Jump to content

Alan Stewart

Members
  • Content Count

    477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

Everything posted by Alan Stewart

  1. Update: I have ordered some new aramid tape which is heavier weight and also bias woven to have another attempt at making a kevlar hinge. I found bias kevlar (aramid) tapes sold by a nice outfit in maryland. https://sweetcomposites.com/Seamtape.html I will report back how it works out. Below is a picture of Graham's cockpit hatch piano hinge. They are 1 1/16" wide. No signs of crevice corrosion. I am sure Graham would have polished his hinges before installation.
  2. I usually just measure it into a cup carefully the ratio has a window of about 5-10 percent in my experience (I've never had any issues with paint mix ratio). I don't usually thin the 545 at all but it does start to thicken up in the cup after about an hour so I would mix a small batch, roll it on and then mix some more. It flashes off quickly and you can add another coat in about 30 min. You'll just about be able to start at one end and when you get to the other end you can go back to the beginning for the next coat. If you DO put in some reducer I would give it a couple of hours to come out of the primer before the next coat. 545 is a high build primer so it's good at this (building up a decent thickness). I don't usually bother priming anywhere i'm going to nonskid. This is nice on a bigger boat that you have to stand in while painting the cockpit because you can keep the sole unpainted (primed) while you work everywhere else then carefully jump out. Or better yet, paint the boat while on it's side for better access and also you won't have to worry about dripping condensation from your respirator into the paint or sweat if it's hot or dust/dirt. Unless you want a very high level finish I probably wouldn't even bother using 545 in the cockpit at all just so you don't have to sand it all smooth which takes a long time but priming is necessary if you're not ok with seeing a pinhole here or there. The primer will reveal a lot of imperfections you just can't see in the epoxied surface. I find the best tools for the 545 are a brush for corners and an 1/8" foam roller for surfaces. Here are some links for what we use http://bandbyachtdesigns.com/store/ For topcoat i would go with either the "hot dog" rollers or the same 1/8" foam rollers. The best advise I can give would be to sand the primer until you're happy with leaving it looking like that because the only thing that's going to change when you paint it is the color and gloss, any imperfections will still show as the topcoat is very thin. I've found that thinning topcoat too much for rolling and tipping is frustrating because I want to be done with 2 coats. If you thin too much you'll be putting 4 or 5 coats and no one has time for that plus you don't want to be sitting there with it for that long. I like to thin it minimally when rolling and tipping. Just enough that it will still level out after I roll it on and tip it with a foam brush. I would do some test pieces. Less thinner means it will flash off faster though so you have to do it like you would varnish. Do an area with roller, tip it then move on with your wet edge. DONT GO BACK. If you thin it more then you can go back to it over and over but you might have to do 3 or even 4 coats. If you thin it like almost water as some do be sure to put it on ULTRA thin for no runs and plan to do at least 3 coats It will usually flash off pretty fast though as long as you put it on thin. For the best finish (like on the topsides) you want to start at one end and finish at the other. You can't go back and add a bit to just one spot without creating a "patch" with edges etc that only you will be able to see. When I painted the inside of the Core sound 17 I did it mostly with just a brush because i put it on heavy and could just about get away with one coat. It flashed off fast and you couldn't go back but it was quick and I was happy with the finish. I didn't care about a few brush strokes here and there. It is a home made boat after all and I no longer aspire to a gel-coat production boat finish in the cockpit. Topsides are easier to be picky, cockpits i've become much more tolerant of imperfections after having done a few. When I say imperfections I mean glass tape edges, low and high spots and the occasional brush stroke or run not pinholes, cracks, crevices or anything that would collect dirt or prevent it from being wiped clean those I care about.
