ranger58sb
Guru
PS.... Most pilot boardings are done with the ship anchored or at least hove to.
Not around here... full speed ahead, near as I can tell.
-Chris
PS.... Most pilot boardings are done with the ship anchored or at least hove to.
I believe the original poster was asking about ocean or blue water experience.....ICW not so much. BTW its Kadey Krogen. Until youve been hundreds of miles offshore, its hard to describe it to others. The sheer size and weight of the water affxts both hulls very differently. We are not talking about a steep chop or boat wake on the ICW
Planing, Full Planing, Semi-Planing, Semi-Displacement. All nomenclature. They are all hybrids. Every hull design has it's own differences.
Agreed. But nobody answered the question. If you are designing a boat that will plane and is powered to plane, why would you make it more of a semi boat instead of a planing boat? Grand Banks went away from the Semi planing boat to a modified V....around 10 years ago? I imagined for the reasons I am getting at....likely efficiency since people want to go fast. I think even Mainship went with a Modified V on a few of their "trawlers" before they went Tango Uniform. Nordic and American Tug are semi boats powered to plane. Why would they not go the route of GB and (maybe) MS????
"
The people that want to go fast need smooth water to do it.
The ride on a boat at speed brakes people before it brakes the boat.
If you are designing a boat that will plane and is powered to plane, why would you make it more of a semi boat instead of a planing boat?
I thought I had answered. Interior volume is the answer, the trade off being speed. Secondarily, slightly more efficiency at hull speed and below. So on something like my Hatteras, or the original Flemings (which have an almost identical hull form, having seen both out of the water within 100 yards of each other) 14-16 knots planing cruise speed instead of say 20-25, and typically smaller engines HP wise.
I have an Ocean Alexander semi displacement hull with stabilizers. I can tell you that the stabilizers work great and the ride is as comparable or better than that of a full displacement hull with stabilizers.
I have just completed a trip both down the ICW with a full displacement Katie krogan and return with my ocean Alexander, and the ride on my ocean Alexander is every bit as good.
Gordon
I pondered that exact thought when I went shopping for a late model OA 42 Sedan. (SD hull) My old OA 42 Sedan had a modified V hull and was faster than the SD. It didn't carry the weight that the SD carries and was a pig at trawler speeds. The SD hull on the newer OA boats (42s) are a wonderful compromise of having a boat that will cruise at 8-18 knots.Why would you choose to design a semi planing hull that you intend to do planing speeds and take the efficiency hit???...instead of designing a planing hull???
a semi planing hull is weight sensitive, as you are using power to get out of the water, therefore a full fuel load becomes self defeating.
And that is not the case with any hull with respect to adding power? I have not noticed any "weight sensitivity" on my SD hull. It carries significantly more weight than than the original Modified V and after climbing the wave (adding more power as you say) you can back off the power and ride the wave! I'm not saying that the SD hull compares "efficiency wise" with the FD. I am saying that the advent of the SD hull was a big plus in designing a boat that can do a multitude of missions. Not just low speed blue water cruising.Not much to ad, other than a semi planing hull is weight sensitive, as you are using power to get out of the water, therefore a full fuel load becomes self defeating.
PS.... Most pilot boardings are done with the ship anchored or at least hove to.
Don't forget stabilization. Most true blue water cruisers have some form of stabilization that don't work well or are inefficient on a semi displacement boat.
We're not talking about the "ride" or comfort in the yachting world. We're talking about seakeeping abilities in the ocean far offshore in 10 to 20' seas and worse. You can putz around in the ICW or a few miles offshore in benign conditions and have your yachty ride (like you're house) but that says nothing about serious ocean travel in stroms and such in the ocean.
For smaller boats (not ships) the FD hull is best. You can row an aluminum planing skiff if you pay attention to your heading but a FD whitehall row boat is far supperior. If it becomes really rough the skiff becomes unsafe and the propper rowboat remains under control. Same w ideal offshore travel in boats and for many of the same reasons. Directional control is probably the biggest reason most of the time. The FD boat is better at going where it's pointed and in really big water there's nothing better than being able to control your boat.
Gordon,
Narrower FD boats respond better to paravane stabilizers.
Have you read my post #49 ?
Perhaps it's flawed.
If so how so?
This short video of the OA 42's hull is quite revealing. The best look at the running hull is at the 1:45 mark of the video.]
I don't buy it. I have seen G I G A N T I C planing boats with tremendous beam and interior space. Your boat is a perfect example. Your boat does not lack interior volume and it is not a semi planing hull. Ask Hargrave or whoever designed it. I would think it to be modified V.... Yes I know it is not cut and dry but Hatt has never been known for their semi hulls. In fact Your boat goes slower(15kts) simply due to a lack of power....not hull form. If your boat had 1500hp per side it would be perfectly happy cruising in the 20s. If you overpower a semi planing hull it will start to bow steer....IOW, all of the lift is in the aft part of the hull and the forward part has very little lift. This was an issue on the Mainship Pilot 2s with the 6 cylinder Yanmar...allegedly.
Dos'nt make it seaworthy.
Gordon,
You probably would'nt like my Willard. The only stabilizer I have is the substantial keel. But I would hate to think of the roll w/o the keel.