Click for Westport Click for Mulder Click for Burger Click for Cross Click for Burger

crazy 30m beam stability issue

Discussion in 'Yacht Designers Discussion' started by xamdawson7, Sep 15, 2007.

  1. xamdawson7, Sep 15, 2007
    #1
    xamdawson7

    xamdawson7 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Location:
    Venice
    hi all,

    imagine this:


    • A mono hull boat is 62meters long;

    • it's devided into 2 sections from point 0: stern is at 43m forward, and bow is at 19m aft.

    • at 0 it has a maximum beam of 30m (from strbrd to port), to then reach 0 at stern and bow.

    let's exclude the superstructure.... what stability issues would it encounter (many i am sure), but what exactly? how do you counter them? would you need a deeper draft?

    thanks!
  2. SharkyFHB, Sep 15, 2007
    #2
    SharkyFHB

    SharkyFHB Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    Houston
  3. xamdawson7, Sep 15, 2007
    #3
    xamdawson7

    xamdawson7 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Location:
    Venice
    Well that was the main idea, but what about the smoothness of the ride?

    Would such a large beam for a mono hull cause a lot of oscillations at beam extemities?
  4. KCook, Sep 15, 2007
    #4
    KCook

    KCook Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,160
    Location:
    Phoenix
    I'm haven't studied displacement hull forms much. But for hulls that run higher speeds it's typical practice to have the maximum beam back in the rear half of the hull. Your setup sounds like it's counter to that? Intuition tells me putting the maximum beam near the bow will result in an odd, or uncomfortable, motion in a seaway. But that is only intuition speaking, nothing more.

    Whole different speed realm! But hydroplane race boats do have their sponsons in front. So max beam is forward. They get away with that, but the dynamics are very different for their speeds and water conditions.

    Kelly Cook
  5. CODOG, Sep 15, 2007
    #5
    CODOG

    CODOG Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    Bournemouth, southern England
    Are we talking the right way round here ? Bow aft, stern fwd etc ?. What you are describing is an egg shape in plan view. It would help us to help you by understanding which way the craft would actually be travelling:) Also, is this beam at waterline ? I for one am intrigued by such a vessel.
  6. xamdawson7, Sep 17, 2007
    #6
    xamdawson7

    xamdawson7 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Location:
    Venice
    :)

    yes, Bow aft, stern fwd. the vessel therfore will move with the maximum beam closer to the aft side. it is easier if you plot it on a napkin.

    The hull is basically 2 triangles put together, joining opposite to each other.
    So one triangle facing west with hight 19 and base 30. The other triangle facing east with hight 43 and base 30. Both starting at the same point.

    whether it remains pointy is up to you. the idea is a little more complex, then the diamond shape described. But the diamond shape will do for now.

    the shape is only in plane view. once you reach the waterline you can do whatever you want with it, to get it as hydrodynamically stable and fuel efficient as possible, while still keeping it in perfect equilibrium for the beam extremities.
  7. KCook, Sep 17, 2007
    #7
    KCook

    KCook Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,160
    Location:
    Phoenix
    That pretty well throws the door open. For example, US aircraft carriers have flight decks with a very different plan shape from their waterline shape.

    Kelly
  8. CODOG, Sep 18, 2007
    #8
    CODOG

    CODOG Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    Bournemouth, southern England
    :) My brain hurts
  9. AMG, Sep 18, 2007
    #9
    AMG

    AMG YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    5,378
    Location:
    Sweden
    And I avoided to take it in...:D
  10. xamdawson7, Sep 18, 2007
    #10
    xamdawson7

    xamdawson7 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Location:
    Venice
    :) I'm glad to hear that!

    If you knew the particulars of it all it would be a continuos head rush!
    I thank and appreciate all your helpful comments and suggestions.
  11. CODOG, Sep 19, 2007
    #11
    CODOG

    CODOG Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    Bournemouth, southern England
    Well, I thought about it, and although I'm still bemused about a craft that is designed to move in reverse, I can get my head around your kite / egg shaped 2:1 length / beam ratio'ed deck plan on a monohull....if you can allow out-riggers.
    I can imagine a fairly conventional displacement hull capped with your kite shaped deck, but with the outer points of the kite folded down into the water to form the outriggers. Think paper plane with the wing tips folded downward. The upper hull topsides would be heavily rolled over outwards to blend into the underside of the 'kite', and the outer tips (now outriggers) would be similarly blended and shaped to provide bouyancy during lateral roll. Its arguable that a narrower (say 6:1 length / beam ratio) main hull can support your undescribed superstructure on its own, but the outriggers would assist stability in heavy seas with minimal drag.
    I still think it would go better with the bow (pointy bit) fwd though:)
  12. KCook, Sep 19, 2007
    #12
    KCook

    KCook Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,160
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Err .... CODOG .... didn't you just describe a trimaran? :D
  13. CODOG, Sep 20, 2007
    #13
    CODOG

    CODOG Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    Bournemouth, southern England
    :D If hes allowed the bow at the stern and the stern at the bow, surely I'm allowed a three pointed monohull ?
  14. xamdawson7, Sep 20, 2007
    #14
    xamdawson7

    xamdawson7 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Location:
    Venice
    i always meant .... bow, fwd ... stern, aft..... (i'm such an idiot, i got caught in the moment)

    i am so so, so, so sorry... must have been a brain fart, when i wrote the opposite!

    ps: so that means your not allowed a trimaran any more ;)
  15. KCook, Sep 20, 2007
    #15
    KCook

    KCook Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,160
    Location:
    Phoenix
    You mean Wally hasn't already patented the three pointed monohull? :D