BYYB Forums

(02-23-2010, 06:13 AM)Timo Knuuttila link Wrote: [ -> ]I think my next step will be the spars and I have a question to Paul concerning the timber to use.

I have not found any source of information where I would have comparable data about White Spruce (Picea Glauca?), Sitka SPruce (Picea Sitchensis) and Picea Abies (Norwegian Spruce?), which we call "forest spruce" as opposed to the others which are only met in parks and gardens. I Finnish literature your species are only discussed in the gardening department and ours is mentioned as an anecdote in American sources.

Do you have any source where these would be technically covered so I could make an educated decision whether my spruce would fit the bill. All I know is that it is between Sitka Spruce and Douglas Fir in weight. Larch (Larix Decidua) would be another option but it is heavier and way more expencive, although the amount needed makes the price a moot issue. Larch is harder and more rot resistant so it might be a good idea to go with it at least for the masts that receive chafe from the gaffs.

(02-23-2010, 01:46 PM)Paul Riccelli PE,NA link Wrote: [ -> ]Spar building in cooler weather is an honored tradition.

One quick note, the foot taper shown on the plans for the masts could be eliminated if desired. Just make a column to the gooseneck dimension, then taper the hounds on up. I was just trying to save some weight and be traditional.

Norwegian spruce would be a fine choice, being fairly common over here. It's one of the most hybrid of the confers here, adapting well all over the northern tear of states. It ranges from about 26 to 29 pounds per cubic foot and would be a better choice then your larch.

Soften the gaff jaws with leather, HDPE or a wrapping of 12 ounce cloth (on the mast) in this area. If you made two piece masts, with the lower portions being aluminum tubing, this wouldn't be as big an issue (especially weight), though you would have to live with the clanging of halyards and lifts against the hollow metal stick. Maybe foam filled to reduce the racket.

(02-25-2010, 02:00 PM)Timo Knuuttila link Wrote: [ -> ]I made some tests with the bird´s mouth method today. Spent a lot of time because I had to fix some problems with the table saw to be able to tilt it 45 degrees. It seems to be the standard routine that I need to refurbish most of the tools when starting to use them ???

Maybe I shouldn´t have let so much time pass since my previous project :  But it really is nice to get up to speed in the workshop again.

I made a short stub with the symmetrical setup and I will make the same with the assymmetrical tomorrow to see how much more setup work there is to make the staves. The symmetrical seemed to be straight forward method, took me about ten minutes to set up the saw and make a couple of meters of stave.

That is, after spending an hour to set the table saw blade exactly in the middle of the slot to be able to tilt the table without grinding the table with the blade  ;D

Paul, the plans specify solid bowsprit, but bird´s mouth seems actually easier than rounding a solid stick. If the wall thickness would be .3 or .4 I think the strength would practically the same, wouldn´t it? Even a solid sprit would need to be ripped and glued to prevent warping anyway.

(02-25-2010, 07:21 PM)Paul Riccelli PE,NA link Wrote: [ -> ]The 5th paragraph on the Spar Plan (original set) in the text just below the main gaff says the sprit can be birdsmouth or a solid laminate of Douglas fir. 20% wall thickness will be fine with the whisker stays, 25% if just using the bob stay. The birdsmouth method will help when it comes to the octagonal portion.

If built hollow, good building technique is necessary, so you'll want a 3 to 6 mm drain hole in the bottom face of the sprit (facing the deck), just before the tennon plug at it's inboard end. This will let accumulated condensation drain out. Also a tapered hard point (swallowtail filler) at the stemhead band and again at the outboard end. The stemhead band hard point should be drilled to let condensation either move aft towards the drain or a drain should be provided just forward of the stemhead hard point.

This sounds more complicated then it actually is. During layout and assembly, you'll note the need for these things and then it'll fall into place.

If using the birdsmouth sprit, you'll surely want to use the symmetrical notch layout. It will save untold effort on the inboard end if you are making it to the plans. Also if the masts are symmetrical as well, the rounding process is much less painful.

(02-26-2010, 12:00 AM)Timo Knuuttila link Wrote: [ -> ]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.

(02-26-2010, 12:26 AM)Timo Knuuttila link Wrote: [ -> ]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.

(02-26-2010, 05:27 AM)Paul Riccelli PE,NA link Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I think I have duplicated all the posts or at least the main content of page 5. Let´s continue from here.

I have been busy building a routing table and wondering if I should buy a new table saw. The saw in the Emco Star/Rex combination tool suffers from the low power of the engine and I think it might be getting a little too much beating before the boat floats.

This is a sketch of your masts with fiddled tops and topsails. Several things need to change over what's drawn in the plans, but certainly doable.



This is just one way of setting up topsails, there are a number of other methods, some providing considerably more area. Of course the more complex the more effort to sail it (crew).

Fiddled tops add a fair bit of weight to the masts, but they can be lowered to the decks if necessary (and if you have enough crew, particularly the guy that has to climb the stick and unwedge the topmast). These are light and small enough to not need stays, though they could be rigged if desired.



It sure does change the look of the rig (yes, I know the bow and cabin are wrong, but the rig and hull are the same as your boat). You'll note the jib has to change shape slightly and portions of the standing rigging will changed locations and lengths slightly too. This is partly because of the hoops and hounds as well as the fiddled tops.

Ideally they mast top should be cut square and the mast top cap (upper portion of the tree) fitted over it. This will offer several inches more "fetch" for the tree and a better purchase for the topmast.

It's usually much cheaper to put a new motor on a table saw then buy another saw. Is the table worth rebuilding? If this was a strip plank build, I'd say yes, the table saw is justified. Personally, I use the table saw a lot, but many can get by without one, so I guess it's up to you.

