Cutter stay strut through anchor locker ?

[Sven]

We still have no way of using our cutter stay to fly a sail because the rigger didn't secure the attachment at the deck to anything that could hold up under any loads. The picture shows his idea of how to secure the stay to the deck and bulkhead - not.



Long story but the bottom line is that we need to fix it before we can use it and I really really do want to have a furling sail on that stay as an option when it is time to reduce canvas.

I had initially hoped to tie the bottom attachment into the bulkhead right under it (that's the anchor locker bulkhead) with SS straps carrying the loads out over the whole bulkhead. More recently I've started wondering if it is feasible/practical to run a strut from the deck down through the chain locker and secure it to the stem ? What I'm most curious about is how the all chain rode will interact with the strut ... will it get tangled, what are the corrosion problems and so on ?

We have the running back-stays but I also want to find a better way of managing them as they currently rely on us moving a block and tackle setup from one side to the other when tacking and attaching the block and tackle to a fitting on the toe rail.

Since we are probably going to turn back down south in the next few weeks we may have an opportunity to get the work done in a yard that we have worked with before so it is time to ask for advice here

Thanks,



-Sven

 

[Martin King]

I'm curious as to why your cutter stay is terminated forward of the chain locker bulkhead?

 

[Sven]

I'm curious as to why your cutter stay is terminated forward of the chain locker bulkhead?

I'm not sure I understand your question

The cutter stay is parallel with the forestay and is attached on the mast where the attachment point was placed when we got Senta. That determined where the lower point was located on deck.



-Sven

 

[Martin King]

Well looking at the 39 sailplan, it clearly shows the cutter stay terminated on deck aft of the chain locker.That would put the chainplate for it just forward of the bulkhead at
the bottom of the locker. Maybe that was changed on the B model?

 

[Sven]

Well looking at the 39 sailplan, it clearly shows the cutter stay terminated on deck aft of the chain locker. Maybe that was changed on the B model?

I'll have to crawl into the garage (aft stateroom full of dinghy etc.) to pull out the blueprints. I think they showed the same location we have but I won't swear to it.

Are you saying the non-B version was further aft or further forward ?



-Sven

 

[Martin King]

Are you saying the non-B version was further aft or further forward ?

Aft for the non B. And the 46, it's way aft.

 

[Sven]

Aft for the non B. And the 46, it's way aft.

Interesting. I'm not sure we'll want to do major surgery on the mast to move the attachment point and halyard exit lower but it sure is something to think about. I do remember bringing out the blueprints your mother sent us to check the relative locations before we had the re-rigging done but I was wrong once before.



-Sven

 

[Sven]

Hi Martin,

The location we have is the "standard" one based on the spec sheets.



The stay attaches right above the chain locker bulkhead.



-Sven

 

[Martin King]

Yep. Looks like it is further forward on the B model. Interesting that it shows a club footed staysail as well.

 

[Rocinante33]

Sven,

Why not run two parallel SS straps straight down the bulkhead and tab to the hull there, thereby tying the stem, bulkhead & deck all together? If you want it even stronger, use a total of 4 straps, 2 on each side of the bulkhead. It seems like it wouldn't clog up your anchor locker that way.

 

[Sven]

Hi Keith,

Why not run two parallel SS straps straight down the bulkhead and tab to the hull there, thereby tying the stem, bulkhead & deck all together? If you want it even stronger, use a total of 4 straps, 2 on each side of the bulkhead. It seems like it wouldn't clog up your anchor locker that way.

That was what I was originally thinking of doing. The force of the pull from the stay would not be in line with the straps so I started wondering about the alternative, down to the stem. The second way is structurally simpler and sounder, but the first leaves an uncluttered chain locker.

Tough choice !

Thanks,



-Sven

 

[Rocinante33]

OK. I see what you mean. Yes, it sounds like a tough choice.

 

[rwthomas1]

I think that Keith has a point. I'm assuming that in the pic I'm looking at a piece of angle aluminum in the corner of the underside of the deck and the chainlocker bulkhead? If so, I will tell you that on my E381 the chainplates for the shrouds do not pull in a straight line on two of them. The deck chainplate transfers the load to a large rod in the salon and those rods in two cases then angle, at a 30* or more angle to the bulkhead stainless plates. The point is, pulling up on the deck at an angle will split the load. The chainlocker bulkhead will take the load to the rest of the hull, and the underside of the deck. The deck itself will not allow the portion of the load that pulls back to move. Hard to describe, but I see no problem loading the chainlocker bulkhead like that, assuming its tabbed in appropriately.

RT

 

[exoduse35]

The second alternative.... You can replace the short angle with a substantial piece that extends all the way into the corners. from there you can continue the straight line down without blocking the locker as the ties will be along the hull. I think either way will be fine. Edd

 

[Sven]

You can replace the short angle with a substantial piece

Thanks, yes that little joke will be gone whichever alternative we go with.

I appreciate all the suggestions and feedback. We'll see how much a SS welder wants to cut and weld the needed parts if we attach to the bulkhead and spread the load out.



-Sven