Re: Three questions (Walter)

Walter mused: >The whole point of my mindless babble is: Is it necessary to "replace >the steel" beam or can a more economical solution be engineered to take >the space of the steel beam? Roger Jones is off the Cal List for a while, so I will jump in here, absent his much more-informed opinions. The steel beam below the pan in the Cal 29 and other similar Lapworth designs is an integral part of the design. It takes the upward forces of the upper shrouds (transferred through the bulkheads) and the downward force of the mast (transferred through the compression post) and links them. Without the beam, I suspect that you might risk deformation of the side decks. I can imagine systems that might replace the function of the beam, such as redesigned chainplates that are cabled to a maststep, for example, but I would think that the effort required would be greater than simply replacing the beam. (It's not all that difficult to do. If I can do it, I'm pretty confident that just about anyone could.) Alfred Poor 1969 Cal 29 #132, "Pentaquod"