A couple of useful notes all right. Luckily, anhinga.hul's baseline
is zero, so the 1479# is more or less valid. I don't understand,
though, how not to have a bottom.
The difference in how shippy the boat looks between 1500 and 2400
pounds has me thinking that apart from the tripping steps and other
changes, Sandy Bottoms main problem was being in a light condition.
For your proposed cruiser, given the uncertainties, wouldn't an
easily reefed lug rig be preferred? I hadn't seen the Bufflead video
before. Thanks! His combination Dipping and Balanced Lug is a kick.
Also, I'm sticking with doubting the stern is a major problem in the
design. The Cruising Canoe is a bit of a roller, but that's because
the occupant is so large a part of the weight overall. The big skeg
of a stern gives it great directional stability. The front end does
have limitations for coastal cruising though.
Figuring out how high to cut the chine to add a box forefoot has
defeated me in the past. The boat would no longer be Anhinga, but,
coming soon, another try at that.
What's your estimate
On Mar 31, 2011, at 6:01 PM, gc4248@... wrote:
> One thing you might notice with Hulls is that a model made with no
> bottom will show about twice the righting moment of a model made
> with a bottom, i.e. an Anhinga model with bottom will have a
> righting moment of ~720 @ 15 deg. This means little in actual
> comparison with the real boat but it makes comparing different
> designs and design changes easier.
> I've also noticed that waterline height given is from Y = 0 and not
> from the bottom of the hull, and that a hull whose lowest point is
> above Y = 0 will have a lower righting moment than the same hull
> whose lowest point is at Y = 0. If you have a model that is "up in
> the air", a quick way to set the lowest point to zero is to enter a
> pitch angle of 0.1, then enter a pitch angle of 0.