[bolger] Re: sailing canoe/folding schooner
More on the "5) What is a "sharpie"? By which I mean, what quality or
qualities ..."
Are not Egret and Meadow Lark both called "sharpies"? Neither were hard
chined.
I also love the aesthetics of double-enders. I have always thought
double-enders showed their primary advantage in a following sea and that
weather or lee helm was a result of center of effort issues. I recall that
PCB refers to Windsprint as a sharpie hull so it seems that sharpie
definition does not mandate double-ended or transom sterned. Teal and
Birdwatcher are simply scalings on the same idea.
--
Meyer
qualities ..."
Are not Egret and Meadow Lark both called "sharpies"? Neither were hard
chined.
I also love the aesthetics of double-enders. I have always thought
double-enders showed their primary advantage in a following sea and that
weather or lee helm was a result of center of effort issues. I recall that
PCB refers to Windsprint as a sharpie hull so it seems that sharpie
definition does not mandate double-ended or transom sterned. Teal and
Birdwatcher are simply scalings on the same idea.
--
Meyer
Some thoughts on "long and narrow double-ended" boats (sharpies?)
I'm not sure if this a continuation of a "thread" I was following earlier.
(If not, I apologize - I'm quicker on the "delete" function than on the
up-take.
While I find the aesthetics of long, narrow, double-ended boats appealing (so
did L.F. Herreshoff - see Wooden Boat, vols. 55-56 for Phil Bolger's
evaluation of him), I think some caution may be in order:
1) The suggestion was made by someone that the balanced ends of a
double-ender would minimize weather helm when the vessel heeled. Wooden Boat
Vol. 59:36-8 contains an interesting exchange between an amateur and
professional designer regarding their respective double-ended sharpies. Both
designs were apparently inspired by Commodore Monroe's "Egret". Both
reported heavy weather helm in strong winds. (and in the absence of
significant heeling in the case of the Sucher-designed boat) From this I
would judge that double-ended hulls are no panacea and the causes of
excessive weather helm are probably a complicated matter. I would also
observe in this connection that the bulk of Bolger's sharpie designs have
transoms. If transoms (and the fuller quarters inherent) were inherently bad
performers in this regard I would expect he would have abandonned them.
2) Length = Speed; well yes, but the increase in displacement speed is a
function of the square root of the length on the waterline. This strikes me
as a seriously diminishing return function when plotted against cost or
practicality factors. ( e. 4 kts. squared = 16', 8 kts. squared = 64' - even
allowing for speed/length ratios greater than 1, this seems to be an example
of diminishing returns to me.)
3) Windward performance with mult-masted rigs; There is a very interesting,
if somewhat elusive, discussion of this in connection with rig #92 in "100
Small Boat Rigs". The un-named boat is a 30' , three masted schooner with
sprit sails with sprit booms. Bolger compares its performance with that of
three 10' X 5' scows sailing in line ahead formation - their speed and
weatherliness constrained by that of the aft-most vessel. He does say that
the 30' will sail faster than this hypothetical squadron (although he is
silent on the question of how its performance would compare to that of the
lead boat, unconstrained by its need to say in formation with the aft-most)
All in all, I get the impression that up-wind performance must be pretty
dismal. Of course, "gentlemen don't sail upwind" (apologies for not having
made note of who has the copyright on that estimable concept). However I
wonder whether the sail area v. displacement ration doesn't change
unfavorably in these stretch jobs, making reaching performance another area
of diminishing returns. Lastly, if one is to day-dream about Bermuda-Azores,
Canaries-Carribean crossings, projected sail area downwind looks dismal.
4) O.K., we'll only reach in our dreamboat. This is how I like to sail, but
if we are going to have to go upwind from time to time, we are going to need
an "iron breeze". A canoe stern is an unfortunate choice if outboard power
is to be used. A motor well doesn't seem a very good choice - the pointy
stern already having reduced available cockpit space, a motor well, however
contrived, would certainly exacerbate the problem - while inboard power in a
flat-bottomed, shallow draught vessel involves another set of tedious
compromises.
I don't mean to discourage speculation along these lines, just to make
the mental exercise more stimulating to day-dream about.
5) What is a "sharpie"? By which I mean, what quality or qualities
distinguishes a "non-sharpie" flat-bottomed, hard chined vessel from a
"sharpie"? Too low a length/beam ration? Too high a displacement/length
ration? A fixed keel? Design #92 in 100 SBR is definitely flat-floored, and
presumably hard-chined, but it has an in-board rudder and presumably (?) a
fixed keel. Does anyone consider the Hunt 220 a "sharpie"? Or Bolger's
"Burgandy"? Presumably not in the last two cases, but is there a dividing
line that reasonable people can agree upon?
I'm not sure if this a continuation of a "thread" I was following earlier.
(If not, I apologize - I'm quicker on the "delete" function than on the
up-take.
While I find the aesthetics of long, narrow, double-ended boats appealing (so
did L.F. Herreshoff - see Wooden Boat, vols. 55-56 for Phil Bolger's
evaluation of him), I think some caution may be in order:
1) The suggestion was made by someone that the balanced ends of a
double-ender would minimize weather helm when the vessel heeled. Wooden Boat
Vol. 59:36-8 contains an interesting exchange between an amateur and
professional designer regarding their respective double-ended sharpies. Both
designs were apparently inspired by Commodore Monroe's "Egret". Both
reported heavy weather helm in strong winds. (and in the absence of
significant heeling in the case of the Sucher-designed boat) From this I
would judge that double-ended hulls are no panacea and the causes of
excessive weather helm are probably a complicated matter. I would also
observe in this connection that the bulk of Bolger's sharpie designs have
transoms. If transoms (and the fuller quarters inherent) were inherently bad
performers in this regard I would expect he would have abandonned them.
2) Length = Speed; well yes, but the increase in displacement speed is a
function of the square root of the length on the waterline. This strikes me
as a seriously diminishing return function when plotted against cost or
practicality factors. ( e. 4 kts. squared = 16', 8 kts. squared = 64' - even
allowing for speed/length ratios greater than 1, this seems to be an example
of diminishing returns to me.)
3) Windward performance with mult-masted rigs; There is a very interesting,
if somewhat elusive, discussion of this in connection with rig #92 in "100
Small Boat Rigs". The un-named boat is a 30' , three masted schooner with
sprit sails with sprit booms. Bolger compares its performance with that of
three 10' X 5' scows sailing in line ahead formation - their speed and
weatherliness constrained by that of the aft-most vessel. He does say that
the 30' will sail faster than this hypothetical squadron (although he is
silent on the question of how its performance would compare to that of the
lead boat, unconstrained by its need to say in formation with the aft-most)
All in all, I get the impression that up-wind performance must be pretty
dismal. Of course, "gentlemen don't sail upwind" (apologies for not having
made note of who has the copyright on that estimable concept). However I
wonder whether the sail area v. displacement ration doesn't change
unfavorably in these stretch jobs, making reaching performance another area
of diminishing returns. Lastly, if one is to day-dream about Bermuda-Azores,
Canaries-Carribean crossings, projected sail area downwind looks dismal.
4) O.K., we'll only reach in our dreamboat. This is how I like to sail, but
if we are going to have to go upwind from time to time, we are going to need
an "iron breeze". A canoe stern is an unfortunate choice if outboard power
is to be used. A motor well doesn't seem a very good choice - the pointy
stern already having reduced available cockpit space, a motor well, however
contrived, would certainly exacerbate the problem - while inboard power in a
flat-bottomed, shallow draught vessel involves another set of tedious
compromises.
I don't mean to discourage speculation along these lines, just to make
the mental exercise more stimulating to day-dream about.
5) What is a "sharpie"? By which I mean, what quality or qualities
distinguishes a "non-sharpie" flat-bottomed, hard chined vessel from a
"sharpie"? Too low a length/beam ration? Too high a displacement/length
ration? A fixed keel? Design #92 in 100 SBR is definitely flat-floored, and
presumably hard-chined, but it has an in-board rudder and presumably (?) a
fixed keel. Does anyone consider the Hunt 220 a "sharpie"? Or Bolger's
"Burgandy"? Presumably not in the last two cases, but is there a dividing
line that reasonable people can agree upon?
Re: the seakeeping abilities of LONG and NARROW and many low-aspect masts.
Check out "The Venturesome Voyages of Captain Voss - Around the world in
the Tilikum, 1901"!!! - Grays Publishing Ltd, Sidney, B.C., first published
1913.
LOA 38 ft
Length "on bottom" 30 feet
Breadth "at waterline": 4' 6"
Breadth "at bottom" 3' 6"
"With everything on board, including ourselves, she drew 24 inches aft, 20
inches forward"
Three masts (2 gaff, with marconi mizzen plus club-footed staysail)
Tilikum was a red cedar dugout canoe, which Voss reinforced inside with a
conventional framing system. Voss did use ballast - 300 lbs lead. The book
is fascinating reading, from the era of Slocum, when this sort of voyaging
in small boats was almost unheard of. Also contains some excellent
seamanship lessons - I've paid particular attention to his landings thru
extreme surf in his little boat.
Makes for great reading and some lessons about FS/LS thread albeit in a
somewhat heavier boat (still would be an "ultralight" by contemporary
blue-water standards!)
--Fritz Funk
----------------
Fritz Funk
Email at home:fritzf@...
Email at work:fritzf@...
Phone: (H): (907)780-4261 (W):(907)465-6113
Snail: P.O. 6017 Sunset Street, Juneau, AK 99801-9728
My Boat Page:http://www.alaska.net/~fritzf/Boats/Boats.htm
(Current Project: Sneakeasy, a Phil Bolger Power Sharpie)
Check out "The Venturesome Voyages of Captain Voss - Around the world in
the Tilikum, 1901"!!! - Grays Publishing Ltd, Sidney, B.C., first published
1913.
LOA 38 ft
Length "on bottom" 30 feet
Breadth "at waterline": 4' 6"
Breadth "at bottom" 3' 6"
"With everything on board, including ourselves, she drew 24 inches aft, 20
inches forward"
Three masts (2 gaff, with marconi mizzen plus club-footed staysail)
Tilikum was a red cedar dugout canoe, which Voss reinforced inside with a
conventional framing system. Voss did use ballast - 300 lbs lead. The book
is fascinating reading, from the era of Slocum, when this sort of voyaging
in small boats was almost unheard of. Also contains some excellent
seamanship lessons - I've paid particular attention to his landings thru
extreme surf in his little boat.
