The Design and Model Testing of Rhumb Runner

an Ultra Light Displacement Sailing Yacht to

Conform to the Transpac 52 Box Rule





Terminal Flow Design Group:

Christopher A Amory

David E. Elwood

Benjamin J. Van Dam

June 3, 2005

Design Summary: Rhumb Runner
The Design and Model Testing of Rhumb Runner: an Ultra Light
Displacement Yacht to conform to the Transpac 52 Box Rule
Terminal Flow Design Group (TFDG)
recently completed the design of
Rhumb Runner, a grand prix yacht
designed to conform to the Transpac 52
(TP52) Box Rule. The TP52 class has
expanded greatly over the past few
years, with 27 boats either in the water
or being built for delivery later this sum-
mer. The TP52 is a high performance
yacht that is designed to be fun to sail
both inshore and offshore, fast in a
number of conditions, yet safe and easy
to manage without a large number of
crew.
Rhumb Runner was designed for a com-
petitive owner (hypothetical) familiar
with the grand prix offshore racing cir-
cuit who wanted to join the TP52 class
and be able to race boat-for-boat and
not deal with the complications of a
handicap system. The owner con-
tacted TFDG with an initial request to
perform a series of model tests to
determine the performance differences
between a pure downwind sled and a
more typical hull form designed to per-
form well both upwind and downwind.
These tests were performed to deter-
mine the performance gains and losses
that would be associated with designing
the hull either to perform offshore in the
primarily off-wind condition as com-
pared to the buoy racing condition in
which the boat would be required to sail
both upwind as well as downwind.
A two boat model test program was
completed at the University of Michigan
Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory, with
the results that in the off wind condi-
tion, the downwind sled would outper-
form the all around boat, but upwind
the all around boat had a noticeable
performance gain over the sled. The
TP52 class spends about 70% of their
time racing short course inshore buoy
races and the remaining 30% of the
time racing long distance offshore
races, which led the owner to request
that the all-around hull form be used to
complete the design of Rhumb Runner.
In addition to the hull design, the
owner requested that two keels be
developed, with one for buoy racing and
another for offshore distance racing. A
single rudder has been developed to
work with both keels but can easily be
interchanged for another rudder if con-
trol problems arise during boat testing.
Testing the all-around hull at 25 knots.
TFDG worked extensively with the
owner to design a deck layout that took
into account his personal taste while also
creating the most efficient deck layout
possible to allow the boat to operate at
full potential at all times. The deck lay-
out was designed to reduce the amount
of time a crewmember would be waiting
for an open winch or waiting for other
crew members to get out of their way,
which was accomplished by isolating the
different areas on the boat, namely using
only the cabin-top winches for halyards
and other lines run from the mast, and
placing both primaries and secondaires in
the cockpit for use with the jib sheets,
spinnaker sheets, and spinnaker braces.
The primaries are run off a pedestal
located on centerline in the forward sec-
tion of the cockpit, while the single main-
sheet winch, also on centerline, is pow-
ered by a second pedestal located in front
of the mainsheet winch. The secondaries
are powered by top handles as these will
be used for the spinnaker braces and
changing headsails during distance races
and will therefore not require the high
speed benefits of a pedestal.
Dual helm stations were incorporated into
the design to allow the driver to always
be on the high side; adjustable tables
were also positioned behind each helm
station to allow the driver to always be
standing on a horizontal surface to
reduce fatigue and increase the line of
sight forward.
Rhumb Runner also is one of the first
TP52s to use transverse jib cars instead
of longitudinal jib cars. Transverse jib
cars are usually only seen on much larg-
er maxis but TFDG and the owner
decided that the ability to completely
control the shape of the jib is very impor-
tant and therefore the transverse cars
should be used to help the boat reach its
maximum speed potential.
The foredeck is very open to prevent lines
from catching on anything and the spin-
naker pole is held in chocks located on
the starboard side for easy port mark
roundings. The pole is located off center-
line to allow the forward hatch to be eas-
ily opened without having to move the
pole which simplifies the job of the bow-
man and reduces the amount of time the
bowman must be forward of the mast
which helps to keep weight as far aft as
possible.
Top to bottom: The clean fordeck and starboard spinnaker pole chocks simplify the bow-
mans job, the view forward from the dual helm stations is clean and unobstructed, and
the helm platforms help keep the driver level and reduce fatigue.
The interior of Rhumb Runner is fairly
common for a grand prix racing
machine, with very little in the way of
amenities below decks; rather, the
interior is designed to keep as much of
the boat as dry as possible while allow-
ing the navigator as much comfort as
possible, and still meeting all interior
space requirements from the TP52
rule.
The navigation station is located aft of
the engine below the cockpit to reduce
the motions that would be experienced
by the navigator while under sail. The
space is designed for someone who is
6' tall, but there is adequate head
room for someone even taller. The
navigator can communicate with the
helmsman on deck through portholes
located on each side of the cockpit.
Rhumb Runner has been outfitted with
a complete Brooks and Gatehouse
electronics package including the
RaceVision 2 and RemoteVision sys-
tems which allows the navigator to be
on deck and have the exact same
information available on deck as is
available at the navigation station.
This helps to keep weight on the rail
and maximize the ability of the naviga-
tor and helmsman to communicate
efficiently and effectively. The elec-
tronics package also features strain
gauges on all shrouds as well as the
forestay and backstay which will allow
the rig tension to be easily monitored
and adjusted for different wind condi-
tions.
Rhumb Runner has a wet locker locat-
ed forward of the companionway on
both port and starboard sides which
allows the wet area of the boat to be
kept to a minimum. Once a crewmem-
ber's wet gear has been removed,
there is a seat on the starboard side
with easy access to a number of small
cubbies to hold dry clothing and other
small pieces of crew gear. The galley
is located to port, with a small 4-burn-
er propane stove and shelf space to
hold food, with one of the shelves eas-
ily convertible to an ice box to keep
fresh food. The head is located for-
ward of the main bulkhead, with a
cloth door to separate the main cabin
from the head.
Overall Rhumb Runner has been devel-
oped to be a competitive grand prix
race boat that will perform well both
inshore in short course buoy races as
well as in offshore distance races. The
deck layout has been developed to
maximize the performance of the boat
and to allow as much control of the
sails as possible to give the crew as
much control over the boat as possible
with the interior designed to maximize
crew comfort while still maintaining the
performance aspect of the boat.
LOA 52ft
LWL 51ft 3in
Beam (Max) 14ft 6in
Draught 10ft 6in
Disp (Lightship) 16,500lb
Ballast 7,550lb
Percent of Ballast
in Keel
44%
Sail Area
(100% foretriangle)
1694ft
2
Berths 8
Engine Yanmar
Power 54hp
Water 140gal
Fuel 25gal
Sail Area: Disp 72.6
Disp: LWL 54.8
Price $808,107
Specifications
Interior view showing the two wet lockers, cubbies for crew gear, galley and forward set of
bunks and the navigation station, with plenty of headroom for the navigator.
Table of Contents:

1. Owners Requirements.............................................................................................. 14
2. Design Approach........................................................................................................ 16
3. Hull Form Design and Model Testing...................................................................... 17
3.1 Summary................................................................................................................ 17
3.2 Hull Design............................................................................................................ 18
3.3 Model Construction Process .................................................................................. 20
3.4 Test Matrix............................................................................................................. 23
3.5 Testing Set Up........................................................................................................ 24
3.6 Calibration Procedure ............................................................................................ 25
3.7 Testing Procedure .................................................................................................. 26
3.8 Dynamic Wetted Surface Analysis ........................................................................ 27
3.9 Comparison Testing Analysis................................................................................ 27
3.10 Keel Construction ................................................................................................. 32
3.11 Appendage Testing ............................................................................................... 32
3.12 Appendage Test Analysis ..................................................................................... 33
4. Sail Plan Design.......................................................................................................... 39
4.1 Summary................................................................................................................ 39
4.2 Methodology.......................................................................................................... 39
4.3 Design and Calculations ........................................................................................ 40
5. Appendage Design...................................................................................................... 43
5.1 Summary................................................................................................................ 43
5.2 Methodology.......................................................................................................... 43
5.3 Design and Calculations ........................................................................................ 44
6. Velocity Prediction Program.................................................................................... 54
6.1 Summary................................................................................................................ 54
6.2 Methodology.......................................................................................................... 55
6.3 Design and Calculations ........................................................................................ 57
7. Structures.................................................................................................................... 58
7.1 Summary................................................................................................................ 58
7.2 Methodology.......................................................................................................... 58
7.3 Design and Calculations ........................................................................................ 59
8. General Arrangement................................................................................................ 66
8.1 Summary................................................................................................................ 66
8.2 Methodology.......................................................................................................... 66
8.3 Design .................................................................................................................... 66
9. Deck Layout................................................................................................................ 71
9.1 Summary................................................................................................................ 71
9.2 Methodology.......................................................................................................... 71
9.3 Design .................................................................................................................... 71
10. Machinery................................................................................................................. 77
10.1 Summary.............................................................................................................. 77
10.2 Methodology........................................................................................................ 77
10.3 Design and Calculations ...................................................................................... 79
11. Electrical System...................................................................................................... 82
5
11.1 Summary.............................................................................................................. 82
11.2 Methodology........................................................................................................ 82
11.3 Design and Calculations ...................................................................................... 82
12. Weights...................................................................................................................... 85
12.1 Summary.............................................................................................................. 85
12.2 Methodology........................................................................................................ 85
12.3 Design and Calculations ...................................................................................... 86
13. Stability Analysis...................................................................................................... 96
13.1 Summary.............................................................................................................. 96
13.2 Methodology........................................................................................................ 96
13.3 Design and Calculations ...................................................................................... 97
14. Seakeeping .............................................................................................................. 100
14.1 Summary............................................................................................................ 100
14.2 Methodology...................................................................................................... 100
14.3 Design and Calculations .................................................................................... 101
15. Cost Analysis .......................................................................................................... 102
15.1 Summary............................................................................................................ 102
15.2 Methodology...................................................................................................... 102
15.3 Calculations........................................................................................................ 103
16. Appendix................................................................................................................. 124
16.1 Transpac 52 Box Rule........................................................................................ 124
17. References............................................................................................................... 134

6
List of Figures:

Figure 1: High speed model testing .................................................................................. 17
Figure 2: Lines plan of the extreme downwind hull ......................................................... 19
Figure 3: Lines plan of the all-around hull ....................................................................... 19
Figure 4: Picture of the first model during construction................................................... 22
Figure 5: Yacht dynamometer in operation ...................................................................... 24
Figure 6: Photographs of the roll, side force and yaw moment calibration procedures ... 25
Figure 7: Model 1 Prohaska Plot ...................................................................................... 29
Figure 8: Model 2 Prohaska Plot ...................................................................................... 29
Figure 9: Full Scale Drag Coefficient vs. Froude Number for 0
0
Heel and 0
0
Yaw......... 30
Figure 10: Full Scale Drag Coefficient vs. Froude Number for 10
0
Heel and 0
0
Yaw..... 31
Figure 11: Full Scale Drag Coefficient vs. Froude Number for 20
0
Heel and 0
0
Yaw..... 31
Figure 12: Graph of Regressed Lift and Drag Data.......................................................... 33
Figure 13: Lift Side force at 0
0
Heel ................................................................................. 35
Figure 14: Lift Side Force at 10
0
Heel .............................................................................. 35
Figure 15: Lift Side Force at 20
0
Heel .............................................................................. 36
Figure 16: Lift Side Force vs. Drag Force at 0
0
Heel ....................................................... 36
Figure 17: Lift Side Force vs. Drag Force at 10
0
Heel ..................................................... 37
Figure 18: Lift Side Force vs. Drag Force at 20
0
Heel ..................................................... 37
Figure 19: Visual output from Excel comparing the IMS limits to the final .................... 41
sail dimensions.................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 20: Loading Condition for Optimization of the Keel Strut and Keel Bolts........... 44
Figure 21: Rhino Rendering Illustrating the Geometry of the (from left to right) Circular,
Elliptical, Half Round, and Beaver Tail Cross Sections................................................... 45
Figure 22: Graphical Output from Keel Strut Optimization Spreadsheet Showing the Keel
Strut Box Girder................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 23: Free Body Diagram and Force Diagram for Keel Support Structure.............. 47
Figure 24: Graphical Output of Rudder Stock Optimization Spreadsheet ....................... 48
Figure 25: Required Rudder Stock Thickness as a Function of Length ........................... 48
Figure 26: Speed polar diagram for all wind speeds and headings for a spherical bulb
form................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 27: Comparison between the model test data and the regression equations used in
PCSAIL............................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 28: Comparison between Delft Series and TP52 Model Test ............................... 56
Figure 29: Speed polar diagrams for the spherical and elliptical bulb forms. .................. 57
Figure 30: Interior rendering showing the wet lockers and dry cubbies........................... 66
Figure 31: Rendering of the galley ................................................................................... 67
Figure 32: Navigation station rendering showing head clearances .................................. 68
Figure 33: Exterior view showing the open deck and pole storage. ................................. 71
Figure 34: Transverse jib track detail ............................................................................... 72
Figure 35: View forward from the port wheel .................................................................. 73
Figure 36: Calm water resistance and storm resistance.................................................... 78
Figure 37: Locations of the longitudinal centers of gravity for each condition................ 85
Figure 38: Graph of the righting arm versus heel angle in the measurement condition... 96
Figure 39: Cross curves of stability in the measurement condition.................................. 97
7
Figure 40: Righting arm curves in the buoy and distance racing configurations ............. 98
Figure 41: Graph showing the comparison between the righting arm curves in the
measurement and racing conditions.................................................................................. 99
Figure 42: North Sails Mainsail price quote................................................................... 107
Figure 43: North Sails Light 1 price quote ..................................................................... 108
Figure 44: North Sails Medium 1 price quote ................................................................ 109
Figure 45: North Sails Heavy 1 price quote.................................................................... 110
Figure 46: North Sails Number 4 price quote................................................................. 111
Figure 47: North Sails Code 0A price quote................................................................... 112
Figure 48: North Sails Code 1A price quote................................................................... 113
Figure 49: North Sails Code 2A price quote................................................................... 114
Figure 50: North Sails Code 3A price quote................................................................... 115
Figure 51: North Sails Code 4A price quote................................................................... 116
Figure 52: Brooks and Gatehouse electronics specifications and price estimate ........... 117

8
List of Tables:

Table 1: TP52 Box Rule Restrictions ............................................................................... 14
Table 2: TP52 2006 East Coast, Caribbean and West Coast Race Schedule ................... 15
Table 3: Principle Dimension Comparison between Hull Forms ..................................... 18
Table 4: Test Matrix for Bare Hull Tests.......................................................................... 23
Table 5: Test Matrix for Appendage Test......................................................................... 23
Table 6: Sail Plan Dimensions.......................................................................................... 39
Table 7: IMS Mainsail Limitations................................................................................... 39
Table 8: Final Mainsail Dimensions................................................................................. 40
Table 9: Specifications of the Four Bulbs with Varying Cross Section ........................... 45
Table 10: Results of Keel Strut Structural Calculations ................................................... 47
Table 11: Results of Keel Bolt Structural Calculations.................................................... 47
Table 12: Geometry of the Rudder Stock ......................................................................... 49
Table 13: Loading of the Rudder Stock............................................................................ 49
Table 14: Stresses on the Rudder Stock............................................................................ 49
Table 15: Comparison of Rudder and Keel Areas with Total Sail Area .......................... 49
Table 16: Comparison of section modulus calculations ................................................... 60
Table 17: ABS structural calculations .............................................................................. 61
Table 18: Larsson and Eliassons structural calculations ................................................. 62
Table 19: Resistance due to hull, mast and standing rigging............................................ 78
Table 20: Resistance due to waves ................................................................................... 78
Table 21: Total resistance for calm water and storm condition........................................ 78
Table 22: Calculations for the calm and storm conditions for a Troost series propeller. . 79
Table 23: Summary of weight section breakdown ........................................................... 87
Table 24: Summary of the measurement conditions......................................................... 87
Table 25: Summary of the flotation calculations.............................................................. 87
Table 26: Detailed weight breakdown.............................................................................. 89
Table 27: Hull weight calculation..................................................................................... 94
Table 28: Deck weight calculation ................................................................................... 95
Table 29: STIX category breakdown.............................................................................. 100
Table 30: STIX calculations ........................................................................................... 101
Table 31: Cost breakdown summary for the TP52......................................................... 102
Table 32: Cost breakdown by section for the TP52........................................................ 103
Table 33: Detailed cost breakdown................................................................................. 104


9
List of Drawings:

Drawing 1: Hull Lines Plan .............................................................................................. 38
Drawing 2: Sail Plan........................................................................................................ 42
Drawing 3: Keel Structure Detail ..................................................................................... 50
Drawing 4: Bulb Detail..................................................................................................... 51
Drawing 5: Rudder Detail ................................................................................................. 52
Drawing 6: Balance Calculations...................................................................................... 53
Drawing 7: Internal Structures.......................................................................................... 63
Drawing 8: Midship Section............................................................................................. 64
Drawing 9: Midship Section Calculation.......................................................................... 65
Drawing 10: General Arrangement................................................................................... 69
Drawing 11: Tankage Arrangement.................................................................................. 70
Drawing 12: Deck Layout................................................................................................. 76
Drawing 13: Engine Detail ............................................................................................... 81
Drawing 14: Electrical Diagram....................................................................................... 84

10
List of Symbols:

AR Aspect ratio
Awp Area of the waterplane
B, b Beam
BAS Boom height above shear
BWL Waterlien beam
c Correction factor for curved plating
C Minimum compressive strength
CA Allowance coefficient
Cah Wind resistance coefficient of the hull
Cam Resistance coefficient of the mast
Car Wind resistance coefficient of the rigging
Cb Block coefficient
CD Drag coefficient
CDAS Full scale appendage drag
CDI Coefficient of interference drag
CDIM Coefficient of interference drag at model scale
CDS Full scale drag coefficient
CDvisc Viscous drag
Cf Coefficient of frictional resistance
CfCS Full scale frictional resistance coefficient of the canoe body
Cform Coefficient of form drag
CG Center of gravity
CL Lift coefficient
CLAS Coefficient of lift of the appendages at full scale
CLCM Coefficient of lift of the canoe body at model scale
CLS Full scale lift coefficient
Cp Prismatic coefficient
CR Coefficient of residual resistance
CRCM Residual resistance of the canoe body at model scale
Ct Coefficient of total drag of the model
CW Coefficient of wave drag
Cwp Waterplane coefficient
D Drag
Dp Diameter of propeller
E Minimum flexural strength from IMS regulations
Etc Average of the minimum tensile modulus and minimum compressive modulus
F Minimum flexural strength
Ff Freeboard in the forward sections
Fr Froude number
Fx Force in the x direction
Fy Force in the y direction
g Gravity
HB Headboard length
I Moment of inertia
IM Jib hoist
ISP Spinnaker hoist
Ix Moment of inertia in the x direction
Iy Moment of inertia in the y direction
11
J Distance from mast to forestay on deck
k ABS coefficient
k1 ABS coefficient
l Length
L Lift
L1 Distance from the transom to the aft face of the mast
L2 Distance from the bow to the forward face of the mast
LCB Longitudinal center of buoyancy
Lm Mast height
LOA Length overall
LP Perpendicular distance from clew to forestay
Lr Length of the rigging
LWL Waterline length
M Bending moment
Mbhull Bending moment in the hull due to mast compression
n Propeller rotation rate
P Mainsail hoist
p ABS design head
P Propeller pitch
P
D
Delivered power
Pmast Mast compression
Rah Resistance of the hull due to wind
Ram Resistance of the mast due to wind
Rar Resistance of the standing rigging due to wind
Re Reynold's number
Rf Frictional resistance
Rh Heeled resistance
Ri Induced resistance
RM30 Righting moment at 30 degrees
Rprop Propeller resistance
Rr Residual resistance
Rtot Total resistance
Rwaves Wave resistance
S Wetted surface area
s Panel spacing
SMi Section modulus of the inner skin
SMo Section modulus of the outer skin
T Minimum tensile strength
ta ABS required thickness for outer skin
tb ABS required thickness for inner skin
Tc Canoe body draft
tm Average of the mast thickness
tr Thickness of the rigging
Tr Propeller Thrust
V Velocity
Va Apparent wind speed
VA Velocity of advance of the propeller
VCG Vertical center of gravity
Ws Panel weight

u
Thrust coefficient
12

o
Propeller efficiency
Kinematic viscosity
Density

a
Density of air

beam
Stress

13
1. Owners Requirements

Recently yacht owners around the world have desired grand prix racing sailboats with the
ability to perform in both long distance offshore races and near shore short course racing.
These owners want a boat that is safe, fast in a range of conditions, and fun to sail. Due to
the difficulties of handicapping racing sailboats, many owners are seeking yachts
designed to a set of rules that allows for level racing, meaning that the first boat to finish
wins the race. These so-called box rules give designers restrictions on length, beam, draft,
and sail area amongst other things while allowing for a high degree of technical
innovation.

One of the fastest growing box rules for grand prix racers is the Transpac 52 (TP52) rule.
The TP52 class was started in 2001 and aimed to create a fleet of all out carbon fibre race
boats that could be raced without handicap in both buoy races and bluewater offshore
races. Boats designed to the TP52 rule are fast, sailing both upwind and downwind with
boats reaching speeds well over 25 knots off the wind. Boats designed to the TP52 rule
have sailed and won regattas such as the Newport to Bermuda, Chicago to Mackinac, The
Transpac, Key West Race Week, Miami SORC, and the St. Francis Big Boat Series. By
the end of 2005 there will be 27 TP52s on four continents and flagged in 13 countries
with large fleets developing both in the US and the Mediterranean.

The maximum and minimum dimensions set by the rule are outlined in Table 1. The rule
also stipulates that the boats can be built entirely of carbon fibre with their structural
design being governed by American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) criteria for offshore
racing yachts. In addition the rule gives a narrow envelope for the total weight of the
yacht between 16,500 to 17,000 pounds and requires that the vertical center of gravity of
the yacht be no lower than 2.7 feet below the bottom of the design waterline. The sail
area and crew weight allowed are also strictly controlled by the rule. The complete TP52
rule is included in the appendix.

Table 1: TP52 Box Rule Restrictions
Box Rule Restriction
LOA 52 ft.
Beam 14 ft 6in
Draft 10 ft 6in.
Displacement 16500-17000 lbs.

Within the confines of the box rule the designer is able to optimize the boat based on the
owners requirements. Typically a TP52 yacht competes in a variety of different types of
races in a range of wind and sea states. As such a competitive owner desires a boat that is
fast in light air upwind sailing conditions as well as downwind heavy weather conditions.
Existing TP52s tend to do about 70% of their racing on inshore windward leeward
courses with the remainder of their races being offshore distance races in a range of
conditions from heavy weather downwind races, to reaches, and occasionally upwind
races. Table 2 gives the details of a typical TP52 season showing the distributions of
inshore and offshore races.
14

Table 2: TP52 2006 East Coast, Caribbean and West Coast Race Schedule
TP52 East Coast and Caribbean Schedule
Jan 12-14 Fort Lauderdale to Key West Race Distance
Jan 16-20 Key West Race Week Buoy
March 8-13 TP52 2006 Global Championships Distance/Buoy
March 24-26 St Thomas Rolex Regatta Buoy
Apr 2-4 BVI Spring Regatta Buoy
Apr 30 - May 6 Antigua Race Week Buoy
May 26-28 Block Island Race Buoy
June 9-12 2006 TP52 North American Championships, Distance/Buoy
Jun 16-20 100th Anniversary Newport to Bermuda Race Distance
Jul 28-30 Around Long Island Distance
Aug 11-12 Monhegan Island Race, Portland Yacht Club Distance
Sep 1-3 Stamford Vineyard Race Distance
Oct 21-22 Annapolis Yacht Club Fall Regatta Buoy
Dec 2-3 Lauderdale Yacht Club TP52 Regatta Buoy

TP52 West Coast Schedule - Exact date TBD
February San Diego to Puerto Vallarta Race & MEXORC Distance
April Vallejo Race Distance
May 19-20 Stone Cup, St Francis Yacht Club Buoy
May 26th Spinnaker Cup- San Francisco St Francis Yacht Club Buoy
June Coastal Cup Race- San Francisco to Santa Barbara Distance
July Pacific Cup Race- San Francisco to Oahu Hawaii Distance
August Waikiki Offshore Championships Buoy
September Windjammer Race & Big Boat Series Buoy
October Cal Cup Regatta, Marina Del Rey California Buoy
November Hot Rum Series, San Diego California SDYC Buoy
December Hot Rum Series, San Diego California SDYC Buoy

15
2. Design Approach

Based on the owners requirements, the design approach began with a series of model
tests to evaluate tradeoffs in the hull design and collect data for use in a velocity
prediction program (VPP). After the model tests were completed, the detailed design of
the yachts appendages, sails, structures, arrangements and machinery was completed.
The final product was a contract level design of a light displacement racing sailboat that
meets the requirements set forth in the Transpac 52 box rule.

