[bolger] Re: Going the Distance
"lincoln ross" <lincoln-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2996
Eisenhower, and USS Carl Vinson. However, I have heard stories from
more than one submariner that unless one goes deep, quite a bit below
snorkel depth, you feel the motion of the sea, especially in a storm --
circular wave motion extends well below the surface, the greater the
height of wave above, the deeper the motion below, but granted not so
violent. And a teardrop shaped submarine doesn't have chines or a good
"turn of the bilge" to baffle rolling.
When a sub is running at snorkel depth, every time a wave buries the
snorkel, a floating ball closes off the port, causing the engine to
draw air from the people compartment for that instant. Causes quite
annoying ear popping as the snorkel is covered and uncovered. The
thing a sub has in its favor is its displacement vs. power
requirements. Next time in a big library, check out Janes Book of
Fighting Ships, (or is it Janes Book of the Worlds Navies) and compare
shaft horsepower vs. displacement vs. speed (Janes got the best answers
to these questions) - subs come out way ahead. Submariners called the
surface ships we rode around in "targets", but when we weren't around
they referred to their own vessels as "sewer pipes". So much for
living conditions.
Speaking of motion at sea - the USS Long Beach had the most impressive
motion - 721 feet long, 75 foot beam, and about 13,000 tons. Its
superstructure was (its mothballed now) as tall as an aircraft
carrier's but had quite the narrow beam. Our tower cleared the
Richmond-San Rafael bridge by about 10 feet (the C.O. had us evacuate
the weather decks aft of the mainmast before we crossed under). We did
have the occassion to operate up the west coast of the U.S. and Canada
from San Diego to Charlotte and Banks Islands at a nice moderate speed,
always with the port beam to the westerlies and to the seas. For a
fortnight we performed "evasive" manuevers in concert with a few others
of the US Coast Guard and Canadian Navy. At timed intervals we would
turn to port twice and then to starboard twice, doing a zig zig, zag
zag north. These manuvers combined with a beam sea and our design
produced a long spectacular, very slow roll - we would roll up to 45
degrees to starboard and hang there especially as she turned to port
and would take up a her new course - and then she would slowly right
herself and ever so slowly roll over to port. The west wind on the
superstructure never let us roll that far to port - on this particular
voyage we had an average list of about 10 degrees to starboard.
Get a boat with soft bilges, weight aloft, and a deep heavy keel and
you too can have a vessel with a long roll period.
Phil Lea
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2996
> gordon couger <gcouge-@...> wrote:so I'm going to propose the ultimate silent ocean
> crosser, relatively invulnerable to nasty storms:is
> a little submarine. water filled bulkhead between the engine and the
> passengers. No problem carrying the fuel. Looong snorkel when water
> rough. Smooth hydrodynamic shape with no hull speed or surface wakeI was a navy sailor on surface ships: USS Long Beach, USS Dwight D.
> problems. Ridiculous, ain't it? Ugh!
Eisenhower, and USS Carl Vinson. However, I have heard stories from
more than one submariner that unless one goes deep, quite a bit below
snorkel depth, you feel the motion of the sea, especially in a storm --
circular wave motion extends well below the surface, the greater the
height of wave above, the deeper the motion below, but granted not so
violent. And a teardrop shaped submarine doesn't have chines or a good
"turn of the bilge" to baffle rolling.
When a sub is running at snorkel depth, every time a wave buries the
snorkel, a floating ball closes off the port, causing the engine to
draw air from the people compartment for that instant. Causes quite
annoying ear popping as the snorkel is covered and uncovered. The
thing a sub has in its favor is its displacement vs. power
requirements. Next time in a big library, check out Janes Book of
Fighting Ships, (or is it Janes Book of the Worlds Navies) and compare
shaft horsepower vs. displacement vs. speed (Janes got the best answers
to these questions) - subs come out way ahead. Submariners called the
surface ships we rode around in "targets", but when we weren't around
they referred to their own vessels as "sewer pipes". So much for
living conditions.
Speaking of motion at sea - the USS Long Beach had the most impressive
motion - 721 feet long, 75 foot beam, and about 13,000 tons. Its
superstructure was (its mothballed now) as tall as an aircraft
carrier's but had quite the narrow beam. Our tower cleared the
Richmond-San Rafael bridge by about 10 feet (the C.O. had us evacuate
the weather decks aft of the mainmast before we crossed under). We did
have the occassion to operate up the west coast of the U.S. and Canada
from San Diego to Charlotte and Banks Islands at a nice moderate speed,
always with the port beam to the westerlies and to the seas. For a
fortnight we performed "evasive" manuevers in concert with a few others
of the US Coast Guard and Canadian Navy. At timed intervals we would
turn to port twice and then to starboard twice, doing a zig zig, zag
zag north. These manuvers combined with a beam sea and our design
produced a long spectacular, very slow roll - we would roll up to 45
degrees to starboard and hang there especially as she turned to port
and would take up a her new course - and then she would slowly right
herself and ever so slowly roll over to port. The west wind on the
superstructure never let us roll that far to port - on this particular
voyage we had an average list of about 10 degrees to starboard.
Get a boat with soft bilges, weight aloft, and a deep heavy keel and
you too can have a vessel with a long roll period.
Phil Lea
gordon couger <gcouge-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2995
getting punchy here at work (hoping to outwait the snow, or at least
the foolish drivers) so I'm going to propose the ultimate silent ocean
crosser, relatively invulnerable to nasty storms:
a little submarine. water filled bulkhead between the engine and the
passengers. No problem carrying the fuel. Looong snorkel when water is
rough. Smooth hydrodynamic shape with no hull speed or surface wake
problems. Ridiculous, ain't it? Ugh!
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2995
getting punchy here at work (hoping to outwait the snow, or at least
the foolish drivers) so I'm going to propose the ultimate silent ocean
crosser, relatively invulnerable to nasty storms:
a little submarine. water filled bulkhead between the engine and the
passengers. No problem carrying the fuel. Looong snorkel when water is
rough. Smooth hydrodynamic shape with no hull speed or surface wake
problems. Ridiculous, ain't it? Ugh!
Your recent artical in MAIB using the air cooled diesel should work on any
shallow draft boat. I was impressed by the elegance of your solution of
coming
up with a minimal crossing boat.
One thing that occured to me when reading about that boat was you comment
on the roll problem It is a problem faced by any small boat on a crossing. A
sail boat will be heeled but is always in danger of a knock down. A possible
solution is to use external steel or lead balast on a steel keel that that
is
used to extend the lever arm of the balast on for crossings and removed
and the balast reattached for costal and in shore crusing.
This would require a haul out to accomplish but might be worth it for
someone
that wanted to have a small boat to take them where ever their heart
desired.
Gordon
Gordon Cougergcouger@...
Stillwater, OK www.couger.com/gcouger
405 624-2855 GMT -6:00
shallow draft boat. I was impressed by the elegance of your solution of
coming
up with a minimal crossing boat.
One thing that occured to me when reading about that boat was you comment
on the roll problem It is a problem faced by any small boat on a crossing. A
sail boat will be heeled but is always in danger of a knock down. A possible
solution is to use external steel or lead balast on a steel keel that that
is
used to extend the lever arm of the balast on for crossings and removed
and the balast reattached for costal and in shore crusing.
This would require a haul out to accomplish but might be worth it for
someone
that wanted to have a small boat to take them where ever their heart
desired.
Gordon
Gordon Cougergcouger@...
Stillwater, OK www.couger.com/gcouger
405 624-2855 GMT -6:00
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Bolger and Friends" <pcb@...>
To: <bolger@...>
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 7:18 PM
Subject: [bolger] Going the Distance
> Running under power should always be considered. If you want to, the
> power-plant should not be worse than in your car - or better with
> distance of ear to engine - plus sound-deadening without regard to
> weight. Sailboats have been known to be quite noisy indeed... TAHITI
> #653 has no through-hulls, no waterpumps, is unsinkable, offer 2"bottom
> and 1"sides comfort and mild thermals which will allow wintering above
> the mid-Atlantic belt - better with 1"foam insulation. Judging by some
> 'well-reputed'survey amongst non-blue-water cruisers with lots of
> miles, motoring is so prevalent as to make the 'sailing' secondary -
> still fun though.
>
> O'Banion building TAHITI mostly single-handed it seems is just heavily
> glassing the single 39' long bottom - upside down(!)- and will then
> turn it to plumb and true the finished bulkheads on the bottom to
> finally attach pre-fabricated single piece 39'+ topsides, raised-deck
> and house components, etc. As of this morning he's buoyed by the
> progress - "no waiting for third hurricane hitting the same spot..."
> "The bottom panel is rocksolid (no kidding)and turning it will give my
> gantries a good strain...". After the hull can float and power itself,
> there won't be any rigging, ballasting, lateral-plane issue to add
> another major chunk of money and energy. Food for thought! Certainly
> those savings will eventually be depleted, although not after many
> thousands of miles of 'having done it'- earlier.
>
> And powerboats don't need extravagantly deep "retro" draft either.
> After all, when you 'get there' you may want to explore beyond dredged
> channels, uncomfortable and often packed anchorages and marinas. Dry
> out berths are cheap and often quieter just about wherever you care to
> check the charts. And sitting level, life is not interupted for chunks
> of daily rythm.
>
> For the scenaria when sails do indeed make more sense, we continue to
> attempt simplifying sailing-related issues. Without any further info
> available until they are finished, several 'state of the art'
> auxiliaries are on order. And keep reading MAIB to see some of what we
> have finished! Ahh the tension....
>
>
Running under power should always be considered. If you want to, the
power-plant should not be worse than in your car - or better with
distance of ear to engine - plus sound-deadening without regard to
weight. Sailboats have been known to be quite noisy indeed... TAHITI
#653 has no through-hulls, no waterpumps, is unsinkable, offer 2"bottom
and 1"sides comfort and mild thermals which will allow wintering above
the mid-Atlantic belt - better with 1"foam insulation. Judging by some
'well-reputed'survey amongst non-blue-water cruisers with lots of
miles, motoring is so prevalent as to make the 'sailing' secondary -
still fun though.
O'Banion building TAHITI mostly single-handed it seems is just heavily
glassing the single 39' long bottom - upside down(!)- and will then
turn it to plumb and true the finished bulkheads on the bottom to
finally attach pre-fabricated single piece 39'+ topsides, raised-deck
and house components, etc. As of this morning he's buoyed by the
progress - "no waiting for third hurricane hitting the same spot..."
"The bottom panel is rocksolid (no kidding)and turning it will give my
gantries a good strain...". After the hull can float and power itself,
there won't be any rigging, ballasting, lateral-plane issue to add
another major chunk of money and energy. Food for thought! Certainly
those savings will eventually be depleted, although not after many
thousands of miles of 'having done it'- earlier.
And powerboats don't need extravagantly deep "retro" draft either.
After all, when you 'get there' you may want to explore beyond dredged
channels, uncomfortable and often packed anchorages and marinas. Dry
out berths are cheap and often quieter just about wherever you care to
check the charts. And sitting level, life is not interupted for chunks
of daily rythm.
For the scenaria when sails do indeed make more sense, we continue to
attempt simplifying sailing-related issues. Without any further info
available until they are finished, several 'state of the art'
auxiliaries are on order. And keep reading MAIB to see some of what we
have finished! Ahh the tension....
power-plant should not be worse than in your car - or better with
distance of ear to engine - plus sound-deadening without regard to
weight. Sailboats have been known to be quite noisy indeed... TAHITI
#653 has no through-hulls, no waterpumps, is unsinkable, offer 2"bottom
and 1"sides comfort and mild thermals which will allow wintering above
the mid-Atlantic belt - better with 1"foam insulation. Judging by some
'well-reputed'survey amongst non-blue-water cruisers with lots of
miles, motoring is so prevalent as to make the 'sailing' secondary -
still fun though.
O'Banion building TAHITI mostly single-handed it seems is just heavily
glassing the single 39' long bottom - upside down(!)- and will then
turn it to plumb and true the finished bulkheads on the bottom to
finally attach pre-fabricated single piece 39'+ topsides, raised-deck
and house components, etc. As of this morning he's buoyed by the
progress - "no waiting for third hurricane hitting the same spot..."
"The bottom panel is rocksolid (no kidding)and turning it will give my
gantries a good strain...". After the hull can float and power itself,
there won't be any rigging, ballasting, lateral-plane issue to add
another major chunk of money and energy. Food for thought! Certainly
those savings will eventually be depleted, although not after many
thousands of miles of 'having done it'- earlier.
And powerboats don't need extravagantly deep "retro" draft either.
After all, when you 'get there' you may want to explore beyond dredged
channels, uncomfortable and often packed anchorages and marinas. Dry
out berths are cheap and often quieter just about wherever you care to
check the charts. And sitting level, life is not interupted for chunks
of daily rythm.
For the scenaria when sails do indeed make more sense, we continue to
attempt simplifying sailing-related issues. Without any further info
available until they are finished, several 'state of the art'
auxiliaries are on order. And keep reading MAIB to see some of what we
have finished! Ahh the tension....