Re: The Return of Flare
In comparing sharpies like flared Tahiti and Fiji vs sqare AS-29 or
Loose Moose II I'd think most of these attributes are identical or
very similar.
Frank
Loose Moose II I'd think most of these attributes are identical or
very similar.
Frank
--- In bolger@y..., "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
....
> A flared hull has more reserve boyancy because as it heels, it's
beam
> becomes wider. It therefore gives ample warning before going over,
> usually by shipping water over the sides. (Unless it has tumblehome
> or decking.)
>
> A flared hull also is more sea-kindly in a cross or quartering sea,
> since it remains more upright, rather than being tilted over by the
> waves. (Imagine the side to side motion of a flat board in waves as
> compared to a round log.)
>
> Also in a flared hull, it tends to deflect waves away, rather than
> letting them slap up against itself. With a flared hull there is
less
> weight carried near the gunnels since the main weight carrying area
> is closer along the keel line.
>
> Most of my experience has been with canoes. I well designed canoe
has
> flare in the bows, what is called a shallow arch further aft (which
> allows for more bouyancey to rise above waves and then almost a
> rounded mid-section (with some flattening) since this gives the
least
> wetted surface for efficiency and a very docile stability curve. A
> well designed canoe feels "tippy" when you first get in but feels
> much better in waves than a flat bottomed canoe. Of course the
> paddles are used as out-riggers which is the secret to a canoe and
> kayak's ability to handle big waves.
>
> If you lie down flat in the bottom of a well designed canoe it is
> (almost:-) impossible to tip it from there.
>
> Of course that is also a test to tell if you are a Canadian;-))
>
> Nels.
>
>
> --- In bolger@y..., David Ryan <david@c...> wrote:
> > >> Have any clues been dropped by PCB&F as to the reasons behind
> this
> > >choice?
> > >
> > >In a decked boat, a little flare increases the righting moment at
> > >high angles of heel. Perhaps he is compensating for his mistakes
> with
> > >Martha Jane.
> > >
> >
--- In bolger@y..., "dbaldnz" <oink@p...> wrote:
they'll soon be "oooing","aaaahing","ouching" and screaming for a
bigger boat with a"real" bathroom,kitchen and bedroom! Ya just gotta
love 'em for encouraging so much maddness......I know I do!
But then again, give me a high sided,well ballasted,full length
keel girl anytime since no matter how tuff you are with them,they
alway come right back squarely on their feet,and smartly at that! I
always liked that about girls in general......it shows lots of
character.........:-)
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,not exactly allergic to curves either,if found in the
right places,like the tuck of the bilge,..........
> Absolutely Nels.a
> Another analogy, as Peter Lenihan is always so quick to point out,
> woman in a square skirt is so much harder to tip than one in aAnd once they start"whooshing",hold on ta yer hats an' boots cause
> flare, but when she goes, it's all in a whoosh.
> DonB
they'll soon be "oooing","aaaahing","ouching" and screaming for a
bigger boat with a"real" bathroom,kitchen and bedroom! Ya just gotta
love 'em for encouraging so much maddness......I know I do!
But then again, give me a high sided,well ballasted,full length
keel girl anytime since no matter how tuff you are with them,they
alway come right back squarely on their feet,and smartly at that! I
always liked that about girls in general......it shows lots of
character.........:-)
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,not exactly allergic to curves either,if found in the
right places,like the tuck of the bilge,..........
Absolutely Nels.
Another analogy, as Peter Lenihan is always so quick to point out, a
woman in a square skirt is so much harder to tip than one in a
flare, but when she goes, it's all in a whoosh.
DonB
Another analogy, as Peter Lenihan is always so quick to point out, a
woman in a square skirt is so much harder to tip than one in a
flare, but when she goes, it's all in a whoosh.
DonB
--- In bolger@y..., "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> In a nutshell a flat-bottomed unflared hull has the greatest
initial
> stablility but very little reserve stability. So when it goes over
it
> does so suddenly and without warning. The extreme example would be
a
> raft or a barn door on the water.
>
> Nels.
