Fitting of the structural pieces
By Ryan on Friday 18 June 2010, 18:16 - Permalink
Today I
had hoped to finish the assembly of the new columns and bottom of the T-beam,
but some unpleasant surprises and cold weather meant that I will be epoxying on
another day.This morning started with filling in the dip on the starbord side of the roof,
as well as filling in the gap between (darn I forgot to take a photo of that)
the top of the new bulkhead and the roof. Anyway it looks good.
However the important work today was to be the fitting of the two columns and the bottom of the T-beam. I started by hollowing out the columns where the bulkheads would fit into, and then put them in place so that I could see where to cut off the tops.
Then, I loosely placed the bottom of the T-beam on top of it, along with the hardware for supporting the mast, and a piece that represents where the curve of the forward window will be. This was to test and be sure that there was enough room.
After being satisfied that everything was in place, I traced the bulkhead into the bottom and hollowed out a notch for it:
It goes like this:
And this is where the first thing went not as planned. For some reason I was off by a millimeter, and so the beam was not flush with the column. Something I only realized when I put the column on. Ouch. So I had to go back and shave more off the back end.
All's well that ends well:
when all the parts are fitted together:
And here came my second unpleasant surprise. There is a 15mm difference in the distance between the space at the bottom of the column and the top. This was a problem caused by my trimming away too much of the bulkhead this morning on a part that (on looking back at my notes) I had already calculated to be spot on, and therefore had no margin of error. So this will need some reflection...
The weather is too cool for effective epoxy work, so I will take advantage of the weather (waiting for it to get warmer) to see how to solve this problem. I think I will likely just make them square, and then build up the partition sides to meet it and then glass it in as planned, however I need to brood on this, and ask if 15mm is acceptable...
However the important work today was to be the fitting of the two columns and the bottom of the T-beam. I started by hollowing out the columns where the bulkheads would fit into, and then put them in place so that I could see where to cut off the tops.
Then, I loosely placed the bottom of the T-beam on top of it, along with the hardware for supporting the mast, and a piece that represents where the curve of the forward window will be. This was to test and be sure that there was enough room.
After being satisfied that everything was in place, I traced the bulkhead into the bottom and hollowed out a notch for it:
It goes like this:
And this is where the first thing went not as planned. For some reason I was off by a millimeter, and so the beam was not flush with the column. Something I only realized when I put the column on. Ouch. So I had to go back and shave more off the back end.
All's well that ends well:
when all the parts are fitted together:
And here came my second unpleasant surprise. There is a 15mm difference in the distance between the space at the bottom of the column and the top. This was a problem caused by my trimming away too much of the bulkhead this morning on a part that (on looking back at my notes) I had already calculated to be spot on, and therefore had no margin of error. So this will need some reflection...
The weather is too cool for effective epoxy work, so I will take advantage of the weather (waiting for it to get warmer) to see how to solve this problem. I think I will likely just make them square, and then build up the partition sides to meet it and then glass it in as planned, however I need to brood on this, and ask if 15mm is acceptable...
Comments
Hi Ryan
She's looking good. If it makes a difference, Nightwatch doesn't have the two vertical supports you are putting in. The doorway is rounded top and bottom and is cut out of the bulkhead which I think is one piece. (I am going out for a sail tomorrow so I will check) If nothing else it may mean that the structural significance of the two doorway supports is minimal which might help you decide about your gap problem. That aside I think I prefer what you are doing to what I have! I'll keep you posted.
Robert
Thanks for your comment Robert, that is really interesting! It does indeed imply that the load there far less than I anticipated, in which case I have some major structural overkill going on. And it does take off some pressure with regards to the gap, which I found has to do with the angle of the bottom bits that the columns attach to (as they are not truly vertical). I look forward to hearing back from you on Nightwatch!