Hello, Frits. Thanks for the hint! I would love to know what is the reason for such a specific placement of the 'Z' bar. Honestly, I didn't even think of the rule. Thanks for pointing it out and Happy New Year!
Hi Jim absolutely fabulous work, love it. I am jealouse.
Veel dank, Mon Amie! Leef en leer! Gelukkig nieuwjaar!
I am not completely sure of what Fritz is saying about the direction of a "Z-bar" but from my old ranch days I have some familiarity with supporting gates which are just long doors. If you think of the door with hinges on the right side opening wither way on the left side, a diagonal strut coming down from the upper right hinge is in tension as the door tries to sag, holding it up. If the diagonal strut were on the top of the left open door corner coming down to the lower right which is a lower hinge point, the strut is in compression and better seated but relies on the upper right hinge to take up the counter-clockwise rotation forces and will eventually pull out letting the door sag down. The challenge with the tension diagonal is to firmly secure both ends to restrain the downward sagging force direction. With high gate ;posts on the pivoting side it is easy to secure a high diagonal down to the lower opening end of the gate and is much more secure than a diagonal in compression which also needs a supporting rod/line/strut from the post top holding up and resisting the downward sag. Doesn't answer the door issue in point but just something to consider. Rich (PT-2)
Thanks, Rich. You are all correct. Apparently, there two types of bracing the wooden door or gate to prevent sagging. A brace is a diagonal piece of wood that takes a bit of the load of the nails/screws.
tp69.blog
Thank you, Paul!! Yes, I am sure something will be seen from different angles, under different light conditions...but, for the most part, it is not a big deal. I am enjoying the process of fabricating parts, and will definitely know all the bits are there...and you guys will prove it!
Cannot wait to remove it from the berth...
The missing vector arrow/force is at the upper (left) hinge which has a force acting horizontally to the right (withdrawal of the hinge screws) from the weight of the door as the entire diagram is a clockwise rotation. That element is the long time weakness of this arrangement. Just my observation. RichThanks, Rich. You are all correct. Apparently, there two types of bracing the wooden door or gate to prevent sagging. A brace is a diagonal piece of wood that takes a bit of the load of the nails/screws.
Type #1 TENSION BRACES
Many doors/gates have tension braces. They look like this:
View attachment 202745
A tension brace works by transferring load from the outside end of the bottom rail to the inside (hinge) end of the top rail. It ‘pulls’ the weight of the gate up to the top hinge.
Type #2 COMPRESSION BRACES
The far more common type of brace is the compression brace. They look like this:
View attachment 202746
A compression brace works by transferring the load from the outside end of the top rail to the inside (hinge) end of the bottom rail. The weight of the gate ‘rests’ more on the bottom hinge. Load is transferred something like this:
View attachment 202747
Pretty-much all doors/gates require some form of bracing, but depending on size, shape and weight, you can sometimes get away with very little bracing and the type of bracing doesn’t really matter. Narrow and/or light doors/gates fall into the ‘it probably doesn’t matter’ category.
If your door is wide and/or heavy, however, then you are better off with a compression brace. A compression brace is easy for most DIYers to construct to a satisfactory standard, and is hard to screw up. Just remember:
Note: It is entirely possible to tension brace a wide and heavy gate — if you have a decent amount of experience with different types of joints and you know what you are doing. The average person, however, doesn’t have that experience, and doesn’t have the required carpentry skills…
- Compression braces are suitable for doors where the angle between the bottom rail and the brace is greater than 45°
- Make sure both ends of the brace have full contact with the rails
- Put (ideally two) nails/screws through each board into the brace
The biggest advantage that compression braces have over tension braces is the way that loads are transferred. In compression, loads are distributed over the end cross-section of of the brace as well as the screws/nails — that greatly reduces the overall rate of fibre compression (which means it will sag less and last longer). Because the loads are transferred to the bottom hinge, and the bottom hinge is closer to the ground, the gate ends up more stable — it bounces up and down less. Gate posts supporting tension-braced gates also tend to bend/twist over time — because the load is transferred to the top hinge (higher from the ground, where it exerts more torque).
