Originally posted by Don190: "I'll wait for you to provide a link to support this made up statement of yours."
In that discussion, Hunter was asked about their outward flange hull to deck joint. They said that they chose it because it was easier to manufacture and easier to repair if damaged. They did not say it was weaker than other hull to deck joints. On the contrary, with modern glues they said that they achieved an equal strength. They acknowledged that there was a limit to how strong an outward flange joint can be because of the limits to the area of the faying surfaces. And they readily admitted that an outward flange joint is more likely to be damaged and suffer weakening due to fatigue over time.
Yes I have read that discussion so:
yes - it is easier to build
yes - is is easier to repair
no - it is weak
yes - it is easier to smash (about the same as smashing your hull into anything)
The points being it not weak and it is easy to repair if you do. It really all that easy to smash it as the whole join is protected with a rubber rail and the only part of it that can be smashed in normal use is the aft section if one to to see how hard they can back into something.
Just how easy is it to repair an inward flange leak? Can you even get to most of it with out taking the inside of the boat apart?
Lets be clear here about what I was saying. I was trying to clear up what Hunter has said about that joint in reference to Shockwave's comments. I was not trying to describe the pluses and minus's of the outward flange hull to deck joint in detail.
If you have read that discussion you should be aware that your statements " it is easier to smash (about the same as smashing your hull into anything)
The points being it not weak and it is easy to repair if you do." ....gloss over both what was said, and the realities of the situation.
What was said is that the kind damage that occurs when a boat rolls against a solid object (like a piling or edge of a dock) might leave scrapes on the side of boat with an inward facing flange, vs a boat with outward facing flange literally tearing off the hull to deck joint. In follow-up discussions, a number of people who managed, or owned or worked in boatyards and several marine surveyors weighed in that this is a pretty common occurrence with outward facing flange joints. It is not the same as an inward facing joint.
Similarly, both Hunter and the follow-up discussions agreed that a horizontal impact on the rail, creates a large force (perpendicular to the glue surface and a bending moment on the glass) which tries to pry the joint apart (rather than the sheer forces of a inward flange) and so are much more likely to damage the joint as well. This is so common in Catalina's that it has a name (The Catalina Smile).
But that is only a part of the story. In a outward flange joint, the laminate makes a near perpendicular turn out to the flange. For aesthetic reasons that turn is a very sharp turn and the glass cannot be made appreciably thicker at that turn or else the rubber would get to be be very clumsy. The result is that there is a large concentration of bending forces that occur where the flange rotates horizontally and that takes a toll over time.
In the follow-up discussion, several of the surveyors and boat yard personnel posted images and discussion on this topic. While only anecdotal, they did tell a clear story. The most dramatic was a boat which rolled against a dock and it's outward flange caught a piling top. It tore the hull parallel to the joint for a distance of only a foot or two. The surveyor who told the story said that the repair was approved according to his recommendation to cut and grind back the hull and joint to a point beyond which delamination was observed. The rubber rail was removed and the yard began cutting and grinding with each extension of the length being removed being approved by the surveyor. After incremental approvals, the area cut away extended approximately 6 feet either side of the impact and there was still noticeable delamination in the hull matrix parallel to the joint. On observing the exposed gelcoat on the joint beyond the cut open area, there was nearly continuous stress cracking, suggesting that the delamination condition extended most of the length of the boat and on both sides of the boat, in other words it was not the result of this or any other impact, but from the service stresses on the boat. At that point the insurance company refused to pay for any repairs beyond those which has previously been incrementally approved.
Similar stress cracking was observed and images posted from other boats by the boat yard personnel.
This is not a minor issue to be dismissed lightly. So while Hunter claimed that the joint is as strong as a inward flange joint, that may be true when that joint starts life, but it will weaken over time more rapidly than a typical inward flange (since the inward flange does not experience routine withdrawal and bending loads on the magnitude of an outward facing flange, has larger radiuses, can be and typically is made heavier than the hull laminate, and can have larger mating surfaces) and will be significantly more likely to incur significant damage over time.
Hunter's response to that discussion is that their boats are designed for a specific user and price point, and that their typical user does not expose their boats to the regular hard use that higher end boats are designed for.
So while it may be argued that any one owner might roll the dice and decide to take a boat with an outward facing flange offshore, and come back without damage, the risk in doing so goes up over time.
On the current point being debated, I am very much a subscriber to the idea that the fact that a particular boat manages to sail mostly around the world does not mean that that design is particularly well suited for offshore work. My typical example of a small plywood boat with a concrete external fin keel that I knew well, and which made it to Miami from Australia does not provide any proof that this boat was an ideal vessel for such a voyage.