History of the planing dinghy

[Peerie Maa]

Of course ... This is a planing Hull

The funny thing is that Uffa Fox boats are Royal Navy Destroyer Hull ... That is not a planing Hull

...

To really have a nice line on BS.
This is a destroyer hull form


Or did you mean this?

This the Uffa Fox Redwing

Adn you think that they are similar?
Is it deliberate trolling or Dunning-Kruger?
You have demonstrated that you have read some stuff, and failed to understand what you have read.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

What Nick says:^

This thread has taken a turn for the bizarre.

Whilst I am here, though, I am going to make a point - the development of light and strong hulls made a huge difference.

After looking at Morgan Giles and Uffa Fox 14 hulls and indeed owning an Uffa Fox 14, I am not sure that people appreciate just how very light and rigid these hulls are. It doesn’t matter what hull lines you have - if your boat is too heavy, she won’t plane.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Is this International 10sq metre Canoe planing?



In the nature of things, the IC’s power to weight ratio is as good as a wooden dinghy can achieve. I know this particular boat well, as she’s owned by my son, though this is a picture of her being sailed by her first owner. She is “ the last of the Nethercotts” - the one design IC drawn by a man named Nethercott. Later ICs are mostly carbon fibre and carry an asymmetric spinnaker giving a much higher power to weight ratio. At the moment there is a modest Nethercott revival taking place and a new one is being built.

Now, is she planing, or is she jumping off a wave, here?

I think she’s planing. The after part of the hull is flat up to the sharp transition to the vertical canoe stern.

Here are the lines:

[johnw]

Of course ... This is a planing Hull

The funny thing is that Uffa Fox boats are Royal Navy Destroyer Hull ... That is not a planing Ship (?)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-cl...stroyer_(1916)

2.2 SLR (!?)

...

(Naval architects' ignorance matches their arrogance)

...

Aside from all the testimony of expert sailors, we have plenty of records showing that Fox's Avenger type plane. In fact, in the early days of the sailing speed record, an 18' Fox dinghy, the Jollyboat, held the record. Nor are his hulls anything like any destroyer design I know of.

As to whether the Herreshoff dinghy would plane, that is subject to debate. I don't think it would be a particularly efficient planing hull, but I think it would plane. Nick, who is a naval architect, disagrees. Mr. Tice, who has worked with many hulls in test tanks, thinks it would plane, but like me, he is not an NA. We are discussing what planing is, and what shapes can achieve it under sail. I am willing to accept the testimony of American sailors that scows plane. Nick is not.

[Peerie Maa]

We are discussing what planing is, and what shapes can achieve it under sail. I am willing to accept the testimony of American sailors that scows plane. Nick is not.

For me the jury is out.
We have not run the maths using the Froude Number formula to see if the Fn is well above 0.5.
I don't know over what distance the boat sustains her top speed.
From the images of the boat in its wake she may just be stuck on the semi-dispacement hump and unable to become unstuck. We need the Fn value.

[John Meachen]

The mention of power to weight highlights the benefits of improved technology as time has progressed.To begin with-and it might be akin to sacrilege on this forum-slicing up trees in order to nail them back together isn't the best way to build planing dinghies.It used to be the only way in which dinghies that were light enough to plane could possibly be built.With better synthetic glues and equally synthetic sailcloth we progressed to the situation where more power could be harnessed to drive a hull that could be lighter and stiffer.On the topic of stiffness,I did once have a conversation with a fellow who didn't think it was of much benefit,so I asked him what would happen if you drove a car with a rubber propshaft and attempted to accelerate.He did concede that it would take a very small time to gain the speed over the road and when I asked why a flexible boat would be different we had a few ums and aahs before the conversation petered out.

The other benefit of the evolution to lighter monocoque hulls has been the adoption of shapes that wouldn't have been considered suitable for nailed together hulls because of the slamming that might have resulted.The development classes led the way and it is instructive to compare the lines of say a Kirby 2 international 14 with the Kirby 5 that came along a few years later.The increasingly U shaped bows helped with generating lift and led to the type of hull we have seen a bit earlier in the National 12 that was posted.As was said,moving weight fore and aft to optimise trim in various conditions became normal and the multi-mode style of sailing became the norm.

