Buccaneer 24 Builders Forum

[oldsailor7]

If you look at the 3 view back in this thread you can see the draft of the outboard rudder.
The inboard rudder has the same draft but does not kick up. It has a very strong swivel/shaft design.
My -24 had the outboard rudder with NO kick up feature. My-28 had the inboard rudder. I had no problems with either because I found I could nose into the beach without the rudder touching.
Going aground on rocks is altogether another story. :eek:

[Scot C]

Many thanks. Along the same lines (no pun intended), if one were to build a B24 with a daggerboard as opposed to the CB, is there any clear guidance for that change? (Yes, I have been perusing a ton of these forum posts.) Thanks again.

[oldsailor7]

The -24 has a daggerboard as shown. It has been found that a vertical daggerboard is more effective than the one shown and can be made just as easily. The -28 has a pivoting CB, and the -24 can be made pivoting too if desired.

[Scot C]

Thanks again. My mistake: without having purchased a plan set yet, I was under the assumption that the -24 was a CB boat. I had read that post about upwind a vertical blade was more efficient. Daggerboards are so much simpler to build, trunk included.

[Scot C]

In these many posts I've heard about a MKI and MKII cabin. Are those things clarified on the plan set? If not, can we elaborate on the distinctions here?
Thank you.

[oldsailor7]

Without going to the plans to check I would say the Mk2 cabin is wider and longer. It takes about 200mm off the front of the cockpit. No big deal. The back of the cabin then overlaps the cockpit floor and makes a nice protected space to mount the compass. Both are laid out in the plans.

I wanted my 24 for racing, so I built the cabin with the Mk2 length but the Mk1 width. This allowed for a narrower sheeting angle on the foresails to enable better windward ability. The sail track was through bolted to the walkway right along the cabin sides. Together with the bigger vertical CB this ensured the boat had superior windward ability. It is essential that the wetted area of the CB is 2% of the projected sail area, (fore triangle+main area). If you intend to use a Square Top or Fathead fully battened mainsail this makes a big difference.
If you use the Mk2 cabin it gives you more room in the wing berths, but also causes more windage. No problem for cruising, but extra windage for racing.
With the Mk2 cabin the jib track can be mounted on the cabin top, and a Genoa jib can be sheeted straight on to the winch on the cockpit coaming.
Hope this helps. Paddy.

[Scot C]

Great reply and clarification.
Thanks.

[so_cal_sailor]

Thanks, Bruce. I have been cutting the frames close with a bandsaw, and trimming with a flush trim bit on the router.
David

[oldsailor7]

Oops!! I posted this in the wrong thread ---so here it is again.
http://www.oldpilotsairport.com/2_print_crop.jpg
My ##24 on lake Ontario.
I used to race with an all girl crew.
Girls who had come up from fast dinghy and off the beach cat racing had that
"Killer Instinct" when it comes to winning races.
Also they didn't argue with the skipper :eek:
Don't you think the 24 has modern lines. :?:

[oldsailor7]

I have now shipped 40 sets of #24 plans.
The response on this thread is very disappointing.
Surely there are more plans buyers who are building this boat.
John Jolly and So_Cal seem to be the only ones who are reporting.
Please guys. Make use of this thread and tell us how you are doing.
We need more #24s on the water. :confused:

[lgenova]

Some photos showing details of construction of the panels. Notice the pieces of copper wire fixing the stringers while the epoxy cures.

[oldsailor7]

Great stuff Igenova.
Don't rely on just the epoxy to hold those stringers.
Turn the panels over and screw, ring nail or staple into the stringer thru the ply on a 4" (100mm) spacing.

[Gary Baigent]

Rather than metal fastenings, Igemova, I'd suggest you plane the stingers to soften the right angle sharp edges, then cove a thickened epoxy glue along the panel/stringer junction; lighter, neater, stronger.

[lgenova]

Oldsailor,
On the first hull i used to do like that, but it was not ease to turn the panel over, keep the stringer in place and find the right place to staple exactly in the middle of stringer. But it was done.

The copper wire is very thin and is removed after epoxy cure.

Gary,
Even planing the stringer, I did that, as the lenght is long, you need to make some pressure to ensure that the pieces are well glued.

Any way, there are so many ways to do this job.

[lgenova]

This method applies only to the central spar. However, at the edges is necessary to use nails and glue.

[oldsailor7]

Igenova.
I was suggesting you put the nails/screws/staples etc: in after the glue had dried. A glued bond is only as strong as the underlying veneer of wood.
We built nine "plywood on wood" frame multihulls using phosphor bronze staples with epoxy coated legs. The head of the staple bridges a whole bunch of wood fibres and distributes the holding power far better than a nail or screw. We used 5/16" wide staples, with varying leg lengths, to suit the job. Today gas powered hand held staplers are available to rent. The staples are driven in parallel to the grain of the 1st ply, but bridging the underlying core.The driving pressure should be adjusted to drive the staple so the head is flush with or slightly below the surface, but not crushing the underlying core layer. Galvanised steel staples are a No-No. They will rust. The staple heads can be filled with a dab of epoxy thickened with phenolic microballoons. A swipe with a putty knife and a light sanding makes a smooth job.
Screws of course have to be bronze with countersunk heads, driven with great care so as not to cause "flaking" around the head. Ring nails are good, but it is almost impossible to hammer them in without denting the surface of the plywood. If you have pre coated the plywood with thin epoxy it helps a lot and reduces any need for excessive sanding. A properly executed plywood hull should only need "fairing sanding" on the chines, before applying glass tape with epoxy.

[lgenova]

Ok, Oldsailor. Thanks for the information. I get it. This is the first time I build a boat, so my learning curve continues in a slight elevation, and this information is valuable to avoid rework.

Below another picture that shows the building at the point where the chainplate is fixed. Still missing washers. The screws were placed to assist in setting the pieces while the glue dries. They will be removed before painting the hull.

[lgenova]

And that is the terrible place where the buc will be placed in the sea...

[oldsailor7]

Hi Igenova.
Good to see you using extra pieces of ply to help distribute the chain plate forces into the hull. When you drill the holes for the chain plate bolts, don't forget to epoxy the insides of the boltholes and let it cure before bolting them up. Don't be tempted to epoxy the chain plates to the hull skin either. They will move as they "Settle in " under load. Failure to seal around these highly stressed places will allow ingress of water into the edges of the ply over time resulting in the dreaded "Dry Rot". :eek:
PS: That "Terrible Place" looks like paradise. :D

[bruceb]

I also use some ring nails- they are more trouble, but they really hold well. I use a small nail installer used in the home siding trade. It helps set the nails without damaging the ply. B I liked the lake sailing pic OS, and your crew:cool:

[oldsailor7]

Yes Bruce. I built my Piver Nugget using bronze ringnails. Worked well.

Those were fun times we had on Lake Ontario. :D

[Gary Baigent]

30 odd years ago when we built the first Tennant Bamboo Bomber, Malcolm suggested, instead of using double thickness ply, then stainless plates with drilled holes for bolts for the chainplates, that I try gluing a rigging thimble to the gunwhale where the shrouds connected, then use uni directional glass (couldn't get carbon in those days) wrapped over the thimbles and then carried down the hull sides and purposely placed ring frames, spreading the loads over a very large area ... so that is what I did ... and have done the same thing ever since, but switching to uni directional carbon after the first glass layer instead. Never had any problems on numbers of boats built or altered. The result is cleaner, simpler, neater, and much stronger.

