Gyroscopic Stabilization on trawler

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Steve,

If I misrepresented you in a quote earlier, then my bad.

I was referring to your post in the following thread, post #42. I figured you were referring to trawlers. You appeared to have a good review of SeaKeepers in this post, which is why I referenced you.

https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s60/magnus-stabilizer-st-52-a-49092-3.html

I can tell you that Our boat is 20 tons and the SeaKeeper works well, but I can see how this may not be the case for larger vessels.

Anyway, that’s it for me on the subject…tapping out.
 
Last edited:
OK....bearing in mind that there are no stupid questions.....couldn't a stabilizer jeopardize safety by getting the gunnels closer to the water as show below. ( feel free to contact me for freelance graphic arts work :lol:)
 

Attachments

  • stabilized.jpg
    stabilized.jpg
    8.7 KB · Views: 25
Gyros have a limit beyond which they don’t continue to effect attitude of the vessel in respect to the true horizon. This can occur in two settings.

No righting force is developed with a sustained list. They respond to perturbations but not to a sustained distortion of heel. So the greater risk than what your diagram shows is a gyro stabilized vessel is severely heeled as it slides down a wave front. There will be no righting force once the heeling force is sustained and unchanging. Then another wave coming from the same direction strikes the vessel so it’s at risk of turning turtle.

Remember neither fins, fish, gyros nor Magnus have any ultimate effect on AVS. But unlike the others gyros cease to have an effect when their limit of precession is reached. The others will continue to have some effect as long as they are in the water and the boat is moving forward. In practice unless you make it a habit to be in survival conditions for most of us this isn’t a major issue.

Counterintuitively the data from sailboats in survival conditions suggests dagger and centerboarders with high AVS with appendages withdrawn do best. They don’t resist perturbations but rather slide down wave faces oriented parallel to water surface. The benefit isn’t decreased risk of down flooding but rather safe dissipation of the force of the wave. High aspect bulbed fins next and full keeled boats last. Most FD power craft most closely resembles the last.

Storm,[13]
whole gale 48–55 knots 29–41 ft Very high waves with long overhanging crests; resulting foam in great patches is blown in dense white streaks along the direction of the wind; on the whole the surface of the sea takes on a white appearance; rolling of the sea becomes heavy; visibility affected Seldom experienced inland; trees uprooted; considerable structural damage. Beaufort scale 10.jpg Storm warning.svg
55–63 mph
89–102 km/h 9–12.5 m
24.5–28.4 m/s

This is the Beaufort definition of force 10 storm. The diagram suggests concern in such a setting. Believe in such a setting the type of stabilization you have is irrelevant. Other than AVS, capsize quotient, the Gz curve and like characteristics as well as storm technique preparations/execution, and down flooding risk not much else matters.
 
Last edited:
Counterintuitively the data from sailboats in survival conditions suggests dagger and centerboarders with high AVS with appendages withdrawn do best. They don’t resist perturbations but rather slide down wave faces oriented parallel to water surface. The benefit isn’t decreased risk of down flooding but rather safe dissipation of the force of the wave. High aspect bulbed fins next and full keeled boats last. Most FD power craft most closely resembles the last.


Most SD and planing boats are closer to a full keeled sailboat than any other as well. By the nature of hard chines and either a deep V or a long keel, they don't want to slide sideways.
 
Steve,

If I misrepresented you in a quote earlier, then my bad.

I was referring to your post in the following thread, post #42. I figured you were referring to trawlers. You appeared to have a good review of SeaKeepers in this post, which is why I referenced you.

https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s60/magnus-stabilizer-st-52-a-49092-3.html

I can tell you that Our boat is 20 tons and the SeaKeeper works well, but I can see how this may not be the case for larger vessels.

Anyway, that’s it for me on the subject…tapping out.

I stand by everything I said in that previous post, and the more recent one, re. gyros, and Seakeeper in particular. None of the examples I gave were for trawlers, both were GB 60s.

I've been following and writing about SK since my visit to their "secret" R&D facility in Solomons MD long ago, it's a legitimate product that does work well when used in the right application, which I believe is planing vessels.

Photos of that facility, now long gone, are included in this article...

https://stevedmarineconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Seakeeper113_06.pdf
 
Counterintuitively the data from sailboats in survival conditions suggests dagger and centerboarders with high AVS with appendages withdrawn do best. They don’t resist perturbations but rather slide down wave faces oriented parallel to water surface. The benefit isn’t decreased risk of down flooding but rather safe dissipation of the force of the wave. High aspect bulbed fins next and full keeled boats last. Most FD power craft most closely resembles the last.

