REBUILDING WILSON (hull #113)

[bob mitchell]

Contents:
Introduction
Newporter Masts Postmortum Analysis
Underneath the Main Cabin Floor: Main Mast Step, Rotten Framing with Rusty Bolts, Keelson and
keel bolts, inside views of chainplates.
Framing Bolt Anaysis and proposed seat of the pants Testing
Mast scarfing jig

INTRODUCTION

The reason I am switching to a blog is that I have so much energy and I am so involved in my boat that I feel out of sync, movin fast. Plus I really enjoy thinking and writing about what technical problems and solutions I am working on. "Wilson" is somewhat of a mess, to the point that I have so much to write about I am afraid I am going to overwhelm the site with all my at least initially destructive projects. So if I keep a blog, Wilson's suffering and my enthusiasm will be a little less conspicuous. I hate seeing all those dog by the lake pictures in a row, you know. Probably time to change that shot.
I have always loved derelict boats - maybe its the lack of commitment required, the low price of failure, the ease of a fantasy that does not have to come true. I'm almost sixty now, and my idea of fine is to be on the water, at anchor, on a rainy day with no place to go, sipping my coffee in the morning, and some wine in the afternoon, in my nice warm pilot house. I was chasing just such a fantasy when I took off to Lake Erie last spring in pursuit of an Eldridge-McInnis motorsailer that I saw in the back of WoodenBoat. The boat was a beauty, but "Totally Restored" was somewhat of joke, and I will let that story go at that. Anyway, driving ten hours to Lake Erie, and ten hours back, temporarily alleviated that particular boat fantasy episode. Life was good - got the fantasy done and ended up with no boat to worry about.
A couple of weeks later I was innocently up on the Cumberland Plateau, checking out some Tennessee field stone, talking to a bib-overalled local. We both had diesels, and we talking about the price, when I mentioned that in New York it had been $5.25 a gallon. He, of course, had to ask what I had been doing up in New York, and I answered - looking at a motorsailer. His incredibly quick response was "I know where there is a big motorsailer and the man is selling it cheap" Well sure buddy, do you even know what a motorsailer is? I'm thinking. Cheap?? What's cheap???
Ah well, its a beautiful day, and going somewhere where I'm not sounds good, so off I go down to Lake Guntersville, 45 minutes away, to one of the larger reservoirs on the Tennessee river. And there sitting in a slip is "Wilson", pilot house and all, except no masts. I was caught totally defenseless, unprepared for my minds onslaught. She was mine the next day.

NEWPORTER MASTS POSTMORTUM ANALYSIS

When I bought hull 113 all that came with it was a few fractured pieces of mast - but some observations of these pieces give some insight into the problems a newporter masts might have. LET ME SAY THIS BOAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR 15 OR 20 YEARS SO JUST BECAUSE THIS MAST HAD PROBLEMS DOES NOT MEAN YOURS WILL. Also, I might mention that since I have to build new masts (a project that will be well documented on this site) I am collecting measurements. so far I have three different sets of measurements- and one from an official looking newporter document,(to be posted) which leads me to believe that the mast dimensions may have varied over time- possibly between west coast boats and east coast boats (article to be posted discussing where boats were made when history forum starts.) SO ABOVE ARE THE PICTURES - SORRY i COULD NOT DO A BETTER JOB PUTTING THE TEXT NEAR THE PICTURE.
Picture#1 is a scarf joint of the mast. Looking at how clean the separation is I would say indicates a poor or deteriated glue joint. Modern glue joints are generally stronger than the wood itself and "shread" at the joints where the wood itself is torn apart. (a small piece in the corner exhibits this characteristic). The mast was made in 1967.
Picture#2 is of end of solid core of lower part of main mast. (more discussion pic #4)
Picture #3 is of the main mast just about where it goes through the deck. There is no significance to the cut pattern other than a 2" skillsaw blade depth. HOWEVER, it is significant that the solid core has little drainage or clearence and is capable of blowing out the glue joints if it gets wet from a leak or condensation. In the bottom corners you can see where the joints separated and later filled with something. It is important that solid core sections of the mast are impervious to moisture swelling or given clearence to swell.
Picture # 4 is another shot of (picture #2) the end of the intial solid core which ended about 20" above the gooseneck fitting (screw holes visable down mast) a solid core up to this height to supply strength and good winch and boom attachment is standard stuff. HOWEVER, the end of the solid core SHOULD NOT END ABRUPTLY like this because it concentrates stresses. It should taper out. ALSO the end grain is wide open to moisture from leaks and condensation, leading to swelling and joint blowout.
Picture #5 shows a section of the mast cut away, revealing a 1/4" piece of plywood that was glued to the fore and aft staves so that when the sides were glued they would have a positive stop. Traditionally that is done with a "rabbet" (recess cut into side of plank). The plywood also adds considerable strength. The plywood does not start until after the solid core bottom section.
Picture #6 is of the spreader and the section of mast it attaches to - note the shroud tang location is shown. The spreader overlays the tang, with the tang nestled in the notch of the spreader. Traditionally there is a solid core in the mast at the spreader location, but Ackerman's notched spreader design transfers the compressional forces to the fore and aft staves, eliminating the need for solid core. I would still feel better if the sides were backed up a little at this location because of all the tang attachment bolts.
Picture #7is of the forstay tang attachment area, and the tang itself. That area of the mast does have a short solid core so Ackerman must have considered it under significant stress.
The last picture (diagram) shows a mistake where they probably mounted the sailtrack before the through tang bolts so they just cranked them in at an angle. Either they should be countersunk beneath the track (since it is solid core it can be done) or the sail track mounted on a batten to give clearence for tang bolts. On the other hand, maybe they wanted to be able to remove the tang without taking off the sailtrack.
Correpondence with a Newporter mastbuilder indicates my mast may have been an abberration, or maybe not even original. He stated "In my days with the NP's, two layers (one wrapped twice around) of fiberglass were put on the masts. The "plywood rabbets" were installed under all the solid blocking. We used urea formaldehyde (Weldwood) glue (I think I'd go for epoxy now). I sealed the tops of the solid blocking and the wireruns with Quigley's #9 which is (was?) a steel primer, black, slow drying, and it really soaked in. I noticed that your solid blocking seemed to be layered. We used one piece blocking. The upper surface was angle down maybe 10 degrees to the wire groove. I agree wholeheartedly about the abrupt change in sectional area. Robert M. Steward in his book (Boatbuilding Manual, highly recommended) calls it the "Rhodes" type block. It calls for a double V cut into the ends (set 90 degrees to each other) rather deep. We called it a squid cut. It will require a third more or so of blocking material. Is it needed? I've never heard of a mast breaking at the end of the blocking, but I'd rather not hear of it, so I recommend the squids cuts."
i have added a photo of the Mizzen mast dimensions.