While many yacht designers have conducted model tests of light displacement yachts at
planing speeds there is no published data on their resistance characteristics. As a result
the design team felt that model testing would be required to evaluate tradeoffs in the hull
design and provide accurate data for use in a VPP. The model test program was
completed in two phases with the first phase consisting of a comparison test between two
different hull shapes to compare their resistance characteristics. Based on the results of
this comparison test, the final hull shape was selected and tested with a generic keel and
bulb. The data from the appendage testing could then be used as input for a velocity
prediction program.

After the model tests were completed, the appendages and sails for the yacht were
optimized. The design team chose to design two sets of appendages, one for the near
shore buoy races, and another for offshore distance races. The sails were optimized to
conform to all the applicable rules for the boat. Concurrent to the design and optimization
of the appendages and sails, the transverse and longitudinal structure for the yacht was
designed and analyzed. The machinery for the yacht was also selected and placed in the
hull. The structural arrangements and machinery position then drove the general
arrangements of the yacht. The general arrangement of the yacht was designed to
maximize crew efficiency while minimizing weight.

Once the general arrangement was completed the weight distribution of the yacht was
calculated. The longitudinal position of the keel was driven by trim considerations as well
as sail balance considerations. The stability of the boat was also analyzed based on the
final weights and compared with the TP52 box rule requirements. While the weights and
stability were being analyzed the deck layout was designed in order to make the boat as
easy to sail as possible. Finally the speed of the yacht was predicted using a velocity
prediction program in order to accurately gauge the performance characteristics of the
yacht.


16
3. Hull Form Design and Model Testing

3.1 Summary

The design project began with an initial desire to create two hulls, one of which would be
an extreme downwind sled with a large flat planing surface while the second hull would
be more traditional, similar to many of the current Transpac 52 designs. The use of the
University of Michigan Hydrodynamics Laboratory Tow Tank allowed the two hulls to
be compared during a series of model tests. The models were initially tested without
appendages in order to be able to accurately compare the differences between hull
designs.

Compiled data analysis showed, as expected, the hull designed to perform as a downwind
sled had poor performance upwind at slow speeds, while excelling off the wind at higher
speeds. The traditional hull had much better upwind speed and was minimally slower off
the wind than the downwind sled. Because more of the yachts time will be spent sailing
buoy races with equal upwind and downwind legs than typically downwind offshore
distance races, the more traditional hull was selected for the completion of the design.

A second set of tests was completed with the traditional hull with a standard strut and
bulb to calculate the interference drag on the hull. In addition the effect of the hull on the
lift generated by the foils was analyzed. Data from the appendage model tests could then
be used as input into a velocity prediction program to derive speed polar diagrams for the
yacht.


Figure 1: High speed model testing

17


3.2 Hull Design

The Transpac 52 design team decided to perform a series of resistance tests as a basic
hull comparison so that the relative merits between two hulls could be determined. In
addition, the data from model tests can later be used in the creation of a Velocity
Prediction Program to predict the performance of the yacht over a given course. Testing
a planing hull such as the Transpac 52 is necessary as there is little data publicly available
regarding the performance of a semi-planing hull.

The TP52 box rule specifies many of the primary dimensions of the yacht, but the shape
of the hull is left open to the designer. This allows a large range of designs to be
considered for the potential design of the hulls. The design process for the first hull
began by looking at current design trends in the field of ultra light displacement boats and
deciding that the first hull would be rather extreme and optimized for downwind
performance; the second design would be more along the lines of a contemporary ultra
light displacement hull designed for upwind and overall performance.

The main differences between the two designs would be the location of maximum beam,
the flatness of the aft section and the hardness of the knuckle along the chine. The bow
sections of the two hulls were planned to be similar, but after observing undesirable
seakeeping characteristics of the first hull, the second hull was modified to have more
flair which led to a finer entrance into the water. In addition, there is more of a defined
ridge along the keel on the second hull to aid in seakeeping performance. Table 3
provides a comparison between some of the primary dimensions and coefficients of the
two different hull forms.

Table 3: Principle Dimension Comparison between Hull Forms
Hull 1 Hull 2
LOA 52 ft 0 in 52 ft 0 in ft
LWL 51 ft 7.45 in 51 ft 2.88 in ft
BWL 11 ft 2.78 in 10 ft 7.03 in ft
S 402.8 371.11 ft
2
Tc 1 ft 2.22 in 1 ft 4.16 in ft
Sectional Area 8.94 9.89 ft
2
Awp 380.94 348.14 ft
2
Cp 0.561 0.51
Cb 0.377 0.354
Cwp 0.657 0.642

The extreme downwind performance hull had its maximum beam located far aft, with a
very flat aft section to accelerate the planing performance of the boat, which would
increase speed when reaching and going downwind in general. The hull also had a
defined knuckle along the chine which allowed the increase of the size of the aft sections
to increase the planing surface. This was beneficial if the hull was sailing upright, but
18
would exhibit poor performance when heeled. Figure 2 shows the lines plan of the first
hull.


Figure 2: Lines plan of the extreme downwind hull

The second hull was designed as an all-around boat that could sail competitively both
upwind and downwind, with no major design characteristics being chosen to favor one
point of sail over another. The aft sections were rounded out more and the maximum
beam was moved forward from the first hull position to allow for a more elliptical
waterplane section and less of a tear drop shape that the first hull exhibited. This would
change the speed at which the boat would plane, but this tradeoff would result in better
upwind performance below hull speed. The knuckle along the chine of the second hull
was flattened out which allowed the boat to have more of a flat waterplane when heeled
over which would help the upwind performance. The bow section was given a more
defined shape to allow the boat to cut through waves instead of banging over them. The
lines plan for the second hull can be seen below in Figure 3 as well as at the end of this
section in larger form.


Figure 3: Lines plan of the all-around hull
19
The displacement for the TP52 rule is specified as a minimum of 16,500 lbs and a
maximum of 17,000 lbs. We chose to design both boats for the minimum design
displacement, with the ability to change to the maximum displacement by changing to a
heavier keel. The choice to test at the lighter displacement was made so that the accurate
high speed performance of the boat could be measured as this is the data that is not
available to the general public.

3.3 Model Construction Process

The models were built using the strip-cedar planking method, which was chosen for its
ease of construction and good strength-to-weight ratio. This method involves laying
cedar strips over a number of stations cut out of plywood with a layer of fiberglass on
either side for strength.

After the model scale size was determined, the skin thickness had to be determined
before the plans could be printed. A skin thickness of was chosen based on
experience from previous model construction. This thickness provides a relatively light
model while still retaining good stiffness and rigidity. Once the thickness of the skin was
determined, the lines plan was scaled and divided into ten stations which would be turned
into 10 frames that would constitute the mold. There were also frames added at half
stations in the forward sections, from stations one to three. These frames were laid out in
the computer, their lines representing the outside surface of the hull.

The stations were all offset inboard to take into account the skin thickness. The stem
profile was also offset and printed. At that point the frames and stem profile were scaled
to the correct model size and the skin offset , so they were ready for printing, which
was done on a large plotter courtesy of Van Dam Wood Craft.

The printed frames were cut out and glued onto Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF).
These were then cut and sanded to the offset line representing the inside of the cedar skin.
The transom frame was built using 3/8 Okume plywood since it would be permanent
structure. In order to correctly lay out the frames, a strongback, or ladder frame, was
built with station lines and a centerline drawn on it. A strongback is essentially a
rectangular box that is the length of the model and wide enough that the frames can be
securely fastened onto it. It was constructed out of MDF with a piece on the top that
gave it a perfectly flat and square surface to work from. In order to give the model added
stiffness, a keel and a set of sheers were added. These were constructed out of x
mahogany, and pockets were routed out of the frames to accommodate them.

Once the strongback was constructed, the frames were then placed perpendicular to the
strongback and fastened down. The keelson and sheers were then secured to the frames
using small finish nails that could be easily removed later. This also helped to lock the
frames in place and to keep them from moving. At this point the mold was essentially
built. Tape was put on the MDF frames so that the glued planks would not stick to them
as they were only temporary frames. The keelson and sheers were left as raw wood,
since it was desired to have them as permanent structure.
20

The planking was milled out of a 2x 4 Western Red Cedar Board. The cedar was
ripped to width and then run through a thickness planer to make certain that gluing edges
would be perfectly straight. It was then ripped to thickness. The planks were not run
through the thickness planer for thickness because the hull needed to be faired after the
planks were laid, so there was no need to have a perfectly flat surface. The saw cut was
flat enough. The cedar planks finished at x .

The first planks location was crucial since it would drive the location of all of the other
planks. If it was not placed correctly there would be large amounts of edge set, or
twisting in the planks which would result in broken planks. The first plank is typically
located along an imaginary chine, or the part of the boat that has the hardest bilge turn.
This was approximately where the first plank for these models was located. Only one
side was done at a time. Once the first plank was located, it was nailed to the MDF
frames using finish nails with 3mm pads under them. The pads were knocked off after
the glue dried which exposed the head of the nail and allowed them to be more easily
removed. Once the first plank was fastened, glue could be mixed and put on the edges of
the next few planks which were held in a small jig. The glue that was used for this
project was West Systems epoxy with both Cabasil and Microballoons for strength and
thickness. The next plank, with glue on one edge, was then pushed up against the first
and nailed on. This caused most of the glue to squeeze out, which also helped the builder
tell if the joint was tight.

The entire hull was planked this way, plank by plank. After the first side was completed
and it was allowed to cure, a saw cut was made down the centerline, which allowed the
next side to be fitted to it. When planking the other side, the ends of the planks needed to
be fitted before gluing, so they were laid out in a process called dry-fitting. Dry-fitting,
in this application, was done using only four to five planks to avoid the potential for
plank slippage upon glue application. If more than four or five planks were used they
would typically end up in slightly different places from where they were originally
placed. The centerline fitting can be slightly rough, since any gap can be filled with glue.
Once the second side was glued on, it was allowed to cure and then the hull was ready for
fairing.

Before fairing could begin, all of the pads under the nails were removed, and the nails
were pulled out. The hull was then rough-sanded to remove any excess epoxy and any
plank imperfections. The rough-sanding was done using a portable disk sander with 80
grit sandpaper. After the hull was rough-sanded, general fairing was achieved using
planes. Battens were used on these models to be certain that the hull was fair. Once the
planing was done, the hull was hand-sanded using half sheet sanding pads to finish the
fairing process. Once the hull was faired, it was slightly smaller than the lines plan
required: heavy planking was used and then material was removed. This slight size
difference roughly takes into account the thickness of the fiberglass cloth that would be
applied to the outside along with paint thickness.

21
Upon completion of hull faring, fiberglass was applied to add additional strength to the
hull. Ten ounce glass cloth was used with West Systems Epoxy. The cloth was laid out
onto the hull and the epoxy poured over the cloth and spread out using a squeegee. The
glue was worked into the cloth and wood using the squeegee, and then all of the excess
glue was removed by applying extra force on the squeegee in order to squeeze the extra
glue out of the cloth, leaving only the minimum required glue. This kept excess glue
from causing bubbles or wrinkles in the glass as well as reducing unnecessary weight.
Once the first layer of epoxy cured, four more coats of epoxy were used to add enough
thickness to hide the weave of the cloth which resulted in a smooth outer surface. These
coats were applied using a process called hot-coating which means that the coats were put
on before the previous coats had completely cured, and could still bond to another layer
applied on top. The process for deciding whether or not a surface is ready to be coated
again is very simple but effective: if a finger dragged along the top of the glue does not
stick, or leave a drag mark, but sticks when a nonmoving finger is placed on it, the glue is
ready. This state of cure is commonly called being green, and depending on the hardener
used, can be achieved in several hours.

Once the glue on the outside has cured completely, the mold and hull were removed from
the strongback, and all the inside frames, which were taped so that the glue would not
stick, were removed from the hull skin. The inside of the hull was then roughly sanded,
and a layer of glass applied using the same techniques as the outside. This created a very
strong, stiff and most importantly, light hull shell. The first model can be seen in Figure
4 below, after having the fiberglass applied to the hull.


Figure 4: Picture of the first model during construction

Next, the sheer lines and the transom were trimmed and the bottom was sanded with 100
grit sandpaper to prepare for a coat of primer. A product set from U.S. Paint was used for
these models: Awl-Grip and its recommended primer, 545 Epoxy Primer. The 545 was
sprayed first in three coats. After the primer had adequate time to cure, the Awl-grip was
sprayed in three coats. For the first model, Flagship Yellow was used. The second
model was sprayed with Apple Red. In hindsight the yellow seemed to show up much
better in the videos and pictures and should have been used for the second model as well.
22

Once the models were painted, they were wet sanded with 400 grit sandpaper to roughen
the surface to that of a full scale bottom. Waterlines and stations were drawn at known
intervals on the hull to make ballasting easier. A sand strip was placed at 5% of the
waterline length to induce turbulent flow like that of the full scale yacht. A metal plate
with bolts was also placed inside the boat in order to attach the dynamometer, positioned
to simulate towing from the mast location.

3.4 Test Matrix

The TP52 Design Team chose to test at various conditions that would most likely
represent the conditions frequently seen on a race course while keeping in mind that the
hull is designed as an ultra light displacement boat which has been designed to sail at
relatively low angles of heel. The speeds that were chosen to test ranged from 4 knots,
which was the slowest chosen due to inaccuracies in the speed of the testing equipment
below that speed, and up to 25 knots for the fastest condition. This speed is easily
achievable, especially given information from crewmembers sailing on existing TP52s.
The runs for the main part of the matrix were limited to speeds from 4 knots to hull
speed, which is approximately 10 knots. For the main part of the matrix, all possible
combinations of 0, 2, 4 and 6 degrees of yaw were tested, as well as 0, 10, and 20 degrees
of roll for speeds of 4 to 10 knots. High speed testing from 11 to 18 knots with 0 and 1.5
degrees of yaw and 0 and 10 degrees of roll was also completed to enlarge the matrix in
areas that were felt to be important to the off-wind condition. The rationale behind these
choices was that the boat will be planing above hull speed and unlikely to be yawing very
much; also the hull will not be planing while heeled so it would be unnecessary to test the
hulls at unrealistic sailing conditions. Tables 4 and 5 contain the specific test matrices
that were used during each phase of the testing.

Table 4: Test Matrix for Bare Hull Tests
Heel Angle
(deg)
Speed
(knots)
Yaw Angle
(deg)
0 2, 4-25, 30 0
0 11-16 1.5
0 2, 4-10 2, 4, 6
10 2, 4-10 0, 2, 4, 6
10 11-16 0
20 2, 4-10 0, 2, 4, 6

Table 5: Test Matrix for Appendage Test
Heel Angle
(deg)
Speed
(knots)
Yaw Angle
(deg)
0 5-12 0, 2, 4, 6
0 14, 16 0, 2, 4
0 18, 20 0
10 5-12 0, 2, 4, 6
10 14, 16 0, 2, 4
20 5-12 0, 2, 4, 6
23
3.5 Testing Set Up

Once the first hull was designed, it was necessary to determine a scale factor to use in the
creation of the models. The limiting factor in the choice of size was the maximum speed
achievable in the University of Michigan Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory (UMMHL)
Tow Tank, which is approximately 18 feet per second. The desire was to test the hulls at
speeds of up to 30 knots which, combined with the maximum speed of the carriage,
dictated a model scale of 1 to 8, which resulted in the models being 6.5 feet long. The
optimal scale for model testing sailboats is 1 to 3, but this is not physically possible for a
52 sailboat in the facilities available for use at the University of Michigan. Construction
of a 6.5 model is also much simpler than a larger version.

The yacht dynamometer was used in conjunction with the drag force dynamometer to
measure drag force, roll moment, yaw moment, and the lift force of the model. The
testing procedure began by taking apart the dynamometer and cleaning all of the bearings
and checking to make sure all range of motions were free to move and that all of the other
fittings were tightened as necessary. The dynamometer can be seen in operation in
Figure 5.


Figure 5: Yacht dynamometer in operation
24
3.6 Calibration Procedure

After determining that the dynamometer was working as desired, a series of calibration
tests were performed to make sure that the instrumentation was performing correctly.
Linear responses were achieved for all of the range of motions. A calibration mechanism
that would allow for easy and accurate calibration of the dynamometer once it was
installed in the model and attached to the carriage was also developed. The calibration
procedure was developed to take into account the flexing of the dynamometer.

The dynamometer required calibration in all 4 ranges of motions, and the carriage speed
has a fixed calibration value. The drag force was calculated using the weight pan
attached to the drag dynamometer, and was calibrated to a maximum of 10 pounds of
drag. The lift side force was calibrated by mounting a series of blocks onto the carriage
and then attaching a string to the pivot point of the dynamometer and then hanging
weights to pull the dynamometer sideways in the same manner as that of the side force
generated by the model. The side force was calibrated for a maximum of 6 pounds of
force. The roll moment was calculated by placing weights on the shear of the model at a
specific point, and then the moment was calculated by measuring the distance from the
centerline to the point at which the weights were applied. The roll moment was
calibrated for a maximum of 5 foot-pounds. The yaw moment was calibrated by using
the same system of blocks and weights that was used for the side force but the string was
attached to an eye screwed into the bow. The moment was calculated by measuring the
distance from the eye to the center of the shaft in the dynamometer about which the
model rotates. The yaw moment was calculated for a maximum moment of 6 foot-
pounds. During the testing of the models, we would calibrate every morning before
testing and then would also recalibrate multiple times during the day to make sure that
the data that we were collecting would be consistent. Figure 6 shows some of the
different calibration procedures; from left to right the roll moment, side force, and yaw
moment procedures.


Figure 6: Photographs of the roll, side force and yaw moment calibration procedures

During the appendage test, it became evident that the strain gauges on the dynamometer
that were used to measure the roll and yaw moments were not functioning correctly, and
25
therefore we were unable to use the roll and yaw moment data for either the comparison
test or the appendage test. This is detrimental in that it prevents us from accurately
calculating the center of lateral resistance for the hull. This is problematic, but can be
estimated using various methods and does not overly hamper our design project.

3.7 Testing Procedure

The displacement for the model was calculated from the hydrostatics of the full scale
acht and then scaled down to the model size. The model and dynamometer were
s.
of

as ballasted and attached to the carriage, it was necessary to center the
odel so that it would run straight down the tank. This was accomplished by hanging a
rocedure involved zeroing all of the instrumentation for a period of 40
econds before each run, which is the slosh time for the towing tank. Then a model speed
lect
so that the unsteady effects would be
inimized, but this is dependent upon time, so at higher speeds there was a noticeable
a
sturb the tank very much so a time interval of
0 minutes was chosen between runs. It has been shown that there are vortices in the
still photographs were taken for each run.
wo video cameras were used to record the profile of the yacht as well as the transom
ts,

y
weighed and then the remaining weight necessary was added in the form of lead block
The blocks were positioned so that the yacht would float at a level trim. The blocks
lead were then glued in place using silicone to movement during the starting and stopping
of the carriage.

Once the model w
m
plumb bob off of the drag dynamometer and visually aligning the bow with the plumb
bob. Once the position was set, the heave staff was clamped into place so that it could
not rotate.

The testing p
s
was programmed into the carriage and set for an automatic run. We attempted to col
30 seconds of data for every run, which was possible at all of the slow speeds but not at
higher speeds. For the highest speeds, we were only able to collect 10 seconds of data.
The data was collected at a rate of 40 Hz. This value was chosen as it would give us
enough data to analyze without showing aliasing.

The acceleration rates were adjusted for the carriage
m
surge in the model once the carriage had achieved the test speed. This was taken into
account by watching the carriage speed fluctuate and once the fluctuations had reached
small enough value, data was recorded.

The model size was such that it did not di
1
tank that last for a much longer period of time, but we did not have the necessary tank
time to wait multiple hours between each run.

In addition to recording data, video footage and
T
flow. The profile view was used to estimate the dynamic wetted surface while the
transom view was used as a comparison between hull forms. During the appendage tes
an underwater camera was set up to more accurately calculate the dynamic wetted
surface.
26
3.8 Dynamic Wetted Surface Analysis

The wetted surface of the hull changes for each speed and as the force scaling is based
rmine the wetted surface for each speed at
ifferent heel angles. During the comparison test, a profile video was recorded for each



od
were taken for each run so
at the location of the intersection between the water and the bow could be accurately
ng
n order to finalize the hull design for the Transpac 52, two models were tested and their
he first model was designed to be as wide and flat
s possible to facilitate planning in downwind and surfing conditions. The second hull


d
to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The data were then non-dimensionlized with
roude number being calculated using equation 1, Reynolds number being calculated
d
upon surface area, it was necessary to dete
d
run which was used to determine the approximate wetted surface. The waterline length
was determined by measuring the amount of the bow that was out of the water. The
transom intersection was measured in the same fashion as the bow, and once the bow and
stern intersections of the waterplane were known, a straight plane was generated through
the hull and the surface of the resulting section was measured in Maxsurf. This meth
does not take into account the additional wetted surface of the wave profile, but it was
assumed that the peak and trough would roughly cancel out so that the wetted surface
measured using the above method would be fairly accurate.

The wetted surface for the appendage test was calculated from still frames from an
underwater video camera. In addition, still pictures of the bow
th
measured. The wake from the hull made using the underwater camera for the bow
location virtually impossible, but with the use of the still camera the location was found
very accurately. The wetted surface was calculated at 0, 10 and 20 degrees of heel for
each speed and the wetted surface was assumed to be the same for each correspondi
yaw angle.

3.9 Comparison Testing Analysis

I
resistance characteristics compared. T
a
was designed with a much more elliptical water plane and a finer entrance to reduce form
and wave drag in the displacement range of the boat. Both models were tested without
appendages. Before testing it was hypothesized that the first hull would have better
resistance characteristics at high speed when the effects of dynamic lift on the hull would
be most pronounced. It was also hypothesized that the second hull form would have
better resistance characteristics at slower speeds with its more traditional water plane
shape.

After the data for drag vs. speed had been collected for both models it was compiled an
input in
F
using equation 2, and CDM being calculated using equation 3. The wetted surface used
for non-dimensionlizing the drag was the static wetted surface for each model for the
given heel. The density used for non-dimensionlization was assumed to be constant an
equal to 1.99 lb/ft^3.

l g
V
Fr =
*
(1)

27

(2)



(3)

v
l V *
Re =

S V
D
CD
* * * 2 / 1
2

=


Once the data had been non-dimensionalized the drag for each model was broken down
sing both Froudes method and Hughes method. For Froudes method it was assumed
at the drag could be broken down into frictional, Cf, and residuary, CR, drag. For the
d
is
CD = Cf + CW + Cform
u
th
Hughes method approach the drag was further divided into form drag, wave making
drag, and frictional drag. A form factor, R, was calculated using Prohaskas method in
order to determine the components of form drag, Cform, and wave making drag, CW,
using Hughes method. For both methods the coefficient of frictional drag was calculate
using the ITTC mean line for turbulent flow. Turbulence was tripped on both models
using a sand strip. For both methods a correlation allowance, CA, of 0.00031 was
assumed. The drag breakdown for Froudes method and Reynolds method is described
in equations 4 and 5. The Prohaska plots for both models are included as Figures 7 and 8.
The ITTC mean line equation used to compute the frictional resistance coefficient, Cf,
included as equation 6.