Makes for great reading and some lessons about FS/LS thread albeit in a
somewhat heavier boat (still would be an "ultralight" by contemporary
blue-water standards!)
--Fritz Funk
----------------
Fritz Funk
Email at home:fritzf@...
Email at work:fritzf@...
Phone: (H): (907)780-4261 (W):(907)465-6113
Snail: P.O. 6017 Sunset Street, Juneau, AK 99801-9728
My Boat Page:http://www.alaska.net/~fritzf/Boats/Boats.htm
(Current Project: Sneakeasy, a Phil Bolger Power Sharpie)
I think they do allow that's is all pretty much theoretical at present, but
the mechanics are nice. I could see the track up the front of the mast,
maybe some half-hoops feathered into battens. It's the only wing sail I
can recall that stands a chance of reefing and dousing (other than the
inflatable sail advertised a few years ago)...
Gregg Carlson
At 10:38 AM 2/3/2000 -0800, you wrote:
the mechanics are nice. I could see the track up the front of the mast,
maybe some half-hoops feathered into battens. It's the only wing sail I
can recall that stands a chance of reefing and dousing (other than the
inflatable sail advertised a few years ago)...
Gregg Carlson
At 10:38 AM 2/3/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>Looks like it might work, but the numbers they are quoting for L/D are
>for airfoils, I bet, and not for the whole rig as claimed. 100:1 is
>just not acheivable for a whole rig, except maybe with rigid
>construction and a laminar airfoil (accurate to .005" or so locally),
>with twist optimized, no splattered bugs or stitches, and maybe a mast
>height 10X the width of the sail (for a deck sweeper, 20X if there's a
>gap). The best sailplanes last time I checked get around 60:1, and most
>of their drag is from the wing at that speed. It might still work a lot
>better than a normal sail, but at what price? Interesting.
>
>
>
>ghc <ghart-@...> wrote:
>original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2249
>> Speaking of interesting links, I would like to try to build one of
>these
>> sails sometime:
>>
>>http://www.dynawing.com/
>>
>> snip
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! Rates as low as 2.9%
>Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points,
>no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the
>credit youdeserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
>http://click.egroups.com/1/929/5/_/3457/_/949603293/
>
>-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
>--http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=bolger&m=1
>
>
>
>The only way I can see to do it, would be to turn the wing over, endNot so hard to imagine: Take a mast which connects to the wingsail near the
> for end. Sure would give a whole new meaning to, "tack". ;-)
center, then seesaw the sail when changing tacks. I think this has been
done.
Chuck Leinweber
Duckworks Magazine
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Stan Muller <smuller@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 11:52 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: sailing canoe/folding schooner
> Richard wrote:
> > I was thinking something more like the wing on the Zenair STOL CH 701,
> >http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-design.html
> > permanent slats and flaps, designed to generate tremendous lift at low
> > speed.
> >
> > Not quite sure how to make it work on both tacks though...
>
>
> Stan, Snow Goose
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
> as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees.
> Apply NOW!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/975/5/_/3457/_/949607425/
>
> -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
> --http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=bolger&m=1
>
>
Richard wrote:
for end. Sure would give a whole new meaning to, "tack". ;-)
Stan, Snow Goose
> I was thinking something more like the wing on the Zenair STOL CH 701,The only way I can see to do it, would be to turn the wing over, end
>http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-design.html
> permanent slats and flaps, designed to generate tremendous lift at low
> speed.
>
> Not quite sure how to make it work on both tacks though...
for end. Sure would give a whole new meaning to, "tack". ;-)
Stan, Snow Goose
I independently came up with a design similar to the Dynawing on a model
boat. I was toying with twin sails when I realized that if you cause the
sails to be joined at the leading edge of a stationary round mast an air
foil shape resulted on both tacks. On the model the sail was plastic
grocery bag material and it was held to the mast by a split soda straw
which wrapped the sail material around a dowel from aft to bow. Just as
with "dynawing" swinging the sails in one direction caused the inner
surface to shorten and the outer surface to lengthen and voila! an
airfoil shape! I never got to scaling it up, and it seems the internal
battens that Dynawing uses would be the way to go. Just wish it could be
kept lower tech.
David
GHC wrote:
http://www.dynawing.com/
Gregg Carlson
At 09:34 AM 2/3/2000 -0800, you wrote:
SOME CLICKS THAT COUNT!!
Feed someone.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
Save a little rainforest.
http://rainforest.care2.com/
Simplicity Boats
http://members.tripod.com/simplicityboats/
Here's my latest boat:
http://members.tripod.com/simplicityboats/featherwind.html
Quasi esoteric musical instruments
http://unicornstrings.com
boat. I was toying with twin sails when I realized that if you cause the
sails to be joined at the leading edge of a stationary round mast an air
foil shape resulted on both tacks. On the model the sail was plastic
grocery bag material and it was held to the mast by a split soda straw
which wrapped the sail material around a dowel from aft to bow. Just as
with "dynawing" swinging the sails in one direction caused the inner
surface to shorten and the outer surface to lengthen and voila! an
airfoil shape! I never got to scaling it up, and it seems the internal
battens that Dynawing uses would be the way to go. Just wish it could be
kept lower tech.
David
GHC wrote:
>sails sometime:
> Speaking of interesting links, I would like to try to build one of these
http://www.dynawing.com/
Gregg Carlson
At 09:34 AM 2/3/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>richard spelling <richar-@...> wrote:--
>original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2232
>> Lincoln Ross wrote:
>> >snip tall, skinny airfoil shape that
>> > doesn't taper too sharply, edited comment re sailplane wings
>instead of sails, snip
>> >
>> Don't know if this really applies, the speed range is completely
>> different.
>well, I admit you wouldn't want a laminar airfoil, but some of the
>older gliders probably used something like a Clark Y, which WOULD be
>appropriate.
> Then you have the problem of having your center of effort way
>> high.
>>
>That was specifically excluded, but was why I wanted the guy in 5 wet
>sweatshirts on a trapeze
>> I was thinking something more like the wing on the Zenair STOL CH 701,
>>http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-design.html
>> permanent slats and flaps, designed to generate tremendous lift at low
>> speed.
>Not low speed, high lift coefficient. As soon as you eased the sheet
>(or its equivalent) you'd be draggy as hell, and draggy enough at the
>design condition as drag is one of those nice things to have on a
>landing aircraft. That's why you don't see permanent slats and flaps on
>sailplanes. Maybe reaching....but you probably wouldn't point well when
>the wind came up.
>>
>> Not quite sure how to make it work on both tacks though...
>That's why I made him carry two wings. But I've seen a picture of a cat
>with a wing sail whose center is on a universal joint at the end of a
>short mast. You just flip it over to tack.
>>
>> ts/
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
>as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees.
>Apply NOW!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/975/5/_/3457/_/949599361/
>
>-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
>--http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=bolger&m=1
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> eGroups.com Home:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger
> www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
SOME CLICKS THAT COUNT!!
Feed someone.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
Save a little rainforest.
http://rainforest.care2.com/
Simplicity Boats
http://members.tripod.com/simplicityboats/
Here's my latest boat:
http://members.tripod.com/simplicityboats/featherwind.html
Quasi esoteric musical instruments
http://unicornstrings.com
Looks like it might work, but the numbers they are quoting for L/D are
for airfoils, I bet, and not for the whole rig as claimed. 100:1 is
just not acheivable for a whole rig, except maybe with rigid
construction and a laminar airfoil (accurate to .005" or so locally),
with twist optimized, no splattered bugs or stitches, and maybe a mast
height 10X the width of the sail (for a deck sweeper, 20X if there's a
gap). The best sailplanes last time I checked get around 60:1, and most
of their drag is from the wing at that speed. It might still work a lot
better than a normal sail, but at what price? Interesting.
ghc <ghart-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2249
for airfoils, I bet, and not for the whole rig as claimed. 100:1 is
just not acheivable for a whole rig, except maybe with rigid
construction and a laminar airfoil (accurate to .005" or so locally),
with twist optimized, no splattered bugs or stitches, and maybe a mast
height 10X the width of the sail (for a deck sweeper, 20X if there's a
gap). The best sailplanes last time I checked get around 60:1, and most
of their drag is from the wing at that speed. It might still work a lot
better than a normal sail, but at what price? Interesting.
ghc <ghart-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2249
> Speaking of interesting links, I would like to try to build one ofthese
> sails sometime:
>
>http://www.dynawing.com/
>
> snip
> is a sloop rig the most power/speedBefore you take the example of racing boats as conclusive, consider
> for a given amount of sail area? All those sloop racing boats tell me
> yes, but maybe that's just a concession to windward performance?
that almost all racing boats change foresails according to wind speed
and point of sail. In particular, most use spinnakers downwind. At one
point in the development of the modern race boat, the mast was
basically a pole from which to fly jibs and spinnakers. As PCB wrote
somewhere, the main was made small and pretty much ignored.
That said, it is my impression that the sloop is best if you accept the
usual level of technical sophistication in the construction of the mast
and stays, and the need to cope with variable ocean conditions. A cat
rig is better when you have some way of coping with the problem of
reefing and with the position of the mast at the leading edge of the
mainsail. But with better technology, the cat rig is preferred. For
example, a wingmast cat rig might well outperform a fixed-mast sloop,
if neither flies a spinnaker.
All the current speed records are held by one kind of cat rig or
another, as far as I am aware.
The highest technology in an around-the-buoys boat is probably a C-cat.
They seem to have a single, variable geometry wing-sail, but I think
that some of them operate as seperate foils near each other, i.e. they
have some sloop-like characteristics.
Peter.
Speaking of interesting links, I would like to try to build one of these
sails sometime:
http://www.dynawing.com/
Gregg Carlson
At 09:34 AM 2/3/2000 -0800, you wrote:
sails sometime:
http://www.dynawing.com/
Gregg Carlson
At 09:34 AM 2/3/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>richard spelling <richar-@...> wrote:
>original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2232
>> Lincoln Ross wrote:
>> >snip tall, skinny airfoil shape that
>> > doesn't taper too sharply, edited comment re sailplane wings
>instead of sails, snip
>> >
>> Don't know if this really applies, the speed range is completely
>> different.
>well, I admit you wouldn't want a laminar airfoil, but some of the
>older gliders probably used something like a Clark Y, which WOULD be
>appropriate.
