Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[Neil]

actually andrew, your red line is in the totally wrong position for the crutch positioning and the  blue lines for the single posts don't locate to anywhere on the plans for fittings into which a singlr pole crutch would go................however there are positional base brackets shown on plan at those positions both port and starboard for where the main and mizzen crutches attach, so in effect you have shown by the blue lines where the two larger crutches actually fit..............and the red line has absolutely nothing to do with the boat at all.............good on yer for pointing out to all the other watchers where these two crutches actually go...............which is also shown for the bipod crutch on my photos..............although I must say, you are about 4 inches ( four feet) further back with the aft blue line that it should be
neil.

[Neil]

However, I will telephone Simon Stevens at NMM tomorrow and ask him what he thinks as a final word on this matter...............never let it be said that I don't research these things thoroughly!!

[RAAArtyGunner]

 
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, but that doesn't apply to Aussies.
 
So here goes, an observation from a lifeboat illiterate.
 
It appears that the height of the mast in the stowed position as shown on the model, indicates very good access to the tiller and rear area, as well as, if the mast is to be manually raised, then it is easier to do so so from the current semi raised position, rather than flat on the deck.
 
Yes/No?????????????????
 

[Rottweiler]

 now that IS dedication,no one can question that! praise given where praise is due........ now wheres that bl##dy chuck key,if only that would go to plan lol!
Mick F

[RAAArtyGunner]

now that IS dedication,no one can question that! praise given where praise is due........ now wheres that bl##dy chuck key,if only that would go to plan lol!
Mick F

It was visible in photo 2 but afterwards...........................gone, gone, gone.

[vnkiwi]

Hi Neil,
Just from observing the drawings, I would interprete that the two mast supports (blue lines) are correct, the rear one a single pole, (just aft and slightly starboard of the valve handle in the plan view) and the big bipod you have made is in fact to lift the engine when needed. It has the underslung hole for the shackle and is over the centre of mass of the engine, and would need to be that high for the endless chain to clear. The forward mast support is a bipod with the two base sockets at the edge of the seats each side.
Be interested in your final solution.
cheers
vnkiwi
 

[irishcarguy]

My My, we are pickey today, so I thought I would have my 3 cents worth too. If you add the height of an average man to  the length of the poles for pushing the mast vertical, then to my way of looking the poles are just about the right length to get the mast vertical with ease. Mick B.

[derekwarner]

Mick B....in OZ many many years ago we had a threepenny bit of real coinage 
From the scales & images depicted........I cannot see how an individual of 6' in height could raise the mast from the horizontal to the vertical
Now considering the elevation question here ...the ANZAC spirit could solve this  .......yes you guessed it get vnkiwi to sit on the shoulders of RAAArtyGunner
What a site that would be    ........Derek

[RAAArtyGunner]

Mick B....in OZ many many years ago we had a threepenny bit of real coinage 
From the scales & images depicted........I cannot see how an individual of 6' in height could raise the mast from the horizontal to the vertical
Now considering the elevation question here ...the ANZAC spirit could solve this  .......yes you guessed it get vnkiwi to sit on the shoulders of RAAArtyGunner
What a site that would be    ........Derek

Now that is truly in the ANZAC spirit and tradition     

[vnkiwi]

Cool, but to be fair, I'd have to unload the 20kg excess ballast I've aquired in the last 6months, after injuring my achillies tendon. That is unless RAAArtyGunner has the physic of 'big arnie', maybe he should sit on my shoulders, just so we don't go killing the ANZAC spirit.
cheers
vnkiwi
 
ps
maybe time to get back to subject.
Neil, hope your old lifeboat man can get it sorted for you.

[Neil]

indicates very good access to the tiller and rear area, as well as, if the mast is to be manually raised, then it is easier to do so so from the current semi raised position, rather than flat on the deck.
 
Yes/No?????????????????

Yes!......it's all about fulcrums and pivoting points, and two men on the sheet which is fed through the bow roller on the fairlead getting the mast up in foul weather........at that height two men could manage it whilst the oarsmen were trying to get her off a Lee shore under oar........always a precarious manouvre......take those men off the oars to help and she has no power to beat the waves and wind, and is washed ashore..........but as I said, will ask the guru, Simon Stevens at NMM today.
 
neil.

