knowing what's inside, rudder stock not yet fitted and although the tank has flow/return fitted I would prefer a small "sump" with a draincock to be present too (perhaps I'm being over cautious there). Skin tanks yet to be decided and fabricated, I'll try to "knock up" a cardboard equivalent of the BMC 2.2 to see where the wet bits will present themselves, as a "model" lump will be easier to manipate around. When ready the intention will be to remove the proposed roof panel for engine installation, but not until the cabin sides and roof is complete (security). 18" prop in the middle of a 20" area, I've posted pics previously (and got ripped apart) but I'm using a mobile at present which has limitations.

That's exactly why I've considered hydro, but unless I can come up with a hydro solution that would be "fit for purpose" I'm trying to keep "standard" ie basic for the purpose of prop shaft alignment. This is my first-build with a very steep learning curve, and the distance doesn't help either. The budget is low hence the timescale so I'm trying to maintain the ethos of getting things right from the outset so no cost is wasted, and research suggests that the alignment is crucial for long-term maintainance. As it stands (at the moment) a "high fitting" engine install will need the prop shaft to pass through the cabin corespondingly higher to maintain alignment. The "project plan" is to complete to "sailaway" standard then the craft can be inhabited and brought back to local waters for lining and finishing, with further cost savings made regarding licencing/insurance etc verses "ground" rent/storage of where it is now. The current location is a two hour drive with limitations on what can be done with progress being slow, the yard is insecure with frequent trespass and theft occurrance of anything left laying around.

I SHOULD have some pics somewhere, I'll try to find them then work out how to show them. I DO realise the engine will be ahead of the back cabin, but the keelson will mean that the lump (being so much higher) will mean that the prop shaft will also pass through the back cabin at a corresponding height too. It would solve the problem if I could install a hydraulic output to the prop then the height of the engine wouldn't be a problem, but the specifics of a hydro system are beyond me to put it in plain English. If the floor plates were originally fitted width ways then I was thinking of cutting out the keelson (WHERE the engine will be located) and replacing with parallel beams (FOR the engine to be located), would this be feasible ? The nb is situated 100miles away so I only get up there every couple of months or so to get anything brought forward (by a local welder when he has nothing else on). And the stern gear?, never been fitted before. Not even a hole.

Sorry guys, should of realised that the question kind of "came out of nowhere". The nb has NEVER been fitted for propulsion before but HAS been afloat. It was an abandoned project of someone else's, and the plan is to complete the works with a trad stern with a functioning back cabin. Another problem i have to overcome is that the baseplate has a center-beam running fore-aft so unless i can remove the relevant area and replace with the standard parallel engine bearers the back cabin is going to be a bit more shorter of headroom than most.