Peter, Yes, thanks for that clarification. I guess in a Chebacco I
was referring the flare forward above the waterline, changing to the
amount of deadrise , combined with the flat bottom amidships. This
combination leads me to believe that it would be a very sea-kindly,
if not seaworthy boat for it's size and weight - much more so than
say an AS19. This is just from intuition and not experience. (By
seakindly I mean an easier motion.)
In the previous post, what you say would be true if the hull where
rounded in cross-section, but I was referring to one that was
relatively flat amidships. A hull with flare would not tend to heel
as much in big waves on the beam - as a flat bottomed plumb-sided
hull. That is why the beam would effectivey increase due to the
flare. In effect a portion of the flare becomes deadrise and adds to
the bouyancy?
After my previous post I was looking in BWAOM page 66 which shows a
very well designed canoe, illustrating the flare in the bow, shallow
arch further along and then changing to a zero deadrise, tumbledhome
midsection. (Of course a canoe usually has flare at both ends.) Phil
also mentions that tumblehome saves weight over decking because you
are using the same wood that would already be in the hull. I never
thought of it that way. He also mentions that it improves paddle
assessibility. Experienced canoers often lean the canoe in turns
which shortens the waterline and increases the rocker. The bow
paddler applies a bit of draw to his stroke and the stern a bit of
sweep, thereby turning very smartly with little loss of spead.
The other thing to remember is that all of this design theory mainly
applies to displacement hulls.
Nels
was referring the flare forward above the waterline, changing to the
amount of deadrise , combined with the flat bottom amidships. This
combination leads me to believe that it would be a very sea-kindly,
if not seaworthy boat for it's size and weight - much more so than
say an AS19. This is just from intuition and not experience. (By
seakindly I mean an easier motion.)
In the previous post, what you say would be true if the hull where
rounded in cross-section, but I was referring to one that was
relatively flat amidships. A hull with flare would not tend to heel
as much in big waves on the beam - as a flat bottomed plumb-sided
hull. That is why the beam would effectivey increase due to the
flare. In effect a portion of the flare becomes deadrise and adds to
the bouyancy?
After my previous post I was looking in BWAOM page 66 which shows a
very well designed canoe, illustrating the flare in the bow, shallow
arch further along and then changing to a zero deadrise, tumbledhome
midsection. (Of course a canoe usually has flare at both ends.) Phil
also mentions that tumblehome saves weight over decking because you
are using the same wood that would already be in the hull. I never
thought of it that way. He also mentions that it improves paddle
assessibility. Experienced canoers often lean the canoe in turns
which shortens the waterline and increases the rocker. The bow
paddler applies a bit of draw to his stroke and the stern a bit of
sweep, thereby turning very smartly with little loss of spead.
The other thing to remember is that all of this design theory mainly
applies to displacement hulls.
Nels
--- In bolger@y..., "Peter Lenihan" <ellengaest@b...> wrote:
> Nels,
> Hi again. I think it would be useful to differentiate between
> flare and deadrise. It has always been my understanding that
flare,as
> it relates to hull design,is usually found above the
> waterline,forward of midships.Deadrise is pretty much what happens
> bellow the waterline and can exist/vary from stem to stern.I
believe
> the ply-Chebacco illustrates this very well with sharp deadrise in
> the bilge panels but a virtually plumb upper strake.I would not
> catagorize this boat as having"flare".Another Bolger design that
> illustrates this is his Red Zinger design.
> Dories,at least the Atlantic version,would appear to have
reverse-
> tumble home their full length :-)
> Sincerely,
> Peter Lenihan........
>
Nels,
Hi again. I think it would be useful to differentiate between
flare and deadrise. It has always been my understanding that flare,as
it relates to hull design,is usually found above the
waterline,forward of midships.Deadrise is pretty much what happens
bellow the waterline and can exist/vary from stem to stern.I believe
the ply-Chebacco illustrates this very well with sharp deadrise in
the bilge panels but a virtually plumb upper strake.I would not
catagorize this boat as having"flare".Another Bolger design that
illustrates this is his Red Zinger design.
Dories,at least the Atlantic version,would appear to have reverse-
tumble home their full length :-)
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan........
Hi again. I think it would be useful to differentiate between
flare and deadrise. It has always been my understanding that flare,as
it relates to hull design,is usually found above the
waterline,forward of midships.Deadrise is pretty much what happens
bellow the waterline and can exist/vary from stem to stern.I believe
the ply-Chebacco illustrates this very well with sharp deadrise in
the bilge panels but a virtually plumb upper strake.I would not
catagorize this boat as having"flare".Another Bolger design that
illustrates this is his Red Zinger design.
Dories,at least the Atlantic version,would appear to have reverse-
tumble home their full length :-)
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan........
--- In bolger@y..., "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> Let's not forget that many of the designs already have flare. Any
> hull with a rounded or multi-chine bottom has flare. I would
suggest
> that any of them from Nymph on up will be easier to control and
less
> noisey than a plumb-sided, flat bottom equivalent. One of the most
> effective designs in this regard is the Chebacco series in my
opinion.
>
> Nels
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
> > Agreed, the assumption I made was to take an existing design and
> add flare.
> > If the boat is designed with a narrower bottom, it would not be as
> > effective. A Dory is a perfect example. They can carry a lot
of
> weight
> > for their size because the enhanced flare gains buoyancy as is
> sinks down
> > but they are notoriously tippy until loaded.
> >
> > On a power boat, I think the intial stability of a plumb side
boat
> has it's
> > advantages in somewhat protected waters. If in big open water,
the
> flared
> > side and narrower bottom would add a lot to comfort and safety to
a
> greater
> > degree. You would be more apt to notice danger before it was too
> late.
> >
> > Jeff
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@r...>
> > To: <bolger@y...>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 10:20 AM
> > Subject: [bolger] Re: The Return of Flare
> >
> >
Let's not forget that many of the designs already have flare. Any
hull with a rounded or multi-chine bottom has flare. I would suggest
that any of them from Nymph on up will be easier to control and less
noisey than a plumb-sided, flat bottom equivalent. One of the most
effective designs in this regard is the Chebacco series in my opinion.
Nels
hull with a rounded or multi-chine bottom has flare. I would suggest
that any of them from Nymph on up will be easier to control and less
noisey than a plumb-sided, flat bottom equivalent. One of the most
effective designs in this regard is the Chebacco series in my opinion.
Nels
--- In bolger@y..., "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
> Agreed, the assumption I made was to take an existing design and
add flare.
> If the boat is designed with a narrower bottom, it would not be as
> effective. A Dory is a perfect example. They can carry a lot of
weight
> for their size because the enhanced flare gains buoyancy as is
sinks down
> but they are notoriously tippy until loaded.
>
> On a power boat, I think the intial stability of a plumb side boat
has it's
> advantages in somewhat protected waters. If in big open water, the
flared
> side and narrower bottom would add a lot to comfort and safety to a
greater
> degree. You would be more apt to notice danger before it was too
late.
>
> Jeff
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@r...>
> To: <bolger@y...>
> Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 10:20 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: The Return of Flare
>
>
Nels,
I wonder up that......it would appear to me that as the hull
heals,say 10 degrees thus burying say 4 inches of hull,then the same
amount of hull is becoming exposed on the opposite side,no? The one
exception that comes to mind would be with an inflatable that is not
so rigid.Therefore,I'm not too sure "its' beam becomes greater" as it
heals.
In a situation where you have water coming over the sides,whether
flaired or not,it sounds like you're in for a bit of excitement :-)
tumblehome notwithstanding.
Canadian eh?
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan
I wonder up that......it would appear to me that as the hull
heals,say 10 degrees thus burying say 4 inches of hull,then the same
amount of hull is becoming exposed on the opposite side,no? The one
exception that comes to mind would be with an inflatable that is not
so rigid.Therefore,I'm not too sure "its' beam becomes greater" as it
heals.
In a situation where you have water coming over the sides,whether
flaired or not,it sounds like you're in for a bit of excitement :-)
tumblehome notwithstanding.
Canadian eh?
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan
--- In bolger@y..., "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
>
> A flared hull has more reserve boyancy because as it heels, it's
beam
> becomes wider. It therefore gives ample warning before going over,
> usually by shipping water over the sides. (Unless it has tumblehome
> or decking.)
>
Agreed, the assumption I made was to take an existing design and add flare.
