Boat Plans Aluminum | Opinions are like assholes

Boat Plans Aluminum

Everyones got one.

Every now and then Ill ask a boat-related question on a public forum or email list.  It sure isnt a problem getting people to weigh in with their opinion, thats for sure.  The challenge, actually, is picking through the dross of misunderstanding, inaccurate information, speculation, and completely made-up answers to find the grains of expertise and knowledge.

This is precisely why I picked the boat designer I did, because they has already provided me with a wealth of trustworthy and well-respected information about boatbuilding before I ever bought my plans (read Boat Plans: Choices Made and Not Made).

For the most part, during my build, Ive hewed pretty close to the plans and the recommendations of the boats designer.  Im all for experimentation, but Im also deeply respectful of the experience and expertise of those who came before me.

In the planning stages, there were boats I liked that came close to what I wanted, but differed in some way from my vision of our little shantyboat.  I definitely flirted with the idea of taking those plans and making significant modifications.

I resisted that urge, for the most part, and picked a boat design that met my needs, at least in terms of hull design.  

For the changes I did plan to make, I had the good fortune to be able to talk to my boats naval architect and get his advice on these modifications (read Questions for the Old Man).

The opinion in boatbuilding forums is often to take this design and lengthen it, or add one of those or one of these.  And Im sure for those experienced boatbuilders, such modifications would be a breeze.  But what about the first-time boatbuilder, the person just starting out?

I think people get excited sometimes about sharing what they know, but forget that there is a bigger picture.  Too often, I think that picture holds the very real possibility of a half-built boat collecting rainwater in the backyard of a frustrated amateur boatbuilder.

Do you find information about Boat Plans Aluminum are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Aluminum. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Stitch And Glue | Panama Skiff

Boat Plans Stitch And Glue

We arrived in Panama just in time that I could buy a few sheets of marine 1/4 plywood before the Panama Canal Company went out of business. No trailers or launch ramps available, shallow coral reefs off all the beaches, but beautiful deserted coves to visit with (by now) an entire family. So I designed a little yellow skiff, 4 (40" waterline beam) by 15 1/2 , with a daggerboard, rudder and sprit sail. I was able to get Sailrite sail cloth and WEST epoxy through the mail. Again, I calculated the length of the chine, sheer, and sheathing panels and all offsets so that the parts went together smoothly without having to use a strongback. The only drawings I used were just sketches for visualization. I had estimated the hull rocker correctly in design so the boat performed nicely. We went picnicing, snorkeling, fishing and just exploring. It was light enough that we could cartop the boat on our Toyota to bays along the Atlantic coast.

Do you find information about Boat Plans Stitch And Glue are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Stitch And Glue. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Plywood Boat Plans | Fiberglass Fill Coat

Plywood Boat Plans

At this point, we have the fiberglass bonded to the boat with a layer of epoxy.  The texture of the cloth is still quite visible, so we have to add enough epoxy that it is invisibly hidden.

Since by now we are grizzled veterans of fiberglassing, the work was not so stressful and only required a team of two -- one person to mix and deliver the epoxy to the other person who is applying it with a dense foam roller.

 We had to work quickly on a hot day to apply the epoxy before it kicked off. 

Then we went around and brushed over any drips or places where it was funky.  We had varying success preventing drips.  Later we noticed plenty of places where it required work with a sander to make sure the next coat was smooth.

Each day after we finished a fill or finish coat we were pretty sure our work was done and that the texture of the underlying cloth was invisible.

And each work day when we returned, we could still see the texture of the cloth through the previous coat.  So we were obligated to add another finish coat.  Rinse.  Repeat.

Do you find information about Plywood Boat Plans are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Plywood Boat Plans. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Pdf | Amalgamating two or more dwellings

Boat Plans Pdf

Many readers are no doubt aware that section 55(3)(a) of the 1990 Act declares that the use as two or more separate dwellinghouses of any building previously used as a single dwellinghouse involves a material change of use of the building and of each part of it which is so used. However, there is no provision in the 1990 Act itself dealing with the converse, where two or more separate dwellings are combined to form a single dwelling. In principle, it might well be argued that such an amalgamation of planning units is covered by section 55(2)(f), because this refers to buildings which are used for a purpose of any class specified in the Use Classes Order and (as a result of the amalgamation) the building is being used for other purposes within the same class.

