Affordable, long-term liveaboard?

On AIS you program in data like nationality,destination ect. and other data is automatically acquired, course speed ect. On tow, we program in a note, the barge size and how far astern. The barge itself does not transmit AIS while being towed. Not even if it's a dead ship.

 

Noah, Looking back over your discussion, you state a preference for the Bartender, and/or Atkins Seabright hull form. You also state a tendency to Mal-de-mer.

The bartender has an L/D of between 3:1 and 4:1, typical of modern planning hulls. These flat bottom boats do not need as much power as the higher surface area deep "V" hulls, but they do need a lot more than a long narrow semi-planning hull form. They have some static stability, certainly better than the deep "V", but neither are as good as the wide beam cat or tri.

Longer, narrower hulls are more efficient, but loose out on roll stability. Scale has a lot to do with this, the sea, waves etc, do not scale, but boats do. Equally people do not scale either. We are trying to get a boat big enough for people, small enough for reduced cost, yet big enough for stability, and small enough to be fast.
A long time ago, when Sir Francis Chichester ordered his boat Gypsymoth to sail around the world, it was designed at a certain L/B ratio. He claimed it was too narrow, and refused to buy it as designed. Even when the naval architects pointed out it would be physically (hydrodynamicaly) impossible to actually sail around the world in his desired record speed, he insisted it remain the wider size. In so doing, he instantly doomed his record breaking attempt to failure, but carried on anyway.

For example, ore carriers might have a L/B ratio of 10:1, but their absolute size is large compared to typical waves, hence a relative lack of roll. Cruise ships are wider, shallower, and have far more top-hamper. They are designed for economy of operation above all else, then stability. Their low draft helps get into destinations denied deeper boats. Incidentally, the Finnish designs gain considerable dynamic stability from their (patented) ‘duck tail’ or flat section immediately aft the propellers. We used the same trick on the aft end of the “Sonic Cruiser’. You could do the same by adding the same flat sections just above the resting waterline.

You are correct that smaller boats of about 10:1 or 12:1 do start to loose relative volume, compared to boats at 4:1, and relative to surface area. All multihulls, cats and tri's suffer from this.

Standing headroom, more or less indispensable to long term occupation, suddenly becomes a, if not the, driving factor.

As you reduce beam, or more to the point, L/B ratio, the absolute size of the boat becomes important. This is similar to the difference between the 737 sized airplane, and even the 767/787 size, let alone the bigger planes. The big difference is human scaling. The wing tip dimensions are driven by the size of an assemblers hands, and this drives the whole wing dimensions. Eventually, this means the smaller airframes are a bit more limited in what can be done, just like a boat.

There are 3 ways of increasing the volume of a long narrow boat, upward, downward, and sideways above the waterline. Downward implies deeper draft, and therefor more displacement and drag. An old solution. Designing higher is an option, but this rapidly destroys stability. Designing a flair, or sideways above the waterline, is also an option, but again this tends to destroy stability.

Here enters the stability induced by floats, though these need to be placed for least possible drag. In some ways a Proa is ideal, but needs its weight artificially biased toward the float so it cannot tip the 'wrong' way. This means this one float carries more weight than it should. It can be designed for this, but will always carry a penalty unless excessively long. Then interference drag raises it ugly head.

Next worst is the trimaran, which has the advantage of having very lightly loaded floats. In fact, they only really bare loads when executing their purpose. These boats work well over a narrow range of sizes, including the sizes you mentioned.

Finally, the catamaran, which splits it's load equally between the two hulls, with equally bad displacement beam ratio. It also has interference drag operating all the time, requiring excessive beam, and therefor excessive bridge deck clearance too.

Dynamic stability can be as simple as dragging paravanes from poles each side of the boat. Robert Bebe spends some time extolling the virtues of these systems. Modern active fins or vanes also work, but use power, and create drag. According to Bebe, the hulls designed for artificial stabilization should have softer bilges than boats designed for self stabilization i.e. roll easier than a boat designed for hull derived static or dynamic stability.

All this means, in my opinion, that if you are serious about a fast, stable, economical, coastal, or even offshore boat, the trimaran might be your only option, unless you make it much larger, or make accommodation sacrifices.

Note; a trimaran does not mean it must be a 'wave piercing' hull. In fact there are many advantages to using a flared and raked bow, though a slight 'turtle' deck would be a very good idea.

Note; Water Jet’s need not be non reversing, at least the ‘real’ ones from Hamilton Jet (the Kiwi Company) have buckets that direct the water jet backwards underneath the boat. This also helps dig a boat out of mud, or a sandbank, a useful attribute. Iv’e seen advertising for trimarans where ‘Jet Skis’ are in the floats transoms, and can be used for speed boost, perhaps 100hp each? Presumably for short bursts.

There exist electric (or hydraulic) water jets with no directed exhaust or reverse, merely a scoop on one end. I have seen them on the transom of ‘Super yachts” at my sons yard. These could be installed in each float’s stern to add thrust for high speed, be nearly zero drag when not working, and provide reverse thrust when running the impeller in reverse.

Lifting propellers and shafts, were quite common in small duck boats etc a few decades ago. Such could be used again on your boat, as could Thai type ‘long tail’ propeller shafts from any of the selected hulls.

Note; a propeller could be found that would deliver a cruising thrust of perhaps 40hp at say, 400 rpm for 12kt, and a high speed thrust of perhaps 150hp at 600 rpm for 25-30kts. 400rpm from cruising Diesel only, 600rpm from slightly overspeed diesel AND the electric motors? No variable pitch involved.

Note; forget the thorium, plutonium will do. Place a section of bi-metallic strip with one end in the plutonium, and the other cooled by seawater. An DC electric current will be produced along the strip, and you can drive your motors from that. More or less inexhaustible or permanent drive.

 

Thanks Yobarnical, ill have to read the notes section next time i need this.

 

I have been doing a bit of research into fast coastal and offshore boats in these sizes, and find it has been a subject for forum discussion for some years.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/powerboats/power-trimarans-28511.html

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/projects-proposals/trailer-cruiser-revisited-trimaran-27032.html

and

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/power-trimaran-adastra-extraordinary-42679-2.html See post #20

I learned though this that one should compare boats weight for weight, just like airplanes.
Ie the Kurt Hughes -38 at 4,500lb is about the same weight as the Bartender 26 (4.2500lb), and are therefor roughly equivalent. Yes, the trimaran has more surface area, but in terms of cost might be similar? I know which would be faster with the same horsepower, and far more stable in a seaway.

I also learned that long, narrow, hulls are indeed more effecitit, and sometimes need “trainer wheels” to keep them stable. Regardless, i suggest you read these posts from much wiser and more experienced people.

 

During todays sailing, (racing, Lake Washington), i spotted a boat that might intrigue you. Apparently a Bartender, probably a 26, definitely not a 22, deep blue hull, varnished topsides, yacht finished, but with a slow speed (put-put) or heartbeat speed diesel engine. It was doing perhaps 6-7kts, hull speed, and may have been simply cruising slowly, or at cruising speed. It looked very relaxed.

For the ultimate in long thin dories, look at Bill Garden’s Tingit. He used it for a commuter all year round.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?92323-Tlingit-by-William-Garden

Here is a thread on Thai boats, though not very conclusive.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/powerboats/thai-boat-plans-needed-20398.html

And finally a couple of trimarans for inspiration.

http://smalltrimarans.com/blog/?p=6046

http://www.speedace.info/speedace_images/solar_trimaran_concept_boat.jpg

 

Pilgrim 40

Thanks Brian, I love the light colored birch finish. Back in 80's, the birch kitchen cabinets were popular but not any more I think I still see them in Ikea catalogue for college dorm furnitures. Cherry or mahogany finish looks proper for boat interior finish, but it is too dark especially in long narrow boats. Too coffin-like.

That pilgrim layout is fine for a liveaboard. If I can squeeze Pilgrim into a efficient trimaran hull, that will be the ticket. And this stove is a must for PNW passage.


I know it probably kills the trimaran look, but hey it is cold up there

 

Seasickness

Yes, I have tried all of the above and the ear patches, the wrist band, the various accu-pressure points, various pills, etc... none of them have worked for us. Good nights rest and good comfort food in the stomach worked occasionally. I have personally made sugared and dried ginger and puchased ginger candy from Thailand that burns tongue like fresh ginger with sugar. I will have to try eating them until burp method Ginger tea was good to gargle after the reverse expulsion of previous cuisine.

