Sources for marine plywood & lumber
alcy...@hotmail.com
project. I must be nuts. What have I gotten myself into?
Anyway, now that I have the plans in hand I figure I may as well start hunting
down materials suppliers. That said, I'd like to solicit feedback from anyone
who would care to offer opinions on marine plywood and lumber suppliers,
particularly in the New England area (I'm in Massachusetts). I've surfed all
the websites and I've found several that appear to supply the stuff I'll need,
but I'm interested in hearing about first-hand experiences any of you master
shipwrights have had with any of these suppliers. Service? Price? Quality?
Regarding marine plywood, I've followed the threads in this NG about
substituting exterior-grade construction ply. The general consensus is that
the voids in non-marine ply can cause problems when the sheet has to bend or
support a load (like decks and soles). I have a more specific question: this
particular boat calls for 3/4" ply to be used for the permanent station frames
and the flat hull bottom (sides are strip-planked). Anyone care to offer an
opinion about using regular exterior plywood for these pieces? It seems to me
that an internal void would not present a major problem in these applications,
whereas I would still use marine ply for the deck, seats, cockpit sole, etc.
Also, the plans call for rectangular-section hollow Sitka Spruce spars. This
gives me tremendous anxiety, and I'm considering substituting stock aluminum
extrusions from Dwyer. Would this be considered a mortal sin for such a
classic design?
TIA,
-Dave
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
no spam Paul Daniel Shepard
Why skimp on the hull and station frames? If your're gonna skimp, maybe the
seats, sole. Spend the few extra bucks and make it all out of marine.
Chris Crandall
: Also, the plans call for rectangular-section hollow Sitka Spruce spars. This
: gives me tremendous anxiety, and I'm considering substituting stock aluminum
: extrusions from Dwyer. Would this be considered a mortal sin for such a
: classic design?
It's a bad idea, for several reasons.
(1) It's going to be more weight aloft.
(2) It's going to be stiffer, and the bendability is
an important safety feature (spills wind).
(3) It costs a *lot* more.
(4) It's ugly.
(5) You're building your own boat. Build the mast, too!
mkpauls
remember they had a few ads for wood suppliers- there should be a few
sources in New England. Of course most real boatbuilding takes place here
in St.Louis,MO. huh?
----------
In article <7edlpu$7he$2...@null.agames.com>, pauls@(no spam)agames.com (Paul
Daniel Shepard) wrote:
> In article <7edcsb$56d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, alcy...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Well my plans arrived for the Meadowbird! This is my first boatbuilding
>>project. I must be nuts. What have I gotten myself into?
>>
>>Anyway, now that I have the plans in hand I figure I may as well start hunting
>>down materials suppliers. That said, I'd like to solicit feedback from anyone
>>who would care to offer opinions on marine plywood and lumber suppliers,
>>particularly in the New England area (I'm in Massachusetts). I've surfed all
>>the websites and I've found several that appear to supply the stuff I'll need,
>>but I'm interested in hearing about first-hand experiences any of you master
>>shipwrights have had with any of these suppliers. Service? Price? Quality?
>>
>>Regarding marine plywood, I've followed the threads in this NG about
>>substituting exterior-grade construction ply. The general consensus is that
>>the voids in non-marine ply can cause problems when the sheet has to bend or
>>support a load (like decks and soles). I have a more specific question: this
>>particular boat calls for 3/4" ply to be used for the permanent station frames
>>and the flat hull bottom (sides are strip-planked). Anyone care to offer an
>>opinion about using regular exterior plywood for these pieces? It seems to me
>>that an internal void would not present a major problem in these applications,
>>whereas I would still use marine ply for the deck, seats, cockpit sole, etc.
>>
>>Also, the plans call for rectangular-section hollow Sitka Spruce spars. This
>>gives me tremendous anxiety, and I'm considering substituting stock aluminum
>>extrusions from Dwyer. Would this be considered a mortal sin for such a
>>classic design?
>>
Dave Pulaski
> Why skimp on the hull and station frames? If your're gonna skimp, maybe the
> seats, sole. Spend the few extra bucks and make it all out of marine.
Well, I just figured that it might be possible to save some money on material
costs in these areas, which are totally enclosed/encapsulated when built. Of
course I really don't want to sacrifice strength or longevity, which is why I
asked if this substitution would compromise the integrity of the structure. I
probably will just go with BS-1088 throughout.
Thanks for the input.
--
David A. Pulaski
Database Development Consultant
http://www.dpulaski.net
Dave Pulaski
> alcy...@hotmail.com wrote:
> : Also, the plans call for rectangular-section hollow Sitka Spruce spars. This
> : gives me tremendous anxiety, and I'm considering substituting stock aluminum
> : extrusions from Dwyer. Would this be considered a mortal sin for such a
> : classic design?
>
> It's a bad idea, for several reasons.
>
> (1) It's going to be more weight aloft.
Really? This kind of suprises me. I don't know what the density of spruce is, so
I can't determine what the finished spar will weigh, but I know that the Dwyer
DM-2 mast section (which is what I would probably use for this boat) weighs only
0.776 lb/ft, so a 22' spar only weighs 17 lbs. without the hardware. I'd be
amazed if a spar built out of 3/4" spruce would weigh less.
> (2) It's going to be stiffer, and the bendability is
> an important safety feature (spills wind).
Again, I wonder if it really would be much stiffer. This is not an unstayed rig,
so I suspect the shrouds and headstay would stiffen the spruce mast much the same
way it would an Al mast.
> (3) It costs a *lot* more.
Dunno what Sitka spruce boards are costing these days, but the bare extrusion is
less than $250. Either way, I'll need hardware and standard rigging.
> (4) It's ugly.
No argument here! Without a doubt you can't match the looks of varnished wood
spars.
> (5) You're building your own boat. Build the mast, too!
Again, can't argue with this. But I suspect that if I ever actually get the hull
done, I'll be so anxious to get the thing in the water that I won't have the
energy left to build the mast.
-Dave
Chris Crandall
: > (2) It's going to be stiffer, and the bendability is
: > an important safety feature (spills wind).
Dave Pulaski (Da...@dpulaski.net) wrote:
: Again, I wonder if it really would be much stiffer. This is not an
: unstayed rig, so I suspect the shrouds and headstay would stiffen the
: spruce mast much the same way it would an Al mast.
OK, true. I thought Meadowbird's stick was unstayed.
: > (3) It costs a *lot* more.
: Dunno what Sitka spruce boards are costing these days, but the bare
: extrusion is less than $250. Either way, I'll need hardware and
: standard rigging.
OK, but is Sitka spruce really specified? Yes, it's tough to get, and it
costs plenty. However, Douglas Fir is *much* cheaper, almost as light,
it's stiff, and more rot resistant to boot. It's a safe substitute, I
would guess (it's been done hundreds of time, and sucessfully, too). And
it's a lot cheaper, too.
: > (5) You're building your own boat. Build the mast, too!
: Again, can't argue with this. But I suspect that if I ever actually
: get the hull done, I'll be so anxious to get the thing in the water that
: I won't have the energy left to build the mast.
Well, I can't argue with this, either. Still, building a mast isn't
really all that difficult. It's a reasonably short one. But it's tough
to argue with a purchased piece, esp. a second-hand one.
Bryon Kass
marine plywoods in mahogany and teak. I found that only one
exterior grade is good enough for use in boats. That grade
is MDO or medium density overlay. This stuff has numerous plies
but has an overlay of plastic or paper that paints excellent
but needs to be ground off to fiberglass. The half and three
quarters makes great bulkheads and cabin sides. It is originally
designed as street sign material. Boulter and others have it
including Freeman Plastic in Dorchester. They also have a version
with laminated plastic a shiny material over it. Great for
cabinetry.
Bryon Kass
webmaster and
Custom Design
150 Mechanic St.
Foxboro, MA 02035
508-543-9068 or fax 508-543-5127, Foot yard 508-384-2415
in THE ENGINE ROOM http://getit.at/engineroom
alcy...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Well my plans arrived for the Meadowbird! This is my first boatbuilding
> project. I must be nuts. What have I gotten myself into?