However, the judgment in Richmond upon Thames LBC v SSETR [2001] J.P.L. 84 suggested that a change in the character and impact of the use in planning terms might nevertheless amount to a material change of use. This need not be confined simply to the physical or environmental impact of the change, but may also include other factors, such as the loss of a certain type of accommodation or facility that the previous planning unit provided. The Richmond case was concerned with the conversion of a property from seven flats into a single dwellinghouse. It was held that a judgement has to be made as to whether the amalgamation of the planning units has ‘as a matter of fact and degree’ resulted in such a change in the character and impact of the use as to constitute a material change of use in planning terms.

This point had previously been made in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wakelin v. SSE [1978] JPL 769. That case confirmed that the creation of a new planning unit out of an existing planning unit would not always result in a material change of use, but it may well do so if it is (to use the words of Lord Denning) “not in accordance with good planning policy having regard to the surrounding circumstances”. Wakelin was in fact concerned with the creation of a separate dwelling out of an existing dwelling (now covered by section 55(3)(a)), but it clearly applies (as does Richmond) to other types of use.

Richmond involved the loss of no fewer than six separate residential units, and it was held that the inspector had been wrong to ignore this point in considering the material character and impact of the resulting change of use – in other words, it was not simply the environmental effect of the change that had to be considered but also its effect in relation to planning policies seeking to resist the loss of small residential units. On the other hand, it should be clearly understood that the amalgamation of two planning units, for example by combining two existing dwellings into a single unit, need not automatically be treated as a material change of use amounting to development. This will have to be a matter of objective judgment depending on the particular facts in each case.

It seems that a distinction is to be made between, on the one hand, situations such as those in Wakelin and in Richmond, where a planning unit is either subdivided or amalgamated with another planning unit and, on the other hand, the effect of a change within the planning unit where, both before and after the change, the use or combination of uses falls within one and the same use class. The latter is illustrated by the judgments in Brookes & Burton Ltd v. SSE [1977] 1 WLR 1294 and Eastleigh BC v. FSS [2004] EWHC 1408 (Admin).

I confess that I have always had misgivings about the Richmond judgment, as it does not seem to sit comfortably with section 55(2)(f), but I have explained above how it may be rationalised by arguing that section 55(2)(f) impliedly refers to the use of a single planning unit, whereas in a case such as Richmond one is dealing with two or more pre-existing planning units, so that (the argument would go) section 55(2)(f) does not apply in such a situation.

My reason for discussing the Richmond case now, some 15 years after it was decided, is that a planning inspector in dismissing a recent LDC appeal (under section 195) has relied on Richmond as the basis for the rejection of the lawfulness of the development in question. The appeal had clear similarities with the Richmond case. It involved a six-storey house in Central London that had been divided some time ago into four flats. The amalgamation of the four flats to restore the building to use as a single dwelling would involve the loss of several units of accommodation that the previous planning units provided. The inspector therefore considered, in accordance with Richmond, whether the amalgamation of the planning units would ‘as a matter of fact and degree’ result in such a change in the character and impact of the use as to constitute a material change of use in planning terms.

This necessarily required some consideration of policy issues, including the NPPF and the London Plan, both of which seek significantly to increase the supply of housing in the area. The mix and size of the current residential units in the building was therefore relevant from this point of view, and these were more suited to meeting identified housing needs than a single large dwelling would be. These considerations were sufficient, in light of the judgment in Richmond, to bring about a significant change in the character and impact of the use in planning terms, and thus would constitute a material change of use, and would not therefore be lawful.

© MARTIN H GOODALL


Do you find information about Boat Plans Pdf are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Pdf. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans And Kits | Kayoe or Canak

Boat Plans And Kits

I designed and built my first boat in the mid 70s, when we were living in Nebraska. I was a busy student with limited budget and time. The area has small lakes and shallow rivers and creeks but plenty of wind sweeping in off the plains. So I designed a sort of cross between a canoe and kayak. Double chine, plank keel, low freeboard, partially decked, approx. 16 by 3. Also, it had to fit out the kitchen window after hauling it up the basement stairs. Using trajectory curve mathematics, I was able to compute the length of both chines, the sheer, and sheathing panel lengths as well as calculating all offsets. No strongback was needed; all parts fit together as cut. A friend had recently built a Windmill sailboat. He was impressed as I simply put the pieces together. I had used a parallel projection so all bevels were constant angles which were easy to precut. Consequently, I was able to get tight joints and use resorcinol glue successfully. As an experiment, I built a pair of leeboards, attached a push-pole rudder, and used a closet pole mast and nylon tarp for a sprit sail rig. With this I was able to maneuver up and down the lake, but sailing rigs dont get much more crude than this.

Do you find information about Boat Plans And Kits are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans And Kits. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Aluminium Australia | “Other indoor and outdoor sports or recreations”

Boat Plans Aluminium Australia

- The scope of Use Class D2(e) in the Use Classes Order

I have recently been considering the precise scope of Use Class D2 (assembly and leisure). This use class contains several specific categories of use, and there is then a final ‘sweeping up’ item, which reads – “(e) [use as] a swimming bath, skating rink, gymnasium or area for other indoor or outdoor sports or recreations, not involving motorised vehicles or firearms”.

This category covers a wide range of indoor sport-related or exercise uses, including both commercial and other gymnasia open to the public, health and fitness clubs, leisure centres, indoor sports facilities (such as squash courts or real tennis courts) and indoor training facilities for sports of all kinds, as well as outdoor sports and training facilities, but the exclusion from this class of those uses that involve motorised vehicles or firearms applies equally to both indoor or outdoor facilities, so that an indoor go-karting circuit or an indoor shooting gallery or rifle range, even if it is fully sound-proofed, will still be outside the scope of Class D2 and will therefore be a sui generis use (a use of its own kind).

In addition to all forms of sport (including those attended by spectators) as well as sports training facilities, the inclusion of ‘other indoor or outdoor........recreations’ might be thought to broaden the scope of Class D2(e) considerably, but these words must be read in the specific context of Class D2(e), which is clearly dealing with physical activities rather than hobbies, interests, or recreational activities of an artistic or creative nature. It cannot cover all those ways in which a person can enjoy recreation in a broad sense without becoming so broad as to render the rest of Class D2 otiose, or creating the possibility of uncontrolled changes of use.

So the words “other indoor or outdoor sports or recreations” should be seen as relating to that group of activities listed in Class D2(e), rather than to all those in Class D2 as a whole. The connotation and context of D2(e) is sport and physical recreation, the role of physical recreation being to cover those many situations where the physical activity would not be described as a sport. (See Rugby Football Union v SSETR [2001] EWHC 927. This judgment was subsequently upheld in the Court of Appeal - [2002] EWCA Civ 1169 - where the Court held that it is right to incorporate some physical effort to the phrase “recreation”, otherwise it would be so wide as to be ineffective as a planning tool.)

These judgments, both in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, confirmed that the phrase “a swimming bath, skating rink, gymnasium or area for other indoor or outdoor sports or recreations” in Class D2(e) is to be construed ejusdem generis (i.e. the individual elements in the list are to be construed as being ‘of the same kind’ as each other). The Court of Appeal both in RFU and also in the earlier case of Millington (cited below) firmly rejected a wider dictionary definition of ‘recreation’, and insisted on the element of physical exercise or effort involved in a sport. The definition of ‘sport’ in the OED is “a game or competitive activity, especially an outdoor one, involving physical exertion, e.g. cricket, football, racing, hunting.” Thus the dictionary definition requires both a competitive element and physical exertion but, because the use specified in the Use Classes Order embraces not just sport but other forms of physical exercise, the courts have not insisted on a competitive element being present, provided that the use does involve some physical effort.

A subsidiary definition of “sport” also given in the OED is “amusement, diversion, fun”, but this can have no application in the context of Class D2(e) in view of the emphatic rejection of a similarly wide definition of ‘recreation’ by the Court of Appeal both in Millington and in RFU. On the other hand, the exclusion from Class D2(e) of indoor or outdoor sports or recreations which involve motorised vehicles or firearms would seem to confirm that motor sports and shooting would embrace a sufficient element of physical effort to come within Class D2(e) had they not been expressly excluded. This may perhaps assist in determining whether activities of a similar nature, not caught by that exclusion, come within Class D2(e).

It was also held in RFU that the presence or absence of spectators is immaterial to Class D2(e). A sports ground or stadium is within Class D2(e) because it is an area used for outdoor sport. It is not the presence of more or less passive spectators which brings it within the purpose of Class D2(e). They may enjoy watching sport. For them, in common sense language, watching sport may be one of their recreations, but they are not themselves engaged in physical recreation. A sports ground or stadium is not, for Class D2(e) purposes, an area used for outdoor recreation by the spectators.

Similarly, the audience at an open air pop concert is not participating in ‘other outdoor recreations’, nor are the performers, no matter how energetic their performance may be, because the performance or event is not in the nature of a sport. On the other hand, any fully enclosed building in which a pop concert or other musical performance is held is being used as a concert hall within Class D2(b). The building does not need to be adapted in any way for the purpose, other than as may be required by the terms of any public entertainment licence. [The court ruled in RFU that a sports stadium cannot be used as a concert hall within Class D2(b), because it is not a ‘hall’ i.e. not a fully enclosed building.]

As indicated above, the judgment in the RFU case is in line with the earlier judgment of the High Court in Millington v SSETR (1999) 78 P. & C.R. 373, (1999) JPL 644 (subsequently approved by the Court of Appeal – [2000] JPL 297), where it was held that the test of whether a use of land is an area for outdoor sports or recreations is not determined by whether the activity may probably be described as recreational in nature. It is not sufficient that the area should be used for purposes which may be called recreational purposes, as opposed to commercial or educational purposes. Thus a house or garden open to the public is not an area used for, respectively, indoor or outdoor sports or recreations.

I do not have time to discuss other examples at the moment, but it does seem to me that a number of uses which appear to have been accepted as coming within Class D2(e) in the past do not in fact properly fall within Use Class D2, due to the lack of a sufficient element of physical exercise, effort or exertion being involved so as to bring them within the definition of “other indoor or outdoor sports or recreations”.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Do you find information about Boat Plans Aluminium Australia are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Aluminium Australia. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Pdf | Hull Finish Work or Correcting Mistakes III

Boat Plans Pdf

I like to joke that I bring Old World Craftsmanship to my work.  Old World like Neanderthal, the fine kind of workmanship you get from precision woodworking tools such as heavy clubs and sharpish rocks.  One of the things I like about building is all the layers of increasingly fine-tuned craftsmanship one brings to a project.

So all of my corners, more or less, meet each other, give or take a half inch or so.  Unfortunately, to coat the whole thing with fiberglass, the tolerances had to be a little more fine than that.  I knew all along that I was going to have to make all the edges smooth and even.

With all the lumber we ripped, we had no shortage of useful shims.  I made little shims to cover all these under or over cuts.

I didnt worry about fit that much, just that the shim covered the error.  I knew I could trim and sand the results.

I had to coat everything with a first coat of thin epoxy, then followup with thickened epoxy.

It was a lot of gooey mess and didnt look any too pretty mid-process.

I held the shims in with little brads until the epoxy had set.

After the epoxy set, I pulled the brads and trimmed off the extra.

The fiberglass sheeting calls for rounded corners to make a good bond.  I pulled out my router for the job and bought a 3/8 inch rounded bit.  That was the minimum radius that Glen-L suggested.

God, that is a scary and amazing tool.

It left beautiful rounded edges.

Next, we fill all the holes with a non-oily wood filler.  For some reason, Ive always loved this process.

4 million screw holes come back to haunt me.  I filled ever one as well as various chips and dings and rough corners.

 Followed by a day with an orbital sander.

 

It slowly starts to look pretty smooth and nice.

By the time we were done, it was lovely.  Smooth and beautiful with edges that looks like magic.

Do you find information about Boat Plans Pdf are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Pdf. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Dinghy Boat Plans | Hockey Puck Manufacture or Epoxy is Stressful II

Dinghy Boat Plans

Did I mention that epoxy is stressful?  To recap:  You have 15 to 30 minutes to get a bucket full of epoxy mixed, applied, and secured down before it turns into a rock-hard mistake that must be laboriously chipped, chiseled, and sanded off. 

Add to that, less than ideal conditions of 95°F days and adding a thickening filler that reduces the epoxy pot-life by a huge factor. 

During our days of mixing thickened epoxy (to adhere joints together and fill gaps), we inadvertently manufactured many hockey pucks in the bottom of our mixing containers. 

But by far the most interesting mistake I made was one one particularly hot day that I made a triple batch.  I broke the batch down into three containers, and successfully used the first batch before realizing that the other two batches had already begun to gel.  One of the three had kicked off dramatically and begun to melt through the plastic mixing container.  I set it out in the yard somewhere safe.

"Before Its Time"  2012.  Mixed Media: Plastic, epoxy resin, natural materials.

It formed an interesting, uh, sculpture as all the epoxy melting through the bottom oozed into and solidified around various bits of yard mulch.

Here is out collection of hockey pucks and sculptures weve created.  As we move to finishing the hull, well be mixing thin batches with no filler, so the likelihood of unexpected epoxy disasters decreases.

This is what a long day of working with epoxy does to me.


Do you find information about Dinghy Boat Plans are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Dinghy Boat Plans. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..