Hi Bill

I was having some fun by saying you can't do this or that, but obviously anyone who wanted to could.

: Hmmmm. Sorry, I really don't see this. On the other hand, this sounds like a
: great challange: guillemot on an external :-)

If the process as described by Spidey was used, after the hull is glassed, the hull and forms attached (by glue residue, etc) is removed from the ext strongback. This is where the hull has to act as a beam solely on its own. It has to be fairly stiff and strong to keep alignment and to keep on building on. The strength/stiffness (as Shawn points out) comes from the square of the depth. If the guillemot hull depth is half of a Moore's, etc. - the stiffness is 4x less, if a third - 9x less. I suggest that this is too weak to build on without major problems.

: Your really talking about some specialized designs here. Even if I were to do
: these via internal, I'd do it on top of my external :-) It's just too
: valuable in terms of stability and space.

That makes perfectly good sense to me.

: For me, deciding on internal/external depends on your building perspective.
: If building is the means to an end and you are only interested in a one
: off kayak or multiples of the same boat, then go internal. If on the
: otherhand, you are looking to build various configiurations/types/designs,
: external is the only choice. As a building platform, it has many potential
: uses (Including as a tool - see Spidey's strip ripping pages, for
: example)

Much of my point is that the ext does not allow as much variation of configuration or designs. It does have better length flexibility though.
As a tool, your comments makes sense to me, I can think of few that may be as useful as an 16-18ft long straight platform/jig to build/work upon. But it is balanced by whether you have space or desire for it. Like you say, its the builers perspective - ok for some not for others.

: You also mentioned earlier that external forms would be "floppy"
: and hard to work on once mounted. I can assure you, they don't need to be
: floppy and if need be, you can remove any form anywhere in the setup to
: modify it. You could even completely replace a form if necesssary. Using
: the risers with carriage bolts and wingnuts, realignment is quick, easy
: and adjustable and does not require permanent blocking or screws.

Ya, I was overstating it by saying floppy, but I bet more flexible is appropriate. Just try banging it - will it wiggle back and forth? But the reality is that no one except me would probably be doing this - it implies that I didn't know where I was going.

However, ability to rearrange/remake the forms is another great factor that I missed. In fact it could surpass the factor I just stated above. Like you could remove a form, work on it, and replace it in position or another quite readily. An absolutely exceptional benefit for the ext.

: As for being top heavy, well that's more a function of your stands than the
: SB. Either design could be arranged in a way to be tippy or stable.

The ctr of grav of the ext is higher than the base so would be more prone to tip. If you look at Joe's pic, you see the legs have to be firmly attached to the ext. With the int, it can just rest on horses or upstands w/ minimal or no fixation. I have used this factor greatly and it has been of much use.

You know when I was talking with Rehd, I thought the ext was a little less useful. And for my uses and ideas the int is what I would choose. But the pure truth of the matter is that if I had space and multiple projects on the go or anticipated to be on the go, I would build a long bench like structure, sorta like a box beam and about a foot or 2 wide and fairly stiff and true. It would be a great jig for many uses. But of course it would be a bench and not an ext(hehe).

-mick