Buccaneer 24 Builders Forum

You must have made some error in your frame and spacing measurements, as the gunnell is a straight line between the bottom of the beam boxes. Refer to page 3 of the plans and make up the side sheets exactly as shown. When you have butted the parts of the side sheets together, join them together with the gunnel, chine longerons and stringers, before gluing in the butt plates between the longerons.Doing it any other way increases the chances of screwing things up. OS7.

 

Maybe by the time the sides are bowed outward, the gunnels end up being straight? I've triple-checked and found no errors. I will measure over and over again before I make a cut this evening.

 

Would two trolling motors push a buc24 around ok? I'm thinking of going all electric on mine. All I need power for is getting in and out of the marina and the rare occasion when the wind dies, which doesn't happen much around here.

 

I remeasured again and it is spot on. I know what you mean about the butt-plates going on afterwards. When I did the outriggers I did the butt-plates first and it was more work.

 

Sorry Freddi, I can't be of more help.

 

any pics of what your seeing?


Barry

 

Hi Fred
Craig had a look over the plans with your post up on the screen today.
He asked that you check that your rocker is correct as if this is wrong (from your original lofting) then you will get the projection you are explaining possibly even though your measurements are all telling you it is correct in this projection. Come back if you have no luck and we will get one of the guys to knock out a quick scale mock up for you to follow and post pictures if need be.
All the best

Regards
Brooke and Team Ezifold

 

I should be joining the two halves of the main hull this week, so I'll see what's what. I went ahead and did it like the plans said.

 

you didn't do all up at once strong back for main?


Barry

 

No strongback is required for a Buc24 build.

 

Here's another, maybe dumb, question. The plans call for a centrally located rear chainplate. How does this work when the same space is where the rudder resides?

Confused in Kansas

 

Fred
As shown on the sail plan as attached the transom chain plate is not used.
As shown on the Transom in another as attached it is there.

Our own did not have the transom chain plate nor did the masthead fitting as built to plan have provision for same aft stay, only provision on the masthead fitting area on plan as attached is halyard and topping lift.

Hoping BB or OS7 can offer a qualified opinion to help you further.

Regards
Craig and Team Ezifold

 

You could always split the backstay with a bridle above head height and attach the two tails to a chainplates at both corners of the transom, in order to avoid the conflict with the rudder/tiller position.

But only if you want a permanent backstay and don't intend on having a fathead main.

If the latter, and you *do* want a backstay, then you'll have to settle for running backstays, and it's probably best to attach them to the outer end of the aft beams, with a tensioning line and block system attached further aft on the ama, lead back to the cockpit so you can adjust the tension at each tack, in order to allow the top of the sail to flick past the upper end of the backstay.

And of course enable you to adjust the tension on the mast to adjust the shap of the luff on the main.

Or at least, I think that's what it's supposed to do......perhaps someone with a better idea of the split/running backstays can correct this?

I know I've seen lots of cruising cats with split backstays, but they are attached to the main hulls, and don't see as much flex as a tri might, and thus changes in tension....

I'm a bit curious about the principles involved, so if anyone cares to comment - nicely - it would be appreciated.

 

Sheet 2 of the plans clearly shows a chainplate on the transom.
I cannot account for that. The B24 has twin mast top backstays which extend out to chainplates on the floats. There is no provision for a single back stay in the design. It may just be an oversight from an earlier drawing. Or it may have been a re-inforcement for the backing of the rudder pintles which was mistaken by the draftsman as a chainplate. We will never know. . When we built our own B24 in 1971 we just ignored it and never had a problem.

 

OK. Thanks.