Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

First weekend I have been able to race since building this ride over a year ago. It was great to line up against boats especially more canoes :).

Mean while in a shed in rural Australia another IC is being built 90% complete the fun task of paint prep and paint left to do. Only 2 weeks until the OZ nationals no time to waste....

DCrazy Ivan,  my latest. Old Sails

Posted Images

Ah the reverse engineer - nice! I've templated core before by taking a quick splash from a mould, cutting it up and moving it around flat sheet until the entire boundary has been captured. Similar thing I guess.

I know that you can "unroll" developable surfaces in rhino, but there must be a way of doing it with compound surfaces. Will have a think...

 

Pretty sure that most of the 14s that bieker built himself were largely from flatstock - the topsides anyhow, the lower hull was stripped in foam over a male frame. Pretty low cost approach!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhino 5 has some cool mash and smash features, but there is a program called TouchCad which for wrapping a d unfolding to flat panels with ability to alter panel shapes and have it affect the folded shape is pretty hard to beat. Unfortunately it's $1300, but you have to pay to play as the saying goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel, the Holllow Log was built from 3mm ply with a layer of 200gsm carbon on the diagonal inside. I would use kevlar if I did it again. There were 3 ply bulkheads as well as all the foam ones. But the ply ones showed on the outside.

 

About 20 years ago I built an NS14 hull from foam/glass panels without a jig. The stress and hence the compound component were minimal and the shape was not up to speed but it did build easilly. I think I may have had the glass on the inside which would have limited flexure, probably not a good option. I had previously built a Sabot by the same method but that is all flat panels.

 

I like Chris' approach and think that foam/carbon panels would work better and accept more flexure before skin failure.

 

The panel shapes are not that hard. Have a look at the Hollow Log article for a starting point. The shapes will be the same for ply or foam. You can widen the stern to suit current fashion but I am not convinced its the best way to go for an all round boat. The 45deg cut off transom design makes it simpler than wrapping the topsides to the canoe stern. I actually did not wrap the sides all the way back until I formed the hull shape (pulled the gunwales into design beam) because the chine edges make interesting S shapes as they follow the bottom curve to the CL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Phill what would have happened if you put a 40mm wide doubler under the bulkhead with a 10mm bevell on each side to diminish the hard spot under the Bulkhead?

That works, its what I used to do with stitch and glue ply 12s in the 70s. I dropped the idea from the moths to save weight. I did not do it with Hollow Log as I had skinned the inside with carbon first and thought that would do the job. It was strong enough but the BHs showed on the outside after a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Phill what would have happened if you put a 40mm wide doubler under the bulkhead with a 10mm bevell on each side to diminish the hard spot under the Bulkhead?

That works, its what I used to do with stitch and glue ply 12s in the 70s. I dropped the idea from the moths to save weight. I did not do it with Hollow Log as I had skinned the inside with carbon first and thought that would do the job. It was strong enough but the BHs showed on the outside after a while.

 

Of the 9 cherubs i Built and The first 12 Tejin Sailcloth which had ply topsides we never encountered this problem although we were using 4.5mm plywood (although it was sold as 4mm) but I have seen s/tape boats with hardspots (mainly early Tornados) when i spoke to the LKate Chris Tims of Adhesive Technologies here in NZ about it he said that it was from forcing the bulkhead in rather than just putting it in loose and coving it in place with a bit of glue .Is this also your opionion Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhino 5 has some cool mash and smash features, but there is a program called TouchCad which for wrapping a d unfolding to flat panels with ability to alter panel shapes and have it affect the folded shape is pretty hard to beat. Unfortunately it's $1300, but you have to pay to play as the saying goes.

 

The free version of Delftship will develop plates....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maxsurf, rhino or many more will let you design in 3d. Then develop. The advantage with max surf over many others is it will tell you how much stress is in the plate once formed. There is a big difference between what can be formed mathematically and what can be done physically. What Chris is doing here is basically an at home version of DuFlex from which we have built cats up to 60ft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the 9 cherubs i Built and The first 12 Tejin Sailcloth which had ply topsides we never encountered this problem although we were using 4.5mm plywood (although it was sold as 4mm) but I have seen s/tape boats with hardspots (mainly early Tornados) when i spoke to the LKate Chris Tims of Adhesive Technologies here in NZ about it he said that it was from forcing the bulkhead in rather than just putting it in loose and coving it in place with a bit of glue .Is this also your opionion Phil

I think the thicker ply helps but weighs too much and does not bend enough.

I never force BH in, they always need a fillet of bog to hold in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My approach for a plywood hull is to use closely spaced 3mm plywood frames (say 150mm spacing) bonded in with glue fillets. The hull panels would be stitched together and the frames inserted and bonded in prior to taping the panel seams. As long as the hull panels are developed accurately, this method provides an accurate hull shape with no jig required. Although there are a lot of frames, they can of course be laser cut to reduce labor.

 

post-3095-015656200 1325606238_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

My approach for a plywood hull is to use closely spaced 3mm plywood frames (say 150mm spacing) bonded in with glue fillets. The hull panels would be stitched together and the frames inserted and bonded in prior to taping the panel seams. As long as the hull panels are developed accurately, this method provides an accurate hull shape with no jig required. Although there are a lot of frames, they can of course be laser cut to reduce labor.

 

post-3095-015656200 1325606238_thumb.png

I have built very nice wood boats by the "stringer frame' method.

3mm bulkheads on 300 mm centers.

4mmx 18mm stringers notched in.

Cover with 3mm ply.

Cut into strips about 150-200mm wide, 90 Degrees to face grain (i.e. the bendy way)

I put a bevel on each edge so they can overlap and then plank at 90 degrees to center

line.

post-738-038957100 1325628311_thumb.jpg

A cathedral shot of Patient Lady 5 showing what it can look like.

Skip and Terry at their best.

This was done the old fashioned way before Auto CAD and Laser cutting.

Structural band aids are visible, after 5 years of almost continuous use she was losing it.

Hulls weighed about 45 kg complete.

IC hull built the same way would weigh about 30 kg.

SHC

 

SHC

Link to post
Share on other sites

My approach for a plywood hull is to use closely spaced 3mm plywood frames (say 150mm spacing) bonded in with glue fillets. The hull panels would be stitched together and the frames inserted and bonded in prior to taping the panel seams. As long as the hull panels are developed accurately, this method provides an accurate hull shape with no jig required. Although there are a lot of frames, they can of course be laser cut to reduce labor.

 

post-3095-015656200 1325606238_thumb.png

 

 

That would be a shame to cover up with a deck.

 

Do you know what that hull alone would weigh Mr. Nutter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My approach for a plywood hull is to use closely spaced 3mm plywood frames (say 150mm spacing) bonded in with glue fillets. The hull panels would be stitched together and the frames inserted and bonded in prior to taping the panel seams. As long as the hull panels are developed accurately, this method provides an accurate hull shape with no jig required. Although there are a lot of frames, they can of course be laser cut to reduce labor.

 

post-3095-015656200 1325606238_thumb.png

 

 

That would be a shame to cover up with a deck.

 

Do you know what that hull alone would weigh Mr. Nutter?

 

As drawn, without centreboard case or any additional reinforcements, the plywood weight is just under 15 kg, based on a wood density of 450kg/m^3, which I measured from some samples of 3mm gaboon plywood. I think it might be possible to come in at around 25-28 kg for the finished bare hull. The design shown has small wings at the aft end to widen the dance floor (as discussed elsewhere), which would add a small weight penalty.

 

I would like to avoid using carbon or glass for panel stiffness (wood is a light structural material, but a heavy core material). I would probably use Dynal to sheath the hull, for durability. I used this method on my existing sliding seat and it seemed to work ok. The seat, which longer than normal at 2500mm, came in at 9kg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My approach for a plywood hull is to use closely spaced 3mm plywood frames (say 150mm spacing) bonded in with glue fillets. The hull panels would be stitched together and the frames inserted and bonded in prior to taping the panel seams. As long as the hull panels are developed accurately, this method provides an accurate hull shape with no jig required. Although there are a lot of frames, they can of course be laser cut to reduce labor.