CD = Cf + CR + CA


2
) 2 (log(Re)
075 . 0
= Cf


(4)

(5)


(6)
28
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Fr^4/Cf
C
t
/
C
f
t

Figure 7: Model 1 Prohaska Plot

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Fr^4/Cf
C
t
/
C
f

Figure 8: Model 2 Prohaska Plot

29
Applying Froudes method and Hughes method to the data full scale drag coefficients
for both models were calculated. These results were plotted for zero, ten, and twenty
degrees of heel and the results were compared. Both Froudes and Hughes method
showed similar trends in the data with Hughes method predicting less full scale drag in
all conditions. Plots of full scale drag coefficient, CDS, versus Froude number in each of
the three heeled conditions are include as Figures 9 through 11.
Drag Coefficient vs. Froude Number
Heel=Yaw=0
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
Froude Number
D
r
a
g

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

Froude Model 1
Froude Model 2
Hughs Model 1
Hughs Model 2
Poly. (Froude Model 1)
Poly. (Froude Model 2)
Poly. (Hughs Model 1)
Poly. (Hughs Model 2)

Figure 9: Full Scale Drag Coefficient vs. Froude Number for 0
0
Heel and 0
0
Yaw

30
Drag Coefficient vs. Froude Number Heel=10,
Yaw=0
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
Froude Number = v/sqrt(g*l)
D
r
a
g

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t


Figure 10: Full Scale Drag Coefficient vs. Froude Number for 10
0
Heel and 0
0
Yaw

Drag Coefficient vs. Froude Number Heel=20,
Yaw=0
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
0.0055
0.0060
0.0065
0.0070
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
Froude Number = v/sqrt(g*l)
D
r
a
g

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t


Figure 11: Full Scale Drag Coefficient vs. Froude Number for 20
0
Heel and 0
0
Yaw

31
Once the bare hull resistance characteristics for both hulls were graphed it was possible to
compare the relative performance of the two hull shapes. As expected the second hull
form seemed to perform better in the displacement range with the more extreme planing
hull outperforming the traditional shape at high speed. Another result of the analysis was
the difference in relative performance at differing heel angles. One can observe that the
Froude number at which the two trend lines cross changes as the models heel increases.
For zero degrees heel the two curves cross at Fr=0.35, at 10 degrees heel the crossing
point moves to Fr=0.42, and at 20 degrees heel it moves back to Fr=0.38. This may be
accounted for by the degree of curvature of the two hulls at the bilge. The second hull
form has a more gradual bilge turn which may give it a better water plane shape around
10 degrees heel.

3.10 Keel Construction

After the data from the comparison test was analyzed and the second hull was chosen
based on its better upwind performance, a keel and bulb were added to the hull for a
second set of tests to measure the interaction forces between the hull and keel. The keel
and bulb sections were determined using known sections that lift and drag could be
calculated for analytically. A NACA 0015 section was chosen for the keel and a NACA
66021 for the bulb with the chord length of the strut consistent with that of other TP52s at
a scale of 1 to 8.

The keel was built out of 6064 T6 Aluminum. The section shape was scribed into one
end of a piece of flat-stock 2 x 5/8. The flat-stock was then placed on the mill and
the mill head was angled as passes were made down the length of the foil. This was done
to both sides and resulted in a very accurate foil shape. Sand strips were also placed on
the foil to ensure that turbulence was tripped.

The bulb was made out of oak, and was turned on the lathe. The section thickness was
determined at multiple points along the length of the bulb and was turned down to that
thickness at each point and then faired in between. The bulb was coated with epoxy and
then bonded to the foil.

The foil was attached to the hull using two #8 flat head machine screws that went through
a secured plate and into the top of the keel. A fillet was faired around the keel-hull joint
in order to replicate what would be done on a real boat.

3.11 Appendage Testing

From the results of the comparison model test the more conservative hull form was
selected based on its relative performance in the displacement range. A condensed matrix
was created for the model with bulb and strut and the testing was completed using the
same methods as used during the comparison model tests.

The lift and drag data from the appendage model tests was non-dimensionlized using the
same method described for the comparison model tests. A simplified stripping method
32
similar to that used by Teeters was used to further break down the lift and drag of the
model. Equation 7 defines the total drag with equation 8 showing the breakdown of the
canoe body drag. Equation 9 shows the breakdown of the lift.

ce interferan appendages canoe
Drag Drag Drag Drag + + =
(7)

(8)

(9)

residual friction canoe
Drag Drag Drag + =

appendages canoe
Lift Lift Lift + =

The lift and drag of the canoe body was assumed to be equal to those obtained from the
bare hull resistance testing performed during the comparison model test. Since the yaw
angles for the comparison model test were not exactly the same as those for the
appendage model test, drag and lift were regressed from the comparison data as a
function of yaw for each speed and heel, and these linear equations were used for the
appendage model test analysis. The trend line function in Microsoft Excel was used to
derive the regression equations. Figure 12 shows the method used to regress the lift and
drag data.

Bare Hull Lift and Drag vs. Yaw @ 4.7535 ft/s, 10
Heel
y = 0.0086x + 0.6756
y = 0.0081x + 0.0308
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 2 4 6 8
Yaw (degrees)
F
o
r
c
e

(
l
b
f
)
Drag
Lift
Linear (Drag)
Linear (Lift)

Figure 12: Graph of Regressed Lift and Drag Data

3.12 Appendage Test Analysis

In order to determine the interference drag generated at the interface between the strut
and the canoe body elliptical loading was assumed. Equation 10 was then used to
calculate the drag coefficient of the strut. Equation 11 defines how to calculate the aspect
ratio of the strut. The lift coefficient of the strut was calculated using equation 12. The
drag of the bulb was assumed to be equal to the skin friction of the bulb using a frictional
drag coefficient calculated from the International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) mean
line. An attempt was made to further break down the lift of the model into the lift of the
33
strut and the bulb combination and the effects of the appendage interaction with the hull.
It was found that the theoretical methods available did not give precise enough results in
comparison to the errors in the testing to perform such an analysis.

(10)



(11)


(12)
2
* * 7 . 0 AR
CL
CD

=

Area
Span
AR
2
=

S V
L
CL
* * * 2 / 1
2

=

The final step in the analysis was to scale the lift and drag data back up to full scale in
order to use the results as an input into a velocity prediction program. The non-
dimensional interference drag, CDIM, was assumed to be constant between model and
full scale. The coefficients of appendage drag, CDA, are different at model and full scale
due to Reynolds scaling effects. A term was added to the full scale lift coefficient to
account for changes in the design of the appendages from those that were tested.
Analytical methods will be used to determine the change in lift coefficient from the
baseline appendages. The drag coefficient for the new appendages can be calculated
using equation 10. Equations 13 through 16 give the details of the process used to
determine the full scale forces on the hull.

(13)

(14)


(15)

(16)
CA CDAS CDIM CRCM CfCS CDS + + + + =
) ( * * * 2 1
2
appendages canoe
appendages canoe model
S S V
Drag Drag Drag
CDIM
+
=

CL CLAS CLCM CLS + + =

BASELINE NEW
CL CL CL =


Once the full scale forces acting on the hull were determined, the lift coefficient of the
yacht was plotted at each of the three heel angles versus speed for constant yaw. These
results can be used to develop speed polar diagrams for the full scale yacht using the
velocity prediction program PCSAIL developed at the University of Michigan. The lift
coefficient of the yacht for various yaw angles in each of the three heel conditions was
plotted and is included below as Figures 13-15. The lift to drag ratio was also plotted and
is shown below as Figures 16-18.

34
CLyacht vs Vyacht 0 deg Heel
0.000E+00
2.000E-03
4.000E-03
6.000E-03
8.000E-03
1.000E-02
1.200E-02
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Vyacht (knots)
C
L

(
n
o
n
-
d
i
m
)
2.81 deg Yaw
4.74 deg Yaw

Figure 13: Lift Side force at 0
0
Heel


CLyacht vs Vyacht 10 deg Heel
5.000E-03
6.000E-03
7.000E-03
8.000E-03
9.000E-03
1.000E-02
1.100E-02
1.200E-02
1.300E-02
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Vyacht (knots)
C
L

(
n
o
n
-
d
i
m
)
2.81 deg Yaw
4.74 deg Yaw

Figure 14: Lift Side Force at 10
0
Heel

35
CLyacht vs Vyacht 20 deg Heel
4.000E-03
5.000E-03
6.000E-03
7.000E-03
8.000E-03
9.000E-03
1.000E-02
1.100E-02
1.200E-02
1.300E-02
1.400E-02
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Vyacht (knots)
C
L

(
n
o
n
-
d
i
m
)
2.81 deg Yaw
4.74 deg Yaw

Figure 15: Lift Side Force at 20
0
Heel


CL/CD O deg Heel
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Vyacht (kts)
C
L
/
C
D

(
n
o
n
-
d
i
m
)
2.81 deg Yaw
4.74 deg Yaw

Figure 16: Lift Side Force vs. Drag Force at 0
0
Heel

36
CL/CD 10 deg Heel
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Vyacht (kts)
C
L
/
C
D

(
n
o
n
-
d
i
m
)
2.81 deg Yaw
4.74 deg Yaw

Figure 17: Lift Side Force vs. Drag Force at 10
0
Heel


CL/CD 20 deg Heel
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Vyacht (kts)
C
L
/
C
D

(
n
o
n
-
d
i
m
)
2.81 deg Yaw
4.74 deg Yaw

Figure 18: Lift Side Force vs. Drag Force at 20
0
Heel

From Figures 13 through 18 it can be seen that the lift and drag coefficients of the yacht
seem to gradually decrease with speed in the displacement range of the hull and then
increase linearly once the boat enters a planing mode. While we expected the lift and drag
coefficients to be more constant in the displacement range these results seem to be
consistent with theory.
37
38
4. Sail Plan Design

4.1 Summary

The primary dimensions of the sail plan for the TP52 are specified by the rule but allow
the designer some leeway in designing the mainsail through the choice of the boom
length, mast height and the length of the sail at specified heights above the boom, while
maintaining an area of 985 ft
2
. The mainsail shape was chosen to create as much of an
elliptical form as possible to maximize efficiency, while not allowing the roach of the
mainsail to become too large so that it would catch on the backstay during tacks and
gybes. The maximum jib area is specified through the maximum specification of I, LPG,
and J and the maximum spinnaker area is specified at 2665 ft
2
. The specifications of the
box rule as well as the final dimensions chosen are shown below in Table 6.

Table 6: Sail Plan Dimensions
Maximum Minimum Final Design
IM 64.7 ft 64.7 ft
J 20.3 ft 20.3 ft
LP 20.9 ft 20.9 ft
ISP 73.5 ft 73.5 ft
P 67.0 ft 67.0 ft
HB 0.5 ft 0.5 ft
BAS 6.5 ft 7.0 ft 7.0 ft

4.2 Methodology

The jib and spinnakers will be designed by the sailmakers as they have extensive
experience and access to wind tunnel tests to determine the optimum shape and size for a
given boat, whereas the principle dimensions of the mainsail will be provided by the
yacht designer to the sailmaker. TP52 boats are required to obtain an IMS certificate as
well as to fit inside the box rule, and the IMS requirements provide additional limitations
shown below in Table 7.

Table 7: IMS Mainsail Limitations
Limit
MGT 0.22*E
MGU 0.38*E
MGM 0.65*E
MGL 0.90*E

MGT, MGU, MGM, and MGL are defined as the lengths of the girths of the mainsail
taken at points 7/8, 3/4, 1/2, and 1/4 of the leach from the clew respectively. This helps
to define the maximum roach in the sail for a given length of the boom E. The mainsail
area, MSA, was calculated from equation 17 which was specified in the TP52 rule.



39
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
2 8 2 8
2 4 2 4 2 4
HB MGT P MGT MGU P
MGU MGM P MGM MGL P MGL E P
MSA

(17)


This equation was used in combination with the IMS measurement points to determine
the mainsail area which must equal 985 ft
2
.

The mast and standing rigging for this yacht would be designed by a spar manufacturer,
which was chosen to be Hall Spars for the Rhumb Runner. The final sizes of the sail plan
would be given to Hall Spars to create a mast as well as the standing rigging. The
minimum mast weight is specified in the TP52 rule, as well as the requirement that the
standing rigging must be stainless steel and circular in cross section.

4.3 Design and Calculations

The driving force in the calculation of the mainsail dimensions was the desire to create an
elliptically shaped sail to maximize efficency, while preventing the roach of the sail from
overlapping the backstay too much. This was accomplished by creating an Excel
spreadsheet that would allow the visual comparison between the IMS maximum
dimensions, the backstay of the boat, and the chosen distances at each of the points in the
above equation. This allowed the creation of a sail that is elliptically shaped, within the
limits of the IMS rule, and also does not have an excessive amount of overlap that will
cause problems and the visual output from the Excel sheet can be seen below in Figure 19
with the final dimensions of the mainsail shown below in Table 8.

Table 8: Final Mainsail Dimensions
P 67.0 ft
E 25.25 ft
HB 0.5 ft
MGL 21.0 ft
MGM 15.75 ft
MGU 8.94 ft
MGT 5.2 ft



40
TP52 Sail Plan
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-32 -22 -12 -2 8 18
Boom
M
a
s
t
Mast
Boom
Sail
Backstay
Jib
Deck
Max Main Sail

Figure 19: Visual output from Excel comparing the IMS limits to the final
sail dimensions



41
42
5. Appendage Design

5.1 Summary

The design and optimization of the appendages was conducted using the results of
experiments, first principle calculations, and design guidance from experience. The
design of the bulb focused on minimizing the surface area and length of the bulb for the
required volume. Once the weight of the bulb had been established the structural
optimization of the keel strut was completed with an emphasis on minimizing thickness
and weight. The keel foil was designed around the strut configuration and its area was
compared with the total sail area and the design guidance of Larsson and Elliassion. The
rudder design focused on maximizing the lift generation capacity for a given drag while
having good stall characteristics. Finally the balance of the sails and lifting surfaces was
checked against design guidance in order to ensure balanced sailing in all conditions.

5.2 Methodology

In order to optimize the appendages, experimental results were combined with first
principle calculations to determine the best configuration for the keel, bulb, and rudder in
both the buoy racing and distance racing modes. The section shape for the foils was
selected using the experimental results from Abbot and Von Doenhoff with
considerations being made for lift, drag, and stall characteristics. The profile of the bulb
was also based on section data from The Theory of Wing Sections. The cross sectional
shape of the bulb was then optimized to minimize surface area, cross sectional area,
length, and vertical center of gravity for a given volume.

Structural considerations became the driving force in the design of both the rudder and
the keel. Two dimensional ideal beam theory was used to design the keel strut and the
rudder stock to allow for the thinnest possible foil sections. Equation 18 was used to
compute the bending stress in the strut and stock.

y
beam
I
Mc
=
(18)

Design loads for the keel strut were calculated for a knock down condition with a heel
angle of 90 degrees and the bulb completely out of the water. Figure 20 illustrates the
design condition for the keel strut calculations. The design loads for the rudder were
based on the lift and drag forces at stall with a boat speed of 15 knots. Elliptical loading
was assumed to compute the lift and drag acting on the rudder in the design condition.
Microsoft Excel spreadsheets utilizing the solver function were used in the optimization
process. Once the structures had been optimized with a suitable factor of safety, the size
of the foil sections was compared to that recommended by Larsson and Eliasson in order
to ensure adequate side force production and maneuverability.


43

Figure 20: Loading Condition for Optimization of the Keel Strut and Keel Bolts

The detailed design of the keel attachment to the hull was completed to assure adequate
strength in the connection system while maximizing the ease of keel installation and
removal. The keel bolts were sized using two dimensional beam theory in two loading
conditions: the knock down condition and the upright condition. The knock down
condition with the bulb out of the water was used to determine the shear stress and the
upright condition was used to determine the stress due to the bulb weight.

To insure that the forces acting on the appendages were balanced with the sail forces, the
center of effort of the sails and the center of lateral resistance were calculated using the
method from Larsson and Elliasson. The lateral separation, or lead, between the center of
effort and the center of lateral resistance was then compared with the guidance of Larsson
and Elliasson.

5.3 Design and Calculations

After analyzing the available airfoil shapes presented in the Theory of Wing Sections by
Abbot and Von Doenhoff, a NACA 64 series thickness form was selected for the keel and
bulb sections. The 64 series foil shape provides an excellent lift to drag ratio and a stall
angle of 13 degrees. In addition the 64 series airfoils have a drag bucket around zero
degrees angle of attack that can lead to significant reductions in drag in laminar operating
conditions. While this drag bucket does not occur when the foil is operating in turbulent
conditions the potential for speed gains in calm water was considered desirable.

Once the section shape for the bulb had been selected bulbs with several possible cross
sectional shapes were modeled in Rhino. The weight of the bulb was first determined
using an estimate of the structural weight of the hull based on data for an existing TP52
provided by Bakewell-White Yacht Design. The maximum bulb weight was then
determined by subtracting the structural, machinery, and rig weight from the maximum
displacement stipulated by the TP52 rule. The density of the bulb was assumed to be 700
lb/ft
3
which is approximately 95% pure lead and 5% antimony, a ratio believed to be
relatively standard in keel production. The first bulb was designed used a NACA 64-021
in profile and a circular cross section. Three other cross sections were used with the 64-
021 profile in an attempt to minimize the vertical center of gravity, surface area, and
length of the bulb. The center of gravity was minimized in order to gain the greatest
righting moment from a given bulb weight, the surface area was minimized in order to
minimize the frictional drag of the bulb, and the length was minimized in an attempt to
44
minimize the yaw added mass and increase the speed through tacks and gybes. Table 9
details the specifications of the four bulbs designed while Figure 21 provides a Rhino
rendering of the four bulb shapes.

Table 9: Specifications of the Four Bulbs with Varying Cross Section
Cross Section Surface Area Volume Length CG above BL Weight
ft
2
ft
3
ft ft lbs
Circle 31.01 10.714 8.522 0.915 7500
Ellipse 30.12 10.714 7.444 0.792 7500
Beaver Tail 39.43 10.714 9.464 0.386 7500
Half Round 38.25 10.714 10.113 0.44 7500



Figure 21: Rhino Rendering Illustrating the Geometry of the (from left to right) Circular,
Elliptical, Half Round, and Beaver Tail Cross Sections.

After the final weight study had been completed it was determined that the minimum
VCG requirement in the TP52 rule was a limiting factor in the bulb design. The rule
dictates that the vertical center of gravity of the hull cannot be more than 2.7 feet below
the design waterline. This requirement forced weight to be moved out of the bulb to keep
the VCG within the limits of the box rule. Once it was determined that the rule would
limit the VCG, the half-round and beaver tail bulbs were eliminated from consideration
since their only performance advantage were their low centers of gravity. The elliptical
section bulb will be fitted for the buoy racing condition since it has slightly less wetted
surface than the round section bulb and is significantly shorter. Less wetted surface will
decrease skin friction on the bulb at slow speeds and the shorter length will decrease the
45
yaw added mass and increase tacking speed. For higher speed distance racing the round
bulb will be fitted since it has a lower cross sectional area than the elliptical form which
should translate to reduced form drag at higher speeds. A CFD comparison of the two
bulb shapes was attempted in Fluent but the results are currently incomplete. Without
CFD to determine the pressure drag acting on the two bulbs the wetted surface and length
of the bulbs was all that could be considered in the design decision.

Concurrent to the optimization of the bulb shape the keel strut and foil were optimized.
The support strut was optimized in order to minimize the thickness of the foil section that
would be required to enclose it and to minimize the weight of the strut. The support strut
was designed as a box girder of constant cross section constructed with two 12 by
thick plates and two 3 by 1 sections of bar stock. The strut shall be fabricated from
304 stainless steel and shall have a total weight of 605 pounds. At the bulb a 1 thick
trapezoidal stainless steel plate will be welded between the side plates and four
sections of stainless round stock will be used to secure the bulb to the strut. The forces
will be transferred from the strut to the hull via a stainless steel sleeve consisting of four
1 thick stainless steel plates in a solid carbon fibre foundation along with four vertical 1
stainless steel threaded studs with nuts and three transverse studs with a diameter of 1
. This innovative approach to keel attachment will allow for quick and easy exchange
of keels when transitioning from buoy racing to distance racing. Forces will be
transferred from the carbon fibre foundation into the rest of the hull via six carbon fibre
legs. Detailed drawings of the keel support strut and the attachment points at both the
bulb and the hull are included in the drawings at the end of this section. Figure 22 shows
the graphical output from the Excel solver used to optimize the strut design.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-12 -7 -2 3 8
X-Coord (inches)
y
-
C
o
o
r
d

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)

Figure 22: Graphical Output from Keel Strut Optimization Spreadsheet Showing the Keel
Strut Box Girder

Tables 10 and 11 give the details of the structural calculations for the strut and keel bolts.
It should be noted that conservative factors of safety have been applied to both the keel
strut and the keel bolts. A free body diagram and force diagram for the entire system is
included as Figure 23.






46

Table 10: Results of Keel Strut Structural Calculations
Geometry Loading Stress
Side Plate
Length
Side Plate
Thickness
Bar Stock
Thickness
Bar Stock
Width
Moment of
Inertia
about y-axis
Bulb
Weight
Strut
Weight
Total
Bending
Moment
Max
Stress
Allowable
Stress
Safety
Factor
In in in in ft
4
lbs lbs ft*lbf pascals pascals non-dim
12.00 0.50 1.00 3.75 8.64E-03 7500.00 605.00 68354.23 3.16E+07 2.05E+08 6.49

Table 11: Results of Keel Bolt Structural Calculations
Geometry



Loading Stress
Vertical
Bolt
Diameter
Transverse
Bolt
Diameter
# of
Vertical
Bolts
# of
Trasverse
Bolts
Total Bolt
Area
Weight of
Bulb and
Strut
Stress from
Bulb Weight
Shear Stress
from Bending
Moment
Allowable
Stress
Safety
Factor
(Weight)
Safety
Factor
(Bending)
inches inches non-dim non-dim ft^2 lbf pascals pascals pascals non-dim non-dim
1.75 1.5 4 3 0.1036 8092.94 3.74E+06 6.74E+07 2.05E+08 54.82 3.04


Figure 23: Free Body Diagram and Force Diagram for Keel Support Structure

A NACA 64-015 section airfoil constructed from carbon fibre was designed to provide
the necessary side force to counter the lift produced by the sails as the keel. The foil
thickness was minimized around the keel stock as illustrated in Figure 22.

The rudder stock is a rectangular solid stock constructed from carbon fibre. The results of
the rudder stock optimization and loading are included in Tables 12-14. After calculating
47
the required moment of inertia for the rudder stock at the hull the moment distribution
over the length of the stock was computed in order to allow for a tapered stock. The
required stock thickness along the length of the foil is included as Figure 25. The rudder
consists of a NACA 0012 thickness form with an elliptical plan form, maximum chord
length of 14 , and a span of 6 9. The airfoil section used for the rudder was selected
for its good lift to drag ratio and superior stall characteristics. The NACA 0012 has a stall
angle of over 16 degrees, making it ideal for use in maneuvering. A detail drawing of the
rudder and stock are included as an attachment to this section. Once the foils had been
designed their surface area was computed and compared to guidance from Larsson and
Elliasson. The keel and rudder areas are within the range of high performance racing
sailboats. Table 15 gives the details of the rudder and keel areas as they relate to the total
sail area.


