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

Go Back   Boat Design Forums > Design > Sailboats
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 08-12-2011, 12:23 PM
Doug Lord's Avatar
Doug Lord Doug Lord is offline
Flight Ready
 
Join Date: May 2009
Rep: 1252 Posts: 10,209
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Here are some notes from the Seahorse article posted on SA here: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/ind...owtopic=125193 posts 24 and 25 You can read the entire article if you click on the page images.....Article has never before seen interior pictures of the boat.


1- Ian Oately had to go some to persuade designers Reichel-Pugh to support his experimental 42 footer project but after inevitable early problems this relatively complex boat is now performing reliably.
--
2) One particular success is the use of carbon 'roller-blind' to seal the keel track recess when underway-bearing in mind the big problems in the 2005-6 Volvo Race caused by similar attempts at sliding keel doors on several of the early Volvo 70's.
--
3) First capsize caused by line breakage.
--
4) Q weighs less than 4 tons.
--
5) As the (keel) head rotates around the hull, the topsides panel covering the slot slides with it. Secured at either side of the keel head, this sheet of carbon( notched on the internal face to allow it to curve easily) moves up and disappears just under the deck-a crude explanation would be like a garage door rising up and out of sight. All this means there are no openings or wet boxes in the floor of the main hull of the Q.
--
6) " We had it( broken strop) rated to 16 tons and so will replace it with some larger diameter higher modulation line..."
--
7) Ian Oately: " Discovery is one of the chief reasons for doing it."
--
8) What wasn't so encouraging was the speed at which some people judged the project after a single line failure.
See this thread starting with post # 43-which was the first announcement of the boat and the first announcement of its capsize in Sydney harbor. Some subsequent posts reflect the concern of the above quote.
--
9) Wrapping up the day on the dock, I got the impression that for Ian it is the intellectual challenge of this project that is exciting; pulling in the best brains, then pushing out those minds, initially to believe then to achieve. The boatbuilders and system engineers are fully aware of what has been accomplished here; an innovative and fascinating concept has been realised, driven by the clients excitement and encouragement to experiment and learn. And all this during a fiscally pretty lean period for build projects.
--
10) Ian Oately on going larger: "Lets just say we haven't ruled that out".

Pictures,L to R sailing by Francolini, others posted on SA by "johnny saint" showing the sliding "garage door" and the keel removed. Incredible design job producing such a strong yet well faired system.
Attached Thumbnails
Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-q-just-before-keel-put-place.jpg  Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-q-open-saint-sa.jpg  Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-q-rotating-keel-3.jpg  

Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-q-francolini-sw-bow-rotating-keel.jpg  
__________________
yes, it is a Revolution
---"The Foils are the Future.." Jimmy Spithill, 9/5/13
My Gallery: http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/sh...0&ppuser=31218
Reply With Quote


  #152  
Old 08-13-2011, 09:41 AM
Doug Lord's Avatar
Doug Lord Doug Lord is offline
Flight Ready
 
Join Date: May 2009
Rep: 1252 Posts: 10,209
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Q-Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovaton!

This is the whole Seahorse article by Blue Robinson published in another publication called "Sails": http://www.sailsmagazine.com.au/j/in...the-revolution

The revolution
This radical new ocean racer could just
be the biggest sensation in keel design since Australia II. It’s time to forget everything you thought you knew about ocean racing yachts
.Text by Blue Robinson Photography by Craig Greenhill / Saltwater Images / Andrea Francolini

When Ian Oatley called me one Friday and invited me to race on his 42-foot all carbon flying-keeler Q on the weekend, it was the good news. The bad news was that the forecast was woeful – less than 10 knots for the CYCA’s Audi Winter Series race. Rumours of Q’s revolutionary new keel design had been circulating for a long time, and it looked as if the light breeze might keep the full glory of this radical racer under wraps for just a bit longer.
At noon on Sunday, Sydney Harbour was a sheet of glass. We motored among the fleet and waved to friends. Every crewmember on every boat stared at us. The Q is beautifully built, entirely of carbon with just a clear coat on the hull and no anti-foul to spoil the shine – so it is certainly a good looker, but everyone waited to see the keel. Just as it looked like the breeze might never arrive, a light northerly started to shuffle down the harbour, and we were off.
SIDEWINDER MISSILE: Q’s keel not only produces more righting moment, but reduces drag by lifting out of the water. The internal workings of the canting keel system.RIGHT ON Q
Jostling with 50-footers on a reaching start we headed into Kirribilli, rounded, then headed up the harbour. With only 10 knots of breeze to work with, things were all very familiar. The hum of the engine, the small rise in revs as the keel moved from the vertical out 10 degrees, and a bit of chat calling the breeze as it curled over Bradleys Head. On the upwind leg we were in clearer pressure and from the helm Ian raised the keel until it was visible under the surface – still normal stuff really on canting keelers the world over. Another knot of breeze and the bulb raised a curve of water above the surface, so on the beat it looked like we had a permanent porpoise to windward. Then the breeze lifted another notch and in an instant Oatley had raised the keel out of the water, and my eyebrows to the top of my forehead.
Nothing really prepared me for turning the maximum righting moment into a maximum writing moment, which saw me furiously scribbling notes trying to describe all this – while rapidly forcing me to review my notions of what a keel should and should not do. All the theory, all the discussions and even a photograph hardly prepared me for what just happened. Properly engineered canting keelers have been charging round the world for years, so increasing the efficiency of the keel by moving the bulb to windward is accepted and understood. What the Q demonstrates is this concept can be taken further, rotating the keel and bulb structure around the hull, until the entire appendage breaks free from the thick and viscous ocean, rising out to the thin and free air – where it uses its maximum leverage, in the most efficient place, with the least drag. It is beautifully simple and, well, simply beautiful.
For the downwind and light-reaching legs of the CYC race the keel was lowered back under the boat to suit conditions, then on the second beat Ian looked at me and said, “Oh sorry Blue – how rude of me. Would you like to drive?” Would I like to drive! Oh I think I would like to drive very much…
And it works. It is slightly mesmerising, and I challenge anyone not to lose focus on helming upwind and steal a glance at the bulb working away, glistening in the sunshine – while saying to yourself, “Now that in every sense – is simply out there.”
Like a multihull sailor eager to fly a hull and slash the wetted surface, I found myself willing the breeze up to liberate the keel and feel the boat surge ahead. If I needed a reminder of its drag-component the breeze dropped to eight knots, dipping the keel back in, letting the sea wash over the bulb and wash-off our boat speed. A quick glance to windward saw pressure coming, which lifted back up to 12 knots and we were free and flying again, smooth and steady. The aft and forward rudder foil sections are designed to accommodate the keels absence, and there are no jitters or wobbles or fluctuation at all when the keel gets air. None. Ian certainly was expecting something, but is surprised and delighted at this discovery.
Every crewmember on every boat stared at us. The Q is beautifully built... but everyone waited to see the keel.RADICAL THINKING
Ian Oatley was a passionate windsurfer, loving the simplicity and immediacy of the sport. Sheet in and go. Minimum weight; minimum drag; sailing very fast and off the mark very quickly. This equation stuck with him and four years ago he had the idea of building a lightweight 40-footer, with rudder and forward canard in place to allow the release of the keel from the viscous drag.
The technology was there – right here in his backyard. Olectric Systems had designed and built the electronic systems for Volvo 70 and canting keel maxis including Wild Oats XI, Leopard 3 and Alfa Romeo. Greg Waters was the hydraulics guru for the same projects and McConaghy had built these record-breaking boats. The designers however, were hesitant. The first design team Ian approached said, “No thanks”. Even Reichel/Pugh were lukewarm.