If the boat is designed with a narrower bottom, it would not be as
effective. A Dory is a perfect example. They can carry a lot of weight
for their size because the enhanced flare gains buoyancy as is sinks down
but they are notoriously tippy until loaded.
On a power boat, I think the intial stability of a plumb side boat has it's
advantages in somewhat protected waters. If in big open water, the flared
side and narrower bottom would add a lot to comfort and safety to a greater
degree. You would be more apt to notice danger before it was too late.
Jeff
If the boat is designed with a narrower bottom, it would not be as
effective. A Dory is a perfect example. They can carry a lot of weight
for their size because the enhanced flare gains buoyancy as is sinks down
but they are notoriously tippy until loaded.
On a power boat, I think the intial stability of a plumb side boat has it's
advantages in somewhat protected waters. If in big open water, the flared
side and narrower bottom would add a lot to comfort and safety to a greater
degree. You would be more apt to notice danger before it was too late.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 10:20 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: The Return of Flare
> Not so fast! I think if you will review existing, similar designs, you
> will find that the flare sided boats tend to be narrower on the bottom
> than the vertical sided boats. You're mostly arguing in favor of a
> beamier boat.
> --- In bolger@y..., "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
> > For easy math, say 60 lbs of water is displaced for every cubic
> foot.
> >
> > If you have a 20 foot boat with a average of a 2 foot tall side
> panel and a
> > 4 inch flare, you would have 20 X 2 = 40 sq. ft. times the 4 inches
> in flare
> > or .33 feet is 13.2 cubic feet. Now the flare starts at 0 at the
> chine and
> > moves out 4 inches at the sheer you'd have only 50% of the space
> that we
> > calculated above so about 6.6 cubic feet times 60 lbs is
> approximately 396
> > lbs additional flotation to get to the 90% angle. Thats a fair
> amount on a
> > 20 footer.
> >
> > Unfortunately not all of it is imersed all at once depending on the
> design
> > so I'd hazzard a guess that only about 40% of it is used before the
> cockpit
> > begins to fill. It's all about the design using the flare to it's
> > advantage.
> >
> > Unless it radical like a Dory, I still think the biggest advantage
> of a nice
> > flare is looks and the dryness factor as it will naturally direct
> the water
> > away from the boat.
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Ryan" <david@c...>
> > To: <bolger@y...>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 9:15 AM
> > Subject: [bolger] Re: The Return of Flare
> >
> >
> > > >> Have any clues been dropped by PCB&F as to the reasons behind
> this
> > > >choice?
> > > >
> > > >In a decked boat, a little flare increases the righting moment at
> > > >high angles of heel. Perhaps he is compensating for his mistakes
> with
> > > >Martha Jane.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't know why, but flare and square (like a Birdwatcher) looks
> > > more eager to return to its feet than pure square. Just intuitive,
> it
> > > looks harder to drive down the flare&square boat.
> > >
> > > Anyone wanna give us the mathematics that confirm or contradict
> this?
> > >
> > > YIBB,
> > >
> > > David
> > > --
> > >
> > > C.E.P.
> > > 415 W.46th Street
> > > New York, New York 10036
> > >http://www.crumblingempire.com
> > > Mobile (646) 325-8325
> > > Office (212) 247-0296
> > >
> > >
> > > Bolger rules!!!
> > > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> > > - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred'
> posts
> > > - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and
> <snip> away
> > > - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester,
> MA,
> > 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> > > - Unsubscribe: bolger-unsubscribe@y...
> > > - Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@y...
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Not so fast! I think if you will review existing, similar designs, you
will find that the flare sided boats tend to be narrower on the bottom
than the vertical sided boats. You're mostly arguing in favor of a
beamier boat.
will find that the flare sided boats tend to be narrower on the bottom
than the vertical sided boats. You're mostly arguing in favor of a
beamier boat.
--- In bolger@y..., "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
> For easy math, say 60 lbs of water is displaced for every cubic
foot.
>
> If you have a 20 foot boat with a average of a 2 foot tall side
panel and a
> 4 inch flare, you would have 20 X 2 = 40 sq. ft. times the 4 inches
in flare
> or .33 feet is 13.2 cubic feet. Now the flare starts at 0 at the
chine and
> moves out 4 inches at the sheer you'd have only 50% of the space
that we
> calculated above so about 6.6 cubic feet times 60 lbs is
approximately 396
> lbs additional flotation to get to the 90% angle. Thats a fair
amount on a
> 20 footer.
