Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!

He better be quick. Someone else is already fishing those waters with a similar cash-grab.

Surprising the nutter hasn't posted this on multiple threads already.

 

i was speaking of the customers not the designers!

 

========================
So was I!

------------------------
Notes from the Seahorse article:
---Dominico Bruzzi, the owner of the boat is a very experienced sailor, succesful engineer and owner of his own business. He has had a lot of input into the design.
---Boat is designed to be sailed with approximately 10 degrees of windward heel
---Same RM as a TP 52 @ 15 degrees heel while weighing about 1/3 as much.
---Hydraulic power from 14 lithium iodide cells weighing a total of 40kgs(88lbs)-enough for about 180 tacks.
---Boat has a rudder T-foil arrange like Jo Richards National 12(see picture earlier in the thread)

 

Weight in a foiling boat

Doug,

I looked in on your thread, curious I guess. I've got two questions:

1) As we all know from windsurfing, the best way to go fast and lift a boat is by leaning the sail to windward. Because this would work so very well with foiling boats I'm curious why you'd want ballast at all, rather than leaning the rig to windward.

2) Rather than swinging the bulb around through the water, why not do what sailing canoes have done for centuries and just slide a weight along on a track across the deck.

I'm guessing that the answer to #2 is that you've decided it would be nice to build a foiling boat that is in someway self-righting. That's hard with a sliding weight, or in an International Canoe (which anyone who's sailed one can attest to). I'd point out that attempting to build a boat that conforms to some race rule's definition of "self-righting" is a bit like chasing a ghost. Just when you think you've got it, the authority will change the rule if they really don't want you in the race. Be careful - remember Captain Nat's multi-hull and the effect it had on the NYYC after their first summer cruise together.

I look forward to seeing real pictures of this boat actually sailing in waves.

I think we're way beyond: "Can we get a foiler to sail?" and we've finally even moved beyond "Can we get a big boat to foil?" as proven by the lovely French Tri. But, we're still struggling with "How do we sail in big waves?"

Frankly, that's where the boundary is now and working on something that has ballast to just allow you to be self-righting is a distraction. It's about like trying to make the wonderful French Tri self-righting - Pointless IMHO. But that is simply my opinion as I've stated.

How do we get a moth to sail down the Gorge in the 8 foot chop without flipping? Now that's a real challenge. I was so disappointed to see the Moths racing at the Gorge and discover it didn't blow and wasn't rough. Sad really. But we'll get to it eventually. The work on manually controlled ride hight is a step in the right direction.

BV

 

Beau, thanks for the reply. I agree with the idea of on-deck moving ballast, particularly on small boats-when you get a chance check out this thread-I'd be interested in your thoughts: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/design-challenge-trapwing-deck-ballast-12-22-a-29610.html
-------------
My conception of the future of bi-foiler monohulls includes self-righting capability mainly because I think it can be done. You would then have multihull speeds in a self-righting monohull "keelboat". I believe it is possible.
But it requires two hydrofoils, a canting keel that moves at least 110 degrees one side AND on deck movable ballast. I have a gut feeling(that I hope to test) that a bi-foiler is probably the most seaworthy foiler configuration the Moth not withstanding-we'll see....

 

I guess I understand, but you can always "test" on-deck moveable ballast by using a person, they're cheep and will work for beer.

Regarding being "seaworthy" I think we disagree as being "seaworthy" is all about being able to sail well (or just survive) in extremely diverse conditions. Don't get me wrong, I think bi-foilers are fascinating and currently great flat-water-fun. However, the idea of attempting to build one what can sail well in 10k and flat water that can also sail well in 65k and 50' breaking seas seems far fetched in the extreme. Note that a Volvo 70 actually does both and has proven it. Good luck.

BV

 

-----------------------
Well, I don't think we actually have to test movable ballast-we all know that it works(if the beer drinking variety bothers to show up). What needs testing is a system of on-deck movable ballast that can work while still allowing the boat it is on to be self-righting or at least rightable by the crew.
My small boat idea with on-deck ballast is to try to create a singlehander that will be much,much faster than a 2.4 meter so that eventually disabled and "athletically challenged" individuals will be able to safely experience very high performance sailing. Oh, and so when I get older I can have a neat boat to sail fast without too much work..... Thanks for your comments,Beau-I appreciate them....

 

I doubt the on-deck moving ballast would have the same effect as a swiveling ballast. Have a look at your center of gravity. it will make the boat tender even in light winds. The swiveling balast would counter weight much better.

I also think the circle is going to be problematic, the swiveling one would be easier. If there are two swivel keels that is inter-linked by ie a lever there may be some weight advantage.

 

The probable reason for the creation of Jo Richards new boat is the need to comply with a fairly loose set of rules.For the boat Doug is describing it would be comparatively easy to obtain the performance by deriving the righting moment from the buoyancy of another hull to leeward.Otherwise known as a trimaran.In fact it has already been done see http://www.sailchallengers.com/challenger/ .

 

-----------------------
WF, if you're referring to the 60' Moth,the RM doesn't have to be "derived" ,it is described in detail in the first post of this thread: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sa...acing-monofoiler-design-discussion-15143.html
----------
The Challenger seems like a great concept and I wish Dan well! However, saying it "won't capsize" is more like a wish and a prayer and certainly isn't the same as the self-righting version of the Trapwing.
---------------
PS- I'm hoping we'll hear from Guy Whitehouse(designer of the Lake Racer which is the subject of this thread)-he said he might post some info here if he can find the time... I hope so.

 

That is a system that has been used for a very long time. Look at Bahamas sloops and Great Lakes sandbaggers. The only innovation is the fancy graphics.

 

------------------------
You must be kidding,right? Movable ballast, like what you reference, has been around for probably hundreds of years but a system like the Lake Racer is entirely unique as best I can tell....

 

Not at all. A long board with outboard weight is the same system.

 

All RM is derived from something, be it form, ballast, or buoyant objects. Why are you nitpicking the process when it's obvious it's precisely as claimed by WF?

Since this glorious Trapwing idea doesn't even exist, save for a "sketch" on some paper, why in the world are you getting all backed-up about the reality of a boat that does exist? The Challenger not only exists, it's been very well-received by the disabled community and has functioned nicely in a wide variety of tough conditions.

I think that you're kinda putting the cart before the horse with spurious comments such as these, Doug. The only thing right now that is factually a wish and a prayer is the oft promised appearance of an overly complicated example of a Trapwing.

Get one built, tested, proven for reliability in the same wild conditions as are seen on the referenced Challenger sites and you can start-in with the hype bloated claims. Until then, it might be wise to dial it back about fifty notches and be somewhat respectful of those who have produced a well thought-out boat.

 

Just to clarify my earlier post,a righting moment can be generated by hanging a weight to windward or utilising buoyancy to leeward.Jo Richards has presumably been constrained by the rules of the event his design is intended for.It would be simpler to use a trimaran configuration if the rules permitted it and the weight of two additional lightly built hulls would very likely be less than the movable ballast.It would also be a great deal safer as ballast is always trying to sink and two additional hulls would add a lot of reserve buoyancy.Water ballast would have neutral buoyancy but the bulb would have to be of greater volume.It will also take an amount of time after tacking to set up the whole sailing machine for maximum performance.
To use a bicycle analogy;imagine you are pedalling along in a strong crosswind and have a long pole projecting to windward with a weight on the end to counteract the strength of the wind.If you have to turn a corner,you will be very busy and if the coordination is not perfect you will fall over.If the same bicycle has training wheels,you just get on with it.