[catsketcher]

You know I love your work Pat but I think times have moved on since you last built a Bucc. I certainly would get every fastener out of any boat I was building. If you think of the shear loads involved in splitting the stringer off the epoxy then you are talking massive loads and you may even get an earlier failure where the nail acts as a stress concentration. This may lower the ultimate load the stringer can take. These boats could have been built with resorcinal glue which is not as strong as epoxy unless the clamping pressures are greater - hence the nails. I would use tek screws to screw the stringers on and then when the glue sets get them ALL out.

I would also back up Gary with the chainplates. Anyone who puts stainless chainplates in a modern multi will rue the day they did. You are trying to joint two dissimilar materials so get a thimble, a short piece of tube, or even a large shackle and drape a heap of unis over it and you can forget it and it will never leak. Due to the stringers on the inside of the bucc you may like to put a small bulkhead at this area to take the unis or even put the chainplate on before the stringers go on.

I love ply but I avoid fasteners and penetrating it with bolts and chainplates with all my might. Nice dry bunks and no rot is the result.

cheers

Phil

[oldsailor7]

Phil and Gary.
Points taken.
Cheers. Patrick. :D

In 1977 I designed a 29 ft foam/glass Cat which never got built.
It had the shrouds anchored to the foam sandwich sides in exactly the same way that Gary describes.
However I would not have felt so sure if the hulls had been plywood.

Strong points have been bolted through wooden members in boats since Pontius was a Pilot. ;)

However I pondered this whole subject for a while and then went back to a statement which I made in a book I wrote back in 1978.
" A boat with all the parts glued together with epoxy glue, all the recesses filled with fortified epoxy and then coated inside and out with a thin saturating epoxy, becomes a single solid unit. The result is an immensely strong, strain free and rot free free structure"

I guess I can't go back on my own words, can I. ???

[cavalier mk2]

Hey Gary and Phil, I have neat bronze chainplates (very retro) on the Nicol but plan to change them out eventually. What Layup schedule would you suggest? It would be fairly easy to run the layup through the deck and into the existing hull structures to avoid bumps on the outer skin.

[catsketcher]

A quick look up a composite design manual gives about 600MPa for uni E glass. (at 60% fibre to resin ratio) Now you don't want to get more than about 1% strain or you will get microcracking and as strain is proportional to stress. Back this off to 6 MPa and you will be very safe.

Now Cav you have to get the size of the wire and and use its SWL to find a max load. Usually chainplates are about 3 times stronger that the wire. So find the wire load and then work out how much glass you need to get the load down to 6MPa. Make the chainplate about 100mm wide and glass over a tube helps get enough glass in there.

cheers

Phil

[cavalier mk2]

Sounds good Phil, while I have e-glass uni I have carbon uni which I'd use instead. I'll look for its data, should need less and have better long term fatigue. A bit less than 600 square feet in the rig, I think it uses 3/16, 1/4 max on the upper and lower side stays, I'll check.

[Gary Baigent]

Cav, I get a decent sized thimble (larger than what you'd normally have for conventional rugging, my rule of thumb) glue them to the in or outside of the hull/float, then one layer of glass (to break metal/carbon connection) then lay in the lengths of uni- directional carbon. You run the long tows to correspond to the rigging angle and so carry the loads most efficiently. Once you've built up the tows to fill slightly above the concave shape of the thimble ... then that's as far as you can go and you've ended up with a mighty black composition which won't break or crack or leak brown stainless stains etc. I finish with some simple box weave glass over the carbon to smooth off the finish, then some filler.

[cavalier mk2]

Thank you Gary, sounds like what I'm after. I'll try it on the running backstay chain plates first. I'll do the math for fun but it sounds like a good thumb. I run Dyneema/ Amsteel there and eventually want to get all the wire out of the rig. Bronze thimbles could be used I suppose to eliminate any galvanic reaction.

[farjoe]

I certainly would get every fastener out of any boat I was building. ......

.....I love ply but I avoid fasteners and penetrating it with bolts and chainplates with all my might. Nice dry bunks and no rot is the result.

cheers

Phil


Phil,

I have met with, at least one situation where the fastener was necessary.

I have a ply daggerbox which spans from the keel to the deck. The flat part of the daggerboard itself only went half way up the box and this resulted with a huge force trying to push out the ply panel outward. My glue line as well as the glue joining the individual plies was and remained perfect but the panel still parted when the individual wood fibres within one of the ply layers parted. The solution was to replace the whole panel but fasteners were also employed along with a good glue line to ensure that the forces were taken up by all the veneers of the 6mm ply.

Regards

[cavalier mk2]

Speaking of loads if I kept my chainplates outboard the carbon should be outside the ama at the top so the sheer timber spreads the load.
Fanie, did you have a reinforcement/shelf at the loadpoint to carry the midsection loads? Bigger boats do.

[catsketcher]

Gday Fanie

I would be very worried about not having a shelf halfway up the case as Cav says. All my boats have daggerboards that go only half way up the case and they have a massive bit of reiniforcing at the halfway point. As they are cats I put the case in a shelf. The inside of the shelf takes care of one tack but the other side gets more reinforcing. I put a timber piece (say 40x30mm) just below the top of the board at full down and then glass over it with unis. I ensure that I wrap the unis around the case and feed the load back into the shelf by spreading the ends out like Gary says. If you think of unis like string that works well.

It makes the case bulletproof and much better at distributing loads

cheers

Phil

[Gary Baigent]

Cav, I forgot to mention that first I glue the ss thimble to the gunwhale with just enough gap for shackle or spectra to thread through, doesn't want to be cantilevered so near the whole thimble is above the gunwhale (that is asking for trouble) - and when the long uni carbon tows are laminated (cross them just below thimble), finish with a few layers of same across the high point lever loaded area at lower thimble/gunwhale connection. I've found on my light boats that the tows should run at least a couple of handspans distance to spread the loads and provide strong adhesion. You could drape them further if you're concerned that that distance is not enough. On my beam connection to hull (where there are really high loads) I run the tows over coved frames to hull floor. Never had any problems.

[cavalier mk2]

Getting clear a mud Gary! An angle wedge on the gunwhale to position the thimble at the right angle would help spread any lever loads too. Think of Keith's old Vagabond for a reference. Is anyone doing forestays this way ? We have a great set up now but it would saved some hardware to go all carbon.

[Gary Baigent]

Yeah, I guess the explanation does become convoluted.
If you run a brace/wedge across the deck you'll have to make a Y junction against the thimble - to allow room for shackle or spectra, bit messy IMO.
Sure, you can do exactly the same process with forestay/bulkhead/ring frame.

[cavalier mk2]

Did a ringframe carbon composite but set it up to take a really beefy fitting for the furler to attach to after the old one let go. It is inline with the headstay so the hardware bolts work in tension without the sheer loads of the old design. Very strong but I'll think about replacing the bolted fitting with a carbon attachment when it is time to replace the bolts.

[oldsailor7]

Peterchech.
I heard you have a bit of a nasty coming your way.
Perhaps you have taken Obama's advice and evacuated.
However I hope you are OK.
Please let us know how you get on.
Good Luck. OS.

[outside the box]

Getting clear a mud Gary! An angle wedge on the gunwhale to position the thimble at the right angle would help spread any lever loads too. Think of Keith's old Vagabond for a reference. Is anyone doing forestays this way ? We have a great set up now but it would saved some hardware to go all carbon.

JFWIW photo's of how we do it and it might help explain what Gary is saying a bit clearer.

[cavalier mk2]

Thanks Outside, Gary's prose made sense but a picture is supposed to be worth 1000 words. Spreading the load over so much surface is quite different from conventional hardware concentrations. It is easy to see that the hull won't get a huge bulge with the carbon fanned out which I was having a time visualizing. Getting metal out of the boat saves weight and money. My new motto will be "Stainless ain't blameless" !

[bruceb]

Thanks for those pics. Anybody else have any? I am still getting a sense of "how much" is enough. B

[bruceb]

I have been trying out my a-boards instead of writing:D I am still undecided if they are worth the effort, and I do have pics to post but I am having pixel down sizing issues and they are not all that interesting anyway. The short answer is they have a lot of lift, but are a real problem to "tack" in short races. I also think mine may be too large and developing more lift and drag than my boat has sail area to use. I have not tried them in 15 knot plus conditions, but they seem to work better as the wind increases. It is quite possible to make a smaller set:cool: My lake is draining away due to drought conditions so I am just about out of testing time this year. I am going to use my floats for a small power cat this winter. I have the extra parts, a 15 hp engine, and too much time, so... I will post pics once I have worked thru the new camera issues. B

[peterchech]

I just saw ur hurricane message from august OS7. Belatedly, thanks! Fortunately, it wasn't so bad and all my tie downs held up fine.

[Gary Baigent]

Bruce, I've always said that the FOIL THING can be overdone; they don't have to be large, in fact imo, they're better off being a little too small. The trick is to get the compromise correct, large enough to provide high, fast beating to windward plus enough lift to keep the lee float up. The faster you go, the more the lift. Therefore it is better to go small and deep but with the ability to lift the foils for differing conditions. Think of big keels on keel boats; too large, they drag horribly ... plus the boat trips over itself. You might have unintentionally drifted into that area.
Certainly on Miranda there is absolutely no problem in tacking ability speed.
You need to sail on a very wide tri foiler ... then you start to worry a little about tacking time - but it is still not a problem.

[bruceb]

Gary, I think you are right and I probably have slightly too large of boards- they are very powerful, but that isn't really the issue for me. They lift and work! very well and the boat tacks fine, maybe a little slower but still very manageable. The crew and myself are not so quick:rolleyes:- and local races tend to be short windward/leewards, so we have trouble getting the boards up and down before/after tacks quickly enough. My first board came out a little thick and tends to stick some and that isn't helping either- but I will fix the trunk when the boat comes out for the winter. I am still early in the learning curve of using them to their best advantage, and I will probably build a smaller set some time this winter. They should fit well, move much easier, and should provide the proper amount of lift. I had to start somewhere:) B

[Gary Baigent]

Bruce, have to start somewhere, absolutely.
You could reduce the chord and area of your existing foils by cutting and reshaping ... and then bulking out a small amount the entry and exit areas of your cases with filler, shaping to fit the new foil profile ... and that would be a a fairly painless way of getting sailing again.

[oldsailor7]

I only have one more set of B24 plans. When they are gone there will be no more.
Now that the US$ and AU$ are at par the price of this very last set of Buccaneer 24 plans is $150.00 shipped worldwide.

[paradoxbox]

how do you accept payment for plans? paypal or?

[oldsailor7]

Paradoxbox.
i have sent you a PM. :D

[bruceb]

Gary, I have been out "testing", and I think the A-boards are great, but I did make them a little large. Mine are carbon over foam and can't be cut down, but they are pretty easy to build- and I will have a new smaller set for next season. These will work fine for cruising so they are not wasted. I made these about 72" long giving 40"x 11.5" under the floats. I think the same length and about an 8" cord will be about right, and also allow some angle of attack adjustment. I made these too close of a fit in the trunk:mad:. These boards provide enough vertical "lift" to almost keep the float out of the water at 5-7kts while providing plenty of lift to weather, but they also slow the boat down- there is always a lift to drag trade-off. The Buc "feels" great with them- it still tacks and jibes fine, (I even spent an hour with only a 90% jib, a bimini and no main and I could still tack through 105 degrees at around 5kts) and the boat balances well enough to track quite well with just bunge cords holding the tiller. The draft is only about 4' with the boards all the way down and a real advantage for shallow water compared to my center dagger at 6'. The boat also responds to puffs better and accelerates more instead of burying the float- quite a different feel. I still don't have good pics from outside the boat, but I will keep trying. B

[oldsailor7]

Great stuff Bruce.
I am glad you are pleased with them. Perhaps it will encourage others to do likewise. :D

[Gary Baigent]

Ah, very well done, Bruce, congratulations, welcome to foil craziness. Just looking, they are too big, too much drag; you'll find the higher aspect ratio foils considerably better, especially in light airs.
Check out NF3's foil sizes - and that boat has no floats, just foils to supply "buoyancy." The other is Misguided Angel, the quite small area outward facing foils were an experiment but they worked fine. Not applicable to your B24 because a central hull dagger was also carried. Later the main beam broke when boat was on the hard in 70 knot storm, hence the later, slightly less, deeper section, square length/beam version. Apologies for rambling off subject.

[bruceb]

Thanks Gary- learning is fun:), but it surely takes a lot of sanding:( On a sort of related question, what speed do your foiler tri's take to "lift"? B

[Doug Lord]

Gary, I have been out "testing", and I think the A-boards are great, but I did make them a little large. B
--------------
Way to go, Bruce! If you could try a test with less area and more aspect ratio you might be surprised. Something like 7/1(underwater) is ideal and you have 3.5/1. Everybody that I've talked to has always stressed the importance of aspect ratio on hydrofoils. Greg Ketterman says: "Aspect ratio is everything on hydrofoils".
Enjoy!

[bruceb]

My aspect ratio was the result of UPS shipping restrictions- my foam cores were from a model aircraft foam cutter and anything over 6' gets really expensive to ship. (They can supply 8' cores) Once I have built new ones, I might even cut these shorter- I have found they work pretty well with just 30" exposed, and would be really nice for shallow water cruising so they are not at all wasted effort. I am cheap and lazy:rolleyes:, so I did it the easy way as a start. The next set will be higher aspect, but I won't need them until next spring so I have some time to develop them better. They are nice winter indoor projects. B

[bruceb]

While I was testing my foils, I did some runs under power- center dagger half down, no foils, lightly loaded, smooth water, 5hp two stroke. WOT was around 6.5-7kts depending on wind direction, and mid throttle cruise was 5-5.5 kts and very efficient, burning around a gallon an hour or less. B

[so_cal_sailor]

I'm almost ready to put the daggerboard case together, and there are few things I'm a little unsure about. Many times fasteners mean that something is meant to be taken apart at some point in time, but I'm assuming that in this case, they are a more of a permanent "clamp" intended to keep things together if there is an overload (impact?) and everything should be glued together. Is this correct? Also, should the inside be coated with anything else in addition to a few coats of epoxy over the fiberglass cloth? Any tips, "don't do this", make sure ... etc. with the daggerboard case before/when I glue it together?

Thanks,
David

[bruceb]

:p David, nice to hear of some progress! IMO!!! Once the case is installed, it is not coming out easily, so I would treat the trunk as a one time build and expect any fasteners to be permanent. My trunk was glassed/epoxied on the sides but not glassed on the ends- and that is where it rotted. When I build a trunk now, I glass the inside skins(sides) first, then wrap the vertical end strips with glass and clamp and fasten the whole thing together, and really coat everything with extra epoxy.
I would also build the trunk to allow a thicker board to be used. Probably at least a finished inside dimension of 1 3/4"- (1/2" thicker than stock or more). Another more controversial mod would be to make the trunk vertical instead of angled, and use filler blocks to fit the board on the inside. As designed, a longer than stock board runs into the mast when rasied. Just a suggestion;) The stock board is just out of date, much better shapes can be built, and they all require a thicker section to work. Best allow for it now.
Special attention at the trunk/hull joint is also necessary. The plans leave some decisions to the builder, and studying some other boat's plans and details is in order. Wooden boats all have some troublesome areas, and the trunk is always an issue. Trunks tend to rot on the inside at the waterline while moored , and at the base/hull joint when stored out of the water. B Any pics of your build?:)

[oldsailor7]

Everything Bruce says +.

I modified my B24 with a vertical board and case with the back of the case level with frame 5.
This puts the CE of the board in the right place for a balanced helm.
The top of the case was supported athwartships by 1 x 12 plank pieces, tied into the hull stringers, and frame 5, which made a nice place to sit.

[so_cal_sailor]

Hmm . . . I was planning to build according to the plans. How would these modifications be with respect to light air performance? In this area (San Diego) the normal forecast is "Wind W 10 kt in the afternoon, becoming variable less than 10 kt in the evening". I'm hoping to be able to sail to the islands and back (about 70 nm uphill) on a long weekend.:)

[redreuben]

If you have to sail uphill, then do the mods ! I'm sure Bruceb will concur, perhaps even think about a taller rig as per Samnz boat.

[oldsailor7]

Hmm . . . I was planning to build according to the plans. How would these modifications be with respect to light air performance? In this area (San Diego) the normal forecast is "Wind W 10 kt in the afternoon, becoming variable less than 10 kt in the evening". I'm hoping to be able to sail to the islands and back (about 70 nm uphill) on a long weekend.:)

I used to sail in the San Diego area with Norm Cross and so am familiar with the weather. Don't waste your time and money on unnecessary mods. Use a fat head fully battened sail on the stock mast. Put in a vertical daggerboard with a wetted shape 1ft 4" X 3 ft and a rectangular planform. Don't monkey with an elliptical shaped board. The difference in performance is not measurable and it is more important to shape to the correct section which should be NACA 0008. Use a piece of thin ply cut to a female shape to use as a guide when shaping the board. There is ample advice on this thread about how to make the board and box. Make sure your jib lead angles are suitably narrow if you want good windward performance. Properly done the B24 is very fast to windward.
Do use the roller reefing setup shown in the plans. Also the simple mainsheet/outhaul system. The B24 sails very well on reefed mainsail only, in strong winds.

[bruceb]

Cal, my boat was re-rigged for racing on Chesapeake bay and the common light air with chop conditions there, and works well on my local lake. Standard fore triangle and a 6' taller rotating mast, which works well, but is a bit overpowered in over 18kts. My current main is about 18" short of full hoist and is a "big" head but not square top. It is plenty for the boat, and a square top main could be even shorter and still provide enough "punch". With my rig and some good light air jibs and reachers, my boat is very fast in light to medium air, and is very easy to sail as long as I reef the main according to conditions. The Corsair 24-mkII and Sprint carry about the same size rig, and can be used as guidelines. A square top main on a sightly fractional rig is a very practical and fast set up if you can find a good mast. Mine was designed for a Stiletto 23. I think Mike Leneman at Multimarine is near your area and should also be able to give some good advice.
I will slightly disagree with OS :rolleyes:- I built a "long" dagger for my boat (0008 section, 86" overall with about 62"x15" below the hull), and the boat works best in light to medium air with ALL of it down. A smaller board gets overloaded with modern high powered close sheeted sails. As the wind and speed picks up and when reaching, I do bring the board up some. I race with some fast mono sport boats, and the differences in pointing ability/VMG are quickly apparent. Make the board as long as practical, you can always make it shorter:D I also prefer to make my boards at least part foam core, as they are lighter and I would rather the board be the "weak link" and break instead of damaging the hull. I haven't tried the theory, yet;)
Built and equipped correctly, your Buc will be equal to or a little faster than a Corsair 24, and very easy and forgiving to sail. I think for safety off-shore, positive floatation is necessary. At the speeds a tri can go, it is quite possible to hole most any boat on a floating "object". I have small boat airbags (total weight about 30lbs) in my main hull and floats to provide about 1000lbs total, and I also used two solid bulkheads in each float to give them three separate chambers. I notice Crowther did the same on later designs, as does Corsair. B

[oldsailor7]

Bruce. There is no argument. :D
Your long and high aspect ratio board is ideal for all out racing and your larger sail area. Since you have no cabin the length of your board is only limited by the height of your boom.
For general and pleasure use, a lower aspect board of about 4sq ft area is more convenient and safer.
A cap on the top of the board closes the top of the case when the board is down,---which it is most of the time when sailing, keeping the interior of the boat dry.
Apart from anything else, the great strength of the B24 is it's ability to move out to windward in light airs.

[bruceb]

I do like dry cabins, even if I don't have one yet, and yes, a long board does present "issues". On my own boat, I have added a-boards to the floats, and I think they will allow a much shorter center dagger. Yes, that is a little extreme;) for a 40 year old cruising tri, but sailboats are just for fun, and I AM having fun. :D
As an aside, ck the new F32 on the F-boat forum-all carbon, three boards, two rudders, really pretty, and probably weighs less than my paint- I am jealous. B

[oldsailor7]

Yes Bruce.
Having raced on the F28R, I can only drool over the idea of the F-32R.

[bruceb]

:D Google farrier 32 "jailbreak"- there are some pics posted to drool over, and maybe some good sail control ideas- maybe not off topic after all. B

[sunnysailor]

hello all B24 builders and foil entousiasts,

i saw a small tri on: exaqua.co.uk and :astusboats.com where they show a simple solution for a fast set-up time,the buc loos a bit of the agresiv look from the lite V,but the boat would be more practicle in use.
My question is: would the ama go under the flare of the mainhull,and how wide the hole thing together would be ?

[oldsailor7]

It looks like a nice little boat, but why limit the length to 20 ft. A 24ft tri is just as towable. And I question the claim of "Sea Going".
The appeal for a family with small kids sounds tempting---but kids grow unexpectedly fast. Sliding tubular crossbeams are a pain---(from my own experience.)
A Piver Nugget has better accomodation, (1Double, 2 full size singles, and the floats fold up on to the cabin top.)
But the Nugget is outdated.
A design which has down folding floats is better and there a several of those around.
A Buc 24 will sleep 4 adults at a pinch (ask Samnz), or three adults in full size bunks and two kids on the fold out cabin settee.
When you have decided exactly what requirements your ideal boat has to fulfill you need to spend a lot of time searching around for the best available design. There are heaps of them.

[sunnysailor]

Hello OS 7,i would like to take the best of both worlds.
Sliding tubes blocked so that they can not get shorter after fitting water-stays and try to fit this system in a buc 24::),a short set up time is important to me !
i printed your scale print on 140%,the main hull should be 2,03 m and the ama"s 49 cm that gives folded 3,01 meter,witch is accapable to trailer for me,but my question is does the ama"s go unter the flare from the mainhull ?

gr,

Marco

ps:your picture is not to oldfashioned,just your sunglasses a bit ;)

[bruceb]

Marco, I hate to say not possible, as almost anything "can" be done, but the Buc 24 is not very suited to a sliding beam set up. First, it is 19 feet beam, so with any "bury" at all, the cross tubes would be at least 9.5' wide. The floats are also tall and about 20 inches wide and with the cabin as designed would end up with an almost 10 foot wide trailer width. They are too tall and wide unless they are angled and tucked under the deck, and even then, it is very close. Also, the Buc has a "v" to the cross tubes to carry the floats higher when extended, which would add to the engineering challenges. All of the boat's structure ties into the cross tube bulkheads, which would have to be doubled to use sliders. It all could be done, but it would be heavy, and no longer a Crowther design.
I keep looking at different solutions, short of buying a different boat:(, and I am still working on folding mine something like the F-boats. I have built a full scale wooden mock-up, it does work, but there are still design challenges before I could install it on my boat. The beam of the Buc, while great for sailing, works against ANY system. B

[oldsailor7]

I agree with Bruce. The Buc 24 is not designed to be frequently trailable ---but is de-mountable for occasional transportation.
For example a fellow member of the TMCC, with whom I built my B24 in parallel, demounted his B24 and trailed it on a standard trailer down to Florida where he re-mounted it and sailed it for two weeks then de-mounted it again and trailed it back to Toronto. "It was fine", he said, but he wouldn't like to do it every weekend. :cool:

[Corley]

I've seen some well designed trailers like the one's used for grainger raider catamarans. I'd hesitate to say that you would want to do it every weekend but they do address the issues quite well as a means of getting the boat skinny for trailering on a demountable boat. I'm not able to find a decent photo but the hull have a cradle that slides out on each side of the trailer with the hulls attached to facilitate assembly. I've seen a Bucc 24 stored mast up full width on a trolley in a marina yard for easy launching but most people seem to opt to park the boat on a mooring and demount for the winter (much cheaper).

[redreuben]

Question For BruceB.
Could you clarify for me please wether these lifting foils in the floats are to complement the Dagger board or replace it ?
Cheers,
RR

[oldsailor7]

Since we have sold our house and are moving to the mountains, my sailing days are over.
I have one set of Buccaneer 24 plans left. When they have gone there will be no more.
PM me if interested. :cool:

[bruceb]

RR, I am a racer and like trying new things almost as much as I like sailing, so PLEASE don't take anything I try as "better". I do post, and I will keep experimenting, but some of it works, and the rest is "experience". My first set of foils are too big, and my boat is out for the winter. I think that the next set will work well, but that will have to wait a few months for testing. I expect, from the limited tests that I have done, that a combination of a small center dagger and the float foils will be the best. Nothing is easy or quick. B

[Corley]

Since we have sold our house and are moving to the mountains, my sailing days are over.
I have one set of Buccaneer 24 plans left. When they have gone there will be no more.
PM me if interested. :cool:

You can take the sailor from the sea but can you take the sea from the sailor?

[oldsailor7]

Thanks for that Corley. You are right of course. :D

[cavalier mk2]

These days with melting glaciers, global warming etc...the sea might come to the sailors....

[Corley]

Cool, my house should be on the waterfront soon. I'll preinstall my pier and docking facilities.:D

[cavalier mk2]

Nothing like planning ahead, if the neighbors ask tell them you're starting a rectangular gazebo.

[tomfindlay]

I spent today reading every forum on the B24 including this one which took me four and half hours to read.
Whats happened to J Jolly? he seems to have faded after such a strong start and so many views and opinions...
Is he still building?

Tom

[tomfindlay]

Buccaneer 24 building plans.

When i was thinking about building an Eventide, the very famous Maurice Griffiths design, I was very glad to discover that the Eventide Association simply post you out a CD for five pounds postage, which contained all the drawings and construction plans in PDF and Jpeg format, then you simply walk into the copy shop and get the drawings you need printed out for a few pounds.

I have asked Bruce B if he would consider giving me a copy of his CD which contains all the plans, or perhaps if there are just a few PDF's files, then simply send them to me by email.

I know the Old Sailor has sold forty copies over the past few years, and he has agreed to sell me a copy, but we have seamless simple technology now and Bruce's digital files seem a better way to go, as you can then run off as many as you need for convenience, when transferring onto ply.

I know its a kinda cloak and dagger copyright sensitive area, but hell I'm sure Lock would be happy to know that the Buccaneer lives on and on in digital format and that any relatively poor man like me can afford to get a copy of the plans and attempt to build one.

To be honest 150 Aussie dollars is a lot for me, for sure I know modern plans are expensive compared. But I just think they should be free excluding postage of course.

Its xmas after all lol...

[Corley]

For every home build boat project started only a depressingly small proportion make it to completion. I'm not building a Bucc24 but I can see why so many boats dont make it to completion you have to be the kind of person who appreciates small rewards and milestones along the way to make it happen.

I have a friend who has nearly completed a 40' schionning cat I admire his patience he has worked on the boat nearly full time for 4 years. In many ways a boat like a bucc is so much easier much less surface area to fair and much quicker rewards but its still not a cakewalk.

[cavalier mk2]

If you don't need demounting for the voyage mentioned a small Tristar or Cross would have more capacity and likely less expense than the stayed alum tubes of the bucc 24. Not as fast light but better with a load. Nicol's 25 Clipper design similar to a Cross made many successful ocean passages but you'd have to bug Alan Nicol to print out plans.

[tomfindlay]

Since we have sold our house and are moving to the mountains, my sailing days are over.
I have one set of Buccaneer 24 plans left. When they have gone there will be no more.
PM me if interested. :cool:

There will be lots more old sailor, you told us in a post that you have sold 40 copies of them, so I expect there are many floating around the globe, and Bruce B has them in digital format and perhaps he might see fit to let potential builders have a copy.

But if you want to donate that very last set of plans to me in Edinburgh, I will have them scanned and put them up on the web so that anybody can have free access to look at them, and if they want they can also download and have them printed quite cheaply in a copy shop that does that kind of printing.

What do you think old sailor?

[cavalier mk2]

Easy on the mainsheet there Tom, old sailors need stores and grog. Now if we could get those things donated we'd all have more time at sea. I've bought other plans from oldsailor and always found them a great deal and value.

[oldsailor7]

"What do you think old sailor?"

Och Ay the Noo. I think ye're a canny Scotsman. :D

[cavalier mk2]

An Lock was an uncanny draughtsman.....

[tomfindlay]

"What do you think old sailor?"

Och Ay the Noo. I think ye're a canny Scotsman. :D

Well if you have sold 40 sets as you say, then that's 6000 canny dollars worth of stores and grog, all on the back of the intellectual property rights of a dead man.

Sure folks will buy them, but you are, or have been up until now, marketing these plans very successfully and cannily and no doubt profitably, on this forum for quite a wee while now, and that is commercial enterprise, whatever way you want to configure it old sailor.

Of course you have made a major contribution to the Buccaneer 24 Builders Forum, and you offer good quality advice and encouragement, I've read every entry over the weekend, and I'm very grateful to obtain that knowledge and yr wisdom, but it doesn't make what you have been doing right.

I think you should consider my offer to digitise the plans and let potential builders print off sets if they so wish.

I think that's an honourable way to keep Locks design permanently in print, and whoever actually owns the copyright will probably be happy about that.

[cavalier mk2]

Most of those old copyrights have expired and were not renewed. For the cost of prints or a digital cd you could get plans for a Piver from The Mariners Museum. If you went your route with the bucc plans you'd be facing the same hazards as Old Sailor.....Now most people don't do things like that unless they know there are no hazards involved.....Your campain needs a slogan. How about "Brigands For Buccaneers" ?

[Corley]

Tom, If $150 is too much for you to handle how do you expect to build a boat? Thats literally one small batch of marine ply or a winch. Oldsailor is entitled to a small profit per sale without his efforts these plans would not be available at all.

Thats not to mention the time he spent correcting sections of the plans that were too faint to read and the time he has spent supporting builders with information. If he was charging for his time that would equal a very small amount per hour.

Oldsailor was a personal friend of Lock's and handled the plan sales for many years. Brett Crowther, Lock's son has not asked to collect any royalties for the sale of the plans and is not interested in selling plans for any of the older boats. If Lock Crowther's archived plans were available for sale then Oldsailor would save himself the effort of sending out these plans.

[kelldog]

+100!

[tomfindlay]

I don't know what the plans look like or how many of them there are, or how much it would cost to have them printed from a CD, but I very much doubt it would be anywhere near 150 dollars.

Its not the money, its the principle in this case. Old Sailor is using boat design dot net to sell intellectual property, and not only the Buccaneer 24, I might add, and which he does not own, that does not belong to him, for I would imagine, a healthy profit, and that is not what this portal is about.

I would imagine the administrator of this site would not approve of this kind of commercial conduct and behaviour, regardless of all the good will, encouragement, corrections made to the plans, the practical help, and other assistance that the old sailor provides.

Surely there must be somebody in this forum who will provide the plans at cost plus postage, without wanting to make a profit and commercial gain out of me and for that matter Lock...

[tomfindlay]

Yeah, I don't want to sound like some righteous lunatic about the cost of these plans and the way they are sold on this portal.

But if old sailor really is retiring to the mountains and not selling anymore plans as he has stated, then I think its important to ensure that future potential builders can have access to these plans.

I have asked old sailor to let me digitise his last set, but he is probably annoyed at my analysis of the way he currently sells them, I'm sorry about that. It offended my sensibility.

I've asked Bruce B for a copy of his CD but have not received a reply as yet.

I'm keen to see these plans and take a good hard look at the construction methodology.

It certainly appeals to me to build like this, and I never thought about multihulls until I saw a dragonfly arrive a few weeks ago in Caleta on Fuerteventura which was heading for Martinque...

[redreuben]

Fine, then don't buy them !

YOU spend the time finding another set unsullied by oldsailers commercial exploitation, YOU make them fit for distribution, and YOU build a boat so YOU are prepared to answer the deluge of builders questions.
I look forward to seeing the CD available here for $10.
Perhaps you could do the same for the 28 as the scores of hours we have all put in trying to find a reprintable set have turned up nothing useable.
of course you could buy plans for something else like a Tristar 24, a bargain at US$400 !
RR

[John Jolly]

Hi folks,
I still look in on the forum occasionally. I note my name/handle has been mentioned a couple of time in the past couple of months. I am not building the B24 any longer and the plans have since be re-sold on ebay £30 or £40 GBP, I cant remember the exact amount. I did make a start on the boat and with the best will in the world it just wasn't to be, not through lack of skills or determination or patience. My first love is aeromodelling, I build the big RC stuff to 'scale' with engines upwards of 60cc - I can assure anyone out there that if you build these type of model's that have to fly you can turn your hands to almost anything and build it to a high standard.

I had two problems with the B24 build that played on my mind. 1/ Firstly the design, a excellentl boat in its day and by all accounts a good performer to-day, but its still a old design that would have a poor 2nd hand resale value (important to me personnaly) when sold on here in the UK, other factors come into play as well when you look at some of the bargain boats that can be snapped up quite cheaply due to world economics.
2/ The UK being a small heavily populated country with very high cost water front fee's and charges, the narrow roads trailering this boat, compounded by several hours making it demountable just made it a no go situation.
This is not a slur on the boat or OS but my own reasons for not continuing with the build.
I still have my leaner as OS called it, but have not wetted its bottom for quite some time!
I wish you all a Very Merry Christmas.

John

[oldsailor7]

What a shame John. You were doing such beautiful work on those frames. :cool:
Did you sell them too.?

[tomfindlay]

Och RR for goodness sake, it's not about money, some of us go a wee bit deeper than that...

Old Sailor knows exactly what he is doing, and its called commercial enterprise.

The building plans should and probably do, speak for themselves. And if the B24 is a classic design, then it should be properly preserved for all to access without having to refer in some under the table way to an individual who holds some unsullied copy that you can have for a price...

I'm sure somebody who reads this will let me have a copy of the plans. I don't mind paying the costs, not one bit, but I do object to being exploited in this manner, and I'm not afraid to speak my mind on what I see.

RR go take a look at the Eventide Owners Group they have all of Maurice Griffiths designs available for a few pounds postage, and even provide videos of the complete build of the classic Eventide. You might learn how some groups keep the designer and his plans alive...

and RR please don't SHOUT at me its not a pleasant experience...

[oldsailor7]

Tut Tut.
Methinks the Lady doth protest Too much ! :rolleyes:

[DarthCluin]

John, and Tom, perhaps you should look at this:
http://www.teamscarab.com.au/scarab22/design.html

[lgenova]

Hi guys.

Here are some more pictures of my 24 buc. The last photo is the float ready to be painted. It has a thin layer of fiberglass. The other pictures are of the second float.

[oldsailor7]

Nice going and good workmanship Igenova. :D

[farjoe]

Having read the most recent 2 pages I think Tom may have a point.

[bruceb]

I never received any messages from Tom about the plans, and I did not copy everything on to the cd. I was only making some extra copies of the sheets I was using. I don't really care if OS is charging for the plans- I have a boat, I have the plans it was built from, and I paid OS for a new set with revisions in good condition. He is not selling the design, just providing a service, and I think I got my money's worth. Just my decision and opinion. Since the plans included full scale frame patterns, a re-production from a cd would have to be very accurate to be useful, and you would not know if the re-pro was correct or mis-scaled or distorted. B

[bruceb]

Nice progress Igenova! B

[bruceb]

Tom, IMO, you are asking a lot of the Buc 24. It certainly can sail well, but it is a small craft, in every sense of the definition. It is very light for its size, does not like to carry cruising type loads, and does not have very much space for storage or crew. It is a nice "camper" style boat for a couple (and maybe a child), and is more suited to moderate seas, weather and weekend travel.
The design IS out of date, BUT! it is still probably the least expensive boat to build in its size, both in materials and labor- and it will sail with far more modern designs. The compromise for simplicity is easy of folding/trailering and load capacity. If those are not issues, the Buc is a very nice boat for the effort and cost.
As JJ has observed, in locations that are developed and have a lot of used boats available, buying used just makes more sense. B

[gypsy28]

Tom , I'd be happy to sell you a copy of my plans, now lets see, gotta get them copied, gotta take the time to get them copied, gotta package them (quite large) gotta pay for postage to Scotland (other side of the planet), OK total comes to $200 US, I'll PM you my banking details :P

[oldsailor7]

Just for the record , the copyright (under Australian copyright law) expired in 1994. As a result ANY ONE who has a copy of the B24 plans can digitise them, copy them, sell them, give them away----whatever they like.
They are no longer any ones intellectual property. You can build as many boats as you like from the one set of plans. You can even start building boats for other people and don't have to pay anyone a royalty on each boat you sell.