Best short term fixes were yellow wax chilis. The hot spiciness wakes up all my senses for few minutes. Then Italian garlic sausage seems to calm the stomach best. But this is TMI!

 

Solar Boats

Sailor Alan, Thanks for the research. Are you still designing boats?
Although I am into sustainability, I don't like too much solar panels on the boat. The PV panel will never get me enough juice to get any boat to go 10-12 hours with daily collection. That means, it needs to wait for the battery banks to charge for few days before it can sail again for a day (more like half day) False economy.


My biggest problem with pure solar boat is, no room for other boating activities. No fishing or sailing. No deck space, no thrilling speed, none. Just collect sun for few days and go for several hours. Unless it is for solar race, it is not practical. My biggest gripe with $19 million Turanor.

 

Affordable, live aboard; trailer coastal cruiser and transportable offshore cruiser

Sailor Alan, many thanks for more ideas.

The trailerable affordable sustainable cruiser I am envisioning is
Budget: $80k @ launch, $10k annual operation
LOA: 24-26 foot
BOA: trailer 8'6" water 12-16'
Power: 20-100 HP OB or inboard + bow mounted trolling motor or twin AC motors on amas
Sail: 300-400 SF total, unstayed yawl or ketch
Speed: Cruise 8-15 knot, top 30 knot
Displacement: 2500-4000 lbs
Others: 2+2 berth, some deck space for fishing, enclosed cockpit for rain and cold weather. A galley can be a simple sink and some counter space for a portable gas burner. BBQ grill. Portable wood stove. Chartplotter, radar & FLIR, fish finder, radar reflector, 36 VDC battery bank, and 1-2KW PV panels.

Your links below are very good examples of inshore daysail for 6-8, weekend offshore fishing for 4, and long term coastal exploration for 2+2 boat.



Transportable, live aboard offshore cruiser is
Budget: $250k @ launch + $20k annual operation
LOA: 34-39 foot
BOA: trailer 8'-12' water 14-22'
Power: 20-200 HP OB or inboard + twin AC motors and DC motors on amas
Sail: 550-750 SF total, unstayed yawl or ketch
Speed: Cruise 8-12 knot, top 25? knot
Powered range: 8 knots, 1000 NM, 200 gallons fuel
Displacement: 4000-7000 lbs
Others: Spartan. 4+2 berth, some deck space for fishing, enclosed cockpit for rain and cold weather. A galley with sink, microwave, and twin gas burner. BBQ grill. Small wood stove. Chartplotter, EPIRB, radar & FLIR, fish finder, radar reflector, 36 VDC battery bank, drogue, and 2-4 KW PV panels....

Some examples of offshore cruising trimarans. However none of them has what I need in their standard specification, and none are considered to be economical and affordable. I guess that depends on definition of affordable.

http://multihulldesigns.com/designs_stock/38tri.html

http://www.multihulls.cz/michelle/

http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/201...nge-Trimaran-2696204/New-Zealand#.U59r2nVdWzU


http://www.trimarans.com/boats/dragonfly-1200/specifications.aspx

If Sailor Alan designed a trimaran, this would be it at least in my imagination it is

http://www.allboatsavenue.com/le-trimaran-volant-de-yelken-octuri/

 

Cost estimate to build? Turnkey?

 

Unresolved Questions about STABLE and affordable family cruisers

Some unresolved issues and need more expert discussion.

1. Hull 20:1 versus 10:1:
Maximum displacement for 20:1 LBR hull for 40' boat is ~3500 lbs. Bwl x draft x length x Cp = 0.66mx0.45mx12mx0.5=1782 Kg ~3500# Target is 4000-7000#
Maximum displacement for 10:1 LBR hull for 40' boat is ~7000 lbs. Bwl x draft x length x Cp = 1.3mx0.45mx12mx0.5=3510 Kg ~7000# Target is 4000-7000#
This is how I arrived at 10:1 ratio. If the boat is lightly loaded at 4000# then I could get 16:1 LBR since it is a dory hull and it will automatically float to narrower Bwl. 0.77mx0.45mx12mx0.5=2079 Kg ~4000# I am assuming lower dory hull side to be 45 degree angle. Practically, it will be more like 55*.

2. Water jet vs electric motor propulsion in amas:
I am still not sold on water jet, even if it has reverse capability through a bucket or a kitchen rudder. From my light understanding of water jet, they are 20+% or more inefficient due to pump and additional wet surface. And, wouldn't they be heavier in amas? Etek or RC type of motors are about 20 lbs each. Electric motors can be geared and reversed easily. It can also be fitted to regenerate (difficult and not too practical with off the shelf parts at the moment, maybe better with alternator type of motors) under heavy wind sailing or during tidal current at anchor. Pros and cons?

3. Hull shape underwater: Dory with seabright hull without tunnel
I favor this hull due to lift it generates, shallow draft, dry docking at low tide, and easy developeable panels. Vaka (main hull) will be a seabright hull displacement with some moveable lift strake on stern to prevent squatting. Amas will be deep V-hull with narrow planing chine at water level. Seabright hull has deep V like forefoot, which should be a better offshore forward hull shape. Any better ideas? Why?

4. Hull shape above water: Traditional polynesian proa bow with slight flair and low shearline for lift, buoyancy, wave cutting and some wave piercing. Side hull will widen at rapidly at 40 degree or so for maximum internal volume/space gain untill beam widens to 8 feet. Upper superstructures will be rounded for minimal windage in all directions except for pilot house and enclosed cockpit. The stern will be fantail/ducktail/bartender shape above water line to minimize buoyancy from following sea and for improved surfing. Total maximum boat height will be 9 feet max. Issues or improvements?

5. Hull material: Steel, Aluminum or Cored Epoxy Laminate.
Steel wouldn't be appropriate to meet displacement target of 4000# for 38' long light ship. Aluminum is an interesting idea for better hull protection. Ply-epoxy should be durable enough and keep everything within reasonable cost. How much premium would foam core cost and how much weight would it save? What would I really gain from aluminum hull and ply/hollow core epoxy superstructure?

6. What kind of foam material would work with double ply skin covering foam core panel build. Would you recommend ply-foam-ply for a hull? Would this be good for a roof and other superstructures? I was thinking either higher density expanded polystyrene or Nidacore for furnitures and roof with internal wood framing to reinforce high stress areas. And, build double ply skin with blown-in polyurethane floatation foam in hull for thermal insulation. But I am some what concerned about possible delamination from wave pounding on hull. What do I really save from DIY building (my time is worth quite a bit too)? If professionally built (US or overseas) how much more cost is there? If built professionally, then what is cost difference for foam core (corecell) and ply-epoxy?

7. Stability: What is a durable, economical, easy to deploy and most comfortable roll stability system? Trimaran (aka training wheel on sharpie), paravane, staying sail, stabilizer fins (fixed/retractable), and (not) gyro-stabilizer?


This is a lot, and all this subject is covered in other threads to some extend. But, I am asking these for 98% of landlubbers whom are suffering from fear of motion sickness at sea, and 59% of us whom are working tax payers but would like to afford economical cruiser with family and friends. I would appreciate any practically thought out theories and experiences.
In the mean time, below is a picture of what I would like, except to make it USCG acceptable and make it enjoyable for an average car-camping family comforts. I am not even asking RV-camping level



*Feel free to add any other relevant questions and discuss among yourself. I highjacked this thread from another highjacker so go ahead I reserve right to be uncivilized if you are not logical until I get banned.
** The offshore cruiser budget is something I plucked out of thin air. Average US home owner should be able to sell their home for $250k equity. And average couple should be able to earn $3000-4000 per month. Thus be able to live aboard on boat like this and spend $20k per year operating it. Food and clothing are extras. Go slow and use wind and sun if you need less operating expense. Not logical.
*** The coastal cruiser budget is illogically picked. The real working family doesn't have much money. So give up one of your car and afford this boat. I know $80k car is more than what most family can get. It would be a Lexus or BMW. Than make it a sailing trimaran with a 9.9 HP outboard for first 6 years then pretend you got another car to fit out with larger hybrid motors and new electronics. Most of us 59% work for a living. It takes much sacrifices.

 

Hi Yobarnacle, yes turnkey. Add beer and food, ready to go turn key. It is a low budget in real practical terms, but I think it is doable with bargain hunting, lots of elbow grease, and cannibalize other older boats. Or, double the price for professionally built with new stuff.
We want to avoid all new fancy stuffs. Probably no carbon fibers, no Styers hybrid systems, probably not even Master Volt stuffs and not too many Harken power winches (1 or 2). Definitely no dishwashers, ovens and dryers. Maybe a portable AC in tropics instead of a wood stove. Keep that ship near light weight so you can load up on food and fuel for long cruise away from marinas.
Save money and weight, if you have money left over, then donate to worthy causes.

 

I AM and have been fortunate in so many ways. I'll take a tiny bit of credit, in that I LOOK for opportunities and not shy about commitment. By the way, in a typical ham and eggs breakfast, the chicken was merely involved. The pig was committed.
Okay, my point is, I have access to a bone yard of derelict boats and permission to take all the fiberglass I want. No fittings, just the fiberglass. it costs the yard owner to dispose of the fiberglass. So my Albin customizations are Frankenstein monstrosities right now. That's why no pictures. I'll wait till they are pretty then show before and after pix. Anyway, look for a bone yard. the owner might be HAPPY for you to cart away cockpits, cabin roofs, companionways, bath tubs, anchor lockers, hatches and ports and hull liners and engine boxes and you name it.

 

Wow, long post, many question and suggestions. This might take a while, and i will answer piecemeal, and not all at once.

Being retired from Boeing, i am no longer designing boats. Two reasons; i am not all that good, and do not want to take work from deserving professionals. i will design for my own build, partially because i can leave out all the details, they are in my head, and i can incorporate elements of Boeings DFMA, Design for Manufacturing and Assembly, without breaking the law.

That doesn't mean i am not consulting, i am supposed to be some kind of world expert on the application and use of composites in aerospace. I also enjoy discussing boats (and airplanes) and will do sketches when i can.

Funny you show that particular flying sailboat, its a c**p airplane, and a c**p sailboat too. Possibly done by an industrial artist on a drawing system.

Long ago, an designer colleague at Boeing and i built a ‘glider’ consisting of two Hobbiecat 16 rigs attached sideways to a frame, and towed into the air by a power boat. As expected, the wing loading was too low for weight shift to make any difference. Roll control using the mainsheets was far to powerful, and pitch control using the jib sheets was too sensitive, and very non-linear. We were discussing increasing the wing loading, increasing the weight dramatically, by adding more people, more hulls etc, when we realized we really should do some load calculations, and probably double up on the flying wires etc. i saw pictures some years ago, but have not seen them since.

Lessons learned. Single sided aerofoils move their CE/CP quite a lot dependent on AOA. You need ailerons as wing warping is a bit harsh. You need a proper empenage to ensure stability. Low wing loading confuses the single sided aerofoil, whilst high wing loading distorts it into uslessness. It was fun and wet.

http://yachtpals.com/sailrocket-sail-rocket-4021

One thread that led to this boat was also designed from a concept that was supposed to fly. Imagine this ‘wing’ suspended above a boat, or airplane fuselage, in the ‘parasol’ position. The upper and lower TE segments were ailerons, the center section TE was flaps. It was supposed to ‘fly’, but it was for a ‘sailing’ speed record, not a flying one. So we spent a lot of time trying to get it NOT to fly. They were only partially successful. Unfortunately a water foil looses effect as it rises under lift, so it is not self regulating like downward force is.

The trimaran shown above was my favorite to sort of fulfill your coastal requirements, We can discuss this.

 

As i am one of those annoying people who rarely get sea sick, i am not much help here. The only thing that troubles me is diesel exhaust in a confined warm space.

i am under the impression that ‘light’ boats are safe and buoyant, like a ping-pong ball, but not comfortable as they make one sea sick. Heavier boats, with their easier motion, do not tend to make people as sick? is this true??

If so, no matter how stable you make your ‘light’ boat, the bouncing you get will be uncomfortable.

Suggestions please.