UNDERNEATH THE MAIN CABIN FLOOR (SOLE)

The bulkhead (see fresh cut vertical wall above wire bundle) immediately aft of the main mast, between the stove and the forward sink, had a rotten bottom that was continuing to hold moisture. I went to the boat intending to do my first REAL search and destroy (until I saw Dennis' pictiures) by removing the stove, but when I got there I decided I did not need 3 sinks - so there you have it - gone. The first view looking between my feet shows the main mast step immediately in front of feet, and then an area of open floor which was covered by the stove and kindling drawer towards the aft, and was in front of the sink and drawers forward. The floor was rotten as well, so I had a problem!

The rot is worse than it looks in the next photo, with a screw driver easily penetrating the frame in several locations. The rot appears to originate from two different areas 1) the area around the back of the stove (probably the stovepipe leaked- and unfortunately the floor area where the water accumulates is covered by kindling drawer) and 2) down the frame on the starboard side. I think that frame is connected to the main mast step, so it is not one that you want to be rotten. This "looking down" photo, combined with Dennis Gaffney's "looking up" photo IMG 1818 gives an INCREDIBLE opportunity to understand the fundamental structure of Newporters. The layers of plywood there are what I call the keelson, which is bolted and spiked to the keel. In the CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FORUM are, I think, pictures of the keelson being laminated as well as joined to the keel. My impression is that many owners do not realize that the keelson is plywood with edgegrain exposed in the bilge. The good news here is that in this area the actual hull sheathing and keelson are in good shape!! It is REALLY worthwhile to look and STUDY Dennis' photo IMG 1815 to see how the boat was built, one implication being that there may be some problems easier to attack from the floor down in the inside, and others from the outside of the hull. Dennis photo IMG 1815 shows it ALL - the 6 layers of plywood keelson with edgegrain exposed, with a spike attaching it to the keel, and the lowest member of the oak frames intersecting perpendicularly (a most likely rot area). OF ALL THE PHOTOS I HAVE SEEN THIS IS THE MOST INFORMATIVE OF NEWPORTER STRUCTURE. I have keelson problems at a couple of locations (not the mast step area of this forum), and had worked out a solution to rout out the bad layers in offset sequences, and epoxy in 3/4 white oak layers (just for the repair splices) but after the first layer I ran into those spikes. Mine were bronze and in good shape - so I left that project until I had more info - like IMG 1815 - I call leaving a project like that "processing".

The last photo, I think, is of the chainplate anchor, inside and below the gunwale that the chainplate exits out of . Clearly the ON DECK CHAINPLATE CAULK WAS NEGLECTED and in came the water, running right down the frame to the floor and bottom of the rotten bulkhead. Fortunately the water did not stand on the sheathing, and all though it is discolored it still has its integrity. For a REALLY good view of the exposed chainplate structure you can go to www.donaldmarine.com. Tim has done a significant restoration of his Newporter, with some excellent photos at that sight
I have added this new picture which is actually the right angle bend at the end of the chainplate. Note the electrolytic action.

. One last comment - that bundle of wire goes into air conditioner and other places unknown as yet - and it could possibly have provided a path for water (condensation, etc.). In the next forum I may try to replace the bad frame, so be thinking about the best way and all the things involved - we will figure it out and get er done.

The main mast step on hull113 is a 1 3/4" x 12" x 24" solid piece of what I assume is white oak. The front of step is mortised into the frame cross member, while the back sits on to of the cross frame with added strips forming the mortise (removed in photo) The cross member in the center is also mortised and actually forms a partial bottom (not visable in this photo), but I would suspect from the impression on the step top that the load is carried by the shoulders of the mast tenon, not the cross member. The step has 6 major screws or bolts (not sure yet which, but screws I suspect because they probably go into the keelson (large structure running through center that frames attach to) below.

Next we have what I expect is the most common framing problem. The long member that butts into the keelson, where the limber holes have been cut for bilge drainage. just sucks up the water once the bilge starts accummulating water. This one is totally gone from the keelson up to the first bolt to the cross member. I am thinking hard about the many repair alternatives and their implications, and since this problem probably affects most neglected Newporters I would hope for some discussions of different approaches. NOTE THE BOLT AND NUT RESTING ON TOP OF FRAME - IF YOUR INTERESTED - AND YOU SHOULD BE - SEE THE FORUM ON FRAME BOLT TESTING.

Next follows the high point of my day!!!! - a perfectly encapsulated keelson bolt, done over 40 years ago I assume, in front of the mast step (you can see its position in the first mast step photo). WOW. The second photo is a main bronze keel bolt about the center of the main cabin. A likely scenario is that water infiltrated the protective resin coating of the plywood edgegrain of the keelson, the plywood expanded, crushing its top layers against the keel bolt washer (example of "compressiion set" I think) - which led to further and more rapid water absorbtion, and eventually a significant blob (that you can't really see) of rot across my keelson. I had taken off the top layer of plywood with a router, but hit a spike, and decided to think some more (process new data), but now, when I start replacing frames, I will probably go ahead and rout out each layer in a staggered sequence and relaminate that area. A lot of work but I feel so much better now that I have cleared the floor away and can get to the frames and step. There is no question that Dennis Gaffney's "outside perspective" photos like IMG 1815 gave me some needed insight.

/body>
p style="text-align: left;">

FRAMING BOLT ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED SEAT OF PANTS TESTING

The picture shows a lower frame member where it is fastened to the cross member (actually known as the "floor" in boating lingo) by two 5/16" galvanized bolts. The cross member is bolted to the keelson, also shown, to the right. The few inches of the lower frame member that would extend to the keelson have rotted away. PLEASE, understand that my boat was in fresh water for ten years and NEGLECTED, with water standing in the bilge off and on (also went to Australia and back). Do not assume a boat that has been looked after will have these same problems, because these bolts were encapsulated with resin when initially installed. I am documenting all of this stuff because my primary interest is boat restoration, and somehow I think this information will be valuable to others who will be restoring Newporter 40s.
p style="text-align: left;">

So, to the topic at hand - that 5/16" bolt end with a nut that I sat on the lower framing for reference. As I was vacuuming my newly exposed bilge I bumped this frame bolt/nut end and off it rolled. I was a little stunned, because my plan, which I had already tested a couple of times, was to wire brush by hand these exposed ends, and then regoop with resin. The ones that did not look so good I would cut off with my small Hitachi side grinder, drive out, and replace. (have not made up my mind what I am going to replace them with - stainless, bronze, or galvanized)

< Anyway, it got me thinking, that since I am going to replace many of the bolts and frames anyway, why not wire brush them in place before I replace them, see how good they LOOK, and then give them a rap or two with a hammer to see if they break. Not exactly scientific, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is worthwhile data which will establish some relationship between what a bolt and nut initially look like, how good they look after wire brushing and a hammer test failure rate. Lets just call it EXPERIENCE. I will report on my findings at a later date - and others might as well.
The last picture is a close up of the washer, bolt, and nut. I gently put the bolt, nut and washer into a vise to wire brush it, to compare the surface finish with some of the others I had wire brushed, and before I had really firmed up the vise the bolt sheared again (the vise compression created an upward bend in the washer, which separted the nut and bolt from the washer), but what is interesting is a plane of the bolt remained in the washer, indicating another thin shear failure plane next to the original. I went ahead and hand wire brushed the nut and bolt fairly rigorously to see what the surface finish would be. I was fairly relieved to see that it would not finish up like some of the other in place bolts that I had assumed were good.

MAST SCARFING JIG

SCARF JOINT ROUTER JIG
Bud McIntosh,in his How to Build a Wooden Boat, goes into a fair amount of detail on building hollow wooden masts. He describes and illustrates a 12 to 1 scarfing jig, complete with the method and the tools shown above (slick and plane). I made the slick a couple of years ago for a post and beam job from a random truck leaf spring because Highland Hardware was out of slicks at the time. I am sure many of you know, but I'll write it anyway, that if you want to make a tool that will hold an edge the steel has to have carbon in it. In general common steel does not have enough carbon in it to make it hard enough to hold an edge, but leaf spring steel, or a file, does. The handle itself is steel because 1) the holes are hell to drill unless you anneal it 2) it is indestructable 3) the inertia from the weight is desirable and 4) I was working in steel that day anyway. I quinched it in oil for a medium temper, but it still held an edge better than any of the chisels on the job. (Quinching means to cool hot steel rapidly, freezing the molecules in a state of stress, which makes the steel harder. When you anneal steel you heat it up and then slowly let it cool so the molecules relax and the steel is softer, easy to work, but will not hold an edge). If your interested, Wooden Boat did an article a couple of months ago of their own version.
But once my son and I were making a thick topped red oak table from rough lumber, before I had a joiner in my shop, and we each had a jack plane. And I have to admit we worked a whole weekend trying to hand join those four boards, and came close??? So I love my planes but find hand joining difficult. With that experience in mind, and facing, between the main and the mizen, 40 scarfs, or 20 pairs, I opted for the router because I know I can reproduce the same scarf over and over regardles of the wood grain. Maybe I have worked to much with oak and yellow pine, and opposed to Douglas Fir.
So the photo shows a simple jig I built from scrap, except for the plexiglass base. The first base I built was just plywood, but I could not see what was going on underneath. The second was going to be from a 3/16" scrape piece of plexiglass, but I realized I could not countersink the router attachment screws, so I had to wait till Monday to pick up a piece of 3/8" plexiglass, which was a good thing because you don't want any flex in the base that might hollow out the scarf.
Another issue is whether or not you want to leave any dimension at the thin end of the board being scarfed. If you do you can adjust the base stop or depth, and maybe add a base stop at the top so that the dimension at the thin end has some where to nestle at the thick end - haven't quite worked it out in practice, but it is something to think about. The reason it might not be desirable to go to zero dimension at the thin end is that the wood starts falling apart unless you are really careful. A coat of epoxy filler will probably take care of it.
Building the jig is pretty obvious - two identical wedges 3" at one end to 0" at the other, 3' long (12 to 1) fastened to a base the width of the board to be scarfed. I would extend the base board to 6' with 3' unencumbered by inclined side so it is easy to clamp onto board being scarfed.
BUT I had to think a little about the router cutting layout. 1) Take your standard router base off, and use as tempate on about a 6" by15" 3/8" plexiglass to mark mounting screw holes, being sure that router base is centered. (countersink screw holes in plexiglass like your router base) 2) mount router and carefully plunge. I went so slow I melted my way through - so if that happens to you be sure to get melt waste of before it solidifies. Now set bit depth to the thickness of the board to be scarfed. 3) take bit to maximum side cut, square up base to jig side, and mark location of one side stop - see photo - one side stop location already marked in brown - the other over by cord getting ready to be marked. 4) mark lower end where bit contacts jig base, square up router base to sides, and mark sides for bottom stop - see other photo with test board. The end of the board to be scarfed is also there or close to there (where the bit contacts the bottom), depending on whether or not you want some dimension at the end. SO THERE YOU GO - YOU MIGHT BE BETTER OFF TO THINK IT THROUGH YOURSELF..............

Further thoughts concerning the idea of dimension at the thin end and corresponding "nestle" at the other: Because the router rides on the inclined sides of the jig the bit is tilted. Therefore anytime you add enough depth to cut the "nestle" you 1) cannot have dimension at the thin end and 2) you shorten the scarf joint length. So you cannot have dimension at the thin end and a nestle at the thick end in one operation. So now you are faced with doing two quality operations on a pair of 16' or longer boards that must match up perfectly. Since, if we chose to use a nestle, we would have a very distinct and straight nestle on each piece I am inclined to line them up side by side and then mark across the thin end of both with a square at a location on the thin end that would give thickness equal to the depth of the nestle. But a cut on the wrong side of the line of one would lead to a bad fit (one being longer) just based on the saw kerf. Is it worthwhile?? I don't know, but I am skeptical. Maybe if it just got down to a pure mechanical operation. Or maybe if you used a thin bladed jap saw and took the line, instead of having to move the lumber to a chopsaw. One last qestion I have been thinking about: is the "nestle" option actually stronger, or does the nestle line lead to weakness - I mean if you take the nestle depth to the extreme you end up with a butt joint!