So, we're looking at boats, and Henry Scheel comes to light. He's patented
a keel that several manufacturers are paying royalties to use, and what I
read suggest that rigorous tank testing holds out the superiority to
straight keels, so, presumably, it must be worth *something*...

However, just a Henry Scheel design does not a Scheel keel include. Too
bad...

For those not familiar, it's got some of the attributes of a wing and some
of a bulb, but primarily greatly increases holding power and reduces vortex
drag over that of a standard keel, particularly beneficial to a shoal draft
need, without the anchor-digging-in attributes of a wing.

So, the boats I'm looking at don't have this keel. I've read of those
cutting off the bottom of a straight keel and adding a bulb, or equivalent,
to achieve a shoal draft with the same equivalent weight. They've done this
perhaps by somehow attaching at the bottom, or, as one site I discovered,
bolting two lead halves to the remaining keel, forming sort of a bulb wing.

Now to the question. Have any of you done, or know someone who has, an
addition of such a bulb/wing to an *existing* - not shortened - keel? The
benefits I'd see are better holding, and more ballast, as low as possible,
against a minimal overall increase in weight (projected is from 30000 to
maybe 32/33000 pounds displacement, with that increase also applying to the
current 8400# ballast, light by my thought).

I'm more interested in experience stories, if there are any, or engineering
reasons for or against, as opposed to 'I think it would...' information.

Thanks.

L8R

Skip (and Lydia)


--
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away
from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover." - Mark Twain

Hi, Bill, and Y'all,

wrote in message
...

Why not get it from the horse's mouth?

http://www.marsmetal.com

These guys are the kings of keels.

That source was mentioned in one of the cutoff successes I'd read about (the
subject had used them to form their new bottom for the cutoff, making a net
even on the weight). I know it can be done. The question was about its
efficacy, or, even, advisability (I'm talking in terms of not cutting any
off, and looking for experience with the end result, not its feasibility).

However, that said, I'll check them out directly (vs just the one cutoff
story) to see what they have to say.

L8R, y'all :{))

Skip and Lydia

--
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away
from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover." - Mark Twain

Hi, Bill, and Y'all,

wrote in message
...

Why not get it from the horse's mouth?

http://www.marsmetal.com

These guys are the kings of keels.

That source was mentioned in one of the cutoff successes I'd read about (the
subject had used them to form their new bottom for the cutoff, making a net
even on the weight). I know it can be done. The question was about its
efficacy, or, even, advisability (I'm talking in terms of not cutting any
off, and looking for experience with the end result, not its feasibility).

However, that said, I'll check them out directly (vs just the one cutoff
story) to see what they have to say.

L8R, y'all :{))

Skip and Lydia

--
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away
from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover." - Mark Twain

Two things come to mind, the first structural, the second hydrodynamic.

I don't know about the boat you're looking at (Morgan 46?), but
most boats have floors for carrying the keel loads, or else they
are bolted to the bottom of a sump (or maybe encapsulated).
Regardless of whatever attachment method is used, the
righting moment is increased, and the load has to get carried to
the hull. For most overbuilt cruising hulls, this may not be an
issue but if the laminate is sized exactly for the original righting
moment you may develop trouble.

Hydrodynamically, the lift you create from the keel is pretty
much a function of span - adding a bulb will reduce the
span by that amount. If the boat is tender the tradeoff may
be worth it - if it's not then you may actually lose windward
performance because you have a less effective keel and you
are dragging around all that extra weight. If you plan
on doing a lot of racing or windward passages then the
extra righting moment may be worth it, but probably only
if you consider the boat tender to begin with. Think about
whether the boat will spend a lot of time fully powered up
going to windward or whether youre likely to back off
and take it easy when headed to the next destination.

Matt

"Skip Gundlach" wrote in
message ink.net...
So, we're looking at boats, and Henry Scheel comes to light. He's
patented
a keel that several manufacturers are paying royalties to use, and what I
read suggest that rigorous tank testing holds out the superiority to
straight keels, so, presumably, it must be worth *something*...

However, just a Henry Scheel design does not a Scheel keel include. Too
bad...

For those not familiar, it's got some of the attributes of a wing and some
of a bulb, but primarily greatly increases holding power and reduces
vortex
drag over that of a standard keel, particularly beneficial to a shoal draf
t
need, without the anchor-digging-in attributes of a wing.

So, the boats I'm looking at don't have this keel. I've read of those
cutting off the bottom of a straight keel and adding a bulb, or
equivalent,
to achieve a shoal draft with the same equivalent weight. They've done
this
perhaps by somehow attaching at the bottom, or, as one site I discovered,
bolting two lead halves to the remaining keel, forming sort of a bulb
wing.