> Then you have the problem of having your center of effort way
>> high.
>>
>That was specifically excluded, but was why I wanted the guy in 5 wet
>sweatshirts on a trapeze
>> I was thinking something more like the wing on the Zenair STOL CH 701,
>>http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-design.html
>> permanent slats and flaps, designed to generate tremendous lift at low
>> speed.
>Not low speed, high lift coefficient. As soon as you eased the sheet
>(or its equivalent) you'd be draggy as hell, and draggy enough at the
>design condition as drag is one of those nice things to have on a
>landing aircraft. That's why you don't see permanent slats and flaps on
>sailplanes. Maybe reaching....but you probably wouldn't point well when
>the wind came up.
>>
>> Not quite sure how to make it work on both tacks though...
>That's why I made him carry two wings. But I've seen a picture of a cat
>with a wing sail whose center is on a universal joint at the end of a
>short mast. You just flip it over to tack.
>>
>> ts/
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
>as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees.
>Apply NOW!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/975/5/_/3457/_/949599361/
>
>-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
>--http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=bolger&m=1
>
>
>
richard spelling <richar-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2232
older gliders probably used something like a Clark Y, which WOULD be
appropriate.
Then you have the problem of having your center of effort way
sweatshirts on a trapeze
(or its equivalent) you'd be draggy as hell, and draggy enough at the
design condition as drag is one of those nice things to have on a
landing aircraft. That's why you don't see permanent slats and flaps on
sailplanes. Maybe reaching....but you probably wouldn't point well when
the wind came up.
with a wing sail whose center is on a universal joint at the end of a
short mast. You just flip it over to tack.
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2232
> Lincoln Ross wrote:instead of sails, snip
> >snip tall, skinny airfoil shape that
> > doesn't taper too sharply, edited comment re sailplane wings
> >well, I admit you wouldn't want a laminar airfoil, but some of the
> Don't know if this really applies, the speed range is completely
> different.
older gliders probably used something like a Clark Y, which WOULD be
appropriate.
Then you have the problem of having your center of effort way
> high.That was specifically excluded, but was why I wanted the guy in 5 wet
>
sweatshirts on a trapeze
> I was thinking something more like the wing on the Zenair STOL CH 701,Not low speed, high lift coefficient. As soon as you eased the sheet
>http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-design.html
> permanent slats and flaps, designed to generate tremendous lift at low
> speed.
(or its equivalent) you'd be draggy as hell, and draggy enough at the
design condition as drag is one of those nice things to have on a
landing aircraft. That's why you don't see permanent slats and flaps on
sailplanes. Maybe reaching....but you probably wouldn't point well when
the wind came up.
>That's why I made him carry two wings. But I've seen a picture of a cat
> Not quite sure how to make it work on both tacks though...
with a wing sail whose center is on a universal joint at the end of a
short mast. You just flip it over to tack.
>
> ts/
Hi gang,
Re davids question about sloop rigs and power, quite a few years ago WB did
a piece on comparisons of most rigs, modern and traditional. Lots of
engineering and specs and tests on the same hull, more then I can remember
or understand. I do remember that the sloop finished behind the basic
square sprit rig, and the lanteen and crab claw I think, for the ability to
drive the hull the fastest. And I think the sprit even beat the sloop to
windward! The sprit is the largest sail area you can put on a short mast.
this also means less heel and that translates to forward speed.
I think I read somewhere the modern sloop rig was designed to be a handicap
for racers. Over the years your average boat purchasers saw them on racers
and thought "this must be the fastest rig, I'll take two" when in reality
the sellers will sell what sells,,,right?
Love the group messages, day three for me. and JEB, send me your email
please, thanks.
Ryerson
Re davids question about sloop rigs and power, quite a few years ago WB did
a piece on comparisons of most rigs, modern and traditional. Lots of
engineering and specs and tests on the same hull, more then I can remember
or understand. I do remember that the sloop finished behind the basic
square sprit rig, and the lanteen and crab claw I think, for the ability to
drive the hull the fastest. And I think the sprit even beat the sloop to
windward! The sprit is the largest sail area you can put on a short mast.
this also means less heel and that translates to forward speed.
I think I read somewhere the modern sloop rig was designed to be a handicap
for racers. Over the years your average boat purchasers saw them on racers
and thought "this must be the fastest rig, I'll take two" when in reality
the sellers will sell what sells,,,right?
Love the group messages, day three for me. and JEB, send me your email
please, thanks.
Ryerson
is a sloop rig the most power/speed
and kites.
Your question is a basic & serious. I think such general questions very
much belong on the group. Boat design is well beyond the abilities of
most, but some basic considerations that go into it are well worth an
amateur discussion.
Two authorities: Eric Hiscock says yes, that the masthead sloop is the
best cruising rig all in all. PCB says yes & no, that there are 99
other rigs out there, nearly all of which are preferable to the
masthead sloop in one way or another. Read all about it in what I
consider the best book about about sailing in the 20th century: "100
Small Boat Rigs" by our own Phil Bolger. Hiscock sees no virtue at all
in the fractional rig. Bolger prefers it to the masthead in fast
daysailing.
Ed Haile
> for a given amount of sail area? All those sloop racing boats tell meThis thread seems to be going to extremes with talk about wing sails
> yes, but maybe that's just a concession to windward performance?
> On the other side, does a multi-mast rig let you put up more canvas
> than a sloop rig of typical proportions, or does just let you break
> the canvas into pieces small enough to be managed by the technology
> of the day?
>
> And yes, the folding schooner seems like as start, and possibly a
> finish on the whole idea. But moving into the realm of imagination,
> would a 62x4 version be faster with the same canvas, but more stable
> than it's shorter sister?
>
> David Ryan
> Minister of Information and Culture
> Crumbling Empire Productions
> (212) 247-0296
and kites.
Your question is a basic & serious. I think such general questions very
much belong on the group. Boat design is well beyond the abilities of
most, but some basic considerations that go into it are well worth an
amateur discussion.
Two authorities: Eric Hiscock says yes, that the masthead sloop is the
best cruising rig all in all. PCB says yes & no, that there are 99
other rigs out there, nearly all of which are preferable to the
masthead sloop in one way or another. Read all about it in what I
consider the best book about about sailing in the 20th century: "100
Small Boat Rigs" by our own Phil Bolger. Hiscock sees no virtue at all
in the fractional rig. Bolger prefers it to the masthead in fast
daysailing.
Ed Haile
Lincoln Ross wrote:
different. Then you have the problem of having your center of effort way
high.
I was thinking something more like the wing on the Zenair STOL CH 701,
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-design.html
permanent slats and flaps, designed to generate tremendous lift at low
speed.
Not quite sure how to make it work on both tacks though...
Richard
Spelling|richard@...|http://www.spellingbusiness.com
SBE Communications, Business Solutions for the next Millennium and
Beyond!
Boat building projects:http://www.spellingbusiness.com/boats/
> kind of obvious. Basically, you want a tall, skinny airfoil shape thatDon't know if this really applies, the speed range is completely
> doesn't taper too sharply, with a perfect cross section and no draggy
> rigging in the way. Keep 2 sailplane wings on board. You can put one up
> for one tack and the other up for the other tack.
>
different. Then you have the problem of having your center of effort way
high.
I was thinking something more like the wing on the Zenair STOL CH 701,
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-design.html
permanent slats and flaps, designed to generate tremendous lift at low
speed.
Not quite sure how to make it work on both tacks though...
>--
Richard
Spelling|richard@...|http://www.spellingbusiness.com
SBE Communications, Business Solutions for the next Millennium and
Beyond!
Boat building projects:http://www.spellingbusiness.com/boats/
david ryan <davi-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2227
think you're right about science too. Both have to sell, but to get a
research grant you don't have to convince as many people as an
engineers project has to sell to. I run into people at work who want to
spec the latest and greatest when something older will work better.
keel, with two centerboards (or was it two daggerboards?) to handle
leeway. Ballast ratio was something like 40%, and you could swing that
several feet to windward! Looked like a big (50', maybe?) version of
one of those racing sailing canoes. Must have been very fast. I guess
you could dump the board if you really had to, or else crank it up.
Boat was very light for its length. I think it was a marconi schooner
or ketch.
be knocked down or not have enough area, I'd think. I'd been thinking
in terms of a fore and aft rig, just make 4 gaff rigged masts.
Another advantage to skinny: if you get narrow and shallow enough you
don't have to worry about hull speed. I've rowed a scull fast enough
that a zodiac chase boat is fully planing and I'm not making any waves
(6 knots?), and I'm no athlete. shows what 18' waterline and 15" beam
can do. I don't think you have to go too far past 10:1 to do this.
120 degrees or so. You get a lot of aerodynamic drag from the gaps
between the sails. If you can get rid of the gaps it ought to perform
very well.
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2227
> snipMe too.
>For me,
> >the absurd example is a fun way of understanding why things are the
> >way they are.
>I'm a firm believer in empirisim. But even science isI think engineering is more subject to fashion than science is. But I
> >subject to fashion, and design might best be described as the
> >confluence of both. Todays conventional wisdom is tomorrows quaint
> >anachronism.
>
think you're right about science too. Both have to sell, but to get a
research grant you don't have to convince as many people as an
engineers project has to sell to. I run into people at work who want to
spec the latest and greatest when something older will work better.
>snip
>Some years ago I saw an article on a boat with a very deep canting
> I've also always been bothered by the idea of carrying all that
> ballast. snip
keel, with two centerboards (or was it two daggerboards?) to handle
leeway. Ballast ratio was something like 40%, and you could swing that
several feet to windward! Looked like a big (50', maybe?) version of
one of those racing sailing canoes. Must have been very fast. I guess
you could dump the board if you really had to, or else crank it up.
Boat was very light for its length. I think it was a marconi schooner
or ketch.
>If the boat is that skinny and you have only one sail either you will
> A four masted instant boat? I'd been imagining a 40X4X4 as an ocean
> going boat with one sail for going to weather (which would be avoided
> at all cost), and a big spinnaker for running. Accommodations would
> be spartan to say the least, sort of a skinny Kon Tiki.
be knocked down or not have enough area, I'd think. I'd been thinking
in terms of a fore and aft rig, just make 4 gaff rigged masts.
Another advantage to skinny: if you get narrow and shallow enough you
don't have to worry about hull speed. I've rowed a scull fast enough
that a zodiac chase boat is fully planing and I'm not making any waves
(6 knots?), and I'm no athlete. shows what 18' waterline and 15" beam
can do. I don't think you have to go too far past 10:1 to do this.
>I seem to recall reading that a square rigger would only tack through
> But am baby clipper to run around Lake Montauk and Napegue! Now
> that's a boat actually worth building! How close to the wind will a
> square rigger sail? I dont' want me and my motley crew end up
> marooned on the lea shore.
120 degrees or so. You get a lot of aerodynamic drag from the gaps
between the sails. If you can get rid of the gaps it ought to perform
very well.
>Yeah, but how fast do you want to go on 1/4" ply pirogue?
> >
> snip
>
> 12 knots if your taking it easy. Guys I surf with go to Hawaii in the
> winter (the rest of us have thick wetsuits) and have come back raving
> about these kite-board setups.
>
>I really like cats for going fast. We've got a Dart that we take out
>have to buy even more canvas, however. Also, with increased beam (and
>depth)you might not snap in half as easily as a 62 X 4 boat.
>for the time being, I'm ignoring all the bother of thinking about
>how, or even why to build anything. I've finished everything I can
>finish on the LS until it gets warm enough to move outside.For me,
>the absurd example is a fun way of understanding why things are the
>way they are. I'm a firm believer in empirisim. But even science is
>subject to fashion, and design might best be described as the
>confluence of both. Todays conventional wisdom is tomorrows quaint
>anachronism.
>If you're going to go to that much trouble for fast daysailing, why not
>build a sharpie catamaran or something? Or do you need to take out a
>party of 10? Of course the idea of a 4 masted instant boat has its own
>appeal.
summersaulting as often as the wind allows! What's fascinating to me
right now is the idea that a boat can be safer by being narrower
relative to its freeboard. There's something about that in PCB's
explanation of the Presto Cruiser. I've spent my whole life thinking
wider is better (for a mono-hull,) but never questioned the C.W. that
multi-hulls are stable upside down.
The two ideas are irreconcilable, but I held them in one head at the
same time. Add to that my wholesale acceptance of the notion that
only a deep/heavy keeled boat can right its self, and the AS29 and LM
are like a bolt from the blue.
I've also always been bothered by the idea of carrying all that
ballast. Maybe I'm just a land lubber at heart and can't dispense
with the idea that more weight in more effort; if not to carry, than
at least to buy/build. A 38 footer put herself on the beach in a fog
last summer. 10000 pounds of keel kept her stuck till she was smashed
but good.
A four masted instant boat? I'd been imagining a 40X4X4 as an ocean
going boat with one sail for going to weather (which would be avoided
at all cost), and a big spinnaker for running. Accommodations would
be spartan to say the least, sort of a skinny Kon Tiki.
But am baby clipper to run around Lake Montauk and Napegue! Now
that's a boat actually worth building! How close to the wind will a
square rigger sail? I dont' want me and my motley crew end up
marooned on the lea shore.
>12 knots if your taking it easy. Guys I surf with go to Hawaii in the
>THe really crazy cheap way to go fast is to use a kite. THere are
>people out there who go out with just a big steerable kite and
>waterskis or a surfboard. SUperfast and cheaper than our larger stuff.
>Zero heeling moment. I think you can even go upwind. I'd want a hull,
>myself. 12 knots in planing pirogue with seat belt.
winter (the rest of us have thick wetsuits) and have come back raving
about these kite-board setups.
David Ryan
Minister of Information and Culture
Crumbling Empire Productions
(212) 247-0296
david ryan <davi-@...> wrote:
snip
mast that pivoted under your control (not just turning into the wind),
with a rig that had a trapezoidal shape, as tall and skinny as possible
for less induced drag. However, now you're talking $ and you'll need a
multihull or a very deep keel or a muscleman in 5 wet sweatshirts
hanging of the end of a wire. Even better, there's a scheme out there
with a rigid wing with an assymmetrical airfoil shape where you flip
the whole wing over when you tack, though I'm not sure how they control
twist to deal with apparent wind. I guess the drawbacks of that are
kind of obvious. Basically, you want a tall, skinny airfoil shape that
doesn't taper too sharply, with a perfect cross section and no draggy
rigging in the way. Keep 2 sailplane wings on board. You can put one up
for one tack and the other up for the other tack.
Bolger points out you can get some of these effects from a dipping lug
without as much $ out, but you will pay for it in sweat when tacking.
Not sure re downwind.
Above info theoretical based on my engineering studies plus experience
with model planes, but look at rigs on C class cats. Wonder what
they're doing with those? I haven't read a slick boat mag (other than 1
copy of Woodenboat$) in years.
All those sloop racing boats tell me
wind too far aft. Otherwise everything's different because you want
drag as much as lift. If you're sailing an iceboat, I'll bet the wind
is forward of the beam no matter which way you go.
I'd think, in light air, to keep up with the doubled surface area. If
you also made it somewhat wider you'd increase the ability to carry
sail in relation to the wetted surface of the hull, improving things in
light air when carrying a normal rig. Your hull speed would still be
larger, and your length to beam ratio could still be increased. You'd
have to buy even more canvas, however. Also, with increased beam (and
depth)you might not snap in half as easily as a 62 X 4 boat.
