side wing

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by prathab, May 14, 2016.

  1. prathab
    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 19
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: india

    prathab Junior Member

    "I could guess that those stabilizers (side wings) might be good for a displacement fishing vessel as antirolling appendage whose aft section under the waterline?
    Can anybody guess any drawbacks? what about additional drag? " It looks like immersed (V-shaped) volume has been reduced to balance the extra drag and get better speed ?
    Appreciate any comments"

    Attached Files:

  2. TheChillPrince
    Joined: May 2016
    Posts: 27
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: canada

    TheChillPrince Junior Member

    i left a comment on this thread just because no one has.
  3. PAR
    Joined: Nov 2003
    Posts: 19,133
    Likes: 488, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 3967
    Location: Eustis, FL

    PAR Yacht Designer/Builder

    I think the drawbacks would be pretty obvious. No need for additional lateral are, given the huge skeg the original boat has. Those runners(?) do seem to twist from nearly horizontal to nearly vertical, which isn't going to do much, though the roll moment might be slowed to a degree. The bulbous addition looks poorly designed and would have a very limited range of effectiveness. The aft sections look like they've been modified to remove some deadrise, again likely to improve roll and/or to support additional weight. In the end, who knows, but I think much of it is pretty dubious at best with a lot of drag added on. In general, it appears someone is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, with a hull that's not well suited to their needs.
  4. TANSL
    Joined: Sep 2011
    Posts: 6,795
    Likes: 494, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 300
    Location: Spain

    TANSL Senior Member

    This hull has several things that, I would say that they are useless, but I will say that are harmful to the ship's movement.
    Consider, for example, in the form that has the water plane up to the hypothetical propeller shaft : it is completely absurd. It get that turbulence occurs in the water inflow to the propeller.
    The bulbous bow could be seen as a decorative element, but as it is hidden underwater, it would be better to eliminate it. At least, it could raise to increase the waterline length. I do not know whether this would be effective but is an argument that some might use.

  5. tom28571
    Joined: Dec 2001
    Posts: 2,474
    Likes: 116, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1728
    Location: Oriental, NC

    tom28571 Senior Member

    I don't disagree with anything already posted, but its clear that this is a displacement hull and might prove to be workable as is. Yes, the bulb looks about as well engineered as the other appendages which also appear to be guess work. If you intend to power the boat and get in the water, it might be reasonable to do that and see how it runs. Maybe doing a lot of work redoing or taking the stuff off is not going to result in substantially better performance. Its certainly not going to make the boat roll more. Watching our local race committee boat roll Saturday shows that it could benefit from roll attenuators of some sort.

    This is generally thought to be a good boat by some but not by me.
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.