I don't think the best data shows that. Rollovers (mostly in sailboats as there are not many motorboats out in those conditions) are a dynamic event caused by the physics of the breaking wave. In wave tank rollover studies done at Southhampton, there was very little difference in rollover resistance demonstrated regardless of displacement, beam, draft, underbody design, or even AVS. The only significant factor was length, and to some extent roll moment of inertia. A particular size wave imparts a certain roll impulse to the hull. It's ability to resist is its roll inertia. This is why sailboats are more likely to be rolled a second time, after the mast is gone from the first. And also why larger boats are better since roll inertia goes up approximately proportional to LOA^5. In the tank tests, any hull regardless of design could be rolled by waves only about 1/3 of the LOA.

Boats with a high AVS are more likely to survive mainly because they right themselves much quicker. A high AVS may also be a proxy for high roll inertia in some designs. The problem most trawlers will have is a low AVS, combined with very low resistance to downflooding, means they are unlikely to recover from a capsize. Trawlers also likely have a lower roll inertia than a similar sized sailboat, with no rig or ballast keel.

There have been incidents reported of fins, waves, and vulnerable hull penetrations (usually engine vents) causing flooding just as the cartoon depicted above suggests. There might be some logic to the argument that fins could improve rollover resistance since the boat would start the sequence rolled into the wave face, and thus require more roll impulse to go over the other way. I have not seen any tests of that theory. No roll control devices affect AVS.
 
Very interesting reading but i am not sure what AVS is?
 
Angle of Vanishing Stability?
 
A little off topic but you guys seem smart about stability. If a boat rolls over does it have a natural tendency to right itself or are they happy to be upside down. I am thinking of the movie.
 
The Gz curve shows you the information to answer your question. The smaller the area under null the better. So multis may have wonderful form stability with huge righting arms but once inverted will stay that way. Hence, the presence of escape hatches that will be above the new waterline when inverted.
There’s no question as regards survivability size matters and loa is a gross measure of same. Still, unlike tank testing or computer analysis in the real world what I posted appears validated over and over. Read the experience recorded in the various storms involving races or rallies. LWL is perhaps a valid guage of resistance to pitchpoling but not rolling. As you said need to look at the total boat not just one feature.
The sailboats raced now in the Southern Ocean are of novel design and not comparable to recreational power craft. The pizza pie shape and form of the canoe body means at any degree heel the smallest amount of wetted surface is immersed. Hydrodynamics allow the vessels to exceed the speed of the wave train but also slide if at a diagonal or parallel to the train. Although these design elements can be executed in a CF race boat with favorable D/L they aren’t effective in a cruising boat given all the stuff we want as infill.
For power in my view a novel approach is being revisited. The pencil boat. Light long with low frontal area and good diagonals. Here LOA doesn’t improve stability but rather having all dense weight (machinery etc.) below the dynamic waterline and favorable A/B leads to a good AVS. Anyone who’s served on a naval destroyer can comment on how seaworthy but miserable this type of vessel can be if area above the lwl is high. Dashew’s explanation of how to use this type in adverse conditions is fascinating. Unfortunately in order to achieve a decent amount of living space and payload there’s a lower limit to the size that works for cruising. This is basically the same hull shape of modern trans oceanic racing rowboats. It not seaworthiness but rather payload that’s the more relevant obstacle as regards size imho. Had occasion to watch the trans Atlantic rowers come into English Harbor. A Dashew 64 was anchored in Falmouth. Seeing both in one day made it obvious
 
Last edited:
A little off topic but you guys seem smart about stability. If a boat rolls over does it have a natural tendency to right itself or are they happy to be upside down. I am thinking of the movie.

Thanks @Hippo. To put it non-technically, unless that boat is completely self-righting (180 degree AVS), it will be happy to sit there upside down. However, any wave conditions strong enough to capsize the boat will obviously work in your favor to right the boat back up.

This is assuming windows/portholes/hatches all remain intact with no massive downflooding from engine room vents either.

BTW, you'll likely have a hell of a headache if this happens!

On a related note... if a boat with a gyro spinning away happens to capsize, what does that mean for the vessel trying to right itself when the next heavy wave comes by? There would be a resistance to roll created by that gyro.
 
Mine has a lock. When locked it still spins but doesn’t move. Need to review manual but think it locks automatically in such conditions.

Although been on sailboats that have been knocked down without damage except a few broken jars doubt my current NT would survive. Issue of capsize isn’t relevant. In fact the manufacturer makes much she would do fine and survive without down flooding or damage at 45 degrees and how this exceeds the performance of other like craft. My last two sailboats had AVS of 130 and 120.

Still, the thinking is different. Although sail has given up on hoving to, scudding under bare poles and sea anchors moving on to JSD or similar; power has a trick up its sleeve sail can’t use unless it has a very large axillary. Power can face a wave train directly. With judicious use of throttle control it’s speed through the water while going up and down a wave face. Sailboats rarely have the ability to do that.
 
Last edited:
Still, the thinking is different. Although sail has given up on hoving to, scudding under bare poles and sea anchors moving on to JSD or similar; power has a trick up its sleeve sail can’t use unless it has a very large axillary. Power can face a wave train directly. With judicious use of throttle control it’s speed through the water while going up and down a wave face. Sailboats rarely have the ability to do that.


SD or planing powerboats have another trick up their sleeves as well, provided sufficient fuel is available to do it for long enough. You can run downwind, but increase speed to match the speed of the waves. Takes a little work to keep the speed right, but makes for a very comfy ride until conditions improve (or you arrive somewhere reasonable that happens to be downwind).
 
Excellent point. Have already made use of that technique and was surprised how effective it is. However most SD trawlers look quite vulnerable to a decent pooping. Too much glass and entrance way not built for it. Like most SD trawlers the pilot house glass and doors seem more stout. Figure to:
Not get caught out
If caught in a brief t storm or line squall face it.
If caught in progressively deteriorating weather run for a safe harbor.

Boats a solid B but B isn’t A. Still hold for a B boat gyros are a good option. Agree with the Canadian government fish are potentially risky for a voyaging boat. Wish I had more knowledge about Magnus in the real world but don’t so fins make best sense for a A boat.
 
Excellent point. Have already made use of that technique and was surprised how effective it is. However most SD trawlers look quite vulnerable to a decent pooping. Too much glass and entrance way not built for it. Like most SD trawlers the pilot house glass and doors seem more stout. Figure to:
Not get caught out
If caught in a brief t storm or line squall face it.
If caught in progressively deteriorating weather run for a safe harbor.

Boats a solid B but B isn’t A. Still hold for a B boat gyros are a good option. Agree with the Canadian government fish are potentially risky for a voyaging boat. Wish I had more knowledge about Magnus in the real world but don’t so fins make best sense for a A boat.


Pooping is a risk depending on the design of the boat. But if you're running as fast as the seas (or faster), pooping is not a big risk, particularly if you still have more speed available to accelerate if needed. Basically, in that situation, you power your way out of the situation rather than relying on the boat to survive it.
 
There’s no question as regards survivability size matters and loa is a gross measure of same. Still, unlike tank testing or computer analysis in the real world what I posted appears validated over and over. Read the experience recorded in the various storms involving races or rallies. LWL is perhaps a valid guage of resistance to pitchpoling but not rolling. As you said need to look at the total boat not just one feature.

Still don't agree with that. There are numerous surveys and studies of actual capsizes, and by FAR the most significant factor is LOA. It is very difficult to assess the sea state after the fact in these studies, but even in races with high participation and several capsizes, again the main determining factor is LOA. The physics says that dynamic resistance to roll goes up at a high power of LOA. So a 45' boat has approximately 3.5x the roll moment of inertia and can withstand 3.5x the roll impulse compared to a 35' boat. Wave induces capsizes are not a hydrostatic event, they are a dynamic acceleration event. There is a reason that most offshore racing rules require higher AVS with reduced LOA.

"Tripping" over a deep keel seems to be not much of a factor as the boat isn't moving sideways relative to the local wave face. In any case, it can happen only if the boat is abeam to the waves, this used to be practiced as a storm tactic (called "lying ahull") but is now considered poor practice as it presents the least stability to the sea. You might aslo get abeam following a broach, which has a separate set of dynamics.

Open 60 racing boats and the classes that followed (these are specifically designed for operation in the Southern Ocean) have requirements for AVS, but also must demonstrate the ability to right from a full capsize with the crew trapped inside. The boat is rolled over in the water to full inversion and the crew inside must right it with a time limit.

Almost every normally proportioned boat will remain upside down if capsized, until some force - perhaps another large wave - rights it again. Boats with a high AVS, and particularly with a very asymmetric Gz curve may still capsize, but there is great likelihood that the same sea state which capsized it will fairly quickly right it again. Of course this only occurs if it doesn't sink first. Most motorboats have numerous large hull penetrations and large vulnerable windows, and will sink very quickly even if knocked down to 90 deg.

Here is an example of a stability or Gz curve (it is my own sailboat). The AVS is about 130 deg. The area under the curve between 0 and 130 deg of heel represents the energy required to reach the neutral stability point - the point at which it is as likely to capsize as right itself. The area under the curve between 130 and 180 represents the energy required to reach the neutral point from at rest upside down in order to right. In this case about 6x the energy is required to roll over compared to righting. On a typical trawler hull, the curve would be much more symmetric, and the ratio of areas much closer to 1.

xkvCWSm.jpg
 
You’re right and wrong. As with so many boat things looking at just one parameter can be most misleading. With out a doubt if two boats have the same AVS, gyradius, Gz curve etc. the larger will be more seaworthy. However size alone doesn’t solely predict seaworthiness.
 
However size alone doesn’t solely predict seaworthiness.
Well of course not!

But it is the largest factor by more than a little bit. To quote the conclusions from Claughton's study way back:
...although discernable trends in resistance to capsize have been determined, no form or ballasting combination consistently resisted capsize....
This suggests that alterations in form which improve capsize may be rendered ineffective by a relatively small increase in breaking wave height...

Safety inquests after maritime disasters such as the Fastnet or Hobart races all contain graphs of knockdown/capsize vs. LOA. The many other factors were studied and are noise by comparison. Once capsized or knocked down, then form, ballast, and other factors play a large role in righting and ultimate survival.

As has been mentioned in the thread, a motorboat can 'jog' into the sea or plane ahead of them, both very effective strategies. Capsize risk is much higher when beam to the seas, either intentionally or as a result of a broach or perhaps a mechanical breakdown. That's when you might find yourself wishing you had a parachute sea anchor or series drogue on board.
 
As has been mentioned in the thread, a motorboat can 'jog' into the sea or plane ahead of them, both very effective strategies. Capsize risk is much higher when beam to the seas, either intentionally or as a result of a broach or perhaps a mechanical breakdown. That's when you might find yourself wishing you had a parachute sea anchor or series drogue on board.

Right. As long as you've got power there are usually options that will keep you out of trouble. My major concern would be broaching as a result of drifting due to loss of power or steering.

Interesting discussion.
 
Still, the opposite holds as well. If you have a large unstable hull you have a large unstable hull. There’s that vid of a new build splashing for the first time and promptly turning turtle. Thing was huge but inverted in the absence of any waves.
I have a habit of walking docks and driving through yards just to look at boats. Drives the admiral nuts. Rule is she gets a antique shop in exchange. Between that, reading NAs , chatting up the yard workers and crew or owners to get back stories don’t see size as the major determinant you seem to hold to.
Sure all people are created equal but there’s a large variance in survivability depending their intrinsic biology. Same with boats. Tell me honestly in survival conditions which you you rather be on. A 28’ BCC or a 60’ SeaRay? Clearly it’s not just size that matters.
Yes, there’s fairly firm size requirements for certain types of hulls. At one point looked seriously at building a cat for our “last boat “. Really liked the Rapido and Outremer. Ended up with the Outbound a mono. However that investigation lead me to believe given ocean wave dynamics you can’t build a cat or tri under ~45’ lwl to serve as a safe voyaging boat. Still, the logic of the long thin light hull holds regardless of size. Works for ocean rowboats or the current crop of Al power cruisers. So believe you’re right size matters. But also believe size is particularly important for the recreational hull you associate with ocean cruising. In that hull form due to the physics, risks of being overwhelmed and down flooding costs rise as a multiple. There’s a good reason A rated boats cost so much more. There’s huge compromises leaving that hull form as regards usable living space and payload as well as increased berthing expenses. So the heavy full displacement hull makes great sense for the cruiser. But it isn’t the only way to skin the cat.
 
Last edited:
Sure all people are created equal but there’s a large variance in survivability depending their intrinsic biology. Same with boats. Tell me honestly in survival conditions which you you rather be on. A 28’ BCC or a 60’ SeaRay? Clearly it’s not just size that matters.


I'd likely prefer the BCC, but that's keeping in mind that survival conditions for the 2 boats will be significantly different. 20 foot seas in the Sea Ray would be the stuff of nightmares with limited sea room, but given the fuel and crew endurance to run downwind at speed for a while, conditions like that would be a lot more pleasant on the Sea Ray, even more so if you've got the guts and speed to do some surfing (and the seas aren't too steep to make running over the tops unreasonable).
 
You guys were talking about resistance to knockdown/capsize (bigger LOA is strongest positive correlation), that was answered with survivability of a knockdown (sealed lifeboat wins) and avoiding the knockdown-causing wave (power boat manuevering). Fun reading despite the fact that the goal posts keep moving. Please carry on.
 
Tell me honestly in survival conditions which you you rather be on. A 28’ BCC or a 60’ SeaRay? Clearly it’s not just size that matters.

Obviously the BCC. But you are comparing apples and oranges there.

Instead compare two production trawlers, with similar AVS, down flooding angles, D/L ratios, watertight integrity. One is 35' one is 45'. I'd much rather be in the 45' in bad conditions, regardless of any reasonable variation of underbody, keel, etc., as it will be much more resistant to capsize in a given seaway. Now take the 45'er, lower the AVS, punch some big holes near the waterline for engine vents and you've made a good boat dangerous. Nothing to do with underbody design though.

If the conditions are survival conditions, I'd much rather be in a well found 25' sailboat than either trawler, as it will be self righting and much more watertight - but again that is apples and oranges.
 
Totally agree DDW. Exactly the point. Size alone isn’t the determinant.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom