Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Whacky design thought
A friend and I were goofing around talking about hull shape and we came
up with this: http://www.jem.e-boat.net/images/Development/XYak1.jpg The idea was stability and reserve buoyancy but still having the ability for nice tight vertical strokes. I'm not sure what to think. Innovative or just plain silly? -- Matt Langenfeld JEM Watercraft http://jem.e-boat.net/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Whacky design thought
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:24:16 GMT, Matt Langenfeld
wrote: A friend and I were goofing around talking about hull shape and we came up with this: http://www.jem.e-boat.net/images/Development/XYak1.jpg The idea was stability and reserve buoyancy but still having the ability for nice tight vertical strokes. That sounds a bit like a stripper I once dated, actually. G I'm not sure what to think. Innovative or just plain silly? Maybe both. I have a name for it, however: "The Cuttlefish" or maybe "Squiddy the Boat" R |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Whacky design thought
Hi
"Matt Langenfeld" skrev i en meddelelse nk.net... A friend and I were goofing around talking about hull shape and we came up with this: http://www.jem.e-boat.net/images/Development/XYak1.jpg That's a very interesting design , easy to produce a prototype for , the reserve boyancy seem to have a function ,but can you stay onboard when it is kicked around ? P.C. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Whacky design thought
"Matt Langenfeld" wrote in message
nk.net... A friend and I were goofing around talking about hull shape and we came up with this: http://www.jem.e-boat.net/images/Development/XYak1.jpg The idea was stability and reserve buoyancy but still having the ability for nice tight vertical strokes. I'm not sure what to think. Innovative or just plain silly? Innovative? Yeah, but not completely. Some downriver canoes have the pronounced concavity where the paddle shaft goes and some have pronounced flairs aft to recover some of the roll stability. Their radical shapes are, I think, dictated more by rule-skirting than hydrodynamics. Silly? Most 'new' designs look just plain silly to me. Functionally, I think you'd see two significant effects. First, pushing the bouyancy out to the ends will tend to make the boat pitchy. You might need foam forehead and nose pads on the foredeck. It wouldn't be a waterfall boat. Second, if you visualize the fore-and-aft displacement map, you'll see a pattern that looks like a hogged hull (negative rocker), and this will surely have an effect of the boat's yaw response. How much? I dunno. I like the advice another poster offered. Build one. You don't have to say a word if it doesn't work. Cheers, Fred Klingener PS No 'h' in wacky? That's whack, man. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Whacky design thought
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:16:24 GMT, "Fred Klingener"
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email Basically you have taken the central part out of the fat bits on some of the sit-on-tops...ummm...scupper Pro IIRC. Problems? Depends on the use. (1) Turbulence around the sudden change at each end would slow the boat, even with the horizontal "diamond" taper shown. Needs to be run gradually into the boat to the paddle point. (2) If turning sharply, the boat could be a bit sluggish. The ends need to be slim. (3) While the boat would lift well to a wave, it would also be very rocky, and pound. (4) roll-righting could be tough. As was said, build one or modify an old boat that you know to be tippy....then let me know. I have wondering about this sort of idea for years. "Matt Langenfeld" wrote in message ink.net... A friend and I were goofing around talking about hull shape and we came up with this: http://www.jem.e-boat.net/images/Development/XYak1.jpg The idea was stability and reserve buoyancy but still having the ability for nice tight vertical strokes. I'm not sure what to think. Innovative or just plain silly? Innovative? Yeah, but not completely. Some downriver canoes have the pronounced concavity where the paddle shaft goes and some have pronounced flairs aft to recover some of the roll stability. Their radical shapes are, I think, dictated more by rule-skirting than hydrodynamics. Silly? Most 'new' designs look just plain silly to me. Functionally, I think you'd see two significant effects. First, pushing the bouyancy out to the ends will tend to make the boat pitchy. You might need foam forehead and nose pads on the foredeck. It wouldn't be a waterfall boat. Second, if you visualize the fore-and-aft displacement map, you'll see a pattern that looks like a hogged hull (negative rocker), and this will surely have an effect of the boat's yaw response. How much? I dunno. I like the advice another poster offered. Build one. You don't have to say a word if it doesn't work. Cheers, Fred Klingener PS No 'h' in wacky? That's whack, man. ************************************************** ** sorry ..........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email Does Bill Gates dream of electronic sheep? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Whacky design thought
Because the enlarged ends are too low in the water in your design, the boat would be slowed because the water would have to travel around them. First out, then in, then out, then in. This would cause turbulance which will slow the boat. If the increased volume ends rode higher on the hull and were less exaggerated they would work better. If blended into the hull shape they would look better. This would amount to a hull with flaired ends at the gunnels and "tumblehome" amidships. This concept is used possibly, though in a more subtle way, on a boat called a Baidarka, invented a long time ago in the Aleutian Islands or Russia. The fuller ends will also have the effect of making the boat ride over the waves rather than going through them. Balancing the two movements is a tradeoff either way. Do you want a corky buoyant hull that seesaws over the water or a fast sleek hull that slices through the water? Your hull would produce a boat that was extreme on the seesaw side. Also, when your boat is leaned over to turn, the turbulance increases and slows the boat alot. I think your concept is interesting but that the features are too exagerated to be practical. It also makes for a hull shape that is more complex to build than ,say, a Greenland style Kayak. Matt Langenfeld wrote: A friend and I were goofing around talking about hull shape and we came up with this: http://www.jem.e-boat.net/images/Development/XYak1.jpg The idea was stability and reserve buoyancy but still having the ability for nice tight vertical strokes. I'm not sure what to think. Innovative or just plain silly? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Whacky design thought
Matt Langenfeld wrote: A friend and I were goofing around talking about hull shape and we came up with this: http://www.jem.e-boat.net/images/Development/XYak1.jpg The idea was stability and reserve buoyancy but still having the ability for nice tight vertical strokes. I'm not sure what to think. Innovative or just plain silly? What is the beam of the boat? If it's extemely narrow in the center, it might work OK. If it's 20+ inches in the center and really wide at the ends, you'll end up with a boat that pitches and pounds over waves and will be hard to keep upright in beam seas, as it will be difficult to lean and/or edge. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Whacky design thought
Old Nick wrote:
(2) If turning sharply, the boat could be a bit sluggish. The ends need to be slim. That's a very good point. Edging the boat would not lift the ends clear of the water. Rather, they would dig in, probably making the boat harder to turn than if it was on an even keel. They would also add drag whenever the boat is edged or leaned or the water is uneven. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Whacky design thought
I it one thing to guess by looking at the picture but a good way to try this
design out would be to make a 1/16 model and test it in a tank or even if its possible the naval academy invented a program to test ship hull designs and since then it has been made available to the public some manufacturers use it to start their canoe designs off. Sorry I can't remember the name of the program I know Swift canoe and Kayak uses it se if they mention it on their site. Till it is physically tested and put through a simulation no assumptions on wave friction or drag can be made you never know what works out. -- Abe Elias Diving Sparrow Paddle Co, http://home.cogeco.ca/~aelias "Brian Nystrom" wrote in message ... Matt Langenfeld wrote: A friend and I were goofing around talking about hull shape and we came up with this: http://www.jem.e-boat.net/images/Development/XYak1.jpg The idea was stability and reserve buoyancy but still having the ability for nice tight vertical strokes. I'm not sure what to think. Innovative or just plain silly? What is the beam of the boat? If it's extemely narrow in the center, it might work OK. If it's 20+ inches in the center and really wide at the ends, you'll end up with a boat that pitches and pounds over waves and will be hard to keep upright in beam seas, as it will be difficult to lean and/or edge. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The Great J Class Design Contest | Boat Building | |||
Need books, articles, website to design a canoe (concrete) | Boat Building | |||
Yacht Design School | Boat Building | |||
Does anyone know this boat??? (AKA my ideal design) | Boat Building | |||
Fresh Water System Design Ideas. | Boat Building |