Hogfish Maximus - 44ish sailing sharpie?

Thanks for all the further information and added links. Sure is a nuisance that we all don't speak the same language! It doesn't appear that Spiegel der Zeilvaart posts its articles online. The sealant is a 2-part polysulfide.

 

It was a useful thread fro me as a new comer,, thanks for all.

 

Welcome to the forum Sarah . .

Imaginary Number,

If want to know more about Bössel and the joint, Theo says; ‘‘ Ik vertel je graag meer over mijn Botter Bössel ’’ -- which is -- ‘‘ I gladly tell you more about my Botter Bössel ’’

I do not know about his English, just call him and give it a try, could be he speaks it very well . . :idea:

P.S. - Please give us a resume if you contact him . .

 

The dD/dV (derivative of displacement over derivative of velocity) is the only way I could describe the function, though I am sure there must be an equivalent nautical term. Usually I help design airplanes.

Balancing the forward buoyancy of a vessel with the aft buoyancy is explained quite well in Brewer's book, but traditionally one wants a wave lifting from astern to NOT bury the bow, and the bow climbing the back of a wave in front to NOT sink the stern. This assumption, or concept, led to a steady rash of double ended cruising boats, though Perry and many others have shown that one can design a boat with similar rates of increase in buoyancy above the WL fore and aft, but completely different external shapes.

A boat with some inertia, i.e. displacement (mass) and/or speed, will lift up over a wave form as it catches up IF the bows rate of change of buoyancy is enough. If not, it will bury in the wave back. Hence the good speed comment. Good inertia, and a flared, or raked, bow will lift the bow UP, rather than stop the boat. Good inertia, and a narrow, fine, bow, will usually bury the bow, and stop the boat dead.

I notice that modern light displacement boats, especially those with fine, vertical, stems, and wide buoyant sterns, can easily be driven into the back of a preceding wave, whereupon the boat nearly stops, and possibly broaches. Clearly acceptable for racing, I sail like is a lot, but not so for cruising, where the crew is short handed, and the boat needs to take care of itself without constant human input.

Hogfish, AS 29/39 et-al are all designed to have a near vertical stem with a fairly fine entry forward, and near vertical forward sides. Ie the buoyancy forward rises nearly linearly with vertical movement. This is fine, as long as it is paired with a similarly fine aft sections, where the aft buoyancy also rises near linearly with vertical movement. This should give a smooth comfortable ride, even in weather, a fact confirmed by 'Hogfish' et-al. The fact these boats also have relatively low total weight (mass, displacement) on relatively high buoyancy, makes it still harder to drive their bow under the back of a wave, and a following wave will tend to push them (surf), rather than push them under, or bury the stern.

I like it.

My own larger, newer, boat designs, have vertical stems with little flair, moderately flared mid sections, and a wide flared stern. Not only do these usually need twin rudders just to keep one in the water at all times, but they are a real handful to sail. They are designed to sail to windward heeled at 15', and reach and run basically flat. I always have the forefoot immersed a few inches at rest too. Griffith's once placed a chine right on the waterline where the owners head rested when he slept aboard, and the the owner never let Maurice forget how hard it was to sleep at anchor with a faint ripple on the water. I have a similar horror where the bow is concerned, wavelets slapping under the bow at anchor.

I also like to calculate the shape of the heeled hull, in later cases rotated about the center of buoyancy skewed to port or starboard, depending on heel. If designed correctly, this plan shape will be a foil lifting powerfully to windward. See CAD image.

In this case, the boat is most efficient heeled at 15' bow down (stern free of the water) sailing to windward, and flat, 0', stern immersed sailing downwind.

Currently I am involved in designing and building a sailing dinghy for the Hardware Boat Challenge.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sa...input-proposed-rules-42343-55.html#post736278

But I am already thinking about the next boat. I am tempted to build something like a scaled up Bolger EEK, possibly with water ballast. I wonder if any such have been built, and if the hull actually works.

 

Greetings,

I recall parts of discussion on yahoo bolger forums concerning "Eeek" and think that some members said further refinement of the idea was abandoned by Bolger in favor of the "birdwatcher concept", it was said something about the stern end was found unsatisfactory. There was a bigger version called "Anhinga" that was built and an even bigger version "ESC-Economy Cruiser" but never built. I would hope that it was just idle talk rather than true because the concept makes it almost the easiest boat to build and gives a good place to hang a protected rudder.

I would think making the bottom stern profile match the bow (perfectly symmetrical shape) would fix any problems if there where any to begin with.

Since Chris is in favor of an immersed forefoot and minimizes broaching tendencies (it causes concern for me just because of the wide stern), what would your thoughts be on using the Eeek/ESC concept with a perfectly flat bottom profile/no rocker? Very little info about rockerless boats.

 

Also 675 SA seems very little for a 32,000# boat but using Chris' logs its satisfactory (7-9 kts.). Much easier handing, less stress on boat and people, and cheaper to cruise. I wonder what he does for light winds?

 

Some info on the larger versions of EEK!

The boat built is called Sandy Bottoms.

View attachment Bolger_ESC-2.pdf

View attachment Bolger_ESC-3.pdf





View attachment Sandy_1.pdf

 

I do not think this generalization is universally correct. The Meadowlark goes to windward just fine in winds 15 + knots and commensorate seas.
I sailed traditional keel boats for almost 50 years, and avoided going to windward when I could, like everyone else. I joked about having to take several tries to get over a wave. The pitching and sailing on the ear made the experience a bit of an ordeal.

The Meadowlark is completely different. The very high level of reserve buoyancy keeps the bow out of the water. I have never dipped the bow. The weight is spread out. Whimbrels ballast keel is a steel box full of heavy stuff (about 3000lb), about 20 feet long. This goes against most teaching because the relative reserve buoyancy is much less and having weight in the ends particularly forward makes it harder for the bow to lift. In Whimbrel the spread out weight damps the angular momentum of pitching. We loose little energy in pitching and the fineness of the entrance lets us slip through and over the waves. Our very light displacement (~8000lb) is easily driven and I can still work to windward well with a reef or two if I do not want to heal over too far.
I have made a bunch of passages to windward between 12 and 36 miles in winds over 15 knots, and with seas between 1 and 3 metres and am still astonished at how easy the ride is. I had a friend out once, and he was astonished, the ride was far better than his 60 foot trawler in those conditions. We were making between 6 and 7.5 kts at the time. We will hit the occasional wave with a thud, but really any boat will do that. I have once worked to windward in winds gusting to 50 kts. In really strong winds I try to keep a speed of about 4 knots allowing the leeboards to be efficiently lifting but not so fast that we are fighting to waves and heavy spray.

 

Pounding and going to weather

I'am in Antigua today. I have since December logged 1,800 miles sailing from my home in the Bahamas as far south as Grenada sailing mostly hard on the wind in winds of up to 33 knts. And seas to match when sailing offshore. 90% was done single handed in Hogfish Maximus.
My simple input here is this. A flat bottom sailboat can go to weather like all well designed sailboats but the difference will be its ultimate speed to weather verses a deep draft sailboat that is well designed.
I will say here again I want my forefoot to be under water at rest at least 6-8" under water so I can sleep at anchor. Any boat that has a flat bottom bow that is above the water line at rest will pound your brains out in a 1" ripple. Trust me on this.
I think that an ocean liveable sailboat has to have storage hence you will have some weight in it. This gives you a good ride and helps you sail in rougher water. A light weight high tech shoal draft can do the same but at high cost and a very jumpy ride. So I look at the Tanton design and say it is too shallow, with a heavy rig and a way to small rudder for any offshore or unprotected sailing. That type of rudder will not work at all in any offshore work.
For the past 5 months I have been sailing in company with friends on their 44' Van De Stadt Trintella ketch. They are very experienced sailors. This boat has a 7'4" 12,000 lb keel, 1,200 sq. Ft. Of sail area on a ketch rig with all mod coms aboard. We have raced from St. Martin to Grenada and back in winds of mostly 20- 31 nts. It's been a very windy season. They have boat speed going to weather of 3/4 of a knt over HFM. Reaching with over 2,000 sq. Ft. Of sail they are about 1-1-1/2 it's faster to HFMs 675 sq ft. We both point the same going to weather laying the same tacks with HFM chasing WildBird.
A typical 120 mile sail to weather non stop has Wild Bird beating HFM by her 18 hours verse HFMs 23 hours for this leg of the trip. In day sails of 50 miles of tacking to weather HFM sails in about 45 minutes behind WildBird.
The difference in pounding to weather is that the HFM never puts her bow under.HFM makes no noise below as she is built as a monocoque structure in wood , glass , core. So no movement at all ... Ever. The Trintella as a very well built fiberglass production boat creaks and pounds. But it's typlical of most all boats .HFM with her plumb bow does not pitch as much as the Trintella. On reaches we simply do not have enough sail area to keep up. We do up to 9 knts. To do all this hard sailing in 6-8' seas you have to have deep water steering control and that means a good deep rudder that is very strong. These shallow balanced rudders worked ok for oyster Sharpies in bays and such but DO NOT and WILL NOT work at sea. You will need a to be looking at real boats that sail in deep water to understand this.
The Dutch boats shown have been around for a very long time. They are very capable boats that were derived to sail and work well in their home waters. Compare their scantlings to HFM , and a Bolger one skin ply boat and I will stick to my " heavy " boat.
I have sailed a lot on Jim Melchers Alert a Bolger Manatee designed leeboard yawl which has a strait keel. I like rocker so I feel this is just a way to go for very small simple boats for very simple builders. On the Alert she tacked all the time but at times very slowly. The big mizzen on the stern was always sheeted in when tacking and let go as soon as we went through the wind . Not for me this added complication in sailing.
I will be in Antigua this whole hurricane season and will post on my blog detailed pictures of HFM to try and explain my daggerboard , rudder, rig and interior.
I have now on my Facebook photo page all the stability drawings for Hogfish for anyone that's intrested.
The best way to understand all this stuff is to go sailing , so come sail with me in the fall and then you can see for yourself.

 

Hog Fish Maximus.

Agreed that the Tanton's version of a Bolger boat is not necessarily for hard offshore work; she his not meant to. I increased the beam from 8 to 10' to carry the rig. She has a nice interior for a light boat and not so easy to build. Most Bolger's, like you to believe that they are simple but it stops when you look, study and actually have to build the thing.

 

Absolutely flat bottom sailboats are extremely rare, and with good reason. Without some rocker, they are extremely hard to turn. In this case, a rare example even from a master at 'flat bottomed' boats, the Atkins family,

http://atkinboatplans.com/Sail/MerryWeather.html

the rocker is replaced in function by a distinct fin keel. The boat turns, or maneuvers, around the fin, skidding the hull sideways through the water. "Active 3" is another example from the same design board.

In boats not designed for displacement speeds, i.e. designed to plane, a lot less rocker could be used, including a truly immersed transom.

I agree with the comments about the EEK, Anhinga, and Economy Cruiser, a boat with a similar rate of change of displacement at each end like the Bolger Birdwatchers series should be vastly easier to sail than EEK. HOWEVER, being of an inquiring nature, I am at least considering building such a boat, merely to find out.

It's profile is a bit like the old Scandinavian cruisers, the Tumlare in particular, which I admire greatly. I know profile is just one dimension, and a relatively unimportant one at that, but the thought is there. Like the Tumlare, its ballast, and indeed rig CP would need to be rather further aft than 'normal', but that is a matter of detail. It's also why I am considering water ballast.

Having said that, the vast majority of 'flat' bottom sailboats have more, or less, rocker. See the Atkins family of flat bottom sailboats, Brewer's dory series, and especially Bentford's dory's, these latter all having an immersed forefoot.

Unless you make a fairly good copy of the Merry Weather, or Active 3, above, I would avoid absolutely straight flat bottom profiles.

Plenty of 'flat' bottomed sailboats have rudders protected by a keg, or keel, the Brewer designs are excellent examples, including full keels and fin keels, often available on the same hull.

I have mixed feelings about protecting rudders. Most of my sailing, even offshore, ocean crossing, has been with spade rudders, often transom mounted. Though theoretically easy to fix, they can collect nets, fishing lines, plastic bags, and kelp, etc. This can be removed easily enough, but needs a vigilant crew to spot it, something we take for granted on a racer. My limited experience 'cruising' suggests some sort of guard, or skeg, in front of a rudder protects it from some forms of contamination, and also prevents premature stalling when subject to extreme rudder angles (in the heat of the moment shall we say). I would still tend to favor a spade, and transom attach, as easier to see and fix.

 

Thank you Tad,

I am very impressed with these having never seen the Anhinga plans before, and only having the "hallman.org" illustrations, and half remembered images from Bolger's books for EEK and the Economy Offshore. Now I know what the mysterious black bars are on these boats profiles. My imaginings were rather similar to Anhinga in fact, including the water ballast. I notice the builder seemed quite pleased with initial performance at least.

I think my proposed version might carry the displacement further aft, making the plan form less symmetrical fore and aft, and the aft quarters more full. I will probably rig it Gunter Ketch, with a jib, but a straight Ketch will be considered too.

My earlier imaginings saw a 40' Economy Offshore, so it had more headroom, using the space under the cockpit floor for an engine, horizontal shaft, to a propeller between the transom and the rudder. I would have raised the 'seat' hight, and filled the space with water ballast.

When I return to my CAD system in Seattle in July, I'll work up a sketch.

I'm uncertain about the effectiveness of that rudder end plate. In aerodynamics, end plates are roughly half as effective as the same span added to the actual foil. I might favor a vertical sliding blade, but then again, I sail transom hung rudders a lot.

Bolger drew, and used, a double, or biplane, rudder. Old theory had it that biplane wings needed to be at least 2 chords apart, though this 'rule' was complicated by stagger, and differential sweep. This sort of worked at lower speeds, but now we know better from tunnel testing etc. As his biplane rudders were about 1 chord apart, interference drag must have been severe, especially as speed increased.

Once again, thanks for the images, much food for thought.

 

Thank you Gilberj, you are correct, and like all generalizations, mainly wrong. Your Meadowlark is a remarkable boat, I admit it, and should be studied by all who aspire to light displacement boats. It has the drawn out ballast rather than concentrated, the drawn out waterline/displacement, and the long, balanced sailplane of a true fast boat, not restricted by 'rules' etc. it also has lots of reserve buoyancy, and so should be nearly impossible to bury the bow.

You admitting to having sailed to windward in light winds and higher waves testifies to your ability to sail, probably better than most. One of these days I must travel, drive probably, up to you and see this excellent boat.

Perhaps I should simply build a scale Meadowlark, though that would only prove it was a good boat already. We have had this discussion before, and without prejudice, I would add dagger board(s) probably through the chine area instead of the leeboards. I would also add a higher aspect ratio rig, of similar area, ie a wide split rig like the LM Herreschoff inspired 'Red Herring'.

I have an issue with scaling these boats. Airplanes do not scale well, and even scale wind tunnel tests are extremely subjective. A rare case of aircraft scaling being the Russian An-12 into the An-22, though the wing and body were to different scales. Another being the French Dassault Mirage 3 into the Mirage 4.

Regardless, I am still interested in building a sort of Anhinga analogue, with a Ketch rig, water ballast, and slightly revised lines, as an experiment, but I have to get the 14'er finished first.

 

Hi SailorAlan,
we have conversed before....
Bolgers EEk the 34 foot version is only a partially thought out design. She had the Bolger flaw ( my opinion) of having the forefoot slightly out of the water. My opinion is based on conversations with Bolger box boat owners and my experience with the Meadowlark, which of course has an immersed forefoot that almost never slaps or pounds. As designed Bolgers EEK 34' displaces 8000 lbs , virtually the same as the Meadowlark design. The designs are very comparable in length displacement and form....
EEK should carry at least a similar sail area, with added light wind possibilities.
The sailing CG should be as low as reasonably possible. This will make for a quick motion, but will reduce healing and ensure self righting. Healing....as designed I suspect you would spend a fair amount of time 'well-healed' The space would be a tad difficult as aaliving space. I am not sure water ballast is the best, because you use up livable cabin space with relatively light ballast. As an offshore boat there is no advantage to having water ballast..... I would consider winging the ballast out as close to the chines, to better control angular momentum when rolling. Poured cement with re-bar in the bilge might work, I'd guess between 3000-3500lbs.....not less, probably not more.
I too am charmed by the relatively simple plan...but as I say it was not well thought out. In the end I would recommend designing a new boat on the same basic plan...very simple minimalist cruiser for mainly offshore sailing... I would develop the hull a little. The advantage of the box hull is negated by the simple fact it does not meet standard lumber dimensions..... really anywhere ....if you have to plan long ply joints you can definitely improve the shape...reduce inverted stability...a little easier on the eyes...easier to sell when you are done scratching this wild hair. You will still be investing a lot of time and money even for the box..with almost no further investment in time and really no investment in money you can have a better..stronger, visually more interesting boat....
You would be most welcome to come for a visit and sail...right now Whimbrel is in my front pasture, I hope to relaunch within a month, but everything is slower then I wish....I am a month late now..grrrrrr
Bolgers work on Shallow rudders with end plates is worth considering, particularly with a double-ender or a boat with balanced fore and aft ends....no question though for offshore you want substantial rudder, pintles and gudgeons.

 

Thanks for the update + info Chris

Also thanks for the info on your blog, found here the blog of your Trintella friends . .