Swain BS_36 Stability curve

What mistakes?

You now claim that Swain 36's are not built to the drawings I have but are built to some other design.......well I know of at least one which was built to these drawings......by all means send me a revised drawing of the "real" Swain 36

The mast business is not worth discussing unless you can show how that mast will stay up during a capsize....faith won't do it......

 

All weights on my spreadsheet are at heights above baseline, in this case the baseline is the bottom of the keel. It's no good defining weights from the waterline....that is a moving target.....apparently no one knows where it might be on a Swain 36.......

Tank weights and locations are as shown in your drawing......there is no interior arrangement drawing so I guessed at some weights and heights.......a simple inclining will provide an accurate overall VCG.....

I just checked, if you can get your vcg down to 9" below the waterline instead of 7.5" above....you too can have a stability curve just like the Contessa.........

 

Tad, do you have a contact with the person who built to those plans ?

It would be good to get him to report on the heeling performance, perhaps even visit them and try it out in practice.

 

I see what you mean by the longer pilothouse on M.O.M., Brent, but "assuming" the pilothouse is designed to be watertight, wouldn't that increase, rather than decrease the avs? & wouldn't the weight of the sealed aluminum mast be less of an issue in comparison to the steel alternative when heeling and also benefit the avs? Regardless, it obviously isn't built to your design. Not to hijack the thread, but, how did they get that big ding in their aft quarter?

 

Not related to stability, that is if this doesn't compromise the integrity of the boat, but a couple of remarks.
How are the windows secured? They look a bit suspicious but can't really say..
And the dents behind the keel Someone has brought this issue up before on the starboard side, which looks similar..

 

In both places.. I'd think adding a smilie is not in place now, so instead EEK!

 

Quoting APA's Milestones in the History of Plywood:

"The first patent for what could be called plywood was issued December 26, 1865, to John K. Mayo of New York City. ... Mayo may have had a vision but apparently not much business sense since history does not record that he ever capitalized on his patents."

"In 1905, the city of Portland, Oregon was getting ready to host a World’s Fair ... Using paint brushes as glue spreaders and house jacks as presses, several panels were laid up for display. Called “3-ply veneer work,” the product created considerable interest among fairgoers, including several door, cabinet and trunk manufacturers who then placed orders. By 1907, Portland Manufacturing had installed an automatic glue spreader and a sectional hand press. Production soared to 420 panels a day. And an industry was born."

"During its first 15 years the softwood plywood industry relied primarily on a single market—door panels. But in 1920, “super salesman” Gus Bartells of Elliott Bay Plywood in Seattle began generating customers in the automobile industry."

And the last exhibit:
"A breakthrough came in 1934 when Dr. James Nevin, a chemist at Harbor Plywood Corporation in Aberdeen, Washington finally developed a fully waterproof adhesive."

It is highly unlikely, or next to impossible, that there would exist a boat built in 1905 of originally constructed from cold-molded plywood. In case it happens to be a later rebuild who knows how it was performed?

 

The builder of MOM, Evan Shaler, was told to build a tank on the centerline, with extra reinforcing connecting it to the aft end of the keels, as shown in the plans , which he has constantly ignored. That explains the dents, which wouldn't have happened, had the designers plans been followed. Blame the guilty, Evan Shaler, not the designer.
I have never seen the boat since it was in the primer stage , so have no idea of how he installed the windows.
If what Wynand describes as ugly , is a reference to the Winnibago pilot house on MOM , I agree fully. This is not the designers doing. The pilot house would definitely increase the AVS but reduce the initial stability, and make a boat more tender under sail, which was the claim I was addressing, and the only factor in your proposed initial stability tests.
I don't have a 36, and have better things to do with my time, than go running around the coast , catering to anyone who demands I do his pet test. Don't flatter yourself. You are not that important Swimming season is approaching,. And I don't have expensive real estate to support.
An aluminum mast would undeniably help a boat sail faster. The quote "over 600 lbs of mast" is almost double the actual weight of a steel mast.
So lets do some more math. A steel mast for a BS 36 with all fittings welded on, ready for painting and rigging, including all materials and labour $1,000 , a fraction the cost of an aluminum extrusion with nothing on it. A complete rig for a BS 36 from a rigger costs more than Winston had, total , into his BS 36 by the time he left for Japan.
Design math is not the only math of concern to a cruiser. This is the math which decides whether you make it out out cruising before old age and failing health kills your cruising dreams, before you sail anywhere, an increasingly common occurrence.
If the guy with the steel mast sets sail a couple of years earlier, the guy withe expensive aluminum mast wont sail far enough in a lifetime, at an extra knot of boat speed, to make up for the time he wasted. Apply the same logic to the rest of the boat( a common occurrence) like the friend who was quoted $40 K for a paint job on his 36, and you have old age and health problems creeping in before you even get launched.
So cruisers are offered a more affordable option, which amounts to a saving of several years cruising expenses. If they can afford to spend several years cruising expenses, to sail an extra knot or two, more power to them. But they have no business blaming others for their extravagance, others who have offered them more affordable solutions , solutions which have worked well for tens of thousands of ocean miles, with no major problems.Some have later switched to aluminum masts, when it became affordable, after several years of happy cruising with the steel masts, and all have said the difference under sail was negligible. If I were rich, I would definitely go for an aluminum mast , but wouldn't tell a poor man that such extravagance is his only option, and thus be guilty of killing his lifelong cruising dreams.
Moitessier seemed to do far better, with no problems at all, rounding the horn several times, with his Canadian telephone poles for masts than his later expert followers, with their state of the art spars. A friend returned from 19 years cruising the South Pacific with a spruce tree from Cortes Island for a mast, no problems. Buehler is another of the few designers who pays attention to his clients finances, and his grown masts seem to do the job just fine, until a used aluminum mast comes along which is more affordable .
I hear that the yacht design industry is in a major slump lately. Could this have something to do with the habit of designers of assuming that all their clients have endless amounts of money, to provide them with expensive design offices, with an expensive view, and all the toys they desire, thus design totally ignoring the financial reality of most cruisers. Designers who pay attention to the finances of their clients seem to be doing far better. As for the rest, their problems are self made, and thus well deserved , given the hardships they put people through.
Don't envy, emulate!

