Modern Take on Old Ideas (Fluyt Ship)

[Skipper]

So, this is just a concept image. However, the basic idea is to make a solid fiber-glass hull (white part of boat) with an aluminum frame holding it (brown part). The sails are rigged like a brig, but with a genoa. I'm thinking 30mm thick hulls. The ship will be about 33 meters long and 8 meters across. I bought the fiber-glass and such and I'm going to make a small ~1 meter sized model of this concept. If that works out, I'll make a 1/10th model. Finally, if nothing is amiss, I'll start on the real deal. Any ideas on this? It's going to be a houseboat.

 

[sharpii2]

Don't have any ideas. But I do have one question.
Who is going to go aloft and furl and unfurl those eight square sails?
Are you going to have a paid crew?

Maybe a fore and aft sail on the mizzen will make the ship easier to work. That can be in place of the two square sails there.

Although square sails lasted well into the 20th century, they were used almost exclusively on deep sea vessels which sailed almost exclusively downwind. It is on that point of sailing that they excel. Other than that, they kind of suck. I used to joke that sailing dead downwind was for racers and for square riggers. I rarely did it with my own fractional sloop. I almost always went downwind on an angle. Theat way, the differential wind pressure on the sails tended to steady the boat against rolling.

I recently toyed with the notion of a square rigged dinghy. It had only one sail. But to get it to sail upwind tolerably well (120 degree tacks). I counted eight lines to control this sail. It would have beeen a real challenge for one person to handle. The top of the sail had two sets of brace lines, one for downwind sailing and one for upwind sailing. The upwind sailing set sheeted close to amidship, and the downwind set sheeted very far aft. The bottom of the sail had a pair of sheet lines, which led far aft, and a pair of tack lines, which led close to the bow.

Attached below are two simple sketches of what I came up with. The upwind brace lines are not shown, as they could be possibly done without.




As I hope you can see (in the 2nd attachment) how far aft the windward brace is sheeted. It looks like a backstay. This puts it under tremendous stress. By putting a second set of braces amidships, I hope to get a better sheeting angle for it.

I personally believe that the dipping-lug sail, popular on both sides of the English Channel during the days of sailing workboats, evolved from the square sail, rather than the Mediterranian Lateen sail. I think the process started by setting a square sail fore and aft, rather than athwartship. This would eliminate a lot of control lines. After that, I believe they made the luff somewhat shorter than the leech. I've seen pictures of such dipping-lug rigs where there is as much yard infront of the mast as behind it. And the sail looked almost square. The only problem with that scheme is that the yard had to always be on the downwind side. This meant that it had to be 'dipped' from one side of the mast to the other every time one changed tacks.

 

[Rumars]

Make some additional pretty pictures of how you want the interior to look, find a naval architect and dump everything on his desk. Let him do all the boring stuff like dimensions, scantlings, weight studies, etc. and pay what he asks, it's going to be cheap compared to the learning you need to do to design the thing yourself.
Just as an example, your proposed building method isn't exactly a good idea. It's possible to build that way, but the result will be questionable at best.

 

[Skipper]

Don't have any ideas. But I do have one question.
Who is going to go aloft and furl and unfurl those eight square sails?
Are you going to have a paid crew?

Maybe a fore and aft sail on the mizzen will make the ship easier to work. That can be in place of the two square sails there.

Although square sails lasted well into the 20th century, they were used almost exclusively on deep sea vessels which sailed almost exclusively downwind. It is on that point of sailing that they excel. Other than that, they kind of suck. I used to joke that sailing dead downwind was for racers and for square riggers. I rarely did it with my own fractional sloop. I almost always went downwind on an angle. That way, the differential wind pressure on the sails tended to steady the boat against rolling.

I recently toyed with the notion of a square rigged dinghy. It had only one sail. But to get it to sail upwind tolerably well (120 degree tacks). I counted eight lines to control this sail. It would have been a real challenge for one person to handle. The top of the sail had two sets of brace lines, one for downwind sailing and one for upwind sailing. The upwind sailing set sheeted close to amidship, and the downwind set sheeted very far aft. The bottom of the sail had a pair of sheet lines, which led far aft, and a pair of tack lines, which led close to the bow.

Attached below are two simple sketches of what I came up with. The upwind brace lines are not shown, as they could be possibly done without.


View attachment 192504 View attachment 192507

As I hope you can see (in the 2nd attachment) how far aft the windward brace is sheeted. It looks like a backstay. This puts it under tremendous stress. By putting a second set of braces amidships, I hope to get a better sheeting angle for it.

I personally believe that the dipping-lug sail, popular on both sides of the English Channel during the days of sailing workboats, evolved from the square sail, rather than the Mediterranian Lateen sail. I think the process started by setting a square sail fore and aft, rather than athwartship. This would eliminate a lot of control lines. After that, I believe they made the luff somewhat shorter than the leech. I've seen pictures of such dipping-lug rigs where there is as much yard infront of the mast as behind it. And the sail looked almost square. The only problem with that scheme is that the yard had to always be on the downwind side. This meant that it had to be 'dipped' from one side of the mast to the other every time one changed tacks.

Sharpii2, I thank you for your reply.

As for the sails, I'm hoping to mechanize much of it if possible. I figure several motors in various parts of the ship and centrally controlled would allow me to replace a large portion of the crew. My sons will be there to help, but I'd like it to be mostly done mechanically, if for nothing else then for safety concerns over my boys handling such powerful forces.

Yes, the ship will be mainly for deep-sea ocean crossing. I'm hoping to be able to travel port to port and live nomadically a large portion of time. I used to deep-sea longline and enjoy being away from shore for long periods.

Onto your dinghy, it looks like quite an interesting project and I see what you mean about the brace being far aftward. I wish I could give more feedback, but am only now learning much of this and would only embarrass myself if I pretended to be in a position to offer advice or even just tried to carry on a conversation as equals in the subject matter. However, I do wish you the best of luck and am very grateful for your feedback as it has given me new concepts to mull over in regard to how various forces will be pulling on my own ship's sails.

Make some additional pretty pictures of how you want the interior to look, find a naval architect and dump everything on his desk. Let him do all the boring stuff like dimensions, scantlings, weight studies, etc. and pay what he asks, it's going to be cheap compared to the learning you need to do to design the thing yourself.
Just as an example, your proposed building method isn't exactly a good idea. It's possible to build that way, but the result will be questionable at best.

Rumars, my friend, there is no need for such umbrage no matter how subtle. I do agree that the pictures are quite pretty, but I think we both know there was more than a hint of sarcasm in how you wrote your comment. However, to get to the meat of what you are saying; yes, I understand that actualizing such a ship is far more cumbersome than simply making images of how one would dream it to be. I enjoy ruminating over numbers and figures, concepts and implementation. While I've never built a ship, nor anything really, I look forward to the challenge posed by such an endeavour. Shall it overcome me and I fail even beyond the possibility of recovery, well, at-least I'm sure I'd have learnt something along the way and had a few years of purpose given to my otherwise mundane and monotonous life.

If you could provide some details on what specifics I should concern myself with in regard to dimensions, scantlings, weight studies, and hither I would be in your debt. Also, I appreciate you for your feedback. New members joining and speaking non-sense, creating a stir, and, ultimately, just doing nothing is quite common on forums and easily leads to a dismissive and pessimistic attitude toward individuals in my position here which leads me to empathize with your tone above. Thank you for your reply.

Edit: How do I like comments? I wish to express my gratitude, but cannot seem to find where the like button is located.

 

[Skipper]

[duplicate post]

 

[BlueBell]

Skipper,

You can "Like" posts once you are a member for a while and post so many posts.
Soon.

You are in China but your ship flies the USA flag.
Interesting.

 

[Skipper]

Skipper,

You can "Like" posts once you are a member for a while and post so many posts.
Soon.

You are in China but your ship flies the USA flag.
Interesting.

BlueBell, thank you for that.

As for the flag, my wife thinks it's the whole reason I want to build a ship. I'm about as American as one can get with many branches of my ancestry going back to the Mayflower and a tad of native blood as well. However, I moved to China in 2009 and have been stuck here, unable to leave, ever since. The reason for my inability to leave China resolved two years ago, but I find I'm now terrified of flying.

 

[BlueBell]

Wow, quite the disclosure, thanks for that Skip.

 

[gonzo]

Your best bet of not dying is to either hire a Naval Architect or use an existing design and do some modifications. As for mechanizing all the sails, you should look at Maltese Falcon. They already solved all those issues. MALTESE FALCON Yacht for Charter - IYC https://iyc.com/charter/maltese-falcon/ However, it cost 150 million dollars to build in 2006. The building method you propose is really bad. Also, the drawing shows a top heavy boat with huge glass windows; the complete opposite of an ocean going vessel. It looks like a dockside attraction at Disney World or somewhere in Vegas.

 

[Rumars]

I am not sarcastic, pretty pictures help the designer immensely to understand what the client wants.

The first decision you need to make is if you want to learn naval arhitecture or not. I am not talking about becoming an informed amateur who understands the language and concepts and tries his hand at designing small boats, your project is to big for that. You need to get as good as anyone who learned it at university and add some specific knowledge few NA's need today like sqare rig design.
The last thing you want is ending like the Seeker, or even worse the Vasa.

To get you on the path, start by reading this book: Cyrus Hamlin "Preliminary Design of Boats and Ships". You should also read Harold A. Underhill "Masting and rigging-Clipper ship and ocean carrier" and if you can, Middendorf "Bemastung und Takelung der Schiffe" if you want to stick with the sqare rig.

 

[clmanges]

First off, on your hull construction concept: ask yourself why no one has done it before, which just goes back to Rumars' comment about learning naval architecture.

Second, if I were in the mood to build a ship this size, I'd go with a junk rig on a flat-bottomed scow hull, typical ancient Chinese but with some modern improvements. That would give you far better windward performance, for one, and much greater interior volume for another. Also, the rigs are more durable, far more tolerant of damage, and much easier to operate.

You seem to be wanting to celebrate more Western conventional designs, though to be honest, there's nothing particularly American about those ships; they're old European designs. So, if you can let go of that just a little, go look at the JRA:

The Junk Rig Association - HOME https://junkrigassociation.org/

For a measly ten bucks or so a year you can become a member and download literal reams of free information, including a free copy of Practical Junk Rig, which is considered the bible among many enthusiasts and gives detailed instructions on how to build a rig that will work.

In any case, you've got a long journey ahead, and I hope you enjoy it.

 

[Skipper]

Your best bet of not dying is to either hire a Naval Architect or use an existing design and do some modifications. As for mechanizing all the sails, you should look at Maltese Falcon. They already solved all those issues. MALTESE FALCON Yacht for Charter - IYC https://iyc.com/charter/maltese-falcon/ However, it cost 150 million dollars to build in 2006. The building method you propose is really bad. Also, the drawing shows a top heavy boat with huge glass windows; the complete opposite of an ocean going vessel. It looks like a dockside attraction at Disney World or somewhere in Vegas.

Gonzo,
When you say the building method, is your meaning the idea of fiber-glass locked into aluminum? The idea was that the aluminum could better absorb any impacts with coral while having the inner fiber-glass hull lock into it such that I would be free from worry should lightning strike one of the masts. I also have a few other ideas of how it might be of profit, but they are vague and not yet thought through. As for the top heaviness, I too see it and am looking to remedy the concept once I am better educated to do so. The old brigs and fluyts had this design and they seem to have been capable of traversing the sea, but I'm not sure what the key is that makes the design justified. Perhaps the large cargo load acted as additional ballast to such a strong degree that it corrected its trim and changed it from an upsetting couple to a righting couple. I'm still reading and hope to be better informed before I set about making sketches and plans. In any case, thank you for your input and know it has been warmly welcomed and will weigh on my future planning.

I am not sarcastic, pretty pictures help the designer immensely to understand what the client wants.

The first decision you need to make is if you want to learn naval arhitecture or not. I am not talking about becoming an informed amateur who understands the language and concepts and tries his hand at designing small boats, your project is to big for that. You need to get as good as anyone who learned it at university and add some specific knowledge few NA's need today like sqare rig design.
The last thing you want is ending like the Seeker, or even worse the Vasa.

To get you on the path, start by reading this book: Cyrus Hamlin "Preliminary Design of Boats and Ships". You should also read Harold A. Underhill "Masting and rigging-Clipper ship and ocean carrier" and if you can, Middendorf "Bemastung und Takelung der Schiffe" if you want to stick with the sqare rig.

Rumars,

Yes, I definitely wish to learn naval architecture to a degree such that I don't simply build this boat, but truly understand all of the principles underlying its function and operation. I wish to be in a position that if something were to indeed go wrong on the ship, especially while at sea, I would be the most educated person to correct it. I've begun on Isaac Watts' "Shipbuilding, Theoretical and Practical" and it has so far benefitted my understanding immensely. I'll continue on with my reading while playing with model making for the time being. Once finished with my current selection, I'll make my way to your recommendations. I'm not particularly skilled in the German, but have a cursory understanding. As I said before, I am in your debt for your contributions to my progress. Thank you.

First off, on your hull construction concept: ask yourself why no one has done it before, which just goes back to Rumars' comment about learning naval architecture.

Second, if I were in the mood to build a ship this size, I'd go with a junk rig on a flat-bottomed scow hull, typical ancient Chinese but with some modern improvements. That would give you far better windward performance, for one, and much greater interior volume for another. Also, the rigs are more durable, far more tolerant of damage, and much easier to operate.

You seem to be wanting to celebrate more Western conventional designs, though to be honest, there's nothing particularly American about those ships; they're old European designs. So, if you can let go of that just a little, go look at the JRA:

The Junk Rig Association - HOME https://junkrigassociation.org/

For a measly ten bucks or so a year you can become a member and download literal reams of free information, including a free copy of Practical Junk Rig, which is considered the bible among many enthusiasts and gives detailed instructions on how to build a rig that will work.

In any case, you've got a long journey ahead, and I hope you enjoy it.

Clmanges,

I had no idea that the aluminum on fiber-glass would be such a controversial design. It was just what came to me while playing with concepts for the general outline of what type of boat I wished to have and with no understanding of shipwrightery. As my understanding grows, I'll be in a better position to informedly decide what exactly I'll ultimately do construction-wise. As for the junk rigs, I'll definitely check into them. However, I'd be dishonest if I were to deny that I'm already quite enthralled with the idea of a ship of these old Western fashions. Thank you for your suggestions and insights.

 

[bajansailor]

@Skipper dare I ask how many millions you have available to throw at this project?

It will cost millions, even if you build it in China.

The ship will be about 33 meters long

Please be aware that if your loadline length is over 24 metres then the rules become a lot more complicated - you say that you want the vessel to be ocean going (rather than just a static houseboat), and this means that you will need to employ professional qualified crew - you cannot just operate the ship with your boys.

Your original sketch reminds me (a bit) of the (much bigger - 135 metres) Sea Cloud Spirit -
Ship SEA CLOUD SPIRIT (Passenger Ship) Registered in Malta - Vessel details, Current position and Voyage information - IMO 9483712, MMSI 215855000, Call sign 9HA5333 https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:6530652/mmsi:215855000/imo:9483712/vessel:SEA_CLOUD_SPIRIT

I had no idea that the aluminum on fiber-glass would be such a controversial design.

If it was a good idea, somebody else would have developed it a long time ago.

The STS Lord Nelson is currently for sale - she is only 10 metres longer than your proposed design, but her design (by the renowned Colin Mudie) is infinitely better than yours in every conceivable way.
And you could probably buy her for MUCH less than the cost of building your design (even if you build in China) - however you will find that the operating costs can / will be crippling (this was the downfall of Lord Nelson's owners, the Jubilee Sailing Trust).
140ft. Famous Sail Training Ship LORD NELSON - built 1986 - Three-Masted Barque Rig - Lying: South Wales - Classic Yacht Brokerage https://classicyachtbrokerage.co.uk/product/new-listing-140ft-sail-training-ship-lord-nelson-built-1986-barque-rigged-lying-somerset/

 

[Skipper]

@Skipper dare I ask how many millions you have available to throw at this project?

It will cost millions, even if you build it in China.



Please be aware that if your loadline length is over 24 metres then the rules become a lot more complicated - you say that you want the vessel to be ocean going (rather than just a static houseboat), and this means that you will need to employ professional qualified crew - you cannot just operate the ship with your boys.

Your original sketch reminds me (a bit) of the (much bigger - 135 metres) Sea Cloud Spirit -
Ship SEA CLOUD SPIRIT (Passenger Ship) Registered in Malta - Vessel details, Current position and Voyage information - IMO 9483712, MMSI 215855000, Call sign 9HA5333 https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:6530652/mmsi:215855000/imo:9483712/vessel:SEA_CLOUD_SPIRIT



If it was a good idea, somebody else would have developed it a long time ago.

The STS Lord Nelson is currently for sale - she is only 10 metres longer than your proposed design, but her design (by the renowned Colin Mudie) is infinitely better than yours in every conceivable way.
And you could probably buy her for MUCH less than the cost of building your design (even if you build in China) - however you will find that the operating costs can / will be crippling (this was the downfall of Lord Nelson's owners, the Jubilee Sailing Trust).
140ft. Famous Sail Training Ship LORD NELSON - built 1986 - Three-Masted Barque Rig - Lying: South Wales - Classic Yacht Brokerage https://classicyachtbrokerage.co.uk/product/new-listing-140ft-sail-training-ship-lord-nelson-built-1986-barque-rigged-lying-somerset/

Even were it previously suggestible to me to have backed away from building such a ship as I've envisioned, the biting tone of your admonition puts me in the peculiar position of having no choice but resisting what you say and appearing arrogant and foolhardy. What alternative is there? Should I accept your criticism as true that I'm incapable of novel ideas and that some man I've never heard of has created something infinitely better than I can even conceive? In any event, thank you for taking time to contribute, though I found the style of your contribution to be unwarranted and demeaning.

 

[Robert Biegler]

The idea was that the aluminum could better absorb any impacts with coral while having the inner fiber-glass hull lock into it such that I would be free from worry should lightning strike one of the masts.

Aluminium conducts electricity fairly well, and so has a pretty good chance at safely conducting a lightning strike into the sea, especially in the thicknesses you would need for a vessel this size. Lightning has punched through fibreglass.

Consider that aircraft get hit by lightning:

In the very first paragraph of an article on how composite aircraft cope (https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/lightning-strike-protection-strategies-for-composite-aircraft), I found this:

On planes built from highly conductive aluminum, even the worst-case 200,000-ampere jolt can be quickly conducted away. But for craft made with less-conductive carbon fiber composites or nonconductive fiberglass, lightning strike protection (LSP) is critical.

So if lightning is part of the motivation for mixing those materials, I think you are better off with an all aluminium hull.

Before you mix the materials as you outlined, check how they move, both when a load is applied and when temperature changes. Expansion at different rates will put a stress on the joint.

If the glass fibre hull is just built inside the aluminium parts, such that they are only held together mechanically, they will move against each other and erode. If you want to bond them together, here is one source on what to do with the aluminium first: A Beginner’s Guide to Using Aluminum Epoxy https://www.hotmelt.com/blogs/blog/a-beginner-s-guide-to-using-aluminum-epoxy

I had no idea that the aluminum on fiber-glass would be such a controversial design.

The above are the reasons I can think of. There may be more.

I'm already quite enthralled with the idea of a ship of these old Western fashions.

It will be your boat, this is a valid point, and enough people care about how their boat looks that there is even a name for this: the row away factor. Do you like what you see when you row away from it? But how informed your decision is as to how much weight you should give that row away factor compared to other considerations, such as building cost, running cost, and how the vessel sails, that depends on how much experience you have with sailing vessels resembling what you drew, and other vessels that may give you similar accommodations. You have not said how much experience you have.

How many people will live on the boat?