FEAR THIS!

Now I understand why my boat is so uncommonly fast.

It is because she has a LWL of 25 feet instead of the
commonly listed 22 feet.

You can see and measure for yourself

http://captneal.homestead.com/Sheshines.html

Use the top picture and get out your dividers.

Measure the LOA. You computer screen size will make your
measurments vary from mine but not too worry use what you get.

The LOA I measured at 27 feet is 12.5mm
The LWL I measured at X is 11.6mm.

Now all we have to do is solve for X

X times 12.5 = 27 times 11.6

or X = (27) (11.6) divided by 12.5

or X = 25 feet.

With a LWL of 25 feet the hull speed is the same as
Moroon's 30-footer and Booby's 32 footer.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

With a LWL of 25 feet the hull speed is the same as
Moroon's 30-footer and Booby's 32 footer.

Man, coronado specs says 22. That was some company.
Now all you need is to carve that underbody into something vaguely efficient in
the water and you'll have....a faster, but still god ugly boat.

Bwahahahahaa!

RB

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Yup....and for that pic...

Ungainly
Wallowing
Horrific
Unseaworthy
ghastly
Bulbous

Well, there's six anyway.

RB

And the same hull speed as your 32-footer.

Doesn't that just make you want to cry?


"CANDChelp" wrote in message ...
A picture is worth a thousand words.

Yup....and for that pic...

Ungainly
Wallowing
Horrific
Unseaworthy
ghastly
Bulbous

Well, there's six anyway.

RB

"Simple Simon" wrote in message

The LOA I measured at 27 feet is 12.5mm
The LWL I measured at X is 11.6mm.

12.5 and 11.6mm screen size? Are you using a palmoid computer?


Now all we have to do is solve for X
X times 12.5 = 27 times 11.6
or X = (27) (11.6) divided by 12.5
or X = 25 feet.

I agree with your result, but that's a rather odd way to apply a ratio to a
value. I would have done...

Ratio = 11.6 / 12.5 = 0.928

X = 0.928 x 27 = 25.056 feet.

Or, as a single formula in a spreadsheet, or step in a program...

X = 27 x (11.6 / 12.5)

A look at the angle of the stem should be enough to convince anyone that the
LWL is nowhere near 22 feet - it's simply too steep to have lost 5 feet by
the time it gets down to the water. I make the height of the bow at about 4
feet above the waterline - to lose 5 feet in the length, the stem would have
to be shallower than 45 degrees, which it plainly isn't. How the LWL has
come to be commonly listed as 22 feet is beyond me.


--
Wally
I demand rigidly-defined areas of uncertainty!
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk

Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you Wally.


"Wally" wrote in message news
"Simple Simon" wrote in message

The LOA I measured at 27 feet is 12.5mm
The LWL I measured at X is 11.6mm.

12.5 and 11.6mm screen size? Are you using a palmoid computer?


Now all we have to do is solve for X
X times 12.5 = 27 times 11.6
or X = (27) (11.6) divided by 12.5
or X = 25 feet.

I agree with your result, but that's a rather odd way to apply a ratio to a
value. I would have done...

Ratio = 11.6 / 12.5 = 0.928

X = 0.928 x 27 = 25.056 feet.

Or, as a single formula in a spreadsheet, or step in a program...

X = 27 x (11.6 / 12.5)

A look at the angle of the stem should be enough to convince anyone that the
LWL is nowhere near 22 feet - it's simply too steep to have lost 5 feet by
the time it gets down to the water. I make the height of the bow at about 4
feet above the waterline - to lose 5 feet in the length, the stem would have
to be shallower than 45 degrees, which it plainly isn't. How the LWL has
come to be commonly listed as 22 feet is beyond me.


--
Wally
I demand rigidly-defined areas of uncertainty!
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk

"Simple Simon" wrote in message

Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you Wally.

Can't argue with the numbers. If the 22' is an original Coronado spec, I can
only assume that it was a typo or a misreading of a handwritten note. What
amazes me is that nobody thought to question it until now. You must have had
one of those "wait a minute, that's not right..." moments.


--
Wally
I demand rigidly-defined areas of uncertainty!
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk

I think the original figure is with an empty boat that floats
much higher up in the water. Even then I think the LWL
would be greater than 22 feet, though. Another thing is
the shoal keel is about five hundred pounds heaver
than the stantard keel so mine, which is a shoal keel,
floats deeper in the water to begin with even when not
loaded for cruising and living aboard.


"Wally" wrote in message ...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message

Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you Wally.

Can't argue with the numbers. If the 22' is an original Coronado spec, I can
only assume that it was a typo or a misreading of a handwritten note. What
amazes me is that nobody thought to question it until now. You must have had
one of those "wait a minute, that's not right..." moments.


--
Wally
I demand rigidly-defined areas of uncertainty!
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk

"Simple Simon" wrote in message

I think the original figure is with an empty boat that floats
much higher up in the water. Even then I think the LWL
would be greater than 22 feet, though.

I would agree with that - 3 feet is a lot to lose. Looking at the port-side
view on...

http://captneal.homestead.com/haulout.html

....I estimate 22 feet from the stern to end somewhere between the stand
under the bow and the dark object in the background just to its left.


Another thing is
the shoal keel is about five hundred pounds heaver
than the stantard keel so mine, which is a shoal keel,
floats deeper in the water to begin with even when not
loaded for cruising and living aboard.

Does the line of your blue antifoul leave the same nominal freeboard as
Coronado 27s with the standard keel?


--
Wally
I demand rigidly-defined areas of uncertainty!
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk

You're right - you lost considerable freeeboard aft. Is your transom supposed to be
underwater?

Before you start "spending" your extra speed, remember that Waterline does not
automatically produce speed. If your LWL was increased by adding 2000 pounds
displacement (that only lowers you 3 inches) then your displacement went from 6200 to
8200, which drops your SA/disp down to a dismal 10.7! While your ultimate speed may be
faster, your medium air performance is now pathetic.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I think the original figure is with an empty boat that floats
much higher up in the water. Even then I think the LWL
would be greater than 22 feet, though. Another thing is
the shoal keel is about five hundred pounds heaver
than the stantard keel so mine, which is a shoal keel,
floats deeper in the water to begin with even when not
loaded for cruising and living aboard.


"Wally" wrote in message
...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message

Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you Wally.

Can't argue with the numbers. If the 22' is an original Coronado spec, I can
only assume that it was a typo or a misreading of a handwritten note. What
amazes me is that nobody thought to question it until now. You must have had
one of those "wait a minute, that's not right..." moments.


--
Wally
I demand rigidly-defined areas of uncertainty!
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk