70072Re: Anhinga Isometrics
- Jan 16, 2014
Some day one or the other of us will build that boat!
Meanwhile, what's a rough and ready way to think about roll times for flat bottom boats?On Jan 16, 2014 8:32 PM, <c.ruzer@...> wrote:Hi Mark. The buoyancy is there in the stern due to the shape regardless of added ballast although it is there to float the intended added ballast. I think the far greater asymmetry of that flat run stern with respect to the forward rising half of the boat bottom profile puts one ends tendency to pitch at a certain frequency more out of sync with the other's. The asymmetry of ballast placed out toward one end should dampen that harmonising too, but I suspect weight stowed in the boat forward according to level trim under sail might see the mass of each half amounting to about the same...Pocket Change is of shorter wider proportions which may mitigate pitching tendencies of the rather symmetrical narrow pointed ends, I suspect. If it were around the 6:1 L:B of Eeek or ESC it would perhaps really rock!
---In firstname.lastname@example.org, <marka97203@...> wrote:
Quite possibly. The extra buoyancy in the stern, if not completely eaten up by the ballast, could give her more stability for and aft to minimize pitching.
The results of my little experiment with the similar 12' SBJ Cruising Canoe showed the trade off to trend towards being a bit of a roller, tho.On Jan 14, 2014 11:33 PM, <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
Agreed Don. Perhaps some second thoughts by clcboats are involved re what's "workable" then?
Ballasting and weight distribution changed to a more usual arrangement and geometry in Pocket Change, but I wonder if the Eeek/Anhinga/ESC geometry might not be more comfortable in a seaway, not least by pitching less?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>