But it gets a lot more complicated for a trimaran.

Posted By: Roger, Potter 19, Seattle
Date: 2/12/02 3:09p.m.

Report: outside forum guidelines

In Response To: Re: Speed etc (MarkW)

Unfortunately, that formula is too simplistic for a trimaran. There are a least 3 reasons it won't work well for this boat.

First, with a trimaran, you normally have 2 hulls in the water. As the boat heals, the displacement of each hull changes. For example, if you are pushing reasonable hard on a close reach, you might have half of the boats weight supported by the ama (the outrigger). Thus, you could put a weight of 1350 in the calculator. If you do this (and still use 23.8 for the LWL) you get a speed of 12.3 -- considerably higher than what you get for when the boat is sitting flat with most of the displacement in the main hull.

Second, when you start talking about speeds in the low teens, the issue of planing rears its head. Subtle changes make big differences as a hull tries to plane. Dave Gerr makes this comment about his formula: "Keep in mind, though, that my rule describes the top hull speed that a hull MAY achieve without planing." If the hull starts to plane, then Dave's equation is not valid.

Third, in order for Dave's equation to be accurate, you must have a hull that has somewhat normal characteristics for its displacement. I'm not sure that either the ama or the main hull at a displacement of 1350 pounds have these "normal" characteristics.

In any case, speeds of 10 - 12 knots seem reasonable for this trimaran. I'm just saying that with a monohull, Dave's formula is probably very accurate, maybe to within 1/4 knot. With this unusual trimaran, the accuracy of the formula is more likely in the 2 knot range.

Messages In This Thread

This Mac 26X has NOT been photographically altered -- Turol / Reynolds 21 -- 2/11/02 5:47p.m.
well-------- the workmanship looks decent. -- Charlie Jones, Lindsey 21, Magnolia Beach, Tx -- 2/11/02 6:05p.m.
Interesting - however -- Todd J -- 2/11/02 6:11p.m.
Let's see: I have an hunter 23.5 and a Hobie 17...Hmmmm -- Fat Frank -- 2/11/02 8:26p.m.
Well, I hope the guy.... -- Steve E/Montgomery 15 #102 "Scamp", Lake Pleasant,Phoenix, AZ -- 2/12/02 3:21p.m.
I can almost hear Doug from here in Illinois - - -" -- Nick Scheuer -- 2/11/02 6:13p.m.
That doesn't look like a 26X hull. -- Roger, Potter 19, Seattle -- 2/11/02 6:26p.m.
Right. It's not a 26X -- MarkW -- 2/11/02 6:53p.m.
Definitely not a 26X, Looks too much like a "sailing" hull -- Al - Seaward Fox -- 2/12/02 3:06p.m.
I guess my question would be, why? -- John Hill, Mac26X, Kansas City, Mo -- 2/11/02 7:52p.m.
Must be a retired engineer...... -- Rik, Rhodes 22 - Minnesota -- 2/11/02 9:09p.m.
Re: Definitely NOT a 26X hull. -- Jeff G. Indiana, US Yacht 21 -- 2/12/02 6:13a.m.
Re: Speed etc -- Mark R -- 2/12/02 10:47a.m.
Re: Speed etc -- MarkW -- 2/12/02 11:00a.m.
 But it gets a lot more complicated for a trimaran.  -- Roger, Potter 19, Seattle -- 2/12/02 3:09p.m.
Slowed the boat down? -- MarkW -- 2/12/02 10:49a.m.
Umm...pretty sure that's a Mac 26, not 26X -- Brian S, Annapolis -- 2/12/02 8:15a.m.
Very difficult to make a decent trimaran this way -- Tim C, F31 -- 2/12/02 10:57a.m.
Re: Very difficult to make a decent trimaran this way -- MarkW -- 2/12/02 11:06a.m.
Re: Increased wetted surface -- Don E. -- 2/12/02 10:59a.m.
Re: I forgot about the water ballast. -- Jeff G. Indiana, US Yacht 21 -- 2/12/02 11:59a.m.
Re: I forgot about the water ballast. -- MarkW -- 2/12/02 1:26p.m.
I don't know what he ended up with -- Jeff G. Indiana, US Yacht 21 -- 2/12/02 2:16p.m.
Is that a mac with training hulls?? -- Eric Jon - Capri 22 - Lake Mead Nv. -- 2/12/02 1:43p.m.
Benefit of the doubt -- Mark R -- 2/12/02 4:34p.m.

Trailer Sailor Forum Archive 2 is maintained by SailboatOwners.com with WebBBS 5.12.