Builders' Forum Archives
Re: Cradle Forms for a CH
Posted by CLC on Mar 19, 2005
I liked Ted's cradles for the Mill Creek; the Mill Creek's stiff bottom makes it nearly impossible to get an unfair "rocker" curve in the bottom panel/keel. As long as Ted's cradles are resting on two level surfaces, you won't need to worry about "winding," either.
The keel line of the Chesapeake, viewed from the side of the boat, should be a long, even curve from bow to stern without any humps or bumps. Where the thin bottom panels join to form a V-shape, it's surprisingly easy to introduce "unfair" spots; unlike the Mill Creek's 6mm bottom, the 4mm panels of the Chesapeake are as flexible as cardboard at first.
I'd wager that a lot of Chesapeakes built nested in cradles will get a bump built into the keel line at each cradle. Half of the reason for the "hull suspension" system we advocate in the manuals and video is so you can eyeball that keel line from bow to stern in one unbroken sweep, and remove any unfair spots. If the boat was resting in a pair of cradles it would obstruct your view of the keel's fairness.
The other reason we like the "hull suspension" system is that it's easy to unwind any twist in the hull and hold it true while you sling epoxy.
In Response to: Cradle Forms for a CH16?? by Matt Croce on Mar 18, 2005
- Re: Cradle Forms for a CH by Matt Croce on Mar 19, 2005