Design Challenge: Trapwing-"on-deck" ballast-12'-22' [Archive]

Doug Lord

10-07-2009, 06:50 PM

I have always wanted to sail a boat like a 2.4 Meter but with much higher performance. I suggested a concept years ago and wonder if anyone else has any thoughts on how to make something like this work or improve the concept.
The idea I had was to use a molded "wing" that would have ballast slide inside it to give large RM-similar to a two handed dinghy where one of the crew is on a trapeze. The ballast could be moved by hand, foot power or electrically. The boat might have a small fixed keel. The ends of the "wing" would be slightly larger in section to provide extra buoyancy. Each side of the wing would be supported by a "trapeze" wire making moving the whole wing(and the ballast inside it) fairly easy since it all moves horizontally.
The idea is to sit in the boat like a 2.4 meter but plane(or foil depending on design) early and fast.
I'm interested in any ideas that would accomplish this in a relatively small POSSIBLY self righting monohull....

Personally, a boat that would sail like a Windmill- with me sitting in the center- would be cool. That boat planes in 10 knots or slightly less and is a great ride offwind in a breeze. But a boat could be built that would be a bit more powerful and meet Bethwaites criteria for upwind planing(foiling):
LOA 16'(or so)
SA-around 160 sq.ft. upwind
12' sliding "trapwing" with 160 lb ballast
All Up boat weight minus wing,wing ballast and keel ballast including rig:160lb
75lb keel bulb
130lb-180lb crew
SCP/Total Weight=30% @ 180lb crew

As I envision it the wing+ballast is supported by trapeze wires-side to side movement would not require a whole lot of effort....
Just as a rough illustration here is a picture of a Melges 24 and microMOTH model fitted with a "trapeze power ballast system". The battery was part of the sliding ballast and that could be done on a full size version. The "wing" on the model is just two carbon tubes that form a track for the ballast to slide on. To me, a molded,sealed, wing on the full-size version would have a number of advantages including lower aerodynamic drag, buoyancy and it could be built with a slight curve.
A well designed, tested and proven version of this boat(that was self-righting) COULD offer disabled sailors(and/or grumpy old men like me) a high performance single-handed alternative to the 2.4 meter.
The previous thread on this topic wound up being locked and that was unfortunate. So some of the contributions made there including the viability of an electric powered sliding ballast system will be reintroduced here. I am in the process of building a platform for this concept (one of three experimental ideas I will test over the next five years using the same basic platform). From continued study and working with this concept it appears that at around 22' a version could be done that would be capable of fairly high speed on foils since it will be extremely aerodynamically clean-just more potential for a very interesting concept.

BUT,and this is important: to be viable this boat does not have to be suitable for disabled sailors! Don't view this concept ONLY thru the lens of what might be suitable for disabled sailors.Here's a pix of the models with the movable ballast system supported by trapeze wires:

Doug Lord

10-07-2009, 06:55 PM

Ballast sliding in sealed wing and moved by hand.Wing supported by trapeze wires. Not selfrighting. No hydrofoils. Not suitable for disabled sailors-probably.Much faster than a 2.4 meter and lots of fun to sail-I think.Planing hull. Sealed wing slides side to side and lead inside wing also slides.
Very Rough sketch of this version of the concept:

Doug Lord

10-07-2009, 07:07 PM

Single hander with more power and faster than a 12' version. Possible use of foil assist. Electric or manual ballast movement. Possible small keel for a self-righting version in this length range. Planing hull. Can be designed for upwind planing. Sealed wing slides side to side and lead inside wing also slides.
Very Rough sketch of the concept:

Doug Lord

10-07-2009, 07:14 PM

Singlehander for highest performance. Electric or manual ballast movement. Can be designed to be self-righting. Can be designed to use lifting hydrofoils.
Design can be optimized with enclosed cockpit in non-self-righting version for potential high speeds on foils-largest version only(not suitable for disabled sailors). Self-righting version suitable for performance oriented disabled sailing is possible. High L/B hull. Sealed wing slides side to side and lead inside wing also slides.

Very Rough sketch:

Doug Lord

10-08-2009, 07:02 AM

From a man I respect a great deal from the previous thread:"My guess is that anyone who has tried to build model boats that feature "real life" performance has had ideas along these lines. Almost half of the models I built as a kid had some sort of movable ballast systems to make them sail faster in the typically windy place I lived. Because RC gear was beyond my means, I never tried to make a remote controlled shifting ballast system until I was over 45 years old. But I do have to admit that I had canting keels and racks that held ballast packages well out to windward, and sometimes these models went stupidly fast.
Could this be scaled up, probably but I am pretty unhappy with the so called "trapwing" concept that is being promoted. At least as portrayed in the images of model boats shown and from Doug's descriptions. I think it is awkward and that the difficulties outweigh the potential benefits.
Many people have come to me with versions of this over the years, and I haven't seen one I liked.
It is also worth noting that there were ballast carts on many cruising boats around Narragansett Bay in the mid 1800's. (Herreshoff"s Clara for one) This feature was not maintained as time wore on, I suspect because the kinetic risk of having a rail car full of a few thousand pounds of lead helt to the high side by a a pawl or equvalent mechanism was pretty disquieting. I know of no record of disasters, but I would have been pretty careful around these things. Talk about lose cannons!
However it is also fairly obvious to me that a faster version of the Martin 16 is possible. One has merely to refine away some of the compromises and make the obvious improvements to specifications to achieve that.
One important parameter is how much body shifting is acceptable within the notion of "sitting inside." Just being able to shift your bum or roll your shoulders to windward could be a significant increase in sail carrying power. So mobility within the constraint of "sit inside" needs further examination.
So while I don't see any reason why there can't be sit inside boats that sail very very well, I don't like the above deck shifting ballast system as proposed."
SHC
------------------
And once more:

" Doug:
Have you examined the difference between the two arcs made by the trap wires and created a hull/ wing containment that resolves them and is capable of what can be significant upward shock loads ( smacking waves) and fore and aft shock loads ( smacking pilings.)
Have you also resolved the conflict between the leeward (still tight) trap wire and the mainsail. As I see it if the leeward wing is to not extend beyond the leeward gunwale, there will be no way to ease the mainsail very far without centering the wing and sacrificing righting moment first.
Maybe that's why it has to be self righting!

Finally, having spent most of my adult life handling narrow boats with movable hiking extensions that slide through about 7' and extend about 3' from each rail when centered, I can assure you that handling these boats near docks and floats is a real challenge and a limitation for the concept. In the case of the IC, athletic sailors can compensate for a lot of inconvenience for performance, but otherwise it constantly limits where and how we sail the boats.

The freeboard of the float, for example, makes a big difference in how you approach and depart. Things as simple as sailing by a motorboat to pick up a water bottle are easily twice as hard as they are in a normal trapeze dinghy.

If this boat is supposed to be a fast boat for geezers and the less mobile, you have to think carefully about how one gets aboard and how one maneuvers and docks. Outriggers of any kind make this more difficult than otherwise.

In all of this, based on my experience with International Canoes, will be harder with an above deck sliding outrigger than with any of the existing alternatives. As such, even though I believe such a system is possible to construct I don't believe it is practical or attractive. Therefore, I believe its merits are not worth further research."
SHC
=====================================
My response from the previous thread:
---
Thanks for the comments Steve. I've given quite a bit of thought to how the trapeze wires work and to what extent they interfere with the main.
First, this was worked out on the models by:
1) having the trap wires go to the end of the racks,
2) having the whole ballast assembly mounted pivotably athwhartship,
3) having the trapwires adjustable,and
4) when the wing/rack is centered neither trap wire is tight but the wing/rack end is supported by shock cord-the whole thing is completly adjustable.
That's where we'll start on the full size boat.
As to shock loads on the full size boat-one idea is to have a line from the bow aft to the wing outboard rigged in such a way that the wing can move side to side but is reinforced against shock loading directly aft-as in a wing/wave impact. Need to look at athwhartship pivoting shock loads as well.
---
This boat is conceived of to be easily beach sailed. In Florida, we have loads of launch areas for a boat like this. The docking thing will be a problem-no doubt-we'll just have to see what kind of work-arounds can be found with experience on the water.
As to the viability of the boat for disabled sailing-it appears to be suitable theoretically, in some versions ,after talking to several disabled sailors. But that will need experience on the water to know for sure. I'm not at all sure that the Turbo version discussed in this thread will be ideal for that application but a couple of guys I talked to are excited by the idea. We'll see-soon I hope.
-----------------
I completely disagree with your conclusion that the problems you mention disqualify this concept from further development-but I very much appreciate your willingness to present them. Thanks. Only by studying, carefull design/building and testing a prototype can we know for sure. And, there are YEARS of model testing of boats that were skinny to wider boats that suggests that these problems can be solved.
====================
These comments are presented to give an idea of both the intelligent, well thought out criticism from Steve and my response from the previous thread. This is an idea that I think is worth some discussion and experimentation which I have already done a lot with on models. I'm interested in hearing any well reasoned comments, suggestions or similar ideas.

Doug Lord

10-10-2009, 08:35 PM

I just found some details about a story that I'd heard a few years ago-about
"Herreshoff" experimenting with on-deck sliding ballast.
This is from a book "Herreshoff Sailboats" by Gregory O. Jones and lays out some interesting details of the first recorded use of on-deck iron sliding ballast that I've been able to find. Apparently, new rules and sheer terror got in the way of further development though the two boats that used this form of ballast were very fast. The Seawanhaka Corinthian Yacht Club, formed in 1871 banned movable ballast.
Charles Herreshoff built four "Julias" ,the second was outfitted with an athwhartship track for 550lb. of iron ballast to slide. The method was to release the ballast from the windward side and allow it to slide to leeward just as the boat tacked. Charles designed a larger boat "Kelpie" that his two sons built that used a larger sliding ballast system-1000lb! Kelpie was very fast.
This stuff is exciting to read about and one can only speculate how these systems might have been refined over the years. I think modern versions of systems like these using lead or water have a tremendous potential in high performance boats of all sizes. I'm going to concentrate on small boats where I see an exciting opporunity to explore this interesting technology.

Doug Lord

10-11-2009, 07:49 PM

After rereading some of Steves comments here and on SA AND reading and re-reading the inspiring Herreshoff story I've decided to do a test version of the Trapwing system using almost the same system that you see on the models above. That is, instead of using the molded wing I will use carbon tubes with a "ballast module" sliding on it. The molded wing is the ideal configuration but right now it requires way too much tooling time and the carbon rack can be ready very quickly. It will allow me to test and refine the system and then, if I feel it still has potential, I'll do the molded and sealed wing. Basically, the whole system is mounted on a fore and aft carbon tube so the rack+ ballast can be adjusted fore and aft as necessary. The ballast module( battery box below) will slide athwhartship as does the whole rack. Since the rack has no(very little) buoyancy(like the sealed wing does) the buoyancy pods on the end of the rack tubes will be a bit larger than the wing requires.

Power Ballast System schematic:

Doug Lord

10-15-2009, 06:52 AM

Here is a great rendering done from one of the sketches above. It's not 100% accurate but does capture the essence of the "Turbo" High Performance version.
Done by sailing kid:

Doug Lord

10-15-2009, 07:04 PM

NOTE- the 16 is updated to 17.5 with an integrated rudder(appears doubleended). It will not be the first version-that is my 22 footer-under development now.
------------------------
TENTATIVE TECHNICAL DETAILS 17.5' VERSION:
originally posted in Design Challenge months ago; this version includes updates.

LOA 17.5' with integrated rudder(appears double-ended)
SA- 160 sq.ft. upwind 360 approx downwind if a spin is possible-definite spinnaker on wide version w/o foils
12' sliding "trapwing" with 160 lb ballast
All Up boat weight minus wing,wing ballast and keel ballast including rig:160lb
75lb keel bulb
130lb-180lb crew

----------------------------
And once again ,in detail:
LOA 17.5' using highly modified Blade or Falcon F16 hull(with integrated rudder) from Matt McDonald of Falcon,LLC in Port Canaveral, Fl.and:
Hull weight(with cockpit) 73lb(actual weight+ cockppit mod)
SA 160 sq. unstayed squaretop rig,carbon mast- 35lb
Foils-17lb (foil assist approx 70% lift depending on crew weight)
12' wing,all up-20lb
movable ballast-160 lb
motor,controls,battery (25lb est)

----------------------
SUB Total=330lb (405lb for Turbo self-righting version with fixed 75lb ballast in bulb integrated with "foil assist"foils)
crew=120-180lb
TOTAL = 510lb
====================
RM:
160@ 9' =1440ft.lb
20 @ 4' = 80ft.lb

------------------------------
Total= 1520ft.lb

HM@ 1lb/sq.ft. pressure = 1600 ft.lb.
------------------------------------
This is with crew contributing virtually nothing to RM. A side seat option allows the crew to sit slightly outboard but still in a relatively fixed position-for ablebodied crew only and it adds RM.
There is no guarantee that even after testing the skinny hull turbo version will be suitable for disabled sailors-only extensive testing will prove whether or not that is possible. IF that is possible it REQUIRES the selfrighting option.
==============
This thing will trailer with the wing pivoted fore and aft and will require the same room a WETA tri does to launch rigged at a launch ramp. In Florida the boat would launch using a dolly like a cat does and that will make it easy. Keep in mind how heavy the 2.4 meter is and it is successfully launched in many areas. This boat is much lighter than that-maybe about the same as a Bongo-and about the same as a Hobie 16. Launching will be no problem with a dolly on a beach and if the ramp is wide enough the boat can be launched right off the trailer. The BOAT WILL NOT BE CARTOPABLE.
The lead in the cart that slides athwhartship will be in approx. 20lb segments an will be REMOVABLE. There is no reason to sail with max ballast on a light day.
A production version would have a reefable rig.
This version will not be the first version which will be my 22 footer which is being worked on now. It will be done as soon as possible

Doug Lord

10-16-2009, 06:29 PM

Thanks to Rick Willoughby for doing this-very cool. You will have to click on "options" to enable macros.The spreadsheet moves the weight the distance you set in 1.5 seconds(for one cycle).The spreadsheet also incorporates a 20% grade-uphill(which the ballast would see infrequently). Rick has been a very big help-incredibly generous with his expertise!
Moving 70kg(154lb) 5.49m:
--in 4.5 seconds requires a 7.1 AH battery for well over* 8 hours of ballast movement equivalent to 5.49m(18') every 5 minutes.(1.83m in 1.5 seconds)
--in 5.49 seconds requires a 5.8 AH battery for the same(1.5m in 1.5 seconds)
*and I do mean well over....
------------

Doug Lord

10-17-2009, 07:46 PM

Thanks again to Julian Bethwaite for the comments and information posted here:
-----------
One of my inspirations -that has bolstered my own work on this project- is the Bethwaite/Billoch collaboration on the concept of Pterodactyl-which was conceived of to use on-deck movable ballast. Here is the original SA article: http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe...teradactyl.htm
--------------
What wasn't known then was what Julian says about it here. I asked him to comment on the Trapwing which he did in a PM that I'm publishing here with his permission. He reveals who was behind the Pterodactyl project:

"A few years back these pages graced a thing called the Pterodactyl, it was a big double proa that Russel Coutts and Paul Cayard asked me to do as the ultimate circuit boat. Among other things its nice to see the OMR*go that route, but Russel was big on having 3 tonne of lead on tracks moving from side to side, inside the wing beams. I thought moving water through 200mm diameter pipes would be better, but the concept has merit. Your issue is that unless you have significant tip pods, then you will never be able to react quickly enough to keep the wings out of the water. Just cant do it! "

*Ocean Multihull Rule: it is the predominant rating rule used in Asia (and
Australia) it seems for handicap racing in this part of the world.(dl)

Pictures of Pterodactyl:

Doug Lord

11-05-2009, 07:10 PM

Here is another model that used the precursor to the Trapwing system:

Doug Lord

11-12-2009, 06:47 PM

One of the main themes of this design concept is that the resulting boat can be a self-righting keelboat. I was intrigued by the K1 concept( http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/neat-singlehanded-keelboat-uk-30059.html ) where the designer chose a narrow waterline semi-circular section hull that was designed to be sailed heeled instead of flat like most planing hull dinghies. The Bongo is an example of a small keelboat with a planing hull. I've never really thought that was a good way to go because in order to plane the Bongo must be sailed flat which means that the keel bulb is not developing any RM. And while I like the K1 and the designers thinking I don't think it comes close to an easy to sail keelboat along the lines of a 2.4 meter. And no way are either the Bongo or the K1 "high performance".
--
The beauty of the Trapwing system seems to me to be that on a boat with a planing hull that has the power to plane in 10k or under it can be sailed flat upwind and downwind and can be designed to plane upwind and downwind.

And high performance with a self-righting capability thanks to the design of the movable ballast wing and a bulb keel. Also, since the weight in/on the wing and the wing itself is moving to develop righting moment the crew is not taxed physically and can sail the boat with the ease of a 2.4 meter but with much more performance. I don't think there is a small keelboat anywhere that offers all this and that makes it extremely attractive to me.

The advantages as I see them:
1) easy to sail by almost any weight sailor.
2) self-righting
3) high performance-planing upwind and downwind
4) variable wing ballast-moved manually or electrically
5) two seating options-a.sit in and, b. side to side
6) reefable rig

tom28571

11-13-2009, 10:55 AM

Doug Lord

11-13-2009, 05:58 PM

Doug,

You are not getting a lot of interest so far.
Ok, one big problem with any design that uses transverse movable ballast is that the righting moment decreases with increasing heeling. Not a good thing. A keel bulb, on the other hand, increases righting moment with more heel angle.
==================
You're right, I guess-though a fair number of people have looked at some part of the thread. And I've enjoyed being able to put a lot of info in ,more or less, one place. I hope to add pictures of a prototype after the first of the year.

I think the best way to look at this is a two person trapeze dinghy with the crew max out on trapeze and the boat sailed flat. While the crew cg will move inboard slightly with 20 degrees of heel, the cb of the hull moves to leeward actually increasing RM. After 20 degrees it might be time to reduce sail or feather the main.
But there is one other thing adding to RM-and that's the keel bulb which increases RM with heel-though very slightly within the optimum heel range. This type of boat would be sailed like a planing dinghy-sailed flat or with a max 20 degrees angle of heel.

I think it could be fun.....

capt vimes

01-12-2010, 07:08 AM

interesting concept, doug...

have you thought of shaping the trapwing in an wide arc curving towards the watersurface with some small floating devices at either end... so that it looks like a trimaran with 2 small outriggers...
then when heeling over move the whole trapwing some distance to windward, the moveable ballast on it of course as well...

the leeward floating device at the trapwings tip will follow the curve of the trapwing and thus coming up a bit, while the windward floating device goes down and with it the ballast at ist end... lowering the CG and increasing RM because you 'extend' its righting arm, whereas in a flat configuration the righting arm is decreased the more it heels... (this increase in righting arm will only work to a certain heel angle of course)

the leeward outrigger might still be on the surface adding to bouancy and form stability...

and now consider mounting the shrouds via some linkage on the trapwing to the side of the hull...
if you move the trapwing to windward the shrouds will be 'shortened' on the windward side and 'lengthened' at the leeward side and thus shifting the whole mast to windward, let it stand upright instead of heeled to leeward with the hull...

i do not have a scanner at hand right now otherwise i would try and draw some explenatory scetches...
there are some serious technical issues to overcome of course but as an idea it is sound - i think...

Doug Lord

01-12-2010, 07:37 AM

Thanks capt vimes, appreciate the input! One minor thing to consider when racing(against different boats) is that the Trapwing boats are supposed to be monohulls-so the more they work like a trimaran the harder it will be to make the case for a monohull.
There will definitely be buoyancy at the ends of the wing but my theory is that the system will move fast enough that ,after some practice, the skipper may be able to mostly keep the wing out of the water. That's the idea,anyway.

Doug Lord

02-03-2010, 06:31 PM

Doug Lord

02-11-2010, 11:42 AM

interesting concept, doug...

and now consider mounting the shrouds via some linkage on the trapwing to the side of the hull...
if you move the trapwing to windward the shrouds will be 'shortened' on the windward side and 'lengthened' at the leeward side and thus shifting the whole mast to windward, let it stand upright instead of heeled to leeward with the hull...

=============================
capt vimes, I missed this first time around-sorry. My initial reaction is that adding shroud loading to the wing would drastically affect the power required to move the wing which, right now, is very little. The skinny hull turbo version of the boat would be designed to sail on hydrofoils and would also sail upwind with veal heel which would angle the whole boat to weather up to 20 degrees.
The Trapwing 15 is designed to be sailed flat- very little if any heel(except in very light air). It seems to me-at this point- that keeping the wing independent of rig loading would probably be the best way to go. As of now the shrouds are attached to the boat with a bridle so that they don't interfere with the fore and aft movement of the wing.
Thanks again for your comments!

Doug Lord

02-11-2010, 09:12 PM

These are the final rough sketches of this boat-next step are a sail plan sketch, building plans and probably a model. The boat allows "sit-inside" control(as well as a fixed side to side removable rail seat with seat back) and different rigs. The hull is likely to be foil assisted-with at least a rudder t-foil. Depending on the results of some experiments the hull may also feature a stepped planing hull or midship interceptor. The Trapwing slides athwhartship and fore and aft (crew can slide F&A). The shrouds use a bridle to allow the wing to move F&A. The cockpit is self-bailing and the boat will be self-righting though a turbo version w/o the keel will be experimented with. The hull is wider at the waterline than it is on deck to keep weight down. For the "sit-in" version there is no need for hull flare.
--
The boat will be built "one-off" out of thin(.125") Okume from Boulter and carbon. She will be built upsidedown from the inside out, with the bottom* the last to be done. Since I insist on an excellent finish and I hate to sand I'm trying a new technique(to me) this time. Once the wood is completed and faired to the degree necessary, sheets of very thin carbon ,laid up on sheet glass with a vacuum(no gel coat or primer this time), will be bonded to the wood to (hopefully) 100% eliminate sanding with virtually no weight gain. Many of my models that were to be painted had primer sprayed into the mold instead of gel coat. Worked well with the right primer and was much lighter. In this case, no primer since I want to see how good this system will turn out with the carbon weave exposed. This system may produce a spectacular finish comparable to a molded finish with almost no sanding and be pretty quick as well.
* Note:The plywood skin is attached to frames on the outside of the boat; the deck and cockpit are done first,then the sides. The inside is then carboned and the frames,spin trough and tube added and carboned in. The bottom is fitted ,carboned on the inside and immediately bonded in place. Finally, the sides and deck are removed from the frame and the (minor!)fairing and sheet carbon "skining" is done. The chine and deck edge are carboned in the old fashioned way-so a bit of sanding there. The extruded "bent" carbon rod for the bow handle(see rough sketch) is added when the sides are and dressed up at this point.--------
LOA 15'
Beam 4.5'
SA upwind-130-150 sit in(175 turbo)
SA downwind 230-325
Hull weight 110lb
All up sailing weight=521lb sit-in/439 w/o keel / turbo 475lb
---

Doug Lord

02-13-2010, 07:03 PM

Here is a rough sketch of the sailplan @ 147 sq.ft. and the jib system. The main is a reefable luff sock type with camber inducers. This same system was used on my 16' foiler and worked well with shrouds as shown. As mentioned previously, the shrouds terminate in a bridle to allow fore and aft movement of the wing. The top of the mast is 21.25' off the water; the top of the rig is 22.8' above the water. Both sails will have full battens.
----
The jib system uses a molded carbon boom/endplate with the forestay and clew attached directly to it. The tack(luff tension) is adjustable as is the clew attachment. This is similar to the system used on model boats except that the pivot point of the jib boom/endplate is attached to a sliding car on a track that slides athwhartship. This is done so that the luff of the jib stays on the cl. A non structural extension of the forestay fits into a recess in the deck to prevent fouling the spinnaker. An external "leech line" is sometimes used on model boats but probably won't be necessary. The pivot point will be movable on the boom about 6" fore and aft. This system is being used to add to the control of the square top jib.

Timothy

02-13-2010, 09:19 PM

Doug Lord

02-13-2010, 09:44 PM

Doug ,the rig looks great. I have a couple of questions. How do you reef the main ? If the luff pocket is to be effective the battens are presumably under tension holding the pocket against the mast. Even if the battens have cars and are on a track some how they must be shortened (telescoping?)to lower sail, or a separate out haul might be fitted to each batten. Seems complicated. I know that on my wrap around sails it is imperative that I let go the out haul and any reefs when lowering sail or the luff will bind. The problem is amplified with a tapered mast with a suitable leading edge. Does the jib pivot point slide to leeward or is it hauled to windward ?
--------------------
Thanks ,Timothy! On the original rig the battens didn't initially have camber inducers and it was just a matter of lowering the sail-the battens really didn't cause any problem but they were not ideal either. Then we(my sailmaker and I) tried a couple of camber inducers. They were a problem until we came up with a "guide wire" that ran thru the camber inducer. It worked ok but on the new rig a method (adding delron to the back side of the mast) will be used to reduce friction. The luff of the sail had a zipper so it could be opened up as the sail came down. The first system wasn't ideal but proved that the concept would work. I'm not 100% convinced that we need a reefable sail on this boat but the proto will have one. The mast section is a constant diameter round section. By the way, the main would be reefed only after removing the jib....
Also, there is no reason to shorten or remove battens-they can be just rolled up with the bottom part of the sail.
-------------
The jib pivot slide slides to leeward and the limits are adjustable. The only part of this that hasn't been tested is the non-structural "forestay extension"
which is necessary because of the spinnaker-(I think).

pix-orig rig:

Doug Lord

02-14-2010, 07:19 PM

Inspired by Pi and because I'm ready to check the prelim numbers, heres what I have so far. This is the non turbo version w/o the keel:
--SCP=133.6 (RM divided by distance from CE to CLR)
--Total weight(displ.)=439lb
--SCP/Total Weight= .3
--SA/ws= 4.2/1
--W/SA= 2.98/1( Weight in pounds divided by SA in sq.ft./compares to 3.1 for R class and 2.8 Moth w Gulari) relevant only to boat with foils which it probably won't have.
--SA/D(SA in sq.ft divided by volume of displ. raised to the .667 power)=40.69
--DLR(Disp. in long tons divided by(lwl/100)cubed= 57.86
--S#=9.59 (see following post for details)

Doug Lord

02-15-2010, 10:42 AM

The S number is presented here by Eric Sponberg: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/center-flotation-calculation-implications-30857-14.html#post344904

And it is defined as:

"The equation for S# is an exponential and logarithmic function using DLR and SA/D as the primary variables. We already know how to calculate DLR and SA/D, and I am going to remove the slash “/” from SA/D so that it is less confusing in the S# equation— we’ll use the term “SAD.” Although the S# equation looks complex, it can be easily programmed into a calculator or a spreadsheet. Here it is:

S# = 3.972 x 10^[-DLR/526 + 0.691 x (log(SAD)-1)^0.8]
Brooks collected a list of boat designs and their particulars from various published sources and calculated their S#s. Then he classified the boats according to the following categories:

· Lead Sled: S# = 1 to 2
· Cruiser: S# = 2 to 3
· Racer-Cruiser: S# = 3 to 5
· Racing Machine: S# = 5 to 10
=====================
For the Trapwing 15 :
S#= 9.59

Munter

02-15-2010, 04:31 PM

Doug Lord

02-15-2010, 04:56 PM

Doug. Would you remind the infidels why you are putting the jib "tack" on a track? Are you planning on needing any rig tension to keep that supremely high aspect jib luff taught? What happens when that load is applied at the gunnel instead of on the centerline? It looks like unnecessary complexity.
-----------------------------------
First, the jib "tack" is not on a track-it is attached to the jib boom adjustably just aft of where the forestay is attached to the same boom. The clew is also attached adjustably to the aft end of the boom.
Then the pivot point of the jib boom is attached to a car on a traveler. The pivot point is adjustable fore and aft on the boom. This gives tension on the jib leach better than you can get any other way as best I can tell.
On the original incarnation of this type of jib I had a jib traveller but no boom
and could have used more tension. Then I used a back stay but I think there was an untoward amount of tension on the forestay. This way I think I'll have more control and less total tension required.
The original jib traveler on a bigger version of this sail was attached only at the gunnel-this will be pretty much the same. I'm fairly well convinced that a masthead skinny jib like this could be better all round on this type of boat. It actually uses a shorter traveller than it would if it was carrying the jib sheet, which on this rig is led from center on the deck with very little load. Its actually simpler and more effective than version 1- I think, and both appear more effective than a "normal" jib of the same area.
see the sketch above....

Munter

02-15-2010, 05:03 PM

Yes, I understand the layout but why is the rotation point on a track?

Doug Lord

02-15-2010, 05:18 PM

Yes, I understand the layout but why is the rotation point on a track?

