Continuing with the upcoming windlass installation project that will happen this Spring -
(You may recall that I am avoiding the mast as it adds $2,000 to the project - nuts, yes)
Instead of drilling a 6" Beckson Plate access port in the deck adjacent to the where the windlass will be installed (to be able to reach in/under and secure the nuts and attach the windlass motor below deck), I am considering making an access port through the bulkhead in the forward cabin portside locker (picture attached), to the left of the mast locker.
I can get into the locker far enough to easily reach the underside of the deck where the windlass will be installed. If this is feasible, it would avoid drilling another large hole in the deck.
The question - will drilling a hole (6" - same as was planned for the deck) or making a square door, in this bulkhead reduce the integrity of the bulkhead?
Is this a ‘load bearing’ bulkhead or a wall without structural implications? The wall feels pretty solid, and yes, there is a metal angle (similar to the one in the photo) on the forward side at the top but the bolts do not appear to go thru the deck (as do the metal angle bolts on either side of the mast)…
Thank you,
Peter Grabow
S/V CAKE WALK III
1987 30U 430
Jersey City, NJ
These bulkheads support the lateral stresses from the unstayed mast. Is it wise to cut more holes in them? Especially large enough holes to be useful access holes?
I would be more inclned to go with the hole in the deck such that you could undo the nuts (or tighten them) while being AT the windlass as opposed to being under it. Also, I feel less comfy with the idea of another big hole in that particular bulkhead (and I agree with Brian G. about lateral stress from the mast).
The deck is also an integral part of the structure that supports the mast.
If an access hole is made in the bulkhead (well away from the perimeter), could a patch be made that would replace the strength taken away by the hole? The patch would be larger than the hole and glued and screwed in place.
IMHO a hole in that plywood bulkhead would do little to reduce its strength as a stiffening agent for the mast area. Plywood is a monolithic material that will maintain its tensile and compressive strength well in the presence of “ lightening” holes. It’s done all the time on racers.
However the same goes for the fibreglass deck and as Ernie says (and I can confirm having done it) it will be a lot easier to deal with the installation when you can do it all from one place. In my case it was a no brainer because there was a chain pipe hole that I needed to do something with anyway so I just cut it out big enough to work through (6”). Since the windless installation I have made use of the same access to remove my pulpit, install a wash down pump, and replace plywood backing plates. It’s a very handy hole.
Following Paul, I think the operative cliches are size matters and less is more. I.e., the smaller the hole, the less impact on integrity of the structure. The bigger the hole, the more important to have reinforcement around its perimeter that resists forces and transmits them to the same extent that the missing material would have.
That said, I’ve seen a number of posting on this discussion board from people who’ve cut access holes in either their deck or their bulkhead, so it seems like a safe guess that a hole big enough to get an arm through should be ok.
(On the other hand, my reply to this message has somehow been relabeled by Google as having the subject, “Re: SPAM Re: Bulkhead integrity,” which may reflect Google’s opinion of my structural integrity. Hmmm.)
Having no “scientific” proof but trusting in the abilities, knowledge and sheer experience of many of you folks, I stand by my opinion of having this particular hole on the deck. I do not believe that a 6" hole in that foredeck area will compromise the strength, etc. of the foredeck area. And, let’s not forget, the idea is not to “cut a hole and walk away”. The hole will be filled by a properly installed and sealed well-built inspection port that should be water-tight. The inspection port does add some strength to what would otherwise be an open hole. (I’ll bet that it actually adds more strength than we’d think … but, maybe I’m wrong. Heck, sometimes I’m wrong !!!)
I think, as I mentioned, having the hole in the deck is a way better and more useful move that having it in the bulkhead.
Bottom line - Some of the contributors to this group just happen to have a tremendous amount of experience with boats. Paul Miller built all kinds of boats out of all kinds of materials before he retired. Then … I believe he built more boats !!!
I’d trust his judgement (along with the opinions of many Nonsuchers, I must say).