The answer was to fly John Reichel to Sydney and explain the idea around a table, together with Sandy and Bob Oatley. The face to face worked – everyone now got it. The original idea was for an immensely strong rotating carbon “O” ring, located in the centre of the boat, with the keel attached and operated by three small internal cog motors, plus manual deck winches and pulleys. Though the “O” shape is certainly strong, it didn’t lend itself to the slender hull shape and once the loads became apparent an engine driven PLC was included. After a full mock-up of the keel system McConaghy built the boat in Sydney in a female mould, which came out looking so good it was decided not to paint it.
The Reichel/Pugh design has a 200mm “divot” inset mid-ships to take the keel system, a track secured to the hull with a carriage attached to the keel-head, which moves around the “U” shape of the hull from the vertical, to about 300mm above the waterline on the port or starboard side. This keel-head carriage is pulled through this operation via turning blocks by two large hydraulic rams living just below the deck – the windward ram doing the work while the leeward ram eases the heavy-duty 16mm strop line in phase.
Six 300mm carbon beams were set fore and aft inside the hull to make up for the loss of structure due to the rebate in the hull. It is very solid, very black and very lightweight; the whole boat weighs less than four tonnes. As the keel rotates around the hull, the topside’s panel covering the “slot” slides with it. Secured at either side of the keel head, this sheet of carbon moves up and disappears just under the deck – a crude explanation would be like a garage door rising out of sight. All this means there are no openings or wet boxes in the floor of the main hull of the Q.
Outside there are two small holes high in the slot panel, where fresh-water hoses plug in back at the dock to flush out the keel systems. As the Q has no anti-foul, during the week the boat is lifted onto its cradle, where maintenance and inspections can be carried out by releasing each end of the carbon slot-skin attached to the keel-head, giving access into the area to check the keel-head and track. The owner wanted this project to be light, with a furling main and jib, carbon keel and very simple hardware. The boat emerged with a steel keel and bulb, standard mainsail and PLC driven winches with a D/C driven keel-centering safety backup. The Q was built to prove the idea would work and in that sense it is a test-bed, allowing the concept to evolve.
KNOCK DOWN: Q on its side during the Audi Winter Series on Sydney Harbour. Photos of the incident even made a big splash in several metro papers the next day.PUSHING THE LIMITS
Seven days after I was racing onboard the Q flipped onto its side on Sydney Harbour. I called the guys who maintain the boat and were racing it at the time. The problem? “We broke a rope. Nobody got hurt and we popped the boat on its side. We have sailed in 20-plus knots heaps of times, but today the strop pulling the keel-head broke. We had it rated to 16 tonnes and so will replace it with some larger diameter high-modulus line. Everything was fine.”
When I spoke with Ian Oatley, we came back to the fundamentals of this project and the philosophy driving it, “This is the unknown. Whatever research you do, nobody really fully knows what these precise loads are. We made a decision and have been sailing and testing it. We now need to increase those strop loads – simple. All the way through this project we have been – and we will continue to be – learning a huge amount. Discovery is one of the chief reasons for doing this.” Discovery. Research. Unknown. If you are going to shine a light and wander down the dark tunnel home to those phrases, you will have setbacks, that is certain.
What wasn’t so encouraging was the speed at which some people judged this project after a line failure. Can I have a show of hands of who hasn’t broken a fully rated sheet, shroud or backstay on a high performance yacht? Wrapping up the day talking on the dock I got the impression that for Ian, it was the intellectual challenge of the project that was exciting; pulling in the best brains he could find, then pushing those minds, firstly to believe and then to achieve.
The boat builders and system engineers on this project are fully aware of what has been accomplished here; an innovative and fascinating concept has been realised, driven by the client’s excitement and encouragement to experiment and learn, and all this during a fiscally lean period for build projects worldwide. So after nutting out the problems on a 42-footer, would Ian consider going longer, lighter and simpler – say 60 to 65 foot? A short pause, a slow smile and a definite twinkle in the eye, then, “Lets just say we haven’t ruled that out.”
"We broke a rope. Nobody got hurt and we popped the boat on its side. Everything was fine."
__________________
yes, it is a Revolution
---"The Foils are the Future.." Jimmy Spithill, 9/5/13
My Gallery: http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/sh...0&ppuser=31218
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 08-13-2011, 12:55 PM
sharpii2 sharpii2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rep: 580 Posts: 1,364
Location: Michigan, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Lord View Post
This is the whole Seahorse article by Blue Robinson published in another publication called "Sails": http://www.sailsmagazine.com.au/j/in...the-revolution

