Fiberglassing in an aluminum tabernacle?

  • 20 Mar 2017 20:02
    Reply # 4678630 on 4663961

    So the question I have to ask is: why do you think a tabernacle is needed? You're talking about a mighty big, heavy stick that cannot be handled with manpower alone. Even if there's a tabernacle, it would be a major undertaking to raise and lower the mast, and i don't know how I'd do it without a crane to pull it up. Why not, then, just use the crane to step the mast?

  • 20 Mar 2017 19:06
    Reply # 4678519 on 4663961
    Deleted user

    Yup.  That's definitely what I was missing.  A hinged mast with a sleeving tube, eh?

    Suddenly the world makes a bit more sense.

    If I went that route, I'm guessing that it would be something like:

    1) Order a mast the same length as if were a normal keel stepped mast.

    2) Cut the mast above the deck at about 10% of LOD.  Fabricate an internal hinge.

    3) Source another section of mast with an ID = the mast's OD.

    4) Sleeve this over the mast, fair the top somehow, and secure.

    The numbers would look something like:

    ft

    Mast total length from step 50.0
    Mast length above deck (LOD) 44.0
    10% of LOD (hinge height) 4.4
    Mast Length above hinge 39.6
    Sleeve extension above hinge 4.0
    Sleeve length 8.4
    Sleeve as % of LOD 19%

    It's about 120 lbs of added weight with COG 4 feet above the deck, not including the hinge materials. I wouldn't have to pay somebody to design it - I can do that myself. Sourcing the sleeve might be straight forward.  The mast is tube (OD = 10"), the sleeve can be 10" Schedule 40 pipe.  Pipe ID = 10"   My mast is the max most places provide (10" OD).  I think most pipe comes in 6061-T6, so that's way more than strong enough.

    I'm guessing the sleeve would cost maybe $1000 USD.  Figure another $1000 for the weld work fitting the mast hinge.

    Doable. 

    What d'yall think?  

    Last modified: 20 Mar 2017 19:27 | Deleted user
  • 20 Mar 2017 17:32
    Reply # 4678291 on 4663961

    I think what you're missing, Scott, is that the sail, boom and battens in their entirety are always above the top of the tabernacle. It just doesn't work any other way. If the boom must be below the hinge point, the hinged mast with the sleeving tube that drops over the top of the hinge, capable of carrying all the bending load, is the only way to go.

  • 20 Mar 2017 16:50
    Reply # 4678234 on 4663961
    Deleted user

    Well, I'm one step closer to abandoning the tabernacle.  Besides cost, I'm having trouble getting comfortable with the potential for chaffing and hard points on the boom, and on the battens when reefed.  If I understand Pete Hill's tabernacle design for ORYX, much of the foot of the mast is actually below deck level, so the boom doesn't contact the tabernacle at all.  I don't have that luxury.  The tabernacle would have to be almost round all the way from the aft side, across the port side, and the across the forward portion in order to have a truly fair turn that doesn't create a hard spot.

    Or perhaps I'm lacking practical experience.  It may be that only the aft port corner of the tabernacle need be of a nice long radius, because for any points of sail in which the boom and battens are forward of the port side, I'll be on a run or starboard broad reach and the pressure will push the sail and battens away from the tabernacle.  I'd still worry about chafe and flogging running in light winds, I think.

    Am I missing something?  Who's got a boat with a tabernacle that extends above the boom position?  I'd love to hear them weigh in with actual experience.

    Last modified: 20 Mar 2017 16:52 | Deleted user
  • 16 Mar 2017 15:00
    Reply # 4670758 on 4663961
    Deleted user

    Now I get it.  Thanks everybody.  Welding the flange does add the additional step/time/expense of fitting and removing...

    Quotes for design are coming in between $1000 and $2000 USD.  Fabrication probably about the same amount.  I gotta wonder if it's worth it.  It's a tough call.

     

  • 15 Mar 2017 17:02
    Reply # 4668734 on 4668724
    Scott Dufour wrote:
    David Tyler wrote:

    ... it would be good practice not to make the tabernacle to be a close fit through the deck and to rely on a thick flange, bolted and bonded to the deck, to carry the horizontal loads.

