Speed Dream Foiler

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by Doug Lord, Dec 13, 2013.

  1. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 348, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    Attached Files:

  2. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 348, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    60' monofoiler

    Here is the latest version of the technical info on the 60' monofoiler: (Original concept 2005-2006; this version updated 2010)

    First post refresher course: Note this post has been updated with an increase in Vealheel from 15 to 20 degrees and a comparison of the RM due to Vealheel with total RM:

    This thread is for those who are seriously interested in the concept of a 60' + or - 20' Ocean Racing Monofoiler. In this first post I've included the original post from "60' Moth- A Preliminary Design Exploration". As the technology develops I'll include as much from others working on the concept as possible.One thing that could be important as time goes by and that should be part of any discussion here is FOIL ASSIST-a concept already used on some multihulls that can potentially reduce wetted surface and drag without the possible additional complications of a full flying foiler. If you're not interested in discussing the ideas and concepts that could could make this or a full flying foiler work, including methods of developing RM ,rigs, selfighting, aspects of seaworthiness etc. and /or the ramifications of a boat(s) like this on ocean racing please don't post in this thread.
    If you have ideas, questions or thoughts to contribute within the subject guidelines please do!

    60' Moth-A Preliminary Detailed Design Exploration
    Please read the whole thing if you're interested. I consulted with a naval architect on this and tried to be as detailed a possible. Questions and comments from those interested are encouraged.
    I've long been convinced that the bi-foil revolution in dinghy design sparked by the Moth Foiler has potential for larger boats as well. The Out 95 guys in the UK and Sean Langman are also exploring this idea-among others. I decided to look at the numbers for a scaled up Moth just for the hell of it. I was surprised by the results.
    I) The base boat: LOA- 12.75', SA- 86 sq.ft.;weight: 60lb.hull + 150 lb. crew =210lb.s all up.
    II) Scaling up:
    *A) Sail Area-Since sail area varies as the square of length I squared 12.75(162.5) and squared 60(3600). Then I divided 3600 by 162.5 and multiplied the result by 86(Moth SA) . So the scaled up SA=1905sq.ft.----------------------- ****
    B) Weight- Weight/displacement varies as the cube of the length. So I cubed 12.75 (2072.67) and cubed 60(216000).Then I divided 216000 by 2072.67 and multiplied the result by 210(Moth sailing weight). So the weight of the scaled up boat is 21,884 lb.'s.----------
    III) Analysis/judgement calls- The most surprising thing when I was first doodling with these figures is the weight. At almost 22,000 pounds the scaled up Moth was way heavy by comparison to an ORMA 60 trimaran(12,000lb.'s) and to L'hydroptere(11,975lb.'s). But the defining characteristic of the Moth above all else is that it is a MONOHULL. So to preserve that characteristic at this length I decided that it would be important that the boat was selfrighting like any other(hopefully) 60'monohull. The "weight budget" certainly would allow that.
    So this is what I came up with after playing with the numbers for some time and running the whole thing by a friend who is a naval architect:
    60' MONOFOILER-rightable with crew movement of canting keel and ditching of water ballast.
    2) Target Beam 50'-increase from scaled up Moth; about same proportion as aeroSKIFF 14(see post#15 Peoples Foiler Thread)
    3)Target SA: 2500 sq.ft.-increase from scaled up
    4)Target Minimum all up sailing weight including 5231 lb.s on an 18' 60° canting strut: 14,731lb.'s.--------------------------------
    5) Target boat weight w/o canting keel ballast:
    6) Maximum additional ballast: 3771 lb.'s water ballast in a sliding tank-perhaps sliding within forward cross beam or just aft of beam. Tank is filled while over hull to limit weight of plumbing requirements. approx. dimensions: 1.5' X 6' X 6.4'. Possible fore and aft ballast sliding system .----------------------------------------
    7) Weight with maximum ballast:18502lb.'s(plus 2-4 crew)
    -SA 2500sq.ft.-----------------------------------
    14,731lb.'s ; Max: 18502---
    -Draft(off foils)
    Foil Area-30 sq.ft. main foil; 15 sq.ft rudder
    D/L ratio- 60' Monofoiler: 30.4---------------
    D/L ratio- Orma 60/L'hydroptere: 24.8------
    Bruce Number-60' Monofoiler: 2.03---------
    Bruce Number-ORMA Tri: 2.39--------------
    Bruce Number-L'hydroptere:2.65------------
    (Bruce number is the sq.rt .of SA divided by the cube root of displacement)-----------

    --------- For what it's worth, the following comparison is between the 60'Monofoiler and the 60'ORMA trimaran.And I consider it one of the most important comparisons of all. The ORMA trimaran is presumed to have 60% of it's displacement supported by a "banana foil", with 30% of it's weight supported by the ama while flying the main hull. For this comparison the 60'Monofoiler is presumed to be flying on just two foils. The vertical fins of neither boat are included and both sides of the foils are included:
    1)Orma 60-estimated ama wetted surface 124 sq.ft; estimated foil wetted surface 32 sq.ft.(both sides) Total 156 sq.ft. Now this figure is divided into SA(3000sq.ft.) giving 19 sq.ft. of SA per sq.ft.of wetted surface.
    2) 60'Monofoiler Mainfoil area(both sides): 60sq.ft..Rudder foil area(both sides) 30sq.ft.. Total is 90 sq.ft . Dividing SA(2500sq.ft.) by this figure gives 27.7 sq.ft. of SA per sq.ft. of wetted surface.
    **Notes and Design Considerations
    ( see below for "More notes..." including lift calculations, foil
    loading and more)
    A) The number one design consideration for this boat was that it was self righting and that it would qualify as a monohull under any rule. Therefore it does not have buoyancy pods that in any way resemble or that could function like a hull-simple rectangular spaces at the maximum beam supported by carbon cross tubes. These buoyancy tanks in combination with the 18' 5000+lb. 60° canting bulb would prevent capsize and or right the boat from a knockdown. The weight in the bulb was specifically chosen to be 1.5 times what would be required to right the boat from a pitchpole. The canting keel could be explored a lot since it is relatively light for a 60 footer(5200+lb.'s). It would be ideal for it to be clear of the water when the boat is foiling-at least above 20 knots. (See recent thread by a designer whose canting keel is designed to be clear of the water at max extension: http://www.guywhitehouse.com/sail.aspx?gid=23)
    B) When an Orma tri fly's the main hull it does so with about 2lb. per sq.ft. of windpressure on 3000 sq.ft. of sail. The 60'Monofoiler with max ballast can sail with it's maximum SA in about the same pressure. And in lighter conditions it can ditch up to 3700+ lb.'s of water ballast facilitating relatively light air take off in an 9-12 knot wind.------------------------------
    (see Righting Moment below)
    Preliminary conclusions:
    It appears to me that the 60' monofoiler could be built but right at the top end of available technology.It would be likely to equal a multi of it's own size that did not use foils and appears to have more SA per sq.ft. of wetted surface than even an ORMA tri though especially in light air the ORMA would be faster since it can retract it's hydrofoil . The concept of an extremely fast selfrighting hydrofoil holds a lot of promise.
    More notes and references:
    1) Righting Moment

    When off the foils the heeling arm (CE-CLR) is 43'. When on foils it is 51.75' . Hull bottom clearance to water is 10.75'. On foils max draft ,level,is 5'.
    This boat is a monofoiler and as such will be sailed heeled to weather 20 degrees at maximum righting moment.Elements of Righting Moment:
    A) rig CG is approximately at the
    CE; 1460lb. @ 16' to weather= 23,360 ft.lb.
    B) canting bulb- 5,231lb.'s at 60°( 15.6') +
    6' weather heel =5231 X 21.6'= 112,989 ft. lb.'s.
    C)Hull 8040 X 6' to weather= 48,240ft.lb.
    D)rack(deck) ballast 23' + 6' to weather
    =29 X 3771= 109,359 ft. pounds
    MAXIMUM RIGHTING MOMENT= 293,948 ft. lb.'s (A+B+C+D above)
    MAXIMUM PRESSURE WITH 2500sq.ft.(293,948 divided by 51.75=5179. Divide 5680 by 2500(SA) = 2.27 lb.
    VERY IMPORTANT: RM due to Veal Heel is 42.7% of total RM

    canting bulb- 31,386ft.lb.
    rack(sliding ballast)-22,626
    TOTAL= 125,612 ft.lb. due to Vealheel(windward heel)
    125,612/293,948= 42.7%

    2) The 50' beam could be one "wing" but would probably work better as two beams supporting a fixed empty "tank" at each end for buoyancy. A small tank containing up to 3770 pounds of water will also slide across the forward beam or just behind it. For the sake of getting the boat defined as a monohull based on whatever rule the buoyancy would not look like or function like a hull while normally sailing. In the event of a knockdown it would help to right the boat. I've talked with Alex of the OUT 95 project and he says their solution(ultra narrow hull with very wide wings on a 32 footer) is legal under the rules. Exactly which rules he was referring to I'm not exacly sure.
    The hydrofoils on this 60' monofoiler are on the hull : one mounted on the daggerboard and one mounted on the rudder.They might be partially retractable in non foiling conditions. No foils on the end of the wings.The canting keel strut would be behind the daggerboard.(Like Maximus among others)
    3) The canting strut is right on the edge of feasibility. But it probably can work: its half the weight of a VO 70 bulb but half again as long.Based on the fact that the load is 81% of the load on a Vo70 the engine hp required is likely to be about 23hp(vs 29 for the Volvo).
    The Volvo 70 has a max speed so far of 40.6 knots according to Sail mag-just 5 knots short of the top end(so far) of a G Class cat(100+')-same source. And ,as I understand it, they peg the keel max out in fast conditions.
    The Farr design #550 Volvo 70 has a strut approximately 12-13' long with 9920 pounds in the bulb with a variable displacement from 27,558 to 30,865lb.'s. The monofoiler as stated above needs 5200+lb.'s at 18' to be self rightng.
    I don't think that the bulb/strut being offset will have too much negative effect when you consider that L'hydroptere maintains control at over 40 knots with most of the drag coming from a foil 20' to leeward using a centerline rudder. I think that it would be important on the monofoiler to figure out a way to get the canting strut and bulb out of the water over 20 knots-keeping in mind that it will probably be sailed upwind with windward heel like the Moth. The Volvo has a max cant angle of 40°, the Schock 40 and Max Z86's 55° and a 26 footer from Bethwaite 60°.
    This area would need plenty of research and testing. It is ripe for some sort of unique solution....
    4) Bruce numbers- I calculated the Bruce number for L'hydroptere from information on Sail Area given in Sail mag.. But looking at the head-on picture and using a scale ruler I'll bet they can't carry that area(3700sq.ft.) in the same pressure that an Orma tri can carry it's 3000sq. ft. The monofoiler can carry it's maximum sail area in the same pressure an Orma tri can carry it's maximum sail area. Regardless of it's actual SA for a given pressure a well designed multifoiler will be faster than the 60 monofoiler any day. But the monofoiler and ORMA even using "foil assist" will be closer.And a "conventional" multi sailing only on it's hulls(even flying the main hull with no foil assist) would be still closer in speed to the monofoiler-with the monofoiler probably having a significant edge.
    I 'm leaning toward believing that the Bruce Number or Bethwaites "SCP Divided By Total Weight Ratio" may not be good comparitive numbers when comparing an all out foiler to a "foil assist" boat like the Orma. **When you look at these Bruce Numbers you may see what I mean: Moth 1.56 ; A Class Cat 1.82 ; 49er 1.76 ; IC 1.58 . All the boats shown show a Bruce number indicating they should be faster than a Moth-and they are when it is not foiling. But when on foils the Moth beats every one of these boats. So I'm leaning toward SA/wetted surface as a possible way to compare the boats when at least one of them is a foiler. In my comparison of the 60' monofoiler to the ORMA I showed that even though the foiler was heavier it had more power applied to less wetted area than did the ORMA. Of course ,this is simplistic: it didn't take into account induced drag of the foils, the vertical fins or the wavemakng resistance of the partially submerged ORMA ama. Nonetheless, it seems like a good indicator....
    5) Foil Loading- The 60' monofoiler will have foil loadings with and with out the sliding deck ballast. For takefoff(see #5 for lift/speed calculations) it has a foil loading of 392.8 pounds per sq.ft . That is based on 80% of the total dispacement of 14731 which equals 11784 divided by 30 sq.ft.. Above 20 knots ,at some point, it will add additional ballast and have a foil loading of 493 pounds at a displacement of 18502lb.. Most foilers are designed with about 80%(or so) of the load on the forward foil and loading is calculated based on the area of one side.
    For comparision the foil loading of the ORMA tri with and estimated banana foil area of 16sq.ft. is 450lb. per sq.ft. at a displacement of .6 X 12000=7200. A Rave foiler sailing in 2lb. of pressure has a mainfoil(2) loading of 356lb. per sq. ft. (develops RM using the foils increasing loading well past this number at max pressure). A Moth has a mainfoil loading of 169 lb.per sq.ft.-and only changes with different crew weight. And the first two person monofoiler to fly-David Lugg's I14 had an approx. mainfoil loading of over 500 pounds per sq.ft. (small "high speed" foils), if I remember correctly.
    L'hydroptere has surface piercing foils and basically starts out with low loading and high wetted surface(56 sq.ft.est.) and ends up with high loading and low wetted surface(14 sq.ft.est.). The picture of L'hydroptere in Sail shows it sailing on one of two main foils at an area I estimate to be 7 sq.ft. for a loading of 1368lb per sq.ft.(.8 X 11975 divided by 7). I'm guestimating that that picture was taken when the boat momentarily flew a foil and that a more realistic loading would be based on 14 sq.ft.(7sq. ft. per main foil) for a realistic loading of 684 lb.'s per sq.ft. At takeoff with 56 sq. ft. of foil area loading is 171lb.sq. ft. but the loading rapidly increases whereas it does not change on a monofoiler unless ballast is added.
    Additional Notes: Using this formula for lift: Area=Weight divided by(the factor 2.09 X speed in mph² X Cl(coeficient of lift) along with my copy of Theory of Wing Sections and the information there on the 63412 section(p522 &523) I came up with the following for the monofoiler:
    Light displacement =14731 .8=11784
    Heavy Displacement=18502 X .8=
    Mainfoil area 30 sq.ft.--------------------------
    1) The boat will lift off at a boat speed of 12 mph(10.4 knots) with a CL of 1.3. This is outside the drag bucket(but way below stall) but ,of course ,as soon as the boat lifts off it will accelerate.Moths, using this foil, lift off at even higher CL's.
    2) At a boat speed of 16mph(13.9 knots) the CL drops to .73-just inside the "drag bucket" for this foil.
    3) At 23 mph(20 knots) after the additional ballast is added the CL is .44-well within the drag bucket. The additional ballast may not all be added at once but I checked it at the minimum speed for which some ballast would be added.
    A personal note: I'm not at all convinced that sailing foilers are a good idea for ocean racing until the electronic systems are developed to spot partially submerged objects in time to avoid them. L'hydroptere was stopped by just this kind of thing. I think all high performance boats would benefit from this kind of equipment and I imagine it's not too far away or may be already available for all I know. Equipment like that would make a venture like this much more attractive to potential sponsors...
    Rough sketch of this concept by NFlutter:

    Attached Files:

  3. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 348, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    Heres an excerpt from the Speed Dream blog linked in the first post:

    At SpeedDream we too have vivid imaginations and we are imagining the future of SpeedDream wondering what it would look like. Would our future boat fly? Could she fly and still be capable of crossing an ocean? If the answer is yes, the question then becomes, when? In five years; ten? The future is a long time and so it stands to reason that at some point we will cross an ocean spending as much time above the water as in it. But why wait for the future? Why not imagine what that future would look like and start working right away toward making it a reality. Imagining the future and bringing it forward is, after all, what SpeedDream is about.
    So we are picturing a flying boat crossing an ocean. How would that look? What would the design need in order to lift the boat clear out of the water and keep it there?
    “I think it might look like a scaled up Moth. Let’s call it the Ocean Moth,” suggests SpeedDream designer Vlad Murnikov. “It would be equipped with fore and aft foils – not lateral. By placing one foil ahead of the other you are able to keep the boat sailing steadily, staying on the same wave pattern and avoiding the pitfalls that challenged L’Hydroptère with it’s foils spread far apart.”
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.