Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

20805RE: [bolger] now hull speed, was Re: mast options for Ruben's Nym ph

Expand Messages
  • Nickerson, Bruce
    Jun 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      While I find this technical stuff interesting, I am a bit boggled by the
      abbreviations, initialisms and acronyms here abounding. These AIAs
      (acronyms, initialisms and abbreviations) are not only confusing to me, but
      I sometimes cannot understand if they are technical terms from the topic
      under discussion, or cyber-speak (like BTW). Anyone else have this concern
      and some suggestions about how to ease this pain?

      -----Original Message-----
      From: wmrpage@... [mailto:wmrpage@...]
      Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:25 PM
      To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [bolger] now hull speed, was Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph


      In a message dated 5/31/02 9:43:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
      lincolnr@... writes:


      > BTW, if I got your equations right, a good single scull would have
      > "D/L" of less than 15. I have seen a "wakeless launch" which probably
      > has a "D/L" of around 30, scoot around at maybe 15 knots or so with
      > practically no wake. See:
      > http://www.stillwaterdesign.com/Pics/older25c.jpg
      <http://www.stillwaterdesign.com/Pics/older25c.jpg>
      >

      My Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet tells me that a 21' scull with an all-up weight
      of
      311 lbs. gives a D/L of 15, so I think you got your sums right. I was
      surprised and intrigued by your observation!

      Gerr's formulae indicate that this hypothetical scull has a maximum S/L of
      3.6, which translates into a "non-planing" top speed of 16.5 Kts. His
      displacement SHP formula indicates that it would take approx. .6 SHP to go 6

      Kts., possibly attainable by a highly-trained and strong rower, I suppose.
      Just how reliable Gerr's formulae are for very low D/L boats at high S/L
      ratios is questionable, however, as application of the formulae to the
      Stillwater catamaran shows. The displacement formula seems to overstate
      power
      requirements at high S/L ratios, while the Crouch (planing) formula seems to

      understate power requirements at lower S/L ratios.

      The Stillwater catamaran is 26' LWL. It has a claimed top speed of 18 Kts.
      w/15 SHP long-shaft O/B motor. I assume that the claimed top speed is
      accurate, probably a bit conservative - obviously it is a quantity
      relatively
      easily verified by a buyer who could be expected to complain if the claim
      was
      not met. (Do you have any insight into why the design requires a long-shaft
      motor?)

      I've estimated it's gross displacement at 1300# (4 x 200# adults + 15hp O/B
      motor + 5 gal. gas tank) or 900# (2 x 200# adults + 15hp O/B motor + 5 gal.
      gas tank). This gives D/L ratios of 33 and 23, respectively, S/L maximums of

      2.8 and 3.1, which translate to 14.3 Kts and 15.6 Kts top speed. Gerr's
      displacement SHP formula gives, respectively, SHP requirements of these
      speeds as 23.9 SHP and 22.4 SHP. Conversely, calculated top speeds for 15
      SHP
      are 12.2 Kts and something in excess of 13.8 Kts.

      Crouch's formula for planing boats (I'm rather arbitrarily using C = 200)
      gives speeds of something less than 16 Kts. and 19.4 Kts. respectively for
      15
      SHP. Interestingly, at this power level, the lighter-loaded boat approaches
      the 60#/SHP ratio that is the highest #/SHP ratio that Gerr shows on his
      Crouch chart.

      One could reasonably infer that the performance of low D/L boats at high S/L

      ratios falls somewhere in between the displacement SHP curve and the Crouch
      SHP curve, perhaps approximating the first up to a certain speed and
      approximating the second after that, but I've run innumerable graphs
      comparing the two curves for various hypothetical boats and have not
      detected
      any significant relationship in where the divergence point between the two
      curves occurs.

      Gerr does not discuss the source of the displacement formula he uses. I
      suspect it is derived from tests on full scale naval and maritime merchant
      vessels, supplemented by model tests of similar types at the U.S.N. Taylor
      basin. Crouch's formula seems to be empirically derived from the performance

      of boats of low #/SHP ratios. If I am correct, there is a gap in the data
      for
      boats of low D/L ratios like Bolger's "Sneakeasy" and others of its ilk.

      I believe that the University of Illinois did some wind tunnel testing of
      airfoils at low-Reynold's numbers that is of considerable interest to model
      airplane builders, while totally devoid of pertinence to commercial airplane

      designers. One can hope that perhaps, someday, some suitably equiped
      engineering faculty might turn its sights on the phenomenom of low D/L
      boats,
      like "Sneakeasy".

      Ciao for Niao,
      I've epoxy to mix,
      Bill in MN


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      Bolger rules!!!
      - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
      - pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
      - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
      - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
      01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
      - Unsubscribe: bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic