Re: Compression Post Rebuild

+1 on Wilkie's comments. As a former Cal 29 owner who performed this "operation" from the head side (while replacing all four bulkheads while we were at it), I think the metal beam is a good mix of strength, durability, ease of construction, and cost. The late Roger Jones (former Jensen factory employee) is the one who made up the drawings for the beam. We used them, but modified them so that the top flange of the beam was formed by bending the web piece, which eliminated a weld and lowered the cost. I've got a copy of the beam drawings if you can't find them on the Web. I'd be happy to email them to anyone who wants it. Please contact me off-list if you want one (because I don't always read the List's messages and might miss your request). Alfred Poor 1973 Tartan 34C #288 "Jambalaya" Former owner 1969 Cal 29 #132 "Pentaquod" Adam, Your attachment did not show up in my mail program, but as I read your post I wonder if you are indeed talking about a Cal 29. If you are not talking about a 29, then my comments are probably not necessarily applicable. G10 is really sexy stuff, but If it is a 29, then I'm not quite comfortable with using a G10 beam because the strength in the beam comes from the dimension of the vertical web as transferred to the welded on flanges. For the flanges to distort under load, the very wide section of web also has to bend. Constructing a G10 beam to the same dimensions would undoubtedly equal the strength of stainless, but only if you can equal the strength of the welds between the (G10) flanges and web. That, I assume would be an epoxied bond, and I just don't know if it will be strong enough. The stainless has the advantage of being able to flex without breaking, vs the epoxy which I'm afraid would tend to crack under extreme duress instead of flexing. I also am concerned that you want to bypass the floating nature of the beam. Bonding it to the hull will create a hard spot that will stress the hull as it flexes, a concern that causes us to leave some air (or foam) around the edges of the bulkheads when they are tabbed into place. Maybe you are an engineer familiar with this technology and my fears are groundless..... I would sure encourage you to interview somebody conversant with this technology. As I ponder it more, I wonder if you wouldn't put the web in the dead center of the two flanges (the stainless beam is constructed with the web welded to one edge of the flanges,) using an epoxy cove and several layers of glass to bond it, but I'm afraid your project will equal the cost and weight of the stainless, negating any reason that I can come up with for using the G10. But then you need to come up with a way of transfering those load bearing forces to the two bulkheads, so the tabs have to be bonded adequately also. A plywood beam, completely encased in epoxy glass, might be cheaper but also bulkier... Just some thoughts to try and help out. Let us know what you are thinking as you go forward. Wilkie

I found Roger's beam drawing posted on the Web: http://www.richardanderson.net/TechSavvy/CAL_BOATS_files/Cal%2029%20Beam%20D rawing.jpg The site has some other good Cal 29 info. Alfred Poor 1973 Tartan 34C #288 "Jambalaya"

Just goes to prove, I know nothing. Missed the G10 comments completely figuring it was at type of stainless. Googled it and turns out is a polymer. Hmmm....always on the learning curve..:) Best regards...apologies for the misinformation...as that wont work at all. /ch On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Alfred Poor <ap… [at] verizon.net> wrote: > > > I found Roger’s beam drawing posted on the Web: > http://www.richardanderson.net/TechSavvy/CAL_BOATS_files/Cal%2029%20Beam%20Drawing.jpg > **** > > ** ** > > The site has some other good Cal 29 info.**** > > ** ** > > Alfred Poor**** > > 1973 Tartan 34C #288 “Jambalaya”**** > > ** ** > > > > -- /ch

Just so that it gets into the archives, Ive attached two images of the 2-29 taken from the original drawings. One is a jpg the other a .dxf which can be imported into any standard (free or commercial) CAD system. Its a dirty conversion of the jpeg with no measures attached. I figure that if someone needs it they can spend the time doing it properly, so just base files. The original set of drawings in PDF format (huge 80 megs or so) is still located here if anyone is interested or needs them. https://drive.google.com/?pli=1#folders/0B5RAU5vfTL5JNTlkMmQ0MTUtZGE3Yi00Y2Y5LWIzNzYtMWVmZTExYjdhZWRk Best regards /ch

Great comments and feedback albeit a bit off because it is not a cal 29, sorry for not including that. The sailboat is a cal 28, and was early off the line (hull #41) and so did not have some of the running changes that were added to later cal 28's. I'd like to describe the load path of the cal 28 so we're all on the same page. Under the maststep is a wood compression post that spans the gap from the cabintop to the inner liner. The inner liner is a fiberglass shell that sits in the hull, giving it stiffness and forming the settees and cabin sole. Where the 'dreaded steel beam' is on the cal 29, their is NO beam on my cal 28 flattop (I have checked with a borescope). Instead, the fiberglass inner liner acts to transfer the compression post loads to the hull and main bulkhead. On my cal 28, the inner liner has cracked and deformed and the compression post is now slightly out of alignment because how the inner liner has deformed. Another thing I would like to note about the cal 28 vs the 29 is that on the 28, port side, main bulkhead, the inner liner comes all the way up to the settee and is then fastened to the main bulkhead. If I were to construct a beam as per these drawings, the port side tab could not fasten to the bulkhead. The tab would be below, where the inner liner is. I think it also makes it a little more complicated to cut the head pan out. Part of my thinking behind a G10 beam was that I could avoid cutting out the head pan. I would cut the top off the step between cabin and head and then build the beam in place. Epoxy fillets and tape on the joints. I'm still thinking this through and it might not be feasible to fabricate a quality structural beam in place like that. In which case maybe I'm looking at cutting out the head liner and at that point, SS is also an option. It's certainty more tried and true. As Wilkie has pointed out, the real question is how to fasten beam to bulkheads. I don't see why I couldn't use a SS beam very similar to the other cals. Instead of anchoring directly to the port bulkhead as on a cal 29, it would anchor to the fiberglass liner, which is then fastened to the port bulkhead. I would still plan on a new SS tube compression post. The way it is currently built and stressed, is just asking for it to buckle. In adding the compression post I will have to cut away a part of the inner liner where it meets the compression post. I think extending this cut along the ridge of the step between cabin and head might give me enough access to install a SS beam. Cheers! Adam Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:37 AM, chris123 <ch… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > ** > > > Just goes to prove, I know nothing. Missed the G10 comments completely > figuring it was at type of stainless. Googled it and turns out is a > polymer. Hmmm....always on the learning curve..:) > > Best regards...apologies for the misinformation...as that wont work at > all. > > /ch > > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Alfred Poor <ap… [at] verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> >> I found Roger’s beam drawing posted on the Web: >> http://www.richardanderson.net/TechSavvy/CAL_BOATS_files/Cal%2029%20Beam%20Drawing.jpg >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The site has some other good Cal 29 info.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Alfred Poor**** >> >> 1973 Tartan 34C #288 “Jambalaya”**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> > > > -- > /ch > > > >

