[Public-List] Mast Rake

[via Public-List]

George
You are right about the chainplates. I thought of that later. and that
makes the whole idea a bad one. thanks. What I can do is put the mast
plate where it was, set it as far forward as possible - I do this
already - and tune the mast with no rake and you and John have
suggested. That sounds like a reasonable solution to me. My goal this
weekend was to get some great advice and find some pictures and text
that explain what to do and how to do it so I can be as helpful to the
people who will do the work as possible. I think I have met my goals.
Thanks to all.
as to "permanent", maybe I should have said as "permanent as is
practicable" or something like that- maybe permanent for my lifetime
considering that I do not expect to live another 46 years.
David, 432

	-----------------------------------------From: "George Dinwiddie via
Public-List" 

To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:07:41 -0500
Subject: Re: [Public-List] Mast Rake

 David,

 Consider what this will do to the balance of the sailplan. There are 
 reasons the mast was placed where it is.

 Also, the chainplates would then be in the wrong positions. And 
 therefore the bulkheads, too. I'm not a marine architect, so I can't
say 
 how crucial that positioning is. I wouldn't want to determine that 
 experimentally, though. Carl Alberg's choices, as tempered by the 
 decisions of Kurt Hansen, seem trustworthy enough to me.

 It's difficult for me to envision anything about a boat to be truly 
 permanent. Things do wear out, even the fiberglass. On the other
hand, 
 with maintenance and tuning these boats have performed marvelously
for 
 over 40 years. With maintenance and tuning, they should do well for 
 quite awhile longer.

 - George

 On 2/14/16 1:35 PM, via Public-List wrote:
 > John
 > Your observation fits with what Jason discovered when he found the
 > same problem I have. He drew the same conclusion as you did about
the
 > pressure that is put on the part of the mast stay not supported by
the
 > aluminium beam.
 > It occurs to me that, with the mast step area exposed, one way to
 > solve the problem would be to move the mast step forward so that
the
 > mast is over the middle of the beam. Of course that would lead to
 > rebuilding the hatch area and probably getting a new modern hatch
as
 > well as getting a longer back stay. Assuming that one made sure the
 > wood on top of the beam was ok or fixed and the leaks under the
mast
 > step were fixed, one might have a very permanent fix.
 > so in the spirit of science where one seeks to challenge one's
 > hypothesis as part of making one's claim about the how the natural
 > world works, what's wrong with this solution - aside from its
 > potential monstrous cost? I am assuming that this will be costly
 > enough anyway.
 > Your thoughts and those of the rest of the community as well?
 > David, 432

 -- 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 When I remember bygone days George Dinwiddie
 I think how evening follows morn; gdinwiddie at alberg30.org
 So many I loved were not yet dead, http://www.Alberg30.org
 So many I love were not yet born. also see:
 'The Middle' by Ogden Nash http://idiacomputing.com
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 _______________________________________________
 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