Also it is interesting to ponder on the fact that the Mariners Museum charges $25.00 per sheet to supply plans. If you include the alternate spade rudder sheet, that makes 8 sheets for the B24 plans alone. IE:-$200.00
That of course does not include all the extra information I include with the bare plans. Such as a booklet on the WEST system, diagram of a simple and inexpensive mainsheet/outhaul system and a re-print of an article from Trimaraner magazine on how a B24 was buit in six weeks and fitted out and sailing in nine, plus other stuff of interest.

The Buccaneer 24 was the best selling of all Crowthers plans and more of them were built than any other of his designs. Many (like Bruces) are still sailing, even though they are 40 odd years old.
IT IS STILL A MODERN LOOKING TRIMARAN.
Being as close to Lockie as I was, I can tell you he would be proud to see that his little fast cruiser is still being built and sailed all over the world.
The wood/epoxy composite method of building ( WEST system) has revolutionised plywood boatbuilding and has extended the life of a plywood boat by a factor of 5 or more. As a result (providing they were well built in the first place) their resale value is better than most second hand boats.
The modular design allows the boat to be built in a small space and then taken in pieces to a suitable place where it can be quickly assembled ready for launching. The tubular crossbeams are an advantage----not a problem. Suitable 6061T6 alloy tubing is readily available all over the place and the tubing can be cut, drilled and assembled using only hand held electric tools.
Patterns for all the fittings are provided and can be hand made or farmed out as necessary. Sail track is easily pop riveted to the mast tubing and the round tubing is actually more aerodynamically efficient than an expensive elliptical mast section, except when the mast is on a rotating base.
Yes there is a lot to be said for "The Marvelous Buccaneer 24".

[tomfindlay]

OK old sailor, keep yr wig on...

Yr changing the karma, and being a wee bit more honest and open about it all.

I'd like to buy a set of plans from you, because its a project I think I could realistically manage to build. Of course I know I have been very critical about the way you conduct this, and I'm just wondering if you will still sell me a set...

The recife guy has inspired me...

[tomfindlay]

Tom, IMO, you are asking a lot of the Buc 24. It certainly can sail well, but it is a small craft, in every sense of the definition. It is very light for its size, does not like to carry cruising type loads, and does not have very much space for storage or crew. It is a nice "camper" style boat for a couple (and maybe a child), and is more suited to moderate seas, weather and weekend travel.

Yeah thanks for all that Bruce. I kinda understood that about her, I'm used to wee cramped sailing boats... I have enough experience to sail it from Edinburgh to the Canaries, via the French canal system. The only dodgy bit is the 700 mile African coastline from Casablanca due south, but there are harbours all the way down Morocco...

And the only really dangerous bit of open ocean is making the dash from Africa 70 miles West across to the first Canary island which is Lanzarote. So its not ocean sailing as it were.

Its dangerous, a bit scary, but its possible. My main issue was finding something I could build, and I think this design allows me that ability.

[oldsailor7]

Tom.
Why would I treat you any differently than anyone else.:?:
Of course I will sell you my last set of plans. You know the details.
I am getting out of the business exactly because it is too much like a business---and I am supposed to be retired. :eek:
Perhaps you would like to take up the slack and distribute the plans in a more efficient way. I would be pleased to see that happen. After all you are just a young bloke and I would be delighted to pass the torch on to you. :D
I just don't want to see this brilliant little boat die. All Lockies other sailing multihulls are irretrievably archived. At least we can save this one.

[tomfindlay]

I'd be thinking about making the sheer clamp and the chine logs from the same ply as the skin. I take it from the photos I've seen that she is of double chine construction.
The reason for this is to avoid the problem of water penetration between two different types of wood, which expand and contract at different rates and cause joins and joints to break their seal.

The other issue is the dagger board casing, or swing keel casing. I'd prefer to make leeboards instead, which would avoid building a casing and having a big hole in the hull.
It would also allow more space in the cabin and save the freak out of hitting something at 12 knots and puncturing the hull as the dagger board would cause havoc...

Another issue is the rigging, I'd prefer a gunter rig, for ease of masting and unmasting especially in canal systems. This means the Leesails could not be purchased and perhaps more expense, although I could probably buy a second hand complete system with mast gaff and sails...

[redreuben]

Tom,
have a look at K designs KD650 for a modern take on the Gunter rig, from memory you can buy plans for the rig separately for about $25.
RR
ps if you don't like the dagger in the main hull perhaps consider boards in the floats, bruceb has been experimenting with this and Ray Kendrick does it on a few of his boats, leeboards -bad idea very inefficient

[redreuben]

PS. Chine logs and sheer clamps from ply ? 50% of the timber will be cross grain- useless.
With epoxy coating differential swell is not an issue, if it bothers you use the same timber but stay with solid stock please !
I'm beginning to worry about you ! :)

[tomfindlay]

PS. Chine logs and sheer clamps from ply ? 50% of the timber will be cross grain- useless.


You can buy ply with all the layers running the same way, people use it to make masts and other spars all the time, and also sheer clamps and chine logs...
its not that unusual...

The main hull is quite narrow, why would you say that leeboards are inefficient?
Hereshoff used them in designs, so did Griffiths, and they have been used since the Vikings arrived in Scotland with them in the 9th century.

They would take a lot of worry out of the daggerboard skelping something and causing serious damage... You would barely see them and they would be so much easier in the building process than making a casing on the keel...

If I build this B24 I will never race it, it would only be for cruising. and putting both leeboards half down when tacking to windward might work quite well.
But I don't know enough to make those calculations, but why inefficient?

[tomfindlay]

Tom,
have a look at K designs KD650 for a modern take on the Gunter rig, from memory you can buy plans for the rig separately for about $25.
RR

Yeah thanks for that link. Interesting looking gunter rig, and he designed it for cheapness, but it lowers the centre of gravity considerably and looks
cool...

[John Jolly]

What a shame John. You were doing such beautiful work on those frames. :cool:
Did you sell them too.?

I still have the frames! the wood will no doubt be used for other projects in due course - :o You could call me the constant builder as I always need to be making/building something to keep my mind occupied. I have shelved all boat building projects for the time being, maybe indefinitely, the important thing, I still have a little sailing boat to get me out on the water.

Off Topic - This is way OT but its what has kept me busy in the last few months designing & building a scaled down 1920's Bugatti 35 Race car, ply monocouqe construction with metal subframes at front & rear, Honda trail wheels and power from a 6.5hp engine. A little more work, plank on frame the boat tail & some mechanics. Not boaty, but shows the builders art and may bring a smile to one's face. Here are a couple of pics.

64863[/ATTACH [ATTACH]64864

64865 64866

[redreuben]

Tom,
Quick buy John Jolly's frames !
Leeboards are inefficient because they have no endplate effect from the bottom of the hull so they ventilate badly, you can compensate by making deeper but that might be getting unwieldy !
Holding them in position without a case is a challenge I would rather not deal with also, but you sound like you have it sussed so just my 2 bobs worth.
RR

[redreuben]

Oh, unidirectional plywood ? Never heard of it, and I don't really get it ? Why not just use solid stock ?