It's interesting that Wynand, who makes such a big deal out of accuracy, would prefer a material which changes its dimensions considerably, with every change of humidity.
Kiwis were cold molding Kauri boats long before plywood sheets were invented.

 

Using a cut sheer, instead of the factory edge, which gives an extra 5 1/2 inches of freeboard, drastically improving AVS number. Including the over 10,000 lbs of cabin and wheelhouse buoyancy in the calculations , including the mast buoyancy in the calculations. Much of this was discussed in the debate before your post #141 stability curves.

 

.Haidans is a twin keeler .He's working in the big city, Winstons 36 is a single keeler, built to the original design, except for the wheelhouse. Gary's is a single keeler, built to the plans , at the Nanaimo Yacht club dock.

 

Brent,
anyone with an average IQ can see that the dents on MOM are inward, in other words, more than likely that something damaged it from the outside, not inside. So, must assume that you just saw an opportunity to throw out a red herring & slag Evan in the process. But, I wasn't suggesting that the designer was to blame for the damage, just curious. However it happened, too bad there wasn't a transverse there, because that area looks like there are a few examples of premature buckling there. As for the mast, one only needs to read the MOM website to realize that they paid for the cadillac of masts.

You didn't note the disparity in righting arm measurements between the graph of your boat & the Contessa/half-tonner graph. Quite a difference, don't you think?

Yes, I forgot that Haidan's was a twin-keeler and I appreciate that the last thing you want to do is to encourage someone to have an inclining test performed, but it would be a benefit to you.

In your post responding to Tad's you include 10,000lbs of chain, but don't you promote a home-built, on-deck drum winch with wire rope? I was wondering how that & the 30" high, ss life-lines would affect the curve, as well, but maybe that was included. If not, @3/4", the stanchions= 62.205lbs, the top rails=88.218lbs, and; @1", stanchions=92.345lbs, top rails=223.307lbs. . I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to the weight of the drum winch & wire rope.

I would be surprised if the marine industry in North America wasn't hurting these days, as the only people convinced that the economy is doing well seem to all be politicians.

 

Dents

this may have caused them
Also a little more on the build
http://www.sv-mom.com/construction.html

 

Tom,
I was wondering if that was the reason, but as they don't specifically mention it on their site - unless I missed it - I didn't want to jump to conclusions. It would certainly "fit the mold".

Being a member of the origamiboats group, you'd be even more familiar with the vast expenditures they made, I suppose. I read from their site that they spent a lot on electronics, as well - nothing wrong with any of their choices - just, perhaps, not in line with Brent's philosophy of scavenging for scrap & used equipment.

Teddy Driver, the windows on that pilothouse were built by the same company that makes & installs the windows on our B.C. Ferries($5,000/window). As I became good friends with a few of their people while involved in several ferry refits & a new-built, I asked about Carl's(MOM's) windows when I was assisting a BR builder with his search for similar. Apparently they cost them a lot, but are solid & well-bedded. However, this is anecdotal, as I've never seen them close up, myself. The fellow I was helping went a different route after finding that his were going to be about $500 - $700 each!

In defense of The Andersons & MOM, I'd suggest that they did a lot of things right, and paid for those choices. I believe that they recognized that the construction of the boat was going to cost them a lot of money & felt that there was no sense in putting used gear on a new build, as it would only de-value the final product. As for the crow's nest, to each their own.

 

Wow, that's a lot.. Thanks.

 

that scene would do it
it is like we said 3 years ago, you back a truck into a 6 foot pipe 4mm wall you will get a big dent
Which is what you have here. Oragami boats sans framing are nothing more than an unframed pipe, in fact they are weaker because they do not even have the round of a pipe