[davidjt]

hi neil
 
what a fantastic build,    
the build log is fantastic keep plodding on, the end is nearly there
 
david

[Neil]

Hi Neil,
Just from observing the drawings, I would interprete that the two mast supports (blue lines) are correct, the rear one a single pole, (just aft and slightly starboard of the valve handle in the plan view) and the big bipod you have made is in fact to lift the engine when needed. It has the underslung hole for the shackle and is over the centre of mass of the engine, and would need to be that high for the endless chain to clear. The forward mast support is a bipod with the two base sockets at the edge of the seats each side.
Be interested in your final solution.
cheers
vnkiwi

sorry Kiwi, but on the previous post 762 cross sections, that the mizzen mast crutch is DEFINATELY a bipod (Clearly marked on plan) and that the two masts that you say could be an engine hoist was a "Mast support"  (also was clearly marked on plan until I cut it off for ease of photocopying). Can't see that they would clutter up an already cluttered deck with a rig that they would use very very infrequently, and this piece of equipment would be part of the Dockyard rig anyway, so why show it on a lifeboat plan..........the RNLI don't show any engine hoisting tackle on any other lifeboat plan I have ever seen????

[heritorasphodel]

You know what don't bother. I concede defeat. However, I am still certain that I am right. Common sense says that the design of both crutches would be similar, if not the same. It does not make engineering sense to build them in two completely different methods. I think vnkiwi's right, it looks to me like an engine hoist. (Seeing as the top is not shaped to support the mast and all the rigging connections are on the bottom). If this isn't the earliest lifeboat you've built it's certainly one of them, and therefore don't expect it to be the same as later boats. And please identify the two blue highlighted areas. The one closest to the bow is the mizen mast support, so what is the other one, if not the main mast support?


As for raising the mast, there is film footage of the well-decked 45' Dunleary which apart from being 2 foot longer would have been identical to the 43. In that, one or two men are standing on the engine casing pushing the mast up, and the rest of the crew are hauling on the forestay to pull the mast up. Therefore, brute strength is not needed.


Andrew

[vnkiwi]

Hi Neil,
No need to apologize my friend. It was simply my opinion derived solely from the limited plan portions provided, which to me didn't gell with the dialogue at the time.
I know very little about English lifeboats, and do find your build an inspiration, and a standard for me to work towards.
Keep up the grand work, and look forward to the next details added, and the finishing off.
regards
vnkiwi

[Neil]

You know what don't bother. I concede defeat. However, I am still certain that I am right. Common sense says that the design of both crutches would be similar, if not the same. It does not make engineering sense to build them in two completely different methods. I think vnkiwi's right, it looks to me like an engine hoist. (Seeing as the top is not shaped to support the mast and all the rigging connections are on the bottom). If this isn't the earliest lifeboat you've built it's certainly one of them, and therefore don't expect it to be the same as later boats. And please identify the two blue highlighted areas. The one closest to the bow is the mizen mast support, so what is the other one, if not the main mast support?


As for raising the mast, there is film footage of the well-decked 45' Dunleary which apart from being 2 foot longer would have been identical to the 43. In that, one or two men are standing on the engine casing pushing the mast up, and the rest of the crew are hauling on the forestay to pull the mast up. Therefore, brute strength is not needed.


Andrew

nah, you can't quit that easily andrew.....yer always trying to prove me wrong, so let me have my day ........just rung the NMM but sadly Simon's off in Falmouth until Friday so will have to wait for the answer till then, but did get a reply to what it was from my Friend Quinton the professional lifeboat restorer this morning, and so will go with that explanation for the moment, and not theories......
 "As it was an open boat i expect the mast was stowed riding high so crew wouldnt walk into its top end lying aft and to make it easier to get the shoulder under to put it up at sea.Q" Neil.

[heritorasphodel]

This is an open boat with the mast stowed, so why isn't the mast stowed high on this? or in other cases, later boats with canopies still had low masts when they were folded. And you still haven't answered my question about the blue highlighted areas.

[Neil]

Not to labour a point Andrew, but I will,
 
you still maintain that both main and mizzen mast crutches are a single pole............
 
please explain to me why there are two legs on the mizzen mast crutch and brackets on both starboard and port side to take this rig, which is dismantleable. from the hinge and pins available.
 
also the two uprights of the main structure that we are also sidcussing is also collapsable, and also has a shallow hollow in the top of the "steelwork" to take the mast.....it also has eyes for taking rigging blocks

[heritorasphodel]

I maintain that on some boats the crutches were single poles, and I have seen photographs which prove that, but I agree on the motor sailers they would need a system that reaches over the engine casing.


