Rigging design fault??

[neilpride]

Hello, i have a project for the next month consist in design a new mast for a c&c 42 landfall , we have the old spar down in the ground and pulling chainplates for replacment to, one thing we discover the rigger and me is that the uper shroud and lower forward shroud chainplates are very close in distance, we talk about to relocate the forward chainplate to allow a wider angle between chainplates but seems to me surgery inside and we dont have a strong bulkhead where to atach the chainplate...

The problem is the lower chainplate, be to close to the upper chainplate dont make any sense to me unless we want lots of compresion when tensioning, so we reach the conclusion to maybe install a babystay chainplate in top of the coachroof forward in the deck, any ideas why the designer choose this kind of configuration in chainplates and if is a good idea to atach a babystay in a core structure without runing to a strong suport in the hull, we think in a strong backing plate and taking core out and filling with epoxy and glass...

Pictures maybe next week, any idea welcome please..

[brankin]

How many C&C 42's have lost their rig due to this problem. My guess..zero. With that said, how many marine engineers have you consulted with to cure a problem that is imaginary on your part...my guess...zero.
C&C's are very strong boat and their rig is set up more for the racing crowd so (being a former C&C owner) leave it alone and go work in the bilge.

[gjordan]

If you dont get information on this forum, you might want to search for an owners group. Landfall 42s have been around for a long time, and if the rigging configuration is a problem, there should be a history of it. If there doesnt seem to be a history of failures then I would not worry. But, I am not a rigger nor the owner, so my view point may not apply. Best of luck.____Grant.

[neilpride]

Yeah thats what i think , if the designer choose to put the chainplates so close, but this boat dismast 1 year agoo breaking the mast at spreaders height without any rigging or tang or chainplate fault? is the rigger concern about the distance between chainplates , and well to be honest both chainplates are just maybe 7 or 8 inch apart , putting tension in the forward lower we gain lots of compresion force and litle suport in the forward, and btw i have a mess in the bilge you right, keel bolt under the mast step? wth? mast step corroded and a muss of aluminium powder, roting wood, and bits of epoxy . planing to cover the whole area with epoxy and fiberglass and bolt the new mast step there ,,, is a bad idea??

[brankin]

Originally Posted by neilpride

,,, is a bad idea??

Probably...remove the corroded mess, tighten the keel bolts and install a new step. Are you an engineer wantabie?

[Cheechako]

Just thinkin out loud here.....I dont think the forward lower shroud does near as much work as the aft one....In fact if the spreaders are swept back a little you dont need one at all. the designer probably didnt want it interfering with sheeting a genoa in tight on a C and C. zthey are good boats, I wouldnt change a thing....
A stay to deck needs support... otherwise it will flex the deck whether it is cored or solid....

[neilpride]

Boat is in the water , no im not a enginer, just a boat fixer, keel bolt is rusted and im not planing to retorque this bolt, keel is in good shape and no cracks outside or water coming in, but for some reason the keel bolt is under the mast step , whole area around the bolt is flat around the corroded step, before ,,the mast rest in a circular piece of wood with a hole in the center to allow see the keel bolt surrounded with epoxy and the old mast step resting in the wood and the epoxy, there is 2 structural bulkheads with limber holes to allow water to drain to the bilge, so the new mast step is a wide plate with a recesion to fit the mast shoe, im thinking in clean and grind the area , fill the bolt with epoxy until i get a flat surface with the epoxy and laminate rovin and mat to get a strong flat and clean surface , later i can drill another couple of limber holes , old ones are going to be filled with epoxy, and to the end lag bolt the new mast step. But the rigger believe in help the mast with a babystay is worry about the distance at the chainplates and is a reputable rigger here in st marteen . Thx.

[sabray]

I would think that if you put in baby stay you need structure at the deck. The upward force can be quite large. If the mast broke at the spreader I think the issue was not at the lowers.
More likely the mast got out of column by untuned rigging. Depending on where it broke the intermediates or uppers were out of tune. Looking at other c and c landfall looks like they had a inner forestay and most likely running backs. My upper and intermediate are spaced about 4 inches apart the lowers are 18" aft and near 2' forward of the upper. maybe a second opinion would be good. The solutions you are seeking are big jobs and maybe don't need to be done. Good luck on the project

[neilpride]

Thx Sabray , yes well we think the same , add a babystay to deck without a good suport is going to be troubles for the deck , and we plan to change the old boom staysail for a harken furler unit, also add runing backs , also we are going to replace the whole set of chainplates for new ones , this time without the extra piece welded in the top , make the plates in 10 mm all the way , before are 8 mm and 12 mm in the top , well thx for the opinions.