0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-12 -7 -2 3 8
X-Coord (inches)
y
-
C
o
o
r
d

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)

Figure 24: Graphical Output of Rudder Stock Optimization Spreadsheet

Stock Thickness Along Rudder
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
0 1 2 3 4 5
Ft. Below Fairing
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

(
I
n
c
h
e
s
)

Figure 25: Required Rudder Stock Thickness as a Function of Length

48


Table 12: Geometry of the Rudder Stock
Geometry
Base Stock
Thickness
Base Stock
Length
Span
Aspect
Ratio
Effective
Aspect Ratio
Iy Ix
inches inches ft
Non-
dim
non-dim ft^4 ft^4
1.37 6.00 6.91 7.28 14.57 1.19E-03 6.16E-05

Table 13: Loading of the Rudder Stock
Loading
AOA CL CDvisc CDI Lift Drag Fx Fy M(x) M(y)
Degress Non-dim non-dim non-dim lbf lbf lbf lbf ft*lbf Ft*lbf
15 1.45 0.013 0.046 922.42 491.25 713.25 763.84 3451.19 3695.96

Table 14: Stresses on the Rudder Stock
Stresses
Stock Weight Max Stress Allowable Stress Safety Factor
lbs Pascals pascals non-dim
56.71 1.90E+08 2.85E+08 1.50

Table 15: Comparison of Rudder and Keel Areas with Total Sail Area
Sail Area Rudder Area Keel Area
Main Jib Total Total Total Rudder/Sail Strut/Sail
ft^2 ft^2 ft^2 ft^2 ft^2 non-dim non-dim
984.98 656.70 1641.68 13.30 32.80 0.81% 2.00%

Verification of the balance between the sail forces and the lifting forces was the final step
in the appendage design process. AutoCAD was used to determine the center of effort of
the sail plan as well as the center of lateral resistance of the underwater lifting bodies.
Projected areas were used in the moment calculation in order to find the locations of the
geometric centers of the sail and of the hull, rudder, and keel. Once the CLR and CE were
known the lateral separation between the two points could be determined and compared
with design guidance. The center of effort of the sails was found to lead the center of
lateral resistance by 1.94 feet or approximately 3.8% of the design water line. This is
consistent with the established rules for lead length for performance racing yachts. A
drawing showing the locations of the centers of the sails and the underwater lifting bodies
is included as an attachment to this section.





49
50
51
52
53
6. Velocity Prediction Program

6.1 Summary

A velocity prediction program (VPP) was used in conjunction with the data obtained
from the model tests to determine the speed of the yacht at a given heading and wind
speed. The program was run for all possible headings from upwind to dead downwind
for wind speeds ranging from 6 to 30 knots. The speed polar diagram for the spherical
bulb form is shown below in Figure 26.


Figure 26: Speed polar diagram for all wind speeds and headings for a spherical
bulb form



54
6.2 Methodology

The VPP used to calculate the speed polar diagrams was PCSAIL v2.5 which was
developed by Professor Robert F. Beck and David Martin at the University of Michigan.
PCSAIL was developed as an Excel based VPP that would allow for the rapid evaluation
of the performance of a yacht early in the design phase by using empirical equations to
solver for the equilibrium speed and heel angle by changing the transverse crew position,
reefing the sail and flattening the sail. The program uses the nonlinear solver built into
Excel to iterate and find the optimum solution for each wind speed. The program is set
up to use Claughtons sail force coefficients which allows the use of a mainsail, jib and
also symmetrical spinnakers. The program finds the optimum angle at which point to
take in the jib and set the spinnaker to maximize boat speed.

PCSAIL uses the Delft Series of models to predict the resistance of a yacht, with the
equation used to calculate the total resistance shown below in equation 19.

(19)
R
tot
= R
f
+ R
r
+ R
i
+ R
h
+ R
waves
+ R
prop

The data that was obtained from the model test was used to calculate the residual
resistance of the yacht and this data was then used in place of the residual resistance R
r

calculated by using the Delft Series. The model test data was extrapolated to full scale
and then two polynomial regression equations were generated to accurately match the
data from the model tests which can be shown in Figure 27.
Residual Resistance vs Fn
y = 90999x
3
- 84944x
2
+ 27239x - 2914.8
y = -8962.4x
3
+ 22241x
2
- 15570x + 4117.3
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Fn
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Residual Resistance Low Speed
Residual Resistance High Speed
Residual Resistance
Poly. (Residual Resistance Low Speed)
Poly. (Residual Resistance High Speed)

Figure 27: Comparison between the model test data and the regression equations used
in PCSAIL.
55
Once the regression equations had been developed, a plot comparing the TP52 data to the
Delft Series for the residual resistance component was created and is shown below in
Figure 28.

Figure 28: Comparison between Delft Series and TP52 Model Test

It is evident in the above figure that there are noticeable differences between the Delft
Series and the TP52 data, with the resistance almost equal at low Froude numbers for
both, but it is possible to see a noticeable decrease in the resistance of the TP52 hull at a
Froude number of Fn=0.32 to Fn=0.44 which corresponds to a range of boat speed of 12
to 18 knots. The hull speed for the TP52 is calculated to be approximately 10 knots,
which accounts for the decrease in resistance once the hull has exceeded hull speed and is
entering the planing regime. The resistance increases from a boat speed of 18 knots to 23
knots, during which time the Delft Series would be outperforming the TP52, but after 23
knots the resistance reaches another hump and then drops off to significantly less than the
Delft Series for higher speeds.

The data from the heeled tests was regressed using multiple linear regressions as well as
exponential regressions, but with only three different heel angles, the accuracy of the
regression was not high enough to be considered worthwhile to be input into PCSAIL.
This resulted in the remaining components of the resistance being calculated using the
Delft Series regression equations, which might not be highly accurate, but would require
a significant amount of additional testing to gather enough data to be able to regress the
heeled resistance. More information about the specific equations used in PCSAIL can be
found in the Beck and Martins paper listed in the Reference section.




56
6.3 Design and Calculations
nce the model test data had been extrapolated and regressed and PCSAIL had been
ical

O
modified, it was then a simple matter of running the program for a number of wind
speeds and generating the speed polar diagrams. The program was run for the spher
and elliptical bulb forms, but due to the fact that PCSAIL was only able to differentiate
between the small differences resulting from the differences in the surface areas of each
bulb. The resulting speed polar diagrams for both the spherical and elliptical bulb forms
are shown below in Figure 29, and include both the TP52 as well as the Delft Series
predictions for comparison.


Figure 29: Speed polar diagrams for the spherical and elliptical bulb forms.

57
7. Structures

7.1 Summary

The structural design of the TP52 was completed primarily with safety in mind, but also
to comply with all of the regulatory bodies governing the yacht while maintaining the
competitive aspect of the yacht. The yachts structure was designed to withstand the
harshest of conditions while still maintaining a competitive advantage in the conditions
that facilitate light weight design.

7.2 Methodology

The structures were analyzed using the American Bureau of Shipping Guide for Building
and Classing Offshore Racing Yachts (ABS) rule as well as the wave bending and mast
compression from Larsson and Eliassons Principles of Yacht Design. The ABS method
looked at several factors including panel size and thickness along with overall weight of
each individual panel based on construction material. Larsson and Eliassons method
was used to calculate the required section modulus of the midship section by looking at
the longitudinal bending moment due to waves coupled with a bending moment due to
the compression of the rig.

The material chosen for the hull, deck and internal structure was carbon fibre with a
nomex honeycomb core. High density foam was used in several highly loaded areas such
as the keel-hull joint and the areas where winches are attached to the deck. The carbon
fibre was varied in direction and weight, with the majority of it being uni-directional
carbon. The laminate schedule was heavily based upon the schedule from the existing
yacht, Braveheart, which was provided by BakewellWhite Yacht Design.

The structural analysis performed in this design is a preliminary structural design as for
all high performance yachts the final structural engineering is performed by a company
such as High Modulus or SP Systems who have extensive knowledge in the design of
composite structures and can perform detailed finite element analysis studies.

Data from an existing hull was graciously provided by Bakewell-White Yacht Design
(BWYD) in order to give the Terminal Flow Design Group a better understanding of
what a typical laminate schedule would consist of for a Transpac 52. The values from the
two methods performed by the group somewhat conflicted with the data provided by
BWYD as the data provided by BWYD incorporated a very large safety factor. Since the
data from BWYD was engineered by High Modulus, a company specializing in the
engineering of composite racing yachts, a laminate schedule was based upon their
specifications in order to get a weight estimate. More time would have allowed the group
to do a more in depth study of the structures, but time constraints required that the group
make an estimate based on the data that was available. The large weight of the structure
as provided by High Modulus is most likely a result of the strict vertical center of gravity
requirements of the TP52 rule which require the VCG to be between 2 and 2.7 feet below
the design waterline. If the structure were built as light as possible, it would be necessary
58
to add a significant amount of lead to the hull in order to have the VCG not be below 2.7
feet so instead of adding weight, it makes sense to overbuild the structure of the boat and
to add less lead into the hull.

7.3 Design and Calculations

The design procedure began by calculating the ABS requirements and then comparing
them to Larsson and Eliassons method. The ABS rules begin by calculating the
thickness for single skin laminates using equations 20 and 21.

(20)
t sc
pk
a
d
=

t sc
pk
E
b
=. * *
.
75
02
1
3

(21)

E is the minimum flexural modulus of the laminate, which in this case is carbon fibre.
The IMS rule specified that the maximum allowable flexural modulus is 397402 Psi,
which was used for the calculations, since all the data found for carbon fibre provided a
flexural modulus greater than the maximum allowable value. Once the values for these
thicknesses had been determined, the sandwich construction values could be determined
using equations 22-24.

SM
t F
T
o
a
=
2
6

(22)
SM
t F
C
I
b
=
2
6
(23)
I
t E
E
b
Tc
=
3
506 .

(24)

These section moduli are the minimum required for the skins of a sandwich construction
panel 1 in. wide about the neutral axis of the panel. The values found were then
compared to the values that were calculated for the laminate schedule that was developed.
A minimum weight of panels outer skin was also required to be met by ABS. The
formula for this weight is given in equation 25.

(25) 94 . 2 664 . 0
1 5
+ = L W oz/yd
2

Calculations were also done using the method described in Larsson and Eliassons
Principles of Yacht Design which assumes that the ship acts as a beam longitudinally and
that there are two major components that contribute to the stress seen by the yacht: the
bending moment due to the waves and the bending moment due to the compression of the
rig, which is trying to force itself through the hull. These two components are added
59
together to give the section modulus that is required at the midship section, as shown in
equation 26.

(26)
SM SM SM
req wave rig
= +

Larsson and Eliasson mention that hogging and sagging calculations, due to waves, are
typically not calculated for vessels under 100 ft. of length , but in the interest of safety,
the calculation was done anyway in order to find the worst case scenario.

( )
350
400 80
7 . 0
2
14 . 0 7 . 12
2
01 . 0
max
2

+
=
B
WL OA WL OA
wave
C
L L
B
L L
SM
(27)

The section modulus due to the compression of the rig was calculated next by first
finding the compression in the rig and then using Larsson and Eliassons equations 28-30.

P
RM
b
mast
=

30
15
2
.
/

(28)
Mb
P L L
L
hull
mast
=

1 2

(29)
(30)
SM
Mb
rig
hull
u
=

u
is the ultimate compression or tensile strength for the hull and deck, whichever is less.
The comparison between the ABS requirements, Larsson and Eliassons methods, and the
calculated section modulus can be seen below in Table #.

Table 16: Comparison of section modulus calculations
Larsson and Eliasson's Method
SM
wave
4.96 in
3
SM
rigging
57.74 in
3
SM
total
62.70 in
3
ABS Minimum
SM
I
0.0113 in
3
SM
O
0.0076 in
3
Calculated Values
SM
U
799.40 in
3
SM
L
881.39 in
3

Overall, the structures for this yacht are incredibly overbuilt. They have a safety factor
well over a safety factor typically given to a race boat structure. The Terminal Flow
Yacht Design Group believes that this should be the case given the VCG requirements
imposed by the Transpac 52 rule prevent an ultra-light structure so instead of adding pure
lead to the hull to raise the VCG, adding additional weight to the structures will help raise
the VCG as well as improve the stiffness and overall safety of the yacht. The complete
ABS calculations as well as the calculations performed for Larsson and Eliassons
methods are shown in Tables 17 and 18.
60
Table 17: ABS structural calculations
Single Skin (Rq'd)
Thickness A (t) (in) Thickness B (t) (in) Spacing (s) in Correction (c.) p Coefficient (k) Coefficient(k
1
) Sigma F (table 7.4) Cf L(scant) ft. h E (PSI)
Panel 1 (fwd) 0.157815221 0.439219755 32.21 0.7 4.97390543 0.5 0.028 50763 0.57 0.399798 51.62 19.83216 397,402
Panel 2 0.191026013 0.559409385 45.42 0.7 3.66498295 0.5 0.028 50763 0.42 0.637589 51.62 19.83216 397,402
Panel 3 0.18925959 0.554236511 45 0.7 3.66498295 0.5 0.028 50763 0.42 0.630029 51.62 19.83216 397,402
Panel 4 0.191026013 0.559409385 45.42 0.7 3.66498295 0.5 0.028 50763 0.42 0.637589 51.62 19.83216 397,402
Panel 5 0.173836822 0.483809901 35.48 0.7 4.97390543 0.5 0.028 50763 0.57 0.458661 51.62 19.83216 397,402
Panel 6 0.2320047 0.740773719 71.5 0.7 2.18153747 0.5 0.028 50763 0.25 1.107051 51.62 19.83216 397,402
Panel 7 0.136671305 0.361777043 24 0.7 6.7191354 0.5 0.028 50763 0.77 0.252012 51.62 19.83216 397,402
Panel 8 0.244983983 0.782215606 75.5 0.7 2.18153747 0.5 0.028 50763 0.25 1.179054 51.62 19.83216 397,402
Panel 9 0.248228804 0.792576077 76.5 0.7 2.18153747 0.5 0.028 50763 0.25 1.197055 51.62 19.83216 397,402
Panel 10 0.473743862 1.512628854 146 0.7 2.18153747 0.5 0.028 50763 0.25 2.448113 51.62 19.83216 397,402
Sandwich Const. (Rq'd)
SM
OUTER
(in
3
) SM
INNER
(in
3
) I (in
4
) t
a
t
b F (table 7.4) E (PSI) T(PSI) C(PSI) E
TC h Spacing (s) i Sigma
Panel 1 (fwd) 5.43791E-08 1.08758E-07 0.016745383 0.157815221 0.43921975 0.57 397,402 43510 21755 397,402 19.83216 32.21 21755
Panel 2 5.87076E-08 1.17415E-07 0.034597023 0.191026013 0.55940939 0.42 397,402 43510 21755 397,402 19.83216 45.42 21755
Panel 3 5.76268E-08 1.15254E-07 0.033646112 0.18925959 0.55423651 0.42 397,402 43510 21755 397,402 19.83216 45 21755
Panel 4 5.87076E-08 1.17415E-07 0.034597023 0.191026013 0.55940939 0.42 397,402 43510 21755 397,402 19.83216 45.42 21755
Panel 5 6.59809E-08 1.31962E-07 0.022380704 0.173836822 0.4838099 0.57 397,402 43510 21755 397,402 19.83216 35.48 21755
Panel 6 5.15458E-08 1.03092E-07 0.080335256 0.2320047 0.74077372 0.25 397,402 43510 21755 397,402 19.83216 71.5 21755
Panel 7 5.50941E-08 1.10188E-07 0.009357773 0.136671305 0.36177704 0.77 397,402 43510 21755 397,402 19.83216 24 21755
Panel 8 5.74745E-08 1.14949E-07 0.094586447 0.244983983 0.78221561 0.25 397,402 43510 21755 397,402 19.83216 75.5 21755
Panel 9 5.90071E-08 1.18014E-07 0.098394849 0.248228804 0.79257608 0.25 397,402 43510 21755 397,402 19.83216 76.5 21755
Panel 10 2.14925E-07 4.2985E-07 0.683985074 0.473743862 1.51262885 0.25 397,402 43510 21755 397,402 19.83216 146 21755
Actual Outer
Member Base Height Dist. N.A.(a) Dist baseline(x) Area I
n
I
x
Area*x
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in
2
) (in
4
) (in
4
)
1 1 0.0472 0.4094 1.0472 0.0472 0.0000 0.0079 0.0494
A
i
I
x
Total x
i
SM
0.0472 0.0079 1.0472 0.007562908
Actual Inner
Member Base Height Dist. N.A.(a) Dist baseline(x) Area I
n
I
x
Area*x
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in
2
) (in
4
) (in
4
)
1 1 0.0315 0.6142 1.0472 0.0315 0.0000 0.0119 0.0330
A
i
I
x
Total x
i
SM
0.0315 0.0119 1.0472 0.011349996
61
Table 18: Larsson and Eliassons structural calculations
Required SM L(ft.) B(ft.) C
b
(PSI) Pmast L1(ft.) L2(ft.) (lbs.) Mb
hull
52 10.5 0.354 21.33 29.667 16500
(m) (m) (N/mm
2
) (N) (m) (m) (N) (N*m)
conversion to metric (cm) 15.8496 3.2004 350 89290 6.501384 9.042502 73392 331191.3
SM Wave
81.2023243 (cm
3
) 4.95529064 (in
3
)
SM Rigging
946.260877 (cm
3
) 57.7446238 (in
3
)
SM Total
1027.4632 (cm
3
) 62.6999144 (in
3
)
Actual
Member Base Height Dist. N.A.(a) Dist baseline(x) Area I
n
I
x
Area*x
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in
2
) (in
4
) (in
4
)
1 outer 112.86 0.05 45.51 0.02 5.33 0.0010 11043.43 0.13
1 inner 112.86 0.03 44.55 0.98 3.56 0.0003 7055.82 3.50
5 outer 68.96 0.05 44.66 90.20 3.26 0.0006 6498.33 293.86
5 inner 68.96 0.03 43.70 89.24 2.17 0.0002 4148.42 193.85
6 (Keelson) N/A N/A 42.75 2.77 0.63 N/A 617.85 1.74
Both Sides
2 outer 0.05 48.06 5.33 40.20 2.27 437.1173 1003.21 182.50
2 inner 0.03 48.06 5.33 40.20 1.51 291.4486 668.92 121.72
3 outer 33.92 0.05 22.56 68.09 1.60 0.0003 1631.10 218.22
3 inner 33.92 0.03 21.60 67.13 1.07 0.0001 996.95 143.44
4 outer 0.05 15.72 33.33 78.86 0.74 15.2882 1680.47 117.12
4 inner 0.03 15.72 33.33 78.86 0.50 10.1934 1120.39 78.09
7 (Stringer) N/A N/A 28.91 19.84 0.98 N/A 1554.14 38.99
*All section numbering can be seen in the Midship Drawing
A
i
I
x
Total x
i
SM to bottom SM to cabin top
32.30 38019.01 43.14 881.39 799.40 (in
3
)
1582351.14 109.56 14443.30 13099.72 Metric(cm
3
)
Larsson & Eliasson Method from Principles of Yacht Design
62
63
64
65
8. General Arrangement

8.1 Summary

The interior layout was designed to be lightweight as well as integral with the structure of
the boat. It had to be easy to move about as well as functional with minimum space
available. Everything that was included in the interior had to serve a purpose as this is a
grand prix racing boat, there are not comfort features included. Areas for removing wet
gear had to be placed in order to minimize the transfer of water throughout the boat.
Areas for storing dry cloths had to be located so that the transition from wet to dry would
be smooth. Sleeping arrangements had to be made in order to locate people on the high
side of the boat, in order to increase righting moment, at all times if at all possible. A
fully enclosed head was required by the rules and a galley area had to be located as well
as areas for food storage and preparation.

8.2 Methodology

The design of the interior of a grand prix sailboat is driven by the structural bulkheads to
provide the main divisions of the hull space as the addition of unnecessary divisions
would simple add weight. The driving force behind the design of the interior is to
maximize open space for freedom of movement and gear storage, while allowing enough
separation between wet and dry areas to keep the crew comfortable in offshore races.

8.3 Design

The area of the interior where the companionway comes down is historically a very wet
part of the interior of a race boat. In order to minimize the size of this area, the wet
lockers were placed directly at the bottom of the stairs so that the wet gear could be
immediately removed and the water from the gear would not be spread around the boat.
The wet lockers are integrated into the structure as the two sides of the lockers are
composed of two partial bulkheads, which can be seen in Figure 30.


Figure 30: Interior rendering showing the wet lockers and dry cubbies.
66
Forward and starboard of the wet locker area is a seat where it is possible to sit and
change. Dry cubbies are located against the main bulkhead allowing the quick removal
or addition of dry clothing. Both the seat and the dry lockers are made of carbon fibre in
order to reduce the weight. This area can also be seen in Figure # shown above.

The galley is to the port side, between the wet locker and the main bulkhead, with a sink,
a four burner gimbaled stove along with food storage beneath and above in the form of
shelves with cloth faces to keep the food from falling out while under way. A removable
top also allows a makeshift ice chest. The counter top is large for the easy preparation of
food and also has fiddles around the edge to keep things from rolling off in heavy seas.
The galley can be seen below in Figure 31.


Figure 31: Rendering of the galley

Forward of the main bulkhead is the head. Since an enclosed head is required by the rule
IMS rule, the area forward of the main bulkhead is classified in the drawings as the head,
even though sail storage takes place there. This effectively removes 2 walls that would
have had to have been built in order to enclose the head.

Aft of the wet lockers are the sleeping areas as well as the navigation station. There are
three pipe berths as well as two hard bunks, which also create areas for water storage.
The pipe berths as well as the hard bunks utilize a set of hinges on the outboard side as
well as a block and tackle system on the inboard side in order to let the sleeping surface
to be angled so that the sleeping person does not fall out of their bunk when the yacht
heels.

The navigation station is located aft of the engine box, which is located beneath and aft of
the stairs, under the cockpit floor. The navigation station is the most restricted as far as
moving around is concerned, but the entire interior was rendered in three dimensions to
ensure that a 6 foot tall person could fit in the area. The reason that the navigation station
was located this far aft is that the motions are greatly reduced in this area of the yacht.
Since the navigator will be expected to spend a large amount of time in this area of the
yacht, it was decided that restricted area was an acceptable loss in return for better
67
motions. The navigation area can be seen below in Figure 32, which also shows that a 6
tall person can comfortably sit at the navigation table and not worry about hitting their
head.


Figure 32: Navigation station rendering showing head clearances

Rhumb Runner has been outfitted with 2 water tanks, one port and one starboard, each
located under the forward most fixed berths. The tanks each hold 70 gallons of water for
a total capacity of 140 gallons of water. The fuel tank is integrated into the engine
compartment and has a capacity of 25 gallons. The head also includes a waste tank of 7
gallons.


68
69
70
9. Deck Layout

9.1 Summary

The deck layout was designed to reduce the amount of time crew are waiting for an open
winch, or waiting for other crew members to get out of their way. The deck layout is
organized so that individual areas are not used for multiple tasks. For example, pit
winches were not to be used for anything other than the pitmans tasks. The deck was set
up with buoy racing being the primary consideration, with offshore being an easy
extension from the buoy racing setup.

9.2 Methodology

The principles guiding the design of the deck layout of a grad prix sailboat are very
simple: make the boat go fast. This is accomplished by simplifying the paths of lines, as
well as trying to reduce the necessary deck hardware, without creating a lack of necessary
blocks or winches. Many of the current TP52s are designed to have only 5 winches to
reduce weight and cost, but experience has shown that it is much more efficient to add a
second set of winches to allow the crew to accomplish tasks much easier and without the
risk of tangled lines.

9.3 Design

The foredeck area was designed to be as clean as possible and to allow the bowman easy
motion without a lot of gear in their way. The spinnaker pole is located to starboard on its
own chock which allows for easy launch and retrieval when buoy racing as marks are
typically left to port which requires a starboard pole launch. If the boat were to be located
primarily in the Mediterranean, it would be very simple to switch the chock to the port
side for the common starboard rounding. The pole is stored off centerline to allow free
motion of the forward hatch when the pole is on deck. Figure 33 shown below shows the
openness of the deck and the storage system of the pole.


