[Public-List] Comments about design of the new masthead fitting

[Stephen Sousa]

Mike,

 

Your assumptions are correct concerning the halyards. Thank you for your inputs relative to design, I do not plan on making any changes since the sample piece is baked and will be used as a template for these to be built. Cost is relative which is more labor intensive then material, one weld either way will not have that much of an impact on cost.

 

I do not have the time to modify this unit with effort with regards to the business climate of today. 

 

Regards,

Stephen

 

 
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:13:16 +0000
> From: crufone at comcast.net
> To: public-list at alberg30.org
> Subject: [Public-List] Comments about design of the new masthead fitting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen, 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the photos on the Alberg 30 Web site of the last mast head which was mfg for this group.  I see a bail which is attached to the welded-on crane with four screws.  Is that bail used to attach the turning block for the spinnaker halyard?  Why is the crane offset to the Port side?  I would think that one would want the spinnaker halyard centered on the masthead fitting.  There appear to be four additional tapped holes in the forward upper surface of the masthead fitting, what is their intended use? 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume that the main and jib halyards each pass thru two sheaves at the masthead?  How far does the fitting slip down into the mast extrusion,1"?  Could this internal collar be extended to be longer to help beef up this part of the mast? 
> 
> 
> 
> I had asked these questions a month ago and I guess my post got lost in the fray.  I don't know if my mast head needs replacing but I do see a couple of areas where the second version could be improved a bit. I don't mean to be hyper critical, that is not the intent of my posting.  If the crane were to be extended directly off the front of the masthead then the spinnaker would be centered on the hoist.  Instead of having the crane weldment to Port, one could just have the top extrusion extend further forward.  This would eliminate the need for the weldment and not interfere which either the halyards or the forestay.  A shackle could be used to attach the spinnaker turning block and thus eliminate the need for the attached bail. Since the top of the fitting would be longer it would provide more surface to mount other gear. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that extending the fitting forward the same distance as the crane would increase the weight aloft much if any.  And the mfg. cost would be less because no fabricated weldment would be necessary. Again, I just wish to make helpful comments and not be bad mouthing your past design work. 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen, thanks for your assistance to this class. 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael #133 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Stephen Sousa" < alberg114 at hotmail.com > 
> To: public-list at lists.alberg30.org 
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:12:08 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
> Subject: Re: [Public-List] Mast Heads for the Alberg 
> 
> 
> Rachel, 
> 
>   
> 
> The new mast head has four sheeves built into to the unit. The main halyard and jib run into that mast head for full hoist and at that point the sheeve in mast is no longer required. 
> 
>   
> 
> Hope this helps. 
> 
>   
> 
> Stephen 
>   
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-List mailing list
> Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. 
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_022009
 1235155440.0