Buccaneer 24 Builders Forum

Strongback build

I recently received a set of B24 build plans from Old Sailor. OS7 thank you for a good set of plans. I've been looking them over and wondered if anyone has built a B24 using a strongback with the hull upside down. I can see the convenience in bending the hull sides around the frames but I prefer having a little more control over the shape of the hull and planing the chines for a better fit using a strongback. The plans show positions of the frames on the main hull and float sides but no dimensions for positioning the frames in a strongback such as distance between frames along a straight line. I might be able to figure out the elevations of each frame from the distances along the datum line. From photos I've seen the B28 was built using a strong back or flat/level surface.
Also, Is the inset along the hull sheer/gunwale for the crossbeams and wing decks supposed to be half the OD of the crossbeam? Is the angle of the forward/center support (between the windows) of the cabin the same for both the MK 1 and 2? I believe OS7 mention using the Mk2 cabin length and Mk1 cabin width to allow better sheet control for upwind performance. Any info is appreciated.

 

Building details

Kayak, I didn't build my 24, but I have built some Bolger boats both ways. The non strong back method is quite easy and probably quicker for boats up to the size of the 24. Once the two sides are joined, it is easy to prop it up and true the shape and bevel chines. It will still be light enough for two men to turn over, and "X" ing it will get it really square, probably better than most strong backs actually do. It is quite limber, and if the two sides are a good match, it will be straight.
I am not so sure about the cabin choices. I have seen a 24 with the "larger" cabin, and it is none to roomy, I guess it depends on what you are planing to do with the boat. I don't have a cabin (yet) on mine, and my jib sheet tracks are way inboard- they would be on top of the cabin and would require some extra bracing in the cabin top which ever size cabin you build. My genoa tracks are about 26" off the center line at the very back of the cockpit. I have tried MANY combinations, and that is where they work best. I race, and pointing is very important with the windward/leeward courses that are most common locally. I have been winning
I see you are in NC, I keep my boat on a lake just NE of Atlanta, if you are in the area , come take a look (or sail). I will have the boat in the water until early November. B

 

cabin size

At 6'4" I can't say the cabin is roomy or very comfortable at all. I think the smaller and narrow cabin would be the way to go, if it improves cockpit seating and allows crew/passenger weight to move forward. IMHO

 

Charles,
The method of wrapping the sides around the frames is less time consuming, less labor intensive and less expensive than setting up a strongback.
Since the side panels are identical, the clamping of the stem and stern ends automatically ensures that the frames will end up at right angles to the centre line. Twist is eliminated by eyeballing the center line of the transom with the stem piece, as described in the building article "A Buccaneer for Bermuda", included with the plans.
When we built my B24, (with a helper to provide an extra pair of hands), it took only one hour to install all the frames using fast curing epoxy glue.
The resulting "Box", ( sides, transom and stem, with frames in place) was simply stood on a pair of stools at a height convenient for working on the fitting of the stringers and chine panels.
As far as the cabin is concerned the larger MK2 cabin is the best if you want wider larger bunks. However the jib tracks need to be on the cabin roof.
The Mk1 cabin is narrower.
I built mine with the Mk2 length but the MK1 width.
This enabled the jib tracks to be mounted outside on the cabin walkways, which allowed narrower jib sheeting angles without loading up the cabin roof.
The longer cabin overhung a few inches into the cockpit which proved to be a handy sheltered place to mount the compass, without excessively cramping the cockpit space.
The choice is yours.

 

Just a word to those of you who are currently building.
On the plans I sent you the gap between frames 4 & 4A, and frames 7 & 7A is shown as 4 1/2". That is because I used 4 1/2" Dia tubing on my B24 with Lock Crowther's permission, providing the wall thickness remained the same.
On your boats that dimension should be the same as the diameter of the tubing you are using, be it 4 1/2", 4 3/4" or 4 5/8".
Hope this helps.

 

Thanks guys for the great response and good advice. Sticking to the original building method does sound to be the best way to go. I understand the gap between frames 4 and 4A and between 7 and 7A but not sure of the significance of the 2 and 1/4 or 2 and 3/8 inch offset in the sheer of main and float hull sides for crossbeams. Why not have no offset at all. I think the wing decks could be made to extend fore and aft of the crossbeams as one piece rather than piecing them together with pop rivets and aluminum angle on fore and aft sides of the crossbeams. Just run the wing decks under the crossbeams using no offset in the hull sides. With no offset, the cabin could have 2 and 3/8" more headroom. The position of float relative to main hull would not change. What do you think?

And B, I'd love to see your B24 and crew for the day. Do you sail on Lake Lanier? I think it's about 5 and 1/2 hrs from me. Charles

 

Oops my bad. the position of the float WOULD change in relation to the main hull if no offset in the main hull gunwale was used. I didn't realize the plans DON'T call for an offset in the float side gunwale but DO in the main hull side . Could raise the float crossbeam brackets to compensate. From what I can tell from pics of the B28 construction, the position of the crossbeams and wing decks make more sense.

Hope everybody's having a good weekend. Hope to start building in a couple of months. Just trying to get most of the details straight before I start cutting out frames. Charles

 

Frames and such

Charles, I do keep my boat on Lake lanier- if you get a chance, stop by. I keep the boat (or at least parts of it) at a club on the lake in the winter, so it could still be seen or measured if you have questions.
I have built a couple of scale models of parts of my boat to work out design/changes and also replaced some of my float and main hull bulkheads by using the plans. Everything has fitted nicely, even 40 years after the boat was built. I found once I built the bulkheads, everything became much clearer. I intend to build a cabin on my boat this winter, so we are going through some of the same design decisions.
B

 

timber beams

hi all, i finally got around to taking a couple of pics of the internal of my beams. There doesnt appear to be any consistency with the way the grain of the timbers that make up the beam runs. Each one was different and as i say, i have no idea what timber was used.

 

Looks like Douglas Fir or what you call Oregon ripped out of conventional flat sawn stock. The grain variation is from the curve of the log. Pretty strong actually as the rings show a reasonable density.

 

That beam is entirely wrong.
It shoud be rotated 90 deg, and the ply webs re-inforced with small blocks inside at intervals.
But generally speaking it is just unnecessarily heavy.
Samnz ply box beams are much more efficient.

 

I didn't mean the beam was right Paddy, I was commenting on the wood itself.

 

beam loading

RC2, Thanks for posting those pics.
OS, I am not so sure the beams were wrong- and they did last quite a few years The beams are "mostly" in compression due to the water stays, and any other loading is fore and aft, which they would be ok with. Maybe not "right", but maybe not so wrong either. At least it gives us something to chat about B

 

I only meant that the orientation of the flanges (solid wood) was wrong. I shouldn't have said "entirely".
The flanges should be on the top and bottom. The two plywood webs make a box beam, ideal for resisting bending and not needing water stays if done right.The box beam format also resists torsion, a lot of which occurs between the amas and the vaka. The fore and aft bending loads are nothing like the upward bending loads on a Tri. (Unless you hit a Whale at speed).
Those beams would thus be alright with water stays. But are still unnecessarily heavy otherwise.
Sorry Cav, I didn't answer your question properly. So long as the grain runs along the beams, the cross section pattern of the grain is not so important. If the grain runs out diagonally across the beams, then that is bad news.

 

It's not long enough, the boat can take up to at least a 38' rig, my dad's b24 is proof of that.