Figure 33: Exterior view showing the open deck and pole storage.
71
This yacht has a system for trimming headsails that is typically seen only on maxi yachts.
The system utilizes a transverse car system that allows complete control of the jib trim by
allowing the clew of the jib to be moved fore and aft as well as inboard and outboard.
The track is oriented transversely on the hull with the outboard end kicked slightly
forward so that the car always wants to travel outboard. The car, which rides on the track,
is controlled with an inhaul that brings the car inboard. The car has a small sheave that
turns a line running from the secondary winch forward, with a block attached to its end
that the jib sheet runs through. This allows the turning block to be raised and lowered, as
well as the car moved inboard and outboard, which allows complete control over the jib
clew. A detailed image of this can be seen in Figure 34.


Figure 34: Transverse jib track detail

Two primaries as well as two secondary winches were used for the mid cockpit area.
This allows the jib sheets as well as the spin sheets to be run on the primaries while the
brace and the jib track downhaul are on the secondary. In order to change the primary
winch from having the jib sheet to having the spinnaker sheet, the jib block has a trigger
on it that allows it to be closed which locks the line and keeps the jib trim constant. This
allows the spinnaker sheet to be loaded on the drum while jib trim is maintained.

The cabin top winches are used specifically for the halyards as the primaries and
secondaries can be used for both jib and spinnaker sheets. This allows the pitman to have
complete use of the cabin top winches. This greatly reduces the time a maneuver will take
allowing sails to be kept up longer. The halyards that the pitman is dealing with are 2
mast head halyards, 2 fractional wing halyards as well as a centerline topping lift for the
pole for a total of 5 halyards. The main halyard is run to the mast step inside the boat so
that deck space can be kept to halyards that are needed for sail changes. Both masthead
halyards are on halyard locks in order to reduce mast compression. Also in the pit area is
the boom vang, outhaul, cunningham, and the jib sheet inhaul.

The primary winches are powered by a grinding pedestal which is located on centerline
between the two primaries. Shafting runs beneath the cabin sole through the interior up
to the underside of the primary winch to connect the two winches to the pedastal. The
72
pedestal has a transmission which allows the selection of one of three speeds to allow for
fast sail trim. The secondaries use a top handle to power them. The pedestal allows for
much quicker sheeting but since the secondaries are only used for low speed applications
such as trimming the brace and adjusting the jib sheet downhaul, the high speed sheeting
that a pedestal provides is unnecessary.

The main sheet is powered from a single winch located in the center of the cockpit just
forward of the wheels. The main winch has a grinding pedestal located just forward of it
on centerline. The main sheet is dead ended from a pad eye located on the port end of the
track to the port block on the mainsheet car up to the boom where it runs through a block
and then back to the starboard block on the mainsheet car. It is then led to the starboard
end of the track and through the hull, passing through a series of sheaves. The sheet then
exits the hull just forward of the wheels adjacent to the mainsheet winch on the starboard
side, where it runs across the cockpit sole through a series of sheaves to get to the height
of the mainsheet winch where it is then loaded on the winch. This same setup has been
used on an existing Transpac 52, Braveheart, and has been proven to work very well.

The twin wheels are slightly aft of the mainsheet winch with lots of room between the
driver and the mainsheet traveler. The traveler is led forward through a purchase system
so that it is easy for the main trimmer to grab while trimming the main. Two foldable
platforms are located at the wheels allowing the skipper to always stand on a flat surface,
which greatly reduces driver fatigue and increases visibility forward. The view forward
from the port helm can be seen below in Figure 35.


Figure 35: View forward from the port wheel

Both the forestay and the backstay are hydraulically controlled by a hand pump located at
the front side of the main sheet winch support. The backstay is run on a one to two
purchase system which allows quick adjustments so that the backstay can be easily eased
before tacks and tightened again once the boat is up to speed.

73
The following paragraphs describe a typical upwind leg, tack, windward mark rounding,
jibe, and a leeward mark rounding to help explain the deck layout and how it would
function in typical race situations.

Upwind sailing would have everyone on the rail except for the main trimmer and the
tactician. Through the tacks, the jib trimmer and grinder would get off the rail, the
trimmer would go to the low side ready to remove the line from the drum through the
tack (also called breaking), while the grinder goes to the pedestal in preparation for a
quick grind to get the new sheet in. Through the tack one of the secondary trimmers will
have the new sheet in his hand and pull it across with him as he goes to the new side, this
will then be grabbed by the primary trimmer when he is done breaking the old sheet. The
trimmer stays low for a minute while the grinder gives a final trim and then they both hit
the rail again.

A typical approach to a windward mark is set up so that the boat is on starboard tack
ready for a port rounding. In this scenario the first person off the rail is the bowman,
followed by the pitman. The bowman will go forward, remove the pole from the chock,
attach the pole to the mast, and he will then call for the topping lift to be hoisted, and the
pitman will raise the topping lift, along with the inboard lift, which will elevate the pole
to the correct level. The bowman will then open the spinnaker bag and make sure
everything is running free. At this time the spinnaker trimmer will go to leeward and lock
the jib sheet and load the spin sheet on the primary. The brace trimmer will load the brace
on the windward secondary. The pitman will load one of his winches with the spin
halyard and the other with the jib halyard. The mastman will get off the rail and move to
the mast in preparation for the hoist. As the boat rounds the mark, the skipper will call for
the hoist, the mastman upon hearing this will jump (pull the halyard up) the halyard as
fast as possible while the pitman tails for him and the bowman makes sure that the
spinnaker is coming out cleanly. Once the spinnaker is up and the mastman has yelled
made, the pitman drops the jib which is collected by the bowman and the mastman. All
the gear is cleaned up and the boat is now sailing downwind.

Jibing a symmetrical kite is fairly simple for a boat set up like this one and will be
described below, with a similar procedure being followed for an asymmetrical kite.
When the boat is getting ready for the jibe, the bowman grabs his lazy (leeward) brace
and moves forward with it. The mastman positions himself at the mast to raise the
inboard end of the pole and the pitman is in the pit ready to drop the topping lift. The
trimmers have loaded the new brace on the leeward secondary and the new sheet on the
windward primary. Two grinders man the forward pedestal driving the primaries and two
more grinders man the aft pedestal powering the main. On the call to jibe, the main is
brought in as quickly as possible, the boat is turned down and the pole squared aft at
which time it is tripped open, the mastman skies the inboard end and the topper is
lowered so that the pole swings past the bowmans hands and he clips the new guy into it
and throws it out to the new windward side. Throughout this time the trimmer has held
both sheets on the primaries to control the sail with both braces, and as soon as the new
brace has been made, the brace trimmer pulls the new line and takes tension on the brace.
The spinnaker trimmer then dumps the windward sheet and concentrates on the leeward
74
sheet. The main trimmer has by this time let the main back out to proper trim on the new
leeward side.

For the leeward mark, a leeward takedown, the simplest maneuver, will be described to
show that everything runs easily in this yachts cockpit. Coming in to the leeward mark,
the bowman will hook up the jib that is to go up and the mastman and pitman will prepare
to hoist the jib. Once the jib is hoisted, the spinnaker will be prepared to be locked off
and the jib will be prepared to be loaded on the winch. The bowman will climb out to the
tip of the pole to spike the spinnaker off the pole. Once the spinnaker has been spiked off
the pole, the halyard is released by the pitman and several people go to the leeward side
to bring the sail in. During that time, the jib sheets were loaded, and the jib would now be
trimmed in as the boat turned upwind. Two grinders would be on the aft pedestal bringing
the main in tight as well as two more on the forward pedestal sheeting in the jib. The
bowman would simultaneously be cleaning up the foredeck, while the pitman lowered the
pole to him and cleaned up his own area. As soon as the boat rounds the mark and is
headed to weather again, everyone will be settled and on the windward side of the boat
hiking as hard as possible.

This example of the upwind and downwind maneuvers should make it evident that the
goals were reached in the effort to reduce crew waiting on each other and allowing the
boat to function as a pure racing machine.

75
76
10. Machinery

10.1 Summary

A propeller matching study was performed to ensure that the sailboat would be able to
maintain forward motion in a storm condition of 30 knots of wind and a significant wave
height of 4.5 feet, which is most likely the worst condition the yacht will face under
power. The inability of the sailboat to maintain forward motion in a storm could lead to
damage to the yacht and potentially, loss of life.

The Transpac 52 rule specifies a list of several engines that may be used in the boat with
very little performance differences between the engines, as all the engines are similar in
weight and horsepower and only differ in cylinder arrangement. The rule allows the use
of a shaft driven propeller or a sail drive and for this design a sail drive was chosen to
minimize drag. The TP52 rule leaves the choice of propeller up to the designer, and in
this case, low drag is of primary concern. Gori Propellers was chosen as the propeller
manufacturer for this yacht as Gori Propellers are considered some of the best in the
world, with very low drag characteristics to their propellers. A folding propeller was
chosen over a feathering propeller due to less drag with a folding propeller.

Complete propeller matching was performed for this yacht, utilizing drag data scaled
from the model tests. Gori Propeller provided an independent propeller suggestion using
their propeller matching software which verified the choice of the Gori Racing 530 as the
desired propeller.

10.2 Methodology

The resistance of the hull, including the keel and bulb, was determined through model
testing to produce accurate numbers for calm water resistance. Larsson and Eliassons
method was used to determine wind resistance of the hull, mast and rigging. The
calculations are based on determining the frontal area of each component and then
finding the force acting on the area for a given wind condition. In each case a coefficient
is included to account for the fact that pieces are approximated as boxes in many cases it
might not be a correct estimation of true frontal area. A wind speed of 30 knots was used
to represent a typical sustained storm condition and the equations used to find the hull
windage can be seen below in equation 31, mast windage in equation 32 and the standing
rigging windage in equation 33.

R V C B
AH A a AH MAX F
=
1
2
2
F
(31)

(32)

(33)

M M AM a A AM
L t C V R =
2
2
1


R V C t
AR A a AR R R
=
1
2
2
L


77
The resistance due to each component can be seen in Table 19.

Table 19: Resistance due to hull, mast and standing rigging
Vel. (kts.) 7 8 9 10 11
RAH (lbs) 167.94 177.14 186.58 196.27 206.21
RAM (lbs) 191.77 202.28 213.07 224.13 235.48
RAR (lbs) 66.30 69.93 73.66 77.49 81.41
Total (lbs) 426.01 449.35 473.31 497.90 523.10

The added resistance due to waves was calculated using the method presented in Larsson
and Eliassons book. This method utilized the added resistance curves from Gerritsma for
waves at an angle of 135 degrees, measured from direction of wave travel to direction of
yacht travel. These numbers were originally computed for a 10 meter long yacht which
was then non-dimensionalized and utilized to give an approximation of the added
resistance in a given wave condition, in this case a significant wave height of 4.5 feet.
This was thought to be a good approximation between the longer swells of the ocean and
the shorter, steeper swells of inshore racing. The added resistance due to waves can be
seen in Table 20.

Table 20: Resistance due to waves
Vel. (kts.) 7 8 9 10 11
Rw (lbs) 330 330 330 330 330

The total resistance is caclculted for the calm water condition as well as the storm
condition and is shown below in Table 21 and shown in Figure 36.

Table 21: Total resistance for calm water and storm condition
Vel. (kts.) 7 8 9 10 11
Calm (lbs) 309 514 633 947 1159
Storm (lbs) 1065.012 1293.351 1436.312 1774.895 2012.101

Rough Weather and Calm Water Resistance Curves
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Boat Speed (Kts.)
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
l
b
s
.
)
Rough - 30kts wind, 4.5' sig
wave height
Calm

Figure 36: Calm water resistance and storm resistance
78
Once the total resistance had been calculated, the optimum propeller could be
determined. This was done by using the Troost propeller series developed by the
Netherlands Model Basin, MARIN. A unique thrust coefficient,
u
, was used to first find
the inverse advance coefficient, , and then the pitch over diameter ratio which can be
seen in equation 34.

4
2
36 . 13
VA
n Tr
u

(34)

was then found by reading the graph from Larsson and Eliassons book for the 2-bladed
Troost propeller using the optimum propeller curve. The diameter was determined for
each individual case using equation 35.

n
VA
D

=
3 . 101

(35)

This gave a series of optimum propeller characteristics for a given condition. 5 different
speeds were used to get a wide range of values. The engine for this boat was chosen to
be a Yanmar 4JH4CE X SD40, with an output of 54 horsepower which allowed an
estimate of the speed to be calculated for each condition. In order to finalize the design,
Gori Propellers was contacted to obtain actual propeller data for a stock propeller. Data
for their propeller Racing 530 was used to calculate the speed of the yacht using the same
methods described above. Table 22 shows the calculations for Troost propeller series.

Table 22: Calculations for the calm and storm conditions for a Troost series propeller.
Calm Rough
V
A
(knots) 7 8 9 10 11 7 8 9 10 11
V
A
(ft/s) 11.82 13.50 15.19 16.88 18.57 11.82 13.50 15.19 16.88 18.57
Thrust
(lbs) 309.00 514.00 633.00 947.00 1159.00 1065.01 1293.35 1436.31 1774.90 2012.10
B
U
26.03 25.70 22.54 22.33 20.41 48.32 40.77 33.95 30.57 26.90
(from
Troost) 270.00 264.00 238.00 237.00 230.00 370.00 340.00 320.00 300.00 269.00
Dp 1.46 1.63 1.66 1.83 1.96 2.00 2.10 2.23 2.32 2.29
P/Dp 0.52 0.53 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.52
P 0.76 0.87 0.96 1.07 1.17 0.94 0.99 1.05 1.14 1.19

o
0.63 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.54 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.63
P
D
(ft.lbs/sec) 5795.47 10930.80 14570.51 24220.24 32312.78 23304.03 30641.06 36983.81 49115.14 59302.69
P
D
(hp) 10.54 19.87 26.49 44.04 58.75 42.37 55.71 67.24 89.30 107.82

10.3 Design and Calculations

After careful study of the propeller choices, the Gori Racing 530 was chosen as it meets
all requirements initially stated and has extremely low drag characteristics. In rough
79
weather the Gori Racing 530 propels the yacht at approximately 8.5 knots. In calm water
the Gori Racing 530 can propel the yacht at approximately 10.65 knots. The engine
drawings are included in the following pages showing the sail drive and folding action of
the propeller.








80
81
11. Electrical System

11.1 Summary

The electrical system on a Transpac 52 is fairly basic, but holds a significant amount of
importance. During buoy races the wind instruments are of utmost importance, giving all
the wind data used to make many of the tactical decisions. Offshore, the navigation
equipment also plays an incredibly important part, keeping the boat competitive as well
as safe. Not having an operating electrical system is analogous to having a blindfold on,
so even though it is a small part of the yacht, it is an important part.

11.2 Methodology

The electrical system was outlined in this design, but battery sizing and a load analysis
were not calculated since between this stage of design and the construction of the yacht,
significant changes could occur in the battery and load sizing.

11.3 Design and Calculations

The system runs on a house battery bank that powers the entire electrical system. The
battery bank is charged by the main engine, so a separate generator is not required. The
engine has a separate cranking battery used only for starting the engine which is a
necessary safety backup which helps prevent ever having a dead battery as the house
bank can be dead, but the engine can still be operated. The cranking battery is also
charged by the main engine.

The electrical system is comprised of two basic sections consisting of the instruments and
the lighting. Instruments include wind instruments, displays, navigation equipment,
satellite equipment, and the computer system. The lighting includes the exterior
navigation lights as well as the interior cabin lights.

The wind instruments use a B&G system that was specified by the Terminal Flow Yacht
Design Group. The system utilizes 3 20/20 displays on the mast under the boom, 4 FFD
displays; 2 for the aft face of the cabin and 2 for the navigation station, several
processors, a masthead unit, a load cell for each shroud and forestay and backstay, a gyro
stabilized compass, depth and speed sensors, RaceVision 2 and RemoteVision. This was
confirmed by B&G that it would be an effective race setup. An integrated computer
system collects all the data from all the instruments and displays it real time for the
navigator as well as provides a record of the boat set up for later performance analysis.
The RaceVision 2 and RemoteVision allow the navigator access to all the information
from the computer system while on deck or anywhere in the boat, which allows easy
communication between the navigator, tactician, and helmsman as they all can be on
deck at the same time with all information easily available. A satellite system was also
chosen for the yacht in order to give communication while offshore which would include
weather information as well as voice communication.

82
The lighting of the yacht is very simple with the exterior lights consisting of the masthead
tri-color light, a two color bow light and a steaming light on the transom. The masthead
tri-color is for use while under sail and would be a LED to conserve power while the bow
and stern lights would be used when under power. Below deck there are only four dome
lights and two LED lights which are very energy efficient.

A bilge pump and a 12v outlet are also included in the wiring diagram with the extra 12v
outlet provided to power any other accessories that are needed on the boat.





83
84
12. Weights

12.1 Summary

The TP52 rule provides very specific guidelines for both the weight of the yacht, as it
must be between 16,500 lbs and 17,000 lbs as well as the vertical center of gravity which
must be between 2.0 ft and 2.7 ft below the design waterline. The design of Rhumb
Runner involved designing the hull to meet the minimum weight requirement as it is
much easier to add weight rather than remove it, and to maximize stability and increase
the righting moment, the vertical center of gravity was designed to the minimum allowed
at 2.7 ft below the design waterline. The weights and trim of the yacht were calculated
for three different conditions, the IMS measurement condition, the buoy racing condition
as well as the offshore racing condition and the location of the longitudinal centers of
gravity for each condition can be seen below in Figure 37.



Figure 37: Locations of the longitudinal centers of gravity for each condition.

12.2 Methodology

The weight for the hull and deck structure was calculated from the laminate schedule
used in the structural design, which was provided by Bakewell-White Yacht Design. In
addition, the interior structural weights were calculated in a similar fashion, namely by
calculating the area of each structure, multiplying the weight of the fiber being used by
the number of laminates being used and adding the core weight, and then multiplying this
weight by the area to find the total weight. This process was repeated many times for
each part of the internal structure, with the longitudinal and vertical center of gravity
calculated by finding the centroid of the object. The weight for each object was then
multiplied by its vertical and longitudinal location to calculate the moment of the object
about the bow, and then the moments were summed to find the resulting location of the
center of gravity of the yacht. The transverse location of each object was not taken into
account as the boat is essentially symmetrical and will therefore float at an even draft in
the transverse direction. Once the weight of the structure had been calculated, it was then
possible to calculate the weight of every object being added to the boat and summing the
moments to find the resulting centers of gravity.
85

The weights were calculated for three conditions: the IMS measurement condition, the
buoy racing condition, and the offshore racing condition. The IMS measurement
condition is the bare hull with all tanks empty and no sailing equipment on the boat,
while the buoy racing condition is a full crew of 2806 lbs which is the maximum
allowable crew weight according to the TP52 rule, full sailing equipment and of the
maximum tanks and stores. The offshore condition consists of of the maximum crew
weight, full sailing equipment, and full tanks and stores.

Once the weights had been calculated for each condition, it was then possible to calculate
the static rise, trim, and sinkage at the bow and stern. The rise of the yacht was
calculated using equation 36, the trim using equation 37, and the sinkage at the bow and
stern using equations 38 and 39.

(36)


(37)


(38)


(39)


( )
( )

=
180
sin
180
sin
deg /
-

Trim LWL LCB Stern Sinkage

Trim LCB Bow Sinkage
RM al Longitudin
Weight LCG LCB
Trim
Immersion
Weight Disp
Rise

12.3 Design and Calculations

The design process of the yacht initially involved designing every component to be as
light as possible in order to put as much lead in the bulb as possible, but as the design
progressed, it became evident that the vertical center of gravity would be below the
required minimum, which meant that weight must be removed from the bulb and added
above the design water line. This additional weight was used to increase the weight of
the internal structure of the boat to increase the strength of the boat. In addition, 769 lbs
of lead were added to the hull at the base of the canoe body where the keel hull joint is
located. Lead was added instead of increasing the structural weight to minimize the
moment of inertia of the yacht in order to improve the performance of the yacht in waves.

The weights of the hull were broken down into 18 different sections and the summation
of each section is shown below in Table 23.






86
Table 23: Summary of weight section breakdown
SEC. NO. Description CALC. WT EST. WT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
lbs lbs ft ft-lbs ft ft-lbs
Sect. 01 Hull Construction 2,008.27 -26.88 -53,974.63 0.67 1,351.34
Sect. 02 Deck Construction 1,143.94 -30.70 -35,124.64 3.91 4,472.91
Sect. 03 Rig 1,019.55 -23.51 -23,972.71 24.44 24,918.30
Sect. 04 Hatches 52.79 -21.33 -1,126.23 5.06 267.06
Sect. 05 Rails/Metal 94.54 -26.54 -2,508.51 5.10 482.42
Sect. 06 Winches 225.17 -32.71 -7,365.08 4.02 905.13
Sect. 07 Systems 287.43 -32.76 -9,417.67 4.25 1,222.91
Sect. 08 Hydraulics 143.03 -28.06 -4,012.97 4.37 624.74
Sect. 09 Machinery 897.28 -28.76 -25,808.12 0.30 272.32
Sect. 10 Outfit 103.62 -29.53 -3,060.29 1.63 168.89
Sect. 11 Plumbing 48.94 -19.36 -947.31 0.06 3.15
Sect. 12 Tanks 39.68 -30.62 -1,215.15 0.00 0.00
Sect. 13 Steering 233.04 -47.04 -10,961.83 -0.42 -98.72
Sect. 14 Safety Gear 226.02 -35.91 -8,117.18 0.51 115.73
Sect. 15 Keel and Strut 8,923.08 -25.00 -223,076.88 -8.95 -79,845.12
Sect. 16 Transverse Structure 318.28 -26.15 -8,322.97 2.06 657.10
Sect. 17 Longitudinal Structure 421.06 -30.46 -12,825.58 -0.41 -173.50
Sect. 18 Interior 314.61 -28.62 -9,005.58 0.37 115.55

The weights and centers for each condition are shown below in Table 24 in addition to
the weight of the tankage which consists of 130 gallons of water and 25 gallons of fuel as
well as 200 lbs of stores.

Table 24: Summary of the measurement conditions
Description EST. WT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Tankage and Stores at Full Load 1,668.69 -33.72 -56,276.31 0.40 664.58
Sailing Equipment 512.66 -21.80 -11,178.51 10.90 5,588.82
Crew 2,806.00 -33.80 -94,842.80 4.25 11,925.50

Offshore Racing Load (3/4 Crew Weight) 20,786 -27.88 -579,430 -1.41 -29,342
Buoy Racing Load (1/4 Tankage and Stores) 20,236 -27.72 -560,934 -1.33 -26,859
Light Ship Measurement Load 16,500 -26.72 -440,843 -2.70 -44,540

The flotation calculations for each measurement condition are shown below in Table 25.

Table 25: Summary of the flotation calculations
Flotation Calculations
Full Load Half Load Light Ship
Rise = (Displ. - Weight) / Immersion (+ = up) -2.31 in -2.01 in 0.00 in
Trim = (LCB - LCG) x Weight/ Long.RM/Deg. (+ = bow dn.) 0.40 deg. 0.45 deg. 0.69 deg.
Sinkage BOW (+ = bow dn.) 0.2 in 0.2 in 0.3 in
Sinkage STERN (+ = stern dn.) -0.2 in -0.2 in -0.3 in
87
The yacht trims by the bow in all conditions but by a very small amount that can be
considered negligible, but could also be easily fixed by adjusting the longitudinal position
of the lead that is placed inside the hull. The completed weight study including the
breakdown for each section as well as the deck and hull structure laminate schedule is
attached in Tables 26-28.


