Re: Eeek progress
- Don, look at the profile drawings of Eeek! in static level trim (30-Odd, p4), and then look at the photo of PCB sailing in fairly flat water on the wind (p6). Note the heel under sail, but look closely at the bow-up stern-down trim. Dominant crew weight not withstanding, on heeling she goes deeper by the stern. With a little more heel comes significant sinking by the stern depending on ballast and moveable aft weight such as crew and gear.
An oversized crew out on hiking board as long as the boom most likely could not stop the 34'ESC from sinking by the stern on heeling. They could scurry to the bow of the boat with their body weight and try to re-instate level trim but if they're heavy enough for that they'd likely lift the rudder from the water. I believe keeping these boats acceptably trimmed is the big issue. Down a bit by a pointy stern doesn't drag a wake as PCB observed occaisionally, it's why these ESC have a pointy stern. He also observed such sterns have no power in the quarter to stand up to much wind, and here the aft ballast exacerbates the issue by sinking the stern as heeling progresses.
Blow physics - I really like the 34'er, there's lots of other great attributes, shallow draft, capacity, internal layout, deck space, water ballast, external rudder, leeboards, simplest build, simplest build ever, self-insured, economy, economy,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...> wrote:
> OK, the math of this is way beyond my interest level, but the questions raised do seem to get back to the original question Bolger brought up and which EEEK! was designed to answer.
> In "30 ODD BOATS" Bolger wrote; "I had the notion that a pointed stern without rocker would allow more ballast to be carried without increasing the size of the midsection. I wasn't sure what vices this shape might develop and decided that I'd like to try it first at a smaller scale."
> Although Bolger mentions 75lbs. of ballast later in the chapter, he doesn't state whether or not EEEK! answered his question. All the quirks EEEK! has that are mentioned seem to be related to it being scaled down. An oversize crew would have to decide to climb the mast of the 34' version all at once to duplicate the CG problems EEEK! demonstrated.
> .....One concern I have is the location of the water ballast tank.
- One version of EEEK! is the cut down Cruising Canoe from SBJ 21. I built the hull, tried it out; too small for me, then passed it to Dave Leavitt.More on it here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Cruising%20Canoe/At that scale the deep, double ended stern was not hard to turn, even though its big fat skeg makes the craft very directionally stable. It made me laugh that with every stoke there was plenty of roll side to side but the bow went really straight where she looked.
That stern... slow to turn?? Pick your water?