For my Naiad's, the install is such that at under 4 knots or if either engine is in reverse then the stabilizers are centred (off). It is possible to bypass these features if for some reason you wanted to. And yes, it is very rare for me to not have them on, even in the river where ferry wakes would otherwise be annoying.
Even if a vessel has a lot of initial stability, like the Great Harbor boats, the idea that they would not be improved with stabilization can't be correct.
Delfin, I'm just not sure just where these stabilizers would be mounted on a GH hull. Sticking straight down from the bottom and doubling the draft? Or sticking straight out on the hull sides like curb feelers - adding 6 or 8 feet to the overall width of the boat? Tell you what: Eventually Lou will stumble across this thread. As a Webb Institute trained Naval Architect and an MIT grad - and the designer of the GH hull - his opinion should carry some weight.
__________________
"Before you criticize someone, you should first walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes." Stephen Wright.
Delfin, I'm just not sure just where these stabilizers would be mounted on a GH hull. Sticking straight down from the bottom and doubling the draft? Or sticking straight out on the hull sides like curb feelers - adding 6 or 8 feet to the overall width of the boat? Tell you what: Eventually Lou will stumble across this thread. As a Webb Institute trained Naval Architect and an MIT grad - and the designer of the GH hull - his opinion should carry some weight.
I'm basing my observation on the simple fact that the ocean is not flat, at least not all the time. An unstabilized vessel, even if it never varies except in inclination to the seas, will nevertheless incline along with those seas. That is not the case if the vessel is stabilized. If it is, the gyro senses the inclination and largely corrects it. This doesn't require a degree in naval architecture to understand - just a passing understanding of sea states in the ocean.
The GH may not be able to use stablizers if it has a flat bottom without some significant modifications. The slower the vessel, the more the fins have to be as horizontal as possible to be effective. That doesn't suggest that the boat wouldn't be more stable if they were installed, but it does suggest the cost would be prohibitive and if you want the kind of lack of roll you get with a stabilized vessel then perhaps a GH isn't your first choice.
__________________
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handey
...if you want the kind of lack of roll you get with a stabilized vessel then perhaps a GH isn't your first choice.
Wow. What an argumentative statement. Tell me, have you ever been in a seaway aboard a NOT flat-bottomed Great Harbour? Or are you just guessing based on your "passing understanding of sea states"?
__________________
"Before you criticize someone, you should first walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes." Stephen Wright.
Delfin, I'm just not sure just where these stabilizers would be mounted on a GH hull. Sticking straight down from the bottom and doubling the draft? Or sticking straight out on the hull sides like curb feelers - adding 6 or 8 feet to the overall width of the boat?
The KK Manatee hull is quite similar in its acceptance of fin stabilizers. On the only application I know of, they do come out of the water. It's well known that the Manatee hull has better "initial" resistance to roll than say, a 42, but beyond a certain sea state, it is known to roll more.
There's a plethora of reasons why my first choice of boats would be a GH, but behaving like a true, stabilized vessel wouldn't be one of them. I think Codega came up with a combo that behaves like the hull it was inspired by....a design that resists roll.
The KK Manatee hull is quite similar in its acceptance of fin stabilizers. On the only application I know of, they do come out of the water. It's well known that the Manatee hull has better "initial" resistance to roll than say, a 42, but beyond a certain sea state, it is known to roll more.
There's a plethora of reasons why my first choice of boats would be a GH, but behaving like a true, stabilized vessel wouldn't be one of them. I think Codega came up with a combo that behaves like the hull it was inspired by....a design that resists roll.
There are lots of nice features of either a Manatee or a GH, but you are quite correct. Whatever those advantages are, they don't include a suspension of the laws of physics and those vessels will roll along with the seas, although certainly less than a round or fuller hull would, but also certainly more than a stabilized hull of whatever form. Having spent enough time in the open ocean on the West Coast of Vancouver Island on Delfin without having my wife's Sonicare toothbrush tip over when standing on end in the head I think I understand the function and effectiveness of active fins.
__________________
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handey
Wow. What an argumentative statement. Tell me, have you ever been in a seaway aboard a NOT flat-bottomed Great Harbour? Or are you just guessing based on your "passing understanding of sea states"?
Go pick a fight with someone who cares. That wouldn't be me, by the way.
__________________
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handey
Greetings,
Mr. MYT. "...real tough to control..." Tell me about it. I constantly forget to turn the damn things off or center them. GREATLY increases the "pucker" factor.
Not trying to pick a fight, just giving my opinion, based on about 10,000 nm aboard unstabilized GH's in all kinds of conditions.
__________________
"Before you criticize someone, you should first walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes." Stephen Wright.
Eric-you posed my question-Where would stabilizers be installed on the GH hull? My understanding in that they should be somewhere around 30-35 degrees below horizontal to be most effective. I see no way tht could be done on the GH hull. that makes it a moot point as to whether the boat would perform better or not.
__________________
"Before you criticize someone, you should first walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes." Stephen Wright.
Read it. At the risk of over simplifying, it's a barge-like hull form, so highly motivated to follow the water surface rather than oscillate. It's very much like a planing hull vs a round bottom displacement hull. The planing hull wants to snap to the water surface where the round hull will more easily roll. The GH's barge-like hull form just takes the "roll resistant" characteristics of a planing hull one step further.
Because of these differences, planing hulls require more work by the fins to stabilize them. The round hull is arguably more in need of stabilization, and is correspondingly easier to stabilize. But I can attest first hand to the huge difference fins make on a planing hull (my 47' Grand Banks). I can see how stabilizing a GH would be that much harder. Add to that a hull form which provides no suitable location for fin installation, and you arrive where we are....and if something can't be stabilized, it makes sense to declare stabilization unnecessary.
Not sure where you made the jump from the GH workboat-style hull to a "barge-type" hull - which are typically flat bottomed with a flat prow. And, wouldn't you agree that when you say that "something can't be stabilized", what you really mean is "when additional stabilization can't be added"?
__________________
"Before you criticize someone, you should first walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes." Stephen Wright.
Not trying to pick a fight, just giving my opinion, based on about 10,000 nm aboard unstabilized GH's in all kinds of conditions.
And in those 10,000 nm, in a beam sea with 12 foot waves, when one passed under the GH did it roll with the waves, or remain perpendicular to the horizon in defiance of the laws of gravity?
__________________
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handey
To use Lou Codega's words: It "platforms" the waves in conditions like that - in accordance with the laws of physics.
__________________
"Before you criticize someone, you should first walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes." Stephen Wright.
Add to that a hull form which provides no suitable location for fin installation, and you arrive where we are....and if something can't be stabilized, it makes sense to declare stabilization unnecessary.
Seems a bit like declaring that hauling 40 tons of rocks is unnecessary because your truck will only hold 10 tons.
__________________
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handey