design for light airs

I can't argue with your comments because, of course, you are correct.

But I want what I want.

The answer, it seems to me, is to not buy a boat now, save some more money, and buy a more modern steel design that better fits our needs. We have the luxury of time (or so is the illusion of life).

She IS a wonderful boat. I've been haunted by her since I first learned about her early May, which is precisely why I worked so hard to get information about her. I"ve never worked so hard to get a SA/D ratio before in my life. And I do appreciate everybody's help.

But I know myself as a sailor, and with a SA/D of 13, I will not be happy in the long run. This boat would be a stepping stone.

There is another boat out there waiting for me.

Meanwhile, I'm taking out our 19' Flying Scot tomorrow to lick my wounds.

 

But when I calculate the SA/D for, say, Crealock's boats, or Perry's Tayana and Valient, etc., I see the difference. They are getting SA/D ratios of 15 - 16 without staysail. When you fly the staysail to the windward in light airs, all the better.

* * *

If anything, this exercise has underscored the good attributes of a cutter rig in my view. An extra sail to the windward when needed, and big and quick reefing of the jib when needed.

I never knew that cutter staysails were not counted (generally) when computing SA/D ratios. That makes them very attractive to me.

 

Displacement has been in question from day one. Website say 24,000, but owner now points to 2001 survey that says 22,000 pounds.

Nearest Koopman design points to abouit 18,300 for this size boat. That would be light (dry) displacement. 22,000 pounds is probably right on for loaded displacement.

But we ARE guessing.

Like I said, with three inches of insulation, I think this boat was built for
arctic travels, and rigged accordingly. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not what I'm looking for.

Just a layman's guess, but I think the boat will handle three more feet of mast, which probably will bring the SA/D right in line with my expectations.

 

Well, I added three more feet of stick and still only get a SA/D of 14.2.

That don't work either. I'm too lazy to do trial and error to come up with how must mast I would need to get to the promised land, but I think I've burned up enough bandwidth as it is.

Again, thank you to all. I'm gonna lurk for awhile.

 

OK. I lied.

Brewer 34 Humoric:

LOA---35'8"
LWL---28'4"
BEAM---11'6"
DRAFT---4'9"
BALLAST---6200 lbs.
SAIL AREA---649 sq. ft.
DISPLACEMENT---17000 lbs.
DISPL/LENGTH RATIO---333.8
SA/DISPL RATIO---15.7
PRISMATIC COEFF---.55
CAPSIZE SCREENING FACTOR---1.79
TANKS---35 gals. Fuel, 75 gals. Water

Interior is owner built, so price is cheap. I worrying about paint preparation and application. Plus, design has been changed, and I don't know if Brewer was involved in teh change. Boat is longer with "finer bow" and more draft. I suspect designer not involved with design changes.

Any comments, good or bad?

 

hiracer,
I would appreciate very much if you post your name (just to call you by it) and the links to sites where you get the boat's info from, so we do not have to google around for it.
What about this Brewer's Kaiulani 34?
http://www.tedbrewer.com/sail_steel/kaiulani34.htm
Cheers.

 

Very fair.

My name is John Hoffer. I started using "hiracer" on the net when I took up cycling. The particular recumbent style of bicycle that I use has dual big wheels (650C or 26") and is called a hiracer. Most recumbents have small 20" or 16" front wheels. Some even have 20" wheels front and back.

Here is the boat. http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...m=broker&&hosturl=westyachts&&ywo=westyachts&

Here is the alleged design from which the owner/builder deviated. http://www.tedbrewer.com/sail_steel/huromic35.htm

The owner/builder added 11 inches depth to the keel. Mostly above the water line he added about a foot to the deck. I suspect that he has also added about a foot to the boom (it's 16'). And he may have added two feet or so to the mast (it's 52'). Clearly, he was trying to get more sail area to help with the light winds than predominate in this area during the summer season.

However, I use the term "alleged" design, because the plans you refer to, Brewer's Kaiulani 34, actually seem closer to what I saw. Certainly, the fin keel and skeg-hung rudder on the boat is more consistant with the Kaiulani than the Humoric design.

Owner/builder says he did run the change in design past Ted Brewer, who saw no problems.

The owner/builder, hailing from the great seafairng state of Utah (a desert), is in the business of steel fabrication. It shows. The boat is fair without fairing compound. You can't tell it's steel.

I sincerely hope nobody has any problem with this design, and the changes, because I'm buying the boat. My wife went ape over it. It's in like new condition. It will cost me a divorce to get out of this boat.

Any problems, if any, must become apparent during sea trials or survey. If anybody has suggestions regarding sea trials, particularly with respect to this boat, please speak up.

BTY, I will be out of town for a week.

P.S. The mast on the Koopmans boat was 40.5 feet. This boat has 52 feet of mast. This has gotta make a difference.

-John.

 

Thanks, John.
I've been trying to work out numbers for that boat, using data at the Yachtworld. com pages you posted, but I get some not congruent results. Displacement of 23000 pounds seems to be too high, as it brings D/L ratio to 435.5, much a higher value than Huromic's 333.8 and making little sense, in my opinion. Also the ballast/displacement ratio comes down to 0.27 which seems low, and imagining an SA/D ratio of 16 (Huromic's 15.7 plus somewhat more) it makes SA to be 809 sqft which seems high again.
Displacement makes more sense as being something like 18100 (D/L = 342.6) and SA something like 700 sqft (SA/D = 16.24) or maybe 732 sqft (SA/D = 17), to make it compatible with what could be expected for an Huromic light winds oriented evolvement.
Good luck with the purchase. You'll tell us the real numbers when you become the proud owner.
Cheers.

 

Guillermo:

Yes, displacement always seems to be a wild card in these steel boats. I"m pretty sure the Koopmans' displacement was overstated at 24,000, and I suspect this one is too. Certainly, the displacement as stated is full load, not dry, light, or empty displacement. Also, in all likelihood the actual build weight is above the design weight. I understand that happens a lot, even with no design changes. And, of course, if one lengthens the deck, weight has got to go up.

The B/D ratio does look low, until I back out cruising stores. Most of the time when I see B/D ratios they have been caculated for an empty boat. Take the Brewer's website as an example. I'm sure his B/D ratio is based on an empty displacement. (I get .36 ---> 6,200/17,000.) Plus, the keel is 11 inches deeper than the original design, and that has to help. Using an empty displacement of 20,000 pounds, I get B/D ratio of .31. Coupled with the lead ballast being an extra 11 inches deeper, and her generous beam, she should be stiff enough.

I will find out this Saturday whether she sails on her ear.

I will also confirm the mast height. I wonder whether the alleged 52 feet of mast runs from the keel to masthead, or deck to masthead. (It's a keel-stepped mast.) When the owner/builder says she has 52' of mast, one wonders whether he means the entire mast, or the part above deck. Either way, it looks like there is enough sail area. The mainsail clew is 16.75 feet from the mast, and the headstay is also 16.75 feet from the mast. Boom was like 39 inches above the deck. I did some calculations and got (if I recall correctly--the file is at home) 820 square feet of mainsail and 100% jib with 52' mast, or 730 sq feet of same area with 46' mast. Without a doubt there is more sail area than the Humoric design (649 sq. ft.).

Survey is this Friday. Test sail this Saturday. Normally I do it in the opposite order, but I'm pretty sure this boat is going to sail well. The listing broker swears she sails well--but he would say that anyway.

Request: Using a displacement of 20,000 pounds, can you tell me her range of positive stablility? That is one important piece of information I do not have.

This boat is:

LOA---36'6"
LWL---28'8"
BEAM---11'5"
DRAFT---5'8""
BALLAST---6200 lbs.
SAIL AREA---???????
DISPLACEMENT---20,000 lbs. guessing here
PRISMATIC COEFF---???? been changed by stretching out the bow
TANKS---Fuel 99 gals; Water 93 gals; holding tank 35 gals.

Thanks in advance.

[Edit: The one thing I learned about the Koopmans experience is that you have to take boat information from brokers and owners with a grain of salt. The Koopmans measured over a foot longer over deck, was less in beam, draft was off by over foot, and for sure the displacement was overstated but I don't know by how much. I now measure the boat myself, as one can't trust the numbers given by brokers or even owners. This isn't to say that they are devious; most times they just don't know, don't care, and just give dimensions so you have an answer, and whether it be correct is of no great concern to them.]

 

Underbody of "my boat" is more like Brewer's Aragosa, except the skeg is much more substantial.

http://www.tedbrewer.com/sail_steel/aragosa35.htm.

OK, actually this is much closer, albeit a bigger boat: http://www.tedbrewer.com/sail_steel/nomad.htm Prop is in the skeg.

 

John,
The AVS I get is 123º for 18.100 pounds displacement. For 20000 punds I get 122º
This has to be taken with care, as these are orientative figures, only useful to compare boats. As you know estimated AVS is only an approximate thing based in the very basic parameters of boats and very basic and rough calculations.
Cheers.

 

Thank you!

 

The older classic designs do very well in light airs by a combination of the hull design and gaff rigged...especially schooners, which makes things easier on a small crew. Gaff rigged schooners were designed to catch a lot of air under a wide range of conditions.

 

Hi, Charles
I love schooners, specially wooden ones.
I've been through your nice site but found your gallery page not working properly (Either with Mozilla or IE). I like very much your idea of a wooden boatbuilding on line manual. I hope you'll have it available in full soon.
I will add on monday a link to your pages within my company's page devoted to wooden boatbuilding; you may find it at http://www.gestenaval.com/carpinteria_ribera.htm (Only in spanish, sorry)
Cheers

 

In the FWIW department, the boat had no major problems during today's survery.

The funny thing for me was checking hull dimensions. Nothing was as stated. Length over deck was shorter, Beam a bit more narrow. LWL was longer by over a foot. Draft was 1.5 feet deeper.

Boat really is:

LOA--38' 9"
LOD---36' 0"
LWL---30' 3"
BEAM---11' 2"
DRAFT---6' 2""
BALLAST---6200 lbs. per owner
SAIL AREA---683.2 sq. feet by my measurements (no staysail) using E, P, I & J with internet calculator.
DISPLACEMENT-- 18000 lbs. guessing here.

Hull is reputedly 10 gauge; cabin 11 gauge. Ultrasound testing showed hull to be consistently between 128th and 132d of an inch. Majority of readings were 130. Either the calibration was off by a bit, or the mill maximized square footage and minimized plate thickness.

Mast was 45' above deck so presumably 7 feet of mast is in cabin and below, which adds up to the alleged 52' of mast.

Four of six zincs were gone. Even though the boat is not mine, yet, I had to have some zinc plates drilled out and put them on the boat as the yard did not have any that fit. Gonna have to paint the bottom this winter too.

We test sail tomorrow.

The suveyor was positively gushing over the boat. Pretty short list of things that need attention.