 

post-3095-015656200 1325606238_thumb.png

 

So I see the leeboard idea is catching on.

 

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, if the sheets are going into developable shapes then they can be formed (assuming they are not to stiff). In some cases we used to kurf cut the inside skin then re-apply which results in a similar panel to yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My approach for a plywood hull is to use closely spaced 3mm plywood frames (say 150mm spacing) bonded in with glue fillets. The hull panels would be stitched together and the frames inserted and bonded in prior to taping the panel seams. As long as the hull panels are developed accurately, this method provides an accurate hull shape with no jig required. Although there are a lot of frames, they can of course be laser cut to reduce labor.

 

post-3095-015656200 1325606238_thumb.png

 

So I see the leeboard idea is catching on.

 

 

:lol:

 

Well, that wasn't quite what I meant. I just haven't gotten around to designing the CB case yet. However, a leeboard might be lighter. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something along the same lines from SUP land, if you haven't seen it before, 3 mm ply I think

 

 

What's kind of cool is the freedom in planform and rocker at the beginning without a mold or strong back. Try it with a model- even rectangular shaped sides are fun to develop. Slab sides, but not vertical might be slow? Light frames. Would need massive beefing up to resist twisting.....

 

Sent from my iPad

Link to post
Share on other sites

cid:745E9134-9A27-4FEE-B47C-06657D37472A/photo.JPG

 

Here is a 14' try. 4mm ply. If you look at the bottom middle you'll see the stick I used to keep the top sides apart. Tape across bottom was not really necessary.

 

A nice serendipity is that with 4 mm ply, you get very close to b spline tension #1 on Vacanti:

 

Dammit, my iPad still won't put pics on SA. I'll get some pics on here when I get to the laptop. About 4 months ago I was spending a lot of time with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, lets try this again-

 

There is no curve cut into the panels in the the 1st pic (just rectangles of straight 90 degree cuts), and the bow is initially @ 90 degrees, which gives it a very fashionable reverse bow when stressed. You can see the stick I used to separate the top (deck side) of the panels. That's on the bottom of the 'hull' in the pic here. You can see butt scarfs at the 60% point, which I used also to give a bit more flatness longitudinally in the middle. 4mm ply. With the 4mm, you can add backing plates that can also change how the panel bends- since there will be bend with two thicknesses, just less. This side panel approach also works with chine logs and sheer clamps attached- I did one with cypress 1/2" by 3/8", and it worked nicely- i could bend things by hand (barely), and still use masking tape or duct tape. You have to be a bit careful- the plywood would not take the stresses without the sheer clamp/chine log backing all the way to the bow and stern. If you work at it, you only need one BH to establish the shape- just like the B Splines. Then add where you need support. This approach is a real PITA to do without epoxy. Or a LOT of power woodworking tools. I wonder if 6mm would work even better, as it would be stiffer, and require less internal support.

 

post-906-071214600 1325696943_thumb.jpgpost-906-006572100 1325696974_thumb.jpg

 

and here are some numbers from Vacanti to give you an idea of what the shape might give you. I entered the shape from the panels in pic #1 into the Vacanti, and found that the shape fit well into the B spline tension 1 setting with just one set plane. I went with 14' because that is what I had around that was expendable.

 

post-906-006572100 1325696974_thumb.jpg

 

post-906-081920600 1325696999_thumb.jpg

 

post-906-054731100 1325697017_thumb.jpg

 

Not too bad, at least in computerland.

 

This approach seems a good one for epoxy fillets, tape/stitch 'n glue. It also gives a way to make it up as you go. An interesting part of this was that if you had the computer next to the two side panel setup you can see what the wood wants to do, and model it on the computer as you go. It gives you some feedback during the setup, so it's a lot like shaping with a computer. And yes, I was going for straight lines longitudinally near the bow and sterns in this instance. IOR, baby!

Link to post
Share on other sites

With B splines (NURB) showing

 

post-906-020989400 1325699510_thumb.jpg

 

You can add other support NURB points in the computer and then correspondingly inside the initial panels to get more shape. They relate closely (digital and analogue), so at worst you get a good guestimate with the computer of a good position to start. As I mentioned above, you can use thinner/thicker ply, layers, initial shape cuts in the panels etc. Plywood is not very consistant in bend, though, even the Joubert I was using here, so get a feel for each piece of ply and what it WANTS to do before you commit. You can see the difference on the Starboard panel at the bow. Even twists the bow off vertical a bit.

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have mentioned that the wider the single spreader bar (aka the stick) at the deck level, the more rocker. The more you narrow the bottom, like with tape, once you have the top spreader in, the more rocker. The two do not have to be at the same point, but it does make it easier for the computer.

 

I assumed that was obvious, but maybe not. The things I assume....

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any Idea how? I might be abnormally dim (most likely) but I cant work it out

 

When you download Delftship it comes with some examples. One is a chined tug. To see the developed panels, go to the view task.

 

As for designing a chined shape, I have not done it....but I would start with the tug example and work backwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, lets try this again-

 

There is no curve cut into the panels in the the 1st pic (just rectangles of straight 90 degree cuts), and the bow is initially @ 90 degrees, which gives it a very fashionable reverse bow when stressed. You can see the stick I used to separate the top (deck side) of the panels. That's on the bottom of the 'hull' in the pic here. You can see butt scarfs at the 60% point, which I used also to give a bit more flatness longitudinally in the middle. 4mm ply. With the 4mm, you can add backing plates that can also change how the panel bends- since there will be bend with two thicknesses, just less. This side panel approach also works with chine logs and sheer clamps attached- I did one with cypress 1/2" by 3/8", and it worked nicely- i could bend things by hand (barely), and still use masking tape or duct tape. You have to be a bit careful- the plywood would not take the stresses without the sheer clamp/chine log backing all the way to the bow and stern. If you work at it, you only need one BH to establish the shape- just like the B Splines. Then add where you need support. This approach is a real PITA to do without epoxy. Or a LOT of power woodworking tools. I wonder if 6mm would work even better, as it would be stiffer, and require less internal support.

 

post-906-071214600 1325696943_thumb.jpgpost-906-006572100 1325696974_thumb.jpg

 

and here are some numbers from Vacanti to give you an idea of what the shape might give you. I entered the shape from the panels in pic #1 into the Vacanti, and found that the shape fit well into the B spline tension 1 setting with just one set plane. I went with 14' because that is what I had around that was expendable.

 

post-906-006572100 1325696974_thumb.jpg

 

post-906-081920600 1325696999_thumb.jpg

 

post-906-054731100 1325697017_thumb.jpg

 

Not too bad, at least in computerland.

 

This approach seems a good one for epoxy fillets, tape/stitch 'n glue. It also gives a way to make it up as you go. An interesting part of this was that if you had the computer next to the two side panel setup you can see what the wood wants to do, and model it on the computer as you go. It gives you some feedback during the setup, so it's a lot like shaping with a computer. And yes, I was going for straight lines longitudinally near the bow and sterns in this instance. IOR, baby!

 

Are you giving up "planing surface" with the pinched stern? I liked what I saw in the RYC parking low, I think it was a Maas design, with the chopped off stern, looked like more "planing" surface aft - but I don't know much about ICs other than I'm going to give one a go soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Feynman said when he got to heaven he wanted to ask God what the controlling equations for fluid dynamics were. Maybe the planform shape of skinny planing surfaces too?

 

This method also works for a transom hull. The Maas hull gets tricky. You have to beef up the tail stiffness laterally, or it goes weird. Not as easy as a smooth pointy stern. But you can get higher prismatic hulls Thames my sub .50. Order some .8mm or 1mm birch aircraft ply and make models. You can even use thicker file folder paper to get the idea ( the creamy stuff) but it helps to limit the length to 6" or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I am not convinced wide stern canoes are best:

 

Boats plane on the area under their centre of gravity, thats the laws of physics. Boats which plane on their stern either have their bows lifted by spinackers (on long poles) or low thrust line propellers. Canoes have neither so they obey the laws of physics. In fact like most sailboats the thrust is high up so there is a bow down pitching moment and hence centre of the planing surface needs to be forward of the centre of gravity.