  3. A recent question prompted a reply for all.... I think Graham has always used stainless steel piano hinge for his cockpit hatches. Piano hinge is nice because it's pretty flat, and very strong and stable. B&B purchases piano hinge from our main supplier "paxton" which is 304 stainless. Generally we feel that 304 stainless is fine for our small boats which live most of their life on trailers sometimes even under cover rather than sitting in salt water. For an ocean cruising boat going with 316 stainless would probably be worth the extra cost. Our 1-1/16" 304 stainless polished piano hinge is $28 for a 6' length and we've used it on many cockpit hatches. I've often seen stainless steel screws create rust stains on the stainless piano hinge and my guess is that the screws are not as high a quality 304 as the hinge itself. I think it's worth the extra for 316 screws in this case because the staining looks bad but I think the 304 hinge is ok. We usually just use pan head screws for cockpit hatches. In practice they really don't stick up too bad and they are usually behind your butt when you're sitting in the cockpit so it's just not an issue. McMaster sells 316 piano hinge for not much more. about $36 but it's unpolished. The also have polished for more like $46 on last check (all 6' lengths) I'm about to need some hinge material for my own build and I really wanted to try something different. I wanted to try and save some weight but also just make it a bit easier to install especially for all of my bunk hatches in the cabin. I've known about live hinges forever because we used them on model airplanes especially RC gliders where the elevator and aileron hinges were just kevlar strips bonded into the wing core and then scored to free them. A google search for "kevlar piano hinge" shows all sorts of very expensive options most of which include carbon fiber legs with the kevlar in between. I bought a small amount of kevlar to try and make my own for use on my cabin bunk hatches and maybe even cockpit hatches but my first test was not very good. the hinge snapped after just a few dozen bends. I'm going to keep trying though but I think i should have started with some thicker kevlar and the next test I'll try to prevent epoxy from getting to the hinge line at all perhaps with some hot wax pressed into the hinge line before laying up the kevlar flat on a mold surface. I also used plain old kevlar tape so half the fibers are wasted going along the length of the hinge. I should have got some thicker bias tape which would have had all fibers across the hinge line and requiring less bending of any one fiber. I will report back on my next attempt. I would just buy some kevlar hinge (video below) but the price is ridiculous. Sure would be nice though to just glue it down and done! so maybe if you factor in all the time it takes to screw, bed, polish, drill, yada yada it's maybe 6 vs 1/2 dozen cost wise. Another option i recently saw as fiberglass or carbon piano hinge with a stainless steel rod. Here is a boatdesign thread that describes the making. https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/carbon-piano-hinges.61551/ Basically folding some glass or Carbon over a tube or rod so that you're left with a hole then cut the "teeth" for the hinge and slide in the final rod. I was thinking of trying to make it with fiberglass and then slide in a 3/32" 316 stainless tig welding rod. Graham did his bunk hatches on Carlita with some aluminum piano hinge that he had left over the I believe Tom Lathrop gave him (very light and nice). After Jay used riv-nuts to attach his rub-rail to his boat Graham wanted to try something similar and he actually used pop rivets (correction he used solid aluminum rivets inserted from below and then peened closed) to attach the piano hinges to his bunk hatches. This has the advantage of being nearly flush inside and out as opposed to using screws and then having to grind all the tips off that stick through the 1/4" plywood. It worked fairly well and I don't think any have come loose.
  4. Graham has a good point (as usual) and it is good to put the stability into perspective after seeing screenshots of the boat on it's side. There are quite a few mark 3's out there and no reports of stability issues. It is by all accounts a very stable boat and takes quite a lot of effort to capsize. I agree with Graham 100%.
  5. Justin, Looking good. Pre-coating the parts is the way to go. I try to think about if the surface is going to be painted or not. If i'm not going to paint it like say in a locker then I coat with 1 coat and then sand the whole thing and then install it. This way when I come back and do my final 2nd and 3rd coats (hot coating) on that surface after all the glass taping is done it is nice and glossy smooth. I prefer to do it this way so that I get a continuous final coat after the glass taping is done. If I am going to paint it, then I coat it with 3 coats (hot coating) and then sand it before installing it. Then after glass taping is done these surfaces are ready for primer. If you sand the plywood with 150 grit first and vacuum it clean then it cuts down on the rough grain after the first coat which makes it easier to sand layer. Easier to sand plywood than epoxy. I don't think you will have any issues bending the center frame into place. The epoxy layer is pretty thin and i've never seen it crack in the way you're thinking.
  6. Nothing wrong with using two mast head floats (one on each mast) but it's not really close with a 35lb buoyancy float so one should do it. 2 means double the time to build and double the cost. Graham's boat has a mast head tricolor light in the main mast and so he might put his float on the mizzen mast only.
  7. Steve, Answer to question 1... I've now also done a complete re-do of the 20mk3 weight study this morning. This weight study has the raised bunk tops mod which is now standard in the kit. Here is a link to the spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rqaVj7Ncj45HQtIq8PMWILgZhQCXYuGpHj3qkUgu6DU/edit?usp=sharing In that spreadsheet is another sheet with some stability curves I did last year. They are still fairly valid in that they show the heeling angle of max righting moment in various stages. For example without ballast, the 20mk3 has positing righting until about 60 degrees (angle of vanishing stability). With the ballast in it goes to about 90 degrees depending on "factors". Factors meaning basically what other stuff is in your boat. For example, below is the 90 deg case. Although it came out negative it is very marginally so. the 1/2" difference in the vertical center of gravity from the LCB could swing the other way if say for example you have a ~50lb house battery secured just in front of the ballast tank. OR on the flip side, if you have mast head tricolor light that weighs 3 lbs with wires in the mast then that pretty much cancels out that house battery in this case since it's so far away from the LCB. Weight is the killer and the farther from the CG that weight is, the more effect it has. Note also that my weight study did not include a solar panel, toe rails, tabernacle bolt, halyard block, running rigging like halyards, or the lexan ports for that matter. So, we're going over. Below shows the masts now in the water at 100 deg. and the board fallen back into the boat. In this case the 20 mark 3 should have enough buoyancy provided by the submerged masts to prevent turtling but only juuuust barely. Since it's hard to know where we are on the curve at this point. I did one more at 2 deg more heel. 103 degrees. Below is the same situation but just 2 more degrees of heel. The calculations show an increase in righting moment which means we haven't reached the max yet which is good. So the 20mk3 shouldn't turtle as long as the ballast tank is full even if the board is up provided there isn't a bunch of heavy stuff at the top of the mast and all of the stuff stored under the bunks doesn't fall to the cabin roof and weigh the top down. Note also that the cabin hatches are clear of the waterline. So getting back to the 20 vs the 17 mark 3. Why does the 20 seem to have enough mast buoyancy and the 17mk3 not quite enough in this case? Below we see them side by side both at 100 degree of heel. The smaller 17mk3 has a bit less ballast (300lbs vs 430lbs) but even if we increase the ballast on the 17m3k by 130lbs so that they have the same amount of ballast water, it's not quite enough to make the 17mk3 positive at this heel angle. The masts are shorter so the force they apply is not quite as effective. And, for another perspective check, the negative 1750 inlbs of heeling moment seen in the 17mk3 here could be countered with just 7-10 lbs of flotation at the top of the mast or 270 cubic inches which would be about a 4 inch sphere of foam (again assuming no mast head lights or other mods to the boat). This once again highlights the design challenge with such a shallow draft hull with lots of primary stability. The case of no ballast and board up for the 20mk3. I calculate a similar amount of flotation about 33lbs required to keep the boat on its side with no ballast and no board. At -8700 inlbs it should be no problem for one person to right the boat by standing on the centerboard. I am not sure about using a righting line but with 2 people on a righting line I think it would be enough. I plan to test this extensively on my boat. One last one (below), the boat is capsized to starboard so the board is way up high and falls back into the trunk. In this case, cockpit and mizzen mast are used to climb onto the top of the hull so that the board can be reached and pulled back out of the trunk so that you can then stand on the board. In this case, we would need at least a 17lbs mast float to support the additional weight of a 200lb crew member climbing in the cockpit. A 35lbs buoyancy mast float as discussed earlier for the 17mk3 would almost be enough in this case even if we discount the flotation provided by the sealed masts. An alternative to this situation would be to have a righting line in the cockpit that is thrown over the high side and then hung on by the crew to right the boat regardless of the position of the centerboard. Here is a video of Joe and Aaron demonstrating the "climb over" technique on his EC-22 https://youtu.be/4y19ckyZNgI Answer to question 2. We are coming out with a mast float kit and I think we will be offering it to all of the Mark 3 owners basically at cost to any who want it. We don't want to see any Mark 3's going turtle. Here is a screenshot of the float design. It is made of 4 layers of 2" blue foam laminated together. The teardrop shape is cut on the CNC machine. There is a starboard collar top and bottom that is glued into the top and and bottom. A 3/4" aluminum tube is the float's mast and a modified mast cap supports the mast. The float sits on the little mast with a nylon washer and a clevis pin makes it quick to remove. The foam layers are hollowed out somewhat on the inside. The exterior of the foam can be fiberglassed but based on our first test done at the most recent capsize camp, this is not necessary. Simply epoxy coating the foam and then painting the float is sufficient. It cannot absorb water or leak. The tail fin is made of thin pre laminated fiberglass cloth and glued into a slot in the foam. The float should weigh less than 3 lbs and rotates easily into the wind. Answer to question 3. Fresh water is 62.4lbs per cubic foot salt water is denser 64 lbs I used 62.4 lbs for the ballast tank calculation because that is "worst case" if the boat is being used in fresh water.
  8. After helping getting the B&B shop ready for the hurricane last week and then being spared any damage at our house in Newbern and only losing power for 8 hours I took advantage of my time off to work on the boat. Taylor was busy preparing for going back to school and i wont have her help as much now summer break is over.
  9. This morning I finished a new ground up weight study for the Core Sound 17 Mark 3. You can see the spreadsheet at this link. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FdHRORADYjMWl-AEDNtsJI7Q4Dujp7n38PEjUZcsom4/edit?usp=sharing. If you would like access to copy and have your own version and add things let me know and I'm happy to share the file. All of the parts are in there in addition to our calculation for epoxy, masts, track, sails, sprits, ballast (both in and out) rudder and centerboard. I included 20lbs of hardware/rigging applied at approximately deck level. As some may know, we "re designed" the boat in 2018 with a slightly taller cabin. Basically raising the boat from the sheer line up by ~2 1/4 inches to accommodate the taller among us. The same alteration was made to the 20mk3. Here is the difference in scale. While Freds 17mk3 was one of the first, there is little difference between his boat and the 2018 model. The masts are the same height, the ballast is the same. Here is a pretty picture of the Weight study mode. All of the plywood parts are simple surfaces and the solid wood is is green. This model was used to calculate the center of gravity of the boat both longitudinally and the all important vertical center of gravity. Below, you can see the 17mk3's resulting CG calculation showing the all important VCG (vertical CG) with ballast in and board down as well as ballast in and board up as well as no ballast or board at all. This solid model was used for the calculation of flotation at various angles of heel. Note that the cockpit coamings are removed and that boat is somewhat simplified to just the sealed volumes. These calculations are based on sealed masts, and assuming that cockpit lockers don't leak. You can see that an outboard motor would not significantly alter the results because the CG of the motor would be very close to if not below the VCG in all cases. First I looked at the 90 degree case. I was hoping it would be still positive but it turned out just slightly negative. The difference between the VCG (red) and the LCB (location of center of bouancy) blue gives us the moment arm for either heeling or righting. In this case the VCG overtook the LCB by about an inch and a half so the boat is going to keep going over. In order to increase righting moment the only options here are increase buoyancy up high or increase ballast. Next I looked at the tips of the mast in the water. or about 97 deg. At this point we are still going over since now there is an even larger difference between the LCB and the VCG. You can perhaps see the difficulty. To put into perspective the heeling moment of -3300 inch lbs, a 200lb sailor standing on the tip of the board would be able to apply approximately 10,000 inch lbs of righting moment. Easily righting the boat. This was confirmed by Richard's capsize test last year. Also, seen here an 18 lb buoyancy float would prevent turtling with just a bit to spare. 18lbs is the size of the float we used in the latest capzise tests with Will's CS17. Now we look at the same setup but with the board up. Either it fell up or was up to begin with. With the same mast head float not we're on our way over....BUT The masts do provide significant flotation. In fact more than this 18lb float does at an angle of 105 degrees. I chose 105 degrees because that is about the angle that Richard's boat went to when he flipped his 17mk3 with the baord up in his 2018 capsize test seen in this video. https://youtu.be/s35CfcipAKo?t=206. The boat quickly came to rest with the mast underwater about up to the snotter connection point. Here we see that with a mast float the boat would not go turtle even if the board fell into the trunk as long as the masts were sealed. This doesn't solve the problem of how do you get the board back down so you can pull on it. I think the solution for that should be a "safety line" approximately 2' long that hangs from the trailing edge of the Centerboard which can be pulled to get the board back down. Next we have the same 105 degee case but with the board down. This seems an unlikely case since as Fred's test showed, the board will fall back into the boat. A downhaul line could be rigged on the weighed board on a breakaway cleat to prevent this. This could be a better solution than dragging a line. Finally, how much mast float should we recommend? Well one calculation is based on the case of NO ballast and NO centerboard down. Which is not inconceivable if you were in the EC racing in light winds downwind . In this scenario I calculate that a 35lb mast head float would be required to prevent the boat from going turtle. This does not take into account any flotation provided by the masts. The boat is lighter without ballast which reduces the heeling moment even though the Vertical center of gravity has gone up to 23.5" above the DWL. A 35lb buoyancy mast head float is not too bad. Here it would be in scale. 27" long, 8" tall (to keep it within 4 layers of 2" blue foam), and about 10.5" wide as viewed from the front. The 18lbs float we built came in at right about 2lbs. Unfortunately a mast head tri-color such as the one Graham installed makes the addition of this float a bit more difficulty but not impossible. The floats "mast" is 3/4" aluminum tubing and it could be mounted to the front side of the mast on a pair of brackets and I think not interfere with a tri color. One final thought that has me leaning toward the larger float size is sailing the 17 mk3 in the EC at night with a crew member sleeping down below. However unlikely, a capsize then could trap the crew member in the cabin. Keeping the drop boards out when a crew is sleeping below would be a good standard practice. The larger mast head float would eliminate that concern with ample buoyancy when combined with the ballast. Remember the 17mk3 with ballast is still a lot more stable than the original 17 so I'm not trying to alarm anyone but we also don't want anyone getting water in their cabins. You can also see how vitally important it is to keep the weight down especially on deck. We might want to think about switching to the much lighter flexible solar panels as opposed to the heavier glass ones for example. We want to do a dockside test where we pull the boat over on it's side at the dock with all rigging in place, ballast in and board up. then use a fish scale to measure at the tip of the mast. Presumably the mast will be pulling down and we could directly measure the heeling moment as a check against these numbers. It seems like it could be as much as 19lbs based on my calculations. This is a test we should have done with Graham's boat but the only test we did was without sails. Adding MORE water ballast is of course another option but this is the problem with a shallow draft boat, the ballast is not very effective at 90 deg of heel due to the very short moment arm. An extra pound of lead on the tip of the centerboard would be more effective but the board already requires a fair amount of purchase. Making the board heavier is not very difficult but it also only works if it's down where as the mast float is always there.
  10. Update: As far as I know, the B&B shop just regained power about an hour ago. I don't know about power at Graham and Carla's house yet . My house in New Bern only lost power for 8 hours the morning of the storm so not too bad. Our thoughts are with those on Ocracoke island which experienced heavy flooding as the eye passed over and many had their homes flooded and will have to start over from scratch. I spoke to our friend Steve Wilson who lives out there today and he said his house and boat are OK but he thinks he's lost all of his oysters (he runs an oyster farm).
  11. No water in the B&B shops this time. The old crusty pressure washer will have to wait to be dragged out and abused for a little longer.
  12. Got our house ready for flying debris. The CS17 will ride it out under the new deck. Cars in the barn and garage. No room for boat building during the storm shucks. Pic of empty bay in garage (who puts cars in a garage normally??)
  13. The latest forecast is adjusting the track based on the storm slowing down just a bit. Keep it moving Dorian! The faster the better.
  14. Fred and Peg, Thank you for sharing your capsize testing results. Invaluable testing data for all of us. I hope there was no damage to your gear and it sounds like you were well prepared to carry out the test. Here are some of my thoughts after reading I think the mast head float is the obvious choice to address concerns of capsizing the 17mk3. We have seen that she is pretty easily recovered in calm waters with ballast in and board down but in other configurations and more importantly, worse or real conditions (or less capable hands) I think that additional measures are prudent. Capt. Bones had a float on his 17mk3 in the EC and i plan to have one on my 20mk3. It is very difficult to design righting moment AND shallow draft AND light weigh trailering all in one and the 17 and 20mk3 are both tradeoffs in this regard. We could bolt on a lead keel shoe and increase righting moment but at the expense of the other factors. Perhaps this is an option we should consider for builders to choose. The Belhaven has two lead ballast options. The 17mk3 has more stability than the standard 17 but that also means the water ballast providing that stability can "swing both ways" if the boat reaches a certain angle of heel. This presents as the boat rolling over faster once it crosses that fated angle of heel as you experienced. Certainly the cabin of the 17 and 20mk3 should never be allowed to flood. The free surface effect produced means almost certain game over for self rescue and outside assistance required. Options going forward as i see them are, installing a mast head float like the one we have been working on for the standard 17 with sufficient flotation to prevent turtling even without the water ballast and with the board up. This addresses turtling concerns in all configurations. We will see what size float that would require. It could be that it is too big to be practical. Or adding ballast in the form of lead either in the form of an external keel shoe or internal ingots bolted inside the ballast tank to increase righting moment. Perhaps enough to prevent turtling in the event of capsize with ballast tank full but board UP. Or perhaps a combination of both. Graham and I will take a look at the 17mk3 hydrostatics model and report back here with some numbers for the discussion.
  15. Hey Justin, Long reply to follow... With regards to modifying the seating compartment... At issue is one of flotation. The uscg does not recognize air chambers as flotation and when tested, holes are specified to be drilled into any air compartments such that they completely flood for the flotation and level-flotation tests. In the eyes of the CG, B&B is the "builder" of your boat because we manufactured the kit (i know it's weird) and so we are required to issue an HIN number as well as a capacity plaque based on the design. If you were building from plans, we don't have to issue these. In the US, the CG does not certify boats instead there is a system of "self certification". This article is helpful. https://uscgboating.org/library/boating-safety-circulars/Boating-Safety-Circular-Spring-2016.pdf Excerpt from above article on boat safety certification.... This document also applies. It was designed by the USCG to be used by those building boat "in their backyard" who wouldn't call themselves boat "manufacturers" but nonetheless were building boats at a regular rate and selling them. http://newboatbuilders.com/docs/backyardboatbuilders.pdf. This is a boiled down version of the CGs boat building handbook. https://www.uscgboating.org/regulations/builders-handbook-downloads.php B&B uses the USCGs "Boat building handbook" when designing to establish capacity, safe loading, power and flotation. The point of all this is to reduce boating accidents which are mainly seen in powerboats under 20 feet since they are the most common vessel and where the most safety gains can be made in the eyes of the CG. I think the name of the game is "liability". If there is not enough foam flotation in place based on the requirements for recreational boats and then the boat is sold to someone who cannot swim and they run over something causing the boat to flood and sink or capsize due to insufficient flotation installed by the builder then it's theoretically possible that the builder could be held responsible. This is not going to be something most backyard builders will ever deal with but something that larger production boat manufacturers certainly would and why they would need to certify their boats with tank testing etc and have all the documentation of flotation design. Kit boat builders are technically held to the same standard but if you never sold the boat to anyone then you can do whatever you want. So, finally the question. Can you do it? I am not sure. haha. But we can certainly figure out how much extra foam flotation we gave in the design and then recalculate. It could be that no change is needed or that the only change in order to remain in compliance with the guidelines above for flotation is that a smaller maximum Horsepower be specified or fewer passengers/smaller maximum capacity be specified on the capacity plate. You or us (or anyone) can go through the numbers and calculate it. It's a bit easier for us because we have the exact volumes available on the 3-d computer model of the boat. The first question would be what motor are you planning to use?
  16. Indeed. Epoxy bushings are a great method to isolate hardware from the wood in epoxy encapsulated construction like this. You'll get more good ideas like that from the Gougeon Brothers book on epoxy boat construction. Hardware bonding is covered in chapter 14! https://www.westsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/GougeonBook-061205-1.pdf
  17. Youtube is the best. I'm finally able to produce on my phone which really makes it possible for me saving lots of time.
  18. Justin, We usually have a breasthook (little corner piece in the tip of the bow) that reinforces the tip of the bow) which helps hold the sides together at the stem. With this kit we wanted to do a solid foredeck of 3/4 ply so no breasthook. It couldn't hurt to put a little fiberglass over the fillet at the very top of the stem to help prevent it opening. Or just fire a drywall screw through the top of the stem just below the gunwales to hold it all together until you get the inside of the stem glassed. Heating up the screw will release it for any epoxy and allow it to come out easily.
  19. Justin, Looking good. I have an easy solution for that one. See attached. The Upper forward bulkhead does not sit flush with the sheer but actually down about 1/2". The foredeck is 3/4" plywood with a rabbet cut into the aft edge of the bottom into which the top of that bulkhead notches. The foredeck then ends up flush with the sheer. The idea of using the heavier ply for the foredeck was to make it more straightforward to install a trolling motor mount without having to fuss with backing plates and additional reinforcement. I am adding a small detail about that into the construction plan as shown below. So I would set that bulkhead down onto the casting plarform and then do a dry fit of the foredeck which may need a little tweaking. You can also use the fordeck to set the exact location fore and aft of the upper fwd bulkhead. Also, regarding the gunwales. You are correct we typically install them just up to the tip of the bow of the plywood panels and then round them off so the stem is smooth all the way up. Any remaining voids or gaps where the plywood comes together is filled in with thickened epoxy. Be sure to run your glass all the way up the stem on the inside to help tie that all together. The fore deck really strengthens the bow up. Let us know how it works out.
  20. Graham made it back to the shop last night around 11pm. Total mileage from spot track is 126 nautical miles. I guess we will make him go do another 4 so he gets to 130.
  21. Radar looks like it's cleared up for him now.
  22. Just talked to Graham. He is hunkered down in West Thoroughfare bay at the moment. He threw out the anchor when the skys started to darken. There are some severe thunderstorm warnings moving over his area and a special marine warning in effect for the upper Neuse area and oriental with hail and 50 knot gusts a possibility.
  23. Graham and the fleet wrap up their cruise today. Heading back to the shop after that. Here are some more pictures. Album here. https://photos.app.goo.gl/NGn81GTcfuBAp69a7
  24. Some pics sent in by Paul and Nina. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.