88
Table 26: Detailed Weight Breakdown
SEC. NO. CALC. WT EST. WT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
lbs lbs ft ft-lbs ft ft-lbs
Sect. 01 2,008.27 -26.88 -53,974.63 0.67 1,351.34
Sect. 02 1,143.94 -30.70 -35,124.64 3.91 4,472.91
Sect. 03 1,019.55 -23.51 -23,972.71 24.44 24,918.30
Sect. 04 52.79 -21.33 -1,126.23 5.06 267.06
Sect. 05 94.54 -26.54 -2,508.51 5.10 482.42
Sect. 06 225.17 -32.71 -7,365.08 4.02 905.13
Sect. 07 287.43 -32.76 -9,417.67 4.25 1,222.91
Sect. 08 143.03 -28.06 -4,012.97 4.37 624.74
Sect. 09 897.28 -28.76 -25,808.12 0.30 272.32
Sect. 10 103.62 -29.53 -3,060.29 1.63 168.89
Sect. 11 48.94 -19.36 -947.31 0.06 3.15
Sect. 12 39.68 -30.62 -1,215.15 0.00 0.00
Sect. 13 233.04 -47.04 -10,961.83 -0.42 -98.72
Sect. 14 226.02 -35.91 -8,117.18 0.51 115.73
Sect. 15 8,923.08 -25.00 -223,076.88 -8.95 -79,845.12
Sect. 16 318.28 -26.15 -8,322.97 2.06 657.10
Sect. 17 421.06 -30.46 -12,825.58 -0.41 -173.50
Sect. 18 314.61 -28.62 -9,005.58 0.37 115.55
Total 16,500 -26.72 -440,843 -2.70 -44,540
Hull Particulars
Displacement 16,500 lb
LWL 51.24 ft
LCB -28.85 ft
Immersion, lbs per ft 22,284 lb / ft
Long. RM/Deg. 50,667 lb - ft
Tankage and Stores at Full Load 1,668.69 -33.72 -56,276.31 0.40 664.58
Sailing Equipment 512.66 -21.80 -11,178.51 10.90 5,588.82
Crew 2,806.00 -33.80 -94,842.80 4.25 11,925.50
Offshore Racing Load (3/4 Crew Weight) 20,786 -27.88 -579,430 -1.41 -29,342
Buoy Racing Load (1/4 Tankage and Stores) 20,236 -27.72 -560,934 -1.33 -26,859
Light Ship Measurement Load 16,500 -26.72 -440,843 -2.70 -44,540
Flotation Calculations
Rise =(Displ. - Weight) / Immersion (+=up) -2.31 in -2.01 in 0.00 in
Trim=(LCB - LCG) x Weight/ Long.RM/Deg.(+=bow dn.) 0.40 deg. 0.45 deg. 0.69 deg.
Sinkage BOW (+=bow dn.) 0.2 in 0.2 in 0.3 in
Sinkage STERN (+=stern dn.) -0.2 in -0.2 in -0.3 in
Transverse Structure
Longitudinal Structure
Interior
Tanks
Steering
Safety Gear
Keel and Strut
Hydraulics
Machinery
Outfit
Plumbing
Hatches
Rails/Metal
Winches
Systems
Full Load Half Load Light Ship
Transpac 52 Weight Estimate
Description
Hull Construction
Deck Construction
Rig
89
01 HULL CONSTRUCTION QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Hull 2008.3 -26.9 -53974.6 0.67 1351.3
Hull Totals 2008.3 -26.88 -53974.63 0.67 1351.34
02 DECK CONSTRUCTION QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Deck 1143.94 -30.70 -35124.64 3.91 4472.91
Deck Totals 1143.9 -30.70 -35124.64 3.91 4472.91
03 RIG QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Mast Including Standing Rigging 1 650.0 650.0 -21.33 -13861.55 33.79 21965.22
Boom 1 81.8 81.8 -35.10 -2873.31 -10.33 -845.88
Mast Base 1 30.7 30.7 -21.00 -644.48 -0.49 -15.11
Halyards 304 0.3 99.5 -21.33 -2122.49 30.18 3004.14
J ib Sheets 30 0.51 15.3 -24.61 -377.63 4.59 70.49
Spi sheets 110 0.51 56.3 -29.53 -1661.55 4.59 258.46
Spi Braces 35 0.52 18.3 -22.97 -421.06 4.59 84.21
Main Sheet 40 0.51 20.5 -37.73 -772.03 4.59 93.99
Assorted Lines 40 0.51 20.5 -28.87 -590.77 4.59 93.99
Instrument Pod 1 10.2 10.2 -21.33 -218.18 8.20 83.92
Instruments 12 1.0 12.3 -21.65 -265.85 8.20 100.70
Compasses 2 2.0 4.1 -40.03 -163.81 5.91 24.17
Rig Totals 1019.55 -23.51 -23972.71 24.44 24918.30
04 HATCHES QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Forward 1 22.1 22.1 -15.42 -340.77 5.25 116.01
Companionway 1 30.7 30.7 -25.59 -785.46 4.92 151.05
Hatch Totals 52.79 -21.33 -1126.23 5.06 267.06
05 RAILS/METAL QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Pulpit 1 20.5 20.5 -2.30 -46.99 5.58 114.13
Pushpit 2 16.4 32.7 -44.95 -1471.56 4.76 155.75
Staunchions 11 1.2 13.5 -23.95 -323.45 4.92 66.46
Life Lines 34 0.8 27.8 -23.95 -666.50 5.25 146.08
Rails/Metal Totals 94.54 -26.54 -2508.51 5.10 482.42
06 WINCHES QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Primary Winches 2 15.3 30.7 -32.15 -986.86 4.27 130.91
Main Sheet Winch 1 15.3 15.3 -39.37 -604.20 4.59 70.49
Secondary Winches 2 12.8 25.7 -27.23 -698.74 6.23 159.95
Transverse Pedestal 1 30.7 30.7 -32.15 -986.86 4.59 140.98
CL Pedestal 1 30.7 30.7 -36.09 -1107.70 4.59 140.98
Drive Shafts 3 10.2 30.7 -33.79 -1037.21 2.46 75.53
Gear Boxes 3 10.2 30.7 -33.79 -1037.21 2.46 75.53
Winch Handles 5 6.1 30.7 -29.53 -906.30 3.61 110.77
Winches Totals 225.17 -32.71 -7365.08 4.02 905.13
90
07 SYSTEMS QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Fwd J ib Tracks 2 3.3 6.5 -21.98 -143.03 4.43 28.82
Fwd J ib Cars 2 3.3 6.5 -21.98 -143.93 4.43 29.00
Fwd Control Fittings 2 8.2 16.4 -21.98 -359.84 4.43 72.50
Main Trav 3.25 2.2 7.0 -44.95 -316.85 2.62 18.50
Main Car 1 2.2 2.2 -44.95 -99.33 2.62 5.80
Main Trav System 2 10.2 20.5 -42.65 -872.73 2.95 60.42
XX Clutches 6 1.8 11.0 -24.61 -271.89 5.58 61.63
ZS J ammers 2 4.1 8.2 -24.61 -201.40 5.58 45.65
Brace Blocks 2 2.5 5.1 -27.56 -139.85 4.27 21.64
Spi sheet 2 1.1 2.3 -37.73 -86.47 4.27 9.77
Main Sheet 4 1.8 7.3 -42.65 -310.69 5.25 38.24
Mast Base Blocks 9 1.3 11.7 -20.67 -241.71 5.41 63.31
Back Stay Blocks 1 1.8 1.8 -50.85 -92.61 2.30 4.18
Tack Line/Down Haul 1 2.5 2.5 0.00 0.00 4.92 12.08
Padeyes 10 1.2 12.3 -21.33 -261.82 4.27 52.36
Misc Deck Gear / Bolts 40 1.6 63.8 -27.89 -1780.38 4.43 282.77
Wheels 2 20.5 40.9 -40.03 -1638.05 5.25 214.83
Pedestals 2 30.7 61.4 -40.03 -2457.08 3.28 201.40
Systems Totals 287.43 -32.76 -9417.67 4.25 1222.91
08 HYDRAULICS QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Main Hyd Panel sys7lwt (BS, OH, VANG, F/S) 1 17.0 17.0 -38.39 -651.93 2.79 47.36
Outhaul Ram 1 16.4 16.4 -24.61 -402.80 9.84 161.12
Vang Ram 1 32.7 32.7 -26.25 -859.31 6.89 225.57
Backstay Ram 1 23.1 23.1 -42.65 -986.19 1.97 45.52
Forestay 1 23.1 23.1 -8.20 -189.65 4.10 94.83
Main Res 1 10.2 10.2 -37.73 -386.02 1.64 16.78
Hoses 50 0.4 20.5 -26.25 -537.07 1.64 33.57
Hydraulics Totals 143.03 -28.06 -4012.97 4.37 624.74
09 MACHINERY QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Main Engine 1 513.7 513.7 -28.22 -14493.51 0.00 0.00
Prop 1 33.1 33.1 -27.56 -911.36 -2.13 -70.52
Exhaust 10 2.9 28.7 -38.06 -1090.74 0.33 9.40
Piping 10 1.3 13.2 -29.53 -390.58 0.33 4.34
Batteries (L pos determines trim) 3 55.1 165.3 -30.18 -4990.78 0.00 0.00
Wiring 12 3.3 39.7 -26.25 -1041.55 2.30 91.14
Instruments 5 6.6 33.1 -27.89 -922.21 2.30 75.95
Computer 1 11.0 11.0 -27.89 -307.40 2.30 25.32
SSB/Wfax/Tuner 1 44.1 44.1 -27.89 -1229.61 2.30 101.26
Plotters/Panels 1 15.4 15.4 -27.89 -430.36 2.30 35.44
Machinery Totals 897.28 -28.76 -25808.12 0.30 272.32
10 OUTFIT QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Fwd Pipe Cots 2 8.8 17.6 -30.18 -532.35 2.30 40.50
Aft Lower Pipe Cots 2 8.8 17.6 -36.42 -642.29 0.49 8.68
Aft Upper Pipe Cots 2 8.8 17.6 -36.42 -642.29 2.30 40.50
Port Cushions 1 6.6 6.6 -32.81 -216.99 1.31 8.68
Stbd Cushions 1 6.6 6.6 -32.81 -216.99 1.31 8.68
Alpes-Inox 3 Burner Stove 1 15.4 15.4 -21.98 -339.23 2.13 32.91
Ice Box 1 22.0 22.0 -21.33 -470.15 1.31 28.93
Outfit Totals 103.62 -29.53 -3060.29 1.63 168.89
91
11 PLUMBING QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Galley Sink 1 1.1 1.1 -20.67 -22.78 2.30 2.53
Head Sink 1 0.9 0.9 -19.03 -16.78 2.30 2.03
Head 1 25.4 25.4 -19.03 -482.44 0.49 12.48
Hosing 10 1.1 11.0 -19.69 -216.99 0.00 0.00
Sea Cocks 6 1.8 10.6 -19.69 -208.31 -1.31 -13.89
Plumbing Totals 48.94 -19.36 -947.31 0.06 3.15
12 TANKS QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Fuel 1 22.0 22.0 -31.50 -694.37 0.00 0.00
Water 2 8.8 17.6 -29.53 -520.78 0.00 0.00
Tanks Totals 39.68 -30.62 -1215.15 0.00 0.00
13 STEERING QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Quadrant 1 33.1 33.1 -47.23 -1561.98 0.82 27.12
Sheaves 4 6.6 26.5 -46.50 -1230.18 0.00 0.00
Bulkhead Steerer 2 17.6 35.3 -46.50 -1640.24 5.41 190.95
Rudder Stock 1 56.7 56.7 -47.23 -2678.13 -2.29 -129.94
Rudder Blade 1 15.5 15.5 -47.23 -733.90 -2.29 -35.61
Rudder Bearings 2 33.0 66.0 -47.23 -3117.40 -2.29 -151.25
Steering Totals 233.04 -47.04 -10961.83 -0.42 -98.72
14 SAFETY GEAR QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Anchors 2 33.1 66.1 -39.37 -2603.88 0.00 0.00
Chain 21 2.5 51.9 -39.37 -2041.45 0.00 0.00
Line 100 0.3 33.1 -39.37 -1301.94 0.00 0.00
Misc Safety 2 22.0 44.1 -23.95 -1056.02 2.62 115.73
Life J ackets 14 2.2 30.9 -36.09 -1113.88 0.00 0.00
Safety Gear Totals 226.02 -35.91 -8117.18 0.51 115.73
15 KEEL AND STRUT QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Keel Bulb 1 7550.0 7550.0 -25.00 -188750.00 -10.00 -75500.00
Lead in Hull 1 769.0 769.0 -25.00 -19225.00 -1.00 -769.00
Steel Strut 1 604.1 604.1 -25.00 -15101.88 -5.92 -3576.12
Keel and Strut Totals 8923.08 -25.00 -223076.88 -8.95 -79845.12
16 TRANSVERSE STRUCTURE QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Ring Frame 1 1 4.5 -3.89 -17.67 2.54 11.55
Ring Frame 2 1 6.0 -7.92 -47.63 2.47 14.86
Ring Frame 3 1 7.5 -11.92 -89.43 2.37 17.80
Ring Frame 4 1 9.1 -15.96 -145.02 2.40 21.77
Bulkhead 1 1 101.8 -19.08 -1943.35 2.32 236.34
Bulkhead 2 1 38.3 -25.08 -960.22 2.35 90.12
Bulkhead 3 1 43.2 -27.08 -1170.08 2.32 100.38
Bulkhead 4 1 52.7 -33.38 -1760.30 1.45 76.62
Bulkhead 5 1 55.1 -39.75 -2189.29 1.59 87.65
Transverse Structure Totals 318.28 -26.15 -8322.97 2.06 657.10
92
17 LONGITUDINAL STRUCTURE QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Keelson 1 157.8 -27.68 -4368.25 -0.60 -94.26
Port Stringer 1 68.7 -29.23 -2007.59 -0.24 -16.80
Stbd Stringer 1 68.7 -29.23 -2007.59 -0.24 -16.80
Port Aft Stringer 1 32.9 -45.88 -1507.62 0.16 5.31
Stbd Aft Stringer 1 32.9 -45.88 -1507.62 0.16 5.31
Keel and Mast Step 1 60.2 -23.71 -1426.89 -0.94 -56.27
Longitudinal Structure Totals 421.06 -30.46 -12825.58 -0.41 -173.50
18 INTERIOR QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Port Wet Locker Face 1 0.6 3.44 -26.10 2.20 2.20
Stb Wet Locker Face 1 0.6 3.44 -26.10 2.20 2.20
Galley Structure 1 25.0 -22.30 -556.60 1.78 44.31
Fwd Seat 1 6.5 -23.42 -151.48 0.57 3.67
Bunks Port 1 26.1 -33.38 -872.73 0.67 17.54
Bunks Stbd 1 26.1 -33.38 -872.73 0.67 17.54
Engine Box 1 41.1 -30.32 -1246.28 0.34 14.11
Nav Station 1 18.6 -34.25 -637.59 1.13 21.07
Nav Seat 1 17.3 -37.56 -651.09 0.14 2.46
Cubbies 1 17.3 -19.70 -341.23 2.24 38.73
Stair Flats 3 ea 2 6.0 -27.58 -163.08 1.29 7.64
Stair Tube 1 5.2 -27.8 -143.4 1.2 6.2
Cabin Sole 108 sqft 1.15 124.2 -26.72 -3317.14 -0.50 -62.08
Longitudinal Structure Totals 314.61 -28.62 -9005.58 0.37 115.55
TANKAGE AND STORES QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Water Tank 1 73.5 gal 8.3 613.0 -36.52 -22386.27 0.31 187.49
Water Tank 2 73.5 gal 8.3 613.0 -36.52 -22386.27 0.31 187.49
Fuel Tank 25.7 gal 7.0 179.6 -32.83 -5896.81 -0.20 -36.52
Holding Tank 7.0 gal 9.0 63.0 -18.21 -1147.13 -0.46 -28.88
Stores 20 ea 10 200.0 -22.30 -4459.83 1.78 355.00
Tankage and Stores Totals 1668.69 -33.72 -56276.31 0.40 664.58
SAILING EQUIPMENT QTY UOM WT/UOM WEIGHT LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
Spi Pole On F-Deck 1 32.7 32.7 -16.40 -537.07 5.58 182.60
J ockey Pole 2 20.5 40.9 -20.83 -852.59 -7.22 -295.39
Main 1 110.0 110.0 -30.30 -3333.00 36.12 3973.20
Working J ib 1 55.0 55.0 -13.67 -751.85 26.08 1434.40
Stowed J ibs 2 55.0 110.0 -13.00 -1430.00 0.50 55.00
Stowed Chutes 3 30.0 90.00 -13.00 -1170.00 0.50 45.00
Tools 2 4.0 8.00 -23.00 -184.00 2.60 20.80
Spares 2 6.0 12.00 -23.00 -276.00 2.60 31.20
Mooring Lines/Fenders 4 1.0 4.00 -36.00 -144.00 0.50 2.00
Life Raft 1 50.0 50.00 -50.00 -2500.00 2.80 140.00
Sailing Equipment Totals 512.66 -21.80 -11178.51 10.90 5588.82
1. All units are imperial.
2. The vertical centers are referenced from the DWL. (+ = up, - = down)
3. The longitudinal centers are referenced from station 0. (- = aft, + = fwd)
93
Table 27: Hull Weight Calculations
Layer Material Weight Thickness Wf Resign Weight Total Weight Angle to CL Area Weight LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
lb/sqft ft % lb/sqft lb/sqft deg sqft lbs ft ft-lbs ft ft-lbs
I/S 1 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 0 860.626 58.75666 -27.5459 -1618.51 0.757874 44.530
2 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 60 860.626 58.75666 -27.5459 -1618.51 0.757874 44.530
3 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 -60 860.626 58.75666 -27.5459 -1618.51 0.757874 44.530
4 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 0 860.626 58.75666 -27.5459 -1618.51 0.757874 44.530
5a CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 0 Keel Strip 258.818 17.67002 -21.3615 -377.459 -0.01312 -0.232
5b CU 300 0.061 0.000984 60 0.041 0.102408 90 ChainPlate Strip 95.619 9.792151 -23.2185 -227.359 0.479003 4.690
5c CU 300 0.061 0.000984 60 0.041 0.102408 90 78.63 8.052341 -23.0118 -185.299 -0.80709 -6.499
Patching
5d Resin Layer 0.041 100 0.040963 Core Bonding 860.626 35.25399 -27.5459 -971.104 0.757874 26.718
Core 6a R63.140-25 8.740 0.082020 0.716848 Fwd Slam Zone 180.5 129.391 -16.2697 -2105.15 -0.62664 -81.082
6b NH64-25 3.995 0.082020 0.327702 0 Fwd Upper Shell 176.59 57.86887 -10.0295 -580.397 2.522966 146.001
6c NH 64-25 3.995 0.082020 0.327702 90 Aft Shell 528.38 173.1511 -36.6306 -6342.63 0.688976 119.297
O/S 7 EC 200 0.041 45 0.050 0.091029 Core Bonding 860.626 78.34221 -27.5459 -2158.01 0.757874 59.374
8 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 0 860.626 58.75666 -27.5459 -1618.51 0.757874 44.530
9a CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 0 Keel Strip 258.334 17.63698 -21.3615 -376.753 -0.01312 -0.231
9b CU 300 0.061 0.000984 60 0.041 0.102408 90 ChainPlate Strip 95.6912 9.799544 -23.2185 -227.531 0.479003 4.694
9c CU 300 0.061 0.000984 60 0.041 0.102408 90 Keel Strip 64.831 6.639213 -22.6378 -150.297 -0.80381 -5.337
9d CU 300 0.061 0.000984 60 0.041 0.102408 90 Keel Strip 64.831 6.639213 -22.6378 -150.297 -0.80381 -5.337
9e CU 300 0.061 0.000984 60 0.041 0.102408 0 Keel & Mast Reinforcement 75.721 7.754436 -23.0118 -178.444 -0.80709 -6.259
9f CU 300 0.061 0.000984 60 0.041 0.102408 90 Keel & Mast Reinforcement 20.3976 2.088877 -24.9377 -52.0917 -0.96129 -2.008
10 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 45 860.626 58.75666 -27.5459 -1618.51 0.757874 44.530
11 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 0 860.626 58.75666 -27.5459 -1618.51 0.757874 44.530
12 CU 300 0.061 0.000984 60 0.041 0.102408 90 860.626 88.13499 -27.5459 -2427.76 0.757874 66.795
13 CU 300 0.061 0.000984 60 0.041 0.102408 0 860.626 88.13499 -27.5459 -2427.76 0.757874 66.795
Fairing 1.000 860.626 860.626 -27.5459 -23706.7 0.757874 652.246
Hull Totals 2008.27 -26.88 -53974.63 0.67 1351.34
94
Table 28: Deck Weight calculation
Layer Material Weight Thickness Wf Resign Weight Total Weight Area Weight LCG L.MOM VCG V.MOM
lb/sqft ft % lb/sqft lb/sqft sqft lbs ft ft-lbs ft ft-lbs
O/S 1a CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Fwd Stn 4 Aft Stn 2 283.059 19.325 -23.589 -455.861 4.721 91.236
1b CU 300 0.061 0.000984 60 0.041 0.102408 stn 4-5.2 99.028 10.141 -18.520 -187.820 4.938 50.074
2 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Parallel to shear on side 138.354 9.446 -20.499 -193.630 4.472 42.241
3 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Parallel to shear on side 138.354 9.446 -20.499 -193.630 4.472 42.241
4 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Parallel to shear on side 173.956 11.876 -27.963 -332.092 4.288 50.926
5 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cabin Top 111.374 7.604 -21.811 -165.845 5.525 42.010
6 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cabin Top 111.374 7.604 -21.811 -165.845 5.525 42.010
7 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cockpit sides 32.712 2.233 -35.528 -79.344 3.579 7.994
8 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cockpit sides 32.712 2.233 -35.528 -79.344 3.579 7.994
9 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cockpit Sole 219.993 15.019 -41.965 -630.290 2.743 41.195
10 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cockpit Sole 219.993 15.019 -41.965 -630.290 2.743 41.195
11 Patching
Resin Layer 0.041 100 0.000 0.040963 Core Bonding 620.152 25.403 -30.693 -779.719 3.964 100.702
Core 12a NH48-10 2.997 0.032808 0.098311 Cockpit Sides 32.712 3.216 -35.528 -114.255 3.579 11.511
12b NH48-20 2.997 0.065616 0.196621 Side Deck 173.956 34.203 -27.963 -956.414 4.288 146.666
12c NH48-25 2.997 0.08202 0.245776 Fdeck Cabin AftCpitsole 242.080 59.498 -27.570 -1640.377 4.417 262.810
12d DS45-25 2.809 0.262464 0.737329 Cpit Sole 140.480 103.580 -38.317 -3968.862 2.812 291.233
12e NH48-10 2.997 0.032808 0.098311 Misc Aft Coachhose 30.505 2.999 -3.885 -11.652 0.537 1.612
EC 200 0.041 45 0.050 0.091029 Core Bonding 620.152 56.452 -30.693 -1732.710 3.964 223.781
I/S 13 Patching
14 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cockpit Sole 219.993 15.019 -41.965 -630.290 2.743 41.195
15 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cockpit Sole 219.993 15.019 -41.965 -630.290 2.743 41.195
16 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cockpit Sides 32.712 2.233 -35.528 -79.344 3.579 7.994
17 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cockpit Sides 32.712 2.233 -35.528 -79.344 3.579 7.994
18 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cabin Top 111.374 7.604 -21.811 -165.845 5.525 42.010
19 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Cabin Top 111.374 7.604 -21.811 -165.845 5.525 42.010
20 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Side Deck and Cockpit Sole 445.561 30.419 -32.549 -990.129 3.582 108.949
21 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Parallel to shear on side 138.354 9.446 -20.499 -193.630 4.472 42.241
22 CU 200 0.041 0.000656 60 0.027 0.068272 Parallel to shear on side 138.354 9.446 -20.499 -193.630 4.472 42.241
23a CU 300 0.061 0.000656 60 0.041 0.102408 Between Stn 4 and 5.2 99.028 10.141 -18.520 -187.820 4.938 50.074
23b CU 200 0.041 0.000984 60 0.027 0.068272 Fwd stn 4 aft stn 5.2 283.059 19.325 -23.589 -455.861 4.721 91.236
Fairing 1.000 620.152 620.152 -30.693 -19034.632 3.964 2458.342
Factor for increased patching 1.200
Deck Totals 1143.94 -30.70 -35124.64 3.91 4472.91
95
13. Stability Analysis

13.1 Summary

The stability of the yacht exceeds the requirements of the design rule not only in the
measurement condition but also in both the racing configurations. A detailed analysis of
the buoy and distance racing conditions shows that while the maximum righting arm in
both racing cases is less than that in the measurement condition there is still a wide range
of positive stability and adequate area under the curve to survive a broach or even a
capsize event. The stability curve for the measurement condition can be seen below in
Figure 38.

Righting Arm Curve in Design Condition
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Heel Angle (Degrees)
R
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

A
r
m

(
F
e
e
t
)

Figure 38: Graph of the righting arm versus heel angle in the measurement condition

13.2 Methodology

Analysis of the stability of our yacht was accomplished using the hydrostatics
calculations program Hydromax. The hull form developed in Maxsurf was input into the
Hydromax environment directly and the hydrostatics were computed and checked against
the Rhino hydrostatics calculations. After the hydrostatics had been verified, three
loading configurations were defined within Hydromax based on the weights study.



96


13.3 Design and Calculations

The three conditions used in the stability calculations represent the measurement
condition, the buoy racing configuration, and the distance racing configuration. In the
measurement condition all tanks are empty and no sails or provisions are aboard. The
measurement condition does not include the weight of the crew. Practically the stability
in the measurement condition has little to do with the amount of sail area that can be
carried or safety while sailing. The stability must be calculated in this condition to obtain
an IMS certificate, as required by the TP52 class rule. The stability in the measurement
condition provides a positive range of stability of 151 degrees with a maximum righting
moment of just over seven feet at a heel angle of 67 degrees. This meets the requirements
of the TP52 class rule which requires a range of stability of no less than 125 degrees. The
righting arm curve was calculated for a range of heels from 0 degrees to 180 degrees.
Cross curves of stability were also generated in the measurement condition and are
shown below in Figure 39.
Cross Curves of Stability
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
7500 8500 9500 10500 11500 12500 13500 14500 15500 16500 17500
Displacement (lbs)
K
N

(
f
e
e
t
)
0 Degrees
10 Degrees
20 Degrees
30 Degrees
40 Degrees
50 Degrees
60 Degrees
70 Degrees
80 Degrees
90 Degrees
100 Degrees

Figure 39: Cross curves of stability in the measurement condition

The two operating conditions are of much greater interest in design as they dictate the
righting moment while sailing as well as the ability to recover after a capsize. In the buoy
racing condition the tanks were assumed to be full with minimal provisions and gear
aboard. The sails and sail handling equipment were included with the sails fully
canvassed. The crew weight was assumed to be on the port rail up to 90 degrees of heel
97
and on centerline on the deck from 90 to 180 degrees. The distance racing configuration
assumes that the tanks are filled and that enough provisions are aboard for an extended
offshore voyage. The crew weight in the distance racing configuration is distributed such
that three quarters of the crew (8 sailors at an average weight of 175 pounds) is on the
port rail while the rest of the crew weight (4 further sailors) is below decks in the port
side berthing up to 90 degrees. Beyond 90 degrees the crew weight is assumed to be on
centerline. In both operating conditions the stability was calculated for a range of stability
from 0 to 180 degrees to starboard. The range of positive stability in both the buoy and
distance racing configurations was over 140 degrees with a maximum righting arm of just
over six feet. Figure 40 give details of the stability in the two racing conditions.

Righting Arm Curves in Racing Conditions
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Heel Angle (Degrees)
R
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

A
r
m

(
F
e
e
t
)
Bouy Racing
Configuration
Distance Racing
Configuration

Figure 40: Righting arm curves in the buoy and distance racing configurations

A comparison of the righting moment curves in the measurement and racing conditions
was made in order to asses the relative survivability in racing conditions versus the
measurement condition. While the TP 52 rule only requires that a minimum range of
stability is met in the measurement condition, it was felt that a more rigorous approach
would be to also consider the stability in the two racing conditions. Since the range of
stability exceeds 145 degrees in all conditions the requirement of the TP 52 rule is met
across the board. The righting arm in the racing configurations is greater than that in the
measurement condition in the lower range of heel angles due to the influence of crew
weight. Around 35 degrees the measurement righting arm curve crosses the racing
98
condition curves and attains a higher maximum righting moment at a higher heal angle.
The difference between the two race condition curves is minimal with the buoy racing
condition having a slightly higher righting arm at low heal angles again due to more crew
weight on the rail. The distance racing configuration has a slightly larger range of
stability due to the added weight of provisions, fluids, and gear relatively low in the hull.
Figure 41 illustrates the differences between the three righting arm curves.

Comparison of Measurement Condtion to
Operating Conditions
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Heel Angle (Degrees)
R
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

A
r
m

(
F
e
e
t
)
Bouy Racing
Configuration
Distance Racing
Configuration
Measurement
Condition

Figure 41: Graph showing the comparison between the righting arm curves in the
measurement and racing conditions


99
14. Seakeeping

14.1 Summary

Seakeeping for sailboats is very difficult to perform accurately as the motions are highly
nonlinear and it is very difficult if not impossible to accurately model all of the forces on
the boat from the waves, as well as the dynamic forces that the boat undergoes due to the
sails. A simple method of estimating the seaworthiness of the yacht can be found by
calculating the stability index or STIX criterion, which is an International Standards
Organization (ISO) standard for classifying yachts under four categories which represent
the seaworthiness of the yacht. The STIX calculation was performed for this design, and
the yacht has almost doubled the minimum requirements for category A, which is the
offshore category. This means that the boat will be able to survive in rough offshore
conditions that it will most likely experience.

14.2 Methodology

The STIX calculation was presented in Larsson and Eliassons book and is a method of
using the principle dimensions of a yacht and the righting moment curve to quantify the
safety and seaworthiness of the yacht. The most important factor involved in the
seakeeping performance of the yacht is the length. The length determines the scale
between the size of the yacht and the size of the waves, with a longer yacht being able to
experience larger waves without feeling the effects as much. The displacement of the
yacht is another important factor, as a lighter displacement boat can be considered
somewhat less seaworthy than a heavy displacement boat.

The beam of the yacht has been determined to be highly influential on the seaworthiness
of a yacht, with much research conducted after the Fastnet disaster in 1979 in which
many boats suffered extensive damage due to a large storm. The beam of the yacht
determines the stability of the yacht when inverted which is important in that a yacht that
is more stable upside down than upright is less likely to recover from a capsize event.

The STIX calculation also takes into account the righting moment of the yacht in the
sailing condition with crew on board and the boat fully canvassed. This is important in
that it determines how likely the boat is to capsize in the first place, and also it helps to
determine how likely the boat is to recover from a capsize event. The STIX calculation
provides 4 categories that yachts can fit into, with category A being the most seaworthy
and capable of going offshore, while category D yachts should be used primarily for
sailing in sheltered waters. The breakdown of the categories is shown below in Table 29.

Table 29: STIX category breakdown
Design Categories A B C D
STIX Lower Limits 32 23 14 5



100
14.3 Design and Calculations

The TP52 was calculated to have a STIX value of 64.48 which is much higher than the
lower limit for category A. This means that the yacht will be able to sail offshore and be
able to perform well in a rough seaway. The yacht will also most likely be able to
recover from a full capsize event. The results of the STIX calculations are shown below
in Table 30.

Table 30: STIX calculations
Base Length Factor
LBS = 15.6952
Displacement Length Factor
FL = 1.0737
FDL = 0.8844
Beam Displacement Factor
FB = 2.2506
FBD = 0.9230
Knockdown Recovery Factor
FR = 4.0977
FKR = 1.2368
Inversion Recovery Factor
FIR = 1.2151
Dynamic Stability Factor
FDS = 0.9963
Wind Moment Factor
FWM = 1.0000
Downflooding Factor
FDF = 1.6111

STIX = 64.682

101
15. Cost Analysis

15.1 Summary

The TP52 is a high performance grand prix boat that is designed to win and therefore
carries a price tag that is commensurate with an all out racing machine. The final cost
breakdown including the total man hours, labor cost and material costs are shown below
in Table 31.

Table 31: Cost breakdown summary for the TP52
TOTAL
HOURS
TOTAL LABOR
COST
TOTAL
MATERIAL COST
TOTAL
COST
8319 $307,814 $500,292 $808,107

15.2 Methodology

The cost analysis began by contacting Van Dam Woodcraft to obtain the cost breakdown
for a recently built 37 sloop that was constructed using a carbon fibre skin and a cedar
strip core. This cost breakdown included the labor breakdown for both the hull and deck
structure from which the cost per foot of construction was calculated, and then this value
was linearly scaled to the 52 length of the TP52. The labor cost also includes the labor
used to install all of the outfitting and additional equipment such as the winches and other
sailing systems.

Material cost for the hull and deck was calculated by determining the price per square
foot of unidirectional carbon fibre from Jamestown Marine Distributors and then
multiplying the square footage of carbon by the number of laminates to determine the
total cost. The same procedure was used to calculate the cost of the resin, primer and
paints used in the hull and deck construction.

A price quote for a TP52 mast, boom, 2 spinnaker poles and 2 jockey poles was obtained
from Hall Spars, as well as a quote for the standing and running rigging. The total for a
complete package of Harken sailing equipment was obtained from New England
Boatworks, and a price quote for a complete set of top of the line electronics was
obtained from Brookes and Gatehouse. North Sails provided a detailed quote for a
mainsail, 4 jibs and 5 asymmetrical spinnakers. The price quote for the sails is for the
main dimensions of the TP52 but does not take into account the rule requirements,
therefore the sail area specified in the quotes is slightly larger than that allowed by the
rule, so the actual price of the sails will be slightly cheaper, but the provided estimate
gives a very good basis for the complete cost analysis.

A second method was used to calculate the cost based on equation 40 which
approximates the cost using a volumetric calculation. The result of this method is that the
total labor is predicted to be 16,952 hours, costing $627,224. This changes the total cost
of the yacht to $1,127,516. This is noticeably higher than the original method used to
102
predict the cost and is presented as a comparison, with the actual cost most likely falling
somewhere in between the two methods.

(40)
Labor Factor=Length
(1.8)
*(Beam+7)+0.25*(Depth-Draft)

15.3 Calculations

The price breakdown for each section of the yacht is shown below in Table 32. The labor
hours for all of the sections are taken into account in the hull and deck construction
sections and therefore there are no labor hours for any of the other sections. The labor
rate used in the calculations was $37.00 per hour which includes the overhead and profit
margin. A more detailed breakdown of the percentages of the overhead and profit of the
yard was not available to take into account in our estimate.

Table 32: Cost breakdown by section for the TP52
SEC. NO. Description HOURS LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL
man hrs. US dollars US dollars US dollars
Sect. 01 Hull Construction 5,546 $205,202 $42,682 $247,884
Sect. 02 Deck Construction 2,773 $102,612 $13,952 $116,564
Sect. 03 Rig 0.0 $0.00 $156,500 $156,500
Sect. 04 Hatches 0.0 $0.00 $509 $509
Sect. 05 Winches 0.0 $0.00 $44,427 $44,427
Sect. 06 Systems 0.0 $0.00 $35,460 $35,460
Sect. 07 Hydraulics 0.0 $0.00 $6,240 $6,240
Sect. 08 Machinery 0.0 $0.00 $11,833 $11,833
Sect. 09 Sailing Equipment 0.0 $0.00 $159,546 $159,546

The labor component of the TP52 construction process comprises approximately 40% of
the total cost, with the materials accounting for the remaining 60% of the total cost,
which is very similar to the cost breakdown for many ship types. The main component of
the cost that was not taken into account is the designers cost, which we were unable to
determine a realistic amount to add on to the total cost. The complete cost breakdown of
each section can be found in the following pages, as well as the price quote for each sail
provided by North Sails.






103
Table 33: Detailed Cost Breakdown
SEC. NO. HOURS LAB. COST MAT. COST TOTAL
man hrs. US dollars US dollars US dollars
Sect. 01 5,546 $205,202 $64,629 $269,831
Sect. 02 2,773 $102,612 $21,148 $123,761
Sect. 03 0.0 $0.00 $156,500 $156,500
Sect. 04 0.0 $0.00 $509 $509
Sect. 05 0.0 $0.00 $44,427 $44,427
Sect. 06 0.0 $0.00 $35,460 $35,460
Sect. 07 0.0 $0.00 $6,240 $6,240
Sect. 08 0.0 $0.00 $11,833 $11,833
Sect. 09 0.0 $0.00 $159,546 $159,546
TOTAL
HOURS
TOTAL LAB.
COST
TOTAL MAT.
COST
TOTAL
COST
8319 $307,814 $500,292 $808,107
01 HULL CONSTRUCTION QTY(AREA) HOURS PRICE/HR PRICE/QTY MAT. COT LAB. COST TOT. COST
Carbon Fibre (12 layers @ 860 sq.ft. per layer) 10320 N/A N/A $1.81 $18,679.20 $0.00 $18,679.20
Core 860 N/A N/A $17.19 $14,783.40 $0.00 $33,462.60
Resin 10320 N/A N/A $0.70 $7,224.00 $0.00 $40,686.60
Primer 10320 N/A N/A $0.95 $9,804.00 $0.00 $50,490.60
Paint 10320 N/A N/A $1.37 $14,138.40 $0.00 $64,629.00
Man Power N/A 5546 $37.00 N/A $0.00 $205,202.00 $269,831.00
Hull Totals 5546 $64,629.00 $205,202.00 $269,831.00
Sailing Equipment
Transpac 52 Cost Analysis
Description
Hull Construction
Deck Construction
Hatches
Winches
Systems
Hydraulics
Rig
Machinery
104
02 DECK CONSTRUCTION QTY(AREA) HOURS PRICE/HR PRICE/QTY MAT. COT LAB. COST TOT. COST
Carbon Fibre 3382 N/A N/A $1.81 $6,121.42 $0.00 $6,121.42
Core 280 N/A N/A $17.19 $4,813.20 $0.00 $10,934.62
Resin 3382 N/A N/A $0.70 $2,367.40 $0.00 $13,302.02
Primer 3382 N/A N/A $0.95 $3,212.90 $0.00 $16,514.92
Paint 3382 N/A N/A $1.37 $4,633.34 $0.00 $21,148.26
Man Power N/A 2773 $37.00 N/A $0.00 $102,612.47 $123,760.73
Deck Totals 2773 $21,148.26 $102,612.47 $123,760.73
03 RIG QTY HOURS PRICE/HR PRICE/QTY MAT. COT LAB. COST TOT. COST
Rig w/ 2 spin poles & 2 jockey poles 1 N/A N/A $135,000.00 $135,000.00 $0.00 $135,000.00
Standing Rigging 1 N/A N/A $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $0.00 $12,500.00
Running Rigging 1 N/A N/A $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00
Rig Totals 0 $156,500.00 $0.00 $156,500.00
04 HATCHES QTY HOURS PRICE/HR PRICE/QTY MAT. COT LAB. COST TOT. COST
Forward 1 N/A N/A $509.00 $509.00 $0.00 $509.00
Hatch Totals 0 $509.00 $0.00 $509.00
05 WINCHES QTY HOURS PRICE/HR PRICE/QTY MAT. COT LAB. COST TOT. COST
Primary Winches 2 N/A N/A $5,891.35 $11,782.70 $0.00 $11,782.70
Main Sheet Winch 1 N/A N/A $6,130.35 $6,130.35 $0.00 $17,913.05
Secondary Winches 2 N/A N/A $6,130.35 $12,260.70 $0.00 $30,173.75
Cabin Winches 2 N/A N/A $2,364.00 $4,728.00 $0.00 $34,901.75
Pedestal 2 N/A N/A $4,762.52 $9,525.04 $0.00 $44,426.79
Winches Totals 0 $44,426.79 $0.00 $44,426.79
06 SYSTEMS QTY HOURS PRICE/HR PRICE/QTY MAT. COT LAB. COST TOT. COST
Blocks 22 N/A N/A $392.76 $8,640.72 $0.00 $8,640.72
Clutches 6 N/A N/A $365.00 $2,190.00 $0.00 $10,830.72
Instruments 1 N/A N/A $21,347.00 $21,347.00 $0.00 $32,177.72
Computer 1 N/A N/A $3,282.67 $3,282.67 $0.00 $35,460.39
Systems Totals 0 $35,460.39 $0.00 $35,460.39
105
07 HYDRAULICS QTY HOURS PRICE/HR PRICE/QTY MAT. COT LAB. COST TOT. COST
Hydraulics 1 N/A N/A $6,240.00 $6,240.00 $0.00 $6,240.00
Hydraulics Totals 0 $6,240.00 $0.00 $6,240.00
08 MACHINERY QTY HOURS PRICE/HR PRICE/QTY MAT. COT LAB. COST TOT. COST
Main Engine 1 N/A N/A $11,832.78 $11,832.78 $0.00 $11,832.78
Machinery Totals 0 $11,832.78 $0.00 $11,832.78
09 SAILING EQUIPMENT QTY HOURS PRICE/HR PRICE/QTY MAT. COT LAB. COST TOT. COST
Main 1 N/A N/A $30,088.00 $30,088.00 $0.00 $30,088.00
#1 J ib 1 N/A N/A $13,274.00 $13,274.00 $0.00 $43,362.00
#2 J ib 1 N/A N/A $13,543.00 $13,543.00 $0.00 $56,905.00
#3 J ib 1 N/A N/A $15,290.00 $15,290.00 $0.00 $72,195.00
#4 J ib 1 N/A N/A $11,364.00 $11,364.00 $0.00 $83,559.00
Code 0 A. Spin 1 N/A N/A $23,543.00 $23,543.00 $0.00 $107,102.00
Code 1 A. Spin 1 N/A N/A $14,763.00 $14,763.00 $0.00 $121,865.00
Code 2 A. Spin 1 N/A N/A $13,917.00 $13,917.00 $0.00 $135,782.00
Code 3 A Spin 1 N/A N/A $13,886.00 $13,886.00 $0.00 $149,668.00
Code 4 A. Spin 1 N/A N/A $9,878.00 $9,878.00 $0.00 $159,546.00
Sailing Equipment Totals 0 $159,546.00 $0.00 $159,546.00
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116



Brookes & Gatehouse Ltd.
Premier Way, Abbey Park
Romsey, Hampshire, England
Tel: +44 (0)1794 518448
Fax: +44 (0)1794 518077
www.BandG.com


B&G System proposal for TP52
Racing Yacht
April 2005

Brookes & Gatehouse Ltd. 2005


Prepared by:
Nat Ives
Race Specialist

[email protected]
Prepared for:

Terminal Flow Design Group Rhumb Runner
Figure 52: Brooks and Gatehouse electronics specifications and price estimate

117
TP52 Proposal 2 Brookes & Gatehouse Ltd. 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................2
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................3
2. System Diagram................................................................................................................4
3. System Specification.........................................................................................................5

118
TP52 Proposal 3 Brookes & Gatehouse Ltd. 2004
1. INTRODUCTION
This document outlines a proposed instrument system for a Transpac 52 racing yacht.
I have proposed a best of breed solution for the system, making use of the very latest
components available and knowledge gained in IMS and the MaxZ86 class in particular.
B&G instrument systems were installed on every yacht in the last Volvo Ocean Race and
chosen by every syndicate involved in the next Volvo Ocean Race and the Americas Cup.
119
2. SYSTEM DIAGRAM

Paddlewheel
Sensor
NMEA Active
Depth Sensor
Chart Table
12 volt dc
Power Supply
CUSTOMER NAME: BOAT TYPE: BOAT NAME:

ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY. NOT TO SCALE

Actual positions may change due to
physical layout of yacht
Mast Displays
PAGE
WIND
NAV
RESET
Hercules 2000
DEPTH m
32.6
SEA TEMP 0
11
I
0
20/20
I
BOAT SPEED
KT
20/20
DEPTH M
I
20/20
0
I
APP W/A
0
SPD/DEP PAGE
WIND
NAV
RESET
Hercules 2000
BOAT SPD KT
14.2
APP W/A 0
89
I
I0
Companionway
20/20
I
BOAT SPEED
KT
GPS Input
WTP
Processor
20/20
DEPTH M
I
SPD/DEP PAGE
WIND
NAV
RESET
Hercules 2000
BOAT SPD KT
14.2
APP W/A 0
89
I
I0
AMP
AMP
PAGE
WIND
NAV
RESET
Hercul es 2000
DEPTH m
32.6
SEA TEMP 0
11
I
0
Linear load or position
inputs, e.g. forestay,
rudder, barometer
57" Ocean Spec VMHU
TP52
Rate
Gyro
Unit
Heel, Trim&
Heading
Input(s)
Wireless
RemoteVision
Base Unit
SPD2.4kts
HDG 305
DPTH 4.0m
20/20
DEPTH M
I
SIMRAD RS82 VHF
systemwith chart table
and on deck handsets
120
3. SYSTEM SPECIFICATION
This system uses the very powerful WTP processor for the ultimate in flexibility and
performance and so a number of additional sensors can be specified. This extra performance
and the additional sensors will obviously be beneficial on the race track, however I believe
the biggest benefits will be seen when capturing data during the tune-up of the yacht prior to
racing.
3.1.1 Processor - $12,000 Deckman Software $1,495
The WTP processor uses three dedicated rate gyros to fully compensate for the motion of
the yacht in waves for increased accuracy in wind data and heading calculations. The
processor is based upon an embedded PC and samples sensors at upto 100Hz whilst
displaying the data three times faster than a B&G Hercules system. This makes it the fastest
instrument processor available. It is capable of accepting upto 16 analogue inputs. It can also
accept a number of heading inputs and NMEA sources.
The processor is controlled directly from the Deckman for Windows software also provided
by B&G.
This processor is used by the majority of the current AC teams and has also been used
offshore by Assa Abbloy, Morning Glory and a number of the ORMA 60 tris. I can confirm
that two Volvo Ocean Race teams have already chosen to use a B&G WTP system in the
next Volvo Ocean Race.
3.1.2 57 Standard or Ocean Spec Vertical Masthead Unit - $2,687
This carbon fibre unit has been made to be stronger and stiffer than the standard unit to
withstand the rigours of offshore racing. The standard unit may well be considered sufficient
however so a cost saving could be made here.
3.1.3 Mast Cables
Although B&G can supply our standard masthead cables, I suggest you ask your dealer to
source a custom lightweight cable as the weight-saving offered by this can be significant.
3.1.4 Speed & Depth Sensors - $286
Ultrasonic speed sensors have yet to prove their reliability, so the best option for speed
sensing is a paddlewheel transducers.
The depth sensor needs to be an active depth sensor (SEN-DPT-A2P) providing a NMEA
format output as this is what WTP requires.
3.1.5 Heading Sensors and Heel and Trim
A vast array of heading sensors are available and WTP will accept inputs from most of them.
In some examples, the heading sensor can also be used to provide heel and trim
information. We should discuss the choice of heading sensor in detail but appropriate
choices are as follows:
Halcyon Gyro Stabilised Compass: $3,699 The B&G (KVH produced) Halcyon Gyro
Stabilised Compass requires either a KVH interface box or B&G Gyro Processor in order to
be connected to the WTP. It uses reliable fluxgate technology as a steady state heading
reference, enhanced by three solid-state rate gyros to calculate yaw rate and hence heading
dynamically. The use of rate gyros in all-three axis eliminates yaw components introduced by
pitch and roll movements when the yacht is heeled or trimmed. Since the WTP has its own
Rate Gyro Unit it can calculate its own heading to a similar accuracy with a standard fluxgate
121
TP52 Proposal 6 Brookes & Gatehouse Ltd. 2004
compass installed so this sensor may seem like overkill. However, the B&G unit can also be
used to supply the heel and trim inputs that the WTP requires as well as AD10 format
heading for Furuno radars.
Solid-State Compasses: Solid-state compass such as the TCM 2 compass (B&G can
source this compass) or Keppel (Teeter-Totter) compass could be used. These sensors
would also provide heel and trim to the WTP. They offer a highly compact solution for
heading, heel and trim and superior performance to a standard fluxgate although they are
still more susceptible to vertical accelerations than a gyro-stabilised fluxgate. These solid-
state units offer a compact and cheaper alternative to the Halcyon Gyro but when coupled
with a WTP the performance difference would be negligible.
Standard Fluxgate: B&G Halcyon 2000 a simple, highly reliable, gimballed fluxgate
compass. WTP can automatically switch to this heading input if heading from the primary
sources is no longer received. WTP uses this as a heading reference and its own Rate Gyro
Unit for instantaneous heading in a similar way to the Halcyon Gyro. Since it does not
provide heel and trim, separate B&G Clinometers would have to be installed.
The best solution for performance as well as value from the options above is the TCM 2 unit
backed up by the Halcyon 2000 fluxgate unless an AD10 interface is needed.
3.1.6 GPS Unit
It is recommended that at least two GPS units be installed if racing offshore. The first could
be a high quality differential GPS unit such as those supplied by Leica. A back-up GPS
should also be fitted; perhaps as part of a radar/chartplotter package for nav station
redundancy.
3.1.7 Displays (FFD Displays: $1,418 each, 2020 Displays $1,778 each)
The number of displays fitted to the yacht is normally down to team preference. However,
since WTP can automatically change the displays for beating, reaching and running, or flash
between two or three variables on one display, a smaller number than usual can be used. I
have suggested six 20/20 mast displays to be visible to all the crew (normally
VS,AWA,TWA,TWS, Targets, HDG) and a number of FFDs on deck and below. FFDs have
both red and green lighting built-in but for 20/20s you must specify the colour desired. The
use of different coloured lighting on the 20/20s and custom bezel colours (eg. White, red,
yellow) can help to make distinguishing between displays easier. When connected to a WTP,
the FFDs effectively become dumb with only the page and arrow keys being used to move
between functions. All the major interaction with the system is done through Deckman for
Windows software. For this reason the FFD is basically a means of displaying two items of
data instead of one and in some cases a 20/20 might be equally appropriate.
3.1.8 Analogue/Linear inputs - $1,975
WTP can support 16 linear inputs in standard configuration or 32 with an expansion board.
The wind direction and motion inputs for the WTP use six of these inputs. I would consider a
selection from the following inputs:

1. Forestay
2. Vang
3. Aft Rudder Angle
4. Mainsail controls:Cunningham,Outhaul or Mainsheet
122
TP52 Proposal 7 Brookes & Gatehouse Ltd. 2004
5. Barometric Pressure
Position sensors and environmental sensors (pressure/temp) should provide a 0-5v or 5v to
+5v signal. Load sensors can work in a similar manner or alternatively Diverse Yachts can
provide load cells that daisy chain together and finish with a Serial (RS232) interface.
3.1.9 On-Deck PC RaceVision2 : $18,000
The RaceVision 2 is the only ruggedised Windows Tablet PC engineered specifically for the
sailing environment. It can be networked into the instruments via Bluetooth or other onboard
PCs via Wireless LAN. It also comes pre-installed with the leading tactical software Deckman
for Windows.
3.1.10 RemoteVision Handheld Unit - $1,899
This new handheld unit is a fully functioning wireless remote for the entire B&G system
including the pilot when fitted. It has been developed especially for short-handed sailing and
allows the user to monitor and control all variables on the B&G instrument system. It also
features a built in fluxgate compass for easy and accurate hand-bearings. It could be used as
a second tool for the navigator, a handy unit for the delivery crew or as a dedicated display
for a man up the rig.
3.1.11 VHF Unit
I have recommended the SIMRAD RS 82 black box VHF with separate handsets and cradles
at the chart table and on deck. A deck speaker can also be fitted. A more expensive set with
more features and that can be mounted in the same configuration is the RS87.
3.1.12 Radar and Chartplotter
I have not specified a radar system or chartplotter. But a combined unit such as the SIMRAD
CR44 with 10 inch screen could be fitted as a backup navigation and radar system for longer
offshore races.
123

2005

Transpac 52 Box Rule


1.0 Purpose:
The Transpac 52 Box Rule is intended to produce a class of fast, monohull keelboats.
Reliability and self-sufficiency are primary objectives.
Development is allowed in such factors as hull shape, foil shape, construction, interior, deck
layout and rigging. However speed producing factors such as length, minimum displacement,
maximum draft, and maximum sail area are strictly controlled. Yachts in this class shall race
without time allowance. Any developments which are contrary to this purpose may give rise to
rule changes.
1.1 Authority:
This rule is owned and administered by the Transpac 52 Class and may only be amended by
80% of the regular members in good standing voting at the Transpac 52 Annual Class Meeting.
No yacht shall be considered a Transpac 52 or be eligible to race in a Transpac 52 race unless it
holds a valid TP52 Class Certificate.
1.2 Class Name: Transpac 52
1.3 Structure of the rule:
Compliance with other rules is required as part of this rule. In the absence of specific changes
provided for by this rule, the applicable portion of other referenced rules shall apply. Anything
that is not expressly permitted is prohibited. Designers and builders of new boats are cautioned
that there are no provisions in this rule available to correct for failure to fit within the maximum
and/or minimum limits. Special attention is called to minimum freeboards and maximum draft.
16. Appendix
16.1 Transpac 52 Box Rule
124
2.0 Applicable rules:
2.1 Language and Measurement
2.1.1 The language of the class is English, in the case of a dispute over translation, English shall
prevail.
2.1.2 The word shall is mandatory and the word may is permissive.
2.1.3 The metric system shall be used for measurement.
2.1.4 Length measurements shall be measured in meters to three decimal places on the Hull and Rig.
Sails shall be measurements to two decimals places.
2.1.5 Weight shall be in kilograms. Inclining weights shall be to one decimal place. All other
weights to a kilo, unless specified in the TP52 rule or Q&A.
2.2 Yacht shall meet ISAF Offshore Special Regulations Category 1.
2.2.1 Cockpit volume shall meet ISAF Offshore Special Regulations Category 2.
2.3 American Bureau of Shipping guidelines for yachts:
The designer shall certify in writing that the plans for the yacht meet the requirement of the
American Bureau of Shipping Guide for Building and Classing Offshore Racing Yachts 1994.
The builder shall certify in writing that the yacht was built in accordance with those plans. L
in all structural calculations shall be taken as the LOA.
2.4 The Racing Rules of Sailing
2.5 International Measurement System (IMS)
2.5.1 A valid IMS certificate is required. The following modifications apply:
2.5.2 305 (d) is modified such that a permanent main backstay is required.
2.5.3 305 (e) is modified such that running backstays in any form are prohibited.
2.5.4 Mainsail battens shall be unlimited in length, number or location.
2.5.5 Carbon winch drums are not permitted.
2.5.6 An additional manual freeboard measurement, FBI, shall be taken at the location where
HBI is calculated.
2.5.7 In addition to the IMS calculated displacement, an actual weight shall be required. Each
owner shall be responsible for load cell rental as part of the measurement expense. The load cell
shall have been calibrated in the last 6 months, and shall have increments not larger than 5 kg.
The actual weighing shall be part of the measurement process. The IMS measurer shall verify
the boat is in measurement trim and observe the weighing. The weighed displacement shall be
recorded in the comments section of the IMS certificate.
125
Yachts shall be presented for weighing in IMS measurement trim. All sea cocks and ballast tank
valves shall be open and all tanks, pipes, pumps, manifolds, etc shall be empty. This weighed
displacement shall be DSPW and shall supersede DSPM.
2.5.8 The forestay may be removed for jibing, but must be reattached at the first reasonable
opportunity. The forestay length may also be adjusted a maximum of 0.255 meters
while racing. Such removal and adjustment is not in violation of IMS rules 203.7 and
305.2
2.6 International Measurement System (IMS) Regulation
2.6.1 Section 201 shall be modified to read: The calculated limit of positive stability shall be
125 degrees or greater.
2.6.2 Materials shall be limited to those permitted by Section203. Per section 1d, aramid
paper honeycomb is permitted with a density of not less than 48 kg/m^3.
2.6.3 The maximum cure temperature shall be amended as follows.
Externally applied heat shall not be greater than 105 degrees C.
Appendix I regarding minimum outer skin thickness shall apply.
2.6.4 Section 206 regarding halyard locks is modified such that locks can be located aloft
providing a reliable release mechanism is operable from deck level.
2.6.5 Part 3 Racing Division Accommodation Regulations shall apply. The accommodation
length shall be 14.36m. Two exceptions are that fabric "soft bins" are allowed in place of rigid
bins, lockers, and drawers (308) and an opaque curtain may be substituted for a rigid head door
(310).
3.0 Elements specific to the Transpac 52 Box Rule
3.1 HullShape
3.1.1 The hull surface may not contain hollows except in the forward 30% of LOA.
3.1.2 The hull section shall not increase in depth with increasing beam.
3.1.3 The hull to deck joint shall have a continuous radius and shall not be bumped at the
freeboard measuring points.
3.1.4 The sheer shall be a continuous curve without inflections in both plan and profile. In
plan, both the sheer and the outline of the canoe body, shall have a radius of curvature
greater 10 meters.
3.1.5 The deck may have cockpits as allowed, but may not have negative camber
126
3.2 Engine:

Each yacht must have a properly installed Yanmar inboard water-cooled diesel engine, oriented fore and
aft and located on centreline connected to a Yanmar sail drive with 2-bladed folding propeller.
Permitted Yanmar engine and sail drives are listed below. The Yanmar engine and Yanmar saildrive
may be installed in either the Z or C configuration and shall be otherwise installed in their complete
production configuration without modification, including specifically fairing over the cooling water
intakes. The propeller installation shall not have an EDL (Strut Drive Length) of less than 1.50 x PRD
(Propeller Diameter). EDL is defined as the distance from the center of the propeller along the propeller
axis to the trailing edge of the keel. Engines and Saildrives shall be installed such that they do not
reduce keel bolt access nor do they interfere with the structure of the keel attachment.

The sail drive installation shall have a PIPA of not less than 0.0036 square meters, using the following
formula:

PIPA =0.06 x ST1 x (ST5 0.5 x ST4) +0.4 x (0.8 x ST4)^2

ST 1 Minimum Projected Strut Thickness
ST 4 Strut Drive Hub Diameter
ST 5 Strut Drive Clearance

Permitted Yanmar Engine & Saildrive combinations include:

Yanmar 4J H2CE x SD31
Yanmar 4J H3CE1 x SD40
Yanmar 4J H4CE X SD40
Yanmar 4J H3-TCE x SD40T
Yanmar 4J H4CE X SD50

As these models are replace others combinations will be added.

3.3 Foils:
A maximum of one keel and one rudder is allowed. The keel shall be fixed and may not have a
trim tab. The rudder may not be multi surface and its axis of rotation shall be in the centerplane
of the boat. The permitted materials for the keel strut and ballast are lead, steel, stainless steel,
or bronze. The permitted keel material is amended to permit fairing and weed knife fairing. The
maximum width of the keel shall not exceed 0.793m.
3.4 Freeboard:
FF: SFFP shall be 0.460 m aft of the stem
FBI: Shall be at the forward face of the mast
FA: SAFP shall not be less than 14.265m of the stem
127
3.5 Sailplan:
3.5.1 The sail plan shall to be a fractional sloop. The mast shall be keel stepped. Masthead
spinnakers and one masthead loose luff jib are permitted.
3.5.2 A spinnaker pole or a fixed centerline sprit is allowed, but not both. A fixed centerline
sprit may not extend effective sailing length.
3.6 Mainsails
3.6.1 The mainsail may be reefed, but may not be lowered solely for the purpose of tacking
or jibing.
3.6.2 The mainsail area formula:

MSA =P/4*(E+MGL)/2)+(P/4*(MGL+MGM)/2)+(P/4*(MGM+MGU)/2)
+(P/8*(MGU+MGT)/2)+(P/8*(MGT+HB)/2)
3.7 J ibs:
3.7.1 A masthead roller furling jib may be carried and used. It shall have a loose luff and tack
to the hull, deck, spinnaker pole or sprit.
3.7.2 A fractional working jib may be carried and used.

3.7.3 J ib shall be measured as specified in IMS rule 812, 813, and 814.

3.7.4 No jib shall have jib roach.

3.7.5 The head of a jib shall not be greater than 100mm, when measured perpendicular from the luff,
projected if needed at the jibs highest point, to the leach, projected if need.
3.8 Spinnakers:
3.8.1 Spinnakers may be symmetrical or Asymmetrical and the area shall be measured by the
following formula:

Spinnaker Area =(SLU +SLE) * SF/4 +(SMG - SF/2) * (SLU +SLE)/ 3
3.8.2 No spinnaker may have a mid girth of less than 75% of the foot length.
128
4.0 The following limits shall apply:



Limit
LOA Maximum 15.850 m
Beam Maximum 4.420 m
Beam Minimum 3.962 m
Displacement Minimum 7484 kg
Displacement Maximum 7711 kg

Draft Maximum 3.200 m
Freeboards
FF Minimum 1.448 m
FBI (by mast) Minimum 1.265 m
FA Minimum 1.143 m
IM Maximum 19.720 m
J Maximum 6.188 m
LP Approx 1.03%) Maximum 6.370 m
LP of Masthead Loose Luff J ib Maximum 9.300 m
ISP Maximum 22.403 m

SPL/TPS Maximum 7.620 m
P Maximum 20.422 m
HB Maximum 0.152 m
BAS Minimum 1.980 m
BAS Maximum 2.134 m

Mainsail Area Maximum 91.510 m2
Spinnaker Area Maximum 247.6 m2

V1 Shroud base Minimum 3.505 m
Backstay Crane Maximum 0.305 m

4.1 Vertical Center of Gravity- Maximum -0.823m above measured waterline, Minimum -
0.610m above measured waterline.
4.2 All yacht constructed after 1/1/04 shall be capable of being lifted from a single point.
4.3 Water ballast is not permitted.

129
5.0 Mast and Rigging:
The mast weight and VCG shall be determined in accordance with the IMS Minimum mast
section dimensions shall apply continuously between the deck and the forestay attachment
point. Because ballast and other factors may vary, these minimums may not be adequate.
Specific mast engineering should be completed for each individual design.
5.1
Minimum mast weight shall be: 295 kg
Minimum height of VCG above sheer shall be: 8.992 m
Minimum mast for and aft dimension 0.277 m
Minimum mast athwartship dimension 0.131 m
5.2 Standing rigging except the backstay shall be steel and circular in shape.
5.3 The backstay shall be steel or aramid, with a minimum breaking strain of 9250 kg.

5.3.1 The backstay shall attached to the masthead crane and be longer than 18.0m.
At the lower end of the backstay, a purchase or hydraulic system may be used to adjust the
length or tension.
5.3.2 The backstay purchase or hydraulic systems lower attachment point(s) shall be aft of
the main boom. It shall attach to the deck or hull no higher than 1.30m from the water
plane when in measurement trim.
5.3.3 No device shall be used to deflect the backstay or purchase system between the
masthead crane and the deck or hull attachment point(s).
5.4 The lower pendant of the forestay is unrestricted.
5.5 The minimum V1 shroud base and width of the lower spreaders measured between the
centers of the cap shrouds in each case shall not be less than the number specified.
5.6 Mast head crane shall be a measurement from the center of the backstay to the aft side
of the mast. It shall be measured at the underside of the upper P band and shall be
perpendicular to the mast at that point.
5.7 The main halyard shall be attached to the mainsail while sailing.
5.7.1 The main halyard from the head of the sail at full hoist, reefed, or when using a storm
trysail, to its cleated position on deck or below deck level, shall have a minimum
breaking strain of 3000 kg and a minimum diameter of 9mm.
5.7.2 The remaining part of the main halyard may be tapered and have a minimum breaking
strain of 2000 kg.
5.8 Shrouds and stays must terminate on the hull or deck, but not to outriggers. Exterior
chainplates are permitted, but may not extend more than 12mm outside the hull.

130
6.0 Crew Weight:
It is widely recognized that crew weight has an effect on boat speed. Over the last few years, a tactic of
drastic weight loss and rapid gain has been used in some classes. The TP52 Class shall not encourage
this practice. It is the owners responsibility to encourage a healthy crew weight plan.
6.1. The crew weight maximum shall be 1273.0 kilos wearing a minimum of sailing shorts and T-
Shirt. A calibrated scale shall be used. The scale shall be provided by the race organizer or the Transpac
52 Class.
6.2 The owner/regular member of the class may select a default weight of 102.0 kilos for their
weight. If an entire crew is required to weigh more than once during an event, then the owner/regular
member of the class is not required to reweigh and the first weight recorded shall be used.
6.3 A yacht may change crew members with alternate crew members, as long as the correct paper
work is on file with the class official.
6.4 At least 48 hours before the scheduled start of a Transpac 52 event, each yacht shall file a
written crew declaration with all crew member names and weights, including alternates. It shall be filed
with the class official. Any change to the declaration shall be approved by the class official.
6.5 Between 36 & 18 hours before the scheduled start of a TP52 race, the TP52 class official shall
select from several crew weighing options and post it on the official notice board. If Section A is
selected, then at least two choices shall be used in addition to either section 6.6.6 or 6.6.7. In the event
that Section A is not selected, then Section B is the default crew weighing option.
__________________________________________________________________
SECTION A
6.6 All yachts crew members shall be weighed before the event.
6.6.1 The first and third place yachts to finish in any of the days races may have their entire crews
weighed within 1 hour after finishing the last race of the day.
6.6.2 A yachts crew member(s) may be weighed before the start of a days race. If the crew
member(s) is found to be over the declared weight of more than 1 kilo, the entire crew shall be weighed.
Notice of the crew(s) name, weigh in time and weigh in location shall be posted on the notice board at
least three hours before the scheduled start of a days race.
6.6.3 Any yachts crew member(s) may be weighed after that days racing. The yacht(s) shall be
notified within 5 minutes after finishing the last race of the day. The crew member(s) selected to weigh
shall complete the weigh-in within 1 hour of that yacht(s) finishing its last race of the day. If a crew
member(s) is found to be over the declared weigh by more than 1 kilo, the entire crew shall be
reweighed. All crew(s) shall be weighed within 1 hour of finishing the last race of the day.
6.6.4 A yachts entire crew may be weighed before the yacht leaves the dock for that days racing.
Notice of the yachts name shall be posted on the official notice board at least three hours before the
scheduled start of that days race.
6.6.5 One or more yachts entire crew may be weighed after the last race of the day. The yacht(s)
shall be notified within 5 minutes of finishing the last race for that day. The crew weighing shall be
completed within 1 hour of the last yacht to finish the last race of that day.
131
6.6.6 No yacht may protest any other yacht or yachts over crew weight.
6.6.7 Any yacht may protest another yacht or yachts over weight.
______________________________________________________________
SECTION B.
6.7 No crew weighing by the TP52 class or Race Committee. Any yacht may protest another yacht
or yachts over crew weight.
________________________________________________________________________
SECTION C.
6.8.0 When a crew weight is found to over 1273.0 kg and at or below 1278.0 kg, it shall lose three
places for each race of that day.
6.8.1 When a crew weight is found to be over 1278.0 kg and at or below 1283.0. kg, it shall lose six
places for each race of that day.
6.8.2 When a crew weight is found to be over 1283.0 kg, it shall be scored DNS for each race of that
day.
6.8.3 During an event, if a yachts crew weight is found to be over 1273.0 kg, the crew shall be
reweighed each remaindering day of the event.
132
7.0 Class Officials
7.1 Executive Director:
The TP 52 Class shall have an Executive Director. The Executive Director shall represent the class,
manage the business of the TP52 Class, set the Agenda for the Annual Class Meeting, collect annual
class dues on behalf of the class, and have the final authority to resolve all disputes. The Executive
Director shall serve at the leisure of regular members of the Class unless 80% of the regular members
voting at an annual class meeting agree to fill the position with another Executive Director. The
Executive Director in consultation with the Chief Measurer and Class Technical Committee shall issue
interpretations of the Transpac 52 Box Rule.
7.2 Chief Measurer:
The TP 52 class shall have a Chief Measurer. Decisions shall be made in consultation with the
Executive Director. The Chief Measurer shall be appointed by the Executive Director for a three year
period. At the first TP52 Annual Class Meeting after J anuary 1
st
2008 the position shall be voted on by
TP52 Owners for another three year period. The Chief Measurer shall appoint other class measurers
who shall report their measurements and findings in a timely manner back to the Chief Measurer.
7.3 TP52 Class Certificates.
TP52 Class Certificates shall be issued by the Chief Measurer in consultation with the Executive
Director. Each yacht shall also hold a valid IMS certificate. A copy of the most current IMS Certificate
shall be sent to the Chief Measurer. The first TP52 Class Certificate issued each year shall be free and
then $150 per certificate thereafter.
7.4 Changes and Revalidation:
A Class certificate is only valid when the measurements and data are correct. It is the owners
responsibility to ensure that his yacht complies with the TP52 rule and to report any changes to a TP52
measurer. At the end of each year, the Chief Measurer shall send a revalidation questionnaire to the
owner of each yacht. It shall be reviewed with the current IMS certificate by the Chief Measurer. When
the yachts measurements and data comply with the TP52 class rule, a new certificate shall be issued.
The certificate shall be valid until the last day of the calendar year of issue unless changes are made to
the yacht, at which time an updated certificate may be issued.
7.5 Inspection:
A yacht shall carry on board its current TP52 Class certificate, and IMS certificate. A TP52 Class
Measurer or the Executive Director may inspect a yacht at any time. If the yacht is found not to comply
with the TP52 Class rules, or notice of race, they shall report their findings to the local Race Committee,
Event Measurer, and to the Chief Measurer.
End 5/05
133
17. References

Abbott, Ira H, and Von Doenhoff, Albert E., Theory of Wing Sections, New York, NY:
Dover Publications, Inc., 1959.

Agarwal, Bhagwan D., and Broutman, Lawrence J., Analysis and Performance of Fiber
Composites. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience, 1990.

Beer, Ferdinand P., Johnston, E. Russell, DeWolf, John T., Mechanics of Materials,
Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Science, 2001.

Downs-Honey, R., Regulatory Constraints on the Structural Design of High
Performance Yachts, Proceedings of the 2002 High Performance Yacht Design
Conference.

Gori Propellers. 5 April 2005 <http://www.gori-propeller.dk/>.

Guide for Building and Classing Offshore Racing Yachts, American Bureau of
Shipping. 1994. 5 Dec 2004 <http://www.eagle.org/>.

Larsson, Lars, and Eliasson, Rolf., Principles of Yacht Design, Camden, ME:
International Marine, 2000.

Milgram, J.H., and Frimm, F.C., Elements of Resistance of IACC Yachts,, Proceedings
of 1993 Chesapeake Sailing Symposium of the Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers.

Miller, Richard T. and Kirkman Karl L., Sailing Yacht Design - A New Appreciation of
a Fine Art SNAME Transactions Vol. XXX, 19XX.

Teeters, J.R., Refinements in the Techniques of Tank Testing Sailing Yachts and the
Processing of Test Data,, Proceedings of 1993 Chesapeake Sailing Symposium
of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.

Transpac 52 Box Rule. 10 Oct 2004 <http://www.transpac52.org>.





134