TP52s

[usa2]

If say you were allowed to carry ballast on a rail that spanned the hulls beam, like certain RC boats have. You could either have a lump of lead or a watertank on this rail and crank it way out to weather. The only appendages needed underwater than would be a rudder and and daggerboard with trimtab.
People are technically above deck ballast, but rating rules cant outlwaw people. Most rating rules dont allow above deck ballast, and it is not usually safe to have your ballast that high up.

[sailsmall]

Originally Posted by usa2

... it is not usually safe to have your ballast that high up.

I guess that's why my brain was rejecting the concept. Thanks for the clarification.

[mholguin]

Originally Posted by usa2

If say you were allowed to carry ballast on a rail that spanned the hulls beam, like certain RC boats have. You could either have a lump of lead or a watertank on this rail and crank it way out to weather. The only appendages needed underwater than would be a rudder and and daggerboard with trimtab.
People are technically above deck ballast, but rating rules cant outlwaw people. Most rating rules dont allow above deck ballast, and it is not usually safe to have your ballast that high up.

Above waterline ballast is useless without ballast below water. You fail to mention that RC sailboats have bulbs (in-scale heavier) attached to long fins.

If you have ballast above deck, and no ballast below water, you'll flip the moment your boat hits the water...

[sailsmall]

Presumably you could design the hull with enough form stability (wide/flat) that it would stay upright as long as the weight is close enough to the centerline. Like usa2 said, crew weight is above the deck, yet most centerboard dinghies don't capsize as soon as you step into them (some will ).

[Shife]

Originally Posted by sailsmall

Presumably you could design the hull with enough form stability (wide/flat) that it would stay upright as long as the weight is close enough to the centerline. Like usa2 said, crew weight is above the deck, yet most centerboard dinghies don't capsize as soon as you step into them (some will ).

That would be one ridiculously wide beam (or a ridiculously small sail area). It would also never self-right. Might as well just build a multi. I'm sure Frank will expand on this idea in ways we never thought possible, which wouldn't be difficult since the laws of science he believes in don't actually exist.

[sailsmall]

Originally Posted by Shife

That would be one ridiculously wide beam (or a ridiculously small sail area).

Not at all. Why do you say that? A laser isn't particularly wide, yet a tall 160lb guy can stand in the cockpit without it tipping over. Of course, you would have the weight low if you built something like this. Still, control would be the trick. And you could have more sail area than a similar weight/size boat with bulb keel, not less, if you could move the ballast further out to weather.

Originally Posted by Shife

It would also never self-right.

True I suppose. usa2 said that it wouldn't be a very safe design, so the usefulness would be limitted to, what, setting speed records or something. I wouldn't think you'd go very far away from shore with it.

Agreed that Frankenscience is different than what the rest of the world uses to get things done.

[usa2]

being able to use your body to balance a hull is a lot easier than using inanimate ballast. This is one reason that i think monofoilers will take a long time to advance past the Moth stage, as one person can react quickly to keep the boat on its feet and adjust the trim accordingly with small movements. If you have 2 or more people trying to coordinate this balancing act, or are trying to use ballast on a rail, chances are greater than not that you will screw up and flip the boat. This is why windsurfers tend to work better with one person rather than many.

[Shife]

Originally Posted by sailsmall

Not at all. Why do you say that? A laser isn't particularly wide, yet a tall 160lb guy can stand in the cockpit without it tipping over. Of course, you would have the weight low if you built something like this. Still, control would be the trick. And you could have more sail area than a similar weight/size boat with bulb keel, not less, if you could move the ballast further out to weather.

True I suppose. usa2 said that it wouldn't be a very safe design, so the usefulness would be limitted to, what, setting speed records or something. I wouldn't think you'd go very far away from shore with it.

Agreed that Frankenscience is different than what the rest of the world uses to get things done.

I thought we were still referring to big boats. Dinghies are a differrent story. On a dinghy, it is fairly easy to adjust ballast (you). As the size of the boat increases, this becomes far more challenging. If the only way to keep the boat righted means transferring ballast accross a massive beam, then one mistake and it would be all over.

[sailsmall]

I think we're talking hypothetically about any size of boat. I'm no expert though, just taking what usa2 said and running with it.

[marshmat]

As much as I can see the speed advantages that could come from not having a few tonnes of lead hanging down under the boat, I can't see a large unballasted sailing monohull being all that feasible.
In order to counteract the huge moments exerted on the hull by the rig, you would have to either have an ultra-quick, ultra-reliable means of shifting ballast around, or a beam wide enough to provide sufficient righting moment without any ballast. You'd then end up with a mono of catamaran proportions, far too wide for its length to sail well.
In a dinghy, your mobile ballast (ie. you) weighs almost as much as the boat and can be moved side to side in a couple of seconds. To move a few tonnes of ballast across the deck of a big yacht in order to balance it seems like a bad idea. One bolt in the ballast mechanism breaks, and the boat capsizes.
If you don't want ballast and keels, buy a cat.