The revolution
This radical new ocean racer could just
be the biggest sensation in keel design since Australia II. It’s time to forget everything you thought you knew about ocean racing yachts
.Text by Blue Robinson Photography by Craig Greenhill / Saltwater Images / Andrea Francolini

When Ian Oatley called me one Friday and invited me to race on his 42-foot all carbon flying-keeler Q on the weekend, it was the good news. The bad news was that the forecast was woeful – less than 10 knots for the CYCA’s Audi Winter Series race. Rumours of Q’s revolutionary new keel design had been circulating for a long time, and it looked as if the light breeze might keep the full glory of this radical racer under wraps for just a bit longer.
At noon on Sunday, Sydney Harbour was a sheet of glass. We motored among the fleet and waved to friends. Every crewmember on every boat stared at us. The Q is beautifully built, entirely of carbon with just a clear coat on the hull and no anti-foul to spoil the shine – so it is certainly a good looker, but everyone waited to see the keel. Just as it looked like the breeze might never arrive, a light northerly started to shuffle down the harbour, and we were off.
SIDEWINDER MISSILE: Q’s keel not only produces more righting moment, but reduces drag by lifting out of the water. The internal workings of the canting keel system.RIGHT ON Q
Jostling with 50-footers on a reaching start we headed into Kirribilli, rounded, then headed up the harbour. With only 10 knots of breeze to work with, things were all very familiar. The hum of the engine, the small rise in revs as the keel moved from the vertical out 10 degrees, and a bit of chat calling the breeze as it curled over Bradleys Head. On the upwind leg we were in clearer pressure and from the helm Ian raised the keel until it was visible under the surface – still normal stuff really on canting keelers the world over. Another knot of breeze and the bulb raised a curve of water above the surface, so on the beat it looked like we had a permanent porpoise to windward. Then the breeze lifted another notch and in an instant Oatley had raised the keel out of the water, and my eyebrows to the top of my forehead.
Nothing really prepared me for turning the maximum righting moment into a maximum writing moment, which saw me furiously scribbling notes trying to describe all this – while rapidly forcing me to review my notions of what a keel should and should not do. All the theory, all the discussions and even a photograph hardly prepared me for what just happened. Properly engineered canting keelers have been charging round the world for years, so increasing the efficiency of the keel by moving the bulb to windward is accepted and understood. What the Q demonstrates is this concept can be taken further, rotating the keel and bulb structure around the hull, until the entire appendage breaks free from the thick and viscous ocean, rising out to the thin and free air – where it uses its maximum leverage, in the most efficient place, with the least drag. It is beautifully simple and, well, simply beautiful.
For the downwind and light-reaching legs of the CYC race the keel was lowered back under the boat to suit conditions, then on the second beat Ian looked at me and said, “Oh sorry Blue – how rude of me. Would you like to drive?” Would I like to drive! Oh I think I would like to drive very much…
And it works. It is slightly mesmerising, and I challenge anyone not to lose focus on helming upwind and steal a glance at the bulb working away, glistening in the sunshine – while saying to yourself, “Now that in every sense – is simply out there.”
Like a multihull sailor eager to fly a hull and slash the wetted surface, I found myself willing the breeze up to liberate the keel and feel the boat surge ahead. If I needed a reminder of its drag-component the breeze dropped to eight knots, dipping the keel back in, letting the sea wash over the bulb and wash-off our boat speed. A quick glance to windward saw pressure coming, which lifted back up to 12 knots and we were free and flying again, smooth and steady. The aft and forward rudder foil sections are designed to accommodate the keels absence, and there are no jitters or wobbles or fluctuation at all when the keel gets air. None. Ian certainly was expecting something, but is surprised and delighted at this discovery.
Every crewmember on every boat stared at us. The Q is beautifully built... but everyone waited to see the keel.RADICAL THINKING
Ian Oatley was a passionate windsurfer, loving the simplicity and immediacy of the sport. Sheet in and go. Minimum weight; minimum drag; sailing very fast and off the mark very quickly. This equation stuck with him and four years ago he had the idea of building a lightweight 40-footer, with rudder and forward canard in place to allow the release of the keel from the viscous drag.
The technology was there – right here in his backyard. Olectric Systems had designed and built the electronic systems for Volvo 70 and canting keel maxis including Wild Oats XI, Leopard 3 and Alfa Romeo. Greg Waters was the hydraulics guru for the same projects and McConaghy had built these record-breaking boats. The designers however, were hesitant. The first design team Ian approached said, “No thanks”. Even Reichel/Pugh were lukewarm.
The answer was to fly John Reichel to Sydney and explain the idea around a table, together with Sandy and Bob Oatley. The face to face worked – everyone now got it. The original idea was for an immensely strong rotating carbon “O” ring, located in the centre of the boat, with the keel attached and operated by three small internal cog motors, plus manual deck winches and pulleys. Though the “O” shape is certainly strong, it didn’t lend itself to the slender hull shape and once the loads became apparent an engine driven PLC was included. After a full mock-up of the keel system McConaghy built the boat in Sydney in a female mould, which came out looking so good it was decided not to paint it.
The Reichel/Pugh design has a 200mm “divot” inset mid-ships to take the keel system, a track secured to the hull with a carriage attached to the keel-head, which moves around the “U” shape of the hull from the vertical, to about 300mm above the waterline on the port or starboard side. This keel-head carriage is pulled through this operation via turning blocks by two large hydraulic rams living just below the deck – the windward ram doing the work while the leeward ram eases the heavy-duty 16mm strop line in phase.
Six 300mm carbon beams were set fore and aft inside the hull to make up for the loss of structure due to the rebate in the hull. It is very solid, very black and very lightweight; the whole boat weighs less than four tonnes. As the keel rotates around the hull, the topside’s panel covering the “slot” slides with it. Secured at either side of the keel head, this sheet of carbon moves up and disappears just under the deck – a crude explanation would be like a garage door rising out of sight. All this means there are no openings or wet boxes in the floor of the main hull of the Q.
Outside there are two small holes high in the slot panel, where fresh-water hoses plug in back at the dock to flush out the keel systems. As the Q has no anti-foul, during the week the boat is lifted onto its cradle, where maintenance and inspections can be carried out by releasing each end of the carbon slot-skin attached to the keel-head, giving access into the area to check the keel-head and track. The owner wanted this project to be light, with a furling main and jib, carbon keel and very simple hardware. The boat emerged with a steel keel and bulb, standard mainsail and PLC driven winches with a D/C driven keel-centering safety backup. The Q was built to prove the idea would work and in that sense it is a test-bed, allowing the concept to evolve.
KNOCK DOWN: Q on its side during the Audi Winter Series on Sydney Harbour. Photos of the incident even made a big splash in several metro papers the next day.PUSHING THE LIMITS
Seven days after I was racing onboard the Q flipped onto its side on Sydney Harbour. I called the guys who maintain the boat and were racing it at the time. The problem? “We broke a rope. Nobody got hurt and we popped the boat on its side. We have sailed in 20-plus knots heaps of times, but today the strop pulling the keel-head broke. We had it rated to 16 tonnes and so will replace it with some larger diameter high-modulus line. Everything was fine.”
When I spoke with Ian Oatley, we came back to the fundamentals of this project and the philosophy driving it, “This is the unknown. Whatever research you do, nobody really fully knows what these precise loads are. We made a decision and have been sailing and testing it. We now need to increase those strop loads – simple. All the way through this project we have been – and we will continue to be – learning a huge amount. Discovery is one of the chief reasons for doing this.” Discovery. Research. Unknown. If you are going to shine a light and wander down the dark tunnel home to those phrases, you will have setbacks, that is certain.
What wasn’t so encouraging was the speed at which some people judged this project after a line failure. Can I have a show of hands of who hasn’t broken a fully rated sheet, shroud or backstay on a high performance yacht? Wrapping up the day talking on the dock I got the impression that for Ian, it was the intellectual challenge of the project that was exciting; pulling in the best brains he could find, then pushing those minds, firstly to believe and then to achieve.
The boat builders and system engineers on this project are fully aware of what has been accomplished here; an innovative and fascinating concept has been realised, driven by the client’s excitement and encouragement to experiment and learn, and all this during a fiscally lean period for build projects worldwide. So after nutting out the problems on a 42-footer, would Ian consider going longer, lighter and simpler – say 60 to 65 foot? A short pause, a slow smile and a definite twinkle in the eye, then, “Lets just say we haven’t ruled that out.”
"We broke a rope. Nobody got hurt and we popped the boat on its side. Everything was fine."
A very interesting article. Thanks, Doug.

I suppose if there was a contest for the most expensive four ton yacht, this would probably win hands down. But the engineering is fascinating.

I've read Cut Once's arguments and find them a bit wanting. I suppose the diesel in question is of modest horse power, but the sail area it enables is enormous. This is kinda like the last days of sailing ships where "donkey' engines were used to raise and lower massive spars and even used to sheet them. I suppose the same engine power could have been used to turn a propeller and might have moved the massive vessel a knot or two in a calm, but it would have been of far less utility.

A healthy man can put out about one quarter horsepower at best and only for a short duration. He can put out about one third of that for hours on end, if his heart and lungs are in good working order.

In the case of this boat, four men would be needed to produce one horse power. I'm going with the max because the canting ballast is not moved that often. Once for every tack, plus some adjustment.

Now, I'll take a flying guess. I'll say the diesel in question puts out about ten horsepower. If so, it would take forty men to equal it. The forty men would weigh around seven to eight thousand pounds. The engine and fuel would weigh about maybe two hundred.

Now, if you took the same engine and fuel and put a propeller on it (something that should be permitted, in exchange for letting this type of boat in), it might move the four ton boat at hull speed for a few hours. At the rate this boat (and others in it's class) sails, this is not competitive, unless there is a dead calm.

As I have said in other posts, there probably is a way to make this system fail safe enough to take off shore.

All this being said, this design does not excite me.

An expensive boat (and probably inherently so for the careful fit, finish, and engineering needed to make it work) has been made able to sail faster than cheaper versions. Nothing new in that. Or very exciting, IMHO.

What excited me was when Wharram and Piven came out with cheaper boats that could out sail the more expensive ones on the water at that time. We will probably never see that again.

Someone once posted somewhere on this site that "nothing goes to windward like gold". Sadly, I can see how this is true.

A true test of this technology would be to race it against a multi of equal length and see how it does. My guess is a the multi, made out of the same carbon fiber and to the same level of finish, will beat this boat, or at least equal it. And the multi will almost certainly be cheaper.
__________________
I am highly suspicious of the terms 'perfect' and 'best'. I favor the terms 'inadequate', 'adequate', and 'better', instead, with the first of these closest to being an absolute.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 08-13-2011, 01:19 PM
Doug Lord's Avatar
Doug Lord Doug Lord is offline
Flight Ready
 
Join Date: May 2009
Rep: 1252 Posts: 10,209
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Q-Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovaton!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpii2 View Post
1) What excited me was when Wharram and Piven came out with cheaper boats that could out sail the more expensive ones on the water at that time. We will probably never see that again.

2) A true test of this technology would be to race it against a multi of equal length and see how it does. My guess is a the multi, made out of the same carbon fiber and to the same level of finish, will beat this boat, or at least equal it. And the multi will almost certainly be cheaper.
================
Thanks for the comments, Sharpii.
1) Never say never.....

2) One of the things that is so cool about the Reichel-Pugh design and the other flying canting keel design(if they get it working well) is that this technology can enable full flying hydrofoil keelboats. Well, over 5 years ago I postulated a 60' Moth that, to work well, would have required a canting keel just like the one on Q. First mention I know of, of the need for such a keel . There are other ways to do flying keelboats, including with a fixed keel, but I didn't realize that back then.

Ian Oately's vision has brought the thing to life in an extraordinarily well done version which, if nothing else, expands the possibilities of monohull keelboat design. I find it very exciting......

pictures from the Sails mag article
click on image:
Attached Thumbnails
Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-q-sails-magazine-2.jpg  Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-q-sails-magazine-3.jpg  Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-q-sails-magazine-bw-1.jpg  

__________________
yes, it is a Revolution
---"The Foils are the Future.." Jimmy Spithill, 9/5/13
My Gallery: http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/sh...0&ppuser=31218
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 08-20-2011, 03:44 PM
Doug Lord's Avatar
Doug Lord Doug Lord is offline
Flight Ready
 
Join Date: May 2009
Rep: 1252 Posts: 10,209
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Q- Hamilton Island Race Week

Q- did not do well in the first race but I don't have the whole story yet:
http://www.topyacht.net.au/results/2...DivA/SGrp1.htm

great new picture by Nicole Scott-

click on image-look at that keel bulb:
Attached Thumbnails
Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-q-wind-nicole-scott-hamilton-island-race-week.jpg  
__________________
yes, it is a Revolution
---"The Foils are the Future.." Jimmy Spithill, 9/5/13
My Gallery: http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/sh...0&ppuser=31218
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 08-21-2011, 03:37 PM
Doug Lord's Avatar
Doug Lord Doug Lord is offline
Flight Ready
 
Join Date: May 2009
Rep: 1252 Posts: 10,209
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Q

More bad news for Q-she's dead last in the first 4 races(DNC-did not start mostly). Have no additional info yet as to what is going on.
--
SA rumor: the cover over the slot in the hull "washed off"-not verified anywhere yet. Said she was doing well when this happened...
__________________
yes, it is a Revolution
---"The Foils are the Future.." Jimmy Spithill, 9/5/13
My Gallery: http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/sh...0&ppuser=31218
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 09-01-2011, 06:06 PM
Doug Lord's Avatar
Doug Lord Doug Lord is offline
Flight Ready
 
Join Date: May 2009
Rep: 1252 Posts: 10,209
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Defline 19 2QP

Designed with two canting keels-one on each side(and no daggerboard or forward rudder) : http://www.defline.com/r&d/2QP.htm

click on images-
Attached Thumbnails
Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-canting-keel-unusualdefline-19-2qp-sailboat-canting-keel-.jpg  Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-defline-19-canting-keelsconfigb.jpg  
__________________
yes, it is a Revolution
---"The Foils are the Future.." Jimmy Spithill, 9/5/13
My Gallery: http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/sh...0&ppuser=31218
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 09-02-2011, 10:32 PM
sharpii2 sharpii2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rep: 580 Posts: 1,364
Location: Michigan, USA
This one is a far more sensible concept.
__________________
I am highly suspicious of the terms 'perfect' and 'best'. I favor the terms 'inadequate', 'adequate', and 'better', instead, with the first of these closest to being an absolute.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 06-02-2012, 03:26 PM
SteveMellet SteveMellet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Rep: 88 Posts: 196
Location: South Africa
I`m astounded at the level of complexity in the boat Q.
In order to solve a relatively simple problem, the designers have focused in on creating a completely over-engineered solution which is probably brilliant when it works.
The problem I see is that they haven`t looked up from the drawing board and stared out the window enough, and have focused on getting a canting keel to fly out of the water, in so doing they have negated one of the functions of a keel, so now have had to add a daggerboard as means of lateral resistance. So in effect the keel is no longer a keel, but a ballast bulb out on a lever, above the water.
Why not, in this case, have a ballast bulb each side of the boat on a long beam which travels across the deck from side to side, bringing the leeward bulb up over the deck, while the windward bulb is then several feet to weather of the boat, higher than the deck. This would negate the need to have complex systems to transfer the weight across, and also do away with any through-hull openings common with canting keels, or in this case, the covers that try to make the hull flush.
If you separate the function of ballast to leeway prevention and have dedicated components of the boat to do each task, unlike a conventional keel which does both, the ballast comonent need not be anything that is hydrodynamically shaped, if it runs over the deck it is raised higher than the waves and is less likely to slow the boat as it gets hit by waves, unlike the keel on Q, which I feel is a really innovative solution to a problem that doesn`t exist.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 06-02-2012, 04:06 PM
Doug Lord's Avatar
Doug Lord Doug Lord is offline
Flight Ready
 
Join Date: May 2009
Rep: 1252 Posts: 10,209
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMellet View Post
I`m astounded at the level of complexity in the boat Q.
In order to solve a relatively simple problem, the designers have focused in on creating a completely over-engineered solution which is probably brilliant when it works.
The problem I see is that they haven`t looked up from the drawing board and stared out the window enough, and have focused on getting a canting keel to fly out of the water, in so doing they have negated one of the functions of a keel, so now have had to add a daggerboard as means of lateral resistance. So in effect the keel is no longer a keel, but a ballast bulb out on a lever, above the water.
Why not, in this case, have a ballast bulb each side of the boat on a long beam which travels across the deck from side to side, bringing the leeward bulb up over the deck, while the windward bulb is then several feet to weather of the boat, higher than the deck. This would negate the need to have complex systems to transfer the weight across, and also do away with any through-hull openings common with canting keels, or in this case, the covers that try to make the hull flush.
If you separate the function of ballast to leeway prevention and have dedicated components of the boat to do each task, unlike a conventional keel which does both, the ballast comonent need not be anything that is hydrodynamically shaped, if it runs over the deck it is raised higher than the waves and is less likely to slow the boat as it gets hit by waves, unlike the keel on Q, which I feel is a really innovative solution to a problem that doesn`t exist.
---------------------------
Steve, every canting keel boat separates the functions of leeway prevention from the ballast strut-VOR 70's, Open 60's, CBTF etc etc.. Guy Whitehouse/Jo Richards Lake Racer(see the first page of this thread), Q and now Vlad Murnikov with Speed Dream are attempting to 100% eliminate the drag of the ballast strut and bulb. Hope they can do it.....
I think on-deck movable ballast supplemented with a sealed wing of greater buoyancy than the ballast and perhaps a small fixed or canting keel to guarantee self-righting would be worth a shot. One of the Herreshoffs did on-deck movable ballast succesfully(in racing terms) in the 1800's. They had some sort of trolley that had ballast on it that slid side to side.

Pictures: concept for an 18 footer with sliding ballast inside a buoyant wing that is supported by trapeze wires. Both the ballast in the wing and the wing itself slide simultaneously side to side. I think picture 4 below may illustrate something along the lines of what you were suggesting:
click on image-
Attached Thumbnails
Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-trapwing-proto-test-1-2-3-003uk.jpg  Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-trapwing-copydeployed-port-tack-001-copy.jpg  Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-trapwing-copydeployed-port-tack-002-copy-2-.jpg  

Attached Images
 
__________________
yes, it is a Revolution
---"The Foils are the Future.." Jimmy Spithill, 9/5/13
My Gallery: http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/sh...0&ppuser=31218
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 06-02-2012, 09:46 PM
sean9c sean9c is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rep: 35 Posts: 289
Location: Anacortes,WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Lord View Post
---------------------------
Steve, every canting keel boat separates the functions of leeway prevention from the ballast strut-VOR 70's, Open 60's, CBTF etc etc.. Guy Whitehouse/Jo Richards Lake Racer(see the first page of this thread), Q and now Vlad Murnikov with Speed Dream are attempting to 100% eliminate the drag of the ballast strut and bulb. Hope they can do it.....
I think on-deck movable ballast supplemented with a sealed wing of greater buoyancy than the ballast and perhaps a small fixed or canting keel to guarantee self-righting would be worth a shot. One of the Herreshoffs did on-deck movable ballast succesfully(in racing terms) in the 1800's. They had some sort of trolley that had ballast on it that slid side to side.

