Holes in my head (liner)?

I have a series of small holes (6x3/8") in the headliner on the horizontal surface just below the main cabin portlights. They are on both sides. Are these the leftover artifacts made by a PO or do they serve some other purpose?

I did notice water dripping out of them last w-end while I rode out the remnants of TS Barry:eek:. I guess it's time to replace the portlights!:mad:

Another headliner-esk question for the historians. Why was so little effort originally put into finishing the forward peak cabin roof etc. The finish in the main cabin (barring the aftermentioned holes) is spectacular but the forward cabin reminds me a war zone!

Andrew Ariel 387 "Arthur"

Actually, it's not really a "headliner" in the traditional sense. It is a complete layup that was put into the cabin to make the cabin pretty. Pearson did not put one in the area of the V-berth. I would assume that this was a matter not only of cost but also of space, as it's pretty tight in there as it is. I would guess that if you took the "headliner" out of the main cabin, the ceiling would look just like or perhaps a little rougher :eek: than the overhead in the V-berth.

I am considering removing the "headliner" from Elii Henry. Any input any one has on this would be appreciated. The basic idea is to remove the insert and do the ceiling and area of the ports in wood. No headroom gained at all but I think the wood would look much nicer and it would not decrease the headroom if I have removed the insert.
I now have blank vellum with which to actually start drawing Elii Henry's new interior. I can't wait to see what I come up with. I think that drawing everything out might actually be more work than all of the remodel itself. I've done the hands on boat work but always to plans drawn by someone else. Has anyone here removed the insert from the main cabin before? Was it actually bonded to the deck laminate such as around the ports? top of the cabintop? the bulkhead in which the companionway hatch opening is? Any and all input is appreciated!!
Joe

Joe

My headliner is now partially bonded to the cabin top as a result of the recore work I did on the coach roof. not really sure how and where it was originally bonded, although the headliner on A-231 showed evidence of the pearson installed "carpenter's chaulk blue" resin around the port and stbd sides of my coach roof liner. The liner is not bonded around the Portlights on A-231. That said you will probably encounter some interesting issues in removing the liner:

1. it was installed on the deck before the deck was dropped on to the hull & interior partitions. (removal may be tricky especially in the area of the galley and ice box).
2. for better or worse, the liner doubles the thickness of the coach roof in the area of the fixed ports

On the plus side you may gain an additional 1/2 inch of head room (no small thing).

If you are thinking about this as part of a recore job on the coach roof... you'll probably find working from the top is a lot easier (gravity will be on your side).

As for a series of holes below the fixed ports in A-387:
... I had a 6 or so 1/8" factory installed holes above and below the ports for the curtain rod. maybe a P.O. drilled them to let the coach roof drain... a better approach is to stop water entry by rebedding all coach roof hardware, handles, slides.....etc.

No recore going on, she's solid as a rock, strictly cosmetic for the interior But IF I actually pull it out, the wood that would replace it will be installed as to be structurally solid.

The word that pops into my head is: daunting. Certainly would be a challenge - I don't remember anybody admitting to removing the liner from an Ariel. It would be a project well worth seeing! Just getting it out would be a project.

There would be a few surprises, that's for sure. If you were going with narrow planklets like a ceiling on the hull there'd be a lot of spiling and fitting. There is nothing but curves. The wood would sure look warm and nice! I guess you'd glue strips directly to the glass, so as not to loose height?

Other cosiderations are: once you find out what's under the liner, is to think about a partial covering in wood and finish the impossible curvey parts in real or epoxy 'gel coat', and keep it light colored. (The V-berth roof area in 338 was filled and took considerable energy, but turned out satisfactory.) Cabin sides could do with some stiffening.

While I don't like the non-engineering Pearson did and the halfast installation of the liner and fittings, the smooth white sculpting blurs the dimensions of the cabin and may help the illusion of the accommodation being larger than it really is.

Lots of luck on this! Like to see what you come up with.

Joe,
My experience with 338 was this.

The liner is captured, mechanically incorporated into the main bulkheard across the whole top of the cabin. Under the compression beam. The same can be said for the companionway entrance - that is the trim around the opening holds and squeezes the liner. BUT

I found the horizontal parts of the liner under the deck and under the bridge deck not fastened or glued. The liner does not go to the hull but stops a couple inches IN from it.

I would not attempt to glue this to under the deck until you fill the space between the liner and the cabin at the windows. I believe a large amount of water can enter thru the lights into the space between the liner and cabin. Water in the linerspace might enter thru handrails, cleats and winch fastenings, thru the navigation side lights and the instrument panel in the cockpit. Adds up. It has to have a place to get out and that is onto your shelves. Some wag once called the shelves 'interior scuppers.'

Any water sitting in the liner would lead to bad smells at the very least.

Like to se ewhat you've come up with!

My experience was that the liner in 338 is not attached anywhere by factory added glue or tabbing. But as bill points out: the liner was put into the deck mold befor it was turned and mated to the hull. They might have tacked it in a places with that blue plastic sand to keep it in place. The liner wasn't flat under the deck because of installation twists and pressure. But I did glue it to the deck eventually with epoxy to make it look flat.

Thank You for all the input, look for a drawing tomorrow !!

Joe

in a similar vein you may want to look at Tim Lackey's Triton 781

http://www.triton381.com/projects/re...n/toerail.html

looks like fun...

bill

Yes, I have seen that, and must say it looks very nice; BUT, I think that he was giving appearance a tad more importance over structural integrity. I know that 3M 5200 is truly amazing stuff BUT I would not rely on it as the primary attachment. I read that he also screwed throught the wood into the glass in addition to the 3M 5200. I'm of the school of thought that screwing into glass is akin to trying to support a good anvil with wet cardboard. I personally never do it if it can be at all avoided. Having spent about 300K+ miles at sea between Submarines and sailboats, and having been through a couple hurricanes, one cyclone, and numerous very heavy North Atlantic storms, I believe that anything that is not just plain flat surface will eventually be used as a handhold or body stopper whether you think it will or not. I also know that any part of the boat that is usually between foot and knee level WILL be used as a hand hold or body stopper at the worst possible times. Upon returning to port after one such experience in the North Atlantic on one of my previous boats, I built a steel cage to go over the bilge pump and bilge pump discharge hose. I attached it by heavily epoxying studs into the bottom of the bilge around the pump and attaching the cage over the pump because while I had been out at sea that time, I found myself using the bilge pump as a hand hold.:eek:

Cool idea joe,

Noodling: Your main THROUGH fastenings will be low down on the 'bulwark' piece. Bolts.
You could go UP and down, with the UP fastenings being lags (so you don't have to call them screws.)

The lags should have plenty meat to screw into from the outside into the pieces up in the cove. You'll be using a couple cases of 5200. 5200 will most likely supply ALL the strength you need to hold the whole wood structure around the hull/deck SEAM. But zigzagging the fastenings will mechanically sew the hull/deck seam together. The fastenings will be insurance. You got the seam covered!

But don't you need support for that TALL bulwark?

If you need more upper support for the bulwark maybe you could bolt thru the toe rail.:eek:
Well, why not? And by designing your own stanchion bases, you could add excellent support to the bulkwark in four/five places each side that are bolted thru the deck AND the bulwark. Nothing stronger. Would nullify the whole lever arm problem and any cracking of the wood.

The bolts going thru the molded fiberglass toe rail would be perfectly acceptable without having to cover them with another run of wood. You know stainless and shiney acorn nuts. And you may need that clamp-hold anywhere along the rail where you can't have stanchion bases doing the work.

The whole bulwark system could be 100% thru bolts. Your molded toerail would have a definite studded look along the deck there.

OK, noodling... where's the sauce? :rolleyes:

Like you say, if it an't flat, something's gonna grab on to it.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________
You've got to study the hull/deck join along the whole run. The toerail relates to the deck NOT the hull. This is especially evident in the bow area and the stern where the hull is not vertical. You have 1 1/2" of toerail doing its thing and then have the hull doing its business. You don't have anything much to attach the bulkwark to in the front or the back of the Ariel. Where the toerail seems to stop and the hull is diving in, that's where the seam is!

My answer to covering the seam on 338 (not talking about strengthening) is a rather thick sectioned rounded 'rubbing strake' that has the inside against the boat coved out so that it touches along the top and on bottom from stem to stern. I naturally haven't put this on yet. It's a large version of the s.s. trim piece that used to be there. I plan to fill the cove with 5200, maybe polysulfide, as the bedding compound. I'm gonna have to zigzag the fastenings on this one.

HI EBB, the plan for the bulwarks is to have custom stanchion bases made. There are three foundries within five miles of me and a company that sells bronzes and brasses. After I've got the wood on, I will measure for the bases and have one of the foundries make them for me. The current plan is to have the bases cast in Naval Bronze. Boy is this all ever going to cost me :eek: :eek: :eek: but Oh ! how beautiful it will all be. The end goal of all of this is to have a boat with the strength of a submarine and to be of such fantastic beauty as to make the average muffy and skippy yacht ( you know, the ones that always use the iron wind, if they indeed ever leave the yacht club) look like old shipyard paint scows:) :)

Joe,
There is great satisfaction in making a model and getting it cast for you at the foundry. Winiarski at Bristol Bronze did a heavy pattern stem fitting for Little Gull out of magnesium bronze, and a couple other fittings: one of which is a two-part gudgeon for the rudder. I may have to get this recast because he used m. bronze.

Manganese bronze is the traditional material used for all the deck jewelry you see on varnished boats.

I'm curious why you choose naval brass? It has good strength and good corrosion resistence and probably machines better than other bronzes.
I'm a silicon bronze fan for three reasons. One, is that it is close to iron (mild steel) in strength so when designing something it's easy to imagine the fitting or whatever in terms of a common welded piece. Not being an engineer.
Second, silicon bronze is what all off the shelf fastenings are made of. Expensive, but readily available.
Deck hardware is not overly fussy when it comes to mixing alloys when they are fairly close on the galvanic scale. Silicon bronze is happy with stainless steel for instance. So buttoning a naval brass fitting with silicon bronze bolts shouldn't be a problem, but you couldn't use stainless.
Third, s. bronze is essentially inert in sea water. As close as we can get.
It's 98% copper, has no lead or zinc in it. Which is why I'm going to have to get that gudgeon recast because manganese bronze is another 'bronze' that is really brass.

Some aluminum alloys get close to bronze in strength and corrosion resistance. The cleats and chocks (and the mast, boom etc) on our Ariel's were made from an alloy called Almag (is I understand, which is untrustworthy). I always have looked sideways at these fittings, but here they are, still around, no worse for wear!!! How you design for aluminum I don't know. There would be a huge weight saving (because of the number of pieces needed) if you found a foundry that casts the stuff in a marine alloy like Almag.

Just blathering as usual:D

Hi EBB, Naval Bronze, not brass. Naval Bronze is propeller and propeller hub material. The aluminums that would cast well, are really too stiff, and therefore more prone to breakage in that application. Silicon bronze is less elastic than Naval Bronze, that is why silicon bronze makes such great fasteners. For stanchion bases, I prefer the more elastic material, better to bend than to break.
Joe

Joe

have you considered through bolting your bulwarks (vice screws into blocks fitted to the interior)?

My teak rubrail is thru bolted 6" in center to fender washers (and bedded in 5200). although my example is a lot smaller in cross section the method is a lot easier than trying to glue in backing blocks to the compound curves in the interior of the toerail....

It sounds cool, but at the end of the day, you may also want to consider the effect of this additional mass to your water line, the likely reduction in useful load and effect on righting moment (good or bad). this may be a driver on the choice of material: bronze vs. stainless, teak vs. carbon fiber panels...

cheers,
bill:)