Now here’s a thought: Go with a well-located 6" hole in the deck. Then just possibly … also put an inspection port in that bulkhead - I really don’t think the boat will suffer and you’ll be able to get your hands everywhere.
My two cents …
Ernie A. in Toronto
PS - Why, on earth, would GOOGLE pick on “bulkhead integrity” ?? Does make you wonder, doesn’t it ??
Maybe GOOGLE hates TRANSFORMERS ? Here’s a shot of a TRANSFORMER named BULKHEAD.
Furthermore, there are inspection ports and inspection ports. Most of us would buy a nice white plastic one for $25.00 and install it. Want something STRONG ?? Look at this thing:
Find a place to pull the mast for a reasonable cost. Is that an option? It’s a morning job and you can check the mast at the same time… Am I wrong in thinking deck mounted windlass motors are easier to maintain. Deck vs bulk head. my intuition says a 4 inch deck hole but I’d be asking Mark Ellis …you more than double the area going from 4 to 6…
I was able to do my 26 mast in. But is was a stretch.
I’d like to thank everyone who has replied (so far - please keep the input coming!) to this question. You have given me much to consider.
To clarify, the original plan for a 6" port in the deck is to place the port where the existing hawse pipe is. The hawse pipe is 4" across, and perhaps 2 or 3" back to front. The plan was to center the 6" port using the existing hawse pipe hole. This location should allow for me to reach underneath the deck to securely tighten the bolts/nuts for the windlass, and then slide the motor into place. The hardest part that I see with this is putting the circ clip into place at the bottom of the motor shaft.
I will take a closer look at the forward side of the bulkhead in the port locker to confirm the reinforcement bar and to what it is attached.
As it has been pointed out that both the deck, and this bulkhead, help offset the lateral forces of the mast, would it be safe to conclude that either hole would be equally affected by a 6" hole, and therefore equally reinforced by a Beckson plate (or that beautiful piece of steel port to which Ernie provided a link) in the area of the hole? Or will there be less chance for the stress to wreak havoc in the deck as the deck is thicker than the bulkhead?
And unfortunately, as noted, I have not yet found a yard that will unstep/step our large mast for much less than the $2k roundtrip I mentioned… at least not without having to travel a few days in each direction with the boat.
Peter Grabow
S/V CAKE WALK III
1987 30U 430
Jersey City, NJ
This is a bit off topic but if you arrived at your yard’s mast crane with your boom lowered onto (stands, pulpit, whatever …) and the mast loose and ready to pull, even with some head scratching by the crew (A Nonsuch ??? Duh … sling location ?? Sling set up ??), the job would/should take professionals a half-hour max. To step it, maybe 40 minutes. And yes, there’d be a fee to store it. But for all of this, they’d charge you two grand ???
I’d certainly love to know how much they’d charge you to actually haul your boat, cradle it and then … gulp … launch it - TEN grand ??
It’s just more than one can believe, honestly, Peter. I don’t understand this. This one really does suck the air out of the room.
Well said Ernie (he’s seldom ever wrong, just ask his partner) My yard charges me CAD$150 to pull the mast and put it into store, takes them half an hour. I do all the prep work, that’s half an hour of my time, which is worth nothing anyway.
I cant speak for Peter’s situation but around here where masts and boats are not pulled and replaced as often as socks mast cranes are somewhat less abundant and often the only option is renting a crane with the associated charge out rate plus travelling time. When you’re looking at that you get creative.
FWIW I did my installation 5 years ago. It’s a six inch, cheap plastic deck plate and there have been no signs that it was a mistake. I seriously doubt that the deck’s integrity has been reduced at all. What is important is to treat the core appropriately in way of the hole. Rotting core is a much better thing to be worrying about.
When I have the mast pulled, I arrive at the yard and spend a hour dropping the wishbone, pull the 4 locking screws and disconnect wiring. It takes them about a half hour to fine the balance point, rig it, lift it and place it on stands.
Joe Valinoti
S/V iL Gatto NS30U #221
Sea Harbour YC
Oriental, NC USA