 

Wide sterns add wetted surface, stability and somewhere manageable to work the boat. They also move the static centre of bouyancy aft and reduce the moment available when the crew moves aft to counteract the inevitable bow down pitch from aft CoB. In extreme, if the volume is too far aft no matter how far back the crew goes the boat will still nosedive. 18s, 12s, 49ers all have wings aft of the transom but still go down the mine on extreme bear aways, so they are very close to the limit.

 

They need wide sterns for stability because they carry large rigs. Canoes cary relatively small rigs and are proportionally long for their weight, width and area.

 

So if a canoe can have a narrower stern with adequate stability and work space, it will have less wetted surface and hence go better in light winds, and it will be easier managed in tough downwind conditions because moving crew weight aft will have greater remedial affect on any nosediving.

 

I though that the Hollow log was probably only slightly deficient on the stability and space quota but I could always get it downhill with only a little aft body weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Nutter, you just may have helped me out here.

 

Your density number, is that for epoxy coated ply? I had the numbers written down somewhere from a previous boat for plain ply then one and two coats either side. Hopefully you've solved my bad memory issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I am not convinced wide stern canoes are best:

 

Boats plane on the area under their centre of gravity, thats the laws of physics. Boats which plane on their stern either have their bows lifted by spinackers (on long poles) or low thrust line propellers. Canoes have neither so they obey the laws of physics. In fact like most sailboats the thrust is high up so there is a bow down pitching moment and hence centre of the planing surface needs to be forward of the centre of gravity.

 

Wide sterns add wetted surface, stability and somewhere manageable to work the boat. They also move the static centre of bouyancy aft and reduce the moment available when the crew moves aft to counteract the inevitable bow down pitch from aft CoB. In extreme, if the volume is too far aft no matter how far back the crew goes the boat will still nosedive. 18s, 12s, 49ers all have wings aft of the transom but still go down the mine on extreme bear aways, so they are very close to the limit.

 

They need wide sterns for stability because they carry large rigs. Canoes cary relatively small rigs and are proportionally long for their weight, width and area.

 

So if a canoe can have a narrower stern with adequate stability and work space, it will have less wetted surface and hence go better in light winds, and it will be easier managed in tough downwind conditions because moving crew weight aft will have greater remedial affect on any nosediving.

 

I though that the Hollow log was probably only slightly deficient on the stability and space quota but I could always get it downhill with only a little aft body weight.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Phil, have I ever asked about your thoughts on pressure recovery? Ballpark CP on hollow log? Just curious- once the hull has risen on it's bow wave, things get different. Converging straight buttocks aft do kindof beg the question of pressure recovery as a function of speed. Although seaplane floats tend to be very straight and somewhat converging behind the step.

 

What would a 1 mm step do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I am not convinced wide stern canoes are best:

 

Boats plane on the area under their centre of gravity, thats the laws of physics. Boats which plane on their stern either have their bows lifted by spinackers (on long poles) or low thrust line propellers. Canoes have neither so they obey the laws of physics. In fact like most sailboats the thrust is high up so there is a bow down pitching moment and hence centre of the planing surface needs to be forward of the centre of gravity.

 

Wide sterns add wetted surface, stability and somewhere manageable to work the boat. They also move the static centre of bouyancy aft and reduce the moment available when the crew moves aft to counteract the inevitable bow down pitch from aft CoB. In extreme, if the volume is too far aft no matter how far back the crew goes the boat will still nosedive. 18s, 12s, 49ers all have wings aft of the transom but still go down the mine on extreme bear aways, so they are very close to the limit.

 

They need wide sterns for stability because they carry large rigs. Canoes cary relatively small rigs and are proportionally long for their weight, width and area.

 

So if a canoe can have a narrower stern with adequate stability and work space, it will have less wetted surface and hence go better in light winds, and it will be easier managed in tough downwind conditions because moving crew weight aft will have greater remedial affect on any nosediving.

 

I though that the Hollow log was probably only slightly deficient on the stability and space quota but I could always get it downhill with only a little aft body weight.

 

 

Hmmm, well, maybe if someone were to build a wide stern boat and win a bunch of races we'd know that wide sterns, at least, weren't slow!

 

Phil you have some good points. But I have a few reasons why I like the wide stern:

 

I can't see a way to design a pintail stern whose chines don't drag in the water at slow speed, unless I have more round in the buttock and/or rocker than I want to see. If the chine is submerged and the pintail is fine then at slow speeds the water can flow along happily as on a double ender like a rowing shell. As speed increases though the water will break clear at some speed, but there is a sucky time - in technical jargon - when the water is still attached to the top sides.

 

For me the added stability of the wide stern in maneuvers is important and until I become younger and more nimble it's going to stay that way.

 

In light air with weight forward and a little heel I don't think my hull has much, if any, more wetted surface than a pintail.

 

You are right that the wide stern adds little lift for planing. As I understand it most of the lift comes from the forward third of the submerged surface.

 

It makes sense that the wide stern hull would be easier to nose dive. However, Steve and David Clark's boats at the last Worlds were the widest stern, narrowest bow IC's I have seen and they didn't seem to have any problem on the windier downwind legs, to put it mildly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

fwiw, my rational for the pintail centers on when it breaks or rises to a plane, and what happens in the non planing forced mode just before then.

 

And that is not information available easily digitally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Foam is so cool.

 

If you aren't allergic to epoxy.

 

Well, it's still cool. And you can wrap EPP in packing tape.

 

Which someday, I will do around a mast. Yes, it will happen. Oh yes.

 

If truth be known, I was struck dumb. Dumb, I tell you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Nutter, you just may have helped me out here.

 

Your density number, is that for epoxy coated ply? I had the numbers written down somewhere from a previous boat for plain ply then one and two coats either side. Hopefully you've solved my bad memory issues.

 

Jethrow,

 

The figure quoted was for the wood only, but I just checked my figures and the actual density I measured was 506 kg/m^3. Seems a bit high. I have done a spreadsheet for this hull which includes an epoxy coating and an allowance for glue fillets (pdf attached). I can send you the Excel file if you want to plug in your own figures. Again, this is just for the 3mm plywood structure.

 

PanelWeight.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

...As speed increases though the water will break clear at some speed, but there is a sucky time - in technical jargon - when the water is still attached to the top sides.

 

 

Sucky time. I like that. I'm going to add it to my vocabulary. :D

 

Regardless of the performance issues, I have a philosophical issue with the truncated sterns in that they are not really canoeish. To me the stern shape of these wide stern boats consists of a transom that is bent at 45 degrees. The term canoe tends to imply hulls that have no transom (canoe sterns in fact) although some paddling canoes do have small transoms. The truncated hullforms of the wide stern ICs have almost full width transoms and to me seem more like narrow skiff hulls.

 

However, the rules allow it, I can see the sense in it and I'm not one to let philosophical musings get in the way of a fast hull.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...As speed increases though the water will break clear at some speed, but there is a sucky time - in technical jargon - when the water is still attached to the top sides.

 

 

Sucky time. I like that. I'm going to add it to my vocabulary. :D

 

Regardless of the performance issues, I have a philosophical issue with the truncated sterns in that they are not really canoeish. To me the stern shape of these wide stern boats consists of a transom that is bent at 45 degrees. The term canoe tends to imply hulls that have no transom (canoe sterns in fact) although some paddling canoes do have small transoms. The truncated hullforms of the wide stern ICs have almost full width transoms and to me seem more like narrow skiff hulls.

 

However, the rules allow it, I can see the sense in it and I'm not one to let philosophical musings get in the way of a fast hull.

 

As an outsider, I was curious how widespread this thought might be.

 

Mr Maas - what sort of foam?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutta:

That horse left the barn in 1956.

Uffa was the first to do it, Ian Proctor was next and the one design Nethercott has had a "funny shaped transom" since day one.

In creating the new rules, I stuck very close to the original formulas, the "inside 45 degrees" language to type form the pointy stern came down from the mountain with Moses.

