buccaneer 40 mods

fins

The size and 45 degrees sounds reasonable to me, and since they could be changed/replaced/removed, you are leaving your options open. My boards are installed just behind the forward beam, since you are mostly after lift, right at the beam seems correct.
I did not install float trunks when I rebuilt my "new" (1975) 33, but I did strengthen the area where they would go in case I decide to add them later. My 33 is fairly light so I want to try it as is before I "improve" it. Bucs that are built to Crowther's specs (light) seem to float at rest with both the bow and stern knuckles a little out of the water. This photo was of mine when I first got it and somewhat loaded, I have since gotten some weight out. How does that compare to yours? I have only seen one other Buc-40.

B

 

I thought the boat would be light until I needed a crane to lift her with no mast and engine and very little inside she should have weighed about 2500kg max according to the plans but the crane driver said she was closer to 4000!!this was a worry ,she still had water coming out of various places from being upside down but I estimated only 200/300 kg max.Heres a pic of her floating beforehand after I had emptied the majority of the water.as you can see she was floating quite high so I have to assume the old crane was not that accurate and she was maybe a little lighter than 4 k,the bucc 40 s floats should both be kissing the water when fully loaded at 4309kg displacement I think ,perhaps I,m wrong?

 

I'd suggest the crane weight wasn't very accurate by the way the boat is floating, it's not a very scientific but the eyeball suggests it would be sitting much lower if it was 4 tonne. Only a properly rigged load cell seems to give a weight measurement of any accuracy.

 

fudge factor

I think Crowther designed his boats quite properly, but the quoted weights are pure advertising hype.The 24's are shown at 1000 lbs, with a 2000 lbs displacement. It might be possible to build one at 1000 lbs, but it would take extreme weight saving measures and I am not aware of any that light. Most of them, when actually weighed, come in around 1400-1600 lbs. The "displacement" numbers are much closer, and the boat is fine around 2000 - 2300 lbs. The 33's in the USA that have ratings seem to weigh around the quoted displacement of 6000 lbs, not anywhere near the 3000 that was advertised. Not really a surprise, most Corsair 31's weigh between 3800 and 4500 lbs empty, and they are somewhat smaller than a Buc 33. I expect your 40 is not overweight, just average for the design. That is probably fine, and with the weight reduction aft, will perform well.
B

 

sorry off the thread which is a no no?my fault back to foils if you see the white boot top on the float I thought the base of the foils would originate here and angle down at the 45 deg angle when sailing on one tack the foil will always be submerged and doing its thing,sailing in a race from southport to nsw and back we nearly capsized "wings" bucc 40 under shy kite and would like to avoid that.by the way have built a new anchor locker behind the starboard beam that will have an elec winch to also keep weight out of the bow and a short length of heavy electric cable to battery which will be one 200 amp hr lithium ion bringing new tech and light weight to old tech,expensive but equal to 400 amp lead acid but that's another thread...just moving all weight central tanks etc

 

weight

Bucs REALLY don't like weight in the ends, so everything you are doing should help. I have a tall rotating rig on my 24, and I worked very hard (and expensively) to reduce weight aloft. My 24's entire electrical system weighs less than five lbs, including the rechargeable tool battery. I have replaced most all the rigging, standing and running, on my 33 with dyneema, at a total weight savings of over 50 lbs. I estimate saving a pound aloft is worth at least five below decks and should really help keep the mast pointing up
That exit point seems like a good plan with the fins, I feel sure you will get quite a lot of lift with them when the boat is moving. I also think they could make the boat faster, or at least easier to sail fast-of course that does put you a little closer to a wipeout
B

 

hi all,i have one more concern with adding the fixed foils and it is my most worrying one ,having the foils at a fixed angle of attack if the boat gets a bow down attitude in certain sea state or sail configuration the foils could start to work in the opposite way as intended and keep the float bow going down!?? anyone had this problem?as I intend to go offshore again any sea state will be possible. Ross

 

I think you might want to carefully consider making them retractable. It's nice to have the option of pulling them up as under certain conditions they don't help performance. As an example ORMA60's retract their foils when sailing upwind. It also lets you adjust the amount of lift from the foil to match the situation. If you want to heave to it's probably best to be able to retract all foils also easier to clear weed and debris if it happens to get caught.

 

thought about that a bit lately, why couldn't one experiment with foils and boards mounted on inside of floats, inside but well in open area that is. I know they'd be better coming out centerline of float but, if one was messing about with stuff?

Barry

 

I read an article where Lock talked about foils near the bow. He did out foils on the bow of his B class cat and it did exactly what you say. The boat was going very fast and Lock pitchpoled inctedibly quickly. So fast the bloke who passed him shouted out "Do it again, I blinked and missed it"

The same thing happened in the 80s with a Kelsall tri offshore. It sailed down a wave and pitchpoled at the bottom because the foils were going negative when the bows tried to turn up the waves back.

The only tri similar to yours that I have seen add fixed foils was White Bird - a Mashford design built in the same yard that built Siprit of America. It was quite Bucc like. I talked to the owner and he liked the foils in a breeze as they gave the boat extra lift and smoothness. However, when I saw the boat a few years later they had been removed. IIRC they did slow the boat down in light winds.

Go retractable near the front beam.

cheers

Phil

 

52 foot VSD 2 pitchpoled attempting to break Atlantic record. Her inverted T main foil was mounted below the forward beam. However in the 1980s, Kelsall designs had the very rakish angled aft bows with low buoyancy below WL and rapidly increased buoyancy at deck level, same pretty much of all bow designs of those times ... and that is the complete opposite of bow designs of today. Which have reverse rake forward bows, initial buoyancy low down and fine, low buoyancy at deck level - to knife throught waves, shed water without slowing the boat. Which is what I believe occurred to Riguidel's VSD; immersed deck acted like a brake and there being no rudder T foil to stop the stern lifting out, over the VSD went.

 

In that picture it looks like there was an aft T-foil just in front of the rudder?

 

You are corect and I am wrong.

 

However in my defence, the stern foil, not being an inverted T foil on a deep rudder setup, would be travelling in aerated water most of the time, and therefore useless when bow went down ... so in that position, that shallow depth stern foil would be in air and contributing zero.

 

I think the foil system I'm using on the test model with wand controlled altitude on the daggerboard foil and with a rudder T-foil would be much less susceptible to pitchpole because the wand would automatically add 'up force' to the front end of the boat while the rudder T-foil adds downforce to the stern. That in combination with lift from an ama foil(forward of the forward beam) would keep her up if she was on foils to start with.