If you're going to go to that much trouble for fast daysailing, why not
build a sharpie catamaran or something? Or do you need to take out a
party of 10? Of course the idea of a 4 masted instant boat has its own
appeal.
THe really crazy cheap way to go fast is to use a kite. THere are
people out there who go out with just a big steerable kite and
waterskis or a surfboard. SUperfast and cheaper than our larger stuff.
Zero heeling moment. I think you can even go upwind. I'd want a hull,
myself. 12 knots in planing pirogue with seat belt.
snip
> Issues of mast height and man-handling sails and all those otherActually, I think the best configuration would be a single streamlined
> nasty real world problems aside, is a sloop rig the most power/speed
> for a given amount of sail area?
mast that pivoted under your control (not just turning into the wind),
with a rig that had a trapezoidal shape, as tall and skinny as possible
for less induced drag. However, now you're talking $ and you'll need a
multihull or a very deep keel or a muscleman in 5 wet sweatshirts
hanging of the end of a wire. Even better, there's a scheme out there
with a rigid wing with an assymmetrical airfoil shape where you flip
the whole wing over when you tack, though I'm not sure how they control
twist to deal with apparent wind. I guess the drawbacks of that are
kind of obvious. Basically, you want a tall, skinny airfoil shape that
doesn't taper too sharply, with a perfect cross section and no draggy
rigging in the way. Keep 2 sailplane wings on board. You can put one up
for one tack and the other up for the other tack.
Bolger points out you can get some of these effects from a dipping lug
without as much $ out, but you will pay for it in sweat when tacking.
Not sure re downwind.
Above info theoretical based on my engineering studies plus experience
with model planes, but look at rigs on C class cats. Wonder what
they're doing with those? I haven't read a slick boat mag (other than 1
copy of Woodenboat$) in years.
All those sloop racing boats tell me
> yes, but maybe that's just a concession to windward performance?Yeah, but if you're fast enuf you can tack downwind and never get the
wind too far aft. Otherwise everything's different because you want
drag as much as lift. If you're sailing an iceboat, I'll bet the wind
is forward of the beam no matter which way you go.
>If you keep the sail lower, you can carry more of it in a breeze.
> On the other side, does a multi-mast rig let you put up more canvas
> than a sloop rig of typical proportions, or does just let you break
> the canvas into pieces small enough to be managed by the technology
> of the day?
>Only in a strong breeze. You'd actually want about twice as much sail,
> And yes, the folding schooner seems like as start, and possibly a
> finish on the whole idea. But moving into the realm of imagination,
> would a 62x4 version be faster with the same canvas, but more stable
> than it's shorter sister?
>
I'd think, in light air, to keep up with the doubled surface area. If
you also made it somewhat wider you'd increase the ability to carry
sail in relation to the wetted surface of the hull, improving things in
light air when carrying a normal rig. Your hull speed would still be
larger, and your length to beam ratio could still be increased. You'd
have to buy even more canvas, however. Also, with increased beam (and
depth)you might not snap in half as easily as a 62 X 4 boat.
If you're going to go to that much trouble for fast daysailing, why not
build a sharpie catamaran or something? Or do you need to take out a
party of 10? Of course the idea of a 4 masted instant boat has its own
appeal.
THe really crazy cheap way to go fast is to use a kite. THere are
people out there who go out with just a big steerable kite and
waterskis or a surfboard. SUperfast and cheaper than our larger stuff.
Zero heeling moment. I think you can even go upwind. I'd want a hull,
myself. 12 knots in planing pirogue with seat belt.
> David Ryan
> Minister of Information and Culture
> Crumbling Empire Productions
> (212) 247-0296
FBBB --
Stupid undone errands leave me alone in the city while my wife and
child return to our home.
Back to sketching and figuring and wondering.
Issues of mast height and man-handling sails and all those other
nasty real world problems aside, is a sloop rig the most power/speed
for a given amount of sail area? All those sloop racing boats tell me
yes, but maybe that's just a concession to windward performance?
On the other side, does a multi-mast rig let you put up more canvas
than a sloop rig of typical proportions, or does just let you break
the canvas into pieces small enough to be managed by the technology
of the day?
And yes, the folding schooner seems like as start, and possibly a
finish on the whole idea. But moving into the realm of imagination,
would a 62x4 version be faster with the same canvas, but more stable
than it's shorter sister?
David Ryan
Minister of Information and Culture
Crumbling Empire Productions
(212) 247-0296
Stupid undone errands leave me alone in the city while my wife and
child return to our home.
Back to sketching and figuring and wondering.
Issues of mast height and man-handling sails and all those other
nasty real world problems aside, is a sloop rig the most power/speed
for a given amount of sail area? All those sloop racing boats tell me
yes, but maybe that's just a concession to windward performance?
On the other side, does a multi-mast rig let you put up more canvas
than a sloop rig of typical proportions, or does just let you break
the canvas into pieces small enough to be managed by the technology
of the day?
And yes, the folding schooner seems like as start, and possibly a
finish on the whole idea. But moving into the realm of imagination,
would a 62x4 version be faster with the same canvas, but more stable
than it's shorter sister?
David Ryan
Minister of Information and Culture
Crumbling Empire Productions
(212) 247-0296