SHC

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have wondered about the wide 45 degreeish hulls is that the stern crossection has to be slightly rounded or v'd to have a long LWL without a sudden corner that the flow has to deal with. But it would seem to demand sailing very flat upwind, because if you heel enough, say 5-10 degrees,that at some point the truncated chine becomes the effective LWL. And that is shorter than the LWL of the point. And the wider the stern, the shorter the chine. So in a sense, the end of the chine has to be pretty high to avoid it's own sucky point at speeds lower than clean planing.

 

So that deadrise would seem to limit early planing? And if heeled, which length governs hull speed, the pointy part or the end of the chine? Is the idea of the corner that is basically limits the sucky point to a smaller area, like a square head sail does?

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

...As speed increases though the water will break clear at some speed, but there is a sucky time - in technical jargon - when the water is still attached to the top sides.

 

 

Sucky time. I like that. I'm going to add it to my vocabulary. :D

 

Regardless of the performance issues, I have a philosophical issue with the truncated sterns in that they are not really canoeish. To me the stern shape of these wide stern boats consists of a transom that is bent at 45 degrees. The term canoe tends to imply hulls that have no transom (canoe sterns in fact) although some paddling canoes do have small transoms. The truncated hullforms of the wide stern ICs have almost full width transoms and to me seem more like narrow skiff hulls.

 

However, the rules allow it, I can see the sense in it and I'm not one to let philosophical musings get in the way of a fast hull.

 

 

To my eye, in the dinghy park, the pointy stern on my IC definitely sets it apart from the skiff type hulls.

 

I guess the rules could have been written to require a pointier stern, like say 30 degrees instead of 45. And a 200mm radius on the corner instead of 60mm. I don't think it would have made for a better boat though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...As speed increases though the water will break clear at some speed, but there is a sucky time - in technical jargon - when the water is still attached to the top sides.

 

 

Sucky time. I like that. I'm going to add it to my vocabulary. :D

 

Regardless of the performance issues, I have a philosophical issue with the truncated sterns in that they are not really canoeish. To me the stern shape of these wide stern boats consists of a transom that is bent at 45 degrees. The term canoe tends to imply hulls that have no transom (canoe sterns in fact) although some paddling canoes do have small transoms. The truncated hullforms of the wide stern ICs have almost full width transoms and to me seem more like narrow skiff hulls.

 

However, the rules allow it, I can see the sense in it and I'm not one to let philosophical musings get in the way of a fast hull.

 

As an outsider, I was curious how widespread this thought might be.

 

Mr Maas - what sort of foam?

 

That's Divinycel H80.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Foam is so cool.

 

If you aren't allergic to epoxy.

 

Well, it's still cool. And you can wrap EPP in packing tape.

 

Which someday, I will do around a mast. Yes, it will happen. Oh yes.

 

If truth be known, I was struck dumb. Dumb, I tell you.

 

So build with vinylester. What's not to like about styrene?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to Phil's post about being able to sink the stern to get the bow up...

It's really pretty interesting, because you can get further aft on a wider stern.

post-738-068493100 1325884665_thumb.jpg

This is with the helm and seat at the back end of the tracks.

Hull is becoming less stable as the deck goes under, so this is minimum limit of freeboard and volume.

Seems like the bow won't be sticking into many waves.

post-738-066558800 1325884690_thumb.jpg

In light air with the seat all the way forward, stern a center line is just in the water.

Keeping enough section curvature is pretty important for making the boat somewhat tolerant of heeling a bit but there is no doubt that these boats have more wetted area than ones with pointier sterns.

SHC

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just starting to build a Maas design IC for JimC - who has done the hard work entering the design into computerese.

 

post-2679-050218900 1325888523_thumb.jpg

 

The mould will be like this, but the boat has the V-transom chopped off / transom sides added later.

 

It's a bit of an optical illusion that makes the stern looks very wide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to Phil's post about being able to sink the stern to get the bow up...

It's really pretty interesting, because you can get further aft on a wider stern.

 

There are all sorts of interesting tradeoffs - that's what makes it fun.

When I put a 45 degree stern on my Nethercott I learned all sorts of things...

You need more freeboard aft with the wide stern - otherwise the deck goes underwater all too readily when heeled

You get a much flatter stern wave at any speed, which I think means more pressure recovery.

You really feel the extra wetted area in the light, especially if you can't heel the boat because the decks go under

I suspect the detail treatment of the corner could be rather significant in the heeled light airs mode.

Maybe with the finer bows of a new design it will be easier to get the stern out of the water in the light

My success rate at tacking in conditions marginal to my ability level improved significantly

I don't sail in waves so I have no idea what changes there will be in waves.

 

I suspect how the tradeoffs work may be quite different for classy sailors like Phil, Steve and Chris as they will be for a very ordinary middle of the fleet hack like me. They have a lot less trouble actually making it round than I do... Sailing where I do I should probably have had something like the Morrison, which seems astonishingly slippy in the light, but sailing like I do I hope that the Maas will give me a bit more help with the more powerful stern.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread has some interesting points.First in response to IC nutter, sailors have been discussing what defines a canoe since the 1870, so you are in good company. Refer to Dixon Kemp 'A Manual of yacht and boat sailing' 2nd edition, I think published 1880. Over the years there seems to have been a feeling that a wide stern pushes the bow down. The development of the IC In the 1950/1960s went from Uffa's Spindrift through the Proctor mark 2 to the Nethercot. At each stage the main aim was to reduce the volume of the stern. The Nethercot definitely looks as if it has a wrapped around transom, but this is only because it is not faired into the rest of the hull in the way that Uffa did with Spindrift. The element which, in my mind, is important is the chine, as this is what delineates the transom from the bottom of the boat. A chine was first introduced to canoe design in 1914 by Linton Hope in Trittonelle. She was reported to outclass all the other canoes of the time and the chined form was outlawed by the Royal Canoe Club, and that followed over into the International Rule in the 1930s. My own feeling is are that the wide stern has little to do with nose diving. Recently I have been investigating lift during sailing. To do this I developed a simple spreadsheet using the planing theory of Savitsky. The model is very simple and assumes the hulls can be adequately approximated by four chines and that the lift calcs can be done assuming no deadrise, and gives results which may be in error numerically but I would think probably give the correct form of the lift-speed curves. I would be interested if a navel architect in the fleet would redo the calculations and confirm, or otherwise, the results. For my Nethercot approximation I found that lift was only achieved above a speed of about 17/18 knots. Below that there was a suction which at a maximum was equivalent to about 60lbs At about 14 knots. At this speed the bow was out of the water for around 20 inches, so looked very much as if planing was occurring. The reduction in wetted area was about 7%. This amount of suction could be reduced by moving the C of G back towards the stern. The cause of this large suction was the rocker of the Nethercot. In general lift occurred at the front of the boat and suction occurred at the stern, this would suggest that a wider stern might help to keep the stern down and so the bow up rather than the converse. Even for the case of no rocker the lift is higher at the front of the boat as the lift depends on the way the WL beam increases, as well as the WL beam. This is high at the bow and low (maybe negative) at the stern. I found that reducing the rocker reduced the suction and lowered the speed at which positive lift was achieved. I think Chris is correct not to introduce too much rocker. Steves new boat looks as if it is quite low rocker. I should be interested to know how much rocker these canoes have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why race boards of the 80's had some intentional reverse curve to the last foot or so of the rocker. My Sailboard Race comes to mind. Not the apparent s curve. Had to sail nose down in the light to lift them out of the drink. More prevalent in squash, diamond and pintails. But these tails were mostly v'd in cross section and usually came out of a double concave, which in turn came out of a single concave at the nose, which wouldn't be legal for a canoe. The idea IIRR was to keep the water constantly accelerating.

 

But if oil canning is happening at the bottom of the hulls of the ply canoes anyway, you might be able to exploit this flexibility at speed, and have longitudinal concavities forming under pressure. Might be happening already? Between the strongbacks and chinelogs? At least on the flattish hull bottoms.

 

I wonder though if the easily movable seats fore and aft aren't making bigger sterns more viable. The 44" beam limit is wider than a formula board, and if you get the weight back enough, like one of the pics of Chris's canoe shows, a year or more ago, and enough of the bow is out of the water, you've effectively got a really heavy early type formula board, complete with the diamond tail. Although with a sloop rig.

