Information

Discussion in 'Software' started by kreg, Jun 19, 2004.

  1. kreg
    Joined: Jun 2004
    Posts: 16
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Italy

    kreg Junior Member

    These are test render;
    Could you advice if there are some mistakes?
    I noted that in the last america's cup , the designers have given particular attention to the shape of prow, but i didn't understand how the prow can increase the speed.
    Could you give me some advice to make my prow better and speeder?
    Thanks for your time.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. kreg
    Joined: Jun 2004
    Posts: 16
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Italy

    kreg Junior Member

    ps:
    Lbg=20,204 m
    Girth Component (G)= 1,912
    Freeboard at FGS= 1,501
    Freeboard at Amidships=1,293
    Freeboard at AGS= 1,232
    Weight of Yacht (W)=23974,937
    Draft=4,1
    Lwl=18,168
    Beam wl=3,613
    WSA=67,905
    Max cross sect area=2,665
    Waterplane area=47,472
    Cp=0,482
     
  3. Andrew Mason
    Joined: Mar 2003
    Posts: 397
    Likes: 18, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 206
    Location: Perth, Western Australia

    Andrew Mason Senior Member

    Kreg

    Nice job.

    My undertanding is that the bow shape on AC boats is an attempt to get a long static waterline and a reasonable overhang to increase the waterline length when sailing, while maintaining a low LBG.

    The long spoon bow gives up too much static waterline length for a given LBG, while a plumb stem does not increase its waterline length when sailing upwind at speed. The currrent AC bow shape is a compromise between those two extremes.

    It may also be easier to have a high prismatic coefficient with the current bow shape, I think it is difficult to get adequate volume forward with the older style spoon bow.
     
  4. sorenfdk
    Joined: Feb 2002
    Posts: 511
    Likes: 27, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 394
    Location: Denmark

    sorenfdk Yacht Designer

    I agree with Andrew. It seems that the designers have placed the second "knuckle" in a way so that the waterline length is increased when the yachts heel.

    Regarding the prismatic coefficient, I think that yours is a bit on the low side. I don't know the CP of the ACC yachts, but I would probably increase it to about 0.53-0.54. As a starting point, you could use Gerritsma's formulas for resistance and calculate the optimum CP for your expected speed.
     
  5. Andrew Mason
    Joined: Mar 2003
    Posts: 397
    Likes: 18, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 206
    Location: Perth, Western Australia

    Andrew Mason Senior Member

    My guess is that he has calculated the Cp with the appendages attatched, rather than just the canoe body.

    Andrew
     
  6. kreg
    Joined: Jun 2004
    Posts: 16
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Italy

    kreg Junior Member

    yes, in fact, the cp for canoe body is 0.55; Can you tell me where i can find the Gerritsma's formulas?
    thanks.
     
  7. sorenfdk
    Joined: Feb 2002
    Posts: 511
    Likes: 27, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 394
    Location: Denmark

    sorenfdk Yacht Designer

    It is common practice to use the cp of the canoe body - 0.55 sounds about right to me.

    Gerritsma's formulas can be found in "The Bare Hull Resistance of the Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series" by J.A. Keuning et al. You can download this paper (and a lot of other interesting stuff!) at http://www.sailboat-technology.com - go to "Online Articles"
     

  8. kreg
    Joined: Jun 2004
    Posts: 16
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Italy

    kreg Junior Member

    ok, thank you very mutch sorenfdk
     
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.