>
> Unfortunately not all of it is imersed all at once depending on the
design
> so I'd hazzard a guess that only about 40% of it is used before the
cockpit
> begins to fill. It's all about the design using the flare to it's
> advantage.
>
> Unless it radical like a Dory, I still think the biggest advantage
of a nice
> flare is looks and the dryness factor as it will naturally direct
the water
> away from the boat.
>
>
> Jeff
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Ryan" <david@c...>
> To: <bolger@y...>
> Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 9:15 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: The Return of Flare
>
>
> > >> Have any clues been dropped by PCB&F as to the reasons behind
this
> > >choice?
> > >
> > >In a decked boat, a little flare increases the righting moment at
> > >high angles of heel. Perhaps he is compensating for his mistakes
with
> > >Martha Jane.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know why, but flare and square (like a Birdwatcher) looks
> > more eager to return to its feet than pure square. Just intuitive,
it
> > looks harder to drive down the flare&square boat.
> >
> > Anyone wanna give us the mathematics that confirm or contradict
this?
> >
> > YIBB,
> >
> > David
> > --
> >
> > C.E.P.
> > 415 W.46th Street
> > New York, New York 10036
> >http://www.crumblingempire.com
> > Mobile (646) 325-8325
> > Office (212) 247-0296
> >
> >
> > Bolger rules!!!
> > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> > - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred'
posts
> > - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and
<snip> away
> > - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester,
MA,
> 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> > - Unsubscribe: bolger-unsubscribe@y...
> > - Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@y...
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
In a nutshell a flat-bottomed unflared hull has the greatest initial
stablility but very little reserve stability. So when it goes over it
does so suddenly and without warning. The extreme example would be a
raft or a barn door on the water.
A flared hull has more reserve boyancy because as it heels, it's beam
becomes wider. It therefore gives ample warning before going over,
usually by shipping water over the sides. (Unless it has tumblehome
or decking.)
A flared hull also is more sea-kindly in a cross or quartering sea,
since it remains more upright, rather than being tilted over by the
waves. (Imagine the side to side motion of a flat board in waves as
compared to a round log.)
Also in a flared hull, it tends to deflect waves away, rather than
letting them slap up against itself. With a flared hull there is less
weight carried near the gunnels since the main weight carrying area
is closer along the keel line.
Most of my experience has been with canoes. I well designed canoe has
flare in the bows, what is called a shallow arch further aft (which
allows for more bouyancey to rise above waves and then almost a
rounded mid-section (with some flattening) since this gives the least
wetted surface for efficiency and a very docile stability curve. A
well designed canoe feels "tippy" when you first get in but feels
much better in waves than a flat bottomed canoe. Of course the
paddles are used as out-riggers which is the secret to a canoe and
kayak's ability to handle big waves.
If you lie down flat in the bottom of a well designed canoe it is
(almost:-) impossible to tip it from there.
Of course that is also a test to tell if you are a Canadian;-))
Nels.
stablility but very little reserve stability. So when it goes over it
does so suddenly and without warning. The extreme example would be a
raft or a barn door on the water.
A flared hull has more reserve boyancy because as it heels, it's beam
becomes wider. It therefore gives ample warning before going over,
usually by shipping water over the sides. (Unless it has tumblehome
or decking.)
A flared hull also is more sea-kindly in a cross or quartering sea,
since it remains more upright, rather than being tilted over by the
waves. (Imagine the side to side motion of a flat board in waves as
compared to a round log.)
Also in a flared hull, it tends to deflect waves away, rather than
letting them slap up against itself. With a flared hull there is less
weight carried near the gunnels since the main weight carrying area
is closer along the keel line.
Most of my experience has been with canoes. I well designed canoe has
flare in the bows, what is called a shallow arch further aft (which
allows for more bouyancey to rise above waves and then almost a
rounded mid-section (with some flattening) since this gives the least
wetted surface for efficiency and a very docile stability curve. A
well designed canoe feels "tippy" when you first get in but feels
much better in waves than a flat bottomed canoe. Of course the
paddles are used as out-riggers which is the secret to a canoe and
kayak's ability to handle big waves.
If you lie down flat in the bottom of a well designed canoe it is
(almost:-) impossible to tip it from there.
Of course that is also a test to tell if you are a Canadian;-))
Nels.
--- In bolger@y..., David Ryan <david@c...> wrote:
> >> Have any clues been dropped by PCB&F as to the reasons behind
this
> >choice?
> >
> >In a decked boat, a little flare increases the righting moment at
> >high angles of heel. Perhaps he is compensating for his mistakes
with
> >Martha Jane.
> >
>
For easy math, say 60 lbs of water is displaced for every cubic foot.
If you have a 20 foot boat with a average of a 2 foot tall side panel and a
4 inch flare, you would have 20 X 2 = 40 sq. ft. times the 4 inches in flare
or .33 feet is 13.2 cubic feet. Now the flare starts at 0 at the chine and
moves out 4 inches at the sheer you'd have only 50% of the space that we
calculated above so about 6.6 cubic feet times 60 lbs is approximately 396
lbs additional flotation to get to the 90% angle. Thats a fair amount on a
20 footer.
Unfortunately not all of it is imersed all at once depending on the design
so I'd hazzard a guess that only about 40% of it is used before the cockpit
begins to fill. It's all about the design using the flare to it's
advantage.
Unless it radical like a Dory, I still think the biggest advantage of a nice
flare is looks and the dryness factor as it will naturally direct the water
away from the boat.
Jeff
If you have a 20 foot boat with a average of a 2 foot tall side panel and a
4 inch flare, you would have 20 X 2 = 40 sq. ft. times the 4 inches in flare
or .33 feet is 13.2 cubic feet. Now the flare starts at 0 at the chine and
moves out 4 inches at the sheer you'd have only 50% of the space that we
calculated above so about 6.6 cubic feet times 60 lbs is approximately 396
lbs additional flotation to get to the 90% angle. Thats a fair amount on a
20 footer.
Unfortunately not all of it is imersed all at once depending on the design
so I'd hazzard a guess that only about 40% of it is used before the cockpit
begins to fill. It's all about the design using the flare to it's
advantage.
Unless it radical like a Dory, I still think the biggest advantage of a nice
flare is looks and the dryness factor as it will naturally direct the water
away from the boat.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ryan" <david@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 9:15 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: The Return of Flare
> >> Have any clues been dropped by PCB&F as to the reasons behind this
> >choice?
> >
> >In a decked boat, a little flare increases the righting moment at
> >high angles of heel. Perhaps he is compensating for his mistakes with
> >Martha Jane.
> >
>
> I don't know why, but flare and square (like a Birdwatcher) looks
> more eager to return to its feet than pure square. Just intuitive, it
> looks harder to drive down the flare&square boat.
>
> Anyone wanna give us the mathematics that confirm or contradict this?
>
> YIBB,
>
> David
> --
>
> C.E.P.
> 415 W.46th Street
> New York, New York 10036
>http://www.crumblingempire.com
> Mobile (646) 325-8325
> Office (212) 247-0296
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>> Have any clues been dropped by PCB&F as to the reasons behind thisI don't know why, but flare and square (like a Birdwatcher) looks
>choice?
>
>In a decked boat, a little flare increases the righting moment at
>high angles of heel. Perhaps he is compensating for his mistakes with
>Martha Jane.
>
more eager to return to its feet than pure square. Just intuitive, it
looks harder to drive down the flare&square boat.
Anyone wanna give us the mathematics that confirm or contradict this?
YIBB,
David
--
C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
Mobile (646) 325-8325
Office (212) 247-0296
> Have any clues been dropped by PCB&F as to the reasons behind thischoice?
In a decked boat, a little flare increases the righting moment at
high angles of heel. Perhaps he is compensating for his mistakes with
Martha Jane.
Peter
Flared sides can be dryer too. I'm expecting the Wyo to be a bit wet in the
front 1/3 of her length. But 34 feet back, the rear cockpit should be dry
most of the time.
Jeff
front 1/3 of her length. But 34 feet back, the rear cockpit should be dry
most of the time.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nels" <arvent@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 3:00 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: The Return of Flare
> Yes I had noticed that as well - in all his offshore designs. I am
> assuming that it makes for a more sea-kindly hull as it smoothes out
> the stability curve. Also I see the topsides are showing some
> tumblehome.
> Nels
> --- In bolger@y..., David Ryan <david@c...> wrote:
> > FBBB --
> >
> > We noted that flare has found its way back into PCB&F's designs of
> > late, and speculated as to the reason(s) why. The Tahiti, Fiji, and
> > I60 all show the "flair and square" cross section of the
> birdwatcher;
> > a move away from the square boat section of the AS29, Wyo, and LMII.
> >
> > One possibility that occurred to me is that flair allows the
> > introduction of rocker in the hull form while using very simple,
> > straight cut side-panel shapes. This certainly is in keeping with
> the
> > recent essay in MAIB on "achievability".
> >
> > Have any clues been dropped by PCB&F as to the reasons behind this
> choice?
> >
> > YIBB,
> >
> > David
> >
> > --
> >
> > C.E.P.
> > 415 W.46th Street
> > New York, New York 10036
> >http://www.crumblingempire.com
> > Mobile (646) 325-8325
> > Office (212) 247-0296
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Yes I had noticed that as well - in all his offshore designs. I am
assuming that it makes for a more sea-kindly hull as it smoothes out
the stability curve. Also I see the topsides are showing some
tumblehome.
Nels
assuming that it makes for a more sea-kindly hull as it smoothes out
the stability curve. Also I see the topsides are showing some
tumblehome.
Nels
--- In bolger@y..., David Ryan <david@c...> wrote:
> FBBB --
>
> We noted that flare has found its way back into PCB&F's designs of
> late, and speculated as to the reason(s) why. The Tahiti, Fiji, and
> I60 all show the "flair and square" cross section of the
birdwatcher;
> a move away from the square boat section of the AS29, Wyo, and LMII.
>
> One possibility that occurred to me is that flair allows the
> introduction of rocker in the hull form while using very simple,
> straight cut side-panel shapes. This certainly is in keeping with
the
> recent essay in MAIB on "achievability".
>
> Have any clues been dropped by PCB&F as to the reasons behind this
choice?
>
> YIBB,
>
> David
>
> --
>
> C.E.P.
> 415 W.46th Street
> New York, New York 10036
>http://www.crumblingempire.com
> Mobile (646) 325-8325
> Office (212) 247-0296
FBBB --
Frank San Miguel and his family paid me and my boats a visit
yesterday. Sadly the weather and tides were against a sail in the
LSME, but we did get in a good few hours in the driveway flapping our
gums about get-away fantasies and big Bolger boats.
We noted that flare has found its way back into PCB&F's designs of
late, and speculated as to the reason(s) why. The Tahiti, Fiji, and
I60 all show the "flair and square" cross section of the birdwatcher;
a move away from the square boat section of the AS29, Wyo, and LMII.
One possibility that occurred to me is that flair allows the
introduction of rocker in the hull form while using very simple,
straight cut side-panel shapes. This certainly is in keeping with the
recent essay in MAIB on "achievability".
Have any clues been dropped by PCB&F as to the reasons behind this choice?
YIBB,
David
--
C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
Mobile (646) 325-8325
Office (212) 247-0296
Frank San Miguel and his family paid me and my boats a visit
yesterday. Sadly the weather and tides were against a sail in the
LSME, but we did get in a good few hours in the driveway flapping our
gums about get-away fantasies and big Bolger boats.
We noted that flare has found its way back into PCB&F's designs of
late, and speculated as to the reason(s) why. The Tahiti, Fiji, and
I60 all show the "flair and square" cross section of the birdwatcher;
a move away from the square boat section of the AS29, Wyo, and LMII.
One possibility that occurred to me is that flair allows the
introduction of rocker in the hull form while using very simple,
straight cut side-panel shapes. This certainly is in keeping with the
recent essay in MAIB on "achievability".
Have any clues been dropped by PCB&F as to the reasons behind this choice?
YIBB,
David
--
C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
Mobile (646) 325-8325
Office (212) 247-0296