The point I am trying and obviously failing to make is that the big timber frame that is directly over the engine casing is not a mast crutch as it does not fit the pattern that all other boats seem to fit in regards to height and style (by which I mean low, iron/steel, to one side of the boat which the timber frame isn't, both crutches built similarly, a section that is shaped to fit the mast not just the top of two poles forming a shallow v...)


The eyes on the sides of it are stays to hold it upright, otherwise it would collapse under it's own weight, unlike the mizen mast crutch which can stand on it's own. It would make sense to put the support as close to the end of the mast as possible, hence the blue areas.


And one thing that I'm not sure about is whether the mizen would fold without hitting this big frame.


Finally, can someone that isn't Neil tell me if what I'm saying is making any sense or if it's the way I'm explaining this that's confusing everyone.

[Neil]

This is an open boat with the mast stowed, so why isn't the mast stowed high on this? or in other cases, later boats with canopies still had low masts when they were folded. And you still haven't answered my question about the blue highlighted areas.

cos they had to get it under the bridge, andrew.........obvious, and simples,
 
 
Nah, nah nah!!!!...you are changing the goalposts on this discussion, because you flatly refuse to beieve that someone else couldn't be right.
 
I can understand Kiwi's explanation of it being an engine hoist, because he freely admits that he knows very little about british lifeboats......
 
but that is where your argument falls flat on the floor.
 
You work (albeit voluntarily) at Chatham Lifeboat collection and therefore for you to latch on to his theory of it being a lifeboat engine hoist kept on a lifeboat is pure fantacy and quite rediculous.
 
How many lifeboat plans have you seen with this type of equipment drawn on the actual boat plans........................I doubt any at all.............
 
and don't forget these plans are for the SPECIFIC BOAT with ON number that I am building so generic engine hoist  drawings would not be put on a set of plans.
 
This boat was also the first Motor lifeboat to be built specifically for and stationed in Ireland, and lifeboat designs change as they progress, so how you can say catagorically that those two uprights are not for that specific boat at that specific station to hoist a mast on a boat that is kept afloat are incorrect when it shows them on the plan  is (as they say in Ireland) Pure Baloney.
 
You have not yet come up with any reasonable argument of your ownas to what the ctrutch is other than an engine hoist or other  than latch onto someone else's theories, and until you can come up with an argument to prove not only myself but also Quinton Nelson whose decendants served as coxs'ns on that specific boat, you won't sway my mind one bit.
 
As for showing me a picture of a small lifeboat going under a bridge with a mast on a crutch....do you wonder why I took the preverbial in my opening sentence.........I could show you a dozen pictures of masts on single post crutches.........but that doesn't prove that this boat didn't have as what I have constructed.
 
As for answering your questions about the blue lines on the plans..........I think I did earlier but you weren't listening. the foreward blue line corresponds to the fore mizzen bipod ( there are clear points on the drawing of brackets both port and starboard to slot the curved bipod into which you failed to mention when trying to prove that it was a single post crutch when the drawing shows clearly a bipod, and the aft blue line comes out of the gearbox top casing (made of timber and so wouldn't be that strong to hold a veryy hefty main mast and rigging, on the starboard side of the boat. Whilst the Mizzen mast tabernacle is offset to port to allow the mast to fall to port, the main mast tabernacle is square set to allow the main mast to fall centrally down the boat and would therefore miss that aft "blue" upright as it is offset to starboard by about a foot.
 
We shall have to wait until friday when I can contact Simon at the NMM for a definative answer to the conundrum.........and that is all I shall say on the matter...........too many theories and supersitions are baffling my brain and giving me a headache of all headaches.
 
neil.

[RAAArtyGunner]

too many theories and superstitions are baffling my brain and giving me a headache of all headaches.
 
Neil.

Nah it's all that typing giving you a headache 
 
Ive got one, headache that is, just trying to keep up and digest all the reading

[Neil]

 

[Netleyned]

Could they not act as a pair of sheer legs to support
the masts with a lifting tackle and strop to enable the tabernacle
bolts to be withdrawn prior to unshipping the masts and
vice versa.
As each vessel was slightly different then a set of legs
to do the job would probably be slightly different and
therefore shown on the GA for the vessel.

Just my take on the question.

Ned

[Neil]

I have my theories Ned, but will let you know exactly what they are for, hopefully on Friday.
neil.

[Peter Fitness]

You're a veritable one man factory, Neil   Great stuff


Peter.