Boat Design Forums  |  Boat Design Directory  |  Boat Design Gallery  |  Boat Design Book Store  |  Thanks to Our Site Sponsors

Go Back   Boat Design Forums > Design > Powerboats
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Most Recent Posts Gallery Images Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #151  
Old 06-15-2007, 09:16 PM
Pierre R Pierre R is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Rep: 458 Posts: 461
Location: ohio, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAQuestor View Post
Why select a semi-planer? Today the word "semi-planing" is occasionally misused when characterizing boats which are more like planing craft in that they lack the power needed to get past the resistance hump. The genuine semi-planing hull, however, performes as well at dead slow as at full throttle. The Sagas are providing comfortable and safe cruising right up to the maximum speed recommended by the builder.
Found on the Saga Boats web site. Thanks for the link goes to Raggi Thor in the Scandinavian boat design thread.

Best,

Leo
I am just not sure I buy anything said about semi planing hulls anymore. I have not seen anything yet that lives up to the hype. They seem like motorsailers to me. Not good displacement boats and not good planing boats. I have not seen fantastic fuel savings in the hump range of speed over properly designed planing hulls. The only thing semi displacement seems to offer is a good ride and controllability in the hump range of speed so most people with a semi displacement hull operate in that speed range.

Convince me that I am wrong.
Reply With Quote


  #152  
Old 06-15-2007, 10:06 PM
SAQuestor SAQuestor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Rep: 91 Posts: 163
Location: San Antonio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre R View Post
Convince me that I am wrong.
Nah. I'll pass. Thanks for the offer.

As an aside, this is certainly an interesting way to enter a conversation that has been on going for over 2 1/2 months and has a 150 pretty informative posts from folks that at least have an open mind.

But, different strokes for different folks.
__________________
You're not old until regrets replace dreams.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 06-15-2007, 10:44 PM
kengrome kengrome is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Rep: 305 Posts: 719
Location: Gulf Coast USA
Hi Leo,

I checked all the pix in the links you posted, and this the best view of the bottom that I could find:

http://newimages.yachtworld.com/1/6/...?1168964118000

... but of course this shows absolutely nothing useful to a person who wants to learn more about designing boats that run efficently at low-end planing speeds, or semi-displacement speeds, or whatever you want to call it when a boat runs at 12-20 mph or so.

It looks like I'm not going to learn anything new by trying to see the bottom of this particular boat. That's fine, I'm happy to work on new designs based on Atkin's tunnel-stern Seabright skiffs anyways. At least I can understand how they work and how to build them ...
__________________
Kenneth Grome
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 06-15-2007, 10:47 PM
Pierre R Pierre R is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Rep: 458 Posts: 461
Location: ohio, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAQuestor View Post
Nah. I'll pass. Thanks for the offer.

As an aside, this is certainly an interesting way to enter a conversation that has been on going for over 2 1/2 months and has a 150 pretty informative posts from folks that at least have an open mind.

But, different strokes for different folks.
You are assuming that I have a closed mind and that in itself signifies a closed mind. The question was genuine.

I have two degrees in engineering and make my living as an inventor. I cannot afford closed minds. I am in the process of thinking out what I want for my next boat.

The statement that you made that raised and eyebrow was "The genuine semi-planing hull, however, performes as well at dead slow as at full throttle."

Performs well means what to you? It tracks nice or delivers the goods on efficiency at S/L ratios of 1.0 to 1.25? What does that mean. Performs well at full throttle. Does that mean that its great in downwind swells to the equal ability of a properly designed planing hull or does that mean it delivers good efficiency on fuel?

You hang the shingle out as Naval Architect and therefore have some sway with me. Most boats sold today have hull designs as an afterthought. The marketing department hates hulls and naval architects. They get in the way of great interiors. Those same folks market these as semi displacement all the time. It means nothing to me. You come along and claim that there is a true semi displacement hull just like a true displacement or planing hull and didn't appear from under a rock.

My guess is that 98% of the hulls out there are damn poor designs as far as what I would consider delivering performance.

I looked at the Saga web site. Frankly there are things I liked very much about the boat and things I think were more for marketing an interior with safety as an afterthought. I realize you have to sell boats and I realize the general public thinks they must take their house afloat with them.

If I want all the convinences of a house I will stay in my house. First and foremost I want a boat that performs well throught its designed range of speed in all conditions that is pure fun to operate. Damned all the convinences of home. Let me move anywhere on the boat and work on anything on the boat with ease and give me a fun quality built boat to operate.