     

    David, 

    I got lost in a combination negative/and clause there.  Are you saying:

    1) Don't make the tabernacle a close fit to the deck

    2) Instead, rely on a thick flange bonded and bolted to the deck.

    3)  Don't bolt to the tabernacle:  weld it instead to avoid stainless-to-aluminum batteries on the tabernacle itself.

    I'll still end up with the stainless/aluminum contact on the bolts through the deck, though. Acceptable risk, perhaps?

    Sorry!

    Yes, all of the above. 

    You have to fix down aluminium deck fittings somehow, and everyone uses stainless steel fasteners because there's nothing else suitable. If the sealant squeezes out around the fastener so that water containing gaps are eliminated, that's almost the best you can do. The best would be to use isolating plastic washers and bushes, in combination with sealant, but in practice nobody bothers. There is likely to be some corrosion eventually, but it will be visible from the top.

    Last modified: 15 Mar 2017 17:23 | Anonymous member
  • 15 Mar 2017 16:54
    Reply # 4668724 on 4668410
    Deleted user
    David Tyler wrote:

    ... it would be good practice not to make the tabernacle to be a close fit through the deck and to rely on a thick flange, bolted and bonded to the deck, to carry the horizontal loads.

     

    David, 

    I got lost in a combination negative/and clause there.  Are you saying:

    1) Don't make the tabernacle a close fit to the deck

    2) Instead, rely on a thick flange bonded and bolted to the deck.

    3)  Don't bolt to the tabernacle:  weld it instead to avoid stainless-to-aluminum batteries on the tabernacle itself.

    I'll still end up with the stainless/aluminum contact on the bolts through the deck, though. Acceptable risk, perhaps?

  • 15 Mar 2017 14:34
    Reply # 4668410 on 4663961

    Aluminium only corrodes badly when there is a more noble metal very close to it and there is a small gap between the two in which salt water can lie, forming a battery cell. So it would be good practice to use stainless steel bolts only where necessary - that is, to weld the flange to the tabernacle and to bolt the flange to the deck. Also, it would be good practice not to make the tabernacle to be a close fit through the deck but to rely on a thick flange, bolted and bonded to the deck, to carry the horizontal loads.

    I would first make up the U shaped tabernacle, then drop it into the hole in the deck and drop the flange over it, and then tack weld the two together or at least mark the tabernacle where the flange is going to be welded. It's best to leave a gap of about 3mm under the flange, so that when it's bolted down onto a bed of flexible sealant, the deck is very slightly pulled upwards. I can see no need at all to be able to withdraw the tabernacle for inspection, if done this way. 

    Last modified: 17 Mar 2017 10:31 | Anonymous member
  • 15 Mar 2017 13:53
    Reply # 4668305 on 4663961
    Deleted user

    Thanks for the feedback, guys.  Based on what you've said, I'm thinking:

    1) cut a U-shaped hole just big enough to get the tabernacle through.

    2) wedge, or otherwise fill, any gaps between the partners and the tabernacle with thickened epoxy simply to ensure a good tight fit.

    3) using straight runs of heavy aluminum well bedded in sealant/adhesive, create an in-place flange around the three sides of the tabernacle, bolted to it and through the deck with backing plate.  By using straight pieces and building it out in situ, I should get a good tight fit.  That sounds bomb proof.

    What about inspection though?  Is this the kind of member that  I should be somehow opening up every 4 years to see if I've got corrosion?  I'm thinking that if I've really sealed all the area between the deck and the underside into the cabin, any water that gets in there will eventually run down the tabernacle and show streaks visible from inside the cabin, so semi-destructive inspection is not necessary.  Am I being naïve? 

  • 13 Mar 2017 20:17
    Reply # 4664468 on 4663961

    Hi Scott,

    I agree with David Thatcher on this one. They use adhesive sealants to glue aluminium aircraft together in combination with rivets, the adhesive is at least as strong as the rivets and not prone to corrosion. That is good enough for me.

     As David suggests I have had problems with corrosion when mixing fiberglass and aluminium, the mix may even cause corrosion of the aluminium as does carbon fiber.

    All the best with the project. David.

       " ...there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in junk-rigged boats" 
                                                               - the Chinese Water Rat

                                                              Site contents © the Junk Rig Association and/or individual authors

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software