Well, the jib wouldn't set unless the point of pivot moved to leeward. It would not function well at or near center(or at all with the restraint we are using at the front end of the boom). It moves to leeward until the angle between the CL of the boom and the CL of the boat is around 8 degrees-though it is fully adjustable.
On some "normal" model boats, the forward end of the jib boom is actually to weather when the pivot is on the centerline. Through experiments I know this system points better than that arrangement.

Munter

02-15-2010, 05:42 PM

Doug Lord

02-15-2010, 05:55 PM

Do you mean that if the rotation point were fixed it would have a tendency to backwind the main?
I think your design ideas need to be tempered by some practical experience and time on the water. There is more to design than optimization of a single variable. For example, the high aspect jib will likely prove twitchy and difficult to set, particularly if you try to run some rig tension down the leech and have a floating tack. The high aspect might be theoretically more efficient but I think in practice you would find handling issues reduce it's effectiveness to below that of one of more normal proportions. I'm not going to comment further. I think you've made up your mind already and discovery of these issues will have to wait until the boat hits the water. When will that be?

------------------------------
This jib pivot slide system was tested on a 26' racing boat for several years. I met the guy that did it online when he saw my original posts on this idea for rc boats. In addition, I tested models using it for three-four years. The high aspect masthead square top jib was tested on models and on my 16 footer. Seems like it will be very effective based on that testing.

Timothy

02-15-2010, 08:10 PM

Doug Why is it better to have the jib luff to leeward? I always thought that It was better to have the tack to windward, I suppose mainly to reduce sheet loads (Lugs, lateen,swing rigs, junks ,wings). I guess because your jib arrangement is balanced anyway,you feel that a leeward luff allows the jib to be sheeted in more without back winding the main ,or is it that the such a high aspect jibs main function is to keep the laminar flow attached to the critical leading edge of the main and you feel that this is done more effectively with the luff to leeward?

Doug Lord

02-15-2010, 08:21 PM

Doug Lord

02-20-2010, 09:32 AM

This post and its associated sketches pretty well define the planing hull version of the Trapwing concept. It is designed to be able to be configured in both a high power Turbo version, with numbers reflective of very powerfull skiffs, and in a less powerfull, less demanding version that will still be able to plane upwind with crew weights from 120 to 180 with maximum crew weight up to 220. The sailing configuration is also changeable from a "sit-in" arrangement for a single crew sitting in the center to sitting on the rail in special carbon seats(with backs and cushions) that simply plug in and are easily removable.
The 15 is the result of lots of experimenting and research into moderate and high performance planing versions of this concept-a concept that allows less athletic people to use on-deck movable ballast to experience the thrill of sailing a planing hull boat. Comments and suggestions welcome....

These are the final rough sketches of this boat-next step are a sail plan sketch, building plans and probably a model. The boat allows "sit-inside" control(as well as a fixed side to side removable rail seat with seat back) and different rigs. The hull is likely to be foil assisted-with at least a rudder t-foil. Depending on the results of some experiments the hull may also feature a stepped planing hull or midship interceptor. The Trapwing slides athwhartship and fore and aft (crew can slide F&A). The shrouds use a bridle to allow the wing to move F&A. The cockpit is self-bailing and the boat will be self-righting though a turbo version w/o the keel will be experimented with. The hull is wider at the waterline than it is on deck to keep weight down. For the "sit-in"
version there is no need for hull flare.
--
The boat will be built "one-off" out of thin(.125") Okume from Boulter and carbon. She will be built upsidedown from the inside out, with the bottom* the last to be done. Since I insist on an excellent finish and I hate to sand I'm trying a new technique(to me) this time. Once the wood is completed and faired to the degree necessary, sheets of very thin carbon ,laid up on sheet glass with a vacuum(no gel coat or primer this time), will be bonded to the wood to (hopefully) 100% eliminate sanding with virtually no weight gain. Many of my models that were to be painted had primer sprayed into the mold instead of gel coat. Worked well with the right primer and was much lighter. In this case, no primer since I want to see how good this system will turn out with the carbon weave exposed. This system may produce a spectacular finish comparable to a molded finish with almost no sanding and be pretty quick as well.
* Note:The plywood skin is attached to frames on the outside of the boat; the deck and cockpit are done first,then the sides. The inside is then carboned and the frames,spin trough and tube added and carboned in. The bottom is fitted ,carboned on the inside and immediately bonded in place. Finally, the sides and deck are removed from the frame and the (minor!)fairing and sheet carbon "skining" is done. The chine and deck edge are carboned in the old fashioned way-so a bit of sanding there. The extruded "bent" carbon rod for the bow handle(see rough sketch) is added when the sides are and dressed up at this point.--------
LOA 15'
Beam 4.5'
SA upwind-130-150 sit in(175 turbo)
SA downwind 230-325
Hull weight 110lb
All up sailing weight=521lb sit-in/439 w/o keel / turbo 475lb
---------------
Numbers
---------------
--SCP=133.6 (RM divided by distance from CE to CLR)
--Total weight(displ.)=439lb
--SCP/Total Weight= .3
--SA/ws= 4.2/1
--W/SA= 2.98/1( Weight in pounds divided by SA in sq.ft./compares to 3.1 for R class and 2.8 Moth w Gulari) relevant only to boat with foils which it probably won't have.
--SA/D(SA in sq.ft divided by volume of displ. raised to the .667 power)=40.69
--DLR(Disp. in long tons divided by(lwl/100)cubed= 57.86
--S#=9.59 (see post #25 for explanation)

---
================
Click on images:

bistros

02-20-2010, 10:03 AM

Somehow I doubt you really want to solicit feedback, perhaps it would be simpler to ask for unthinking support and validation. Twenty seven out of thirty five posts in this thread are your own.

Doug, this concept depends exclusively on a complex mechanical gizmo for it basic safety. If the trapwing fails, there is no way this boat will remain upright, given the potentially very powerful rig. To meet mathematical ratios necessary for upwind planing, the rig power is way out of proportion for operating with a trapwing failure. Given there is no option for hiking, this means a trapwing failure means capsize without recovery.

I've seen International Canoes with broken sliding seats, and they are not sailable or paddle-able. And on an IC, were talking about a highly mobile crew at a very high skill level.

Although the trapwing concept does provide a potentially valid answer to adding righting moment for mobility challenged (or plain lazy) crew, the lack of safety margin renders it unacceptable to me, and I'd hazard a guess it would be unacceptable to insurance carriers.

The biggest problem I see is that you are making the trapwing concept the PRIMARY and only righting moment contributor. The concept makes a lot more sense as a secondary aid. Putting buoyancy at the ends of the trapwing is only a failure mode asset if it is fixed in position, like a trimaran's amas. The complexity of the trapwing, the fact it is intended to move side to side, and the lack of margin for error is why I think the concept is unacceptable.

I know you don't agree with anyone who doesn't agree with you, and I really don't want to hear you "refute" these points with the same nonsense you've repeated over the years. The only acceptable argument you can post is pictures of the thing actually working, and a statement from an insurance company that they would underwrite a policy on the boat for use by the intended audience. Deeds, not words.

--
Bill

Doug Lord

02-20-2010, 12:46 PM

bistros

02-20-2010, 08:11 PM

I welcome constructive criticism, suggestions or ideas. Some posts are presented with a "tone" that I may find objectionable coming ,as they many times do, with no technical grounds or references and coupled with a great deal of presumption. I appreciate them all, however, especially critical posts similar to those I quoted from Steve Clark. All of them help to think this out to one degree or another. I will answer all of them to the best of my ability.

From posts 20 & 34:
--The cockpit is self-bailing and the boat will be self-righting though a turbo version w/o the keel will be
experimented with.
-- The boat allows "sit-inside" control(as well as a fixed side to side removable rail seat with seat back and different rigs).

===============
-- The trapwing concept has been experimented with in model testing for over 10 years-there has never been a failure. As with any other boat, if this boat was to be introduced into production the full size version would undergo exhaustive testing of systems overseen by a marine engineer and naval architect. At present the plan is to build the 15 for my own personal use and testing.
-- The safety margin is designed in and is greater than that found on a keelboat(the keel might break or fall off) and is greater than that found on any multihull or performance dinghy of normal design. Again, this would be backed up by rigorous testing before a production version was introduced.
-- the part that I agree with from post 35: "..the trapwing concept does provide a potentially valid answer to adding righting moment for mobility challenged (or plain lazy) crew...."

Disagreeing can certainly be constructive, especially if it may prevent someone from being hurt.

I did point out that the trapwing concept may be a better idea as a SECONDARY aid to righting moment. Perhaps you have not considered that fixed buoyancy pods (amas actually) combined with your trapwing idea would be safer, have greater failure recovery and may still meet your performance goals. This would also reduce complexity dramatically and make things a lot more reliable.

I'm not against the idea of the trapwing, I'm against the idea of the trapwing as primary righting moment provider and as only active failure recovery method. Complexity is the enemy of reliability.

Rather than consider only the radical PRIMARY path forward, why not consider the incremental path forward where you cover your bets a little more carefully?

--
Bill

Doug Lord

02-20-2010, 08:55 PM

Disagreeing can certainly be constructive, especially if it may prevent someone from being hurt.

I did point out that the trapwing concept may be a better idea as a SECONDARY aid to righting moment. Perhaps you have not considered that fixed buoyancy pods (amas actually) combined with your trapwing idea would be safer, have greater failure recovery and may still meet your performance goals. This would also reduce complexity dramatically and make things a lot more reliable.

Bill
=================
Sounds like a tri to me and was considered early on. However, the system that will be used has been tested in models for a long time, as I mentioned above. And all that testing and experimenting led to the conclusion that the sliding wing with buoyancy pods at the ends represents the way to proceed with full scale testing-with significant advantages over a tri with fixed amas and movable ballast. Much was learned including the use of the combination of fixed keel and sliding on-deck ballast(trapwing) supported by trapeze wires, athwartship pivoting and its relationship to keeping the lee side of the wing clear of the water and the importance of F&A movement of the wing. The design elements that permit the simple trailering of the system, and the major elements of the structural design were tested in the models for functionality and improved over the years. It's time for full size testing in a boat that will serve as a pre-production prototype. I had initially wanted to carry this testing out on a 21' platform that will serve other experimental purposes as well. I have been persuaded that this concept should be evaluated with a design specifically developed for the Trapwing-hence the 15-and a possible 10' version. Full size testing is bound to refine the design even more and help to make it a simple ,exciting boat to sail without the requirement of athletic prowess. Ease of sailing and high performance are the essence of the concept but there are numerous levels of performance to be explored during testing. The Trapwing should be a lot of fun to sail with the crew having RM at their fingertips-it surely was a blast in model testing.
The performance advantages of the concept for a singlehanded sailor are potentially very exciting in all conditions. One of the most important characteristics of this concept is that the crew weight range is extremely wide since the crew adds nothing to RM-something like 120lb to 220 lb.

Doug Lord

02-24-2010, 10:31 PM

This was posted earlier in this thread but it sums up the advantages of a planing version of the Trapwing concept so well that I thought it was appropo to quote it here since it was done before I had finalized a planing design-the 15:

"One of the main themes of this design concept is that the resulting boat can be a self-righting keelboat. I was intrigued by the K1 concept( http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/neat-singlehanded-keelboat-uk-30059.html ) where the designer chose a narrow waterline semi-circular section hull that was designed to be sailed heeled instead of flat like most planing hull dinghies. The Bongo is an example of a small keelboat with a planing hull. I've never really thought that was a good way to go because in order to plane the Bongo must be sailed flat which means that the keel bulb is not developing any RM. And while I like the K1 and the designers thinking I don't think it comes close to an easy to sail keelboat along the lines of a 2.4 meter. And no way are either the Bongo or the K1 "high performance".
--
The beauty of the Trapwing system seems to me to be that on a boat with a planing hull that has the power to plane in 10k or under it can be sailed flat upwind and downwind and can be designed to plane upwind and downwind.

And high performance with a self-righting capability thanks to the design of the movable ballast wing and a bulb keel. Also, since the weight in/on the wing and the wing itself is moving to develop righting moment the crew is not taxed physically and can sail the boat with the ease of a 2.4 meter but with much more performance. I don't think there is a small keelboat anywhere that offers all this and that makes it extremely attractive to me.

The advantages as I see them:
1) easy to sail by almost any weight sailor.
2) self-righting
3) high performance-planing upwind and downwind
4) variable wing ballast-moved manually or electrically
5) two seating options-a.sit in and, b. side to side
6) reefable rig

Doug Lord

03-04-2010, 06:43 PM

I'm not against the idea of the trapwing, I'm against the idea of the trapwing as primary righting moment provider and as only active failure recovery method. Complexity is the enemy of reliability.

--
Bill

---------------------------------
Of course, I'm sure you read that the boat (non-turbo version) includes a fixed keel as back up and to right the boat from a pitchpole should that ever occur.
From the research I've done the trapwing system on a dinghy is far less complex than a canting keel(that has no backup)-and "safer" than any 'keel-only' boat for that matter. And again, the safety margin is designed in and would be backed up by thorough testing giving 100% confidence in the system.
Interestingly, Dave Trude( 2.4 meter sailor and webmaster at SA) has said he would sail the boat. He'd said that a couple of years ago and repeated it the other day. He also recommended another guy he thought might be interested and who lives in Florida. So there is interest and a lot of help available when it comes time to evaluate the concept from both the ablebodied and disabled perspectives.
This thing offers tremendous potential for high performance sailing without the athleticism normally associated with that kind of sailing-and is bound to create a great deal of excitement as people begin to experience it first hand.

Chris Ostlind

03-04-2010, 07:07 PM

With no hostility attached here, Doug... Just which of the many boats you have going, as "in development" projects, are you actually working on at the moment?

I'm seeing you go back and forth from 60 foot Moth, to C-Class Hydrop style foiler, to Trapwing I and II, to DSS this and People's Foiler That, to test bed 21 foot foiler-trapper-ballasted-winged-Dr. Sam exercise to.... the next cool concept from your imagination. ;-)

Truthfully, I'm just a bit more than confused about all this. Personally, I have four different design projects going on myself right now, though they are each much less complex than the above mentioned craft and they are, best of all, projects that have been requested by paying customers. Still, each time I sit down to the computer and sketch pad, I have to reacquaint myself with the details of each project, or I tend to crash around a bit before returning to smooth efficiency of purpose.

Which one of these boats of yours is actually going forward with a build by you, or anybody else? Do you have a priority involved here, or is it all just sort of blobbing along as one big amalgam. Are there any photos you can share with all of us that show the boat being built and best of all... do you have a launch date that we can look forward to with anticipation?

Call me confused, but all this seems to be just a bit tangled for my typically messy organization abilities and I'd like to bring it into focus a bit better.

Doug Lord

03-04-2010, 07:53 PM

With no hostility attached here, Doug... Call me confused, but all this seems to be just a bit tangled for my typically messy organization abilities and I'd like to bring it into focus a bit better.

========================
To the extent they can be(will be) those questions have already been answered in this thread and other threads.

Doug Lord

03-10-2010, 12:51 PM

Thanks to Dave Trude ,I have made the acquaintance of one of the most respected coaches and boat builders involved with disabled sailing in the USA.
He is a well known championship sailor in many classes including the Lightning and several others.
Part of the good news is that he thinks the Trapwing concept has great potential-he loves the concept. The other part is that he will help to develop the boat.
With this encouragement I have decided to drop everything and concentrate 100% on the Trapwing prototype which will be based on an already existing hull and will resemble the 15 but be a couple of feet longer. I will devote myself to making this concept a reality and with help from Mark and Dave make it suitable for disabled sailing. All of us think it can be done and, if we do it, result in a remarkable new way to sail for ablebodied and disabled sailors. For a lot of reasons this has become the most important development project I have ever worked on with its potential to help thousands of sailors enjoy a new kind of sailing not yet seen on this planet. Thanks, guys!
Pictures of a model of the new prototype will ,hopefully, be up in a week or less.

Paul B

03-10-2010, 01:14 PM

Pictures of a model of the new prototype will be up in a week or less.

Why are you wasting time building a model? Why not just build the boat?

Doug Lord

03-11-2010, 10:44 AM

Why are you wasting time building a model? Why not just build the boat?

=========================
A model is a long way from "wasting time"! A model helps to identify problems ahead of time and helps to visualize the way things work. I've built a model for almost every boat I've designed and built-it's a very usefull excercise.
The prototype is being built on an existing hull of a design of mine for which the original model exists. The "new" model will result from modifications made to the old model in about the same way it will be done full size and that will be a big help.

bistros

03-11-2010, 12:55 PM

=========================
A model is a long way from "wasting time"! A model helps to identify problems ahead of time and helps to visualize the way things work. I've built a model for almost every boat I've designed and built-it's a very usefull excercise.
The prototype is being built on an existing hull of a design of mine for which the original model exists. The "new" model will result from modifications made to the old model in about the same way it will be done full size and that will be a big help.

I'm sure a model will help dramatically, especially when there are little to no actual formal design tools (CAD,CAE), experience using those tools and formal education in place to provide the same level of support to the process. Traditional shipbuilders used half models long before Solidworks, Prosurf and Rhino etc. appeared. A lot of the old guys got a lot right by eye and by model making.

Typically, professionals today use sophisticated computerized tools with integrated "rules" and engineering design parameters to help make sure things work as envisioned. Without these tools to help the process, it is far easier to make a scale model and "test" functionality on a smaller scale both in size and expense.

I'd be willing to bet Doug will be far ahead of the game building a model, as his legal pad drawings are effectively useless in predicting and solving problems. I'd also be willing to bet that Doug has adapted his "design" process around models as they become essential as the only real reference used to build the final product.

If I were Doug, I'd invest the time necessary to learn and use the current tools of the trade - the one problem with doing things the traditional way he does is that material science and optimization stops being easy, and mistakes and engineering problems are amplified. It isn't hard making something strong, and it isn't hard making something light, but really light and just strong enough isn't easy.

If the goal is just drawings, computers aren't a huge benefit - but if you embrace the "Computer-Aided Design" component of CAD, the resulting drawings incorporate and reduce the need for a lot of modeling and trial and error design.

--
Bill

Paul B

03-11-2010, 05:18 PM

I'm sure a model will help dramatically, especially when there are little to no actual formal design tools (CAD,CAE), --
Bill

Models can be useful as proof of concept. To be useful they need to be representative.

If you have not done proper preliminary design why would you build a model? I don't know any good designers or engineers who would do that.

You don't need CAD to do preliminary design, kinematics, and engineering.

Doug Lord

03-11-2010, 05:48 PM

The following is a detailed look at the characteristics of the new Prototype, as well as the design elements it will encompass and test:
-----
Trapwing Prototype:
LOA 17'
Beam hull-3.25' overall 12'(subject to testing)
Weight- hull 155lb
ballast-wing 80-180lb(variable and subject to testing)
keel 0-80(subject to testing)
SA-upwind 100-180sq.ft. variable
downwind 200-360sq.ft. (variable and subject to testing)
crew-singlehanded-120lb-220lb (variable and equalized under class rules-
subject to testing)
crew position for racing on the centerline inside boat, fixed
athwhartships, variable fore and aft
--------------------
1) Sail area to be between 100 and 180 sq.ft
a-different rigs
b-different amounts of ballast
--
2) Ballast wing to be supported by trapeze wires and unique retention system that allows wing and ballast to slide simultaneously, allows athwhartship pivoting and fore and aft movement.
a-version one will use two aluminum tubes with sliding external tray- the tubes and tray move simulataneously:
-attachment system allows wing- with weight centered-to be levered up and then pivoted from a position 90 degrees to the CL to a position parallel to the centerline for transport and stowage.
-weight can be added or removed in small increments.
-fore and aft pivot/sliding tube is mounted to the boat slightly offset from the CL to allow room to retract board/keel.
-aluminum tubes terminate at outboard ends in buoyancy pods-pods will be changeable as determined in testing.
-sliding ballast tray and structural design of wing to be capable of 180lb max ballast @9' from CL; ballast completely adjustable in the range of 80 to 180lb.
b-version two is a slightly curved(athwhartship), molded and sealed(with sealable access to ballast tray) wing with an internal sliding ballast tray. This version will be the final version and incorporates all the features of version one with significantly increased sealed buoyancy.
c-Wing movement by manual or electric means. Minimum electrical movement speed 4' per second. Minimum electrical "stamina" on single battery-12 hours at a rate equivalent to a approximately 60 (full track)tacks per hour.
--
3) Crew Position
a-version one-racing position-allows crew to sit in an extremely comfortable seat that is fixed athwhartship and slides fore and aft adjustably while sailing.
-extremely wide crew weight range:for racing lower tray attached to seat may contain ballast used to equalize crew weight in the range of 120 to 220 lb.
-seat may be moved manually or electrically.
b-version two-center seat is removed and two fixed carbon seats with backrests are "plugged-in" to each side deck.
--
4) Rigs to be tested are main and jib, main alone, with and without an asymetrical spinnaker.
a-asymetrical will be tested as permanently mounted off a bowsprit(a la Weta tri) or retracted into a trough with roller(a la Viper) and a retractable pole.
b-mast to be sealed with masthead floatation in an endplate configuration. Some buoyancy possible in head of sail.
--
5)-Daggerboard/ keel/rudder
a -boat will be tested with and without a retractable "lifting keel"
which would essentially be a carbon daggerboard with the minimum ballast required(determined in testing) to right the boat from a pitchpole(where the wing buoyancy may not significantly help).
b-self-righting from a knockdown or pitchpole is a required design element for any version of the boat used for disabled sailing.

c-a turbo version of the boat will not use a ballasted keel and may not be suitable for disabled sailing but this will be determined in testing.
d- the daggerboard may include as standard a lifting hydrofoil designed to provide "foil-assist" to reduce wetted surface and in conjunction with the rudder hydrofoil improve the pitch and planing characterstics of the
boat.
e-a fully flying hydrofoil system will be tested as will a fully flying system that allows the boat to fly downwind only(requiring less upwind SA and less ballast).
f-rudder will be retractable with a t-foil.
--
6)-On the Beach
a-the boat will be able to be easily beach sailed with a dolly incorporated into the trailer design to make it very simple to go from trailer to water. A "power assist" dolly may be available.
--
7)-Performance
a- the goal is to develop a high performance planing sailboat that can be safely sailed from a center crew position by disabled or able-bodied sailors. I am hoping to be able to achieve an SCP/total weight of 30% or slightly better though that is just a target and a less powerfull version with numbers and performance more like a Windmill or Tasar may be perfectly acceptable. The use of foil-assist technology will help to achieve the performance goals. Full flying foiling is possible in a selfrighting boat-particularly one with the righting assist this boat has from version two of THE Wing.
-------
The concept has extraordinary potential and it will be a blast finding out just what she'll do.

Paul B

03-11-2010, 06:15 PM

The following is a detailed look at the characteristics of the new Prototype, the design elements it will encompass and test:
-----
Trapwing Prototype:
LOA 17'
Beam hull-3.25' overall 12'(subject to testing)
Weight- hull 155lb
ballast-wing 80-180lb(variable and subject to testing)
keel 0-80(subject to testing)
SA-upwind 100-180sq.ft. variable
downwind 200-360sq.ft. (variable and subject to testing)
crew-singlehanded-120lb-220lb (variable and equalized under class rules-
subject to testing)
crew position for racing on the centerline inside boat, fixed
athwhartships, variable fore and aft
--------------------
1) Sail area to be between 100 and 180 sq.ft
a-different rigs
b-different amounts of ballast
--
2) Ballast wing to be supported by trapeze wires and unique retention system that allows wing and ballast to slide simultaneously, allows athwhartship pivoting and fore and aft movement.
a-version one will use two aluminum tubes with sliding external tray- the tubes and tray move simulataneously:
-attachment system allows wing- with weight centered-to be levered up and then pivoted from a position 90 degrees to the CL to a position parallel to the centerline

Another list of numbers.

Still no technical drawings showing how any of these "unique" systems will actually work.

Doug Lord

03-11-2010, 07:13 PM

Another list of numbers.

Still no technical drawings showing how any of these "unique" systems will actually work.
============
You know Mr. "B", I'm kind of surprised at your apparent aversion to numbers
in relation to boat design. Must make it kinda hard on you,huh?

Paul B

03-11-2010, 07:21 PM

============
You know Mr. "B", I'm kind of surprised at your apparent aversion to numbers
in relation to boat design. Must make it kinda hard on you,huh?

Lists of numbers is not "boat design".

Since you claim the hull is one of your existing designs maybe you will post the linesplan you drew for it. I'd bet against that.

Paul B

03-12-2010, 03:28 PM

I have decided to drop everything and concentrate 100% on the Trapwing prototype

I guess dropping everything doesn't include the same old, same old posting on this forum.

Of course among the multiple posts you've made today none have been to show how the complex mechanisms you are suggesting for this project will actually be constructed.

You have not shown us the linesplan for your existing design you plan to use for this project. We have not seen any technical drawings showing the drive mechanism for the wing that will move in at least 3 axis. We have not heard any cogent idea of how the trap wire will deal with this proposed movement. We have not heard..well, anything about how this whole shebang will actually work.

I suspect we have not heard or seen these things because you have not dropped everything and actually started drawing the thing.

If I needed to Drop Everything to get the most important project of my career rolling I would not be posting on internet sites about non-related issues.

Doug Lord

03-12-2010, 04:07 PM

1) You have not shown us the linesplan for your existing design you plan to use for this project.
2)We have not seen any technical drawings showing the drive mechanism for the wing that will move in at least 3 axis.
3)We have not heard any cogent idea of how the trap wire will deal with this proposed movement.
4)We have not heard..well, anything about how this whole shebang will actually work.

.

==============
Thanks for your interest, Mr. "B":
1-2-Generally speaking no lines plan, technical drawings etc. will be published here prior to the completion of prototype testing, if then, depending on patent and other considerations.
----
3) well, gosh, you must have missed it! It's been discussed(the original system) in some detail and illustrated in drawings and on the models pictured in earlier posts. Basically, the Wing is mounted to a structural tube that allows the wing and the wing mount to pivot athwartship and slide fore and aft. The original system has been successfully model tested for years with zero failures though improvements and possible improvements were discovered during this testing.
When the Wing is centered the trapeze wires on the original design support no
load and the wing is kept level with shock cord tension. The tension, amount of "stretch"(and consequently, the amount of athwartship pivot with wing movement) is fully adjustable and allows the lee trapeze wire to not interfere with the main.
------
4) Again, it might help if you re-read the thread. There are no issues that have not been solved in terms of a functioning full size version of this concept. There are a number of areas where improvements may be made as a direct result of prototype testing. This thread discloses in detail a system that has worked for thousands of hours in model testing and exactly how it works. If there are any specific questions I'll be more than glad to answer those I can.

Paul B

03-12-2010, 05:07 PM

==============
well, gosh, you must have missed it!

No one has missed anything.

You have not solved the issues at all. Sounds like you have not done any drawings or calculations.

It is no surprise you will not reveal any information. Two years from now you will probably still be talking about how revolutionary this is, but nothing will have come to fruition. Just like the other 10 or so of your "designs" that have never actually been built as you had once breathlessly described their imminent birth.

Will this mystery guy Mark the boatbuilder be doing the drawings for you this time?

Chris Ostlind

03-17-2010, 01:06 PM

Pictures of a model of the new prototype will... be up in a week or less.

Well.... it has been one week now. Where are the photos of the model?

Doug Lord

03-17-2010, 02:51 PM

.....For a lot of reasons this has become the most important development project I have ever worked on with its potential to help thousands of sailors enjoy a new kind of sailing not yet seen on this planet. Thanks, guys!
Pictures of a model of the new prototype will ,hopefully, be up in a week or less.

==================
Thanks for your interest-be another week or so-been sidetracked by day to day stuff.

Doug Lord

03-26-2010, 07:41 PM

Making great progress on the prototype model based on the actual model of the donor boat(see pix). The model work has already resulted in a major design change from the previous rough sketches producing a striking shape and equally well done wing attachment system. The boat will be significantly dryer for the crew as well. Exciting and well worth the effort.
LOA of the proto is 17.5'..... More coming before long...

Paul B

03-26-2010, 08:24 PM

Making great progress...

This gets funnier all the time.

Munter

03-26-2010, 09:02 PM

Doug - stop messing with us - is that the Aeroskiff hull?

Is it really true that the Aeroskiff is getting put back together? Great news!

