Hogfish Maximus - 44ish sailing sharpie?

Bob said that it popped back from a knock-down just fine, like Sharpii suggests it would.

 

I think they would be very similar in both cases.

For initial stability, the lack of deep slung ballast is made up for by the hardest bilges possible (sharp, 90 deg.).

For ultimate stability, the distance of the Center of Enclosed Volume (CEV) from the CG, as compared to over all Beam, on both vessels of the same weight categories is also likely to be very similar.

The rounded hull vessel has less for stability, but she has her Ballast, which typically accounts for 1/3 to 1/2 her weight, slung well beneath her hull. She is also likely to have a wider over all Beam.

Upside down, the box sectioned sharpie may have a real advantage. Since her overall Beam is less, her BWL, when capsized, is probably less, too. But she has less ballast (less than 1/3 her weight), so is probably just as likely as her wider, rounded bottom sister to right herself.

With clever use of math, it is possible to get two very different looking hull forms to behave very similarly, with both kinds of stability.

 

Hogfish Maximus vs LM2

Good “Thought Experiment” Sharpii2, very graphic. Phil Bolger actually used about 8’ of ‘National Geographic’, bought for $1/foot from a library, as ballast in his own live-aboard.

Imaginary Number, yes they should/will sail to windward, and quite well too. However we need to talk about ‘sailing to windward’. We also need to consider the Victorian lore that said, “Gentlemen do NOT sail to windward”.

We also need to remember, this world was basically discovered and explored pretty throughly by boats that really didn't sail to windward very well. Actually better than we originally might have thought, but still not very well.

Having sailed roughly similar boats, but in quite rough water, the english channel, i can comment a bit on what they might sail like.

HFM, having by far the higher Momentum, and a pointed bow, therefore suffers far less from wave impact impediment. In any kind of sea, the immersed vs exposed forefoot is irrelevant. Chris Morejohn stated, correctly, that in any sea situation, the bow is above the water, deeply buried, and everything in between, in seconds, if not minuets. I personally always put my forefoot at the loaded waterline, more for style, and as an anti racing gesture. Race boats used to go to all sorts of tricks to show an, often artificially, short waterline for ratting purposes. Note: the 110, 210, 410, and Star class.

LM2 will be “Corky” in motion as GWTA states, and this will be displayed in its windward ability in weather. In flat water, with a bit of breeze, LM2 will be a flyer. Neither should be heeled much more than 15-20’. Waves impinging the exposed bottom, especially with the ‘Bilge Runners’ exposed, will be quite jerky, noisy and possibly discomforting.

Rig is another matter. The junk rig is not particularly good at ‘pure’ windward ability, not enough leading edge length, but is probably ideally suited to the hull form. I would chose a multi mast high peeked lug rig, but this is purely personal. Knockdown is always possible, but will be the result of wind pressure on sails (and rigging), though this latter is comparatively small. Reefing early and often will reduce the danger to near zero, but progress to windward will be comparatively poor, worse in LM2 than HFM because of the momentum issue. Were i going anywhere to windward, i would simply motor, or go somewhere else. Keeping the propeller immersed in LM2 might be an issue, i have had numerous experiences where a light, long, boat refused to keep the propeller in green water. The pitching moment from a lot of rocker, light weight, and partially having the forefoot above the waterline was at least a partial cause.

I doubt broaching has much to do with immersed an forefoot. A broach is usually started with the bow being buried in a wave, and the pressure generated on one side of the bow proper exceeds the similar pressure on the other side, such that it overcomes the directional input of the keel/rudder. This is exacerbated by off center thrust (from sails, especially a spinnaker), and aeration of the rudder, the rudder partially out of the water, or sucking air down its low pressure face. Long keels set well aft really help here, as does a separate aft dagger board.

I would always be concerned about LM2’s forward transom/hatch/gate, but i have never heard of one failing. Perhaps they sail in much calmer waves that i usually see.

All things considered, i would probably build an LM2, Lug Ketch rig, pointy bow, and more ballast for a deeper LWL. i might even consider a "Box" keel (more headroom, less freeboard), and accept the higher wetted surface. I would not include a dagger board/keel/lee board, using the motor for windward work.

 

Hogfish Maximus vs LM2

Angelique,

I forgot to answer your first question. I do not know the sequence of designs, LM, LM2, Hogfish, AS29/34/39 et-al. BUT, to my mind the original Paul Fisher designed Loose Moose 36 is a very fine boat. The interior is less than inspired, and the rig a bit questionable, but otherwise a very good boat. The Pilot house and raised quarter deck are, in my mind, stylistic errors, but recent experience seems to indicate a sailboat with such a layout might ‘weather-cock’ very well indeed, and ride head to sea naturally, an extremely handy characteristic when short handing at sea.
I like the keel, and might substitute a ‘box keel’, if only so the vessel will sit ‘flat’ on the bottom. It might also allow a slight reduction in freeboard, but i would rather lower the coach roof height instead. This “Box Keel’ allows slightly more room for an inboard engine, and i would not hesitate to install it with a dramatic shaft angle. The Thai boat builders use dramatic shaft angles, with little trouble, one wonders how they get the oil pump to work properly, and though the ‘propeller efficiency’ is reduced, is seems of little moment.
I would abandon the “center board” as being pointless in a boat like this, and probably go with a transom hung rudder if i could.
I would substitute a more classic interior, and loose the pilot house and raised quarter-deck. I would rig it as a high peeked Lug Ketch with nearly equal mast height, or more probably a rig like the Block Island Boat, with masts about 38-40’ from deck to truck, no bowsprit. I am recently enamored by this latter rig, having discovered just how easy it is to adjust its draft and shape from a loose footed boom. It also reefs easily, and should be fairly cheap, having no ‘stays’ and having the sail laced on.

 

Chris Morejohn, Sailor Alan, Sharpii2, and all other thoughtful posters, thanks for sharing your considerations

 

The Star, 110 and 210 were one designs in which rating was ignored. George Elder, who largely created the Star class association, specifically states that the Star was a derivation of the New Haven Sharpie

Re "I doubt broaching has much to do with immersed an forefoot."

There are plenty of world class sailors who have said and written about the way that a deep forefoot increase broaching problems. To give just two instances from one class and country; NZ designer Paul Whiting said that some of his boats had broaching problems because he had given them too much bow down trim in an attempt to reduce IOR rating; they were noticeably deeper in the bow than the similar Farr and Davidson boats. Davidson's Waverider was later modified with extra weight in the bow to reduce her IOR rating and skipper Tony Bouzaid said that she was much harder to handle when bow down.

 

CT249, Oh the nostalgia. I raced against Paul, and his sister when they were school kids, and Bruce Farr may have designed his first boat by then. I was ' designing' and building Cherubs and Moths in Napier, usually using door skin for both structure and skinning.
Far be it from me to disagree with such august and honored sailors, and I bow to their wisdom. There is no doubt fore and aft trim, and even immersed displacement can change downwind handling.

 

Tall top topsides . . .

What I didn't mention here is that a trunk cabin with side decks will make the boat unstable when 180° inverted so a wave will easily knock her back to the point where ballast takes over to right the boat.

A big flat deck, or a raised deck with the cabin sides flush to the hull sides, will make the boat stable when 180° inverted so she might stay much longer in that position. Like said in the quote, less chance to get there, but still possible when mistakes / quick weather change misjudgements are made . .

What are the views on this regarding the big flat decks of Hogfish Maximus, AS-29, AS-39, Loose Moose II (Bolger version) . . . ? ?

 

Greetings,

All other things equal, during a 90 degree knockdown the tall sides of as39 (6'-0") will right slower than as29 (5'-0"). In an 180 degree rollover as39 shape will be more unstable and aright quicker. Taller sides will make the boat more prone to knockdown in the first place.

At waterline as39 (37.0' loa;7400#) is almost identical to as29 (29.5' loa; 11,000#). They both have same profile except that as39 is longer, same depth, same beam. They are pretty much the same boat other than length. So here goes another example of the superiority of ark proportions.

Bolger could have maintained the 5' hull height as as29 (this almost exactly matches the ark dimensions of hull height being 60% of overall beam width which would have been 4.7' but had to go to 5.0' for at least seating hdrm) this would have made as39 a better sea boat but he chose other reasons in favor of comfort for the added freeboard. I think in the book he said ultimately safer because as I mention above it more quickly comes back from 180 degree rollover but this is the wrong reason to do it since this way you get more rolling from both waves and wind resulting in a harsher ride, this is a direct result of the heavier/taller topsides.

Out of almost 700 designs, Bolgerites will recall him saying Manatee/Romp (the ultimate in this design series was Barn Owl with wide bow "almost" like a barge/scow) was the most seaworthy boat he ever designed. Very close proportions to the above boats in beam, draft, freeboard, length. Yes, it was rounded at the chine and with flare at fwd section rather than wide upswept water plane for buoyancy however I can see these two type of boats acting alike in similar conditions as long as freeboard is kept low.

 

Hull topsides kept to same height as as29 with deck house for standing hdrm at kitchen n bathrm only. Now to use some liberty, take that extra volume that is left over from cutting off 12" of freeboard and use it to add length (remember upto 6-1 l-b is the ideal ratio) keeping same profile, draft, and beam only downsides are a heavier boat and trying to figure out a comfortable design for the more awkward space but overall faster and much better sea boat.

Doing this most likely gives the boat a similar 180 degree recovery time since the added length increases instability upside down so you still get what Bolger claimed was the reason for adding high freeboard in the first place.

 

Sailor Alan,

I have a hard time believing the immersed foot would be unproblematic. Chris M. probably got away with it because the boat is very heavy displacement whereas typical sharpies are light and could be thrown around violently with such a feature otherwise if that's the case I would like to design a completely flat bottom boat such as "Elver" but using plumb sides for max initial stability and pointed ends, at VL 1.0 or less it would be the easiest thing to push through the water and since it would be long (6-1) you would still get fast speeds.

 

Fishers LM is more dory than sharpie to IMO, and a Benford dory would be better. But now the whole idea of shallow draft and internal ballast are out the window.

 

The point is reserve stability. There is a high cabin top hidden in there, just no side deck. Also consider that their decks are not much wider than their bottoms. You could reduce the height of the sides and add a house, but what would be the advantage. The biggest detractor is the added windage, but that's part of the package.

 

So he says. This is always about trying to convince ourselves or someone else that square boats are just as good as any other boat. They are not better or just as good, but different. Bolger seems to have done a good job of working out the technical aspects of the AS29.

 

They can be just as good for same conditions if you remember they need to be narrow/long to minimize slamming especially so for box hulls. Romp/Manatee was just as shallow as the AS designs and I think 4-1 beam ratio. Looked again at Barn Owl lines and bow is blunt but at waterline it very fine.

"whole idea of shallow draft internal ballast out the window" I would say that the way to proceed without increasing draft is to keep them balanced at stern/bow as well as narrow overall to allow some upwind capability.

The long length will be slow for a typical boat of similar length but very fast for boats of same displacement, so even if you are going at speeds of VL .8 to 1.0 vs. 1.1 to 1.3 for shorter boats overall you would be faster. This is also very good for factoring long shallow boats going these speeds because of the necessary requirement of having low aspect rigs, they then only need minimum sail area to attain power enough to propel forward. This way everything is becoming lighter reversing the typical design spiral with the less is more idea.