Pictures: concept for an 18 footer with sliding ballast inside a buoyant wing that is supported by trapeze wires. Both the ballast in the wing and the wing itself slide simultaneously side to side. I think picture 4 below may illustrate something along the lines of what you were suggesting:
click on image-
But you have twice the ballast
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 06-02-2012, 10:03 PM
Doug Lord's Avatar
Doug Lord Doug Lord is offline
Flight Ready
 
Join Date: May 2009
Rep: 1252 Posts: 10,209
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean9c View Post
But you have twice the ballast
-------------------
If you're referring to the self-righting version of the Trapwing on-deck movable ballast system thats not true.
For a guaranteed self-righting version of the system you can have two ballast locations-one in the keel, one in the wing but the total ballast is significantly less than a boat with only a ballast keel. The wing moves the on-deck ballast so far to windward-much further than a canting keel or racks-that less ballast is required for the same RM. The keel ballast isn't there for significant RM-just as a backup for self-righting. In fact, small versions of the system wouldn't use the ballast keel at all since the buoyancy of the wing in the first few feet from the outboard ends of the wing is greater than the weight of the ballast in the wing and can actually right the boat.
The wing length on the 18 is 14' and it moves the ballast about 12.5 feet to weather and can move side to side faster than a crew on a trapeze.
Different versions of the system from 12 footers on up are possible and each version can use variable wing ballast so that if you're in a place where it will be very light you can remove some of the ballast and still have a self-righting boat.
__________________
yes, it is a Revolution
---"The Foils are the Future.." Jimmy Spithill, 9/5/13
My Gallery: http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/sh...0&ppuser=31218
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 06-03-2012, 12:26 AM
sharpii2 sharpii2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rep: 580 Posts: 1,364
Location: Michigan, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMellet View Post
I`m astounded at the level of complexity in the boat Q.
In order to solve a relatively simple problem, the designers have focused in on creating a completely over-engineered solution which is probably brilliant when it works.
The problem I see is that they haven`t looked up from the drawing board and stared out the window enough, and have focused on getting a canting keel to fly out of the water, in so doing they have negated one of the functions of a keel, so now have had to add a daggerboard as means of lateral resistance. So in effect the keel is no longer a keel, but a ballast bulb out on a lever, above the water.
Why not, in this case, have a ballast bulb each side of the boat on a long beam which travels across the deck from side to side, bringing the leeward bulb up over the deck, while the windward bulb is then several feet to weather of the boat, higher than the deck. This would negate the need to have complex systems to transfer the weight across, and also do away with any through-hull openings common with canting keels, or in this case, the covers that try to make the hull flush.
If you separate the function of ballast to leeway prevention and have dedicated components of the boat to do each task, unlike a conventional keel which does both, the ballast comonent need not be anything that is hydrodynamically shaped, if it runs over the deck it is raised higher than the waves and is less likely to slow the boat as it gets hit by waves, unlike the keel on Q, which I feel is a really innovative solution to a problem that doesn`t exist.
An interesting idea that Doug, himself, has brought up. The problem with it is that the moment of the extended ballast bulb is it's weight times less than half the distance it is extended. This is because the other ballast bulb is still on the other side of the boat. The moment equals their weight times half the distance between them, so now your proposed beam would have to be twice the length of the keel, plus the Beam of the boat.

A more efficient way to use this concept would be to have two hollow bulbs, which would have eleven times the volume (not quite as huge as it sounds, as the length and diameter of each bulb would be the cube root of eleven times that of the lead bulbs). There would be enough water to fill only one bulb. There would be two lines through which the water would flow. The first line would be gravity fed and would be set up in such a way that it could only transfer half the water. The second line would be connected to a pump which would finish filling the windward bulb. The beam would shift to windward as well. Now you can have a shorter beam, as almost all of the ballast moves to the windward side.

The beam itself could be loaded with floatation material, so, even if the filled bulb ends up on the leeward side, the boat will resist capsize.

What I find disingenuous about this whole idea is that we would be making a mono hull much more like a multihull and spending a lot more money doing it. If you were to cut the hull in half, down the middle, and seal the open sides, then connect the two halves with a beam equal in length to the beam I proposed, you would get a faster boat with far less complexity (cost), as half the weight of the entire boat would be acting as ballast. Hard to beat with a Rube Goldberg mono, trying to be something it is not.

I love both monohulls and multis, because they are both elegant in their own ways.

A mono is elegant, because it is the pack animal of the boat tribe. You can load it down almost without mercy and it will still ply it's trade with a very small loss of performance.

A multi is elegant in that it can have incredible initial stability for its weight and wave making drag and so can can carry a lot more sail for its weight.

In zoological terms, a mono is a water buffalo and a multi is a gazelle.

I think its foolish to try to make a water buffalo beat a gazelle, even though it may be technically possible. A water buffalo, breed over generations to be fast, may well beat an old, broken down, arthritic gazelle.

So what.
__________________
I am highly suspicious of the terms 'perfect' and 'best'. I favor the terms 'inadequate', 'adequate', and 'better', instead, with the first of these closest to being an absolute.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 06-03-2012, 06:40 AM
Doug Lord's Avatar
Doug Lord Doug Lord is offline
Flight Ready
 
Join Date: May 2009
Rep: 1252 Posts: 10,209
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpii2 View Post
An interesting idea that Doug, himself, has brought up. The problem with it is that the moment of the extended ballast bulb is it's weight times less than half the distance it is extended. This is because the other ballast bulb is still on the other side of the boat. The moment equals their weight times half the distance between them, so now your proposed beam would have to be twice the length of the keel, plus the Beam of the boat.

A more efficient way to use this concept would be to have two hollow bulbs, which would have eleven times the volume (not quite as huge as it sounds, as the length and diameter of each bulb would be the cube root of eleven times that of the lead bulbs). There would be enough water to fill only one bulb. There would be two lines through which the water would flow. The first line would be gravity fed and would be set up in such a way that it could only transfer half the water. The second line would be connected to a pump which would finish filling the windward bulb. The beam would shift to windward as well. Now you can have a shorter beam, as almost all of the ballast moves to the windward side.

The beam itself could be loaded with floatation material, so, even if the filled bulb ends up on the leeward side, the boat will resist capsize.

What I find disingenuous about this whole idea is that we would be making a mono hull much more like a multihull and spending a lot more money doing it. If you were to cut the hull in half, down the middle, and seal the open sides, then connect the two halves with a beam equal in length to the beam I proposed, you would get a faster boat with far less complexity (cost), as half the weight of the entire boat would be acting as ballast. Hard to beat with a Rube Goldberg mono, trying to be something it is not.

I love both monohulls and multis, because they are both elegant in their own ways.

A mono is elegant, because it is the pack animal of the boat tribe. You can load it down almost without mercy and it will still ply it's trade with a very small loss of performance.

A multi is elegant in that it can have incredible initial stability for its weight and wave making drag and so can can carry a lot more sail for its weight.

In zoological terms, a mono is a water buffalo and a multi is a gazelle.

I think its foolish to try to make a water buffalo beat a gazelle, even though it may be technically possible. A water buffalo, breed over generations to be fast, may well beat an old, broken down, arthritic gazelle.

So what.
========================
Sharpi, I don't think there is anything disingenuous about trying to improve monohull speed by using various ballast schemes-I think it is an exciting area of development. I've said it before and I'll say it again: when multihulls are going their fastest they are sailing on one hull! And the fastest multihull sailboat on the planet uses ballast. In the quest for speed and higher performance there is not so much difference if you think about it.

Pictures: ah, hardly water buffalo's-
click on image
Attached Thumbnails
Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-_lv07815.jpg  Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-libera-skiff-y-y.jpg  Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!-volvo-70-canting-keel.jpg  

__________________
yes, it is a Revolution
---"The Foils are the Future.." Jimmy Spithill, 9/5/13
My Gallery: http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/sh...0&ppuser=31218
Reply With Quote


  #165  
Old 06-03-2012, 11:45 AM
sharpii2 sharpii2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rep: 580 Posts: 1,364
Location: Michigan, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Lord View Post
========================
Sharpi, I don't think there is anything disingenuous about trying to improve monohull speed by using various ballast schemes-I think it is an exciting area of development. I've said it before and I'll say it again: when multihulls are going their fastest they are sailing on one hull! And the fastest multihull sailboat on the planet uses ballast. In the quest for speed and higher performance there is not so much difference if you think about it.

Pictures: ah, hardly water buffalo's-
click on image
Hi, Doug.

I really do believe the Finot type boats, with their canting ballast struts and their wide, flatish planing bottoms are near the end of development of fast mono hulls that are recognizable as such. The scow like bows may be the final stroke (but only for downwind)

Of course, you may put wings on a water buffalo and make it faster than a cheetah, but the monohull part of this rig is a mere float to keep the apparatus above water until the foils become effective.

I suppose the reason ballast is used on a multihull is to move it CG closer to the windward side, something that's routinely done with smaller versions of the tribe (the crew moves to the windward side).

I am interested in the speed dream project only for technical reasons and plain curiosity (how fast will they get that sucker to go?)

I will say this: a monohull with it's ballast slung way off to one side (except for a dinghy) will never be a practical boat. It will always be a specialty craft that will always be more expensive than the multihull competition (maybe several times more) for the same performance, and will probably be less safe, on top of that (ballast struts falling off, or being ripped of, when hitting un charted shoals).

I am waiting to be proven wrong.
__________________
I am highly suspicious of the terms 'perfect' and 'best'. I favor the terms 'inadequate', 'adequate', and 'better', instead, with the first of these closest to being an absolute.
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
Canting Keel Design cmgreenwood Boat Design 3 11-08-2007 11:54 AM
Canting Keel Mechanisms SuperPiper Sailboats 88 01-05-2007 03:58 AM
90°-110° Canting Keel Doug Lord Stability 14 12-17-2006 08:36 PM
Canting keel tamkvaitis Sailboats 3 01-08-2006 09:03 PM
why canting keel? freemanjunelee Sailboats 18 06-06-2005 05:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:16 PM.


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