Boat Design Forums  |  Boat Design Directory  |  Boat Design Gallery  |  Boat Design Book Store  |  Thanks to Our Site Sponsors
  #61  
Old 01-19-2017, 11:12 PM
brian eiland's Avatar
brian eiland brian eiland is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Rep: 1903 Posts: 4,654
Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand
There is another video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH3Q-5vHLCs
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-20-2017, 08:26 AM
bjn bjn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Rep: 16 Posts: 85
Location: Stockholm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAraujo View Post
That boat rides so well in that video!

Quote:
Originally Posted by brian eiland View Post
That was interesting. I was unaware of that vessel even while I live in Thailand part time, (but up north away from the water )

I did find this on one link
http://crew.org.nz/forum/index.php/t...-feet/?p=13403

Posted 17 June 2010
Happy Feet is a bi plane rig cat developed by Arnie Duckworth, and the centre pod goes side to side and carries a foiling centreboard and I think the rudder as well.

In theory you can lift the winward hull in the light, and then lift the leeward hull in the heavy stuff.

It has burned through a fair few sets of foils I think because the loads much be huge - Arnie is an American I think that basically grew up or lived a long time in NZ with various odd boats like that Beale cat rigged boat. He also has a foiling power cat up here, and basically could best be described as a legend having brought WEST system and Adhesive technoligies to NZ and Aussie and THailand along with all the advanced lamination techniques and so on that goes with it.

His house, everything about the guy is 'out there' and so no wonder he has a boat that is not exactly normal like the Pescott cats.

The traditional multi fleet have an issue with these biplane rigged boats. There are basically two groups; Arnie and the Yachting Siam boat builders who are keen on biplane rigs. THe issue is how much the 2nd rig should be rated at; when it was 55% (because the theory is downwind the 2nd rig is doing nothing) the biplaners cleaned up. When it was 75% then the traditional ones cleaned up.

In a blow the biplanes are damn quick, it's in the light (IMHO having watched them) particularly downwind that they suffer big time as they don't for the most part carry kites. I don't know how quick the pescotts are but they are quicker on line than the biplanes to date and most of the time, although apparently when it is lit up the Happy feet stomped all over them as those boots were made for walking, er , stomping in some faces.

Or something to that effect.

I'm not sure what Arnie's next 'mad invention' will be or if he will continue to persavere with the happy feet. Since the Seacart showed up, all the other multis look, for want of a better word, pretty average. That tri is f&*king quick.



PS: Appears as though the central foils (rudder and front foil) are cooperating pretty well with free surface of water.
That is a beautiful solution!
Beautiful!

Standing ovation!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-20-2017, 09:29 PM
oldsailor7's Avatar
oldsailor7 oldsailor7 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Rep: 436 Posts: 2,094
Location: Sydney Australia
Well there has been a huge amout of good information on this topic, but the basic answer to the question is that a surface piercing foil is just plain inefficient, (lifting foils excepted).
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-20-2017, 09:36 PM
brian eiland's Avatar
brian eiland brian eiland is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Rep: 1903 Posts: 4,654
Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsailor7 View Post
Well there has been a huge amout of good information on this topic, but the basic answer to the question is that a surface piercing foil is just plain inefficient, (lifting foils excepted).
Such a blank condemnation ,...really open-minded thinking.

And why are lifting foils excepted?....they are often surface piercing as well, so should suffer some of those same 'losses' at the free surface??
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-20-2017, 09:40 PM
UpOnStands UpOnStands is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Rep: 16 Posts: 283
Location: Sydney
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsailor7 View Post
Well there has been a huge amout of good information on this topic, but the basic answer to the question is that a surface piercing foil is just plain inefficient, (lifting foils excepted).
your qualification is unnecessary given the OP's original request why
"single bridgedeck centerboard are not more use on cruising catamaran?"
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-23-2017, 10:58 PM
oldsailor7's Avatar
oldsailor7 oldsailor7 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Rep: 436 Posts: 2,094
Location: Sydney Australia
My reply did not apply just to one type of catamaran, nor any particular multihull type. But to multi hulls sailingboats in general.
The late (and great) Edmond Bruce proved mathematically and by extensive water tank experimentation, that a low aspect ratio foil (IE: 1 to 1 ) with an end cap (Hull bottom), is the ideal.

Ref: A.Y.R.S. #82 "Design for Fast Sailing".

Lifting foils are mostly horizontal and fully immersed and therefore can be high aspect ratio and very efficient. Their vertical portions of course have to be surface piercing and should be high aspect with high AoA profiles.
Doug Lord's tip surfacing foils are good examples of this.

In order to enable a double berth in a Piver Nugget, I ditched the lifting daggerboard in favour of two surface piercing foils at the Aka hingepoints.
They were an abject failure.
I then fitted a Norman Cross low aspect ratio wooden keel, which transformed the boats performance, to a quick tacking, high pointing and pleasurable boat to sail.
Just my experience.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-23-2017, 11:28 PM
UpOnStands UpOnStands is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Rep: 16 Posts: 283
Location: Sydney
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsailor7 View Post
I then fitted a Norman Cross low aspect ratio wooden keel, which transformed the boats performance, to a quick tacking, high pointing and pleasurable boat to sail.
Just my experience.
LAR keel brings joy and high pointing -- that's what I like to hear. Any design details that stick out?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-25-2017, 05:54 PM
oldsailor7's Avatar
oldsailor7 oldsailor7 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Rep: 436 Posts: 2,094
Location: Sydney Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by UpOnStands View Post
LAR keel brings joy and high pointing -- that's what I like to hear. Any design details that stick out?
Yes. A plain rectangular board, or non ballast keel will work well, but is a bit more exposed to damage and is less efficient than an elliptical plan form, but is fine for a cruising boat. The wetted area should be 2.2% of the projected sail area (fore Triangle and Main). The leading edge should be angled back, perhaps to 45deg to help shedding weed etc: I put a strip of half round metal bead on mine to protect the leading edge from hitting "things". Worked well for me on my cruising trimaran. (Piver Nugget).
For my first Buccaneer, which I configured for the N.Y./Bermuda race, I thought a fin keel would be best for the deep sea sailing.
Since water is (for our purposes) non compressable, I made the keel with a NACA 0006 supersonic section, in Cedar wood, with steel rods vertically epoxied inside. The planform was that of the Concords wing, suitably low aspect ratio.
As a LAR keel it was very successful, but I scrapped it the following year as it was fatally damaged by the rocky shallows of Toronto harbour. I replaced it with a lifting daggerboard, which worked just fine.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-25-2017, 06:49 PM
UpOnStands UpOnStands is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Rep: 16 Posts: 283
Location: Sydney
great detail, thanks for the info.
after watching a friend almost sink a Yamaha 24 foot mono by breaking a toilet discharge thru-hull-- not a wooden plug on board for love or money -- I have a bad feeling about holes in hulls under the WL. Dagger board cases are really really big holes of the worst kind. Lots of people use them but ---
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-25-2017, 09:05 PM
DennisRB's Avatar
DennisRB DennisRB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Rep: 228 Posts: 1,224
Location: Brisbane
Firstly I would like to say, good topic. I think if it can be made to work, the concept of a single centerboard on a cruising cat could be a good idea for the reasons Rob mentioned.

I have pondered the idea for a while but am still not totally sold on it, but remain open to the idea when considered in context of the whole design of the craft.

With the whole craft designed around matching certain ideas it could work in conjunction with a central pod which could house a single engine. The pod could also hold fuel and water tanks either side of the centreboard slot (which would only hold say half the chord when raised). When the CB is raised it would be say 300mm or less above the water, but it would present a fairly clean obstruction to oncoming waves and slice through them with little drag.

Quote:
(asymmetrical boards) Requires less surface-area (smaller board) to develop a leeway reducing force
· The boat itself does not have to be sailed at a skewed angle of attack to develop the 'board's lift' (leeway reducing force)…resulting in less leeway.
These 2 statements kind of relate to each other. With no boards to prevent leeway, most cats can still sail to windward with more slip. This means the hulls are acting as leeway preventers. A symmetrical board requires slip to be effective. Thereby relieving some of its duty to the hulls, so the board is not 100% responsible for leeway prevention. That means if the vessel is to be sailed with no slip, the board must do much more work as the board will be 100% responsible for leeway prevention.