 

I think Savitsky would agree with Prandtl that higher aspect planing surfaces are more efficient when planing.

 

Kind of begs the question about speed boards though.

 

And this vid is really cheesy but it has some good glimpses of the skinny speed boards that have always seemed to me to have some things in common with canoes

 

Check out this video on YouTube:

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

My objection to the wide stern boats was really only an aesthetic one, and concerns the introduction of the knuckle aft, which runs from the deck line down to the chine. It gives the appearance of it being the side of a transom, albeit a transom that angles back at 45 degrees. I've always appreciated the simple lines of the IC hull (minimalist tendencies) and the extra knuckle line just seems to complicate it up a bit. I'm sure I'll get used to it. Others may think the transom effect looks better than the more traditional shape, more 'edgy', so to speak.

 

Regarding the chine, I agree that it is absolutely necessary to have a chine aft to promote separation at higher speeds. I certainly wouldn't suggest that an IC hull should have round bilges all the way aft. That would be silly. IC's are not paddling canoes, at least, not nowadays.

 

ARE, I would be interested in having a look at your Savitsky spreadsheet. I did some work using Savitsky may years ago (on trim tabs I think), but I've forgotten it. I'll trade you a copy of my HullCalc spreadsheet if you like, then we can all be totally confused. :lol:

 

The primary way in which planing reduces resistance is due to wetted surface reduction. In my opinion, if you can reduce wetted surface whist maintaining clean flow separation aft, you can assume you are planing, regardless of what the net lift situation is.

 

The other thing planing does is to virtually change the shape of the curve of areas. Planing usually results in a stern down trim, and separation off the chine or transom creates a cavity in the water behind the boat. If you could analyse the volume of the immersed curve of areas of the hull and the cavity behind the hull (the virtual curve of areas), you should find that the total mass of water displaced is equal to the mass of the boat. Hence, the reduction in displacement of the hull due to planing should be equal to the volume of the stern cavity. And further hence, if you really want to plane, you need to load the back end of the boat and dig the stern in. In essence the faster you go, the more stern trim you need so that you can go faster. If you the dig stern in too early (i.e. at lower speeds), you will loose the ability to benefit from "pressure recovery", which others have mentioned. The ability to recover pressure from the inward flow of water aft of the maximum cross section (the peak of the curve of areas) rapidly diminishes to zero as you approach "hull speed".

 

The shape of the virtual curve of areas of a hull which is planing, compared to the static curve of areas, is that of a longer hull with the same displacement. So not only does frictional resistance reduce due to wetted surface reduction, but wavemaking resistance is also be reduced.

 

All in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to Phil's post about being able to sink the stern to get the bow up...

It's really pretty interesting, because you can get further aft on a wider stern.

 

There are all sorts of interesting tradeoffs - that's what makes it fun.

When I put a 45 degree stern on my Nethercott I learned all sorts of things...

You need more freeboard aft with the wide stern - otherwise the deck goes underwater all too readily when heeled

You get a much flatter stern wave at any speed, which I think means more pressure recovery.

You really feel the extra wetted area in the light, especially if you can't heel the boat because the decks go under

I suspect the detail treatment of the corner could be rather significant in the heeled light airs mode.

Maybe with the finer bows of a new design it will be easier to get the stern out of the water in the light

My success rate at tacking in conditions marginal to my ability level improved significantly

I don't sail in waves so I have no idea what changes there will be in waves.

 

I suspect how the tradeoffs work may be quite different for classy sailors like Phil, Steve and Chris as they will be for a very ordinary middle of the fleet hack like me. They have a lot less trouble actually making it round than I do... Sailing where I do I should probably have had something like the Morrison, which seems astonishingly slippy in the light, but sailing like I do I hope that the Maas will give me a bit more help with the more powerful stern.

Hi Jim

Whats the programe you use for your design?

I am looking at a Dragonfly MK II (very long term project), I think Dragonfly is not extreame enough, prob more pointy needed at the front.

Very intrested but slightly baffeled by all the tech talk, but to answer one recent question my rocker is 100mm

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

The primary way in which planing reduces resistance is due to wetted surface reduction. In my opinion, if you can reduce wetted surface whist maintaining clean flow separation aft, you can assume you are planing, regardless of what the net lift situation is.

 

The other thing planing does is to virtually change the shape of the curve of areas. Planing usually results in a stern down trim, and separation off the chine or transom creates a cavity in the water behind the boat. If you could analyse the volume of the immersed curve of areas of the hull and the cavity behind the hull (the virtual curve of areas), you should find that the total mass of water displaced is equal to the mass of the boat. Hence, the reduction in displacement of the hull due to planing should be equal to the volume of the stern cavity.

...

The question I have here is for the transitional, or semi-planing region. So the flow has cleanly detached from the stern but there is no dynamic lift. Here, the hull is displacing the same volume of water AND some virtual amount. Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay,

 

It's great to see so much interest in this thread. I played for awhile in a development class in RC boats so I know how much fun the process can be. I also know how daunting it can appear to an outsider with no experience in building a boat that doesn't come in a kit or at least with plans and a fairly detailed bill of materials. I'm definitely curious about building a hull using either wood or foam as in Giajin or Chris's method with the pre-laminated foam.

 

What kind of materials do I need to have on hand to make a hull? Just get me in the ballpark. How many sheets of what core, how much cloth of what type, how much resin etc. This way I can have the lion's share of the stuff on hand to proceed. Any sourcing guidelines would be great too.

 

From a complete outsider's perspective this general info would be very beneficial. It would also be possible to get an idea of the budget for the hull at least. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

Maybe a rough bill of materials will result in more boats getting built. You've already shown through this thread that the necessary hand holding will be available once a project gets started. I'd just like a little push on the first step down the road (or off the cliff as it may be.)

 

Take care,

 

Brent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Planing may feel like a break from one regime to another but it isn't. If the hull didn't lift a bit, at least, when the stern wave detaches in the forced mode, it would sink. The reason windsurfer race boards, for example, had some sort of pointy tail was that the faster they go, the less area was needed to support the hull dynamically. If you had a square or big diamond tail, after a certain speed things got bouncy and a bit uncontrollable.

 

So it boils down, at least to me :P that the rocker and the foil fit the anticipated planing speed of the board as well as being slippery at lower speeds. A big squash tail is great at mid dish SLR's. It would be nice if wider was better, but Formula boards are tiny airboats, and canoes may just be too heavy to enjoy the lift from trapped air.

 

One of the reasons big wave boards fascinate me is that they operator in two disparate regimes- paddling out and planing. Granted some of them are shaped not to go too fast and stay on the wave, butvthat just makes it, as Steve says, more fun.

 

So canoes are not that fast? So being able to get right to the back of a skinny tail with progressively less wetted surface is wasted effort? Well, that and it's a bit difficult to get the rig CE back that far quickly. Chris, you were messing around with the seat waaaay back on plane. Any of the rest of you with Maas hulls done the same? Besides lee helm, is there any speed advantage? Or does the speed plateau as WS plateaus?

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

1:

BOM for John Kells build 2008.

Building jig and design not included.

Seat materials not detailed accounted for

Mayhem BOM.doc

 

2: You have to consider that the driving force of a sailboat is at the aerodynamic center of pressure not at the deck, waterline or keel. This imparts a significant bow down moment to the hull and affects the trim. This is why almost any sailboat towed from the deck will trim very bow up. Suction aft is one way of dealing with this, and when the eat was pretty much fixed in one position, some suction was very desirable to maintain proper trim as the boats went faster and down wind. However, suction usually also means sinkage, which is counter to the goal of reducing wetted area. As always there are conflicting demands.

The other alternative is to enable the helm to get further aft and bring the LCG with him. To do this the deck needs to be wider further aft, which in turn makes the "corner" sharper.

I guess we are lucky that the general nature of the sailing canoe is attractive, and the boat can wear this and still look gorgeous. Some girls have all the luck.

