Displacement or plane hull? - Page 2 - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > On Board > Boat Review and Purchase Forum > Sailboat Design and Construction
 Not a Member? 


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 12-31-2008
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
InetRoadkill is on a distinguished road
The keel design hasn't been addressed yet. I will most likely go with with a typical trapezoid keel shape with a bulb on the end. The bulb-on-a-stick keels scare me. They look rather fragile. The target draft is 5 to 6 feet.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #12  
Old 12-31-2008
johnshasteen's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 649
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 13
johnshasteen is on a distinguished road
If you want a planing hull, get a bass boat with a pair of 150 hp Johnsons. If you plan to sail anywhere but in bays and lakes, stay with a displacement hull with a high angle of vanishing stability.
__________________
s/v Paloma, Bristol 29.9, #141
Slipped in Bahia Marina, easy access to Corpus Christi Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.

Last edited by johnshasteen; 12-31-2008 at 10:36 AM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #13  
Old 01-02-2009
Here .. Pull this
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,031
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 8
Sailormann will become famous soon enough
There is another forum you might find it worthwhile logging on to as well:

Boat Design Net - the Boat Design and Boat Building Site
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #14  
Old 01-06-2009
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,579
Thanks: 5
Thanked 95 Times in 71 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about
I would like to apologize in advance but much of this was cut and pasted from articles that I had written for other purposes and so may not perfectly fit the thread. I hope that it still may prove helpful to the discussion.

Displacement vs Planning vs semi-displacement boats

To begin with this is potentially a very interesting topic that has gotten partially derailed and misdirected by what appears to be a semantics problem contained within the way that premise of the question is being asked. I do not mean this to be critical of INetRoadKill. At some point in our lives we all have accidentally misspoken and/or we all have started out somewhere, not precisely understanding the terminology that we may be using. My point is that I think INetRoadKill probably misspoke when he chose the term ‘planning’ for his question.

To clarify, a planning boat requires very specific set of design parameters that are directed towards minimizing drag, developing an underbody that provides dynamic lift to the hull at speeds approaching and in excess of the theoretical hull speed, minimizing weight, and maximizing the power to weight (sail area/disp) and in the end this produces a boat that is capable of very high speeds but at a price. The original post included some basic ‘numbers’ for a proposed ‘planning’ boat that were well outside of range for a planning boat.

More realistically a planning boat would have numbers closer to: LOA= 32 feet, LWL=30.5 feet, Draft=7 feet, Beam Max= 10 feet, Displacement 3,775 lbs (that’s not a typo), and Sail Area (100% jib)= 700 square feet (and would look like a Melges 32 whose numbers from memory are pretty close to these).

Cutting to the chase, boats like these are almost always single purpose race boats. There is no point in discussing the potential of planning boats like these in the context of being used as an offshore cruiser, especially in terms of tracking or motion comfort.

But fortunately the choice is not simply between displacement and planning boats. As mentioned above there is a third type referred to as a ‘semi-displacement’ or ‘semi-planning’ that has become increasingly popular as a type form and which, when designed properly, potentially offers tremendous advantages over traditional heavy displacement types on almost all counts.

It is here that I respectfully disagree with the majority of the comments made above. Properly designed a semi-displacement boat offers the opportunity for greater seaworthiness, ease of handling, motion comfort, performance and carrying capacity for its displacement than pretty much any other typeform.

Of course I need to point out that there are two underlined, very key qualifying phases in that last statement; ‘properly designed’ and ‘for its displacement’. First of all, designing properly designing a semi-displacement boat with all of the attributes that I mention takes a lot more skill than designing a more traditional heavy displacement boat. I’ll get to that in a minute, but in many ways it’s the second phrase that is more important to the discussion so I will start there.

While within the sailing culture we tend to think of length as ‘the size of a boat’, more than any other single parameter, it is displacement that truly best describes the size of a boat. Because we tend to think of length as the size of the boat, there is a tendency to use terms like heavy or light displacement which of course is relative to length. But to me, especially as one is contemplating designing or buying a specific boat for a specific purpose, in almost all ways thinking of a boat as short or long for its displacement provides a more useful way of thinking of this issue.

I say this because I believe that ideally designing or buying a boat is a step by step process that starts with defining the problem that you are trying to solve. In designing a boat, the problem is defined by the sailing venue, anticipated crew, and the nature of the sailing anticipated. Obviously taste, and style factor in, but that is another story, related more to psychology than to this discussion.

If you are to start with the length of voyaging that you intend to do, and consider the necessities plus the level of comfort that the proposed crew will require, you pretty quickly can make a good guess at a rule of thumb for the displacement that is required per person. Historically you used to see a rule of thumb of 2 ˝ to 5 (sometimes quoted as 6) long tons per person (which roughly translates to 5,700 to 11,000 lbs per person. Modern offshore cruisers will often push that number a bit higher. And so if we decide that we have two-crew and, if, for the sake of example, we decide that they need minimally 3 tons each, we end up with a boat in the general neighborhood of the 13,500 lb displacement range that INetRoadKill is proposing.

If at this point we begin to think about comparing a boat with a longer waterline to shorter boat that has an equal weight of roughly 13,500 lbs, within reason and with reasonably similar weight distributions, the longer the boat, the better its seaworthiness, motion comfort, ease of handling, motion comfort carrying capacity, performance and so on. We can go through the reasons for that one by one but in the interest of time, I suggest that you do a search for other discussions on these topics.

But as I said to achieve these admirable traits in a longer boat requires more design skill, especially when the goal is to produce a semi-planning type hull. Modern semi-planning hulls have their centers of buoyancy and gravity a bit further aft than on more traditional boats and have more beam than traditional boats. Off hand this would seemingly promote a boat that changed trim with heel angle (going bow down) and would seemingly have more form stability and therefore a less comfortable motion.

Here is where careful hull modeling comes into play. Careful modeling of the hull at various heel angles can minimize if not eliminate changes in for and aft trim. If you can visualize a cone sitting horizontally in the water and you rolled that cone about its axis, it would not change trim fore and aft. Obviously, a boat is not a cone shape, but if the heeled hull is carefully modeled so that the proportion of buoyancy aft relative forward of the center of gravity remains the same at all reasonable heel angles, the boat will not change trim due to heel. This series of calculations takes time and skill,

When we talk about motion comfort there is a tendency to focus on form stability as it relates to beam, and historically long boats for their weight (lighter weight boats) tended to have proportionately more form stability than more traditional heavy displacement cruisers. It was that proportionately greater form stability that gave light boats their bad rep motion comfort wise. Despite the oft quoted ‘common wisdom’ to the contrary, in and of itself, except possibly in the case of heave, weight does nothing good for motion comfort. (Even in the case of heave, increased weight may only act to shift the motion out of phase which can in some cases actually result in decreased motion comfort). When you really analyze the factors that control motion comfort the big factors are dampening, the rate of change in buoyancy (and therefore stability) with changes in direction, weight distribution as it relates to rotational inertia.

And so, if the semi-planning boat is carefully designed with these factors in mind, then the boat will not beat up its crew, but again that requires careful design and engineering to achieve.

Lastly like anything else in the design of a boat, the keel design is a part of a bigger system. There are pluses and minuses to both the IOR era 'Trapazoidal keel', some of the later small area keels and the 'bulb on a stick' as you call it. Again all can be equally sturdy, but obviously some keel forms are easier to engineer than other.

A couple other comments on the comments above; the Didi 38 is not especially light weight for its length. This is a very nice design optimized for amatuer, one-off construction, but it is not especially light. As a point of comparison, my own boat is a 38 footer with a design weight of 10,600 lbs. This was a boat that was specifically designed as a cruising boat, albeit a bit spartan one. The structural system was engineered for the abuses of being offshore for long periods of time. Much of the weight savings came from the design of the structural system, minimal liners, light weight interior components, small fuel capacity which is just one part of the spiral cycling that light weight breeds other weight savings. My boat was sailed in from South Africa and sisterships have done all kinds of offshore passages. I would favorably compare her motion comfort to any other 10,600 lb boat that I have ever sailed. But that's another story.

By the way, restricting to a 5 to 6 foot draft is a serious motion comfort/ seaworthiness compromise on a boat the size that you are proposing.

Respectfully,
Jeff

Last edited by Jeff_H; 01-06-2009 at 06:11 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #15  
Old 01-24-2009
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
InetRoadkill is on a distinguished road
I was reading "Elements of yacht design" and it was suggesting that the displacement for a 38' boat should be around 19,000lbs with a draft of 8' or so. That seems a bit high. There was a comment that American designs tended to be too light. It's easy to add weight, but I'm thinking 19K is a bit much. A deep draft is fine too, but I'm wondering how far you can push this before you run into trouble entering your favorite vacation harbor destination. I understand that a deeper draft is going to make it difficult or impossible to visit shallow reefs or sail up river to a getaway spot. But I'm leaning in favor of sea kindly vs. the 'all terrain' shoal draft.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #16  
Old 01-26-2009
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,579
Thanks: 5
Thanked 95 Times in 71 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about
19,000 lbs for a 38 foot boat has been grossly overweight for decades now. Are you sure that you read that right since 19,000 lbs is about the right displacement for a modern 38 foot waterline boat? Similarly 8 foot draft is about right for a 38 foot waterline boat but wildly excessive for a 39 footer.

And while 8 foot draft is nice for seaworthiness, seakindliness, performance and overall stability, especially if you plan to spend a lot of time offshore, it is way too deep to be convenient for a cruising boat in many, if not most venues.

Jeff
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #17  
Old 01-26-2009
kaluvic's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sana'a Yemen
Posts: 263
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 6
kaluvic is on a distinguished road
InetRoadkill

One of my favorite quotes:
Professionals built the Titanic, armatures built Noah’s Ark.

You might be the one that comes up with the next innovation……Go for it.

My two cents………. Cruising = storage = weight
__________________
James S
S/V Arctic Lady
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #18  
Old 01-26-2009
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,579
Thanks: 5
Thanked 95 Times in 71 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about
I think that cruising=storage=weight is a very important consideration to determining how big a boat you need. Nothing determines the 'size' (and overall cost) of the boat better than its displacement. But to put cruising=storage= weight in perspective with current yacht design thinking, to size a boat, you start out by determining out how much weight that you need to support the crew size that you plan to cruise with, and then use a moderate displacement to length ratio (say 150 to 170) to determine the right waterline length from which you then figure out how long the resultant boat turns out to be.

This is somewhat backward from more traditional methods which started out by deciding on the length of the boat and then craming as much weight as possible onto that length. We now know that all things being relatively equal, within reasonable limits, the longer of two equal displacement boats, will generally offer better motion comfort, seaworthiness, ease of handling, and performance.

Respectfully,
Jeff
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #19  
Old 01-26-2009
kaluvic's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sana'a Yemen
Posts: 263
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 6
kaluvic is on a distinguished road
That all makes sense to me except 150 to 170 sure seems light if you park by brail like I do!!
__________________
James S
S/V Arctic Lady
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #20  
Old 01-26-2009
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,579
Thanks: 5
Thanked 95 Times in 71 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about
The apparently lighter L/D shouldn't have any impact on the amount of damage done in one of your braile landings. Perhaps I can explain it this way, if we look at the numbers in the example above, a modern boat with a 38 foot waterline and 19,000 lb displacement would have an L/D of around 155, which would certainly seem a bit light for a cruising boat by traditional standards. A modern boat with these numbers would probably be a little over 41 feet long.

If we compare that to a moderate 41 foot cruising design of 30 or so years ago, which would typically have a similar displacement but a waterline length around 32 to 33 feet, the older design would have a L/D= 230 (Tartan 41) to 260 (Valiant 40), which would be right in the middle of what was considered moderate at the time. Given that we have the same displacement and the same length, there is no reason to think that the modern design would automatically be any weaker than the traditional design even though it had a lower L/D since that low L/D is derived from a proportionately longer waterline rather than being a relatively lighter boat.

Jeff

Last edited by Jeff_H; 01-26-2009 at 10:36 AM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ryobi vs. Makita vs. Poliglow?? CLucas Gear & Maintenance 61 05-05-2012 06:02 AM
James Baldwin's Pocket Bluewater Cruising Boat List sailingdog Cruising & Liveaboard Forum 14 09-16-2011 05:26 PM
Spring Hull Cleaning Tom Wood Gear and Maintenance Articles 0 04-05-2004 08:00 PM
Hull Speed Demystified Steve Colgate Learning to Sail Articles 0 06-10-2000 08:00 PM
Hull Speed Demystified Steve Colgate Buying a Boat Articles 0 06-10-2000 08:00 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:18 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.