Reinforcement for mast partners (and hatch recommendations)

  • 03 Mar 2014 00:30
    Reply # 1509220 on 1507896
    I can second Annie on the Cule hatch. Don't buy Maxwell hatches as they have the same problem with seals as Lewmar, namely much to hard.
    Last modified: 03 Mar 2014 00:30 | Anonymous member
  • 03 Mar 2014 00:00
    Reply # 1509202 on 1507896
    I have a Cule hatch, made here in NZ.  Excellent. 
  • 02 Mar 2014 13:25
    Reply # 1508954 on 1507896
    Many thanks for the advice Paul and David

    It looks like my existing coachroof/hatch coaming structure should be more than strong enough. I can jump up and down vigorously on it without the slightest hint of flexing. As the presence of the inner headliner moulding would entail major surgery in order to beef up the deckhead internally I'll definitely build up the hatch area externally with ply/biaxial/epoxy a la Tystie. This would provide a handy mounting pad for the halyard and parrel deck block U-bolts too.

    The current forehatch still has the original ancient GRP lid so at least I won't be faced with trying to prise off an expensive alloy hatch and risk damaging it in the process. I will need to cut a new hole aft of the existing forehatch though to install a new hatch. Any recommendations? I don't want a Lewmar Ocean having been very disappointed with the one I fitted to a previous boat. The lid and frame were badly matched and took excessive force on the handles to shut. Lewmar refused to replace it telling me instead to pierce the rubber seals to reduce the force needed (which didn't solve the problem). The £199 hatch that appears in my Force 4 catalogue looks promising with decent acrylic thickness and substantial  looking extrusions. Anyone fitted one of those?

    Jerry




  • 01 Mar 2014 23:18
    Reply # 1508784 on 1507896
    Jerry,
    Tystie's deck is of plywood, to a total of about an inch thick at the mast position, and this is plenty. On top of that, there are discs of plywood built up to a total thickness of about four inches, to provide bearing area for the wedges. So long as you can get an inch or an inch and a half of plywood securely bonded to the deck, you'll be OK. Two inches would be overkill. Can you get one layer of 3/4" plywood bonded inside the aperture, and another layer bonded on top of that and overlapping the deck (presuming that you had a proprietary alloy-framed hatch screwed down over the aperture)? That would be enough.
  • 01 Mar 2014 01:39
    Reply # 1508324 on 1507896
    Jerry, it's as you say, those boats are well made and amply strong... So you probably have nothing to worry about. Having said that, I do have no direct knowledge of your particular boat... they do however have an outstanding reputation as well built and highly seaworthy cruisers.

    I think if you build your plug solidly so that all loads are transfered evenly back to the original coaming, you should be fine. And also make sure that the bulkhead is indeed properly bonded to the hull.

    If after sailing, you notice issues, you can still then add some extra reinforcing but as I've said, it will most likely be fine. So I'd go for it.

    Once you are sailing, check for signs of movement (lift or bulging in the area and also possibly gel coat cracking around the hatch coaming. If after a few hard sails, nothing untoward occurs you'll know that all is well.

  • 28 Feb 2014 15:58
    Message # 1507896
    I'm about to start junk rigging my Rustler 31 (long keeled, heavy displacement, Kim Holman sloop) and have, after much deliberation, decided the only sensible position for the single mast is right where the forehatch is currently located, at the very forward end of the coachroof. I'd appreciate any advice on the structural modifications I might need in order to use the hatch opening as the mast partners.

    Practical Junk Rig mentions that many GRP boats need little or no extra reinforcement at the mast partners and a simple plug that fills in the hatch opening is often sufficient. My boat is 1966 vintage, very heavily constructed with solid GRP hull/deck/coachroof mouldings. As the forehatch is so close to the narrow front of the coachroof I get the feeling that the area is inherently stiff and strong enough and that a thick wooden plug bonded into the existing forehatch opening should be sufficient. There is a plywood bulkhead directly aft of the forehatch giving additional support to the coachroof.

    The only complication I can forsee is that the upstand of the forehatch is formed by a combination of internal headliner moulding and main external coachroof moulding. Both are very substantial GRP layup but only the top two inches of the upstand has solid GRP packing connecting the inner and outer mouldings. The wooden infill plug would be four inches deep and hence enormously strong but only the upper two inches would only be transferring its loading to the combined inner/outer moulding, the lower half making contact only with the inner headliner.

    Am I wittering needlessly bearing in mind that the Rustler is a typical 1960s era GRP cruiser/racer, ie of lavish GRP layup and overbuilt in all departments ? I know that the loadings are nothing like those of bermudan rig but just how severe are they in practice?

    Jerry
    Last modified: 04 Mar 2014 22:41 | Deleted user
       " ...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