I love this stuff...and can eat it up all day...one issue that you may want to consider, again, remember I know nothing as already demonstrated is to reverse the tabs and elongate them of any metal beam you may wish to incorporate so that they can be through bolted into the bulkhead on both sides right through the glass if present. Place some sort of compression fitting on the glass side so as to not compress it. Ideally the tabs, if you go the beam route should be mounted directly into the bulkheads. What were the mods that your 28 did not get??? Now Wilkie has pointed out an interesting thing. The boats exterior ie: hull, may be stiffened at point sources which will cause problems down the line with the CAL hulls if you go with a glass only solution. They have been known to develop stress cracks in front of the keel. In fact saw the same on two boats that I inspected a long time ago. Wilkie has a solution for that problem but it ain't pretty. Kinda like the lower bolt on the water pump on an A-4 (get the extended bolt) to avoid a lot of nasty words being said. Took me two hrs, no kidding, to get the bolt seated while my knees were stuck in my nostrils and using two hands on a bolt you cannot see. A lot of nasty words were said, while in that position at 250lbs with bad knees...access is via the lazarret. No fun at all. You want to avoid situations like that IMHO. A couple of pictures would really be helpful if you have the time to sort this one out. As said Im in learning mode on this one but enjoy this kind of thing. Here's a complete restoration page on the 28 that kinda shows the area in questions. http://www3.sympatico.ca/sailpair/28home.html Best /ch On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > > Great comments and feedback albeit a bit off because it is not a cal 29, > sorry for not including that. The sailboat is a cal 28, and was early off > the line (hull #41) and so did not have some of the running changes that > were added to later cal 28's. > > I'd like to describe the load path of the cal 28 so we're all on the same > page. Under the maststep is a wood compression post that spans the gap from > the cabintop to the inner liner. The inner liner is a fiberglass shell that > sits in the hull, giving it stiffness and forming the settees and cabin > sole. Where the 'dreaded steel beam' is on the cal 29, their is NO beam on > my cal 28 flattop (I have checked with a borescope). Instead, the > fiberglass inner liner acts to transfer the compression post loads to the > hull and main bulkhead. On my cal 28, the inner liner has cracked and > deformed and the compression post is now slightly out of alignment because > how the inner liner has deformed. > > Another thing I would like to note about the cal 28 vs the 29 is that on > the 28, port side, main bulkhead, the inner liner comes all the way up to > the settee and is then fastened to the main bulkhead. If I were to > construct a beam as per these drawings, the port side tab could not fasten > to the bulkhead. The tab would be below, where the inner liner is. I think > it also makes it a little more complicated to cut the head pan out. > > Part of my thinking behind a G10 beam was that I could avoid cutting out > the head pan. I would cut the top off the step between cabin and head and > then build the beam in place. Epoxy fillets and tape on the joints. I'm > still thinking this through and it might not be feasible to fabricate a > quality structural beam in place like that. In which case maybe I'm looking > at cutting out the head liner and at that point, SS is also an option. > It's certainty more tried and true. As Wilkie has pointed out, the real > question is how to fasten beam to bulkheads. I don't see why I couldn't use > a SS beam very similar to the other cals. Instead of anchoring directly to > the port bulkhead as on a cal 29, it would anchor to the fiberglass liner, > which is then fastened to the port bulkhead. > > I would still plan on a new SS tube compression post. The way it is > currently built and stressed, is just asking for it to buckle. In adding > the compression post I will have to cut away a part of the inner liner > where it meets the compression post. I think extending this cut along the > ridge of the step between cabin and head might give me enough access to > install a SS beam. > > Cheers! > Adam > > Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:37 AM, chris123 <ch… [at] gmail.com>wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> Just goes to prove, I know nothing. Missed the G10 comments completely >> figuring it was at type of stainless. Googled it and turns out is a >> polymer. Hmmm....always on the learning curve..:) >> >> Best regards...apologies for the misinformation...as that wont work at >> all. >> >> /ch >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Alfred Poor <ap… [at] verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I found Roger’s beam drawing posted on the Web: >>> http://www.richardanderson.net/TechSavvy/CAL_BOATS_files/Cal%2029%20Beam%20Drawing.jpg >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> The site has some other good Cal 29 info.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Alfred Poor**** >>> >>> 1973 Tartan 34C #288 “Jambalaya”**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> /ch >> >> >> > > > > -- /ch

Perhaps I put stays between SS beam and chainplates like on the cal 40. I think that could be implemented on the forward side of the main bulkhead fairly easily. On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM, chris123 <ch… [at] gmail.com>wrote: > ** > > > I love this stuff...and can eat it up all day...one issue that you may > want to consider, again, remember I know nothing as already demonstrated is > to reverse the tabs and elongate them of any metal beam you may wish to > incorporate so that they can be through bolted into the bulkhead on both > sides right through the glass if present. Place some sort of compression > fitting on the glass side so as to not compress it. Ideally the tabs, if > you go the beam route should be mounted directly into the bulkheads. > > What were the mods that your 28 did not get??? > > Now Wilkie has pointed out an interesting thing. The boats exterior ie: > hull, may be stiffened at point sources which will cause problems down the > line with the CAL hulls if you go with a glass only solution. They have > been known to develop stress cracks in front of the keel. In fact saw the > same on two boats that I inspected a long time ago. Wilkie has a solution > for that problem but it ain't pretty. Kinda like the lower bolt on the > water pump on an A-4 (get the extended bolt) to avoid a lot of nasty words > being said. Took me two hrs, no kidding, to get the bolt seated while my > knees were stuck in my nostrils and using two hands on a bolt you cannot > see. A lot of nasty words were said, while in that position at 250lbs with > bad knees...access is via the lazarret. No fun at all. You want to avoid > situations like that IMHO. > > A couple of pictures would really be helpful if you have the time to sort > this one out. As said Im in learning mode on this one but enjoy this kind > of thing. > > Here's a complete restoration page on the 28 that kinda shows the area in > questions. > http://www3.sympatico.ca/sailpair/28home.html > > Best > > /ch > > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Great comments and feedback albeit a bit off because it is not a cal 29, >> sorry for not including that. The sailboat is a cal 28, and was early off >> the line (hull #41) and so did not have some of the running changes that >> were added to later cal 28's. >> >> I'd like to describe the load path of the cal 28 so we're all on the same >> page. Under the maststep is a wood compression post that spans the gap from >> the cabintop to the inner liner. The inner liner is a fiberglass shell that >> sits in the hull, giving it stiffness and forming the settees and cabin >> sole. Where the 'dreaded steel beam' is on the cal 29, their is NO beam on >> my cal 28 flattop (I have checked with a borescope). Instead, the >> fiberglass inner liner acts to transfer the compression post loads to the >> hull and main bulkhead. On my cal 28, the inner liner has cracked and >> deformed and the compression post is now slightly out of alignment because >> how the inner liner has deformed. >> >> Another thing I would like to note about the cal 28 vs the 29 is that on >> the 28, port side, main bulkhead, the inner liner comes all the way up to >> the settee and is then fastened to the main bulkhead. If I were to >> construct a beam as per these drawings, the port side tab could not fasten >> to the bulkhead. The tab would be below, where the inner liner is. I think >> it also makes it a little more complicated to cut the head pan out. >> >> Part of my thinking behind a G10 beam was that I could avoid cutting out >> the head pan. I would cut the top off the step between cabin and head and >> then build the beam in place. Epoxy fillets and tape on the joints. I'm >> still thinking this through and it might not be feasible to fabricate a >> quality structural beam in place like that. In which case maybe I'm looking >> at cutting out the head liner and at that point, SS is also an option. >> It's certainty more tried and true. As Wilkie has pointed out, the real >> question is how to fasten beam to bulkheads. I don't see why I couldn't use >> a SS beam very similar to the other cals. Instead of anchoring directly to >> the port bulkhead as on a cal 29, it would anchor to the fiberglass liner, >> which is then fastened to the port bulkhead. >> >> I would still plan on a new SS tube compression post. The way it is >> currently built and stressed, is just asking for it to buckle. In adding >> the compression post I will have to cut away a part of the inner liner >> where it meets the compression post. I think extending this cut along the >> ridge of the step between cabin and head might give me enough access to >> install a SS beam. >> >> Cheers! >> Adam >> >> Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:37 AM, chris123 <ch… [at] gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> Just goes to prove, I know nothing. Missed the G10 comments completely >>> figuring it was at type of stainless. Googled it and turns out is a >>> polymer. Hmmm....always on the learning curve..:) >>> >>> Best regards...apologies for the misinformation...as that wont work at >>> all. >>> >>> /ch >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Alfred Poor <ap… [at] verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I found Roger’s beam drawing posted on the Web: >>>> http://www.richardanderson.net/TechSavvy/CAL_BOATS_files/Cal%2029%20Beam%20Drawing.jpg >>>> **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> The site has some other good Cal 29 info.**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Alfred Poor**** >>>> >>>> 1973 Tartan 34C #288 “Jambalaya”**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> /ch >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > /ch > > > >

Or perhaps that's overkill. On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps I put stays between SS beam and chainplates like on the cal 40. I > think that could be implemented on the forward side of the main bulkhead > fairly easily. > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM, chris123 <ch… [at] gmail.com>wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> I love this stuff...and can eat it up all day...one issue that you may >> want to consider, again, remember I know nothing as already demonstrated is >> to reverse the tabs and elongate them of any metal beam you may wish to >> incorporate so that they can be through bolted into the bulkhead on both >> sides right through the glass if present. Place some sort of compression >> fitting on the glass side so as to not compress it. Ideally the tabs, if >> you go the beam route should be mounted directly into the bulkheads. >> >> What were the mods that your 28 did not get??? >> >> Now Wilkie has pointed out an interesting thing. The boats exterior ie: >> hull, may be stiffened at point sources which will cause problems down the >> line with the CAL hulls if you go with a glass only solution. They have >> been known to develop stress cracks in front of the keel. In fact saw the >> same on two boats that I inspected a long time ago. Wilkie has a solution >> for that problem but it ain't pretty. Kinda like the lower bolt on the >> water pump on an A-4 (get the extended bolt) to avoid a lot of nasty words >> being said. Took me two hrs, no kidding, to get the bolt seated while my >> knees were stuck in my nostrils and using two hands on a bolt you cannot >> see. A lot of nasty words were said, while in that position at 250lbs with >> bad knees...access is via the lazarret. No fun at all. You want to avoid >> situations like that IMHO. >> >> A couple of pictures would really be helpful if you have the time to sort >> this one out. As said Im in learning mode on this one but enjoy this kind >> of thing. >> >> Here's a complete restoration page on the 28 that kinda shows the area in >> questions. >> http://www3.sympatico.ca/sailpair/28home.html >> >> Best >> >> /ch >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Great comments and feedback albeit a bit off because it is not a cal 29, >>> sorry for not including that. The sailboat is a cal 28, and was early off >>> the line (hull #41) and so did not have some of the running changes that >>> were added to later cal 28's. >>> >>> I'd like to describe the load path of the cal 28 so we're all on the >>> same page. Under the maststep is a wood compression post that spans the gap >>> from the cabintop to the inner liner. The inner liner is a fiberglass shell >>> that sits in the hull, giving it stiffness and forming the settees and >>> cabin sole. Where the 'dreaded steel beam' is on the cal 29, their is NO >>> beam on my cal 28 flattop (I have checked with a borescope). Instead, the >>> fiberglass inner liner acts to transfer the compression post loads to the >>> hull and main bulkhead. On my cal 28, the inner liner has cracked and >>> deformed and the compression post is now slightly out of alignment because >>> how the inner liner has deformed. >>> >>> Another thing I would like to note about the cal 28 vs the 29 is that on >>> the 28, port side, main bulkhead, the inner liner comes all the way up to >>> the settee and is then fastened to the main bulkhead. If I were to >>> construct a beam as per these drawings, the port side tab could not fasten >>> to the bulkhead. The tab would be below, where the inner liner is. I think >>> it also makes it a little more complicated to cut the head pan out. >>> >>> Part of my thinking behind a G10 beam was that I could avoid cutting out >>> the head pan. I would cut the top off the step between cabin and head and >>> then build the beam in place. Epoxy fillets and tape on the joints. I'm >>> still thinking this through and it might not be feasible to fabricate a >>> quality structural beam in place like that. In which case maybe I'm looking >>> at cutting out the head liner and at that point, SS is also an option. >>> It's certainty more tried and true. As Wilkie has pointed out, the real >>> question is how to fasten beam to bulkheads. I don't see why I couldn't use >>> a SS beam very similar to the other cals. Instead of anchoring directly to >>> the port bulkhead as on a cal 29, it would anchor to the fiberglass liner, >>> which is then fastened to the port bulkhead. >>> >>> I would still plan on a new SS tube compression post. The way it is >>> currently built and stressed, is just asking for it to buckle. In adding >>> the compression post I will have to cut away a part of the inner liner >>> where it meets the compression post. I think extending this cut along the >>> ridge of the step between cabin and head might give me enough access to >>> install a SS beam. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> Adam >>> >>> Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:37 AM, chris123 <ch… [at] gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> ** >>>> >>>> >>>> Just goes to prove, I know nothing. Missed the G10 comments completely >>>> figuring it was at type of stainless. Googled it and turns out is a >>>> polymer. Hmmm....always on the learning curve..:) >>>> >>>> Best regards...apologies for the misinformation...as that wont work at >>>> all. >>>> >>>> /ch >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Alfred Poor <ap… [at] verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I found Roger’s beam drawing posted on the Web: >>>>> http://www.richardanderson.net/TechSavvy/CAL_BOATS_files/Cal%2029%20Beam%20Drawing.jpg >>>>> **** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> The site has some other good Cal 29 info.**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> Alfred Poor**** >>>>> >>>>> 1973 Tartan 34C #288 “Jambalaya”**** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> /ch >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> /ch >> >> >> >> > >

If it were me I would investigate the factory mods first. They had paid engineers designing these things, so if you are missing some mods then that would be the first course of investigation IMHO. Here's a link to a complete restoration...if nothing else some motivation and inspiration. http://www3.sympatico.ca/sailpair/28home.html Nice boat. Wonder how well she sails offshore is a seaway? That flattop is a lot easier to around on then the 29 where you have to run on the coach roof. Hard on older legs. /ch On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > > Or perhaps that's overkill. > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > >> Perhaps I put stays between SS beam and chainplates like on the cal 40. I >> think that could be implemented on the forward side of the main bulkhead >> fairly easily. >> _,___ >> >

Mast width is 3.75 x 7.5 with a .115 wall thickness. I don't know if it is stock or a replacement. It was suggested that the majority of the load is taken up at the deck level, with the main bulkhead and a timber glued and screwed to it. That may be. I have cracks in both that timber and the inner liner so the load has been applied to both. Maybe the deck level timber failed and as a result, the inner liner also cracked. In which case i would be attacking this problem from the wrong direction. Perhaps the other way around. More likely they both take load and add to the structure. Maybe adding a beam is not necessary and I should be concentrate on the compression post buckling issue and replacing timber at deck level. Mast is on a tabernacle and I will lower and stow it then jack roof to original height. Thanks all! On Oct 15, 2012, at 10:25 AM, chris123 <ch… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > If it were me I would investigate the factory mods first. They had paid engineers designing these things, so if you are missing some mods then that would be the first course of investigation IMHO. > > Here's a link to a complete restoration...if nothing else some motivation and inspiration. http://www3.sympatico.ca/sailpair/28home.html Nice boat. Wonder how well she sails offshore is a seaway? That flattop is a lot easier to around on then the 29 where you have to run on the coach roof. Hard on older legs. > > /ch > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > > Or perhaps that's overkill. > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps I put stays between SS beam and chainplates like on the cal 40. I think that could be implemented on the forward side of the main bulkhead fairly easily. > _,___ > > >

I think you and Charlie nailed this one....:) /ch

Smartest thing anyone has said yet...... W On Oct 15, 2012, at 10:25 AM, chris123 <ch… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > > If it were me I would investigate the factory mods first. They had paid engineers designing these things, so if you are missing some mods then that would be the first course of investigation IMHO. > > Here's a link to a complete restoration...if nothing else some motivation and inspiration. http://www3.sympatico.ca/sailpair/28home.html Nice boat. Wonder how well she sails offshore is a seaway? That flattop is a lot easier to around on then the 29 where you have to run on the coach roof. Hard on older legs. > > /ch > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Or perhaps that's overkill. >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: >>> Perhaps I put stays between SS beam and chainplates like on the cal 40. I think that could be implemented on the forward side of the main bulkhead fairly easily. >>> _,___ > > > > >

How would you go about investigating the factory mods? There isn't a lot out there on the boat. The only tidbit that I have heard was from "PAR" on boatdesign.net: "I also remember model run changes to this arrangement to address the problem. Some have a bit of steel, others an aluminum tube, all to help support and transfer loads to the hull shell. The post sits on a molded portion of the liner and inside this is a wooden beam, often with a bracket bonded to the liner laminate. Above the liner, bonded to the under side of the deck also can be found more material, plywood, aluminum or steel reinforcement, again to support the loads. The age of yours suggests it may not have the model run changes to address these issues. Unfortunately, you're not going to like the steps you'll need to take to reinforce the area." A link to the discussion for anyone interested: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/fiberglass-composite-boat-building/mast-compression-fix-cal-28-a-44632.html On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM, David Owen <dw… [at] me.com> wrote: > ** > > > > > Smartest thing anyone has said yet...... > > W > > Sent from my iPad > > On Oct 15, 2012, at 10:25 AM, chris123 <ch… [at] gmail.com> > wrote: > > If it were me I would investigate the factory mods first. They had paid > engineers designing these things, so if you are missing some mods then that > would be the first course of investigation IMHO. > > Here's a link to a complete restoration...if nothing else some motivation > and inspiration. http://www3.sympatico.ca/sailpair/28home.html Nice boat. > Wonder how well she sails offshore is a seaway? That flattop is a lot > easier to around on then the 29 where you have to run on the coach roof. > Hard on older legs. > > /ch > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Or perhaps that's overkill. >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Adam Thorp <th… [at] gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps I put stays between SS beam and chainplates like on the cal 40. >>> I think that could be implemented on the forward side of the main bulkhead >>> fairly easily. >>> _,___ >>> >> > > >