[mighetto]

marshmat

As much as I can see the speed advantages that could come from not having a few tonnes of lead hanging down under the boat, I can't see a large unballasted sailing monohull being all that feasible.
In order to counteract the huge moments exerted on the hull by the rig, you would have to either have an ultra-quick, ultra-reliable means of shifting ballast around, or a beam wide enough to provide sufficient righting moment without any ballast. You'd then end up with a mono of catamaran proportions, far too wide for its length to sail well.
In a dinghy, your mobile ballast (ie. you) weighs almost as much as the boat and can be moved side to side in a couple of seconds. To move a few tonnes of ballast across the deck of a big yacht in order to balance it seems like a bad idea. One bolt in the ballast mechanism breaks, and the boat capsizes. If you don't want ballast and keels, buy a cat.

The TP52s plane at a 15 degrees of heel. Its kind of ugly but they do plane on the rare ocasions when there is enough wind to do so (likely 18 plus knots) They plane at about 9 knots which is comparable to a Mac26x in 12 knot winds. There is a reason why owners of the MacGregors are holding on to them. These vessels are capable of kicking arse under sail. In both cases, the TP52s, and the Mac26x vessels, the boats plane without there being a "jump to light speed" like on say a melges. You just look at the GPS and notice 9 knots plus. We learned tonight that the TP52s and Mac26x cruisers are comparable in speed under sail. Both settle in at 9 knots when planing in normal wind. We also learned tonight at SSSS that the TP52s use roller furling for their code zeros. Huzzah - the future of yacht design.

Last weekend I was out on Murrelet and did plane in 12 knot winds briefly using Genoa and main sail. You know you are planing by feel. I have posted pictures, but for those who just do not want to see, they will never be enough.

On the Mac26x vessels you have a choice in a puff. You can head up like a traditional keel boat or you can fall off like Bethwaite instructs you to do in his High Performance Sailng book and like the multi hullers do. In both cases what you are after on a mono hull is a constant angle of heel, the optimum heel that the designer had in mind when he cast the mold for the vessel.

However, in the Mac26x case, falling off in a puff puts the flat portion of the hull into action. This flat portion lifts the boat over its bow wake and breaks the vessel from the sea. Crew is likely to only notice that the helmsman has kept the boat from heeling excesively.

Tonight we saw fantastic videos of Flying Duchman vessels and could see that in following wind if you slowed down you risked capsize. This is owing to apparent wind. When a planing boat is doing so, the apparent wind will always be forward of the beam. Should the vessel be allowed to slow down the wind the vessel sees will not be consistant and capsize is more likely. Hence the duchman will set spinakers when ever they can because speed for them is safety from capsize. The same is true with Mac26x vessels I suspect but not with TP52s of course. These carry more weight on the keel than needed so that operators can get a false security and think that capsize is not possible. Unfortunately the fixed keel of the vessel acts as a lever in heavy sea and they are suseptable to capsize anyway.

if you want speed buy a jet boat like Fortuna Long Live the King of Spain. There will only be one TP52 in South Puget Sound. Braverheart. There will only be 20 TP52s next year racing. All of that racing will be in the Med and the hot new thread on Sailing Anarchy is now http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums...howtopic=25645. Shi Lanka Mac26x, our hats off to you.

[sailsmall]

I hate to say it Frank, but your stupid act is getting old. And now that there appears to be a new freak on the block, you just don't seem to have the same pizzazz. So I'll leave you with these thoughts: you don't know ****, 32 is a bigger number than 20, and people aren't laughing with you, they really are laughing at you. Oh yeah, and your fat sorry ass was BANNED from SA. See ya in the 4th mode.

[aitchem]

Is this long thread about McGregors?
they are .......REALLY....UGLY.!

[Small Wally]

Is this long thread about McGregors?
they are .......REALLY....UGLY.!



No, it's not about a really ugly boat, it's about the self humiliation and degradation of a really ugly "mind" (for want of a better word).

Wank My Ghetto, the web's most ridiculous and laughed at "sailor".

Stick around, watch as he opens his mouth to spew forth garbage, and as sane people, who just can't let it be, try to get him to discuss something, anything, logically or reasonably.

Pull up a chair and pass the popcorn.

[TP 52 Defender]

“The TP52s plane at a 15 degrees of heel. Its kind of ugly but they do plane on the rare ocasions when there is enough wind to do so (likely 18 plus knots) They plane at about 9 knots which is comparable to a Mac26x in 12 knot winds. There is a reason why owners of the MacGregors are holding on to them. These vessels are capable of kicking arse under sail. In both cases, the TP52s, and the Mac26x vessels, the boats plane without there being a "jump to light speed" like on say a melges. You just look at the GPS and notice 9 knots plus. We learned tonight that the TP52s and Mac26x cruisers are comparable in speed under sail. Both settle in at 9 knots when planing in normal wind. We also learned tonight at SSSS that the TP52s use roller furling for their code zeros. Huzzah - the future of yacht design.”

They also plane at less than 15 deg of heel. As to the 9 knots that is their upwind speed down wind is 15 – 16 kts (assuming 18 Kts TWS). Yes the TP52 use roller furling gear on the MHG’s the code zero kites most have stopped using furling units. It is doubtful that the Mac 26 is capable of 9 kts upwind and we all know it is not capable of similar speeds downwind – I believe that you may have once again made a mistake in your facts.

Still over 30 TP52’s world wide see earlier post if you want the full list. 33 > 20 is easy math.