I have actually got to be a naval architect's dream client. Are you sure you don't want to take another shot at it instead of dismissing me as another critic?
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 06-15-2007, 11:05 PM
Pierre R Pierre R is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Rep: 458 Posts: 461
Location: ohio, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by kengrome View Post
... but of course this shows absolutely nothing useful to a person who wants to learn more about designing boats that run efficently at low-end planing speeds, or semi-displacement speeds, or whatever you want to call it when a boat runs at 12-20 mph or so.

It looks like I'm not going to learn anything new by trying to see the bottom of this particular boat. That's fine, I'm happy to work on new designs based on Atkin's tunnel-stern Seabright skiffs anyways. At least I can understand how they work and how to build them ...
On the contrary. I think this picture does raise some eyebrows with me.

I don't see much of a keel under the forward two thirds of the boat yet I see a substantial short keel and skeg protecting the prop and rudder. I see a rudder that is large by semi displacement standards and looks well balanced.

These attributes would indicate to me that this hull would be more nimble at planing speeds than most semi displacement boats on the market and that translates into fun. I don't want a boat that handles like a 1974 U-haul at planing speeds. This is certainly different from what I am use to seeing.

Given what I see as reasonable but high AB ratios up front I would opt for a bow thruster to take away the frustration in tight marinas with wind and current.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 06-16-2007, 12:03 AM
SAQuestor SAQuestor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Rep: 91 Posts: 163
Location: San Antonio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre R View Post
The statement that you made that raised and eyebrow was "The genuine semi-planing hull, however, performes as well at dead slow as at full throttle."
Pierre - in the quote above I have highlighted 3 words that are erroneous. I DID NOT make that statement - I merely quoted from the Saga web site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre R View Post
Are you sure you don't want to take another shot at it instead of dismissing me...
Actually, when a newbie comes into a forum with "guns ablazing" making demanding statements like "Convince me that I'm wrong" and then tops that by attributing something that was not written by me... and then adds high octane gas to the conflagration by spouting about engineering degrees and supposed "inventor credentials". Seems like all we have is an individual that likes to set up straw man arguments to prove their own "superiority".

I once worked with a fella that was a legend in his own mind. Seems like another one has revealed their true colors.
__________________
You're not old until regrets replace dreams.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 06-16-2007, 12:12 AM
SAQuestor SAQuestor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Rep: 91 Posts: 163
Location: San Antonio
Quote:
Originally Posted by kengrome View Post
Hi Leo,

I checked all the pix in the links you posted, and this the best view of the bottom that I could find:

http://newimages.yachtworld.com/1/6/...?1168964118000

... but of course this shows absolutely nothing useful to a person who wants to learn more about designing boats that run efficently at low-end planing speeds, or semi-displacement speeds, or whatever you want to call it when a boat runs at 12-20 mph or so.
I can't disagree with you Ken. As I said in my initial post, about all the information I have found is mostly marketing hype.

But it appears to me that the hull form is a deep vee in the forefoot and then the bottom shallows out to a moderate vee from midships back. The deep keel seems to be kept with a bit more protrusion to protect the wheel and rudder.

As other folks have pointed out, that forward section seems to be a key element in getting these sorts of hull forms to be sea kindly.

But still, these Saga boats appear to need those several hundred horsepower engines just like many others of their modern ilk. So please do keep on exploring your Seabright hull forms. Maybe we'll get away from mere speculation and informed commentary to where we actually have some empirical data. Gosh, what a concept. Data. How's that go? My Kingdom. My Kingdom for some data... Oops, maybe not quite that way.

Best,

Leo
__________________
You're not old until regrets replace dreams.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 06-16-2007, 12:19 AM
Pierre R Pierre R is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Rep: 458 Posts: 461
Location: ohio, USA
Well SAQuestor it seems that I may have missunderstood your post. Perhaps I should have wadded through the 10 pages of posts before responding.

I am sorry to have fanned your flames and will not request you opinions again.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 06-16-2007, 12:50 AM
kengrome kengrome is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Rep: 305 Posts: 719
Location: Gulf Coast USA
Quote:
I can't disagree with you Ken. As I said in my initial post, about all the information I have found is mostly marketing hype.
Maybe some of the hype is true, but it's hard to tell these days when everyone's boat seems to be the answer to everything -- at least according to the marketing talk.

Quote:
It appears to me that the hull form is a deep vee in the forefoot and then the bottom shallows out to a moderate vee from midships back.
Right, and this is common to what ... hundreds or thousands of planing power boat designs? Nothing new here so far ...

Quote:
The deep keel seems to be kept with a bit more protrusion to protect the wheel and rudder.
I wouldn't even call that thing a keel myself, although that's apparently what the marketing guys are calling it. To me a keel is a very long protrusion from the bottom of the boat, not a short thing like that "skeg" they call a keel. Then again, maybe there really is a keel under there somewhere -- but without decent pictures it's all just theory and conjecture.

Quote:
As other folks have pointed out, that forward section seems to be a key element in getting these sorts of hull forms to be sea kindly.
My take on this is that you need to keep the forefoot "in the water" if you want to deal with rough or choppy conditions effectively. By insuring that the bow cleaves the water nicely, the bottom will never present itself to a wave, and it will be impossible for the boat to "pound".

The problem with this approach is excess spray when compared to a planing boat that runs bow-high and skims over the surface on the aft half of its hull bottom. But I think spray can be mostly controlled by the intelligent use of spray rails located in the proper position to prevent water from climbing too far up the hull sides.

Quote:
These Saga boats appear to need those several hundred horsepower engines just like many others of their modern ilk. So please do keep on exploring your Seabright hull forms.
I intend to do just that. At least with the Seabright hull form I can understand how and why it can be efficient. I'm not claiming that these hull forms are efficient -- although Robb White certainly thought so -- but if they are I won't have any question why, that's all.
__________________
Kenneth Grome
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 06-16-2007, 04:35 AM
fcfc fcfc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rep: 399 Posts: 744
Location: france,europe
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAQuestor View Post



OK. Try this one on Yachtworld. Says a 230 HP Yanmar.


Best,

Leo
Searching with google, I have found the powering option of their lastest offering (the 310, available as semi displacement only ), is a volvo D4-225 or D4-260.

I find this model surprisingly close to http://www.nimbus.se/modelPageCoupe2007.aspx?pageid=686 . Same powering, about same external size, about same layout.

Top speed of the 320 coupe is advertised as top speed 24 kts with 225 hp and 26 kts with 260 hp.

In one page the Saga 310 is advertised as cruise speed 20 kts, on the other page 14-24 kts.

The 320 coupe is nowhere classified as a "semi displacement" or "semi planning".

So I guess this term for the Saga 310 is just pure marketing blurb to differenciate from competitors.


BTW, when you try to read in D GERR propeller handbook entry for 10 000 lbs / 260 hp (38 lb/hp), you are outside the scope of displacement/semidisplacement boats (1000 lb/hp to 50 lb/hp) . But you are a bit below the middle of planning boats (60 lb/hp to 2 lb/hp) .
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 06-23-2007, 05:24 PM
FAST FRED FAST FRED is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Rep: 925 Posts: 4,016
Location: Conn in summers , Ortona FL in winter , with big dock & room for O'nite stop .
"When accelerating at intermediate speeds, however, most planing hulls experience a rather pronounced "resistance hump" combined with steep trim angles and unpleasant wake wash. The consequence is that the driver normally will try to avoid the "hump" by passing it as quickly as possible either by speeding up or slowing down.:

This Hump is the product of the stern going down as the bow begins to rise .

With the ATKIN inverted V aft , the pressure created by the prop fills the aft section , and the boat remains level.

The bow stays level as the ENTIRE boat rises , as it gains speed.
The only "problem" seems to be when too much power is used , and the pressure raises the stern too high , depressing the bow , causing wonky steering.
As stated the solution seems to be forward chines to lift the bow as much as the stern , or perhaps my , suggestion of shrinking trim tabs to lessen the accelerated water lift astern , maintaining the stock trim.

The great sea worthy ability reported for these boats probably comes from the fact that the full hull is still mostly immersed at speed, so slamming is eliminated.

There might be some extra fuel burn from the extra wetted surface (compared to a true plaining boat) but the soft ride would allow higher speeds at lower G loads . An OK trade to me.

There might NOT be extra fuel burn as all the water the prop gets was accelerated before the prop increasing the prop efficiency to pump already accelerated water aft. The boat might NOT be plaining on its stern wave as some guess, but simply more efficient at recycling energy already paid for.


FF
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 06-23-2007, 08:52 PM
tom28571 tom28571 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Rep: 1691 Posts: 2,129
Location: Oriental, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAST FRED View Post
"When accelerating at intermediate speeds, however, most planing hulls experience a rather pronounced "resistance hump" combined with steep trim angles and unpleasant wake wash. The consequence is that the driver normally will try to avoid the "hump" by passing it as quickly as possible either by speeding up or slowing down.:

This Hump is the product of the stern going down as the bow begins to rise .

_________________________________________________________________
>>>>>Fred, I am pretty sure that these are symptoms rather than the cause of this behavior. As a planing hull accelerates above “hull speed” lift must begin to transfer from buoyancy to dynamic. The hull will always assume the trim angle needed to produce dynamic lift for the speed it is running. Thus as speed increases, the angle required will normally decrease as lift is proportional to both trim angle and speed. More speed = less trim and less speed = more trim. Some boats are much better at this because of lower bottom loading. More bottom area means less trim angle needed to produce the required lift at any given speed above hull speed.<<<<<
________________________________________________________________

With the ATKIN inverted V aft , the pressure created by the prop fills the aft section , and the boat remains level.

The bow stays level as the ENTIRE boat rises , as it gains speed.
The only "problem" seems to be when too much power is used , and the pressure raises the stern too high , depressing the bow , causing wonky steering.
As stated the solution seems to be forward chines to lift the bow as much as the stern , or perhaps my , suggestion of shrinking trim tabs to lessen the accelerated water lift astern , maintaining the stock trim.

The great sea worthy ability reported for these boats probably comes from the fact that the full hull is still mostly immersed at speed, so slamming is eliminated.

There might be some extra fuel burn from the extra wetted surface (compared to a true plaining boat) but the soft ride would allow higher speeds at lower G loads . An OK trade to me.

There might NOT be extra fuel burn as all the water the prop gets was accelerated before the prop increasing the prop efficiency to pump already accelerated water aft. The boat might NOT be plaining on its stern wave as some guess, but simply more efficient at recycling energy already paid for.

_______________________________________________________
I agree with some of your speculation but, like a lot of the other speculation, it is just that since none of us has any empirical evidence to support any of it. Clearly the down turn on the hull aft of the prop will produce stern lift. On the other hand, that water must first be lifted which may need energy from hull forward of the prop. Perhaps you are correct in thinking that the hull shape gives that lift without any negative effects. If you look at the start of the tunnel as the stern of a “normal” boat, then the rise in the water in the tunnel can be the normal upsurge behind the stern.

After a while this can create a headache. I will be glad when some real data is developed to put some of the speculation to rest. Lots of people claim unusual performance for the Atkin tunnel but no one seems to have any real data to offer. Not to mean that discussion should be cut off but just a caution that we are mostly just “speculating”. Tom
________________________________________________________________

F
abcdefghij
__________________
Tom Lathrop
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 06-23-2007, 08:59 PM
kengrome kengrome is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Rep: 305 Posts: 719
Location: Gulf Coast USA
Quote:
There might NOT be extra fuel burn as all the water the prop gets was accelerated before the prop increasing the prop efficiency to pump already accelerated water aft.
Hi Fred,

You've mentioned this before but I still do not understand what you're talking about. Can you please explain how the water gets accelerated BEFORE it reaches the prop?

Are you referring to the suction created by the propeller, which is nothing unusual since all propellers do the same thing?

Or is something else going on here -- something totally independent of the propeller's suction, and possibly unique to this particular hull design -- that accelerates the water in front of the prop?
__________________
Kenneth Grome
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 06-23-2007, 11:53 PM
SAQuestor SAQuestor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Rep: 91 Posts: 163
Location: San Antonio
Tom did something strange to hide his reply from being quoted directly, but copy and paste works real good too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom28571 View Post
Not to mean that discussion should be cut off but just a caution that we are mostly just “speculating”.
Indeed. As much as I'd like to think that one of these Atkin Seabright hulls will be built by someone, reality does rear it's ugly head.

In this thread, fcfc slaps me around soundly with: "But there will be no comparison possible for resale value in future time."