First a reply concerning the tools: the old saw is part of a combination tool sharing the motor. There is the table saw, band saw, jigsaw, planer, thicknesser, disc sander, band sander, router, mortiser, lathe ....  I don´t even remember all the equipment that goes into it.







http://www.dbcourt.co.uk/woodwork/Emco%20Star.html

It has been in the family since the early 70´s and is serving well in all other areas but the table saw. The motor is only 550W, which seems to be OK for every other functions but not the table saw, which is my current concern. It wasn´t designed to include chip and dust control and adding one is especially difficult for the table saw and that is another reason. I have a good hand held sircular saw and making a table like for the router is another option. Long staves for the masts ans spars are probably more easily sawn with the planks clamped and the tool moving anyway. We´ll see, the price of the saw would buy 4kg of epoxy, that is about a gallon to those metrically challenged 

Then into rigging ideas. My idea for the topsails was to have a jib headed topsail on the mainmast and a fisherman. And the fidded topmast in this size looks maybe a little theatrical, as John Leather says about some features in his book. Maybe just slightly taller pole for the foremast, same height as gaff peak, and a little bit more to the main. The main topsail with a yard.

If I set a fisherman I would probably need a pair of stays to balance that at the top of main mast or what do you think?

I've never seen one of these multi tools perform very well. They seem to do everything moderately well, but nothing great. I still think a new motor is a fairly easy fix, particularly one with more power. I have fans with bigger motors then that 550w.

I'll have to think about the rigging ideas for a bit. I intentionally filled up the usual gap between the fore and main and raised the height of the fore top in doing so. The result makes flying a fisherman not an easy thing. By keeping the heights and relationships as I did, I was able to eliminate much of the standing rigging seen in the tops of a schooner. The idea was to save build effort, rigging difficulty, cost and most importantly simplify raising and lowering operations for the masts, especially if on tabernacles.

I've seen some of the tall poles masts Leather talks about and have never liked the look much. To me it appears the rig is reefed or could stand to carry more hoist. I've also peaked the gaffs too much for typical fisherman use (and topsails for that matter).

Generally, the gaff angle is considerably lower (like a Weekender or Vacationer for example). I've always disliked low angle gaffs for several reasons, the biggest are lose of effective foil leading edge and high tension requirements on the peak, just to adjust. This is required on a topsail rigged boat and the taller mast (fiddled or pole) permits a better purchase angle with the peak halyard (releasing tension). You must remember the original size of this boat negated a large crew. Now that she's stretched out and you have room for 6 in the cockpit comfortably, you can consider these sails, but for the most part I think they are added complication and contrivance.

Down wind sails are fairly easy on schooners, if you step away from tradition. For example a big drifter or asymmetrical flying of the fore will be a lot easier to rig and handle then a fisherman. With the size of the fore triangle, this would be a huge sail and the mast is already stayed for it. You think about it Timo, but the fisherman is a difficult sail to enjoy and fly. Topsails can be the same lot, though they are slightly easier to set and trim, once rigged properly.

To directly answer your question, I think the main runner would need to be tensioned with a fisherman, but no more additional stays would be necessary. This sail is a light weather thing and doused at the hint of building winds. Carrying a fisherman in gusty weather is just asking for a capsize or a broken topmast.

If the fisherman requires the runners it is out, they are one thing I don´t want. Maybe just the topsails on both masts.

I agree in your opinion about the long poles when only the lower are set, they don´t look good. But I suspect I would be flying the topsails most of the time. Do you think the topsails could be used without the runners? Also I am not talking about THAT long masts, just slightly higher than the peak and then a topsail with a yard, Cornish or conventional.

If the mast would be about half way the topmast in your picture then I think the yard could extend the rest to have the same height for the topsail. The extra mast height would help with peak halliard tension and the gaff could peak lower. I suspect that in such an arrangement dousing the topsails would be the only reef I will ever need on my lake. And with everything flying I would still have the same luff length.

About the tools, I agree that usually you get mediocre results when trying to fit everything in one machine. In this case the band saw and the planers are as good as same size tools in general the plane being actually a separate machine with an axle from the main machine. All the other additional gadgets are decent at best and require a long setting time. They get very little use, some of them none. The table saw is ok for small jobs but suffers from the lack of power id you want to rip a lot of 2x4s. And the motor is integrated, with its case being part of the table saw/band saw casting. No way to replace it with another motor.

Actually I installed the hand held into a piece of plywood today and it seems to work nicely. That will do at least for a while.

Timo,  I had a tops'l on my sloop for a short while.  My mistake was a carbon fiber hand-set top mast ~8' in length with no aft runners.  The side shrouds went betwix the main shrouds and the top stay went to nearly it's truck. A way over large yankee flown as proof of concept.  With no running back stays the top rig was weak.  Not paying attention, with another master at the helm, a gust of wind snapped the top mast and the whole shebang went into the drink and began to fill with water.  Lots of excitement for a few minutes.  As drawn in Pauls diagrams you will not have this problem; however, I went to the carbon because the wooden mast with the top installed was more than I could erect by myself.  The 15' birdsmouth masts and the 8' birdsmouth top mast were just too many foot pounds to lift and walk up by hand.  For the short time the rig lasted the tops'ls and the yankees worked very well in light air but it was just more rag than she was rigged for when the gusts came.  Un stayed strength comes at the expence of weight (mass) how and when thoose tops are erected are of critical importance.  Now if Paul is also designing you some assisted mast erection device disregard everything after good morning.  8) 8) 8)