[bruceb]

Tom, My Buc is over 35 years old, and has had NO problems with the solid wood stringers- bad ply-yes:mad:, I wouldn't think of making them out of ply. And solid wood is cheap! Try cutting a 3/4"x3/4x 2' ply piece (stringer size) and breaking it over your knee- and compare it to the same in solid wood. The Buc, (and most multis), are too fast for lee boards. An offset dagger or centerboard is possible, I don't think a cruiser would enjoy messing with my float daggers, (at least their crew wouldn't;)) although they might be worthwhile if you sail in shallow water. I do.
Most of the rigs you are considering are not very close-winded, and a fast tri spends much of its time with the apparent wind in front of the beam. Between lee-boards and one of those rigs, you would destroy most of the advantages of a light tri. Partly its a matter of scale- the rig as designed or a three stay rotating rig like mine are both tall enough to get above the first 10 feet or so of surface effect wind, and as such are in "good" air. They are both still small and light enough to raise and lower with out too much effort. Any thing shorter, even with more area, is really going to compromise performance. B

[caiman]

How's this for a compromise? Tom buys the set of plans from OS7 to do what he wants with for the full amount.OS7 refunds Tom half the money paid for the plans when Tom's new Buc hits the water?
Another Buc is born!

Cheers

[bruceb]

I think I would donate the other $75 when it is launched- but I would expect to get a ride on it if I am ever in England:) B

[bruceb]

JJ, I have a friend that has a real one, and that is a very good replica- wood or anything else. Nice! B

[tomfindlay]

Tom, My Buc is over 35 years old, and has had NO problems with the solid wood stringers- bad ply-yes:mad:, I wouldn't think of making them out of ply. And solid wood is cheap! Try cutting a 3/4"x3/4x 2' ply piece (stringer size) and breaking it over your knee- and compare it to the same in solid wood. The Buc, (and most multis), are too fast for lee boards. An offset dagger or centerboard is possible, I don't think a cruiser would enjoy messing with my float daggers, (at least their crew wouldn't;)) although they might be worthwhile if you sail in shallow water. I do.
Most of the rigs you are considering are not very close-winded, and a fast tri spends much of its time with the apparent wind in front of the beam. Between lee-boards and one of those rigs, you would destroy most of the advantages of a light tri. Partly its a matter of scale- the rig as designed or a three stay rotating rig like mine are both tall enough to get above the first 10 feet or so of surface effect wind, and as such are in "good" air. They are both still small and light enough to raise and lower with out too much effort. Any thing shorter, even with more area, is really going to compromise performance. B

Yeah I think old sailors advice which has kept others to refer to...
is...
stick to the original plans...

[Corley]

One valid approach to protecting daggerboard cases is to have a sacrificial tip on the daggerboard it's not a bad idea the other option would be to put a pivoting centreboard case in the boat if you use a gasket to cover the open slot behind the board the performance penalty would not be too bad.

On the formula 40 trimaran I'm building Kurt Hughes has a sacrificial tip on the daggerboard as well as crushable foam insert if the worst comes to the worst mind you the board is over 11 feet long so serious loads there.

[oldsailor7]

I had a daggerboard in my Bucc 24. It and the case were strong and I never had a problem with it. However the threat was always there :eek:

I had a pivoting CB in my Bucc 28. It was Magic. :cool:

[Silver Raven]

One valid approach to protecting daggerboard cases is to have a sacrificial tip on the daggerboard it's not a bad idea the other option would be to put a pivoting centreboard case in the boat if you use a gasket to cover the open slot behind the board the performance penalty would not be too bad.

On the formula 40 trimaran I'm building Kurt Hughes has a sacrificial tip on the daggerboard as well as crushable foam insert if the worst comes to the worst mind you the board is over 11 feet long so serious loads there.

G'day 'Corley' I'm a retired (Ha) ex-yacht builder/repaired. Live inland from Cairns in FNQ. Sure am interested in the 'KH' 40' tri you're building. Tell us a bit about it. Please. I'm sure many others would be interested if they knew how good a 'KH' design really was. Sure hope to hear from you. Have a great festive season & Ciao for now, james

[Corley]

My initial intention was to buy Kurt's boat and ship it out from Seattle but other expenses hit me at the time and I could not make it happen. So I've purchased a plan set instead. I've not built a boat using the cylinder mold technique before so it will be an interesting project. I'm currently having the cylinder mold sections cut by a nearby CNC shop and should have them early in the new year.

The boat is demountable and can be packed into a 40' container for transport and designed to the limits of the Formula 40 rule it's 39'3" beam gives massive righting moment and in the vicinity of 1780kg in weight it has a 20m mast and a sailplan with genoa, blade and masthead assymetrical spinnaker, my plan is to keep the fitout really basic and spend the money on the best sails and equipment. It's designed for singlehanding or doublehanding I have a few ocean races I hope to compete in when the boat is complete.

The build log is here:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/formula-40-singlehanded-trimaran-build-log-39464.html

[old dog]

I was such a lucky young man in the 70's that I worked with the Glennie brothers for Lock on the 55ft tri "Spirit of America". At Lock's request, I built a test model of his "C" class cat, intending to build and race the real thing. A woman got in the way and I ended up in Europe, largely on dry land.
Now that I'm semi retired and moving to Port Stevens I intend to build a 25ft cat or tri. Wish me luck. Rob L.

[Corley]

I've always been curious about "Spirit of America" and never been able to find out much about it, was it a Kraken 55 like Yumi Maru/Power Brewing?

[old dog]

Hi Corley. Yes it was a Kraken 55, built for "Mad Mike Cain" as he was known, for single handed racing. It was so fast that it was scary. In truth I think it was a bit overpowered. Since sailing on it I've never been so excitedly terrified on anything since.
Thankyou Loch.

[mugsman]

I have found the B24 materials list on the site ( the one with the plan and profile plus the material list with a couple of sheets of construction directions) and am wondering if its fairly accurate for the wood sizes required? I am going to start milling some Sitka Spruce while I wait for plans and would like to ensure I have sufficient supplies on hand (and of the correct dimensions)
Thanks

[bruceb]

MM, I think the plans are accurate for the spruce required, but since our local ply is only available in 4x8' , you will have to buy more than is called for in the plans. Also, the larger cabin shown in the revised plans uses several more sheets. It is still about the least material for any thing close to its size, performance and ease of construction. Good luck.
I haven't built one, but I have had my buc for 4 years and have done quite a few repairs so I have some feel for new construction. The plans are easy to work from, but some understanding of sail boats and wood construction really helps. Also, there is some translation necessary from Australian to American terminology, and maybe Canadian:rolleyes: B

[oldsailor7]

Bruce.
AFAIK 4'x8' is the standard size for all plywood in the UK. Canada and Australia----same as in the USA. ?

[mugsman]

Thanks for the information regarding plywood requirements. One other question regarding the posted cut list - are the timber dimensions close to the full list that comes with the plans? I plan to add an additional 4 to 5 ft. to the length on the stringers to ensure I have sufficient material to extend the stern as suggested.
Thanks

[cavalier mk2]

4'x 8' in the states Paddy, longer lengths can sometimes be ordered.

[bruceb]

Just plan on more ply than is called for;), and I would mill about a 1/3 more stringer stock than is called for and use the very best pieces.
IMO, the boat would sail better and carry a load much better with about 2' more aft- BUT!!!, adding it makes it a whole new design, and probably will require lofting and some design changes, and will add 1/3 to the construction time and quite a bit more ply. Go very carefully! The Buc, as designed, is a very light ply box structure engineered around the length of 3 sheets of ply, and almost every panel is load bearing. Even parts like the cockpit coamings contribute to the torsional stiffness. If you change anything, you are now building a prototype and doing your own engineering- certainly ok, but you are on your own. B