This concept of resale value was reinforced today when perusing the YachtWorld listings. How's this one? I don't know who the builder is, but I would suggest that the build quality and fit and finish is comparable to what I would be able to produce. I've gotta believe that the builder has a lot more toil, trouble and sweat into that boat than $39k (eventual actual sales price probably much lower) will ever return. The sales price may just about cover the materials used. Sad. And yes, I know it's a sailboat.

But for the same $39k - how's this semi-displacement power boat?

And since I am comparing wooden vessels here, how about this selection at about $39k asking price?

But going back to fcfc's admonition, how about these fiberglass power boats at about $39k? Certainly not a lot to choose from, but representative of what is available at that price point.

My point in this post is to reinforce Tom's point and fcfc's point.

Tom's is that we don't have any data. And fcfc's is that even if we did have good data and someone built one, the resale value would be hard pressed to allow us to recoup our materials costs.

So we can speculate all we want - and sometimes that's interesting too - but if and when the $$$ fly from the bank account, we'll be able to see what there is to see regarding actual performance of boat bigger and heavier and much more expensive than Robb White's Rescue Minor. Until that time, I agree 100% with Tom.

Best,

Leo

Then I run across these for a few $$ more than the $39k mentioned above. These also fit in with fcfc's idea.

32' Vinette Custom Trawler

40' Vinette Steel Hull Trawler
29' Prairie Coastal Cruiser Sedan
__________________
You're not old until regrets replace dreams.

Last edited by SAQuestor : 06-24-2007 at 12:10 AM. Reason: Add more links
Reply With Quote


  #165  
Old 06-25-2007, 09:54 AM
Excalibur Excalibur is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Rep: 10 Posts: 23
Location: Lusby MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAQuestor View Post
I can't disagree with you Ken. As I said in my initial post, about all the information I have found is mostly marketing hype.

But it appears to me that the hull form is a deep vee in the forefoot and then the bottom shallows out to a moderate vee from midships back. The deep keel seems to be kept with a bit more protrusion to protect the wheel and rudder.

As other folks have pointed out, that forward section seems to be a key element in getting these sorts of hull forms to be sea kindly.

But still, these Saga boats appear to need those several hundred horsepower engines just like many others of their modern ilk. So please do keep on exploring your Seabright hull forms. Maybe we'll get away from mere speculation and informed commentary to where we actually have some empirical data. Gosh, what a concept. Data. How's that go? My Kingdom. My Kingdom for some data... Oops, maybe not quite that way.

Best,

Leo
Hey All,

I live behind a VERY restrictive firewall. I can see US based YachtWorld pics, but I can't see any that are on the server that carries the Saga hull pic. I don't know why the Navy blocks it, but they do. Would someone please send me an email with the pic attached? I'd love to compare it to my 40 year old Chris Craft hull. My Sea Skiff is a true semi displacement hull. The best pics I have of it are Here and Here . You can almost make out the keel that extends 2/3 of the length of the hull from the point where the hull curves up to the props. She's 38 feet, and I've seen the displacement written as anywhere from 17,000 pounds to 22,000. I'm pretty sure it's over 20,000. 700 horsepower. It cruises (3,000 RPM) at 14.4 knots, and tops out at 24.8. What makes me characterize it as semi is the fact that bow rise is undetectable from either helm and it cruises with the forefoot still in the water. I personally like the characteristics of the hull; a very smooth ride, no "hump" and an ability to cut through chop without pounding. But she is certainly wet! Spray to the flybridge in 2 foot chop. A maxim in the aviation community is that there is nothing more worthless than altitude above you or runway behind you. I would say that the ability to run 30 knots only in smooth water runs a close second. SA, one of my winter projects will be the addition of a good fuel flow meter to my gauge set. Engineering data will be taken! In addition to an FF meter and a GPS, what other data gathering instruments are needed for a decent report? Will empirical observation and published reports coupled with backup runs be enough for weather and tides? How many dimensions should the graph have?
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
looking for economical powercat benny333 Fiberglass and Composite Boat Building 9 12-27-2006 04:13 PM
Looking to design and build a flats boat (semi/planing hull) willfishforbeer Boat Design 2 06-14-2006 09:51 AM
lifting rails for an old semi-planing hull? mikfin Boat Design 14 03-29-2005 06:13 PM
Anybody who is looking for design service at economical rate SB MARINE Services & Employment 0 10-26-2004 03:02 AM
Semi-planing vs semi-displacement WayGray Boat Design 5 05-28-2003 11:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999 - 2014 Boat Design Net