## Tunnel Hulls & Scaling

Expand Messages
• Folks, Hmmm…this is a new wrinkle that I had not yet explored in my quest for an efficient hull form. So let s see if I understand this concept correctly.
Message 1 of 2 , Jan 19 7:16 AM
Folks,

Hmmmthis is a new wrinkle that I had not yet explored in my quest
for an efficient hull form. So let's see if I understand this
concept correctly. Please do correct me if I have a misunderstanding.

Up until this point I'd thought of a tunnel hull form as just that,
essentially an arch recessed into the after ~1/3 of the hull. A
tunnel could be used with either twin or single props. The primary
purpose is to reduce the draft that a large prop would take. The
rest of the hull outside the tunnels remained conventional, in that
it still had a `standard' hull form, i.e., either flat or with some

Now with this recent discussion about Atkin's designs, my
understanding of Atkin's version of a `tunnel hull' is to use a
Seabright Skiff flat bottom and bring the sides of this flat bottomed
protrusion together somewhere in the area of station 6 or 7 (on a
conventionally laid out plan).

centerline of the keel is deeper (lower) than the chines, like this
V  Atkin used negative deadrise, i.e., an inverted V  like this ^ 
recognizing of course the limitations of text to convey visual
less that depicted with these letters and symbols.

The result of this inverted deadrise is that instead of the stern
squatting as power is applied; there is instead a dynamic lift
component present that actually causes the stern to either remain
level or to actually rise as speed is built.

The end result of this negative deadrise is an increase in propulsion
efficiency. This efficiency defined in at least two ways; 1) by
increasing the speed obtained from X amount of horsepower and 2) a
more gentle parting and bringing together the various water streams
as the hull moves forward, resulting in (much?) less parasitic drag
from vortices and other associated turbulence.

Are there other benefits that I haven't seen yet?

On the front page of this group is a disclaimer that any
modifications to any Atkin's plans as drawn nullify any performance
assurances from the folks that are selling the plans.

Again, correct me if I've misunderstood My understanding
of `conventional' boat plans is that one can usually scale the plans
up or down by 10%-15% without affecting performance. It's also my
understanding that a 20% scaling is pushing the envelope and that 25%
is almost unheard of  in essence, a 25% stretch is a brand new
design and needs to be re-calculated accordingly.

Using 15% as the maximum permissible percentage, a 20' boat could be
stretched to 23'  a 30' boat to a maximum of 34.5' and a 35' boat to
a maximum of 40.25'.

My question is why would not these same rules of thumb apply to any
of Atkin's designs too?

This recent discussion has been very interesting and very

Best,

Leo
• I think you have the idea down well. My only other comment is to note that the tunnel , once it reaches the propeller, takes a downward curve, thus narrowing
Message 2 of 2 , Jan 19 11:30 AM
I think you have the idea down well. My only other comment is to note that the "tunnel", once it reaches the propeller, takes a "downward curve, thus narrowing the height of the aperture at the transom (I think it's called "wedging"). This creates something of a venturi effect, accelerating the flow/velocity of water and thereby giving increased thrust. The more I look at the "Atkin Tunnel Stern" (it should certainly be named after them) the more impressed I am with their design ability.

As to scaling... Most early wooden boat builders used this technique. The had a set of molds of a hull "This is our standard 18' model, but we can build it in lengths from 16' to 20'. They simply moved the molds closer together or further apart. My understanding is that 10% was the recommended maximum, although up to 15% might be done (depending on other aspects of the hull design). Beyond that one made molds for the for the standard 24' hull, etc. Stability, center of buoyancy, and all sorts of other factors come into play and, while the boat builders of old might not have used those terms, they understood what was going on and the corrective changes needed to accomodate a longer hull form.

The version of Rescue Minor I'm planning will be 21' 6" LOA (that's a 10% "stretch"). I will be altering the shape above the waterline somewhat to accomodate allow glued plywood lapstrake construction with a small trunk cabin forward. I'm very carefully watching the weight distribution, to keep it within what Atkin had. As I'll be using 3/8" plywood planks instead of the 3/4" plywood that Billy specified, I should be OK.

You can point out the "error of my ways" this Saturday at the Library Messabout".

Ron Fossum

----- Original Message -----
From: Leo
To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:16 AM
Subject: [AtkinBoats] Tunnel Hulls & Scaling

Folks,

Hmmm.this is a new wrinkle that I had not yet explored in my quest
for an efficient hull form. So let's see if I understand this
concept correctly. Please do correct me if I have a misunderstanding.

Up until this point I'd thought of a tunnel hull form as just that,
essentially an arch recessed into the after ~1/3 of the hull. A
tunnel could be used with either twin or single props. The primary
purpose is to reduce the draft that a large prop would take. The
rest of the hull outside the tunnels remained conventional, in that
it still had a `standard' hull form, i.e., either flat or with some

Now with this recent discussion about Atkin's designs, my
understanding of Atkin's version of a `tunnel hull' is to use a
Seabright Skiff flat bottom and bring the sides of this flat bottomed
protrusion together somewhere in the area of station 6 or 7 (on a
conventionally laid out plan).

centerline of the keel is deeper (lower) than the chines, like this
V - Atkin used negative deadrise, i.e., an inverted V - like this ^ -
recognizing of course the limitations of text to convey visual
less that depicted with these letters and symbols.

The result of this inverted deadrise is that instead of the stern
squatting as power is applied; there is instead a dynamic lift
component present that actually causes the stern to either remain
level or to actually rise as speed is built.

The end result of this negative deadrise is an increase in propulsion
efficiency. This efficiency defined in at least two ways; 1) by
increasing the speed obtained from X amount of horsepower and 2) a
more gentle parting and bringing together the various water streams
as the hull moves forward, resulting in (much?) less parasitic drag
from vortices and other associated turbulence.

Are there other benefits that I haven't seen yet?

On the front page of this group is a disclaimer that any
modifications to any Atkin's plans as drawn nullify any performance
assurances from the folks that are selling the plans.

Again, correct me if I've misunderstood. My understanding
of `conventional' boat plans is that one can usually scale the plans
up or down by 10%-15% without affecting performance. It's also my
understanding that a 20% scaling is pushing the envelope and that 25%
is almost unheard of - in essence, a 25% stretch is a brand new
design and needs to be re-calculated accordingly.

Using 15% as the maximum permissible percentage, a 20' boat could be
stretched to 23' - a 30' boat to a maximum of 34.5' and a 35' boat to
a maximum of 40.25'.

My question is why would not these same rules of thumb apply to any
of Atkin's designs too?

This recent discussion has been very interesting and very

Best,

Leo

No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be polite.

If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.

The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
<http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------