SHC

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

The primary way in which planing reduces resistance is due to wetted surface reduction. In my opinion, if you can reduce wetted surface whist maintaining clean flow separation aft, you can assume you are planing, regardless of what the net lift situation is.

 

The other thing planing does is to virtually change the shape of the curve of areas. Planing usually results in a stern down trim, and separation off the chine or transom creates a cavity in the water behind the boat. If you could analyse the volume of the immersed curve of areas of the hull and the cavity behind the hull (the virtual curve of areas), you should find that the total mass of water displaced is equal to the mass of the boat. Hence, the reduction in displacement of the hull due to planing should be equal to the volume of the stern cavity.

...

The question I have here is for the transitional, or semi-planing region. So the flow has cleanly detached from the stern but there is no dynamic lift. Here, the hull is displacing the same volume of water AND some virtual amount. Thoughts?

 

Thanks for pointing out that error. The volume of hull plus cavity should equal twice the static hull volume* and the reduction in displacement of the hull due to planing should be equal to the volume of the stern cavity minus the static hull volume.

 

The typical heave pattern for a semi-displacement hull form with an immersed transom is that the hull will sink at speeds below the typical resistance curve hump (before the separation cavity is fully formed perhaps) and will rise thereafter. we could speculate that the sinkage at lower speeds is due to the inability of the truncated (immersed transom) hullform to recover pressure aft of the maximum cross sectional area point.

 

* This assumes that the transom area is equal to the maximum cross sectional area, as it is on a full planing hull form. Semi displacement hullforms often have a transom area that is smaller than the maximum cross sectional area and in this case the ratio will be less than twice the hull volume. Bear in mind that the trim angle changes the (max. cross section/transom area) ratio.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been off line crashing my way half way through a moth regatta but will try to answer some questions from the last few days:

 

Amati: Not sure about separation theories. When I started making stressed ply boats about 1974 I had a theory that water would flow well around any shape that ply could easilly bend through, After that I found the philosophy that volume down low means less whetted surface and less WL width for a given volume. I also found that minimising keel spring is fast espec combined will low volume. When all that is combined and the boaw is made as sharp as possible then the boats do not go through any transition between displacement and planing, they just go faster. Saw this first with cats, then NS14s, narrow Moths and with two canoes, mine and Chrios Maas boat when we all sailed each others at McCrae. Frank Bethwaite calls it a humpless design but he did not invent it.

 

Chris, I have great respect for you, your designs and your two WCs. But I have never been a design follower so am always looking at other ideas and options. I also like your stressed foam idea and can see me using it if I ever build another canoe.

 

Steve: Also great respect for you, your designs and your history, but slight misunderstanding. I know that you can move teh seat back further on the wide stern boats but what I said was that on the narrow stern boats you do not need to because the centre of bouyancy (or planing area for those who think that way) is already further forward and separated from the crew weight by a greater distance.

 

 

Skiffboy: There does not seem to be a semi planing regime in these new boats.

 

Sorry if I missed soem Qs but I am running out of time on themotel internet connection.. More when I get home in a few days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Amati: Not sure about separation theories. When I started making stressed ply boats about 1974 I had a theory that water would flow well around any shape that ply could easilly bend through, After that I found the philosophy that volume down low means less whetted surface and less WL width for a given volume. I also found that minimising keel spring is fast espec combined will low volume. When all that is combined and the boaw is made as sharp as possible then the boats do not go through any transition between displacement and planing, they just go faster. Saw this first with cats, then NS14s, narrow Moths and with two canoes, mine and Chrios Maas boat when we all sailed each others at McCrae. Frank Bethwaite calls it a humpless design but he did not invent it.

 

 

The drag characteristics that have been referred to 'humpless' are really just a function of the displacement to length ratio, which affects the proportion of wave (residuary) drag vs skin friction drag. The friction drag curve is a smooth curve whereas the residuary drag curve has humps in it. Lightweight high performance boats have relatively large wetted surface area compared to their volume, hence the greater part of the drag curve will be made up of frictional drag. Thus the total drag curve will appear to be fairly smooth because the humps in the residuary drag curve are relatively small.

 

Further to this, the modern skiff hull has a very broad transom, often the widest part of the hull or certainly at chine level. The benefit of this is that you need only a small amount of stern trim to greatly increase the transom immersion at higher speeds. This helps to avoid the 'sucky time' (I've so wanted to use that) which occurs prior to planing.

 

Getting back on topic, one of the beauties of the chined canoe hull is that separation can occur well forward, so that the canoe stern is kind of sitting in the separation cavity. I think this also helps with the seamless transition from displacement to planing mode. It also means that you can get the centre of lift further forward than with a standard transom hull. The disadvantage is that you end up with fuller sections forward. I suspect that the top end planing performance of a narrow stern canoe could be better in terms of controlability but the narrower bowed wide stern boats should win out upwind and in lighter conditions.

 

Mal's Law states that the boat on the edge of control is the fastest, so one way of going fast is to design the hull to be as difficult to control as you can, then learn to control it. So what you really want is the narrowest possible bow married to the narrowest possible stern, with as much curvature in the underside as you can get in order to make it as unstable as possible. Then add the straightest possible keel line so that it will nosedive easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The drag characteristics that have been referred to 'humpless' are really just a function of the displacement to length ratio,

I dunno about that. My winged 14foot singlehander had damn all planing hump. My lightened Nethercott, which is much the same weight, has a great big one. One thing I did observe with the singlehander, which had a fine straight bow, was minimal bow wave generation. The Nethercott, OTOH, kicks up a big one.

 

Further to this, the modern skiff hull has a very broad transom, often the widest part of the hull or certainly at chine level.

I would have said they reached a maximum back in the late 70s, then went finer. They've only gone wider again sice the rudder T foils with lift, which changed the game.

 

Mal's Law states that the boat on the edge of control is the fastest, so one way of going fast is to design the hull to be as difficult to control as you can, then learn to control it

 

The trouble with that is that if you are backed off to keep the bow out of the mud at the bottom of the lake, and Fred is driving his boat flat out he's going to go past you.

 

I'd not argue with the general propsition that, all else being equal, the less rocker you have, especially aft of mid length, the faster you go and the sooner you head down the mine. There was a big fashion with some english designers for a while with rocker at the back of the boat. The general observation was that at speed such boats stuck to the water beautifully, both in terms of keeping the bow out of the 'oggin and in terms of dragging half of it round the course with you slowing you down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mal's Law states that the boat on the edge of control is the fastest, so one way of going fast is to design the hull to be as difficult to control as you can, then learn to control it

 

The trouble with that is that if you are backed off to keep the bow out of the mud at the bottom of the lake, and Fred is driving his boat flat out he's going to go past you.

 

 

If you have to back off, you are not in control. If your bow is in the mud, you are not in control. You are only the fastest when you are on the edge of control. If you are no longer in control, you are slow.

 

Regarding the rest of it, I'm making very broad generalisations assuming everything is optimal. There will always be exceptions that seem to buck the trend. A badly shaped boat will be shit no matter how light it is. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil:

One thing I have noticed sailing the fat ass boats is that you CAN sail them from further aft, and that it is fast to do so.

I believe that the LCG moves aft with the helm. This makes the bow lighter, and reduces the energy absorbed by wave encounters. You cannot get the LCG as far aft without the volume of the fat stern. In practice the movement of the LCG and reduction of wave encounter losses seems to make up for the additional wetted surface.

In many ways it is similar to what has happened with the T Foil on the I 14. The lift off the T foil is enough to support about 1/2 the displacement of the boat, so the crews all sail as far aft as possible once they are trapping. Dave move his seat aft as soon as the he sees a clean "planing" wake and takes a step ahead.

I'm not sure the next IC shouldn't be pointy aft with a T foil rudder. Thus achieving the low wetted area of a pin tail and the LCG aft of a fat ass.

The fact that Andy P already went down this yellow brick road without getting to OZ is something of a caveat.

SHC

Link to post
Share on other sites

IC Nutter: "The typical heave pattern for a semi-displacement hull form with an immersed transom is that the hull will sink at speeds below the typical resistance curve hump (before the separation cavity is fully formed perhaps) and will rise thereafter. we could speculate that the sinkage at lower speeds is due to the inability of the truncated (immersed transom) hullform to recover pressure aft of the maximum cross sectional area point.". This seems to be confusing way to describe what is happening. A boat will sink ( that is it's C of G will move downwards) in the water because there is an added downward force on the boat. Conversely it will move upward because of an added upward force. This is the only way it can happen. Also remember that when there is suction due to the rocker the boat will be behaving as a heavier boat.

I have not come across the theory that the cavity in the water behind the boat is equal the submerged volume of the boat. Could you give me a reference that explains the theoretical justification ( And the maths behind the idea).

Phil: the minimum wetted area is easily computed, and will be determined by the waterline plane area And the keel profile. To achieve minimum just ensure that every underwater section is a semi ellipse. Changing either of the above mentioned will, or course, change the wetted area. The very best ellipse is the one where the two foci are at the same point, i.e. the circlular cross section- but that is not very practical except very close to the bow. This is entirely consistent with your comments. What do you mean by keel spring? It is a term I am not familiar with. Do you mean rocker?I don't understand you point about centre of buoyancy and position of helmsman. The position of the C of B Is determined by the positions of the centre of gravity of the boat and that of the helmsman, neglecting all other forces. If you want to alter trim then the helmsman has to move. Moving the helmsmans weight back to stop nosediving will have exactly the same effect on a wide stern canoe as it does on a narrow stern canoe. Differences may come about if waves lift the stern, and these could be more severe for a wide stern canoe, but are not due to differing effects of moving the helms mans weight.

Savitsky defines three speed regimes, displacement, semi planing and planing in terms of the speed of the boat. To say that canoes Canoes show no transitions is just redefining the terms, the canoe has a transition when it's speed changes from that defined as displacement to that defined as semi planing and so on. Phil is obviously not talking of the transition in these terms, so I need to know what he means by transition, for me to be able to make any sense of what he is talking about, Or we will just talk at cross purposes. From my calculations I would suggest that semi planing is associated with bow up but no net positive lift, and planing with bow up and positive lift. Oh! By the way all boats obey the laws of physics all the time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Savitsky defines three speed regimes, displacement, semi planing and planing in terms of the speed of the boat. To say that canoes Canoes show no transitions is just redefining the terms, the canoe has a transition when it's speed changes from that defined as displacement to that defined as semi planing and so on.

Well if wanting to define transitions in reference to arbitrarily chosen convenient numbers, such as a multiple of 2.50 times or 3.00 times, then certainly one will at one speed be just below such a number and then at a slightly greater speed be just above it.

 

But the numbers don't necessarily refer to sharp transitions in what is happening physically for a given boat.

 

The contribution of dynamic lift can increase smoothly without any speed point being sharply different from the speed slightly below or above it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the (head falls off) post: IC Nutter, I really do want to understand what you've posted in #2080 and have tried a number of times, but just am not getting there. It is the second sentence, first paragraph in the new explanation that is stumping me.

 

If there's a way to explain it differently without having to write something unfeasibly long, I really would appreciate it! Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Savitsky defines three speed regimes, displacement, semi planing and planing in terms of the speed of the boat. To say that canoes Canoes show no transitions is just redefining the terms, the canoe has a transition when it's speed changes from that defined as displacement to that defined as semi planing and so on. Phil is obviously not talking of the transition in these terms, so I need to know what he means by transition, for me to be able to make any sense of what he is talking about, Or we will just talk at cross purposes. From my calculations I would suggest that semi planing is associated with bow up but no net positive lift, and planing with bow up and positive lift. Oh! By the way all boats obey the laws of physics all the time!

 

So are you saying that planing begins the instant displacement decreases? And are there accepted definitions for planing, semi planing etc.?

 

It's not clear to me that early planing is necessarily the best goal. I wonder if one IC that is "planing" could actually be going slower than an IC of another design which is not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My reading says T foils allowed, but since it is wider than 2"-3" is it? It wil then count as hull length? How about a 15' hull plus a 1 foot t foil? Or 14 + 2'? A nice planing shoe?

 

But damn t foils are not cheap and they aren't partularly light and the need p retty beefy attatchment. But with a small enough hull maybe it could hit min weight?

 

 

Would it be legal to have one on a gantry 1' or 2' behind the stern of the hull?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not arguing for anything but agreed definitions. If I'm talking about apples and you are talking about oranges then all that results is confusion. I entirely agree with your comments that the speed ranges Savitsky uses don't neccessarily correspond to sharp transitions. If there were really sharp transitions then alternative definitions would be easy and probably used. There are really no sharp transitions, and changes In drag, lift and all other impotant functions will almost certainly be smooth, continuously differentiable functions of speed, and that changes from one regime to another will be difficult to detect, unless in a test tank. This doesnt mean that different regimes don't exist in the sense that differing factors may dominate the response. By response I mean any variable that you are measuring. Personally I don't care what the definitions are, but I do need to know what they are so I can talk the same language.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, lets try this again-

 

There is no curve cut into the panels in the the 1st pic (just rectangles of straight 90 degree cuts), and the bow is initially @ 90 degrees, which gives it a very fashionable reverse bow when stressed. You can see the stick I used to separate the top (deck side) of the panels. That's on the bottom of the 'hull' in the pic here. You can see butt scarfs at the 60% point, which I used also to give a bit more flatness longitudinally in the middle. 4mm ply. With the 4mm, you can add backing plates that can also change how the panel bends- since there will be bend with two thicknesses, just less. This side panel approach also works with chine logs and sheer clamps attached- I did one with cypress 1/2" by 3/8", and it worked nicely- i could bend things by hand (barely), and still use masking tape or duct tape. You have to be a bit careful- the plywood would not take the stresses without the sheer clamp/chine log backing all the way to the bow and stern. If you work at it, you only need one BH to establish the shape- just like the B Splines. Then add where you need support. This approach is a real PITA to do without epoxy. Or a LOT of power woodworking tools. I wonder if 6mm would work even better, as it would be stiffer, and require less internal support.

 

post-906-071214600 1325696943_thumb.jpgpost-906-006572100 1325696974_thumb.jpg

 

and here are some numbers from Vacanti to give you an idea of what the shape might give you. I entered the shape from the panels in pic #1 into the Vacanti, and found that the shape fit well into the B spline tension 1 setting with just one set plane. I went with 14' because that is what I had around that was expendable.

 

post-906-006572100 1325696974_thumb.jpg

 

post-906-081920600 1325696999_thumb.jpg

 

post-906-054731100 1325697017_thumb.jpg

 

Not too bad, at least in computerland.

 

This approach seems a good one for epoxy fillets, tape/stitch 'n glue. It also gives a way to make it up as you go. An interesting part of this was that if you had the computer next to the two side panel setup you can see what the wood wants to do, and model it on the computer as you go. It gives you some feedback during the setup, so it's a lot like shaping with a computer. And yes, I was going for straight lines longitudinally near the bow and sterns in this instance. IOR, baby!

 

of you look at attatchment # 5 above you will see a numerical model for wave and friction drag at least right up to forced mode. For some double ended models the wave drag dives down like above

 

for big sterns it goes way up. I'll post one that's kind of like a Maas hull when I get back to the house

 

but remember, just a model

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not arguing for anything but agreed definitions. If I'm talking about apples and you are talking about oranges then all that results is confusion. I entirely agree with your comments that the speed ranges Savitsky uses don't neccessarily correspond to sharp transitions. If there were really sharp transitions then alternative definitions would be easy and probably used. There are really no sharp transitions, and changes In drag, lift and all other impotant functions will almost certainly be smooth, continuously differentiable functions of speed, and that changes from one regime to another will be difficult to detect, unless in a test tank. This doesnt mean that different regimes don't exist in the sense that differing factors may dominate the response. By response I mean any variable that you are measuring. Personally I don't care what the definitions are, but I do need to know what they are so I can talk the same language.

 

The problem there is that while there is some naval architecture use of using a speed length ratio of 2.5 or 3.0 as a minimum for defining "planing," with less than this but more than hull speed being "semi-displacement," it seems very uncommon for such to be used outside of a book or article.

 

Perhaps because as you say changes can be smooth as approaching and passing these and other values, or perhaps because for practical purposes behavior of one boat will differ from another rather than any such general numerical rule being so useful.

 

The main use seems to be providing a quantitative basis for debunking "planing" claims of low power-to-weight keelboats. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Planing is usually considered to be above Fn = 1

Displacemnt < Fn 0.4ish

Semi planing is the hinterland between, at which transoms rund dry, traditional hydrostatics make less of an mportance with increasing speed compared to reducing curvature in the buttocks and sections (curvature in the buttocks, or any surface is sucky sucky)

The "dynamically humpless hull" is basically just a hull that is designed to operate well in the semi planing regime. This is usually one with minimal or no curvature in buttocks.

To achieve this you need relatively high transom and forefoot immersion (incorrectly termed as low rocker - these are boats not surfboards)

High transom and forefoot immersion is not good for "slow" boats that spend lots of time at pre-transom running dry speeds.

Chris is correct - a 49er could be going at say 16 kts and be planing, a hobie 16 could sail past at 17kts and not be planing (same length boats)

In real terms, it is a reduction in drag through spport of displacement through dynamic lift.

The 49er will bereducing its wave drag by supporting say 70% of its disp dynamically at this speed, the hobie none.

The hobie ameliorates the wave drag penalty inherent in its lack of dynamic lift with a ridiculously high l/b ratio, which is a pretty successful / efficient way of doing things up to very high speeds as long as initial transverse stability isnt a problem (i.e, in a cat)

This is why the alpha rocker program didn't hit the ball out of the park (cat foil RM aside) - displacement is a pretty efficient mode even at high Fn if the l/b is sufficiently high.

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

my head hurts as well, but what's this about a rudder foil? Allowed?

 

 

As I read it T foils are allowed. Several of us have tried it but nobody's shown it to be faster. They are super effective though. Just not fast, yet.

 

Amati: I think a gantry would be seen as part of the hull.

Link to post
Share on other sites

my head hurts as well, but what's this about a rudder foil? Allowed?

 

 

As I read it T foils are allowed. Several of us have tried it but nobody's shown it to be faster. They are super effective though. Just not fast, yet.

 

Amati: I think a gantry would be seen as part of the hull.

 

Lowridwr Moth hulls here we come....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The foils on the 14s do more than just increase upwind speed potential

 

They ameliorate the bad effects of nose diving by creating a safe mode and a safe bear away in heavy breeze

 

and they stabilize the pitching of a very short platform quite dramatically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The foils on the 14s do more than just increase upwind speed potential

 

They ameliorate the bad effects of nose diving by creating a safe mode and a safe bear away in heavy breeze

 

and they stabilize the pitching of a very short platform quite dramatically.

 

 

Right, my t foil did all that too. Bear aways were baby-safe. Pitching was reduced dramatically. I could slide my carriage all the way back upwind and still be in trim. All good stuff but too much drag penalty. IC's may just be the wrong platform, or maybe nobody has done it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris - definitions of planing seem to vary. I have seen it as defined by the speed regime where the boat is supported primarily by hydrodynamic lift rather than buoyancy. Savitsky defines it in terms of speed/length ratio, SLR, displacement hulls operate up to SLR of about 1.3, semi planing hulls up to about SLR of 3 and planing hulls at SLR above 3. He mostly discuses boats that cannot alter their characteristics quite as markedly as the canoe can by shifting the helms mans weight. His description of a typical semi planing hull has the features of a canoe, with a beam that first increases from the bow reaches a max thEn decreases to the stern. The canoe can sink the stern and look very like his description of a typical planing boat with a deeply immersed stern and a WL beam that increases throughout the full length of the boat. I agree that choosing speeds arbitrarily for the transitions may not throw any light on the mechanisms involved but does allow discussions where everybody is talking about the same thing. I would suggest that it could be useful to think of different regimes in terms of the predominant forces. For displacement sailing the boat is supported primarily by buoyancy, in the semi planing And planing regimes the Lift forces become important, these forces can be both negative and positive, and indeed can vary along the boat, resulting in a net upward or net downward force, and also a net moment tending to change the trim. What I was suggesting was that if we wanted to define semi planing as speeds over which there was negative lift and the speed range over which there was positive lift then it might help to identify the design areas which need to be changed to improve the boats performance. That is change those things which result in forces we don't want. I would agreed that early planing may not be the best solution, but it does seem to be what sailors are trying for!Trenace - just because most sailors do not know the way Navel architect use a term does not make it wrong. It makes the sailors wrong, or at least means they are talking about something different. Maybe you would like to share your definition of planing!

Daniel - do we know that 49ers are supported 30% by buoyancy or is this just a guess? They do have large spinnakers which will be significant in lifting the boat and altering the trim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30% bouyancy for a 49er is a ballpark guess for a type of hull at a froude number.

There is a figure in principles of naval architecture taken froma paper somewhere that gives proportion of displacement supported by lift and bouyancy at differing speeds, presumably based on rise of CoG on a heave potentometer in a tow tank. It is for a planing hull (which a 9er isnt, quite). For a semi displacement form, dynamic lift wont be made so quickly (more curvature in section specifically, more sucky sucky)

 

Re the tfoil - in the 14s it adds about a knot and a half to boatspeed once powered upwind.

Specific resistance of a semi displacement hullform (r/w) is about 0.11 at Fn 0.8 (10kts for an I14)

l/d of a 14:1 assymetric section aerofoil at about 8 deg AOA is 0.03

As such it is more efficient to support displacement, even partially, by foil than hull. Well, a hull of that slenderness and l/b ratio. Make it cat-skinny and its a different story.

The DCB N12 in the UK is showing that even on a slow boat, the tfoil can give a net reduction in drag (4kts upwind - ish)

 

Obviously you have to tolerate the pitching moment it creates.

Chris - Your wings are a bit stubby aren't they? That may be part of the problem.

I think that more of the problem is that you are moving one guy back nearly to the back of the boat in the canoe. Maybe not working the foil hard enough to earn its supper. My suspicion is that you are only dialling in a couple of degrees, so maybe not enough to overcome the wetted surface debt.

In the I14 you are moving 2 guys right to the back of the (admittedly shorter) boat.

At 10kts you'll be putting 700N ish upwards in the I14 from a 0.1m2ish foil, so about 6deg ish AOA.

Closer to 10deg AOA at say 8kts boatspeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50375823/Resistance-Characteristics-of-Semi-Displacement-Mega-Yacht-Hull-Forms-1-1

A good paper on semi planing / planing etc.

I think possibly doesn't capture the effect of l/b in semi planing regime enough - mainly because it is tough to compare apples with apples - change l/b (at const length and displacement in most sailboat cases), slenderness ratio changes, transom immersion changes etc. Esp in a monohull centric paper, where high l/b is beyond what is acceptabl for initial stability and interior volume

 

Re pointy transom canoes.- the canoe is a pretty quick sailboat - it is fairly constantly in the semi displacement regime, and nudges the planing regime a decent bit.

Minimising hull drag is a case of maximising l/b (done - rise of floor rule)

reducing buttck curvature (generally pretty straight - no real penalty for transom immersion at lower speeds unless cutoff is very agressive)

Whilst tapered, the transom is still a transom, so will run dry from 5 ts ish upwards, which is good.

 

At higher semi displacement speeds (so 8kts and upwards for your 17' canoe) then you almost can't have too much prismatic (fullnes in ends - kids the bow and stern waves into thinking the boat is longer)

And for minimal resistance your LCB needs to be well alft - up to 12% of length.

 

Both of the last two points can't really be done if you have a skinny stern.

 

To be truly planing in a canoe you need to be doing 15kts, which I reckon realistically happens for what, 5% of the time around a course over a range of windstrengths - as such isn't really a design case.

 

As such the modal design case for the IC has to be an overdriven semi displacement hull - straight buttocks, immersed transom, approx half of midship sectional area, high Cp, LCB way aft, small entry angle as possible within first constraints.

Design a pure planing craft or pure diplacement vessel, and you will be slower most of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites