BYYB Forums

Thanks Paul, I think I will go the bird´s mouth route. We seem to have differing ideas about what is symmetrical and what is assymmetrical concering the layout. I thought the "original" bird´s mouth where the rabbet is in the middle of the stave would be symmetrical but you seem to call that assymmetrical. Is it because the resulting spar is assymmetrical and requires more fairing?

Anyway, what I have tried is the original one and I need to test the one that produces nice octagonal directly. My test piece is about 15cm (6") long and I glued it with PVAc glue because even with my quick setup the fit was so good that I think it will hold enough to see how it works. I will pick up my first batch of epoxy the week after next when I am visiting my daughter who lives in the city where the cheapest source is. 

I think the method is an excellent innovation and I intend to use it for some household and furniture application in the home as well. It is far superior to the standard 22.5 degree bevel normally used because of its self aligning feature. Anyone who has tried to align eight slimy-slippery-glue-covered staves surely appreciates that.

Paul, I have another question to you concerning the spars: I hate to screw anything into the spars and would prefer hounds and loops in the top ends of the shrouds and stays as well as strops for the halliard blocks etc. What would you say about this?

Another thing is the gooseneck. If (when) I will have the main loose footed and I need to rig a tack downhaul (what is the proper English name for it?) so I was wondering if I could use jaws in the boom just like in the gaffs?

The main motivation, as you probably guess, is that every screw driven into the spars is a highly potential source of rot. Spruce is not the toughest timber to resist rot, and it is also soft so the eybolts and such won´t hold very well and might work loose to let water in.

Stepping and unstepping the masts and rigging is not an issue here, because I will most probably have the masts stepped also during the winter outhaul. The standard procedure here is to crane boats of this size (and a lot bigger) into a storage are next to the lake with all the riggin in place. Only when there is a need to check or fix something would it be neccessary to unstep the masts.

Yes, the symmetric stave layout is the one that produces the true octagon, which I'll assume is the reason it's called symmetrical. This building method is valued because of the self aligning nature of the notches. The asymmetric layout is easier to setup on a table saw, but you'll cuss not having taken the extra time for the symmetrical arrangement, when it comes time to round it over, trust me. Plus it's slightly stronger using the symmetrical layout. I've been using this method long before it was popular or called the birdsmouth method.

Whipped eyes/gaskets (hoops) and hounds will work, though they have disadvantages over swedged fittings and "tangs". I've intentionally drawn the spars with bands and collars rather then tangs and eye bolts. The main reason for the bands and collars is they spread out the loads placed on the mast much better then tangs or even hounds. With the spar building species usually employed and their inherent softness and poor fastener holding power, I felt this the prudent thing to do. A band permits a couple of screws to hold several rigging items, where as if tangs were used, you'd have several screws per tang. A disadvantage with eyes and hounds are rigging adjustments are very difficult, particularly aloft. Hoops and hounds also tend to crush and deform hollow masts, though are very common on solid sticks.

For example, lets say you rigged the boat traditionally with hounds and hoops. You've been sailing for a couple of years and you've noticed if you move the lower fore shroud up a few inches, the gaff jaws wouldn't chafe against them. If the rig is swedged to the eyes welded onto the bands, then you simply remove a few wires and screws, slide the band up and reattach, assuming you have enough wire length in the turnbuckle bodies below. Not so with hounds, because the hoops have to be dropped down on the hounds in a specific order, so everything above the hounds has to be removed, the hounds removed, moved up then everything dropped back down over the top of the mast in the proper order.

Having worked as a rigger and having gotten the "order of assembly" wrong more then once, the prospect of making adjustments to an old style hoop and hounds arrangement doesn't tickle my fancy. On the other hand, it is about as traditional as things get. The same is true of the jaws for the gooseneck. They used them in Admiral Nelson's navy to fairly good success, so why not on your boat.

If screw penetration is a concern, then bond the fasteners with epoxy. This will prevent any moisture from getting at the mast's wood, even if they become loose for some reason. It's a little extra work, but a lot of insurance.

If you do elect to go with hounds, give me a call as there are a few things you'll want to change and add to the plans (hound locations and sizes, etc.). Such as going up one or two wire sizes, so you don't kill yourself trying to make gaskets with 1x19 3/16" (4.5 mm) - 316 wire. It'll also look better if the wire sizes are bigger. Naturally, the weight aloft and additional windage makes the designer in me cringe, but it's a gaff schooner, so who am I kidding.

You may also want to consider fiddle topmasts too, if using the hoops and hounds standing rig.

Testing if we could advance this to page 6 and get it going again

Another

third

I am reposting here the stuff on page 5:

When attacking my last moulds I destroyed the blade of my plane. It was the classic knot of spruce, which are notorious for being hard enough to break tools. It is even more remarkable concidering the general softness of the timber. It is possible make marks with your fingernail as I did here:


Yet in the very same board there was this knot and the result can be seen here:


However, I was able to finish my moulds during the weekend:


http://lh3.ggpht.com/_BTpcCf0IC44/S4I5iV...040787.JPG

I couldn´t get further back from the moulds so there are some problems to fit everything in a picture, let alone find an angle to show the lines properly.

Then there was a short discussion about the plane and other things:

Paul: I think this gives people a fairly good idea what she'll be shaped like. Ouch on your plane blade, some species are tougher then others. What angle is your blade initially ground at?

Timo: I didn´t check, I just left the plane disassembled and continued without it to finish the moulds.  ;D
I haven´t used the plane for a long time and it has been sharpened by my Dad with whom I share the shop. My guess would be 40-45 degrees, that is what we use normally.

Paul: Try 25 degrees to rough in and square up the blade, then hone and polish to desired sharpness at 26 or 27 degrees. Too thin a cutting edge will dent and chip easily, which is what sounds like yours has done.

(02-23-2010, 01:51 AM)Timo Knuuttila link Wrote: [ -> ]The blade turned out to be something like 30-35 degrees judged by the eye. I roughed it to that and honed to approx 40 to 45. Everything done by the eye and accuracy of degrees accordingly  ;D But I use a jig so it is consistent. Both planes cut just fine now. The knots in spruce are hard as nails, one shouldn´t really hit them with a plane at all.

Tom, I shot one like that but didn´t like it at all. The moulds are one behind another and you can´t figure out the lines at all. I will make a version with half the real station spacing.