seacast for transom

[Albert Jr.]

Originally Posted by McGillicuddy

I'm prefer to look at Seacast as an transom replacement option. Done properly, I think there is enough documentation to consider it viable. Are there risks? Yes. A suspect bond is very possible if the adjoining skins are contaminated. It's polyester which offers less adhesion than vinyl-ester or epoxy.

There are still plenty of 19 foot boats with a 20" transom, mostly lake oriented runabouts or speed boats. But off shore, 25" transom is much safer. I think GFS' reference to floaters was re tragic deaths, not too many boats.

Back in the day of the 20" shaft, the motors were 25% lighter. A 115 from the 80s was 300 lbs now they are 400lbs. Ask mitchman or anyone on the board with a SeaCraft 20 that has a 20" transom how they really feel about it. Once water comes over the transom, it keeps coming. As soon as I can I'll be raising mine and getting a shaft extension or a 25" motor. Many guys have already added a splashwell well or enclosed the transom and added a bracket.

The only open transom I feel safe in is a mid 80s Boston Whaler Revenge 20 WT, but I come home black and blue every time I go out in it...

Ok I understand, thanks man but about the 20 ft whaler.
I have an uncle with an old 70's 19 foot mako.
His is a 20'' lengt with open transom.
I have found it one of the fun filling boats ever and we have never had any problems with water coming over the transom.

[McGillicuddy]

The old Mako 19s were fine rugged boats. And very stable fishing rigs. Those were about 12 degrees at the transom. They also had a an 8ft beam. For these reasons they floated high and the transom was not as easily overcome by water from from behind. A 20" shaft did not ride as low as with a deeper v because of less dead rise and more beam. They were also filled with foam and that often led to fuel tank failure and early rot if holes were not properly sealed.

My confidence in the whaler is only in the fact that it has a ton of flotation.

Regardless, they both ride like crap when compared to the narrow beam and variable dead rise presented in the SeaCraft 20s.

[Albert Jr.]

Originally Posted by McGillicuddy

The old Mako 19s were fine rugged boats.also had a an 8ft beam.
My confidence in the whaler is only in the fact that it has a ton of flotation.

Regardless, they both ride like crap when compared to the narrow beam and variable dead rise presented in the SeaCraft 20s.

Ok thanks for the info man. I am working on desinging my own 19 footer.
It has an 8 ft beam and I wanted to give it a 20'' transom.
It is also a veriable deadrise hull like the seacraft but the second row of chines (don't have another name for it) are a lil trimmed and it has a whole tumblehome. (180 degrees oval shape above waterline at the rear end of the boat). My plans is to fill it with foam instead of using stringers.

I have never found that older whaler nor makos ride like crap. The newer bw' ride alot better though but they are also aloot more heavier plus I think that they have less style than the older whalers.