>
> Anyway, now that I have the plans in hand I figure I may as well start hunting
> down materials suppliers. That said, I'd like to solicit feedback from anyone
> who would care to offer opinions on marine plywood and lumber suppliers,
> particularly in the New England area (I'm in Massachusetts). I've surfed all
> the websites and I've found several that appear to supply the stuff I'll need,
> but I'm interested in hearing about first-hand experiences any of you master
> shipwrights have had with any of these suppliers. Service? Price? Quality?
>
> Regarding marine plywood, I've followed the threads in this NG about
> substituting exterior-grade construction ply. The general consensus is that
> the voids in non-marine ply can cause problems when the sheet has to bend or
> support a load (like decks and soles). I have a more specific question: this
> particular boat calls for 3/4" ply to be used for the permanent station frames
> and the flat hull bottom (sides are strip-planked). Anyone care to offer an
> opinion about using regular exterior plywood for these pieces? It seems to me
> that an internal void would not present a major problem in these applications,
> whereas I would still use marine ply for the deck, seats, cockpit sole, etc.
>
> Also, the plans call for rectangular-section hollow Sitka Spruce spars. This
> gives me tremendous anxiety, and I'm considering substituting stock aluminum
> extrusions from Dwyer. Would this be considered a mortal sin for such a
> classic design?
>
John McCoy
>Regarding marine plywood, I've followed the threads in this NG about
>substituting exterior-grade construction ply. The general consensus is that
>the voids in non-marine ply can cause problems when the sheet has to bend or
>support a load (like decks and soles). I have a more specific question: this
>particular boat calls for 3/4" ply to be used for the permanent station frames
>and the flat hull bottom (sides are strip-planked). Anyone care to offer an
>opinion about using regular exterior plywood for these pieces? It seems to me
>that an internal void would not present a major problem in these applications,
>whereas I would still use marine ply for the deck, seats, cockpit sole, etc.
Boulter Plywood is just around the corner from you - you can get marine
ply cheaper than most anyone (since Boulter is about the best price around,
and you won't have to pay shipping). Build the whole thing of marine ply.
John
Douglas B. Wilde
You could substitute the next grade down in ply, what is that, BS-56?? or
something like that. Same quality as 1088 except for the visual
appearance of the surface plys. So if they will be painted or sheathed,
you have the opportunity to save 1/3 or so in cost.
Doug Wilde
d...@engr.uark.edu
Steven H. Jackson
A picture of this boat, a 19 ft sharpie may be seen at
http://www.together.net/~jaxxon.
It's not hollow. I had to pick through a lot of boards to get good ones.
The mast has a 12 to 1 scarf about half way up.
I think the whole mast cost about $25 to build.
Chris Crandall wrote:
> alcy...@hotmail.com wrote:
> : Also, the plans call for rectangular-section hollow Sitka Spruce spars. This
> : gives me tremendous anxiety, and I'm considering substituting stock aluminum
> : extrusions from Dwyer. Would this be considered a mortal sin for such a
> : classic design?
>
> It's a bad idea, for several reasons.
>
> (1) It's going to be more weight aloft.
> (2) It's going to be stiffer, and the bendability is
> an important safety feature (spills wind).
> (3) It costs a *lot* more.
> (4) It's ugly.
karena...@erols.com
PNW who often build totaly out of const. ply w/o any problems. They last
approx. 15 years and then die from being beat to death from harsh treatment
with the heavy equipment.
Glen
In article <7eefk3$p...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Nicholas Carey
> In one of George Buehler's books he talks about commercial fishermen in the
> PNW who often build totaly out of const. ply w/o any problems. They last
> approx. 15 years and then die from being beat to death from harsh treatment
> with the heavy equipment.
Really? When I go down to Fisherman's Terminal here in Seattle, I
see steel fish boats and I see wooden fish boats. The wooden fish
boats tend to be build out of Douglas Fir and very heavy
scantlings. Plywood decks, maybe.
--