So if an asymmetrical board is used with the idea of eliminating leeway totally, one must also consider the fact it is not getting any help from the hulls in leeway prevention. Therefore its not so simple to assume that a asym board can both be smaller AND prevent all hull leeway.

Quote:
In order to enable a double berth in a Piver Nugget, I ditched the lifting daggerboard in favour of two surface piercing foils at the Aka hingepoints. They were an abject failure. I then fitted a Norman Cross low aspect ratio wooden keel, which transformed the boats performance, to a quick tacking, high pointing and pleasurable boat to sail.
Do you have any pics? I see you are from deep water Sydney. I am from QLD and shallow draft and beach-ability are very high in my SOR. So your LAR keel would not have been a good option for me or many other people who like to beach thier boats just for the fun of it during everyday cruising in QLD. I think some properly designed daggerboards in the amas would have better served my SOR. But if I mainly sailed in deep water and was not interested in beaching, the LAR keel sounds like a perfectly acceptable option with less hassle.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-25-2017, 09:14 PM
DennisRB's Avatar
DennisRB DennisRB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Rep: 228 Posts: 1,224
Location: Brisbane
Quote:
Originally Posted by UpOnStands View Post
LAR keel brings joy and high pointing -- that's what I like to hear. Any design details that stick out?
No one can seriously say that a correctly designed high aspect foil has worse performance than a low aspect one over its intended operating range. Sure its possible and probably easy to design an ineffective high aspect foil. Seems like the design of high aspect foils is much more crucial than low aspect. So if you are going to design a foil without the required knowledge, a low aspect one will probably have a higher margin for error.

Look at cruising cats that are optioned with both LAR keels and correctly designed daggerboards. What has better performance in almost every situation?
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-25-2017, 10:06 PM
brian eiland's Avatar
brian eiland brian eiland is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Rep: 1903 Posts: 4,654
Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennisRB View Post
Look at cruising cats that are optioned with both LAR keels and correctly designed daggerboards. What has better performance in almost every situation?
Were I betting man...I would definitely say ____ .
What do you think, it is pretty obvious.
__________________
RunningTideYachts.com
Distinctive Expedition Yachts
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-25-2017, 10:18 PM
brian eiland's Avatar
brian eiland brian eiland is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Rep: 1903 Posts: 4,654
Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennisRB View Post
With the whole craft designed around matching certain ideas it could work in conjunction with a central pod which could house a single engine. The pod could also hold fuel and water tanks either side of the centreboard slot (which would only hold say half the chord when raised). When the CB is raised it would be say 300mm or less above the water, but it would present a fairly clean obstruction to oncoming waves and slice through them with little drag.
I conjunction with the 'central nacelle' I had suggested to contain those 2 asymmetric boards, I had also suggested it might incorporated a single drive retractable propulsion leg (at least on smaller vessels). Might appear something like this nacelle on this....
Attached Thumbnails
Bridgedeck centreboard why don't they work???-stern-necelle.jpg  
__________________
RunningTideYachts.com
Distinctive Expedition Yachts
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-25-2017, 10:20 PM
brian eiland's Avatar
brian eiland brian eiland is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Rep: 1903 Posts: 4,654
Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand
Sure would be nice to access your boards and your drive leg without hauling the vessel.
__________________
RunningTideYachts.com
Distinctive Expedition Yachts
Reply With Quote


  #75  
Old 01-25-2017, 10:27 PM
valery gaulin valery gaulin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Rep: 7 Posts: 85
Location: Montréal
Yes exactly what i had in mind when I first ask about centerboard on a catamaran. Why don't they work?

I believe that if it is mounted in a pod under the bridgedeck it should work. But this configuration is pretty much close to a trimaran with a really small main hull.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bridgedeck Clearance nickvonw Multihulls 11 07-30-2011
10:32 AM 
Best shape for bridgedeck? Alex.A Multihulls 8 03-31-2010
05:52 AM 
FJ centreboard susho Fiberglass and Composite Boat Building 0 10-04-2007
12:00 PM 
Centreboard optimisation abindoff Boat Design 11 03-26-2006
09:15 PM 

Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999 - 2017 Boat Design Net