Timothy

03-26-2010, 11:52 PM

CT 249

03-27-2010, 07:26 AM

If you like to laugh here is an idea I was toying with some time ago. It came about as a response to a comment made by T Spear about an idea I had for an underwater transversely moving horizontal foil with bulbs He said I think facetiously , something like why not use buoyancy on one side apposed by weight above the waters surface on the other , a trimaran! Well I came up with this. It is similar to Doug's concept except it has a lifting foil as well. The idea was to simultaneously deploy both the lifting foil and the ballast wing as well as move the ballast as far as possible with a single winch operated with an electric motor powered by a battery contained with in the movable lead ballast charged by either one or the other of two solar panels mounted on the flat side at either end of the sliding wing containing the ballast, or manually by crank, and still contain the whole contraption within the hull when not deployed. I know nothing about foils and have no idea how much lift as apposed to drag the foil would generate and am aware that the apposing lift from the wing would do little or nothing to add to RM but 400 kilos of lead 15 ft from the center line of a 40 ft boat has got to help. Needless to say I abandoned the idea but I had a lot of fun. I don't know if Doug's concept is viable or not but I respect him for examining the possibilities. Sure there are going to be problems and he may not succeed but if he does't so what. It will no doubt lead to another concept and another. I should say that the lifting foil is an outright steal from DSS a company I became aware of through one of Doug's posts.

I think the main point, Timothy, is that it's easy to think of ideas that may not succeed; that's why some of us have problems with complicated concepts that have little relationship to what has proven to work. Many of the biggest recent advances in small boat design come from simplifying things and making them easier to handle, not by adding something more to do when you're going into a mark at 25 knots and a short 3 foot chop.

It's not hard to think up wild-ish ideas. For example, instead of having ballast suspended close to the water to windward, why not hang it high in the air on huge arms projecting above the hull? The arms and ballast pod would give you a convenient point from which you could pump the whole rig, windsurfer-style.

And the rig could be a double-surface foil, with helium or hydrogen insidel; actually not, just have black film and you'll create a lot of hot air inside the sail. That could create lift, and the excess air could blast into a tube under the hull and create a low-resistance bed of bubbles for the hull. Oh, and the hot air could also be used to lift a kite for downwind sailing.

And you could have (if you wanted) a universal joint on the rig and ballast-pod arms. That would allow you to capsize the hull while sailing like a windsurfer. So with the right shape, you could have a slender cat-like displacement hull at low speeds, and then you could turn it 90 degrees around the horizontal axis and bang! - a flat planing hull!

Of course, the engine power (or solar cells) would allow you to pump the rig.
Hey, why not make one 700 feet long!

There you go - a completely impractical idea, in the time it took me to type it. Impractical ideas are easy to dream up. The solid gold ideas are the practical ones, and when you get to really fast craft, the good ideas are almost all simple because no one has the reaction time to handle something overly complex.

Doug Lord

03-27-2010, 09:13 AM

If you like to laugh here is an idea I was toying with some time ago. It came about as a response to a comment made by T Spear about an idea I had for an underwater transversely moving horizontal foil with bulbs He said I think facetiously , something like why not use buoyancy on one side apposed by weight above the waters surface on the other , a trimaran! Well I came up with this. It is similar to Doug's concept except it has a lifting foil as well. The idea was to simultaneously deploy both the lifting foil and the ballast wing as well as move the ballast as far as possible with a single winch operated with an electric motor powered by a battery contained with in the movable lead ballast charged by either one or the other of two solar panels mounted on the flat side at either end of the sliding wing containing the ballast, or manually by crank, and still contain the whole contraption within the hull when not deployed. I know nothing about foils and have no idea how much lift as apposed to drag the foil would generate and am aware that the apposing lift from the wing would do little or nothing to add to RM but 400 kilos of lead 15 ft from the center line of a 40 ft boat has got to help. Needless to say I abandoned the idea but I had a lot of fun. I don't know if Doug's concept is viable or not but I respect him for examining the possibilities. Sure there are going to be problems and he may not succeed but if he does't so what. It will no doubt lead to another concept and another. I should say that the lifting foil is an outright steal from DSS a company I became aware of through one of Doug's posts.

================
Timothy, thanks for your post-very interesting. Check out the Speed Dream thread if you haven't already-Vlad Murnikov is considering using a foil very similar to DSS.
My personal opinion is that one hell of a lot of lift can be generated by a DSS-type foil and that may preclude any requirement for ballast.
The trapwing,however, extends the ballast quite a ways to weather-much further than the center of lift on a "normal" DSS foil but there is always the possibility that some combination of the two could work-the way you illustrated it is a possibility! The vertical height of the slot in the side of the hull seems like it would have to be fairly high-have you got a solution for that? Another consideration is that whatever solution is used the boat will probably still need some amount of ballast that can be used to right the boat-on the "standard" configuration of the Trapwing that ballast mainly just sits there but a "turbo" version of a large boat using the Trapwing concept could have a 110 degree canting keel to remedy that and make all the ballast on board pay for itself. Of course, bouyancy from the wing helps ensure the righting characteristics.
Don't be too quick to dismiss your own idea!
Timothy-thanks again and good thinking -keep it up...check out the two threads below if you haven't already:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/flying-canting-keel-extraordinary-innovation-30806.html

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/monohull-speed-speed-dream-vlad-murnikov-30880.html

Cheesy

03-28-2010, 04:23 PM

Doug do you know anything about this boat?
http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe/2010/brace.jpg

Doug Lord

03-28-2010, 04:44 PM

Doug do you know anything about this boat?
http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe/2010/brace.jpg
------------
DSS design by Hugh Welbourn......why?

Cheesy

03-28-2010, 05:29 PM

Just interested in the hull shape and any more details of it, you are good at finding these things out. The silver fern in the back is an NZ thing so I thought it might of been here, apparantly in Oz....

Doug Lord

03-28-2010, 06:44 PM

I've written Hugh Welbourn for details and pictures. If he sends them I'll start a thread on the boat-looks like an exciting design....

Paul B

03-29-2010, 03:09 AM

Just interested in the hull shape and any more details of it, .

There was a write up in Tha Daily Sail last week.

Doug Lord

04-02-2010, 08:29 PM

Here is an interesting product by the builders of the Martin 16-a self-contained electrical steering and sheeting system:

http://www.martin16.com/resources/autobrochure.pdf

Whats really cool is that these are proven electronic systems for use in a marine sailing environment and definitely adaptable to the Trapwing.
Great stuff!

Timothy

04-04-2010, 11:45 PM

I made a couple of sketches attempting to compare the righting moments of a catamaran , a canting keeler and Doug's Trapwing modified to have a lifting foil to leeward instead of the float which while still providing lift allows for greater travel of the ballast if the system is to be confined to the hull when not deployed. I also canted the ruder and dagger board of the trapwing to leeward in the illustration rather than have two rudders as on the canter. It would seem that a mono hull of equal displacement and whetted surface fitted with the the Trapwing could be built that would equal the righting moment of a cat with a modest beam to length ratio. Of course the trapwing would require constant adjustment as it would be like sailing a cat while constantly flying a hull. What was more interesting to me is that it would appear that a trapwing of equal length and the same cantilever provides more leverage than the canter And so could be built with less ballast for the same RM ,and thus would require less power to move it faster. In the end What I have illustrated is perhaps an unnecessarily complicated weight to leeward proa with lift to leeward. A trimaran? It is impossible to make any valid conclusions based on a couple of doodles but maybe I can elicit some critical response that might advance the discussion.

Doug Lord

04-05-2010, 08:22 AM

bistros

04-05-2010, 10:10 AM

Sitting here while it's raining outside and the temperature is around 50 degrees F. I'm going out to the garage to work on Thomas' boat in a few minutes and I feel sad about much of what goes on here.

Why sad?

Because many of the "discussions" and designs here on Boatdesign.net are pure daydreams that will never get built, never get tried and never succeed or fail. Ideas get enthusiastically promoted, discussed to death and resuscitated more often than a CPR dummy in first aid training. It's more sad because the idea's promoters talks about their day dreams like they are real boats - saying they are faster than other real boats. An idea isn't faster than a rubber duck in a bathtub.

It's sad, because it seems a lot of people would rather argue about the merits and features of fantasy daydreams than actually build stuff. One hour out building stuff and solving real problems is worth a thousand hours of time on the Internet.

Have fun clicking your mouse - I'm going to work on a boat. I feel sorry for people who can't get out in the shop and build things.

--
Bill

Timothy

04-06-2010, 02:06 AM

You don't have to feel sorry for me Bistros .I am really quite happy sitting on my porch here in Thailand contemplating my latest creation. He is far from perfect but considering the low technology approach , materials used ,and the questionable credentials of both the builder and the designer , I am satisfied with the result. It took me almost sixty years fooling around with the process and in the end success was both unexpected and accidental. When his mother gets back from the market I shall go windsurfing and later on I will probably sit around with my friends ,who try and make a living building boats, dreaming up weird and maybe not so wonderful ideas for sailing machines. In about another month I will return for six months as I have for the last 32 years to live aboard , sail and tinker with my Freedom 40 cat ketch ,(soon to be a cat yawl if I canot be persuaded otherwise) ,purchased as the result of a dream I had more than forty years ago while visiting some hippy freinds, who were squating on an island in the Bahamas using materials salvaged from the wreck of thier dream an old even at that time staysail schooner. I must admit I do spend a lot more time on the computer than my new wife finds acceptable but then again it is the most facinating machine, and as I never was a television person (did not have one as a child and lived most of my adult life either at anchor or at a cottage where their was no reception) I can,t help myself. The computer was made for us dreamers. Back to movable thwart ship ballast. I do not see your objection to examining the posibilities of using new ways to use what is the oldest method of obtaining stability under sail since we hoisted a straw mat or an animal skin . For that manner why is it all right to use collapsing foils for power turning foils for directional control and retractable foils for windward lift and not to at least look at ways that lifting foils could aid in stability. I am not personally interested in using movable ballast for speed. If I want to go fast I get my thrills from my all out race windsurfer which is of couse is totaly dependent on movable ballast ,me. My interest is in combining shallow draft and a high aspect sail on a monohull. Doug's proposal for the trapwing got me thinking about over thirty years ago when I used to sail to Georgetown in the Bahamas to watch the native fishing schooners sail in the annual regatta. Because the waters of the Bahamas are shallow these boats could not draw more than four or five feet . It was quite a sight to watch for or five of the crew perched on 20 ft planks extended to windward jump off and swim to shore on the downwind homeward leg . Log canoes still use the planks but I believe the crew stay on board through out the race. Well the winds up my wife is back and I am off to sail.

bistros

04-06-2010, 10:05 AM

Timothy:

My objection was not directed towards you, or anyone else who actually sails or actually builds things.

My problems was with people who substitute reality with their own fantasies. This "Trapwing" discussion has been going on for many years. Much like the fantasy 60' Moth and many other dreamy topics that do not exist in the real world.

To the promoter of these concepts, the "ideas" are as real as death and taxes. In their mind, these boats are already built and proven - because of the "numbers". To me, they are a waste of time and bandwidth unless they actually get built and tried. It doesn't matter to me if they succeed or fail - I'd rather see the ideas succeed, but talking online about the ideas endlessly is pointless.

I think this is a great forum to bring up NEW ideas, but an annoying place to endlessly bring up the same old ideas time and time again.

I just want to scream, shut up already and built it! But if long history on this forum is an accurate predictor of the future, in three years we'll still be hearing about a great new idea called the "Trapwing" and a 60' Moth.

--
Bill

Munter

04-11-2010, 11:26 PM

Doug - other than deciding the length (or having it decided for you by the availability of a hull) have you actually made any progress?

Doug Lord

04-11-2010, 11:52 PM

Doug - other than deciding the length (or having it decided for you by the availability of a hull) have you actually made any progress?

===============
Yes, quite a bit.

Doug Lord

04-11-2010, 11:57 PM

The following is a detailed look at the characteristics of the new Prototype, as well as the design elements it will encompass and test:
-----
Trapwing Prototype:
LOA 17' 8"
Beam hull-3.25' overall 12'(subject to testing)
Weight- hull 168lb
ballast-wing 80-180lb(variable and subject to testing)
keel 0-80(subject to testing)
SA-upwind 100-180sq.ft. variable
downwind 200-360sq.ft. (variable and subject to testing)
crew-singlehanded-120lb-220lb (variable and equalized under class rules-
subject to testing)
crew position for racing on the centerline inside boat, fixed
athwhartships, variable fore and aft
--------------------
1) Sail area to be between 100 and 180 sq.ft
a-different rigs
b-different amounts of ballast
--
2) Ballast wing to be supported by trapeze wires and unique retention system that allows wing and ballast to slide simultaneously, allows athwhartship pivoting and fore and aft movement.
a-version one will use two aluminum tubes with sliding external tray- the tubes and tray move simulataneously:
-attachment system allows wing- with weight centered-to be levered up and then pivoted from a position 90 degrees to the CL to a position parallel to the centerline for transport and stowage.
-weight can be added or removed in small increments.
-fore and aft pivot/sliding tube is mounted to the boat slightly offset from the CL to allow room to retract board/keel.
-aluminum tubes terminate at outboard ends in buoyancy pods-pods will be changeable as determined in testing.
-sliding ballast tray and structural design of wing to be capable of 180lb max ballast @9' from CL; ballast completely adjustable in the range of 80 to 180lb.
b-version two is a slightly curved(athwhartship), molded and sealed(with sealable access to ballast tray) wing with an internal sliding ballast tray. This version will be the final version and incorporates all the features of version one with significantly increased sealed buoyancy.
c-Wing movement by manual or electric means. Minimum electrical movement speed 4' per second. Minimum electrical "stamina" on single battery-12 hours at a rate equivalent to a approximately 60 (full track)tacks per hour.
--
3) Crew Position
a-version one-racing position-allows crew to sit in an extremely comfortable seat that is fixed athwhartship and slides fore and aft adjustably while sailing.
-extremely wide crew weight range:for racing lower tray attached to seat may contain ballast used to equalize crew weight in the range of 120 to 220 lb.
-seat may be moved manually or electrically.
b-version two-center seat is removed and two fixed carbon seats with backrests are "plugged-in" to each side deck.
--
4) Rigs to be tested are main and jib, main alone, with and without an asymetrical spinnaker.
a-asymetrical will be tested as permanently mounted off a bowsprit(a la Weta tri) or retracted into a trough with roller(a la Viper) and a retractable pole.
b-mast to be sealed with masthead floatation in an endplate configuration. Some buoyancy possible in head of sail.
--
5)-Daggerboard/ keel/rudder
a -boat will be tested with and without a retractable "lifting keel"
which would essentially be a carbon daggerboard with the minimum ballast required(determined in testing) to right the boat from a pitchpole(where the wing buoyancy may not significantly help).
b-self-righting from a knockdown or pitchpole is a required design element for any version of the boat used for disabled sailing.

c-a turbo version of the boat will not use a ballasted keel and may not be suitable for disabled sailing but this will be determined in testing.
d- the daggerboard may include as standard a lifting hydrofoil designed to provide "foil-assist" to reduce wetted surface and in conjunction with the rudder hydrofoil improve the pitch and planing characterstics of the
boat.
e-a fully flying hydrofoil system will be tested as will a fully flying system that allows the boat to fly downwind only(requiring less upwind SA and less ballast).
f-rudder will be retractable with a t-foil.
--
6)-On the Beach
a-the boat will be able to be easily beach sailed with a dolly incorporated into the trailer design to make it very simple to go from trailer to water. A "power assist" dolly may be available.
--
7)-Performance
a- the goal is to develop a high performance planing sailboat that can be safely sailed from a center crew position by disabled or able-bodied sailors. I am hoping to be able to achieve an SCP/total weight of 30% or slightly better though that is just a target and a less powerfull version with numbers and performance more like a Windmill or Tasar may be perfectly acceptable. The use of foil-assist technology will help to achieve the performance goals. Full flying foiling is possible in a selfrighting boat-particularly one with the righting assist this boat has from version two of THE Wing.
-------
The concept has extraordinary potential and it will be a blast finding out just what she'll do.
================

Since the model is nearly complete I thought I'd update the above dimensions.
LOA- changed to 17' 8"
And thats it-at least for measurements covered above(except for weight-see below). The "look" of the boat
-as compared to the original Trapwing and recent Trapwing 15 rough sketches-is very different from just aft of midship forward.
The prototype will be entirely based on the first aeroSKIFF foiler thanks to Tinho Dornellas -and a little horse trading. And that will drastically reduce build time-though the mods are quite extensive forward and above the current deck line. The estimated additional weight is 38lb making the protohull
168lb.
The existing foils will be used on the "Turbo" version and a 100sq.ft. Hoot main and an approx. 140 sq.ft. unstayed rig will be experimented with. The variations in ballast as shown above are still valid.
And a smaller set of hydrofoils already in stock will be used to explore the "foil assist" aspect of the boat thru sailing and resistance towing where the exact resistance of the boat from zero to approx. 15 knots will be measured and plotted with and with out the hydrofoils and with and without the keel ballast. With help from a bunch of interested sailors, my sailmaker and a local laboratory we'll get real good data about this prototype.
One of the most important characteristics of this concept that I want to confirm in testing is the very, very wide range of crew weight for the Trapwing-100lb from lightest to heaviest which is the widest crew range of any dinghy under 20' that I know of sailed as a singlehander.( crew weight from 120lb to 220lb)
-----
Model pictures fairly soon.......
---
The actual Trapwing Prototype hull minus topsides, deck and new bow
-and its original configuration:

Doug Lord

04-26-2010, 05:59 PM

Finally! This has been a very interesting project-just after deciding to do this I made a major design change that took a lot of time to work out to my satisfaction. If you look at the Trapwing 15 rough sketches you may see what I mean.
This is only two of MANY pictures that will be posted here over the next few days. I'm satisfied that I've got it close to right-and that I can start the full size prototype.
Keep in mind that this model was built on the model of the original aeroSKIFF hull in the manner that the full size version will be built-see previous pictures but more comparisons to come. Doing it this way has saved lots of time and money.....
===========
These pictures show the singlehander with the rail seat option configuration which I personally prefer at this point to the single seat "sit-in" config. You can see some details such as the wing mount, "plug in" seats ect. MUCH more to come.
I've got some photo quality issues I need to figure out if I can.

Click on images:

Chris Ostlind

04-26-2010, 06:15 PM

I've got some photo quality issues I need to figure out if I can

Yes, the issues are called camera movement.

Even if you shoot from a tripod, it has to be steady, your shutter release stroke has to be gradual, like squeezing-off a round from a rifle... or you'll get camera shake and wind-up with the imagery shown.

A simple blow-up of the frame reveals a principal image with a ghosted version of the same where the camera moved during part of the exposure. From the way it looks, I'd say it's getting blurred during the front fourth of the shutter opening period.

Doug Lord

04-26-2010, 06:32 PM

Thanks but I'm not sure I can deal with that on my camera-guess I'll study the manual. I appreciate the input.

Paul B

04-26-2010, 07:07 PM

just after deciding to do this I made a major design change that took a lot of time to work out to my satisfaction.

Maybe the design change to have no bottom in the cockpit area will prove to be an issue.

A linesplan would tell us a lot more than these photos.

Doug Lord

04-26-2010, 07:26 PM

Maybe the design change to have no bottom in the cockpit area will prove to be an issue.

A linesplan would tell us a lot more than these photos.
==================
The cockpit sole has the same white with dark swirls non-skid material in it that was used on the majority of the deck on the original aeroSKIFF-Hydro-Turf....
-----
These two photos don't begin to tell the whole story-all the pictures taken as a whole in a week or so will be far more descriptive than any "lines plan."

Paul B

04-26-2010, 08:25 PM

==================
These two photos don't begin to tell the whole story-all the pictures taken as a whole in a week or so will be far more descriptive than any "lines plan."

That is a very funny statement.

bistros

04-27-2010, 08:33 AM

That is a very funny statement.

True. Classic "Ready, Fire, Aim" development.

--
Bill

Doug Lord

04-27-2010, 05:55 PM

This set of pictures shows the wing in position and centered. On the fullsize prototype there is lead(about 80 to 150lb) sliding inside the wing. As the wing is moved the lead simultaneously moves so that at max movement port or starboard righting moment is at its highest. It will move manually and/or electrically as fast as or faster than a crew could on a trapeze. The wing is supported by "trapeze" wires from the mast. The wing also pivots athwartship adjustably to help keep the weight low to windward and the lee side clear of the water. The whole assembly also slides F & A-as does the crew seat on the "sit-in" version.
The wing is 100% sealed so that even with the weight at max the boat will not turn over-and the wing automatically helps to right the boat in the event of a knockdown at maximum RM-the wing centers and the buoyancy(in combination with the keel ballast on versions so equipped) "pushes" the boat back up.
The electrical version will operate with just the movement of a small joystick-
making the movement of the ballast a piece of cake and as responsive as the same system on an RC sailboat. There is no boat under 20' anywhere that offers the potential combination of grace, speed and ease of sailing as does the Trapwing concept.....

Pictures show the single hander rail seat option.

Click on images:

ancient kayaker

04-27-2010, 06:46 PM

Yes, the issues are called camera movement.

Even if you shoot from a tripod, it has to be steady, your shutter release stroke has to be gradual, like squeezing-off a round from a rifle... or you'll get camera shake and wind-up with the imagery shown.

A simple blow-up of the frame reveals a principal image with a ghosted version of the same where the camera moved during part of the exposure. From the way it looks, I'd say it's getting blurred during the front fourth of the shutter opening period.

If you shoot a stationary object, camera shake during shutter release can be eliminated by mounting the camera on a tripod and using the camera's delay timer.

Doug Lord

04-27-2010, 06:48 PM

Thanks, Terry.

Chris Ostlind

04-27-2010, 07:20 PM

If you shoot a stationary object, camera shake during shutter release can be eliminated by mounting the camera on a tripod and using the camera's delay timer.

Most of the time, but not eliminated.

Doug Lord

04-27-2010, 09:01 PM

From Dave Trude-competitive sailor in the 2.4mtr and other classes and SA's webmaster-published with permission:

"Doug, That looks hot.

I would remove the two seats for the skipper/crew and have the person sit inside like the 2.4mR does.

Can you hang the boat from threads and take some shots from different angles with a white or green screen background??

Doug, the model looks great. What are the dimensions supposed to be??"

Dimensions in post 76

About Dave Trude: http://www.webbdawg.com/dawgblog/

ancient kayaker

04-28-2010, 12:32 AM

Doug Lord

04-28-2010, 08:23 AM

Doug: the earlier experiments at sliding ballast (Herreshoff?) used the power of the wind to shift the ballast, analagous to the way a conventional fixed keel carrying ballast will swing to windward as the boat heels. Essentially you are trying to do the same thing without having the boat heel, much as I was doing with Bruce Foils and canted sails instead of moving ballast, a few years ago.

Have you considered using wind power to shift the ballast to avoid the complexity of electrical positioning, batteries and control systems etc? For example, the boom could be fastened to a rotating mast, and a mechanical transmission from the mast would position the ballast. Properly designed, the amount of power available could be arranged to equal or slightly exceed the amount required, since the ballast need not swing out so far in light conditions. This implies some kind of automatic gearing but a simpler arrangement might be devised.
=============
Terry, I'm not convinced that a system like that could work on a high performance boat-doesn't seem to me that the response could be fast enough.
I could be wrong, though, and I'll take a look at it.
Herreshoff's system didn't really use the power of the wind to shift the ballast-his system used gravity as its prime mover.
The ballast on the trapwing will be able to be moved manually or electrically. An able-bodied sailor should have no trouble moving the weight since ,as it moves from center, it is supported by "trapeze" wires. Of course, it will depend on the SA and ballast of the particular version of the boat. The proto will be tested with 100, 120, 165 180 and maybe 200sq.ft. of SA and the appropriate ballast. We'll learn a lot more with that testing.
A main raison d'etre for this concept is to allow disabled sailors to be able to sail very fast very safely. It also allows people who don't want to run side to side to sail fast as well. Electrical systems have been refined to a high degree for uses in this kind of environment and are not complex-see the post a while back about the Martin system.
Because "ease of sailing" is a central theme of this boat it is likely that most owners would opt for an electrical ballast moving system(Trapeze Power Ballast System)-and a few would want electrical sheeting and steering like the systems used now in the Martin 16, Skud 18 and others.

Chris Ostlind

04-28-2010, 09:28 AM

... most owners would opt for an electrical ballast moving system(Trapeze Power Ballast System)

This setup is going to have the acronym of TPBS as a function of its marketing position?... Really? You're going to put out a product that has the component identity of it being BS?

Perhaps a different clever acronym is in order?

I get that there might be electronic systems already in use for sheeting and steering. That's great. But, the stuff you previously described is of a whole order of magnitude more complex, when it comes to electronically controlled commands. I'm not a systems circuit, or chipset designer. Having an automatic anything in this case implies accelerometers, ROM chipsets, coded software and a whole host of stuff that will begin to push the costs associated with obtaining one of these boats, well out of reach of the very sailors with whom you intend to associate the product.

This, without the excruciating reality of all the attendant liability issues that are sure to insert themselves in your life.

Lastly, as you know, I am not a proponent of overly complex anything as an answer to what ails the sailing industry. This business has been enduring an on-going ugly experience over the last many years, as fewer and fewer boats of just about every type and size are being sold worldwide. Those that are enjoying something in the realm of sales success are either very small, or very large. Of the very small, the less complex designs are way ahead of those that are at the techy, complex end of the scale.

Looking to produce a craft that has a very high potential to be fraught with teething problems, is loaded with potentially expensive gear as a function of its base operating posture and an absolute insurance nightmare, is not the path to manufactured sailboat success.

I wish you luck if you insist on the pursuit. But, in this market condition, it is an ill-advised activity.

Doug Lord

04-28-2010, 02:49 PM

The electrical system for moving the ballast will be very simple and may be adapted from the already existing system made for the Martin 16 and other small boats. The characteristics of the Trapeze Power Ballast System in terms of how it is used is very similar to that of a sheet system. The system is extremely reliable.
The only "automatic" system would be the "return to center" feature of the system in the event of a knockdown-very simple according to the experts I've talked with.
An optional system would be a sort of "cruise control" that would operate the Trapeze Power Ballast System autonomously. I'd oppose that being class legal because it's so much fun sailing with a movable ballast system under the skippers fingertip control-and there is a skill level involved in positioning the ballast correctly- as there is in any dinghy.
Radio control systems have been used for over 10 years with exactly this kind of control and zero failures.
---
The key to the Trapwing concept is providing an exciting new type of sailing that is not available now anywhere at any price. This is an exciting adaptation of High Performance Sailing Technology with new movable ballast technology that creates an entirely new way to enjoy sailing. Supplemented by modern adaptive systems the boat will be able to be sailed competitively by a wide range of able-bodied and disabled sailors. The competitive weight range of the boat is the widest of any High Performance singlehander.

-------------
Here's more on some of the Martin systems that may be used on this boat:

No Boundaries. No Limitations.JOYSTICK MODULE | WINDLASS | SIP & PUFF

The Martin 16 Power-Assist System is a modular, self-contained, portable power-assisted steering and sheeting system, that can make almost any sailboat accessible. Power-Assist Systems are used on the Martin 16, Sonar, Freedom 20, Catalina 22, Cal 20, 2.4mR and Challenger Tri-maran, and even a Tripp 40 offshore sport boat!

Power-Assist Systems are now in service at DSA programs and on private boats in Canada, USA, UK, Japan, Greece, Australia and Puerto Rico. At Mobility Cup, Canada’s International Regatta for Sailors with Disabilities, more than 15 high-level quad sailors use Martin 16 Power-Assist Systems to compete on the same starting line with 45 other sailors. The Power-Assist System has changed the lives of these sailors, and more like them each new season

Joystick Module
Self-contained, portable, weatherproof system components are intended for outdoor use in marine environment. The Power-Assist System can be installed in minutes on any standard Martin 16 sloop, or any other tiller-steered sloop (Freedom 20, Sonar, Catalina 22, etc.)

Power-Assist Joystick Module contains the main control computer and a joystick control in a weatherproof enclosure. The Joystick Module is light and can be positioned comfortably beside the sailor – to the left or right – or on the sailor’s lap if necessary. Built-in "armrest" provides support for the sailor's arm for familiar wheelchair-like operation.

L.E.D. battery meter provides battery state indicator before and during your sailing session. Any 12V power source can provide power to the Joystick Module: 1) the portable Power-Assist Battery Module or 2) a “house battery” on boats equipped with 12V DC power.

Auxiliary motor control (option). The Mk IV Joystick Module will control up to three additional bi-directional DC motors, via the ““y” axis of the joystick. These auxiliary functions may be used to control the jib trim, boom vang, or outhaul, for example.

Emergency Disengage of the helm drive motor in the case of system malfunction is provided via a “quick-release” pin that can be operated from the rear seat of the Martin 16. (Note: Emergency Disengage is not accessible to helmsperson.)

Wireless Remote Control (option)* provides wireless control of all functions of the Power-Assist System, using a convenient and compact “key fob” remote control (automotive style). The Remote Control may be used by a person sailing with a sip & puff sailor, or an Instructor in a motor boat.
* May be a perfect option for controlling the Trapeze Power Ballast System using the rail seat option(not class legal vs sit-in competitors)

===============================
Windlass Power Winch

Martin 16 Windlass is a self-contained, portable power winch system for the main and jib sheets of any standard Martin 16 sloop. The Windlass may be used stand-alone or in conjunction with the Power-Assist Joystick or Sip & Puff Control Module. The Windlass installs in minutes on top of the Martin 16 keel, and main and jib sails are trimmed in unison via either a large toggle switch on the rear panel of the Windlass enclosure, or remotely by the joystick or sip & puff stalk (or Wireless Remote Control key fob).

Emergency Release of the sheets in the case of system malfunction is provided on both winch drums via a “quick-release” pin that can be operated with minimum manual dexterity.

Any 12V power source can provide power to the Sip & Puff Module: 1) the portable Power-Assist Battery Module or 2) a “house battery”
on boats equipped with 12V DC power.

The systems above available here:
http://www.martin16.com/resources/autobrochure.pdf

click on images:

Paul B

04-28-2010, 02:59 PM

Looking to produce a craft that has a very high potential to be fraught with teething problems, is loaded with potentially expensive gear as a function of its base operating posture and an absolute insurance nightmare, is not the path to manufactured sailboat success.

Produce a craft? What makes you think there is going to be an attempt to "produce a craft"?

sail fast

04-28-2010, 03:09 PM

Are you the Doug lord who was a member of AMYA and sailed a 36/600 class sailboat.
sail fast

Chris Ostlind

04-28-2010, 03:15 PM

Doug Lord

04-28-2010, 05:20 PM

bistros

04-29-2010, 11:22 AM

It will be a simple operation to get the boat ready for the road. Just pivot and slide the wing and the boat is ready to go. The picture doesn't show the wing slightly to one side as it will be full size. The keel and/or daggerboard-both equipped with "foil assist" hydrofoils- are trailered retracted. The rail seats are removed-simple plug-in/ pull out and the center sit-in seat can be folded or removed.
click on images:

I could easily be missing something, but here goes:

1) The raised daggerboard will interfere big time with the rotated sliding ballast - if appearances are correct, the rotated sliding ballast will have to be off center quite a bit to clear the raised daggerboard. This off-center weight will cause a boat that skinny to want to roll over on the trailer - especially if it weighs 150 pounds - far more than the hull weight from your numbers.

2) Part of the limitation of a trapeze wire is that it has a fixed length from the mast to the attachment point. This limits where the sliding ballast can move, unless you are bending the mast to move the sliding ballast plank further aft. The radius of the arc can't change to compensate for fore-aft movement of the ballast, unless I'm missing some component that adjusts the length of the wire constantly (or bends a flexy mast). In your models, high flexibility of the tubes the batteries moved on compensated for this, but I don't know if this would scale up to the real world.

3) Stability at rest is going to be a serious challenge on a boat this narrow. . Once moving, I can see how the sliding ballast will theoretically work - but standing motionless without large amas is going to be a real issue. Especially if tied up to a dock - the sliding ballast will have to be extended away from the dock to allow the boat to get close enough for embarkation / debarkation. From my experience skiff sailing, you are far more likely to capsize while sitting still than moving fast. Speed equals stability, and stopping or going slow is swimming time.

These items are areas where a little clarification would help - I'm not trying to be negative here.

--
Bill

Doug Lord

04-29-2010, 12:01 PM

I could easily be missing something, but here goes:

1) The raised daggerboard will interfere big time with the rotated sliding ballast - if appearances are correct, the rotated sliding ballast will have to be off center quite a bit to clear the raised daggerboard. This off-center weight will cause a boat that skinny to want to roll over on the trailer - especially if it weighs 150 pounds - far more than the hull weight from your numbers.

2) Part of the limitation of a trapeze wire is that it has a fixed length from the mast to the attachment point. This limits where the sliding ballast can move, unless you are bending the mast to move the sliding ballast plank further aft. The radius of the arc can't change to compensate for fore-aft movement of the ballast, unless I'm missing some component that adjusts the length of the wire constantly (or bends a flexy mast). In your models, high flexibility of the tubes the batteries moved on compensated for this, but I don't know if this would scale up to the real world.

3) Stability at rest is going to be a serious challenge on a boat this narrow. . Once moving, I can see how the sliding ballast will theoretically work - but standing motionless without large amas is going to be a real issue. Especially if tied up to a dock - the sliding ballast will have to be extended away from the dock to allow the boat to get close enough for embarkation / debarkation. From my experience skiff sailing, you are far more likely to capsize while sitting still than moving fast. Speed equals stability, and stopping or going slow is swimming time.

These items are areas where a little clarification would help - I'm not trying to be negative here.

--
Bill
---------------------------
1) the wing is moved just about 8" to the side-even at 200 pounds there is no tendency for the hull to roll on the trailer.In fact, with 240 pounds on the rail the boat will not roll on the trailer. The daggerboard -with or without ballast) can be raised with the wing in its normal forward most position and then pivoted and slid sideways once the boat is on the trailer.

2) The trapeze wires terminate at a point where a line and a shockcord are attached. The line is adjustable in length. The shock cord stretches
as the weight moves outboard to the limit set by the line. This is done primarily for upwind adjustment to keep the weight low but the shockcord stretches just the same as the wing moves aft. There was no flex in the model tubes-the slack was designed into the system and adjusted for the particular boat. The mast is raked quite a bit and the tensioning due to aft movement of the wing is very little. If the wing is at max extension downwind the end will rise as the wing moves aft but very little. On the models, once this adjustment was sorted, it never needed changing-on this boat we can make the line length adjustable from the cockpit if we decide that there is any benefit-but that is unlikely.

3) We'll have to experiment with handling at a dock. If you launch at a place like many of the places here(which we would never use)-it would likely be possible to scissor the wing until it could be extended just past the end of the dock-but I don't know how that will work. It has the same beam or a little more than a Weta tri so its likely that if the ramp is wide enough it can be launched at a ramp with the wing extended. The buoyancy of the pod +wing is more than sufficient to prevent capsize with nobody in the boat.
In this area and many other areas around the country a production version of the boat will probably be beach launched with a dolly that stays with the boat on the trailer.
Thats part of testing and we will try all kinds of solutions. On the prototype the dolly is attached to the back end of the boat and the boat slid off the trailer.
----------
If you look closely at the model trapeze wires you can see the "bowsie" adjuster used to set the trapeze wire length after the shock cord stretches. It can be set for no stretch or max stretch. Did a new rough sketch to make it clearer....
Click on images:

Doug Lord

04-30-2010, 09:15 AM

Just the fact that this was even mentioned in an article about the future of the Cup is exciting. Even more so when you consider that both Coutts and Cayard have been in favor of such a system on an ocean racer.( see post #11 ,page 1 of this thread)

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/americas-cup-whats-next-31489-14.html#post362014 post 196

u4ea32

04-30-2010, 01:05 PM

Neat stuff, Doug. I always figured this concept had merit, glad to see someone finally trying to make a run with it.

bistros

04-30-2010, 03:06 PM

---------------------------
1) the wing is moved just about 8" to the side-even at 200 pounds there is no tendency for the hull to roll on the trailer.In fact, with 240 pounds on the rail the boat will not roll on the trailer. The daggerboard -with or without ballast) can be raised with the wing in its normal forward most position and then pivoted and slid sideways once the boat is on the trailer.

2) The trapeze wires terminate at a point where a line and a shockcord are attached. The line is adjustable in length. The shock cord stretches
as the weight moves outboard to the limit set by the line. This is done primarily for upwind adjustment to keep the weight low but the shockcord stretches just the same as the wing moves aft. There was no flex in the model tubes-the slack was designed into the system and adjusted for the particular boat. The mast is raked quite a bit and the tensioning due to aft movement of the wing is very little. If the wing is at max extension downwind the end will rise as the wing moves aft but very little. On the models, once this adjustment was sorted, it never needed changing-on this boat we can make the line length adjustable from the cockpit if we decide that there is any benefit-but that is unlikely.

3) We'll have to experiment with handling at a dock. If you launch at a place like many of the places here(which we would never use)-it would likely be possible to scissor the wing until it could be extended just past the end of the dock-but I don't know how that will work. It has the same beam or a little more than a Weta tri so its likely that if the ramp is wide enough it can be launched at a ramp with the wing extended. The buoyancy of the pod +wing is more than sufficient to prevent capsize with nobody in the boat.
In this area and many other areas around the country a production version of the boat will probably be beach launched with a dolly that stays with the boat on the trailer.
Thats part of testing and we will try all kinds of solutions. On the prototype the dolly is attached to the back end of the boat and the boat slid off the trailer.
----------
If you look closely at the model trapeze wires you can see the "bowsie" adjuster used to set the trapeze wire length after the shock cord stretches. It can be set for no stretch or max stretch. Did a new rough sketch to make it clearer....
Click on images:

1) I guess you've tested this already. From the outside it looks like a high and off-center load of more than double hull weight would be a potential problem. You are writing your response as if this is fait accompli, so I'll take you at your word.

2) The net effect of this is that you have adjustable length trap lines - which can be adjusted easily without any load on them. That's fine. The other side of the coin is that there will be more load on the tubes/plank whatever, as the trapeze will not take any significant load until the lines are fully extended. This makes the carriage strength and all associated mechanisms require greater strength than a system that had fixed length trap lines. I thought the point of the "trapeze" was that it would take significant load and reduce strength requirements of the sliding ballast plank. If you system only takes up full load at full extension, why bother with the complication of the trapeze? Fundamentally, I can't see any benefit of adding a trapeze wire to the sliding seat of an International Canoe, therefore why bother on your boat? Once you ditch the trapeze lines, the whole problem of the wire arc goes away, and you can keep the ballast low all the way across. Sure cuts down on possible uphill travel of the weight while moving.

Doug Lord

04-30-2010, 04:42 PM

1) I guess you've tested this already. From the outside it looks like a high and off-center load of more than double hull weight would be a potential problem. You are writing your response as if this is fait accompli, so I'll take you at your word.

2) The net effect of this is that you have adjustable length trap lines - which can be adjusted easily without any load on them. That's fine. The other side of the coin is that there will be more load on the tubes/plank whatever, as the trapeze will not take any significant load until the lines are fully extended. This makes the carriage strength and all associated mechanisms require greater strength than a system that had fixed length trap lines. I thought the point of the "trapeze" was that it would take significant load and reduce strength requirements of the sliding ballast plank. If you system only takes up full load at full extension, why bother with the complication of the trapeze? Fundamentally, I can't see any benefit of adding a trapeze wire to the sliding seat of an International Canoe, therefore why bother on your boat? Once you ditch the trapeze lines, the whole problem of the wire arc goes away, and you can keep the ballast low all the way across. Sure cuts down on possible uphill travel of the weight while moving.
=============
1) Right.
2)You may have misunderstood how the system works:
a. the line can be adjusted so that it does not permit any stretch of the shock cord or max stretch or anywhere in between.
b. Depending on the "strecthiness"(load bearing) of the shock cord the windward end of the wing will immediately go to the limit of the line when the weight is 6"(or so) to weather of center OR the shock cord can absorb more of the load before the limit is reached. In model testing, we found that the shock cord should support very little load-in other words as soon as the weight moves, say 1.5-2' on the prototype, the wing should pivot to its max setting-with the ballast load more and more taken by the trapeze wire.This keeps the ballast as low as possible upwind and the leeside of The Wing as high as possible above the water. The only exception is in light wind and confused sea state where the best setting is no shock cord stretch because the weight is moving such a small distance-to windward or leeward- that it will, essentially, flop around if not restrained.
Also,this is another example of what testing is all about since the system is 100% adjustable between the model set up and a progressive loading of the shock cord. We'll see what works best on the full size boat even though I'm 98.7% convinced the system that worked best on the model is the system that will prove best on the Prototype.
This system would not work without the trapeze wires at its current projected extention and projected weight.

Doug Lord

04-30-2010, 04:43 PM

Neat stuff, Doug. I always figured this concept had merit, glad to see someone finally trying to make a run with it.

==============
Thanks very much, David. Any suggestions, ideas or observations are welcome. A lot more pictures of the model coming soon......

Doug Lord

04-30-2010, 06:41 PM

Shows the Proto model on its custom(unfinished) stand in its "self-righting keelboat w/foil assist" configuration. Single seat replaces "plug-in" rail seats. The stand is walnut, purchased unfinished with a piece of .375" steel glued to it to act as a stabilizer. Painted with black enamel(steel only) and clear acrylic. Verticals and beds: carbon tubes and rod I had in stock.
Trying out ideas for pictures....

Gary Baigent

04-30-2010, 07:51 PM

Doug Lord

04-30-2010, 07:59 PM

I just received this e-mail from Mark Bryant(www.markbryantsailing.com). He has been extremely encouraging to me and he is an accomplished sailor and Disabled Sailing Coach:

"WOW,
That is way cool... Do you need a builder ? Send along your specs and composite schedule....

Mark"
Thanks ,Mark!

Doug Lord

04-30-2010, 08:27 PM

Doug, if I'm reading your design correctly - a couple of suggestions: perhaps you could make the sliding ballast beam a shallow arc of a semi circle, fixed and aero/hydrodynamic, and built with plenty of carbon for strength and shaped similar to the dihedral (but a fixed curve) of a trimaran aka - that way you're not going to trip the leeward beam section in water when heeled (also you can forget the trapeze wiring complication) - the other is why not use water ballast, which can be dumped when unnecessary, instead of lead in batteries (and use a simple, reliable winch to move the ballast instead of electronics) - carrying lead is a no exit street if you want a fast performer (which I presume you're aiming at) - and you already have a ballasted bulb keel. But maybe I;m misinterpreting your intentions.

Gary, thanks for the comments. The whole wing moves to windward in such a way that it will be very dfficult to bury the lee side of the wing. The pod is designed specifically for high speed contact with the water so that it creates a lot of dynamic lift in such a situation.
As to water ballast: at this size water ballast is probably impractical but if you look at my proposal for a 60' Moth you can see that the sliding on-deck ballast there is water and would work well.
Just as an illustration an 8" X 3" X 12" slug of lead similar to one that might slide in The Wing weighs 116lb. To put that much water in the same wing would require an amount of water in a container that was 8" X 3" X 129"(10.75')--which would clearly be impractical. So, in my opinion, at this size, lead is without a doubt the way to go.

MB Sailing

04-30-2010, 08:55 PM

Gary, thanks for the comments. The whole wing moves to windward in such a way that it will be very dfficult to bury the lee side of the wing. The pod is designed specifically for high speed contact with the water so that it creates a lot of dynamic lift in such a situation.
As to water ballast: at this size water ballast is probably impractical but if you look at my proposal for a 60' Moth you can see that the sliding on-deck ballast there is water and would work well.
Just as an illustration an 8" X 3" X 12" slug of lead similar to one that might slide in The Wing weighs 116lb. To put that much water in the same wing would require an amount of water in a container that was 8" X 3" X 129"(10.75')--which would clearly be impractical. So, in my opinion, at this size, lead is without a doubt the way to go.

Real good idea about the transverse foils (wing )... With this amount of ballast, ( if, I knew sail area ) the boat looks like it would be Kick Ass...

MB

Doug Lord

04-30-2010, 08:59 PM

Here are the details of the prototype:
===========
The following is a detailed look at the characteristics of the new Prototype, as well as the design elements it will encompass and test:
-----
Trapwing Prototype:
LOA 17' 8"
Beam hull-3.25' overall 12'(subject to testing)
Weight- hull 155lb
ballast-wing 80-180lb(variable and subject to testing)
keel 0-80(subject to testing)
SA-upwind 100-180sq.ft. variable
downwind 200-360sq.ft. (variable and subject to testing)
crew-singlehanded-120lb-220lb (variable and equalized under class rules-
subject to testing)
crew position for racing on the centerline inside boat, fixed
athwhartships, variable fore and aft
--------------------
1) Sail area to be between 100 and 180 sq.ft
a-different rigs
b-different amounts of ballast
--
2) Ballast wing to be supported by trapeze wires and unique retention system that allows wing and ballast to slide simultaneously, allows athwhartship pivoting and fore and aft movement.
a-version one will use two aluminum tubes with sliding external tray- the tubes and tray move simulataneously:
-attachment system allows wing- with weight centered-to be levered up and then pivoted from a position 90 degrees to the CL to a position parallel to the centerline for transport and stowage.
-weight can be added or removed in small increments.
-fore and aft pivot/sliding tube is mounted to the boat slightly offset from the CL to allow room to retract board/keel.
-aluminum tubes terminate at outboard ends in buoyancy pods-pods will be changeable as determined in testing.
-sliding ballast tray and structural design of wing to be capable of 180lb max ballast @9' from CL; ballast completely adjustable in the range of 80 to 180lb.
b-version two is a slightly curved(athwhartship), molded and sealed(with sealable access to ballast tray) wing with an internal sliding ballast tray. This version will be the final version and incorporates all the features of version one with significantly increased sealed buoyancy.
c-Wing movement by manual or electric means. Minimum electrical movement speed 4' per second. Minimum electrical "stamina" on single battery-12 hours at a rate equivalent to a approximately 60 (full track)tacks per hour.
--
3) Crew Position
a-version one-racing position-allows crew to sit in an extremely comfortable seat that is fixed athwhartship and slides fore and aft adjustably while sailing.
-extremely wide crew weight range:for racing lower tray attached to seat may contain ballast used to equalize crew weight in the range of 120 to 220 lb.
-seat may be moved manually or electrically.
b-version two-center seat is removed and two fixed carbon seats with backrests are "plugged-in" to each side deck.
--
4) Rigs to be tested are main and jib, main alone, with and without an asymetrical spinnaker.
a-asymetrical will be tested as permanently mounted off a bowsprit(a la Weta tri) or retracted into a trough with roller(a la Viper) and a retractable pole.
b-mast to be sealed with masthead floatation in an endplate configuration. Some buoyancy possible in head of sail.
--
5)-Daggerboard/ keel/rudder
a -boat will be tested with and without a retractable "lifting keel"
which would essentially be a carbon daggerboard with the minimum ballast required(determined in testing) to right the boat from a pitchpole(where the wing buoyancy may not significantly help).
b-self-righting from a knockdown or pitchpole is a required design element for any version of the boat used for disabled sailing.

c-a turbo version of the boat will not use a ballasted keel and may not be suitable for disabled sailing but this will be determined in testing.
d- the daggerboard may include as standard a lifting hydrofoil designed to provide "foil-assist" to reduce wetted surface and in conjunction with the rudder hydrofoil improve the pitch and planing characterstics of the
boat.
e-a fully flying hydrofoil system will be tested as will a fully flying system that allows the boat to fly downwind only(requiring less upwind SA and less ballast).
f-rudder will be retractable with a t-foil.
--
6)-On the Beach
a-the boat will be able to be easily beach sailed with a dolly incorporated into the trailer design to make it very simple to go from trailer to water. A "power assist" dolly may be available.
--
7)-Performance
a- the goal is to develop a high performance planing sailboat that can be safely sailed from a center crew position by disabled or able-bodied sailors. I am hoping to be able to achieve an SCP/total weight of 30% or slightly better though that is just a target and a less powerfull version with numbers and performance more like a Windmill or Tasar may be perfectly acceptable. The use of foil-assist technology will help to achieve the performance goals. Full flying foiling is possible in a selfrighting boat-particularly one with the righting assist this boat has from version two of THE Wing.
-------
The concept has extraordinary potential and it will be a blast finding out just what she'll do.

Gary Baigent

04-30-2010, 09:09 PM

Doug Lord

04-30-2010, 09:17 PM

As I thought, I had it wrong, you're moving the whole beam like an International Canoe sliding seat - and I thought you were sliding ballast along it (which would be a lot simpler, I might add) - actually you're doing what the failed speed record trimaran Slingshot attempted many decades ago.
But with all this complexity of moving stuff, Doug, wouldn't it be easier to just build a simple and well proven trimaran with foils?
-------------
Gary, the weight slides in the wing as the wing itself slides. This allows twice the RM compared to a fixed wing of the same length.*
This boat can be configured to be self-righting ,Gary. That is a critical element it its potential development. The moving stuff is not, to me, complex: it is actually quite simple and robust and certain configurations using THE WING will beat the foiling tri! Remember the fastest sailboat on the planet uses movable ballast.....

*Example- (rough illustration) : 6' fixed wing-100lb moves 3' from center. 6' sliding wing + internal sliding ballast of 100lb-ballast moves 6' from center with same length wing.

Doug Lord

05-01-2010, 05:27 PM

The rig shown is 120 sq. unstayed(except for trapeze wires). A rig about this size will be the first to test the system. Still having some camera problems(or photographer problems).
Also shown is name tag on stand....

click on images:

Doug Lord

05-01-2010, 06:10 PM

"Tractor seat on a pole"-

http://bearfacemedia.co.uk/Unit_Dinghy.aspx

Gary Baigent

05-01-2010, 06:13 PM

Doug Lord

05-01-2010, 06:17 PM

Doug. I should be the last to make such comments, being a type of Gyro Gearloose myself - but fargo truck mate, the whole concept of yours looks a mess. Maybe you should start from scratch again and simplify .... and simplify radically. At the moment it is belts, suspenders, braces, tangles and trip ups waiting to happen. Just being my usual brutal, but honest self. I mean well.

-------------------
Gee, Gary-thanks for the comments. I do think you are way off base in addition to being dead wrong. Luckily for me, your analysis is in the minority of those who might count.....

Chris Ostlind

05-01-2010, 10:33 PM

Gary... Why suggest pragmatism when there is a walnut based, self-made trophy with an engraved brass name plate to be built?

fng

05-04-2010, 09:37 AM

And he probably has to cut it up to be able to do a lines drawing

bistros

05-04-2010, 11:48 AM

Come on folks, let's be positive about this. Doug is building a model now, and that is a lot better than building nothing. Next he'll be building a boat, and that is a big step forward as well.

I think that we should all support Doug on his progress thus far, and wish him well. I certainly hope he succeeds in this project. At the root of all the noise around Doug, he does at least have lofty intentions - higher performance for the mobility challenged. I'd be happy if the boat works and Doug can rip around the ICW foiling with a cool one in the gimballed drink holder.

My own clear opinions on the project and Doug's abilities is irrelevant to my wish he succeeds. If he does succeed, great. If he doesn't succeed, he's at least building things and trying out ideas and that is far better than polishing his prodigious troll skills on the Internet.

Every minute Doug spends building things, walnut trophies or not is a minute not spent on the Internet. And that is a good thing for everyone.

--
Bill

Chris Ostlind

05-04-2010, 12:33 PM

Full agreement, Bill.

For my part, it was just a bit of humorous interplay, knowing that Doug is a true, avuncular gentleman and would understand the care with which it was posted.

Present tense suggestions of blistering performance aside, I'd really like to see a full-sized, working example, as well.

I do hope that there are some pictures/vid clips this time, as they will go miles to support any discussion in the future.

sail fast

05-04-2010, 01:56 PM

Doug, I would like to see a one meter model of this boat, could it become an AMYA Class? why not.
sailfast

Doug Lord

05-04-2010, 02:14 PM

Doug, I would like to see a one meter model of this boat, could it become an AMYA Class? why not.
sailfast
=====================
SF, heres a 36" prototype movable ballast foiler(microMOTH). It was extremely difficult to sail and because of that never became a product of microSAIL!.
But, the scow below and the Melges model were developed using the same basic Trapeze Power Ballast System and were tremendous fun to sail( and were self-righting). Having control of the ballast on an RC boat is loads of fun and one of the most exciting experiences in rc sailing. Hopefully, a new RC class using movable ballast will emerge before long....

Doug Lord

05-04-2010, 02:20 PM

View of rail seat system-seats easily remove for single "sit-in" seat:

Doug Lord

05-04-2010, 02:23 PM

View of model with "sit-in" seat and "foil assist" underwater configuration:

Note: Resistance Testing proposal of this hull and foils here: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/resistance-testing-planing-hull-sailboat-32633.html

sail fast

05-04-2010, 02:28 PM

Looks to me that the bow would "pitchpole" in choppy water and or high wind these light weight 36" and one meter boats are hard to control ih those conditions.
sail fast

Doug Lord

05-04-2010, 02:29 PM

View of trailerable configuration-wing pivots and slides slightly to side:

Doug Lord

05-04-2010, 02:36 PM

Looks to me that the bow would "pitchpole" in choppy water and or high wind these light weight 36" and one meter boats are hard to control ih those conditions.
sail fast

--------------------------
If you're talking about the microMOTH you're right. It was a poor design. I was trying to develop an inexpensive workable microfoiler. It needed to have the ballast move fore and aft as well as a minimal keel bulb-that would have made all the difference. The "skinny" 36 hull it was based on was quite fast when sailed in a "normal" keel configuration. Any new movable ballast model needs to have a minimum keel bulb-just enough for pitchpole recovery along with the Trapeze Power Ballast System. A good, well designed Trapeze Power Ballast System equipped boat is a blast....

ancient kayaker

05-04-2010, 02:52 PM

Doug Lord

05-04-2010, 03:20 PM

I would imagine a high performance RC sailing model would be hard enough to control at the best of times what with the need to synchronize rudder and sheet and avoid getting disoriented by changes in direction changing the sense of the transmitter controls.

Adding the unique challenges of foiling PLUS moving ballast would demand cat-like reflexes and octopus-like physical attributes!

Given that there is enough actuator power available in the model, automating the ballast control sounds like a good idea, and reasonably easy to do as well.

---------------------------
Well, not so easy on a monofoiler but on this boat it was a piece of cake. The dual differential wands took care of RM automatically and the design was virtually pitchpole proof though it could happen with a bad setup.
It was sailed with just two channels like every other rc boat.

Doug Lord

05-08-2010, 06:14 PM

This is 120sq.ft. unstayed. One of several rigs to be tested for beginners:

Doug Lord

05-08-2010, 06:18 PM

Moderate area rig with square top main AND square top jib. Rig also features lightweight buoyancy pod on top of mast to prevent turtling. Rig temporarily in place.
Found camera solution to slight blur-will replace many of the pictures already taken with better quality images as I get time.
----
The lightweight foam and carbon buoyancy pod used here was first used on a design of mine in 1972. It is a FIXED unit with its center of buoyancy close to the mast. It does not rotate nor is it attached to either the main or jib-which rotate 100% independently of the endplate/buoyancy pod.
----

Click on images THEN click on "+" sign. If "+" sign doesn't come up click on larger image then on "+" sign:

bistros

05-08-2010, 08:32 PM

While you are working on your photography, you might want to give a thought to lighting as well. You've got some serious shadowing going on that is making things very unclear. Generally, the subject isn't placed close to a wall, and shadows are directed out of frame or eliminated by fill lighting. A borderless background can really help.

A professional like Chris O would probably be willing to help show you how to fill and control lighting and shadow.

Is this the original aeroSKIFF model rig with the decals removed and tweaked a little?

--
Bill

Doug Lord

05-08-2010, 08:39 PM

Some additional pictures showing the "foil-assist" foils, 160 sq.ft rig (+ buoyancy pod) and centered WING. Jib temporarily taped in place:

Click on images THEN click on "+" sign. If "+" sign doesn't come up click on larger image then on "+" sign:

Chris Ostlind

05-09-2010, 12:13 AM

I'm kinda confused by your latest "models", Doug.

Ever since you first proposed this Trapwing idea, you've been going on and on about how it would not turn turtle, was fully and automatically self-righting and that it would blister the local venues with high performance for lazy old fat guys and disabled sailors alike... just as it was conceived by you originally.

Now, we see you adding a whole new element with this foamy, top of the sail pod. (which was taken from an idea I put forth several years ago, by the way)

The simple act of including this previous design study indicates that you do not think that the Trapwing will self-right and that the electronic gizmos you so heartily hail as the end-all, be-all of disabled and lazy fat guy sailing... will not work as planned. It's looking like the Trapwing is in a slow, de-evolution of capability while you try to effect clandestine fixes for issues that may have been poorly resolved in the beginning.

Below, see my study renderings for an end plate device that would be incorporated at the top of the sail/mast, from January 2006. All images were originally posted on these pages and serve as prior art. The only things that I could find like this were sewn-in, flat panel foam pieces near the sail headboard. They provided no end plate effect with their flotation component.

Truth is, I have not had the time to pursue this design process to its completion, as I would have liked to... but, it would have been really courteous of you to have at least asked before borrowing the design of the concept for your own stuff without proper acknowledgement.

Perhaps you can see your way clear to doing that now?

No comment right now as to the technical aspects of the photography as shown.

.

Gary Baigent

05-09-2010, 01:28 AM

ancient kayaker

05-09-2010, 08:58 AM

I have always wanted to sail a boat like a 2.4 Meter ... I'm interested in any ideas that would accomplish this in a relatively small POSSIBLY self righting monohull ...

Seems to me the self-righting onjective has been there from the beginning of this thread. I like the concept of the floaty foam top, though. What's the plan, Doug? Will you go for a RC model next? Do you plan to build this one full size?