If compression braces have such a clear advantage, why do some sources still recommend tension braces?
Mainly due to historical reasons, but also because in a very limited number of scenarios tension is still better.
read the full article here
The ‘best’ way to brace a wooden door or gate
Got a sagging wooden door or gate? Building a new one? Not sure how you should brace it? Confused about the conflicting advice you may have read elsewhere? Read on. Wooden doors and gates come …
This is a very interesting subject and a lot more complicated than one should think.
Our forum is very unique, we are grateful to have you, Poul, among us. You always add constructive comments to a subject.
Frankly, when I build those doors, I couldn't even think their construction will bring such a discussion. Live and learn!!! Many Thanks @PoulD
Last reflection on gate type hinges. . . the fasteners are in shear force resistance being perpendicular to the sagging downward force, not in tension resistance withdrawal as are the screws in house door butts. I always got a kick out of specifying butts and not hinges in door assemblies for buildings. RichOur forum is very unique, we are grateful to have you, Poul, among us. You always add constructive comments to a subject.
My questioning hint about the exact position of the diagonal bracing has resulted in some very precise and detailed explanations. And that seems to me (among other things) to be the special thing about this forum: there is one or more specialist for every question - and after reading the answers, all interested people know more than they did before.Our forum is very unique, we are grateful to have you, Poul, among us. You always add constructive comments to a subject.
Not being familiar with the apprenticeship training of shipwrights, I would speculate that what is unknown to us now was very likely passed along by exposure or instruction as to what worked and what did not as with the Gothic cathedrals. . . both ship building and stone structures were the results of prior decades of try and see what works or fails and then follow the path of success. Rich
Thank you all: lurkers and participants who been an integral part of our build log! Many Thanks
I didn't pay attention. I guess many of us didn't pay attention and glue those parts to CL13. 
If this is the case and you already glue both CL15 it is no big deal, though. But if you have a chance to carefully dissolve the glue and make the parts removable do it! This will save you the hassle later in the build. At the later stages, making CL15 removable plays an important role when you have to release the hull from the berth back and forth. You have been warned!
I really like the inclusion of perspective drawings which supplement and clarify plan or elevation drawings to better understand what needs to be done. Less frustration and correction revisions which would likely be my own tack. Rich (PT-2)It was bothering me ever since our first discussion about the proper positioning of the lover beam part DL3. Before making the final decision, I decided to look again and compare the AOTS book's drawing with the kit. Apparently, the book doesn't have discrepancies (at least on this part). Please check out both images. I made them side to side for comparison.
View attachment 205631 View attachment 205632
These are two different windlasses. The one on the left side (E3/2) - is the original Windlass. The one on the right side (E3/5) is the modified version. Let's check the modified version first. The biggest change was the introduction of the 'Pawl bit post' (5) fayed and bolted to Pawl bitt pin. The bit post doesn't go all the way to the floor. It is the same hights as the Carrick bitt head. In this windlass configuration the Pawl bitt pins in front of the lover beam (our part DL3). Meaning the notches facing the bow.
On the original windlass, the Pawl bitt pins fayed and bolted to Carrick bitt pin and both approximately the same size and ended at the lower beam. In this configuration, the Pawl bitt pins behind the beam, meaning the notches facing the Stern.
So I check the kit instruction and found on page 42 the image (6.57) of the windlass assembly. It looks like the kit's windlass was designed based on the original configuration and the Pawl bitt pins are behind the beam. The notches should face Stern.
View attachment 205633
View attachment 205634
So this is the correct position, At least for our kit. Unless you will build from scratch the modified version of the windlass
View attachment 205635
Next, we will discuss and install Keelson... To be continued and thank you.