Now to the question. Have any of you done, or know someone who has, an
addition of such a bulb/wing to an *existing* - not shortened - keel?
The
benefits I'd see are better holding, and more ballast, as low as possible,
against a minimal overall increase in weight (projected is from 30000 to
maybe 32/33000 pounds displacement, with that increase also applying to
the
current 8400# ballast, light by my thought).

I'm more interested in experience stories, if there are any, or
engineering
reasons for or against, as opposed to 'I think it would...' information.

Thanks.

L8R

Skip (and Lydia)


--
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away
from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover." - Mark Twain

Two things come to mind, the first structural, the second hydrodynamic.

I don't know about the boat you're looking at (Morgan 46?), but
most boats have floors for carrying the keel loads, or else they
are bolted to the bottom of a sump (or maybe encapsulated).
Regardless of whatever attachment method is used, the
righting moment is increased, and the load has to get carried to
the hull. For most overbuilt cruising hulls, this may not be an
issue but if the laminate is sized exactly for the original righting
moment you may develop trouble.

Hydrodynamically, the lift you create from the keel is pretty
much a function of span - adding a bulb will reduce the
span by that amount. If the boat is tender the tradeoff may
be worth it - if it's not then you may actually lose windward
performance because you have a less effective keel and you
are dragging around all that extra weight. If you plan
on doing a lot of racing or windward passages then the
extra righting moment may be worth it, but probably only
if you consider the boat tender to begin with. Think about
whether the boat will spend a lot of time fully powered up
going to windward or whether youre likely to back off
and take it easy when headed to the next destination.

Matt

"Skip Gundlach" wrote in
message ink.net...
So, we're looking at boats, and Henry Scheel comes to light. He's
patented
a keel that several manufacturers are paying royalties to use, and what I
read suggest that rigorous tank testing holds out the superiority to
straight keels, so, presumably, it must be worth *something*...

However, just a Henry Scheel design does not a Scheel keel include. Too
bad...

For those not familiar, it's got some of the attributes of a wing and some
of a bulb, but primarily greatly increases holding power and reduces
vortex
drag over that of a standard keel, particularly beneficial to a shoal draf
t
need, without the anchor-digging-in attributes of a wing.

So, the boats I'm looking at don't have this keel. I've read of those
cutting off the bottom of a straight keel and adding a bulb, or
equivalent,
to achieve a shoal draft with the same equivalent weight. They've done
this
perhaps by somehow attaching at the bottom, or, as one site I discovered,
bolting two lead halves to the remaining keel, forming sort of a bulb
wing.

Now to the question. Have any of you done, or know someone who has, an
addition of such a bulb/wing to an *existing* - not shortened - keel?
The
benefits I'd see are better holding, and more ballast, as low as possible,
against a minimal overall increase in weight (projected is from 30000 to
maybe 32/33000 pounds displacement, with that increase also applying to
the
current 8400# ballast, light by my thought).

I'm more interested in experience stories, if there are any, or
engineering
reasons for or against, as opposed to 'I think it would...' information.

Thanks.

L8R

Skip (and Lydia)


--
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away
from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover." - Mark Twain

Skip Gundlach wrote:

So, we're looking at boats, and Henry Scheel comes to light. He's patented
a keel that several manufacturers are paying royalties to use, and what I
read suggest that rigorous tank testing holds out the superiority to
straight keels, so, presumably, it must be worth *something*...

The Scheel keel is "superior" in the sense that it allows less draft for roughly
similar righting moment and windward performance. If draft is not an issue then
there's no point.


...Now to the question. Have any of you done, or know someone who has, an
addition of such a bulb/wing to an *existing* - not shortened - keel?

Yes, a few.


The
benefits I'd see are better holding, and more ballast, as low as possible,
against a minimal overall increase in weight

"More ballast" isn't a benefit except with respect to greater righting moment,
and there are issues there like the strength of the hull & rig, as Matt has
said. The only vehicle that benefits from added weight is a steamroller.

"Better holding" I think you mean increased hydrodynamic efficiency ie less
leeway. Adding a bulb isn't going to do anything for this. Adding a home-brew
wing keel is not likely to help either, it takes very sophisticated design to
produce a wing that doesn't add more drag than increased lift.



I'm more interested in experience stories, if there are any, or engineering
reasons for or against, as opposed to 'I think it would...' information.

The boats Ive seen this done to were all relatively small, from 19 to 28 feet,
and none showed any improved performance IMHO and all suffered from reduced
reserve bouyancy and were slower in light air.

I have seen a few boats have shoal keels with wings put on to reduce draft, one
was a remarkable success in keeping the same sailing performance and losing 2
feet off the bottom of a 7' keel. But it turned out a good bit more expensive
than the owner thought it would be.

BTW I definitely second (or is it third) the suggestion to ask the people at
Mars Metals.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Skip Gundlach wrote:

So, we're looking at boats, and Henry Scheel comes to light. He's patented
a keel that several manufacturers are paying royalties to use, and what I
read suggest that rigorous tank testing holds out the superiority to
straight keels, so, presumably, it must be worth *something*...

The Scheel keel is "superior" in the sense that it allows less draft for roughly
similar righting moment and windward performance. If draft is not an issue then
there's no point.


...Now to the question. Have any of you done, or know someone who has, an
addition of such a bulb/wing to an *existing* - not shortened - keel?

Yes, a few.


The
benefits I'd see are better holding, and more ballast, as low as possible,
against a minimal overall increase in weight

"More ballast" isn't a benefit except with respect to greater righting moment,
and there are issues there like the strength of the hull & rig, as Matt has
said. The only vehicle that benefits from added weight is a steamroller.

"Better holding" I think you mean increased hydrodynamic efficiency ie less
leeway. Adding a bulb isn't going to do anything for this. Adding a home-brew
wing keel is not likely to help either, it takes very sophisticated design to
produce a wing that doesn't add more drag than increased lift.



I'm more interested in experience stories, if there are any, or engineering
reasons for or against, as opposed to 'I think it would...' information.

The boats Ive seen this done to were all relatively small, from 19 to 28 feet,
and none showed any improved performance IMHO and all suffered from reduced
reserve bouyancy and were slower in light air.

I have seen a few boats have shoal keels with wings put on to reduce draft, one
was a remarkable success in keeping the same sailing performance and losing 2
feet off the bottom of a 7' keel. But it turned out a good bit more expensive
than the owner thought it would be.

BTW I definitely second (or is it third) the suggestion to ask the people at
Mars Metals.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

The Scheel keel was developed back in the '60s but you don't see them as
often anymore. I know pacific Seacraft and a few other builders still
offer a Scheel option. The flaired camber at the botom adds weight down
low which imcreases righting moment for the same amount of draft.
Theoretically it also increases lift but increasing lift down low sounds
counter-productive to me. The outward flair and wide slow convex bottom
also disrupts the formation of the tip vortex to a limited degree.

The advent of bulbs and wings reduced the attractiveness of Scheel
keels. Besides adding more weight down low while maintaining the
thinner camber and shorter cord, bulbs also act as an end plate reducing
the tip vortex better than the Scheel and therefore total drag.

Skip Gundlach wrote:

So, we're looking at boats, and Henry Scheel comes to light. He's patented
a keel that several manufacturers are paying royalties to use, and what I
read suggest that rigorous tank testing holds out the superiority to
straight keels, so, presumably, it must be worth *something*...

However, just a Henry Scheel design does not a Scheel keel include. Too
bad...

For those not familiar, it's got some of the attributes of a wing and some
of a bulb, but primarily greatly increases holding power and reduces vortex
drag over that of a standard keel, particularly beneficial to a shoal draft
need, without the anchor-digging-in attributes of a wing.

So, the boats I'm looking at don't have this keel. I've read of those
cutting off the bottom of a straight keel and adding a bulb, or equivalent,
to achieve a shoal draft with the same equivalent weight. They've done this
perhaps by somehow attaching at the bottom, or, as one site I discovered,
bolting two lead halves to the remaining keel, forming sort of a bulb wing.

Now to the question. Have any of you done, or know someone who has, an
addition of such a bulb/wing to an *existing* - not shortened - keel? The
benefits I'd see are better holding, and more ballast, as low as possible,
against a minimal overall increase in weight (projected is from 30000 to
maybe 32/33000 pounds displacement, with that increase also applying to the
current 8400# ballast, light by my thought).

I'm more interested in experience stories, if there are any, or engineering
reasons for or against, as opposed to 'I think it would...' information.

Thanks.

L8R

Skip (and Lydia)



--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

The Scheel keel was developed back in the '60s but you don't see them as
often anymore. I know pacific Seacraft and a few other builders still
offer a Scheel option. The flaired camber at the botom adds weight down
low which imcreases righting moment for the same amount of draft.
Theoretically it also increases lift but increasing lift down low sounds
counter-productive to me. The outward flair and wide slow convex bottom
also disrupts the formation of the tip vortex to a limited degree.

The advent of bulbs and wings reduced the attractiveness of Scheel
keels. Besides adding more weight down low while maintaining the
thinner camber and shorter cord, bulbs also act as an end plate reducing
the tip vortex better than the Scheel and therefore total drag.

Skip Gundlach wrote:

So, we're looking at boats, and Henry Scheel comes to light. He's patented
a keel that several manufacturers are paying royalties to use, and what I
read suggest that rigorous tank testing holds out the superiority to
straight keels, so, presumably, it must be worth *something*...

However, just a Henry Scheel design does not a Scheel keel include. Too
bad...

For those not familiar, it's got some of the attributes of a wing and some
of a bulb, but primarily greatly increases holding power and reduces vortex
drag over that of a standard keel, particularly beneficial to a shoal draft
need, without the anchor-digging-in attributes of a wing.

So, the boats I'm looking at don't have this keel. I've read of those
cutting off the bottom of a straight keel and adding a bulb, or equivalent,
to achieve a shoal draft with the same equivalent weight. They've done this
perhaps by somehow attaching at the bottom, or, as one site I discovered,
bolting two lead halves to the remaining keel, forming sort of a bulb wing.

Now to the question. Have any of you done, or know someone who has, an
addition of such a bulb/wing to an *existing* - not shortened - keel? The
benefits I'd see are better holding, and more ballast, as low as possible,
against a minimal overall increase in weight (projected is from 30000 to
maybe 32/33000 pounds displacement, with that increase also applying to the
current 8400# ballast, light by my thought).

I'm more interested in experience stories, if there are any, or engineering
reasons for or against, as opposed to 'I think it would...' information.

Thanks.

L8R

Skip (and Lydia)



--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Hi, Doug, and Group,

Addressing your last comment first, Mars, of course, as that's what they do,
is immediately ready to do it, even though the techie there isn't familiar
with the type. So, *I'm* not ready to do it without a great deal more
definitive information.

As to performance, since I'm not afraid of a deeper draft, shoal isn't the
issue. But if a Scheel gives the same performance as a deeper draft, having
a deeper draft to begin with would make the performance that of a
deeper-still draft. That's what I had in mind, and was excited about, but
found that it wasn't so (a designer does not a keel guarantee).

As to the caveats, I hear ya. Righting moment is interesting to me, just
because the ballast seems so small (and the more I research, the less
definitive the answers get, but it seems to be somewhere between 6 and 8.4k
out of 30 displaced, which I consider either minimal or criminal, depending
on the number), and with as big a boat as it is (244 D/L @ 30k), the
addition of a couple thousand pounds shouldn't notably affect performance,
but it might well make it stiffer. If I could add performance (the desired
side effect), that would be great.

However, as I do more research, I'm wary of the ability to add on, other
than FG fabrication (not weight) based on what I'm learning, and if it
doesn't improve the righting moment at the same time, I'm not interested.
Of course, I'm also learning that the information available on these boats
is both extremely sparse (well, call it hard to find, as I've not had much
success at it yet) and contradictory. Without better info, I'm not doing
anything - including buying one (regardless of the urgency impressed upon me
by others, the speculation about mental masturbation rather than boatbuying,
or the catcalls about yet more delay) - yet :{))

L8R

Skip (and Lydia, by proxy)

original left below for context
--
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away
from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover." - Mark Twain
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Skip Gundlach wrote:

So, we're looking at boats, and Henry Scheel comes to light. He's
patented
a keel that several manufacturers are paying royalties to use, and what
I
read suggest that rigorous tank testing holds out the superiority to
straight keels, so, presumably, it must be worth *something*...

The Scheel keel is "superior" in the sense that it allows less draft for
roughly
similar righting moment and windward performance. If draft is not an issue
then
there's no point.


...Now to the question. Have any of you done, or know someone who has,
an
addition of such a bulb/wing to an *existing* - not shortened - keel?

Yes, a few.


The
benefits I'd see are better holding, and more ballast, as low as
possible,
against a minimal overall increase in weight

"More ballast" isn't a benefit except with respect to greater righting
moment,
and there are issues there like the strength of the hull & rig, as Matt
has
said. The only vehicle that benefits from added weight is a steamroller.

"Better holding" I think you mean increased hydrodynamic efficiency ie
less
leeway. Adding a bulb isn't going to do anything for this. Adding a
home-brew
wing keel is not likely to help either, it takes very sophisticated design
to
produce a wing that doesn't add more drag than increased lift.



I'm more interested in experience stories, if there are any, or
engineering
reasons for or against, as opposed to 'I think it would...' information.

The boats Ive seen this done to were all relatively small, from 19 to 28
feet,
and none showed any improved performance IMHO and all suffered from
reduced
reserve bouyancy and were slower in light air.

I have seen a few boats have shoal keels with wings put on to reduce
draft, one
was a remarkable success in keeping the same sailing performance and
losing 2
feet off the bottom of a 7' keel. But it turned out a good bit more
expensive
than the owner thought it would be.

BTW I definitely second (or is it third) the suggestion to ask the people
at
Mars Metals.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King