Doug Lord

05-09-2010, 09:09 AM

Seems to me the self-righting onjective has been there from the beginning of this thread. I like the concept of the floaty foam top, though. What's the plan, Doug? Will you go for a RC model next? Do you plan to build this one full size?
----------------
Terry, the endplate/buoyancy pod has been part of this concept from the begining, particularly on the disabled version as another backup to prevent turtling. The buoyancy/endplates I've used throughout the last 35 years have been vertically oriented since that approach seemed like less drag than a wide horizontal endplate and would work equally well on each tack with less drag-and fits the buoyancy requirement better. This was illustrated in post 21,page 2 of this thread on the Trapwing 15. Turtling could probably only occur with a high speed pitchpole(that I doubt would ever happen) and with the buoyancy in the rig plus the small amount of ballast in the keel it will right itself. Capsize is virtually impossible with the sealed Wing but just in case the disabled version includes a ballast keel.
The plan now is to build a full size prototype based on the hull shown in a previous post and below-the same hull the model was based on.
The hull in the picture is 138lb and was a foiler in another life. The estimated additional weight for the bow and topsides mods is 38lb.(not including the Wing)

Chris Ostlind

05-09-2010, 09:18 AM

Thos things are not end plates on your supposed mast head "objects", Doug.

There is no slander. There is no malicious intent.

Truth is… those things on your models look very much like antennae, rather than anything else. You suppose that antennae would be a part of a RADIO CONTROLLED boat and that putting said device(s) at the highest point would serve for better reception? Why else would there be a singular projection that is very vulnerable to damage, if it weren't about being antennae?

Still, my man, a very big question remains... Why does the Trapwing need a flotation device at the mast head at all when you have, since the beginning of this idea, been proclaiming self-righting with no indication of the mast head device whatsoever?

The business of my study was to include a flotation form at the mast head on both the sail and the mast in order to keep boats from turning turtle. It was my opinion that as long as there would be an object for that purpose, why not shape it to provide a modest gain in end plate effect while increasing the buoyant properties.

I know you didn't patent any of that crap you have done with the antennae blob, or we would have heard all about it already a hundred times over. It would seem to me that if you want your objection to have any value, that you would produce detailed imagery of the precise shape and a description of same that can be conclusively dated.

Here's the link to a thread from three+ years ago in which the business of end plates and flotation were discussed by myself, along with the same illustrations seen above.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/sail-wing-tips-16638.html

If you read down below my post at the link, you will also see that you posted on the thread. You never mentioned flotation in combination. You did, though, say that, "...The "peaked up" version seems to work best(leach longer than luff) and in two boat testing in monohulls was always faster upwind. I think that for a variety of reasons its better than using an endplate."

Not one whiff of a comment about making use of endplates. Not one objection to my display of renderings that combined the two solutions. Not one thing to show how indignant you may have become because you found the devices study to be creeping into your hallowed, non-patented area.

Now, because you have gone away from your then preferred, peaked-up treatment, you have very pointedly entered into the realm I established with square topped, flotation/end plate sails.

In short, Doug, you have zero to say about your having been supposedly slandered. At every turn it has been shown that you did not develop anything even close and in fact, preferred something else... which you have now mysteriously abandoned, while pursuing forms that are mysteriously like the ones I developed.

Next time you wish to get into a huff about your perception of offending smoke in the room, it might be best to do your homework first. Seems that you are the only one smoking.

Doug Lord

05-09-2010, 09:20 AM

Yeah, so there Doug, yeah - and I want acknowledgment for the swinging forward beam too. Actually Randy Smyth did it first - but his is a different setup with two beams to the single main beam on Scissoring Sid. So he also should also be acknowledged. And your boat is still a mess of contradictions, confusion and increasing complexity. I fully expect to see a helicopter rotor on top soon.
-------------
Gee, Gary I came up with the pivoting wing many years ago-and posted it in this forum YEARS before you or Randy Smyth pivoted anything. In fact, you still haven't.....Your comments about the Trapwing are pretty general in an ugly, uninformed way. Care to be more specific, point for point?

Chris Ostlind

05-09-2010, 09:50 AM

Well, Doug... I suppose that you can take me to court and prove that you have been harmed, or even that the comments were untrue. You'll lose both issues based on easily presented facts in evidence and it will cost you a lot of money to discover that reality. Money which you do not have.

Chris Ostlind

05-09-2010, 11:13 AM

Quote from Doug Lord post since retracted...

"The buoyancy at the top of the rig of the Trapwing 15 is illustrated on page 2, post 21 of this thread."

OK, so let's go to page 2, post #21 and see just what it is to which Doug refers.

We see a line drawing with some sort of shape at the top of the main sail. Looking closely, in enlargement mode, it looks to be more like a gantry form, than it does anything else. Further, within the body of the copy, Doug talks about the endplate effect on the jib. Trouble is, the endplate to which he refers, is at the foot of the sail in the form of a jib boom and not at all about any endplate at the head of the square topped jib. And I quote, "...This is similar to the system used on model boats except that the pivot point of the jib boom/endplate is attached to a sliding car on a track that slides athwhartship."

At no point does he reference any kind of flotation pod, in the form of an endplate device at the top of the main/jib location.

This is not the same thing as the design study being discussed at present and it isn't even at the correct end of the jib. Doug's points are without merit and are not even closely connected.

Do keep in mind that even if there were a reference, as Doug would have us believe, this drawing appears in a post made in February of this year, while the thread was opened in October of 2009. Additionally, the subject of the Trapwing was a long running topic on another, previous thread that had been locked by the Moderator, with no mention in that thread either of any kind of endplate-flotation device at the top of the mast.

The design solution so contested was not a part of the Trapwing from its inception. It is appearing now as a direct lift from the work I did four years ago. Please attribute, correctly, the "ripped-off" design concept, Doug, as prior art from a source not attributable to your own work.

Like I said, if you want to continue with this charade, I'll go pound-out the whole truth from the Sailing Anarchy site where it also does not appear as an original thought at inception of the Trapwing.

Please withdraw your accusations and apologize for your explosive bad manners in having done so. At that point, it all goes away and we can return to the friendly discourse.

Gary Baigent

05-09-2010, 06:57 PM

-------------
Gee, Gary I came up with the pivoting wing many years ago-and posted it in this forum YEARS before you or Randy Smyth pivoted anything. In fact, you still haven't.....Your comments about the Trapwing are pretty general in an ugly, uninformed way. Care to be more specific, point for point?

Specifically, you are designing a fast boat, no? Then how in hell is your Trapwing going to move decently carting that load of ballasted junk around? That's oxymoron-like. What you have is a version of Uffa Fox's Flying 15 combined with a screwed up and far more complicated semi-copy of Fox's International Canoe's sliding seat - both boats designed in the '30's-'40's of last Century, by the way. And how is the poor bastard steering this thing going to handle all these Michael Mouse controls, shifting ballast, then shifting beam, not to mention basic sail controlling and steering, making sure he doesn't get caught aback with all ballast in the wrong place ... because if he does, those tiny floats will do zero and the boat will lie there stuck because the heeling of the craft will not be enough for the heavy or deep ballasted keel to bring it upright. I envisage the electronics fusing out, the said poor bastard enveloped in ozone haze - and still stuck in irons at a silly angle. And I am not a negative person, he said.
Why not a conventional, basic trimaran ... and you can still put your cheater masthead thingo up there to stop inversion ... should the unlikely event occur. Then you could have manual winch controlled shrouds to stand the boat upright again. Its all been done before ... and it is a simple solution .... whereas yours is terrifyingly complex and a guaranteed Sod's Law to raise his ugly head.

Doug Lord

05-09-2010, 07:09 PM

Specifically, you are designing a fast boat, no? Then how in hell is your Trapwing going to move decently carting that load of ballasted junk around? That's oxymoron-like. What you have is a version of Uffa Fox's Flying 15 combined with a screwed up and far more complicated semi-copy of Fox's International Canoe's sliding seat - both boats designed in the '30's-'40's of last Century, by the way. And how is the poor bastard steering this thing going to handle all these Michael Mouse controls, shifting ballast, then shifting beam, not to mention basic sail controlling and steering, making sure he doesn't get caught aback with all ballast in the wrong place ... because if he does, those tiny floats will do zero and the boat will lie there stuck because the heeling of the craft will not be enough for the heavy or deep ballasted keel to bring it upright. I envisage the electronics fusing out, the said poor bastard enveloped in ozone haze - and still stuck in irons at a silly angle. And I am not a negative person, he said.
Why not a conventional, basic trimaran ... and you can still put your cheater masthead thingo up there to stop inversion ... should the unlikely event occur. Then you could have manual winch controlled shrouds to stand the boat upright again. Its all been done before ... and it is a simple solution .... whereas yours is terrifyingly complex and a guaranteed Sod's Law to raise his ugly head.
=====================
You should read this thread if you're interested. Every question you ask has been answered-in detail.
That is a really unfortunate comment Gary.
Some notes:
1)- the ballast in the wing moves faster than a human on a trapeze dinghy and will do it all day long and part of the night-at a minimum.
2)- the sealed wing + the pods will support the ballast when it is max out.
3)- handling the elements of this boat will be a piece of cake for anyone with a few hours experience. Tens years of model testing with the exact same controls this boat will use gives every indication that the co-ordination and commonsense required to sail a Trapwing is within most peoples grasp.
4)- a trimaran would not be self-righting this boat can be configured to be self-righting w/o crew input. There is an excellent chance that a "Turbo" version of this boat with foils would beat a tri.
==============
regarding the ostlind trash, read post 135 which contains my response and all I will say on the matter period.

bistros

05-09-2010, 10:06 PM

All:

I'm certain Mr. Lord will eventually build/rebuild his prototype Trapwing boat from the reclaimed aeroSKIFF hull, and I'm dead certain it will be as much of a success as the aeroSKIFF (it foiled three times!) before it. Doug has a long track record of building innovative feature-intense boats. The Tantra, the Kona Kat, his cruisers and the aeroSKIFF all give us a clear indication of what the future holds.

As long as RC models and boat building keeps Doug happy and busy, why not encourage him? There are a lot worse things he could be doing instead of annoying people on the Internet.

No one is going to win any arguments with Doug - he's not bound by the same rules of science, engineering and social conduct as the rest of us. Everyone should stop trying to force their own limited reality on a visionary like Doug.

--
Bill

Chris Ostlind

05-09-2010, 11:44 PM

Bill, I completely concur with your wonderful assessment of Doug's potential. He's truly a man of many visions and I am as sure as you are that the Trapwing, when completed, will be absolutely a game changer for the sailing world. Let's just watch and see how all this unfolds.

Doug Lord

05-11-2010, 05:05 PM

=============================

My response to the false accusations made by ostlind page 9,post 133 and re-iterated in several paragraphs of post 140.
The following is the e-mail notification copy of ostlinds original post,since changed:

"I'm kinda confused by your latest "models", Doug.

Ever since you first proposed this Trapwing idea, you've been going on and on about how it would not turn turtle, was fully and automatically self-righting and that it would blister the local venues with high performance for lazy old fat guys and disabled sailors alike... just as it was conceived by you originally.

Now, we see you adding a whole new element with this foamy, top of the sail pod, which was stolen from an idea I put forth several years ago, by the way, and you totally fail to acknowledge here, as if you came up with the idea on your own.

The simple act of including this ripped-off form indicates that you do not think that the Trapwing will self-right and that the electronic gizmos you so heartily hailed as the end-all, be-all of disabled and lazy fat guy sailing... will not work as planned.

A stolen, unacknowledged design study and a closeted admission of not being able to fulfill the original Trapwing design goals, does not make for a wholesome journey with previously, over the top claims. It's looking like the Trapwing is in a slow, de-evolution of capability while you try to effect clandestine fixes for issues that were poorly conceived.

Below, see my renderings for a top of the sail/mast, end plate study from January 2006. All images were originally posted on these pages and serve as prior art. The only thing ever done even remotely like this were sewn-in flat panel foam pieces near the sail headboard. They provided no end plate effect with their flotation component.

Truth is, I have not had the time to pursue this design process to its completion, as I see it... but, it would have been really courteous of you to have at least asked before swiping the design of same for your own stuff without proper acknowledgement.
Perhaps you can see your way clear to doing that now?
=======
That is one of your most obnoxious, false and malicious comments ever. You have sunk to a new, uninformed low.I first used a buoyancy/endplate at the top of an experimental rig in 1972 , and in 1975 on the "Tantra"-pictures enclosed. I used it again in 1995 on the Flyer 3-a large ,production radio controlled trimaran. The closest to the buoyancy pod/endplate on the Trapwng prototype is the "ribbon jib" rig I designed and built in about 1972! It utilizes a fixed endplate/buoyancy pod attached to the mast just as does the Trapwing Prototype-see the picture below.
I demand an apology and removal of your slanderous ,false post.

=======================================================
UPDATE:In the post above(133) Mr.ostlind accused me of using his work without his permission. It is a baseless and false accusation. See my response above and the pictures below where I show numerous versions of endplate/buoyancy pods that I actually BUILT and tested over the last 38 years. In fact the oldest picture in the group shows a masthead buoyancy pod/endplate exactly the same in fucntion as the one on the Trapwing Prototype and similar but not exactly the same in appearance . But I've discovered an amazing thing here where Ostlind himself proves me right.
Look at his words below and look at his pictures on post 133. These words appeared with his endplate pictures in his original post. It is clear that his "endplate" is attached to the sail and ROTATES WITH THE SAIL! He said that the endplate/buoyancy pod shown by me in the last Trapwing Prototype photo(post 130)
"borrowed his idea". Well, as I just said, the pictures below disprove this conclusively but so do Ostlinds own words below: The buoyancy pod/endplate shown on my Trapwing photo( and in an earlier sketch) IS FIXED TO THE MAST-IT DOES NOT ROTATE. THE MAIN AND JIB ROTATE 100% INDEPENDENTLY OF THE
TRAPWING BUOYANCY POD/ENDPLATE.
That is totaly different than Ostlinds "endplate"!! Not only is it my design but rather than just a sketch, functional versions were built and tested in 1972, 1975, 1995 and now on the Trapwing. One other thing: this is something he obviously doesn't know and would be a killer if his contraption was ever included on a boat: when the buoyancy of an endplate is centered substantially aft of its pivot point on the mast and the boat capsizes the buoyancy lifts the back end of the sail making it EXCEEDINGLY hard to right a boat so-equipped. I know this from first hand experience-not from theory.
Note particularly the endplate/buoyancy pod on the aeroSKIFF(Dancer=project working name) which is nearly IDENTICAL in function to the
Trapwing system. Should be-its the same rig! But it was designed in 1998!
==============================================

ostlinds description of his "endplate" from here: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/sail-wing-tips-16638.html Post #3
"I see the end plate system as made from a soft, semi-flexible foam with a cover made from sailcloth. Because it is foam, it has the potential to resist a full turtling capsize on multihulls, doing away with the quirky, Hobie Bob style, of mast head float. A multihull that does not turtle, is in much better shape for self-righting than one that has gone all the way over and needs assistance.

The foam is an integrated functional part of the sail at the mast head and could be attached quite easily with some of the newer, more tenacious Velcro so it cold be transferable from sail to sail, or removed altogether, returning the sail to its original form.

I see a companion piece on the mast head so that optimal streamlining could be enjoyed, further reducing the drag signature created by the device and creating additional end plate effect."==================================

pictures over the last 35 years. Trapwing 15 sketch from page 2 post 21 of this thread showing masthead buoyancy/endplate, Flyer 3 with buoyancy pod/endplate and the closest to the Trapwing Prototype FIXED endplate/buoyancy pod- the"ribbon jib" rig with FIXED upper buoyancy pod/endplate-circa 1972-and the aeroSKIFF buoyancy pod /endplate designed for my 16' foiler all of which I designed-----

Click on images THEN click on "+" sign. If "+" sign doesn't come up click on larger image then on "+" sign:

Chris Ostlind

05-11-2010, 05:39 PM

Geez, Doug. You're still ranting away as if all this is important stuff. Are you so totally insecure that you feel you need to keep on blowing bandwidth with this nonsense?

Here's the bottom line, Doug. You haven't proven one thing that would constitute slander in a court room... not one. Flipping that term around as if you actually know what it means, represents some sorry thinking on the matter

Here's a good bit of homework for you and it should shut your pie hole on any of this. Go look-up the term, look up the burden of proof that is set upon you by the courts and then, let us all know how many slander cases have been brought to a successful end by the maker of the complaint.

Truth is, Doug... (and this is where you are so completely devoid of legal understanding that it should be making your head spin) Slander refers to the spoken word and Libel covers all other forms, such as written material. Clearly, you are accusing me of something that never existed if you refer to the written opinions I offered on these pages as slander.

Slander and libel are the two most difficult prosecutions to make in the law. The burden is entirely on the party bringing the suit and it isn't just a matter of showing the judge and/or jury that the material has actually been published, or spoken. It has everything to do with you proving that by doing so, I have damaged you. Since you have already done plenty on these pages to damage yourself, you're going to be extremely hard pressed to prove that I could have possibly taken that posture any further than it already exists.

Then, Douglas, there's this pesky little problem with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You know, the one where it says that there shall be freedom of the press? Add the Constitutional proofs required, along with the burden of proof of having been personally damaged and you get an impossible hill to climb.

Since you have no money to your name... (let's face it, Doug, if you had money on hand to pursue lame legal actions such as this, you'd have long ago completed your many, many wild and crazy boat projects that amount to the flavor of the month on these pages) it would be best for you to just get off your back legs and be a pedestrian, pain in the fanny citizen, once again.

I have my opinion, I've voiced it and you still haven't shown anything that would deter the argument. It's kinda like the proofs you have offered regarding the foiling of that Aero Thingy you made.

In short, Ya Got Bupkis.

You're the only one who has lost it here, or you'd have let it drop already and moved on. Clearly, I've touched a hyper-sensitive nerve for you and it must be very uncomfortable to live that way.

Doug Lord

05-11-2010, 06:40 PM

Views of the boat with the wing at max deployment with max ballast on port tack. The WING will take variable amounts of ballast as well as having a variable range of extension. The athwartship pivot is adjustable allowing the height of the ballast to be adjustable.

ancient kayaker

05-11-2010, 07:16 PM

While not wanting to get into the polemics, I don't think a buoyant mast-top will confer self-righting capability on any boat. All it does is prevent it turning turtle if it gets laid down by a gust. If the boat then lays passively on its ear, the cap isn't going to do any more.

I don't see how making it from a soft material helps the cap perform its anti-turtling function any better. It might well be lighter but more significant is the safety aspect should it become detached and possibly an ability to conform to the curve of the sail, although I would want to see that happen before I accepted it.

This thread is beginning to lose momentum.

stubby

05-11-2010, 07:57 PM

I have to say, I like Doug's idea, and I think we should be offering constructive criticism rather than strait out insults. If it works, well we will have one hell of a design on our hands, yes some of us may want to see more hard evidence, but if Doug has an idea in his head, why not let him peruse it?
but thats just my 2 cents

Paul B

05-11-2010, 08:00 PM

why not let him peruse it?

No one is stopping him.

No one has been stopping him for the past 8 years or so he has been posting his ideas and insults on internet sites.

stubby

05-11-2010, 08:01 PM

No one is stopping him.

No one has been stopping him for the past 8 years or so he has been posting his ideas and insults on internet sites.

maybe no one is actively stopping him but as far as I can see he is getting insults left right and center.

Paul B

05-11-2010, 08:20 PM

maybe no one is actively stopping him but as far as I can see he is getting insults left right and center.

Have you wondered why?

If you had been following the Doug Lord saga for the past 8+ years on the internet you might understand...

stubby

05-11-2010, 08:21 PM

not for the past 8+ years, but I have read through a majority of it and I like his idea and I hope it works.

Paul B

05-11-2010, 08:31 PM

not for the past 8+ years, but I have read through a majority of it and I like his idea and I hope it works.

You have not read through a majority of what he has plagued the internet with.

He has been banned from multiple sites already, and most of his posts on this site do not show up if you search on his name.

Let's see how much you like him and his ideas about 2 years from now.

stubby

05-11-2010, 08:35 PM

ok if you say so, but I still say this idea is interesting, and I would like to see it take off.

Paul B

05-11-2010, 08:37 PM

ok if you say so, but I still say this idea is interesting, and I would like to see it take off.

Maybe you can invest in his ideas to help bring them to fruition.

stubby

05-11-2010, 08:43 PM

I would if I had a job and money, and was older than I am.

Paul B

05-11-2010, 08:49 PM

I would if I had a job and money, and was older than I am.

There are other ways to contribute. Maybe you can do his technical drawings for him, or maybe you have other skills he can use.

Stick with Doug and you can become famous too!

stubby

05-11-2010, 08:51 PM

I'v got other things to do, like designing my own boats, and school work. But that doesn't stop me from liking the idea.

Doug Lord

05-11-2010, 08:55 PM

stubby

05-11-2010, 09:06 PM

HAHA yes, but as I see it, there are 2 senarios.
1.This design works, and we have a nice successful design that will be fun and challenging to sail.
2.It fails, we have good food for thought for future designs.

Its a win win, either way we get something out of it.

Gary Baigent

05-11-2010, 09:20 PM

Doug Lord

05-11-2010, 09:56 PM

Doug, you've got a lifting foil on the very deep bulb keel .... which is going to be a pain in the ass to launch by the way, (it's not a lightweight Moth) or does the poor boob attempting to control this hyper complex death trap have electronic mechanisms to lift and lower what looks like, a substantially weighted bulb? Back to foil, is that to alleviate the weight of the keel with lift? If so, this is oxymoron-ville with a plus. Or are you copying those kind-of sexy looking but massive bulb keels with wings that those dinosaurs from previous AC races dragged around with them? At least theirs had a purpose to increase draft when heeled. But yours looks like decoration ... because the Trapped Under Wing is not meant to heel like so.
No doubt, with the ballast and the sliding wing at their asymmetrical limit, there will be decent righting moments developed ... but you're totally BS'ing if you think said boob sitting primly in his seat is not going to screw up and dig that out there heavy contraption underwater *.. and it will probably keep going down, whoops!! - and you've designed this TUW partially for physically handicapped people!! It really does look fargo trucking dangerous. A trimaran, a with-a-little-bit-of-help self righting trimaran - expend your efforts in that direction ..... because that would be a breakthrough ... and then you could put your polished brass plaque underneath with your name engraved upon it with real pride.
---------------
I'm amazed to see this kind of rude,unprofessional vitriol from a man who is about to build a trimaran with a pivoting cross/arm cabin structure!
1) the ballast in the keel is for one purpose only: to assure self-righting in combination with the sealed WING.
2) the foils on the keel and rudder in the keel version are there to reduce wetted surface helping the boat to get on a plane earlier as well as to improve pitch control-in other words for "foil assist".
3) this concept has been tested for ten years on several models in a multitude of conditions NO control issues. Boats like the International canoe and Skate use sliding appendages to allow the crew to get further out. The WING on this boat is higher off the water than either of those.
4) Launching is no problem whatsoever, as you would understand if you had read the thread. The foils are retracted for trailering and launching. A block and tackle or electric system easily lifts the daggerboard with ballast. The trailer/dolly system makes beach launching simple with all sorts of options depending on the limitations of the skipper.
5) At least one championship disabled sailor and a world renown disabled sailing coach think this boat has tremendous potential!

*hilarious use of english,thanks...

Skate from the Aussie Skate site-Unit 7 with sliding seat(bearfacemedia.com.uk)

Click on images THEN click on "+" sign. If "+" sign doesn't come up click on larger image then on "+" sign:

stubby

05-11-2010, 10:08 PM

you may notice the foil assist has been used with great success before on small boats even round the world boats.

Doug Lord

05-11-2010, 10:14 PM

you may notice the foil assist has been used with great success before on small boats even round the world boats.
-------
Hey, stubby-you're so right and Hugh Welbourn with his DSS has brought "foil assist" to monohull keelboats which is absolutely fantastic. This boat does it in a slightly different way but Wellbourn is the pioneer. Did you see that his 25 just won big?

Chris Ostlind

05-11-2010, 10:24 PM

maybe no one is actively stopping him but as far as I can see he is getting insults left right and center.

Stubby,

With all due respect to your opinions and wishes, as Paul has said above, our favorite, "complexity in sailing", guru has been the generator of frequent outbursts that have far surpassed the posted opinions on his design work.

It would seem to me that if you are going to bring a contraption like this to the pages of boatdesign.net, you are seeking opinions on the merits of same from the gathered members. This is a good thing, as I see it, if the person doing the submitting is open to any and all ideas that may be presented. Unfortunately, there has been a significant history on this site in which our friend has referred to the opinions of others as absurd, silly and a host of other choice phrases for which he has gained renown. Words and phrases, mind you, that are designed to raise the amplitude of the rhetoric so that he can be heard above his own din.

I say that his design work should be what speaks for him and if it is poorly conceived, then he should be ready to accept those facts and drop back and rethink the design elements. If he still insists that the design is properly thought-through, then it is incumbent upon him to build a full-sized, working example as proposed and prove to all of us that he has a clear vision worthy of consideration.

For the last six years, we have seen no full size working models of anything from our friend. There have been something like six, or more, (I lost count some time back, actually) favorite flavors of the month for our good buddy and not one of them was taken to completion. Yet the ugly rhetoric from our friend continues if one opines as to the lack of a working reality in his latest go-round. Wait and see, it's bound to happen all over again and the game will be abundantly clear to you when it does.

When someone (our friend) isn't listening and this is especially true when the generous contributing opinion givers have significantly more experience as designers and sailors, as has happened in the past AND our friend postures excessively with careless and condescending language... it does not generally lead to a pleasant discourse.

Our buddy has called-out at least half a dozen world champion sailors, another dozen, or so, top designers who operate regularly at the cutting edge of their craft... accusing them of being out of touch and that they don't know what they are doing. That it is he, and only he, who has a finger on the pulse of the performance sailing world. We've grown to understand over the last five years, or so, that our friend is not here to listen and gain knowledge, he is here to make sure that you know how super creative he is in his zeal to over-design every single craft of which he has had a part.

Again, the man is not listening.

Best of luck to you.

stubby

05-11-2010, 10:45 PM

ok i didn't realize that, but I like the idea, its an interesting one. OK maybe some models would be good. Maybe he has gone about it the wrong way, I'm not saying he is right I'm just saying I like the idea.

Gary Baigent

05-11-2010, 11:05 PM

Chris Ostlind

05-11-2010, 11:45 PM

And while that is happening, Gary, along comes Mr. Simple Trimaran with righting moment built in to the form itself. Skipper is comfortable, relaxed, not fiddling with a pair of joysticks... just tooling along at speed, taking in the wind patterns and enjoying the heck out of the day on the water.

Uh-oh... Mr. Simple Trimaran just blew past Mr. WING Trapped gizmo craft and the dude on board, rather than harried and bagged-out, is smiling and taking a bite of his sandwich.

http://ww7.investorrelations.co.uk/challenger/photo.jsp

Back at the ramp, Mr. Simple is all loaded-up and about to jam on home when he spies Mr. Trapped WING, off to the side of the ramp in the shallows, still trying to get his recalcitrant Gizmo WING to slide this way, or was it that way and rotate like this, or was like that and now, on which end is the battery supposed be... Oh, my gosh! there goes the spindly deck mounts for the sealed WING Trapper and we're gonna miss the regatta next week while down for repairs.

Two weeks later, the ad reads, "WINGED-out Trapper for sale... cheap. I just want it outta here so I can get a tri and spend more time on the water" He didn't mention how much the Gizmo Trapper boat cost him in the first place and the ad went unanswered.

Ahhh, the joys of hyper-tech.

Doug Lord

05-11-2010, 11:54 PM

Doug, you're likening a conventional sliding seat, or trapese, or even crew sitting on the rail on unballasted, or lightly ballasted dinghies - to your extremist sliding beam TUW overweight contraption. The comparison is such that there is no comparison. Yours is supposedly for some physically impaired person sitting central and staying central, operating battery powered mechanisms, not an agile crew sliding his or her own weight in/out, but yours is ... here I push the button and the weighty ballast moves out, whoops too far, lull, oh, here comes a gust, bzzz bzz, out she goes further, my, oh my, more wind coming, bzzz bzz, operate the front end loader extension, get it right out there, way out there, gee Doug, thanks for the extreme beam, oh, oh, huge power boat passing close by, big lull, big wake, whoops, whats the sulfurous smell? oh, oh, water up my nose, help, help.
========================
I believe you are quite mistaken: the boat will be about 180lb minus ballast which is 20lb lighter than the 15' Windmill, just a little heavier than the Tasar and a bit less than an I-14. Much less than a 505, 49er. And all those boats are 2-4' shorter. And if you want to include ballast, then add the crew weight to all these boats!
Many disabled boats are sailed with electric systems-they can be very reliable or disabled sailors wouldn't use them. See earlier in the thread.
This boat and/or versions of it can be sailed 100% manually as well. This is a broad concept, model tested for years.
It will be an exciting,fast, self-righting(with keel ballast) boat the likes of which has not been done by anyone yet.
For you to use the "rationale" you are is unfortunate because I-and a few others-believe that this boat can provide a new kind of sailing that is very fast, fun, thrilling and NOT physically demanding while providing a safe and easy to transport platform.
Yes we can!

CT 249

05-12-2010, 12:39 AM

As a matter of interest, how will a reasonably durable boat, with the added structure of the sliding beam and control systems, come in lighter than the 49er and not much over the Tasar without being extremely expensive? I believe that the weight of an HSP, with a much finer main hull and light lightly-stressed alloy tubes, as similar to the weight target for your design. The 15' Supernova tri was some 90kg, and it was designed by a successful designer nad was not overweight.

Secondly, are you sure that the sliding beam is higher above the water than that of an IC or Skate? Can you provide us with measurements? If so, who gave you the Skate ones - Maxy?

Thirdly, why would this boat be less complicated to tack than an IC with self-tacker, which is in some respects the closest comparable boat?

If I recall correctly, in a typical tack from threequarter to opposite tack reach, the skipper will have to;

1) sheet on both sails while;
2) turning the boat and;
3) operating the ballast-control position lever through a very wide variety of positions as the heeling force changes as the angle and pressure change; and then through the tack

1) steer the boat through the tack while;
2) adjusting sail trim and;
3) moving the beam from side to side (the beam and ballast positions are independent, aren't they?) and;
4) moving the ballast at a non-constant rate in accordance with the changes in apparent pressure and angle.

This appears to be a much more complex procedure than most craft; arguably more complex than (for example) tacking a Skiff or Canoe, which are normally considered to be quite difficult tasks. Yes, you have years of experience in R/C boats - others of us have years of experience in life-size boats of a complexity and of dimensions similar to this craft and we do not believe that it would be as easy as you believe. Repeatedly saying that you believe it would work is not enough evidence for us to be convinced - I've seen the problems that good sailors have just steering a Canoe or HSP through a tack and even allowing for a very light keel etc, I can't see why this boat would be any easier.

Furthermore, the buoyancy pods look very small for something that is designed to compensate for the situation where you are caught aback in (say) 25 knots of breeze, with the ballast on the wrong side. For example, the pods in the Bethwaite HSP look to be of similar size and they were not always enough to keep the boat upright in that situation even without a crew and ballast.

As you have requested feedback, could you please provide us with theoretical proof of self-righting, using some accepted formulae for wind pressure etc? I note once again that something like a 16 Foot Skiff can often require the full crew (520 lb+) on the centreboard for righting on a windy day. In addition, have you allowed for the effect of the beam, which will act as a turtling force because of windage (if projecting above the water) or act as a turtling force by acting as a sea anchor while the rest of the boat is blown downwind (if projecting below the water).

Finally, given that you can certainly nosedive a HSP (which lacks lifting foils but is an inherently lighter concept) why is this boat so unlikely to nosedive? If it goes nosedive and invert, what happens?

Please note that you have asked for feedback and discussion.

You may also like to take note of the fact that the rest of the group involved in this discussion have all created new designs or (at least) remodelled existing ones and that all (or almost all) have sailed many new craft, and therefore cannot be called stick-in-the-muds.

Finally, can it be said that for any person to merely repeat their own belief is not very convincing. For example, no matter how many times you say that you believe that the boat will self right in 25 knot winds, I won't be convinced until you provide figures and calculations that rely on widely-accepted sources and coincide with experience. For example, the fact that righting a 14 or 16 is normally the job of two or three men totalling 350-550 lb+ of on the centreboard means that many of find it hard to see how this boat will self-right with 80lb of keel. The fact that a Flying 15 can lie down long enough to fill, despite a 280lb keel, also indicates that a boat with 80lb of ballast may not right easily (or at all).

PS - like others here, I've found small tris (Supernova, HSP, Windrider, Dugout and TriFli are the ones I've sailed) to be wonderful craft to sail.

The Challenger is already an established tri for disabled sailors and is so safe that one has been sailed around the UK by a disabled sailor. There's at least one guy campaigning for the Challenger to be the Paralympic class (and let's hope it succeeds). Surely it would be an excellent existing craft.

Doug Lord

05-12-2010, 07:55 AM

Finally, can it be said that for any person to merely repeat their own belief is not very convincing. For example, no matter how many times you say that you believe that the boat will self right in 25 knot winds, I won't be convinced until you provide figures and calculations that rely on widely-accepted sources and coincide with experience. For example, the fact that righting a 14 or 16 is normally the job of two or three men totalling 350-550 lb+ of on the centreboard means that many of find it hard to see how this boat will self-right with 80lb of keel. The fact that a Flying 15 can lie down long enough to fill, despite a 280lb keel, also indicates that a boat with 80lb of ballast may not right easily (or at all).

.
-------------------
Thank you for your feedback. The righting capability of the boat with the keel is augmented by the sealed wing which has a great deal of buoyancy.
Total righting moment@ 90degrees is a minimum of approx. 2.5 times the heeling moment from the rig but that depends on the amount of ballast being carried which, as stated numerous times, is variable as is SA. However, I won't be able to prove anything without thorough testing which is the purpose of building the prototype.The Challenger seems like a great boat. But its over 140lb heavier than the Trapwing(w/o ballast). It is heavier than the Trapwing with ballast and the same SA of the Challenger!(80.7)
Challenger weight(w/o crew)= 320lb.
Trapwing weight ,ballasted for same SA as Challenger(w/o crew)= 275lb.

LOA: 4.57m/ 14.9'

Beam: 3.50m /11.48'

Weight: 145.62 kg/ 320.36lb

Construction: GRP

Draft, center board up 12cm, down 45 cmm

Portsmouth Yardstick rating: 1200

Mast height: 6.5m

Sail Measurements

Sail area: 7.5 sq. mtrs / 80.7 sq.ft.

Luff: 5..37 mtrs

Foot: 2.41 mtrs

¼ height: 2.003 mtrs

½ height: 1.58 mtrs

¾ height: 0.96 mtrs

Classs Approved sail confirguration UNA-RIG

bistros

05-12-2010, 08:18 AM

-------------------
Thank you for your feedback. The righting capability of the boat with the keel is augmented by the sealed wing which has a great deal of buoyancy.
On the disabled ,keel version the wing is auto matically centered in a knockdown

Doug:

Again you are having trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy. This boat DOES NOT EXIST today, so therefore it can't automatically center the wing, or self right. These future features DO NOT EXIST, they haven't been proven on a full scale boat, none of the weight targets have been met, none of the mechanisms have been fabricated full size, from appearances no calculations or engineering science has been applied, published and reviewed.

You may PLAN for this to happen, but until it does it remains a fantasy, not reality. You represent your plans as fait accompli, and do not bother with qualification to your statements of conjecture.

Talking about versions as if they exist of a design that has not even made it to a linesplan or offsets could easily confuse readers into thinking your PLANS are further along the curve than they are.

I PLAN on making ocean passages when I retire - that DOES NOT make me a blue water yachtsman now.

--
Bill

Chris Ostlind

05-12-2010, 08:39 AM

Yes we can!

Is this another stolen element? You make a habit of this, don't you?

Doug Lord

05-12-2010, 08:40 AM

Doug:

Again you are having trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy. --
Bill

---------------------
You should have read the previous post more carefully. And you should probably not ignore the 10 years of model testing that has proven that the concept works and is very reliable in a multitude of conditions. Model testing of this type is a very reliable indicator of performance and has been used by many of the top designers includeing Alain Thebault(apologies for sp). Greg Ketterman, Dr. Sam Bradfield, Bill Burns of CBTF and many others. The performance that we looked at was the performance of a sliding ballast system controlled by the skipper. It works and has been proven in model testing. Now it is time to build a full size prototype to refine the system and verify the test results achieved so far.

Chris Ostlind

05-12-2010, 09:02 AM

... which has a great deal of buoyancy.

How much buoyancy? This figure has never been revealed. Is it a great deal more than a ping-pong ball, for instance? Or, is it a great deal more than a welded-shut VW Beetle? How do you know how much buoyancy this wing has unless you have run the volume calcs and then subtracted the weight of the wing itself, as well as the battery, the carriage, the sliding rods, the electrical wiring, etc.?

It would seem that you are merely guessing, yet you make comments about the critical functional element, as if it were a done deal. Having no previous boats out there with a similar form, from where do you draw your grounded comparison?

However, I won't be able to prove anything without thorough testing which is the purpose of building the prototype.
The Challenger seems like a great boat. But its over 140lb heavier than the Trapwing(w/o ballast). It is heavier than the Trapwing with ballast and the same SA of the Challenger!(80.7)

There is quite the dichotomy here in these sentences. First you say that you can't prove anything until it is built full-size, which is prudent. Then you go on to say that the Trapwing WILL BE lighter. Seeing as how this is a prototype, how can you be sure that the craft will not need additional structure beyond your "rough" estimates to make it work dependably?

How are you arriving at your weight estimates with only simple pencil sketches to define the forms, their actual sizes and placements? How are you calculating the necessary amounts of GRP reinforcements and bulkheads to support such a high speed structure while moving across a minimal, exposed deck surface? Where are the engineered calcs from precision, dimensioned drawings to support the claims?

There are a few people on this planet that can draw an atom bomb on a napkin, Doug... and make it work because they have it all in their head. You'll have to forgive my skepticism on this, but you do not come across as one of those folks. That would put you in the realm of dreamers who are pretty much winging it, which is decent company, mind you, but not really what I would call a qualified materials engineer.

Don't disabled sailors deserve to be thought of as humans who should be considered with carefully calculated structural forms before you shove them off from shore?

bistros

05-12-2010, 11:31 AM

---------------------
You should have read the previous post more carefully.

I read it most carefully, and there was absolutely nothing indicating a full sized boat had been built proving anything. Producing a radio control toy car does not make anyone an automotive designer - and producing model boats does not prove a boat design for real people. I completely understand that models can be used to test concepts, but model results are not acceptable as proof these concepts will scale to full size operation.

---------------------
And you should probably not ignore the 10 years of model testing that has proven that the concept works and is very reliable in a multitude of conditions. Model testing of this type is a very reliable indicator of performance and has been used by many of the top designers includeing Alain Thebault(apologies for sp). Greg Ketterman, Dr. Sam Bradfield, Bill Burns of CBTF and many others.

Name dropping of people not associated with your venture buys no credibility. If these people are associated, have them chime in and state their support and relationship to the venture. It takes all of 60 seconds to join this forum and show their support of your concept.

<waiting>
......
<waiting>
......
<cricket's chirping>
......

Perhaps you should contact these people and indicate you are using their names and reputations as support for your unbuilt, untested, unproven boat as a success.

---------------------
The performance that we looked at was the performance of a sliding ballast system controlled by the skipper.

Who is this we, Kemosabe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke-mo_sah-bee)? Are you willing to elucidate on the team of researchers and designers involved? Or are you, like the Queen speaking in third person plural out of habit? Have you published your thesis, the data collected and the conclusions drawn? Or is "looked at" a euphemism for "Googled other people's research"?

---------------------It works and has been proven in model testing. Now it is time to build a full size prototype to refine the system and verify the test results achieved so far.

Once you have built, tested and published credible results and documentation regarding a full sized prototype you will have earned the right to claim this concept works, until then you are just flapping your gums.

--
Bill

Doug Lord

05-12-2010, 12:18 PM

Secondly, are you sure that the sliding beam is higher above the water than that of an IC or Skate? Yes-just look at the boats
=========================================
Thirdly, why would this boat be less complicated to tack than an IC with self-tacker, which is in some respects the closest comparable boat?

If I recall correctly, in a typical tack from threequarter to opposite tack reach, the skipper will have to;

1) sheet on both sails while;
2) turning the boat and;
3) operating the ballast-control position lever through a very wide variety of positions as the heeling force changes as the angle and pressure change; and then through the tack

1) steer the boat through the tack while;
2) adjusting sail trim and;
3) moving the beam from side to side (the beam and ballast positions are independent, aren't they?) and;
4) moving the ballast at a non-constant rate in accordance with the changes in apparent pressure and angle.

This appears to be a much more complex procedure than most craft; arguably more complex than (for example) tacking a Skiff or Canoe, which are normally considered to be quite difficult tasks. Yes, you have years of experience in R/C boats - others of us have years of experience in life-size boats of a complexity and of dimensions similar to this craft and we do not believe that it would be as easy as you believe.
--------------------
-The boat with a main+jib rig will use the Swift Solo method of sheeting(slightly modified): single sheet for main and jib.
-Upwind tacking-much the same as any other dinghy: skipper steers and moves the ballast . The difference on the Trapwing is that the Skipper can do this w/o moving-much simpler ,if you ask me.
-General handling-simple fingertip control for disabled version,same as any other boat with side rail seating(maybe not class legal). Only difference with Trapwing is that the skipper has the power to create far more RM faster than it could be done with a human crew.
-Again, this is where model testing comes in: sailing an RC boat with a Trapeze Power Ballast System is in some respects more challenging that sailing a full size version based on 10 years of sailing the RC version and over 50 years of sailing many different "normal" boats.The responses of the RC boat are much quicker and the co-ordination required greater because of that and perspective changes. RC testing has been critical in showing the potential of this concept and its lessons are directly applicable to the full size boat.
The physical movements required from a disabled sailor would be about the same as RC on the Trapwing-only easier. The movements required of an able-bodied sailor are much less than an equivalent boat w/o the WING-and are infinitely variable according to the choices of configuration made by the sailor. However, this is a well-informed guess based on lots of real world experience but a full size prototype is required as is extensive testing of that boat.

Chris Ostlind

05-12-2010, 01:03 PM

bistros

05-12-2010, 05:15 PM

The lessons are not directly applicable to a full-sized, disabled sailor boat.

The simple reason... nobody can drown on a scale model from pilot error, or a broken component.

Let that sink-in for a bit, Douglas. All the whiz-bang stuff...? if the winging thingy breaks, or refuses to move, then over she goes. At the guaranteed speeds that you say this thing will go, that represents a quick ticket to a strapped in guy who is now underwater due to a nasty crash and he's likely going to be quite stunned. Do you have a super techy plan for that reality?

Lastly, Doug... just how much retail cash will a wheelchair sailor have to produce to get himself into this "experience" you propose? A ballpark figure will do.

Oh, Oh ... Pick Me! I know the answer to this one!

Doug knows somebody who is going to modify the control software and hardware from an Unmanned Autonomous Vehicle (Taliban Seeking Rocket platform) for a really low price that says creating a fail safe system is easy and should not cost much at all.

If a UAV controller is safe enough to use as a missile platform to annihilate Pakistani Taliban (or similar appearing folk), it will prove good enough for Doug.

Never mind that releasing hardware designs, CAD source files, firmware source etc. is probably in violation of many contractual and national security laws.

I'm sure a developer of UAV equipment will risk their reliable/trusted vendor status to get in on a custom re-engineering of a proprietary board and firmware (from someone without a development budget).

ancient kayaker

05-12-2010, 06:40 PM

Well, time to abandon another interesting thread, I guess. I stop subscribing to threads that I find offensive or seem to have run out of direction.

This time, though, I am leaving due to the frustration resulting from all the BS which is swamping the data. This happens on Doug's threads more than most, and it's not always Doug's fault IMHO. I certainly do not blame him for responding angrily to the abuse that always seems to take over his threads.

I have to wonder why those of you who find his ideas or whatever so repugnant bother to peruse one of his threads in the first place. Yes, I know the argument that others must be protected from his baleful influence, but those of us who were interested in the topic did not request or require folk to leap in to protect our sensitive souls from exposure to Doug’s ideas.

We consider ourselves to be adult and able to take care of ourselves, thank you very much. An adult is able to sort out the chaff from the wheat, even if it takes some of us a little longer than others. Similarly, an adult should be able to respond with constructive criticism and quit the thread if that criticism fails to achieve its end. Exercise self-control: you don't have to keep pecking at the white hen.

Doug: you must realise they'll never leave you alone until you build something, probably not even then. Responding to insults in kind merely gives them something else to answer, that is human nature. Since the concept is too advanced for me to be able to make constructive suggestions, I can only wish you well. You owe us a description of how it turns out, or an explanation if you decide not to pursue the idea; that is the other side of the “fairness coin” after all.

Just to cut off childish attempts to twist my words, I will spell it out: I am not quitting the thread because of Doug.

Doug Lord

05-12-2010, 06:58 PM

I can only wish you well. You owe us a description of how it turns out, or an explanation if you decide not to pursue the idea; that is the other side of the “fairness coin” after all.

Just to cut off childish attempts to twist my words, I will spell it out: I am not quitting the thread because of Doug.
=============
Thanks, Terry-your participation here is valued and welcome always. Remember the old saying: "Don't let the bastards get you down!" I sure don't.
You might quit for a while ,Terry but there is likely to be some exciting news before long-or not. Either way you'll be interested in the story-I guarantee it!
========
Terry, this is a little thing I wrote about ridicule:

"Nobody should be afraid of ridicule and let that stop them from trying any experiment or experiments. For the most part ridicule emanates from those who don't understand what you are trying to achieve or the degree to which something that appears not to have worked did work. There is an element of criticism that is well founded ,well reasoned and very constructive; there is another element of criticism-ridicule- that emanates from uninformed small minded people whose opinion is not worth the cyber space it
uses. No one should be afraid of a cyber MOB and hold back on ideas they think are worthwhile-that goes for discussing them and doing them and showing others what you've done. One bit of constructive criticism is worth a hundred bits of trash from useless snipers on the sidelines.I made many mistakes on my first full size foiler design/construction but I also did a lot right including the weight, learning about manual foil altitude control systems(on foils), a square topped jib, the Swift solo(Bram Daly)sheeting system and many other things. I'm glad I did it and a damn proud I had the guts to try. The next one will be much,much better."

CT 249

05-12-2010, 09:52 PM

Doug, I've definitely "looked at the boats", including years of sailing at two clubs that raced or shared courses with Skates and owning an IC. To my eye, the Trapwing as modelled appears to have much less clearance than the Skate - compared the attached pic (or the one you posted) and the clearance in the . Would it not be a good idea for someone who has asked for constructive criticism to scale some dimensions off the Skate and IC to ensure that the new design is in the same ballpark, rather than just going by eye, especially when the eyeball estimate of one person differs from the eyeball estimate of one of those who has been asked for feedback?

I note that the extension of the Unit's plank was much shorter than the Skate/IC plank or the Trapwing wing. Experience in ICs etc demonstrates that the distance of the plank/wing/rack extension is a vital factor when working out clearance, because of course the vertical movement of the end of the wing when the boat heels is proportional to the extension of the wing. The great beam of the Trapwing would therefore require a great deal of clearance off the water. I assume that the Trapwing may have to sail quite flat to avoid the lee float dragging in the water, whereas an IC can be sailed quite heeled at times to give greater wing clearance.

You say that the self-righting capacity of the boat "is augmented by the sealed wing which has a great deal of buoyancy." I note that when a Canoe's buoyant sliding seat is jammed under a capsized Canoe, it creates in the region of 40-50 kg of positive buoyancy, which is a great deal for a boat of (IIRC) 85kg. The Canoe also has "ballast" consisting of about 200lb of sailor - and yet I have found that I cannot right a Canoe with the seat jammed under the boat, because the leeway of the boat. Therefore, perhaps more detailed calcs of the effect of the wing are in order? Why not do the calcs as a ballpark figure instead of building the beam and finding it's not big enough?

One wonders whether the 2.5 times the moment of the rig is the correct measure for re-righting, since Canoe cannot be re-righted with more ballast counteracting a smaller rig. Similarly, the 16 can require 7 times the Trapwing's ballast for re-righting yet it has a rig only about 1.25 times the area of the Trapwing. Therefore it appears that the 2.5 figure may be a distinct under-estimate.

Finally, you are of course correct when you point out the difference in dimensions between the Trapwing and the Challenger. One still wonders how one is going to reduce the weight by 140lb while introducing batteries, ballast and a sliding beam, and then bring in a boat lighter than a 49er and not much heavier than an IC. Having seen some of the modern ICs under construction, one wonders how easy it will be to build a bigger boat with its batteries, bigger sliding beam (which is of course subject to bigger loads in proportion to its length), buoyancy floats, ballast track system, foot steering system etc and fit all that into a package just 60lb heavier.

Anyways, having said that I'll drop out of the thread. If I come back, someone please remind me that I said I'd not return.

Doug Lord

05-12-2010, 10:34 PM

1) Doug, I've definitely "looked at the boats", including years of sailing at two clubs that raced or shared courses with Skates and owning an IC. To my eye, the Trapwing as modelled appears to have much less clearance than the Skate - compared the attached pic (or the one you posted) and the clearance in the . Would it not be a good idea for someone who has asked for constructive criticism to scale some dimensions off the Skate and IC to ensure that the new design is in the same ballpark, rather than just going by eye, especially when the eyeball estimate of one person differs from the eyeball estimate of one of those who has been asked for feedback?

2) I note that the extension of the Unit's plank was much shorter than the Skate/IC plank or the Trapwing wing. Experience in ICs etc demonstrates that the distance of the plank/wing/rack extension is a vital factor when working out clearance, because of course the vertical movement of the end of the wing when the boat heels is proportional to the extension of the wing. The great beam of the Trapwing would therefore require a great deal of clearance off the water. I assume that the Trapwing may have to sail quite flat to avoid the lee float dragging in the water, whereas an IC can be sailed quite heeled at times to give greater wing clearance.

3) You say that the self-righting capacity of the boat "is augmented by the sealed wing which has a great deal of buoyancy." I note that when a Canoe's buoyant sliding seat is jammed under a capsized Canoe, it creates in the region of 40-50 kg of positive buoyancy, which is a great deal for a boat of (IIRC) 85kg. The Canoe also has "ballast" consisting of about 200lb of sailor - and yet I have found that I cannot right a Canoe with the seat jammed under the boat, because the leeway of the boat. Therefore, perhaps more detailed calcs of the effect of the wing are in order? Why not do the calcs as a ballpark figure instead of building the beam and finding it's not big enough?
One wonders whether the 2.5 times the moment of the rig is the correct measure for re-righting, since Canoe cannot be re-righted with more ballast counteracting a smaller rig. Similarly, the 16 can require 7 times the Trapwing's ballast for re-righting yet it has a rig only about 1.25 times the area of the Trapwing. Therefore it appears that the 2.5 figure may be a distinct under-estimate.

4) Finally, you are of course correct when you point out the difference in dimensions between the Trapwing and the Challenger. One still wonders how one is going to reduce the weight by 140lb while introducing batteries, ballast and a sliding beam, and then bring in a boat lighter than a 49er and not much heavier than an IC. Having seen some of the modern ICs under construction, one wonders how easy it will be to build a bigger boat with its batteries, bigger sliding beam (which is of course subject to bigger loads in proportion to its length), buoyancy floats, ballast track system, foot steering system etc and fit all that into a package just 60lb heavier.

Anyways, having said that I'll drop out of the thread. If I come back, someone please remind me that I said I'd not return.
=================================
Thanks for the comments:
1& 2) measurements would be great but the measurement that counts the most, in my opinion, is how high the wing is right at the side of the boat. My opinion is that the Trapwing is about 50% higher. A critical thing to note, though, is that the Trapwing pivots athwartship-making the outboard end adjustable thru a large range.(see pictures below) UPDATE 5/13: CT, the distance from the bottom of the WING(level) to the water on the Trapwing(at the side of the boat) is 1.75'(.53m) which I'd guess is substantially more than the Skate( scaled from picture: 10"-11"/.25-.33m) and over twice that of an IC.
3) This,again, comes back to the pivoting of the wing: at 90 degrees the wing is pivoted max with the lee side wing CB substantially away from the hull toward the masthead. The separation adds to the RM. This will have to be proven in testing.

4) Be careful here: when comparing weights the hull only or hull plus rig weights are compared to see if the boat could be called "light" or "heavy"-ballast is not included. When comparing to the Challenger keel ballast is not included because the boat would not need it at the same SA as the Challenger. When comparing all up weight, say with an IC it must be kept in mind that the Trapwing is a singlehander with a ballast system equivalent to a "normal" doublehander w/trapeze.
There is a difference in the prototype compared to,say, the Trapwing 15 detailed earlier: this boat is being built on an existing hull-the Proto is NOT being designed for a specific SA or ballast or limited to a specific length of WING because we want to test the limits so that the info discovered can be used to refine a production design be it the Trapwing 15, Turbo or another version. The boat is probably big enough to go with 180lb. of wing ballast and 200 sq.ft. of upwind sail with an approx. wing of up to 16-18'. Wing buoyancy at the tip will be variable. The buoyancy pod/endplate at the mast tip will also be variable. Starting SA will be about 100sq.ft.
=================================

Notes on the pictures: the Melges model is an illustration of the athwartship pivot as is the Trapwing picture with the WING deployed to port. That picture shows that, adjusted as it is, the boat could heel to stb substantially w/o contact of the WING and water on the lee side. The adjustable pivot is KEY to this system. I think if you look at the pictures closely you can see that the WING(at the side of the boat) is higher than it is on the Skate:

Click on image wait for new image to open in window then click on that image for biggest picture:

stubby

05-13-2010, 05:00 AM

I'm not sure but for me (able-bodied) I think I would prefer a continuous rope and tack system for moving the wing from side to side as I think I would be able to move it quicker and be more precise with where I have it but thats just me.

Dan Cohen

05-14-2010, 01:31 AM

Looks like it wants to be a tri to me . If you are going to go for it make the keel max out for the water depth you have and cant it 45 degees. Am working on a 40 foot canting keel boat 1500# disp 2 foot beam on water with racks. maybe 12 knots up wind not planing 1000# ballast

Doug Lord

05-14-2010, 11:03 AM

Doug Lord

05-14-2010, 11:17 AM

We interupt this program to show a great racing video of the singlehanded trapeze boat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzrb-HYrxPM

Doug Lord

05-16-2010, 09:14 PM

In the course of this thread and a couple of others various incarnations of this concept were considered. The final "incarnation" came down to the Trapwing 15 for which you can find sketches and numbers earlier in this thread. Due to some fortuitous events I was able to get my original 16' foiler hull back and then made the decision to go with it as the prototype for developing this project. The 15 remains the ideal version of the planing version of this concept(so far) and will likely be built after the Prototype is thoroughly tested and explored. The Prototype hull based on the 16 is a bit narrower than ideal but it is an all carbon hull and ideal for a relatively quick conversion to a sailing prototype. So, that's whats next-sooner or later and here are more details that reflect the modifications to the topsides and bow that change the 16 into the Trapwing Prototype. The prototype is shown with weight and sail area ranges that reflect the potential capability of the modified hull as well as the tests that need to be made. The suitability of the concept to disabled sailing will be determined by sailors involved in disabled sailing. Engineering, as required, will be done by a Naval Architect and Marine Engineer with electronics expertise as required. Performance testing will be exhaustive with help from one of the top marine testing laboratories in the US.
===========
The following is a detailed look at the characteristics of the new Prototype, as well as the design elements it will encompass and test:
-----
Trapwing Prototype:
LOA 17' 8"
Beam hull-3.25' overall 12'(subject to testing)
Weight- hull 155lb
ballast-wing 80-180lb(variable and subject to testing)
keel 0-80(subject to testing)
SA-upwind 100-180sq.ft. variable
downwind 200-360sq.ft. (variable and subject to testing)
crew-singlehanded-120lb-220lb (variable and equalized under class rules-
subject to testing)
crew position for racing on the centerline inside boat, fixed
athwhartships, variable fore and aft
--------------------
1) Sail area to be between 100 and 180 sq.ft
a-different rigs
b-different amounts of ballast
--
2) Ballast wing to be supported by trapeze wires and unique retention system that allows wing and ballast to slide simultaneously, allows athwhartship pivoting and fore and aft movement.
a-version one will use two aluminum tubes with sliding external tray- the tubes and tray move simultaneously:
-attachment system allows wing- with weight centered-to be levered up and then pivoted from a position 90 degrees to the CL to a position parallel to the centerline for transport and stowage.
-weight can be added or removed in small increments.
-fore and aft pivot/sliding tube is mounted to the boat slightly offset from the CL to allow room to retract board/keel.
-aluminum tubes terminate at outboard ends in buoyancy pods-pods will be changeable as determined in testing.
-sliding ballast tray and structural design of wing to be capable of 180lb max ballast @9' from CL; ballast completely adjustable in the range of 80 to 180lb.
b-version two is a slightly curved(athwhartship), molded and sealed(with sealable access to ballast tray) wing with an internal sliding ballast tray. This version will be the final version and incorporates all the features of version one with significantly increased sealed buoyancy.
c-Wing movement by manual or electric means. Minimum electrical movement full out to full out: 4.5 sec. Minimum electrical "stamina" on single battery-12 hours at a rate equivalent to a approximately 60 (full track)tacks per hour. Manual back-up.
--
3) Crew Position:
a-version one-racing position-allows crew to sit in an extremely comfortable seat that is fixed athwhartship and slides fore and aft adjustably while sailing.
-extremely wide crew weight range:for racing lower tray attached to seat may contain ballast used to equalize crew weight in the range of 120 to 220 lb.
-seat may be moved manually or electrically.
b-version two-center seat is removed and two fixed carbon seats with backrests are "plugged-in" to each side deck.
--
4) Rigs to be tested are main and jib, main alone, with and without an asymetrical spinnaker.
a-asymetrical will be tested as permanently mounted off a bowsprit(a la Weta tri) or retracted into a trough with roller(a la Viper) and a retractable pole.
b-mast to be sealed with masthead floatation in an endplate configuration. Some buoyancy possible in head of sail.
--
5)-Daggerboard/ keel/rudder
a -boat will be tested with and without a retractable "lifting keel"
which would essentially be a carbon daggerboard with the minimum ballast required(determined in testing) to right the boat from a pitchpole(where the wing buoyancy may not significantly help).
b-self-righting from a knockdown or pitchpole is a required design element for any version of the boat used for disabled sailing.

c-a turbo version of the boat will not use a ballasted keel and may not be suitable for disabled sailing but this will be determined in testing.
d- the daggerboard may include as standard a lifting hydrofoil designed to provide "foil-assist" to reduce wetted surface and in conjunction with the rudder hydrofoil improve the pitch and planing characteristics of the
boat.
e-a fully flying hydrofoil system will be tested as will a fully flying system that allows the boat to fly downwind only(requiring less upwind SA and less ballast).
f-rudder will be retractable with a t-foil.
--
6)-On the Beach
a-the boat will be able to be easily beach sailed with a dolly incorporated into the trailer design to make it very simple to go from trailer to water. A "power assist" dolly may be available. Disabled sailors/coach(s) will assist in the design of systems to allow launching and use of the boat with the minimum outside assistance possible.
--
7)-Performance
a- the goal is to develop a high performance planing sailboat that can be safely sailed from a center crew position by disabled or able-bodied sailors. I am hoping to be able to achieve an SCP/total weight of 30% or slightly better though that is just a target and a less powerful version with numbers and performance more like a Windmill or Tasar may be perfectly acceptable. The use of foil-assist technology will help to achieve the performance goals. Full flying foiling is possible in a selfrighting boat-particularly one with the righting assist this boat has from version two of THE Wing.
-------
The concept has extraordinary potential and it will be a blast finding out just what she'll do.

Cheesy

05-17-2010, 05:21 PM

We interupt this program to show a great racing video of the singlehanded trapeze boat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzrb-HYrxPM

If you are using that sort of sailing as an indication of the required movement of your ballast you will run into very big problems, I have never seen conditions that stable before (wind and sea), requiring almost trim changes at all.

Doug Lord

05-17-2010, 05:24 PM

If you are using that sort of sailing as an indication of the required movement of your ballast you will run into very big problems, I have never seen conditions that stable before (wind and sea), requiring almost trim changes at all.

-----------------------
Actually, I was "using that sort of sailing" to enjoy a good video.......

Doug Lord

05-18-2010, 05:58 PM

If you are using that sort of sailing as an indication of the required movement of your ballast you will run into very big problems, I have never seen conditions that stable before (wind and sea), requiring almost trim changes at all.

=======================
Contender- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzrb-HYrxPM

By the way: 7 seconds full out to full out in good weather for the movable ballast system on the Contender vs 4.5 sec for Trapwing in any weather*...
*absolute minimum speed for wing +ballast movement. May be a bit faster but it will not, under any circumstances, be slower (within design framework with constant full out to full out tacking every few seconds for 8 hours+)
=============================
Flying Dutchman- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHsa0bUdFOM
6-8 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out

=============================
505- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqEhYl8X2Pc&feature=related
6-7 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out

Chris Ostlind

05-18-2010, 06:06 PM

Pure speculation, not fact.

Tell us.... Did Rick W. plug-in a reduced performance coefficient for the typical dorky maintenance schedules practiced by most sailors?...and how does that factor into a predictable failure process, since you're already guessing about things?

Cheesy

05-18-2010, 08:56 PM

=======================
Contender- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzrb-HYrxPM

By the way: 7 seconds full out to full out in good weather for the movable ballast system on the Contender vs 4.5 sec for Trapwing in any weather*...
*absolute minimum speed for wing +ballast movement. May be a bit faster but it will not, under any circumstances, be slower (within design framework with constant full out to full out tacking every few seconds for 8 hours+)
=============================
Flying Dutchman- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHsa0bUdFOM
6-8 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out

=============================
505- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqEhYl8X2Pc&feature=related
6-7 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out

Personally I think you are way under estiamting the speed at which you will have to move your ballast and consequntly the forces and power consuption.

Now you are using full out to full out as your referance, if you look at any of the videos the in and then to new windward side movement is fast, the slow bit is tacking/sheeting the jib. Have a look at some of the R-class video or 12ft etc (with self tacking jibs) the full out to windward weight is much faster than your times above. In fact you can probably find a foiling jibe that is faster than your times above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJEd9Wt3jCc&feature=PlayList&p=3A9534C7AC103911&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=12

Doug Lord

05-18-2010, 09:05 PM

Personally I think you are way under estiamting the speed at which you will have to move your ballast and consequntly the forces and power consuption.

Now you are using full out to full out as your referance, if you look at any of the videos the in and then to new windward side movement is fast, the slow bit is tacking/sheeting the jib. Have a look at some of the R-class video or 12ft etc (with self tacking jibs) the full out to windward weight is much faster than your times above. In fact you can probably find a foiling jibe that is faster than your times above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJEd9Wt3jCc&feature=PlayList&p=3A9534C7AC103911&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=12

===================
The crew wasn't full out on any gybe that I saw completed and even so it was about 5-6 secs across.
Might as well stick with tacking-I'm open to any video showing people on a trapeze going full out to full out-find me one under 6 secs-maybe -but I'll bet you won't find any as fast as the designed speed of the Trapwing......

Cheesy

05-18-2010, 09:11 PM

===================
The crew wasn't full out on any gybe that I saw completed and even so it was about 5-6 secs across.
Might as well stick with tacking-I'm open to any video showing people on a trapeze going full out to full out-find me one under 6 secs-maybe -but I'll bet you won't find any as fast as the designed speed of the Trapwing......

You didnt get what I was meaning, the full out to windward weight (not full out) speed needs to be faster than what you are predicting

Paul B

05-18-2010, 09:58 PM

===================
-but I'll bet you won't find any as fast as the designed speed of the Trapwing......

Please post a video of the real thing, or even a full scale mock up of this magical mechanism...

Gary Baigent

05-19-2010, 01:17 AM

Paul B

05-19-2010, 01:41 AM

Doug, how can you extrapolate the ballast movement on a tiny model to the reality of a full sized boat?

He's not. He is using an incomplete calculation by one of your buddies from an upside-down country.

Of course he couldn't do the calcs himself, so he keeps posting someone else's work as if he figured it out. It never crosses his mind that some things that exist in the real world might not be included in the work that the other person did.

Doug Lord

05-19-2010, 08:39 AM

Doug, how can you extrapolate the ballast movement on a tiny model to the reality of a full sized boat?
And for those few sensitive, PC souls here who disagree with the based on reality brutality of questioning here ..... we actually mean well.
==============
Thats not the case-I set the speed and load the system had to work with and Rick W explored if that was possible. And it is possible at almost twice the speed and half the time I chose as the minimum. This has absolutely nothing to do with the model of the Prototype. However, over 10 years of RC model testing has proven the basic premise of the system in terms of sailor control of movable ballast and the basic mechanical functioning of the system. Again, you should read the thread sometime-might answer questions like this!
An important note: the RC model testing of the Trapwing tested different hulls including a multihull.
The mechanical system and control system were evaluated because those results translate almost directly to full size practice.
The prototype will be exhaustively tested to prove the viability of the system and to assure its safety, ruggedness and reliability.

Chris Ostlind

05-19-2010, 09:18 AM

...I set the speed and load the system had to work with and Rick W explored if that was possible. And it is possible at almost twice the speed and half the time I chose as the minimum. This has absolutely nothing to do with the model.

Problem is, Doug... Rick gave you the blue sky response you sought because of the limited scope you provided. I've already asked you if Rick was asked to provide a failure reality based on the typical maintenance procedures that sailors utilize for non-racing craft. You failed to address that problem as a functional consideration in the design.

Failure of this tricky mechanism is very likely to drown a disabled sailor. I guess that blue sky possibilities are more important to you than is the danger being imposed by an overly complex set of design solutions.

Again, you should read the thread sometime-might answer questions like this!

Again, if you answered the pertinent questions being posed, then folks wouldn't have to keep asking them.

QUESTIONS ALREADY ASKED, BUT NEVER ANSWERED:

You've been asked about:
1. predicted failure rates of the mechanisms involved
2. who engineered the wing for structural soundness while it slams from side to side and slides fore and aft
3. who can launch this boat when they are sitting in a wheelchair
4. what kind of escape plan is in place for a disabled sailor should the boat crash at the speeds you suggest

5. and on and on.... still unanswered.

Reading the thread again won't get us any closer to the answers to those questions than we are today.

What do you say you answer these questions for a start and we can openly evaluate the responses?

Paul B

05-19-2010, 11:23 AM

Problem is, Doug... Rick gave you the blue sky response you sought because of the limited scope you provided.

What Rick provided was a power consumption study based on incomplete information. It had nothing to do with proving whether or not the ballast shift could be done in a particular time frame, only what the power consumption could be if it was done in that time frame.

Even in that limited capaciity the calculation is pretty useless, since it omits perhaps the most important factor from the calculation.

As far as I have seen, every single person who has ever tried to help The Lord of Non-Foiling in his endeavors has always had their intent twisted to fit his needs, to the extent some people have asked him to stop associating their name with his crackpot ideas. Of course he does not comply to their wishes.

Doug Lord

05-19-2010, 11:29 AM

What Rick provided was a power consumption study based on incomplete information. It had nothing to do with proving whether or not the ballast shift could be done in a particular time frame, only what the power consumption could be if it was done in that time frame.

Even in that limited capaciity the calculation is pretty useless, since it omits perhaps the most important factor from the calculation.

As far as I have seen, every single person who has ever tried to help The Lord of Non-Foiling in his endeavors has always had their intent twisted to fit his needs, to the extent some people have asked him to stop associating their name with his crackpot ideas. Of course he does not comply to their wishes.
============================
You don't know what you're talking about.......

Chris Ostlind

05-19-2010, 11:33 AM

You don't know what you're talking about.......

Once cloying and now bereft

Doug Lord

05-19-2010, 11:50 AM

A Summary for those who don't want to read the whole thread:

In the course of this thread and a couple of others various incarnations of this concept were considered. The final "incarnation" came down to the Trapwing 15 for which you can find sketches and numbers earlier in this thread. Due to some fortuitous events I was able to get my original 16' foiler hull back and then made the decision to go with it as the prototype for developing this project. The 15 remains the ideal version of the planing version of this concept(so far) and will likely be built after the Prototype is thoroughly tested and explored. The Prototype hull based on the 16 is a bit narrower than ideal but it is an all carbon hull and ideal for a relatively quick conversion to a sailing prototype. So, that's whats next-sooner or later and here are more details that reflect the modifications to the topsides and bow that change the 16 into the Trapwing Prototype. The prototype is shown with weight and sail area ranges that reflect the potential capability of the modified hull as well as the tests that need to be made. The suitability of the concept to disabled sailing will be determined by sailors involved in disabled sailing. Engineering, as required, will be done by a Naval Architect and Marine Engineer with electronics expertise as required. Performance testing will be exhaustive with help from one of the top marine testing laboratories in the US.
===========
The following is a detailed look at the characteristics of the new Prototype, as well as the design elements it will encompass and test:
-----
Trapwing Prototype:
LOA 17' 8"
Beam hull-3.25' overall 12'(subject to testing)
Weight- hull 155lb
ballast-wing 80-180lb(variable and subject to testing)
keel 0-80(subject to testing)
SA-upwind 100-180sq.ft. variable
downwind 200-360sq.ft. (variable and subject to testing)
crew-singlehanded-120lb-220lb (variable and equalized under class rules-
subject to testing)
crew position for racing on the centerline inside boat, fixed
athwhartships, variable fore and aft
--------------------
1) Sail area to be between 100 and 180 sq.ft
a-different rigs
b-different amounts of ballast
--
2) Ballast wing to be supported by trapeze wires and unique retention system that allows wing and ballast to slide simultaneously, allows athwhartship pivoting and fore and aft movement.
a-version one will use two aluminum tubes with sliding external tray- the tubes and tray move simultaneously:
-attachment system allows wing- with weight centered-to be levered up and then pivoted from a position 90 degrees to the CL to a position parallel to the centerline for transport and stowage.
-weight can be added or removed in small increments.
-fore and aft pivot/sliding tube is mounted to the boat slightly offset from the CL to allow room to retract board/keel.
-aluminum tubes terminate at outboard ends in buoyancy pods-pods will be changeable as determined in testing.
-sliding ballast tray and structural design of wing to be capable of 180lb max ballast @9' from CL; ballast completely adjustable in the range of 80 to 180lb.
b-version two is a slightly curved(athwhartship), molded and sealed(with sealable access to ballast tray) wing with an internal sliding ballast tray. This version will be the final version and incorporates all the features of version one with significantly increased sealed buoyancy.
c-Wing movement by manual or electric means. Minimum electrical movement full out to full out:4.5 sec. Minimum electrical "stamina" on single battery-12 hours at a rate equivalent to a approximately 60 (full track)tacks per hour. Manual back-up.
--
3) Crew Position
a-version one-racing position-allows crew to sit in an extremely comfortable seat that is fixed athwhartship and slides fore and aft adjustably while sailing.
-extremely wide crew weight range:for racing lower tray attached to seat may contain ballast used to equalize crew weight in the range of 120 to 220 lb.
-seat may be moved manually or electrically.
b-version two-center seat is removed and two fixed carbon seats with backrests are "plugged-in" to each side deck.
--
4) Rigs to be tested are main and jib, main alone, with and without an asymetrical spinnaker.
a-asymetrical will be tested as permanently mounted off a bowsprit(a la Weta tri) or retracted into a trough with roller(a la Viper) and a retractable pole.
b-mast to be sealed with masthead floatation in an endplate configuration. Some buoyancy possible in head of sail.
--
5)-Daggerboard/ keel/rudder
a -boat will be tested with and without a retractable "lifting keel"
which would essentially be a carbon daggerboard with the minimum ballast required(determined in testing) to right the boat from a pitchpole(where the wing buoyancy may not significantly help).
b-self-righting from a knockdown or pitchpole is a required design element for any version of the boat used for disabled sailing.

c-a turbo version of the boat will not use a ballasted keel and may not be suitable for disabled sailing but this will be determined in testing.
d- the daggerboard may include as standard a lifting hydrofoil designed to provide "foil-assist" to reduce wetted surface and in conjunction with the rudder hydrofoil improve the pitch and planing characteristics of the
boat.
e-a fully flying hydrofoil system will be tested as will a fully flying system that allows the boat to fly downwind only(requiring less upwind SA and less ballast).
f-rudder will be retractable with a t-foil.
--
6)-On the Beach
a-the boat will be able to be easily beach sailed with a dolly incorporated into the trailer design to make it very simple to go from trailer to water. A "power assist" dolly may be available. Disabled sailors/coach(s) will assist in the design of systems to allow launching and use of the boat with the minimum outside assistance possible.
--
7)-Performance
a- the goal is to develop a high performance planing sailboat that can be safely sailed from a center crew position by disabled or able-bodied sailors. I am hoping to be able to achieve an SCP/total weight of 30% or slightly better though that is just a target and a less powerful version with numbers and performance more like a Windmill or Tasar may be perfectly acceptable. The use of foil-assist technology will help to achieve the performance goals. Full flying foiling is possible in a selfrighting boat-particularly one with the righting assist this boat has from version two of THE Wing.
-------
The concept has extraordinary potential and it will be a blast finding out just what she'll do.

-------------------------
Click on the Trapwing Prototype image and then click on the subsequent image:

Paul B

05-19-2010, 11:52 AM

A Summary for those who don't want to read the whole thread:

Nice waste of bandwidth.

Paul B

05-19-2010, 05:58 PM

=======================
Trapwing Design Speed-4.5 sec for Trapwing in any weather full out to full out**...
**absolute minimum speed for wing +ballast movement. May be a bit faster but it will not, under any circumstances, be slower (within design framework with constant full out to full out tacking every few seconds for 8 hours+)

Posting the exact same nonsense 10 posts after the last time it was posted doesn't make it any more real.

Note the Lord of Non-Foiling has now deleted the earlier post. It was #199 in this thread, now it is gone.

Another waste of bandwidth.

Gary Baigent

05-19-2010, 06:00 PM

Doug, it is all fantasy and your repeating in bold fonts all the tricky problems your mind has purportedly found solutions to/murkily sorted/dreamed/hoped - is not going to make any difference ... until you build the bloody thing. This boat is extreme; it is an extremist, complicated boat, and I like extremist craft ... but with one important condition ... they have to work - and in this case, a boat for disabled people has to be foolproof/screwed up design proof. So build the damn thing .... and you'll learn more from hands on stuff than all your thousands of hours dreaming on your back in bed or in the bath or sitting in front of a computer. Finish this thread - we don't want to hear anymore about the fargo trucking thing .... until that is, you have a full sized, I can touch it creation .... and can post some on water images with feedback from your brave, disabled, guinea pig.

Doug Lord

05-19-2010, 06:08 PM

Paul B

05-19-2010, 06:10 PM

Doug, it is all fantasy and your repeating in bold fonts all the tricky problems your mind has purportedly found solutions to/murkily sorted/dreamed/hoped - is not going to make any difference ... until you build the bloody thing.

Gary, you are a funny man. You know, as well as every other sane person who reads this thread, this monstrosity will never be built.

The Lord of Non-Foiling can't design the mechanisms or even make drawings to work out the kinematics.

This idea will be set aside soon so he can chase some other crazed idea, just as he has been doing on and on for 8+ years on internet forums. The next idea will be just as wacky and will be abandoned at some point to chase the next "revolutionary" idea.

Doug Lord

05-19-2010, 06:12 PM

=======================
Contender- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzrb-HYrxPM

7 seconds full out to full out in good weather for the trapeze movable ballast system on the Contender
=============================
Flying Dutchman- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHsa0bUdFOM
6-8 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out*

=============================
505- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqEhYl8X2Pc&feature=related
6-7 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out

=============================
12' skiff- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PvV820Qpk (toward end of video)
7-8 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast from full out to full out

=============================
International Sailing Canoe-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exb6i3E3r-4&feature=related
5 sec 50% out to 50% out;estimate 7 seconds full out to full out (very hard to find IC videos that show a boat tacking!)

=======================
* full out to full out= max outboard movable ballast CG on one tack to the same position on the other tack.

=================
Trapwing Design Speed-4.5 sec for Trapwing in any weather full out to full out**...
**absolute minimum speed for wing +ballast movement. May be a bit faster but it will not, under any circumstances, be slower (within design framework with constant full out to full out tacking every few minutes for 8 hours+)

==================
Click on image then click on subsequent image:

Paul B

05-19-2010, 06:15 PM

=======================
Trapwing Design Speed-4.5 sec for Trapwing in any weather full out to full out**...
**absolute minimum speed for wing +ballast movement. May be a bit faster but it will not, under any circumstances, be slower (within design framework with constant full out to full out tacking every few seconds for 8 hours+)

The same post, re-posted yet again, for at least the third time in the last 15 posts. How crazed must one be to do this sort of thing?

Doug Lord

05-19-2010, 06:26 PM

This was posted earlier in this thread but it sums up the advantages of a planing version of the Trapwing concept so well that I thought it was appropo to quote it here because it describes the keelboat version quite well. The boat is not limited to a keelboat version-it can be "turboed" by removing the keel ballast and adding SA and wing ballast:

"One of the main themes of this design concept is that the resulting boat can be a self-righting keelboat. I was intrigued by the K1 concept( http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/neat-singlehanded-keelboat-uk-30059.html ) where the designer chose a narrow waterline semi-circular section hull that was designed to be sailed heeled instead of flat like most planing hull dinghies. The Bongo is an example of a small keelboat with a planing hull. I've never really thought that was a good way to go because in order to plane the Bongo must be sailed flat which means that the keel bulb is not developing any RM. And while I like the K1 and the designers thinking I don't think it comes close to an easy to sail keelboat along the lines of a 2.4 meter. And no way are either the Bongo or the K1 "high performance".
--
The beauty of the Trapwing system seems to me to be that on a boat with a planing hull that has the power to plane in 10k or under it can be sailed flat upwind and downwind and can be designed to plane upwind and downwind.

And high performance with a self-righting capability thanks to the design of the movable ballast wing and a bulb keel. Also, since the weight in/on the wing and the wing itself is moving to develop righting moment the crew is not taxed physically and can sail the boat with the ease of a 2.4 meter but with much more performance. I don't think there is a small keelboat anywhere that offers all this and that makes it extremely attractive to me.

The advantages as I see them:
1) easy to sail by almost any weight sailor.
2) self-righting
3) high performance-planing upwind and downwind
4) variable wing ballast-moved manually or electrically
5) two seating options-a.sit in and, b. side to side
6) reefable rig

Gary Baigent

05-20-2010, 02:36 AM

Doug, have you tried fishing, or cycling, walking in the forest, birdwatching maybe? Might be a good time to breath some fresh air instead of the noxious fumes produced by your overheated computer.

Doug Lord

05-20-2010, 11:32 AM

Doug, have you tried fishing, or cycling, walking in the forest, birdwatching maybe? Might be a good time to breath some fresh air instead of the noxious fumes produced by your overheated computer.
===============
Gee Gary,didn't you say something about leaving? No matter. Lets look at where the noxious fumes might be coming from: I have posted the design details of a whole new way to sail, backing it up with 10 years of model testing and a thread that has shown steady progress from an idea to historic versions of the idea to Julian Bethwaites take on the idea to the preliminary design of a 15 foot version of the concept to a new way to build a prototype, to a model of that prototype and soon the full size prototype.
You, on the other hand have said:

Doug. I should be the last to make such comments, being a type of Gyro Gearloose myself - but fargo truck mate, the whole concept of yours looks a mess. Maybe you should start from scratch again and simplify .... and simplify radically. At the moment it is belts, suspenders, braces, tangles and trip ups waiting to happen. Just being my usual brutal, but honest self. I mean well.

And several other ugly,uninformed(you refuse to read the thread), mean spirited and far from helpful so-called "criticisms" that come across more as unprofessional sniping for God knows what purpose-certainly not to help!!!
And you talk about my computer??!!
Give it rest and concentrate on your heli tri......

Paul B

05-20-2010, 12:05 PM

===============
soon the full size prototype.

I wonder what "soon" means? After all, this is from the guy who has claimed time and again that he has had other boats "being built" over the past 8+ years and so far none of them have ever seen the light of day.

I predict the brass plaque has brought this "build" to a close.

Paul B

05-20-2010, 01:19 PM

Doug, have you tried fishing, or cycling, walking in the forest, birdwatching maybe? Might be a good time to breath some fresh air instead of the noxious fumes produced by your overheated computer.

Or how about a real Design Challenge?

Since he now has all the bits of his "foiler" again, maybe he can re-assemble it in the next few days and get some video of it foiling?

Doug Lord

05-20-2010, 03:21 PM

This is interesting: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=108722 Basically, a 10' pole to windward with a bucket full of water. Something to think about......

UPDATE-Picture posted with permission(Thanks,Neil!) :

Chris Ostlind

05-20-2010, 03:58 PM

Yeah, interesting... as in interesting the way this SA poster summed it all up:

couchsurfer Posted Today, 09:59 AM

.........was hoping t'see a gybe

Doug, that bucket guy and you must have the same liability company. Goes by the name of:

Interesting Insurance
"where no claim is too big to pretend that it doesn't exist"

;-)

.

ndeverell

05-21-2010, 06:41 AM

I surprised myself how well this worked

It’s a little difficult to jibe over 20 knots however can be done with caution

I have tried this for only one day so has huge development potential

The pole it set up with endless controls on the pole
The pole is swung forward before the jibe then pulled back into position on the new reach

This can be set up easily on any unstayed boat and with a bit of practice you can master it

If you set this up on a laser you would leave the others for dead

Give it a go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcd2-q7A_jQ

http://www.halfmodelboats.com/newdinghy.php

Gary Baigent

05-21-2010, 07:16 AM

Without a doubt hanging ballast out to windward improves performance ndeverell. I remember David Knaggs sailing solo hanging water ballast in a container like so on his Great Barrier Express in Auckland speed trials ... and he did very well. But and however, the sliding ballast arrangement on the Trapwing is a disaster waiting to happen ... as would it be on your water bucket when you gybed or tacked rapidly. Excuse me, I shouldn't be replying to this as I've just stumbled home after Friday night drinking .. but the message still stands. By the way, what is that blurry imaged boat - and yeah, sailing in Whangaroa must be fun. Cheers.

ndeverell

05-21-2010, 08:21 AM

My thirteen year old son designed the boat (Kingfisher) and he helped me build it

The boat has a self draining cockpit as my son gets tired of bailing his Optimist

This boat has been a great boat for me to sail with the optimist rig as I have been able to race my son in his Optimist. Kingfisher is slightly faster

The splash rig fits the boat and I found it sailed faster than the splash

It also can fit the laser 4.7 rig

Kingfisher is fitted with an optimist centerboard and a laser rudder

She can be rowed or an outboard can be put on the back

So it is a very versatile boat

You can place your order here http://www.halfmodelboats.com/newdinghy.php

Cheers Neil

Doug Lord

05-21-2010, 09:10 AM

Chris Ostlind

05-26-2010, 11:20 AM

This concept is much broader than the Prototype-will will be built to test the system.

Geez, that makes it the single most important development in the last fifty years of performance sailing... right behind the use of helium in boat hulls.

See post # 6, page 1 with the story of Charles Herreshoff and Sons successful race boats using sliding on-deck ballast.

And the concept has progressed to where since then?

See post# 11,page one for Julian Bethwaites comment on the Trapwing System as well as his experience with Paul Cayard and Russell Coutts who requested that such a design concept be explored.

And this magnificent C&C race boat is parked where at the moment? OH! you say it never actually got built? How could Bethwaite let such a brilliant idea slip through his fingers, only to have the idea come splatting down on your messy work station like a hefty chunk of pastrami lubricated by gobs of mustard and mayo?

See this thread, post #1 for a detailed exploration of how a 60' monohull bi-foiler can use this system to be as fast or faster than an ORMA tri using foil assist.

A detailed explanation according to Doug.

The concept can be used on very small "beach boats" to provide kids and others a whole new way to sail fast simply and inexpensively.( Shifter X)

You've never had children, have you, Douglas? If there's a way to wreck it, adventurous kids will find that process in a matter of a few minutes. If there's a way to be injured while using it, kids will have you at the emergency room faster than you can blink. So, you want to put a complex, heavily dependent on moving parts, contraption in the hands of kids so that they can dream big like you? Get some real time on the water around children before you decide its OK to turn them loose with something like this. Better yet, have some kids of your own, worry about them, plan for their futures, make sure they arrive at their adulthood intact physically and mentally, guide them through any heavy pschological dramas that they will experience... and then tell us how this kind of gizmo is going to be just the ticket for a kid out on the water.

The concept can be incorporated into sportboat design allowing more RM with less crew-even working in conjunction with Hugh Wellborns DSS for a very powered up self-righting boat.

More and more costly complexity sure is the answer to a sailing industry that has been down in the dumper for more than five years now. Help yourself to some industry reports in which it is clearly outlined that really inexpensive boats and at the other end, the truly expensive boats, are the only areas in the business where the heart still looks to be beating. Everyone else is on life support and looking to find a product that is at once, affordable and also fun to sail for even non-technically gifted sailors. Simplified and affordable boats are going to be the only way out of this mess, not another overly heated-up techno bomb that looks cool and never moves off the lot.

Whether its shifting water or lead the system has the potential to offer exciting high speed sailing in a way not seen currently on any full size boats anywhere.

So, here we have the world's most innovative designers, Martin Fischer, Nigel Irens, VPLP and Juan K included, and collectively, they have not been able to muster the needed brain power to come up with this same mechanism on their own. Now, after being dusted with pixie fluff, you are the singular holder of the genius necessary to pull this off?

Adavantages in small boats:
1) tremendous increase in RM while retaining a self-righting characteristic, if desired.
2) Probable significant reduction in aerodynamic drag compared to two-handed boats with a single trapeze.
3) Exciting sailing with a drastic reduction in workload.
4) Very low drag, very high power Turbo versions possible.
5) Power to weight ratio will allow full-flying bi-foiler versions.
6) Foil assist standard on every version. Other dinghies using foil assist like the I-14 and National 12 using a single rudder foil whereas the Trapwing system will use two foils tested and proven to increase speed and enhance pitch control.

Numbers 1-6 are all speculative until such time that you can prove this boat actually works as described. Why not hold off on the hyperbole until you can actually get it on the water, it works and you can manage to produce proofs in the form of high res still photos and first generation, non-doctored video?

Paul B

05-26-2010, 11:57 AM

It does seem like that brass plaque was the end of the "build". Now we'll only see more frantic descriptions of nothing, for the next 5 or 8 or 10 years.

When I was 6 or 7 I was going to build a dune buggy out of a large appliance box. Then it was going to be a racecar. Then something else, and back to the dune buggy. After a week of this I got may hands on a kitchen knife and started cutting away at the box to make it look the way I wanted. I soon found there wasn't enough structure to hold the shape I cut.

Doug Lord

05-26-2010, 12:00 PM

This concept is much broader than the Prototype-which will be built to test the system.
See post # 6, page 1 with the story of Charles Herreshoff and Sons successful race boats using sliding on-deck ballast.

See post# 11,page one for Julian Bethwaites comment on the Trapwing System as well as his experience with Paul Cayard and Russell Coutts who requested that such a design concept be explored.

See this thread, post #1 for a detailed exploration of how a 60' monohull bi-foiler can use this system to be as fast or faster than an ORMA tri using foil assist.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/60-20-ocean-racing-monofoiler-design-discussion-15143.html
-------

The concept can be used on very small "beach boats" to provide kids and others a whole new way to sail fast simply and inexpensively.( Shifter X)

The concept can be incorporated into sportboat design allowing more RM with less crew-even working in conjunction with Hugh Wellbourns DSS for a very powered up self-righting boat.

Whether its shifting water or lead the system has the potential to offer exciting high speed sailing in a way not seen currently on any full size boats anywhere.
-------
Advantages and Features in small boats:
1) tremendous increase in RM while retaining a self-righting characteristic, if desired.
--
2) Probable significant reduction in aerodynamic drag compared to two-handed boats with a single trapeze.
--
3) Exciting sailing with a drastic reduction in workload.
--
4) Very low drag, very high power Turbo versions possible.
--
5) Power to weight ratio will allow full-flying bi-foiler versions.
--
6) Foil assist standard on every version. Other dinghies using foil assist like the I-14 and National 12 using a single rudder foil whereas the Trapwing system will use two foils tested and proven to increase speed and enhance pitch control.
--
7) Most versions will have two seating options: "sit-in" inside single seat or plug-in rail seats. Seating arrangement can be changed at will.
--
8) Wing Tip Rig(tm) with upper buoyancy and Square topped main AND jib will be standard pending extensive testing and development. Una rigs with upper buoyancy, peaked up squareheads AND adjustable upper outhauls to be tested extensively. Rig variations already prototyped in models and fullsize over 30+ years.
================
Details of the Trapwing Prototype currently under development in post 205 of this thread.....
================
To enhance this summary and overview, I've included this study of the tacking speed of various well known dinghies with the Design Speed for the Trapwing system:

Tacking Speed Summary:

=======================
Contender- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzrb-HYrxPM

7 seconds full out to full out in good weather for the trapeze movable ballast system on the Contender
=============================
Flying Dutchman- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHsa0bUdFOM
6-8 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out*

=============================
505- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqEhY...eature=related
6-7 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast system from full out to full out

=============================
12' skiff- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PvV820Qpk (toward end of video)
7-8 seconds for the trapeze movable ballast from full out to full out

=============================
International Sailing Canoe- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exb6i3E3r-4&feature=related
5 sec 50% out to 50% out;estimate 7 seconds full out to full out (very hard to find IC videos that show a boat tacking!)

=======================
* full out to full out= max outboard movable ballast CG on one tack to the same position on the other tack.

=================
Trapwing Design Speed-4.5 sec for Trapwing in any weather full out to full out**...
**absolute minimum speed for wing +ballast movement. May be a bit faster but it will not, under any circumstances, be slower (within design framework with constant full out to full out tacking every few minutes for 8 hours+)

Chris Ostlind

05-26-2010, 12:08 PM

What do you want to bet that there are, literally, thousands of readers of this forum out there who have bosses who do the same thing that you do to make themselves look important?

That being the endless stream of redundant, self-important posturing through the email, office paper distribution and droning oral comments in the staff room sessions. The points do not get better with more redundant expressions, Doug. They just get more redundant.

What do you say you answer the points I made from your previous form letter and show the gang that you are responsive to strongly presented arguments in opposition?

Paul B

05-26-2010, 12:10 PM

This concept is much broader than the Prototype-which will be built to test the system..pending extensive testing and development... Already prototyped in models and fullsize over 30+ years.

If this stuff has been prototyped for 30+ years already why isn't it perfected?

It seems to be easier to write nonsense for years than actually do even one technical drawing to work out the details.

Doug Lord

06-14-2010, 06:42 PM

Next step will be to build the prototype using the 16' aeroSKIFF hull. The length will be extended, the bow modified and the topsides extended. Target weight for these mods is 38lb. Details of the prototype have been described earlier.
--In the meantime I'll try to answer any questions not already answered and, if I get the chance, discuss some of the larger variations of the Trapwing concept.

Click on image then click again for larger size,depending on photo:

Paul B

06-15-2010, 05:37 PM

Next step will be to build the prototype using the 16' aeroSKIFF hull.

What is the schedule for this "next step"?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, a model can be useful if it is used to work out mechanics or other details. The model you built did not, so the "next step" should have started already instead of the time wasted on the model.

Doug Lord

06-17-2010, 04:02 PM

This post and post 226 above give a detailed technical look at the Prototype(which will be built as soon as possible) and elements of the proposed technology. The Prototype will serve as a test bed for the Trapwing sliding on-deck ballast system and several variations possible within the system.

A Summary for those who don't want to read the whole thread:

In the course of this thread and a couple of others various incarnations of this concept were considered. The final "incarnation" came down to the Trapwing 15 for which you can find sketches and numbers earlier in this thread. Due to some fortuitous events I was able to get my original 16' foiler hull back and then made the decision to go with it as the prototype for developing this project. The 15 remains the ideal version of the planing version of this concept(so far) and will likely be built after the Prototype is thoroughly tested and explored. The Prototype hull based on the 16 is a bit narrower than ideal but it is an all carbon hull and ideal for a relatively quick conversion to a sailing prototype. So, that's whats next- and here are more details that reflect the modifications to the topsides and bow that change the 16 into the Trapwing Prototype. The prototype is shown with weight and sail area ranges that reflect the potential capability of the modified hull as well as the tests that need to be made. The suitability of the concept to disabled sailing will be determined by sailors involved in disabled sailing. Engineering, as required, will be done by a Naval Architect and Marine Engineer with electronics expertise as required. Performance testing will be exhaustive with help from one of the top marine testing laboratories in the US.
===========
The following is a detailed look at the characteristics of the new Prototype, as well as the design elements it will encompass and test:
-----
Trapwing Prototype:
LOA 17' 8"
Beam hull-3.25' overall 12'(subject to testing)
Weight- hull 138+38=176(corrected from original post mistake)
ballast-wing 80-180lb(variable and subject to testing)
keel 0-80(subject to testing)
SA-upwind 100-182 sq.ft. variable
downwind 200-360sq.ft. (variable and subject to testing)
crew-singlehanded-120lb-220lb (variable and equalized under class rules-
subject to testing)
crew position for racing on the centerline inside boat, fixed
athwhartships, variable fore and aft
--------------------
1) Sail area to be between 100 and 182 sq.ft
a-different rigs
b-different amounts of ballast
--
2) Ballast wing to be supported by trapeze wires and unique retention system that allows wing and ballast to slide simultaneously, allows athwhartship pivoting and fore and aft movement.
a-version one will use two aluminum tubes with sliding external tray- the tubes and tray move simultaneously:
-attachment system allows wing- with weight centered-to be levered up and then pivoted from a position 90 degrees to the CL to a position parallel to the centerline for transport and stowage.
-weight can be added or removed in small increments.
-fore and aft pivot/sliding tube is mounted to the boat slightly offset from the CL to allow room to retract board/keel.
-aluminum tubes terminate at outboard ends in buoyancy pods-pods will be changeable as determined in testing.
-sliding ballast tray and structural design of wing to be capable of 180lb max ballast @9' from CL; ballast completely adjustable in the range of 80 to 180lb.
b-version two is a slightly curved(athwhartship), molded and sealed(with sealable access to ballast tray) wing with an internal sliding ballast tray. This version will be the final version and incorporates all the features of version one with significantly increased sealed buoyancy.
c-Wing movement by manual or electric means. Minimum electrical movement full out to full out:4.5 sec. Minimum electrical "stamina" on single battery-12 hours at a rate equivalent to a approximately 60 (full track)tacks per hour. Manual back-up.
--
3) Crew Position
a-version one-racing position-allows crew to sit in an extremely comfortable seat that is fixed athwhartship and slides fore and aft adjustably while sailing.
-extremely wide crew weight range:for racing lower tray attached to seat may contain ballast used to equalize crew weight in the range of 120 to 220 lb.
-seat may be moved manually or electrically.
b-version two-center seat is removed and two fixed carbon seats with backrests are "plugged-in" to each side deck.
--
4) Rigs to be tested are main and jib, main alone, with and without an asymetrical spinnaker.
a-asymetrical will be tested as permanently mounted off a bowsprit(a la Weta tri) or retracted into a trough with roller(a la Viper) and a retractable pole.
b-mast to be sealed with masthead floatation in an endplate configuration. Some buoyancy possible in head of sail.
--
5)-Daggerboard/ keel/rudder
a -boat will be tested with and without a retractable "lifting keel"
which would essentially be a carbon daggerboard with the minimum ballast required(determined in testing) to right the boat from a pitchpole(where the wing buoyancy may not significantly help).
b-self-righting from a knockdown or pitchpole is a required design element for any version of the boat used for disabled sailing.

c-a turbo version of the boat will not use a ballasted keel and may not be suitable for disabled sailing but this will be determined in testing.
d- the daggerboard may include as standard a lifting hydrofoil designed to provide "foil-assist" to reduce wetted surface and in conjunction with the rudder hydrofoil improve the pitch and planing characteristics of the
boat.
e-a fully flying hydrofoil system will be tested as will a fully flying system that allows the boat to fly downwind only(requiring less upwind SA and less ballast).
f-rudder will be retractable with a t-foil.
--
6)-On the Beach
a-the boat will be able to be easily beach sailed with a dolly incorporated into the trailer design to make it very simple to go from trailer to water. A "power assist" dolly may be available. Disabled sailors/coach(s) will assist in the design of systems to allow launching and use of the boat with the minimum outside assistance possible.
--
7)-Performance
a- the goal is to develop a high performance planing sailboat that can be safely sailed from a center crew position by disabled or able-bodied sailors. I am hoping to be able to achieve an SCP/total weight of 30% or slightly better though that is just a target and a less powerful version with numbers and performance more like a Windmill or Tasar may be perfectly acceptable. The use of foil-assist technology will help to achieve the performance goals. Full flying foiling is possible in a selfrighting boat-particularly one with the righting assist this boat has from version two of THE Wing.
-------
The concept has extraordinary potential and it will be a blast finding out just what she'll do.

-------------------------

DESIGN RATIOS(Trapwing prototype in its most powerful initial configuration)
LOA 17.7
LWL 17.7
Sailing weight 653lb w/keel, 573 w/o keel
----
Displ./ Length Ratio: 52.7
--
Sail Area to Displ. Ratio: 38.66
--
Sail Area/Wetted Surface: 4.23/1 w/o foil assist
5.87/1 with foil assist
--
S number: 9.61

=========================================
Thanks to Eric Sponberg for introducing me to the "S number" and for publishing an excellent series on all these ratios.(see pdf below)

Gary Baigent

06-17-2010, 06:23 PM

Enough endless talk and repetition and general "will-be possible" BS Doug .... start building the bloody thing.

Doug Lord

06-17-2010, 06:33 PM

Thanks ,Gary!

Paul B

06-18-2010, 12:51 AM

the Prototype(which will be built as soon as possible) -

Well, one early IOR boat was built in 21 days in order to make it to the SORC on time, where it won overall...

So, ASAP means your wing-ding-thing should be sailing easily by end of July.

By the way, in my business life I never accept ASAP as an answer as to when a task will be completed. ASAP means nothing when you are working a schedule.

Doug Lord

06-18-2010, 12:14 PM

Since the Proto will be built using the original aeroSKIFF 16 foiler hull, here are the original specs for the 16:

aeroSKIFF™ Specifications

1) LOA: 16 feet (4.87 meters)

2) Beam: Overall: 8 feet (2.44 meters); Hull: 3 feet (.91 meter)

3) Displacement:
--Hull weight: 150 lb (68 kg)-includes racks, seats and traveler(138lb those items removed)
--ready to sail:190 lb (86 kg) ;
--crew:2 -320 lb (145 kg.);
--minimum crew weight: 250 lb (113.6 kg).(requires trapeze over 15k wind)
--all up sailing weight with two crew: 510 lb (231.8 kg.)
--all up sailing weight with minimum crew:440 lb. (200 kg.)

4) Sail Area: upwind:182 sq. ft. (16.9sq. meters); downwind: 332 sq. ft. (30.8sq.meters) including 150 sq. ft. (13.9 sq. meter) spinnaker.

5) W/SA*
-- with two crew,upwind: 2.8 (same as Moth with Gulari sailing)
-- with minimum crew weight: 2.42 (better than Moth with Veal sailing)
* W/SA=weight in pounds divided by SA in sq.ft.(metric doesn't work). Over the years the range of effective foiling has been shown to be under 3.1. The range of 2.4-2.5 is the Moth range for best light air takeoff and performance. 2.8 in the Moth class has shown excellent moderate to heavy air performance. W/SA has been shown to be an excellent first comparison for foilers from 11' to 26'.

6) Foils: two: one on daggerboard; one on rudder-foils specifically engineered
for safe jumping. Designed by DL, engineered thru Fastacraft, built by John Ilett.

7) Draft: foils down: position one: 2 feet (.6 meter); position two: 3 feet (.91 meter). Foils are retractable.

===========================================
More on the aeroSKIFF 16-many of these same features will be tested on the Trapwing prototype:

This boat was designed by me at about the time the first Moth foiled(1999). It was built( mostly by me) over a three year period at a cost of around $17,000.And it was a blast to pull it all together. Among the things tried on this thing for the first time(as far as I know-at least in the US) were:
1) square top jib.
2) reefable camber induced main.
3) manual control of the main foil.
4) angled up foil tips(lots of dihedral)-as a hunch to allow crash free jumping.
5) angled up extension tiller ends to allow physical leverage for manual hydrofoil control.
6) virtually no hull-just a scaled up windsurfer. I had two designs-one with a high beam to length ratio hull and buoyancy pods,one like this. My thinking at the time was to try to find a solution to the rollovers and difficulty common to the Moth at that time in initial startup. I chose the wrong design-this hull was a bitch in the short chop of the intercoastal and actually delayed takeoff in marginal conditions. Big mistake because ,for me, light air take off is the whole ball game.
7) retractable foils controlled from the cockpit.
8) partial span mainfoil and rudder foil flaps( foils built to my design by John Ilett. Johns company engineered the foil laminate to be strong enough to jump the boat).
9) tapered mainfoil planform.
10) fully adjustable angle of incidence of both foils while sailing(main foil system disabled initially). I was in a hurry so sailed without this IMPORTANT system-and I would not have tried to foil if I had realized how much easier it was with this system active.
11) trailerable with foils retracted.
12) all carbon/foam
-----------------
The boat foiled rather poorly because of the hull design(no light air takeoff) in intracoastal chop. One problem in addition to the hull was the fact that the forward cross beam was two low: if the boat rolled any waves would impact it slowing it down a bit. The biggest problem with foiling was that the mainfoil manual control system( no wand) had slack in it making it very difficult to control. But it did foil and no there are no pictures foiling-I was on my own. I consider the boat a success for many reasons including the fact that even though it was difficult to control it did foil and never once crashed. It taught me that there was a huge potential in further developing manual altitude control and adding a new feature to the new boat(under development now): simultaneous control of main and rudder foil. The extension tiller with the turned up ends worked real well, the reefable main worked ok and the square top jib has great potential. The retractable foil system worked perfectly.
The first aeroSKIFF was a great learning experience and as far as I know the first monofoiler scratch built and designed in the US. It will not be the last....

www.monofoiler.com
==========================

Chris Ostlind

06-18-2010, 01:15 PM

Douglas.... PLEASE!

Could you please stop posting the same stuff over and over and over again, along with the same photos we have all seen now, some hundreds of times?

Doug Lord

06-18-2010, 01:28 PM

Douglas.... PLEASE!

Could you please stop posting the same stuff over and over and over again, along with the same photos we have all seen now, some hundreds of times?

-----------------------
Jeez, Ostlind-there is no repetition whatsoever in the last post-all new stuff! Except the pictures which serve to contrast the before and after. That technical stuff all looks the same,huh? Maybe if you read it.....

Paul B

06-18-2010, 01:37 PM

Enough endless talk and repetition and general "will-be possible" BS Doug .... start building the bloody thing.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe this "build" came to an end with the fixing of the brass plate.

If you are crazy enough to actually read some of this stuff you'll see it isn't even realistic. For example, if the red paddleboard currently weighs 150 pounds, and the mods are estimated at 38 pounds, how can the finished hull be estimated at 155 pounds?

Why is there now a claim that there are no photos of the "foiler" foiling, when there were claims in the past that photos do exist? Not very good photos, but good enough to show the foiling. What happened to those photos, and why were they never posted as promised?

Why are there multiple posts about the boat not foiling, no posts about the boat foiling when it was supposed to have foiled, but claims at a later date that it did foil?

Why is it impossible for the foiling guru to give any information about the foiling?

Why is it impossible for the builder to give a timeline for the launch of the wing-ding-thing?

I think we all know why. Perhaps he doesn't have a garden like you do.

Munter

06-19-2010, 12:27 AM

Doug - now that you've got access to the old hull you could put all the "your boat never foiled" sceptics in their place by simply reassembling the aerofoiler, going sailing and taking a few photos. Wouldn't that shut them up!

Paul B

06-19-2010, 12:34 AM

Doug Lord

07-13-2010, 12:23 AM

Here is a spectacular concept by Julian Bethwaite, Paul Cayard and Russell Coutts for a 60' + monohull with sliding on-deck ballast-the subject of this thread. Also see below for a link to my proposal for a 60' Moth also using sliding on-deck ballast.....
----

60' Moth: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/60-20-ocean-racing-monofoiler-design-discussion-15143.html

----

Thanks again to Julian Bethwaite for the comments and information posted here:
-----------
One of my inspirations -that has bolstered my own work on this project- is the Bethwaite/Billoch collaboration on the concept of Pterodactyl-which was conceived of to use on-deck movable ballast. Here is the original SA article: http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe...teradactyl.htm
--------------
What wasn't known then was what Julian says about it here. I asked him to comment on the Trapwing which he did in a PM that I'm publishing here with his permission. He reveals who was behind the Pterodactyl project:

"A few years back these pages graced a thing called the Pterodactyl, it was a big double proa that Russel Coutts and Paul Cayard asked me to do as the ultimate circuit boat. Among other things its nice to see the OMR*go that route, but Russel was big on having 3 tonne of lead on tracks moving from side to side, inside the wing beams. I thought moving water through 200mm diameter pipes would be better, but the concept has merit. Your issue is that unless you have significant tip pods, then you will never be able to react quickly enough to keep the wings out of the water. Just cant do it! "

*Ocean Multihull Rule: it is the predominant rating rule used in Asia (and
Australia) it seems for handicap racing in this part of the world.(dl)

Pictures of Pterodactyl:

Gary Baigent

07-13-2010, 01:07 AM

Notice that Julian thought water ballast would be better. ... but then acquiesced politically to saying that lead "had merit."

cavalier mk2

07-13-2010, 01:46 AM

Doug Lord

07-13-2010, 09:13 AM

Notice that Julian thought water ballast would be better. ... but then acquiesced politically to saying that lead "had merit."
================
You realize that when he said " the concept has merit" he was talking specifically about the Trapwing.... I had written him and he generously answered and allowed me to post his response.

Doug Lord

07-13-2010, 09:17 AM

I should take the time to read this posting but at a quick glance how about a circular main sheet/ballast track that lets the ballast move in an arc and in and out toward and away from a central pivot? Guys like Capt. Nat started on these paths years ago but were always shot down by the race committees...
----------
Cav, did you see this:

I just found some details about a story that I'd heard a few years ago-about
"Herreshoff" experimenting with on-deck sliding ballast.
This is from a book "Herreshoff Sailboats" by Gregory O. Jones and lays out some interesting details of the first recorded use of on-deck iron sliding ballast that I've been able to find. Apparently, new rules and sheer terror got in the way of further development though the two boats that used this form of ballast were very fast. The Seawanhaka Corinthian Yacht Club, formed in 1871 banned movable ballast.
Charles Herreshoff built four "Julias" ,the second was outfitted with an athwhartship track for 550lb. of iron ballast to slide. The method was to release the ballast from the windward side and allow it to slide to leeward just as the boat tacked. Charles designed a larger boat "Kelpie" that his two sons built that used a larger sliding ballast system-1000lb! Kelpie was very fast.
This stuff is exciting to read about and one can only speculate how these systems might have been refined over the years. I think modern versions of systems like these using lead or water have a tremendous potential in high performance boats of all sizes. I'm going to concentrate on small boats where I see an exciting opporunity to explore this interesting technology.

cavalier mk2

07-13-2010, 10:49 AM

Doug Lord

07-13-2010, 12:19 PM

I'd read about the Herreshoff sliding ballast years before, he was far ahead in many ways. I mentioned the circular sliding track because I looked at the reacher and thought weight aft and to the side for diagonal stability would be needed to keep the bow up. Moving ballast ought to be able to shift like the crew on a smaller boat to do the same job. I suppose to right the craft one of the truncated amas would need to flood to assist the small ballast bulb....
==========
Cav, on my boat the whole wing slides and is 100% sealed. If the weight was all the way to windward and the wind died the boat would not capsize. The whole wing slides fore and aft as well..
I was doing some research and accidently discovered the Herreshoff story-amazing. What insight those guys had!

Doug Lord

08-10-2010, 08:22 PM

Big news today that gets this thing a lot closer to becoming reality:

This post and post 226 above give a detailed technical look at the Prototype(which will be built as soon as possible) and elements of the proposed technology. The Prototype will serve as a test bed for the Trapwing sliding on-deck ballast system and several variations possible within the system.

A Summary for those who don't want to read the whole thread:

In the course of this thread and a couple of others various incarnations of this concept were considered. The final "incarnation" came down to the Trapwing 15 for which you can find sketches and numbers earlier in this thread. Due to some fortuitous events I was able to get my original 16' foiler hull back and then made the decision to go with it as the prototype for developing this project. The 15 remains the ideal version of the planing version of this concept(so far) and will likely be built after the Prototype is thoroughly tested and explored. The Prototype hull based on the 16 is a bit narrower than ideal but it is an all carbon hull and ideal for a relatively quick conversion to a sailing prototype. So, that's whats next- and here are more details that reflect the modifications to the topsides and bow that change the 16 into the Trapwing Prototype. The prototype is shown with weight and sail area ranges that reflect the potential capability of the modified hull as well as the tests that need to be made. The suitability of the concept to disabled sailing will be determined by sailors involved in disabled sailing. Engineering, as required, will be done by a Naval Architect and Marine Engineer with electronics expertise as required. Performance testing will be exhaustive with help from one of the top marine testing laboratories in the US.
===========
The following is a detailed look at the characteristics of the new Prototype, as well as the design elements it will encompass and test:
-----
Trapwing Prototype:
LOA 17' 8"
Beam hull-3.25' overall 12'(subject to testing)
Weight- hull 138+38=176(corrected from original post mistake)
ballast-wing 80-180lb(variable and subject to testing)
keel 0-80(subject to testing)
SA-upwind 100-182 sq.ft. variable
downwind 200-360sq.ft. (variable and subject to testing)
crew-singlehanded-120lb-220lb (variable and equalized under class rules-
subject to testing)
crew position for racing on the centerline inside boat, fixed
athwhartships, variable fore and aft
--------------------
1) Sail area to be between 100 and 182 sq.ft
a-different rigs
b-different amounts of ballast
--
2) Ballast wing to be supported by trapeze wires and unique retention system that allows wing and ballast to slide simultaneously, allows athwhartship pivoting and fore and aft movement.
a-version one will use two aluminum tubes with sliding external tray- the tubes and tray move simultaneously:
-attachment system allows wing- with weight centered-to be levered up and then pivoted from a position 90 degrees to the CL to a position parallel to the centerline for transport and stowage.
-weight can be added or removed in small increments.
-fore and aft pivot/sliding tube is mounted to the boat slightly offset from the CL to allow room to retract board/keel.
-aluminum tubes terminate at outboard ends in buoyancy pods-pods will be changeable as determined in testing.
-sliding ballast tray and structural design of wing to be capable of 180lb max ballast @9' from CL; ballast completely adjustable in the range of 80 to 180lb.
b-version two is a slightly curved(athwhartship), molded and sealed(with sealable access to ballast tray) wing with an internal sliding ballast tray. This version will be the final version and incorporates all the features of version one with significantly increased sealed buoyancy.
c-Wing movement by manual or electric means. Minimum electrical movement full out to full out:4.5 sec. Minimum electrical "stamina" on single battery-12 hours at a rate equivalent to a approximately 60 (full track)tacks per hour. Manual back-up.
--
3) Crew Position
a-version one-racing position-allows crew to sit in an extremely comfortable seat that is fixed athwhartship and slides fore and aft adjustably while sailing.
-extremely wide crew weight range:for racing lower tray attached to seat may contain ballast used to equalize crew weight in the range of 120 to 220 lb.
-seat may be moved manually or electrically.
b-version two-center seat is removed and two fixed carbon seats with backrests are "plugged-in" to each side deck.
--
4) Rigs to be tested are main and jib, main alone, with and without an asymetrical spinnaker.
a-asymetrical will be tested as permanently mounted off a bowsprit(a la Weta tri) or retracted into a trough with roller(a la Viper) and a retractable pole.
b-mast to be sealed with masthead floatation in an endplate configuration. Some buoyancy possible in head of sail.
--
5)-Daggerboard/ keel/rudder
a -boat will be tested with and without a retractable "lifting keel"
which would essentially be a carbon daggerboard with the minimum ballast required(determined in testing) to right the boat from a pitchpole(where the wing buoyancy may not significantly help).
b-self-righting from a knockdown or pitchpole is a required design element for any version of the boat used for disabled sailing.

c-a turbo version of the boat will not use a ballasted keel and may not be suitable for disabled sailing but this will be determined in testing.
d- the daggerboard will include as standard a lifting hydrofoil designed to provide "foil-assist" to reduce wetted surface and in conjunction with the rudder hydrofoil improve the pitch and planing characteristics of the
boat.
e-a fully flying hydrofoil system will be tested as will a fully flying system that allows the boat to fly downwind only(requiring less upwind SA and less ballast).
f-rudder will be retractable with a t-foil.
--
6)-On the Beach
a-the boat will be able to be easily beach sailed with a dolly incorporated into the trailer design to make it very simple to go from trailer to water. A "power assist" dolly may be available. Disabled sailors/coach(s) will assist in the design of systems to allow launching and use of the boat with the minimum outside assistance possible.
--
7)-Performance
a- the goal is to develop a high performance planing sailboat that can be safely sailed from a center crew position by disabled or able-bodied sailors. I am hoping to be able to achieve an SCP/total weight of 30% or slightly better though that is just a target and a less powerful version with numbers and performance more like a Windmill or Tasar may be perfectly acceptable. The use of foil-assist technology will help to achieve the performance goals. Full flying foiling is possible in a selfrighting boat-particularly one with the righting assist this boat has from version two of THE Wing.
-------
The concept has extraordinary potential and it will be a blast finding out just what she'll do.

-------------------------

DESIGN RATIOS(Trapwing prototype in its most powerful initial configuration)
LOA 17.7
LWL 17.7
Sailing weight 653lb w/keel, 573 w/o keel
----
Displ./ Length Ratio: 52.7
--
Sail Area to Displ. Ratio: 38.66
--
Sail Area/Wetted Surface: 4.23/1 w/o foil assist
5.87/1 with foil assist
--
S number: 9.61

=========================================
Thanks to Eric Sponberg for introducing me to the "S number" and for publishing an excellent series on all these ratios.(see pdf below)