I would also add that the typical sailor has evolved quite a bit too.I well remember the type of sailor who wasn't a great physical specimen and who stubbed out his cigarette before launching,then craved the next one until he set foot ashore.Some dedicated smokers had a waterproof pocket in their oilskins and looked forward to a pedestrian run for their next nicotine fix.It used to be quite rare to encounter a dinghy sailor over 45 and some classes have a "Masters" subsection for those over 35.I knew a Laser sailor of some ability who finally hung up his wetsuit at 86 years old and I know a trapezing crew who has entered his seventies.Locally we have a Norfolk Punt sailor who will very soon be leaving his seventies behind.So I would contend that it isn't just the design and construction of the boats that has evolved,we have come to expect greater levels of fitness and the age it should last for to develop in parallel with the boats.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Yes^.

My club has a bunch of solo dinghy sailors all of whom are over sixty and it is really quite noticeable that one by one they have been parting with their Solos and buying Finns!

[John Meachen]

A good while ago I had a Finn.Great boat,but I was too light and too short to really make it go.One of those shortcomings has disappeared-now if I can just grow a bit......

[Ben Fuller]

Spent some decades driving IC's. Double digits routine even to windward even without an asymmetric. What ever you want to call it, boat went much faster than a 17' boat should be able to. What they don't do is have a bump, or a wall. They get to speed without climbing a noticable hump. Power to weight ratio, and power pretty much dictated by righting moment. In this, they behave more like multi hulls.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Spent some decades driving IC's. Double digits routine even to windward even without an asymmetric. What ever you want to call it, boat went much faster than a 17' boat should be able to. What they don't do is have a bump, or a wall. They get to speed without climbing a noticable hump. Power to weight ratio, and power pretty much dictated by righting moment. In this, they behave more like multi hulls.

Chapeau!

[Juan]

The damage

The damage done to the design of small sailing boats by the Royal Navy destroyers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is incalculable, tremendous, horrible, there are no words to describe the destruction caused to the design of small sailing boats.

Honestly, the only solution I see after meeting the Naval Architects tribe, a bunch of brutes, is to prohibit them from approaching sailboats of less than 30 tons.

[johnw]

Honestly, the only solution I see after meeting the Naval Architects tribe, a bunch of brutes, is to prohibit them from approaching sailboats of less than 30 tons.

The naval architects I have met are thoughtful, intelligent people. They've changed sailboats for the better it many ways. Modern sailboats are faster and safer than most of the traditional types. Sandbaggers, for example, killed a lot of people before they were banned.

[Treeguyus]

Great information thank you

[John Meachen]

Honestly, the only solution I see after meeting the Naval Architects tribe, a bunch of brutes, is to prohibit them from approaching sailboats of less than 30 tons.

Could I suggest you run that through Google translate to be sure that it says what you intended?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Spent some decades driving IC's. Double digits routine even to windward even without an asymmetric. What ever you want to call it, boat went much faster than a 17' boat should be able to. What they don't do is have a bump, or a wall. They get to speed without climbing a noticable hump. Power to weight ratio, and power pretty much dictated by righting moment. In this, they behave more like multi hulls.

Has this been posted before in this thread?

“Clearly the day of the heavily ballasted sit inside boat was past. However the plank was not welcomed in some UK circles: after much argument it was allowed in 1894 then banned again ten years later. The sliding seat was never, for instance, going to be very practical racing with the Royal Canoe Club at Teddington on the River Thames. I have attempted to sail a modern IC in the area and with a crosswind it was sometimes difficult to make progress at all and quite impossible to race competitively with more suitable craft. So the new lighter English boats had to go down a different route, and something quite extraordinary happened, which turns upside down one fact everyone knows about dinghy development. In Dixon Kemp's "Yacht Racing Calendar and Review" for 1891 there is a race report which reads in part as follows:-
"Snake" had sailed the fourth round in 9min 51 sec.
This race is worthy of further comment, it is the fastest of which there is any official record. The "Snake" sailed the full 6 mile course in 1:05:07, half the distance being close hauled. The course somewhat resembles the letter Z and the water is very shallow most of the distance. The buoys too were rounded twelve times, and yet the "Snake" and the "Torpedo" attained an average of nearly six miles an hour over this very difficult course. Thus we conclude that if they sailed half the distance when close hauled at, say, four miles an hour, they must have sailed half the distance, too, in one-third the time, or at the rate of 9 mile per hour. That the "Snake" attained an extraordinary pace when running with a quarterly wind there can be no doubt, but it was in the three or four strong puffs during the race that she left the "Torpedo", which is 2ft longer than "Snake", a long way astern. It was evident that this boat ha the extraordinary power of rushing over the water at ten or twelve miles an hour, probably more, without any wave-making apparently; only a wide smooth wake is seen astern. Yet at five or six miles an hour she makes waves like any other boat.".
So without a shadow of doubt what we have here is a description, perhaps the first, of a planing sailboat, some thirty years before Uffa Fox and Avenger. Theo Smith of Oxford had indeed created something quite new!“

This is from here:

http://intcanoe.org/en/ichistory1850.php

[johnw]

Has this been posted before in this thread?

“Clearly the day of the heavily ballasted sit inside boat was past. However the plank was not welcomed in some UK circles: after much argument it was allowed in 1894 then banned again ten years later. The sliding seat was never, for instance, going to be very practical racing with the Royal Canoe Club at Teddington on the River Thames. I have attempted to sail a modern IC in the area and with a crosswind it was sometimes difficult to make progress at all and quite impossible to race competitively with more suitable craft. So the new lighter English boats had to go down a different route, and something quite extraordinary happened, which turns upside down one fact everyone knows about dinghy development. In Dixon Kemp's "Yacht Racing Calendar and Review" for 1891 there is a race report which reads in part as follows:-
"Snake" had sailed the fourth round in 9min 51 sec.
This race is worthy of further comment, it is the fastest of which there is any official record. The "Snake" sailed the full 6 mile course in 1:05:07, half the distance being close hauled. The course somewhat resembles the letter Z and the water is very shallow most of the distance. The buoys too were rounded twelve times, and yet the "Snake" and the "Torpedo" attained an average of nearly six miles an hour over this very difficult course. Thus we conclude that if they sailed half the distance when close hauled at, say, four miles an hour, they must have sailed half the distance, too, in one-third the time, or at the rate of 9 mile per hour. That the "Snake" attained an extraordinary pace when running with a quarterly wind there can be no doubt, but it was in the three or four strong puffs during the race that she left the "Torpedo", which is 2ft longer than "Snake", a long way astern. It was evident that this boat ha the extraordinary power of rushing over the water at ten or twelve miles an hour, probably more, without any wave-making apparently; only a wide smooth wake is seen astern. Yet at five or six miles an hour she makes waves like any other boat.".
So without a shadow of doubt what we have here is a description, perhaps the first, of a planing sailboat, some thirty years before Uffa Fox and Avenger. Theo Smith of Oxford had indeed created something quite new!“

This is from here:

http://intcanoe.org/en/ichistory1850.php

Earlier in this thread, we have an account of Shadow, built for the same fleet two years earlier, also planing.

[Ben Fuller]

The naval architects I have met are thoughtful, intelligent people. They've changed sailboats for the better it many ways. Modern sailboats are faster and safer than most of the traditional types. Sandbaggers, for example, killed a lot of people before they were banned.

John, I've looked into open sandbaggers and haven't found any accounts of deaths. There were some with shallow cabin yachts, and I could probably find the reference in WP. But the open New York boats when they did capsize people could swim for it; indeed you will see rowing boats at windward boats with people in them..... you didn't have to finish with the same number that you started with. The most detailed accounts I've found in the states about fast small boat sailing were the Delaware river tuck ups and hikers, with typical thirty mile races, fifteen then turn around on the Delaware. As near as I can tell recovery for a capsized fifteen footer was swim it to the shore, bail and sail. No chase boats in those days. Well documented in newspapers of the 70's and 80's. I have over a thousand boat/race entries pulled out of a couple of decades of newspaper entries.

The banning of sandbaggers was more about banning people who made a living from the water than it was about banning the boats. Pure sandbagger racing came in two eras, first being the 70s in New York bay many out of Staten Island. With the industrialization of the waterfronts both in NYC and in Philadelphia the blue collar boatmen lost access. In New York yacht racing moved to Long Island sound along with the well heeled New Yorkers.

[johnw]

John, I've looked into open sandbaggers and haven't found any accounts of deaths. There were some with shallow cabin yachts, and I could probably find the reference in WP. But the open New York boats when they did capsize people could swim for it; indeed you will see rowing boats at windward boats with people in them..... you didn't have to finish with the same number that you started with. The most detailed accounts I've found in the states about fast small boat sailing were the Delaware river tuck ups and hikers, with typical thirty mile races, fifteen then turn around on the Delaware. As near as I can tell recovery for a capsized fifteen footer was swim it to the shore, bail and sail. No chase boats in those days. Well documented in newspapers of the 70's and 80's. I have over a thousand boat/race entries pulled out of a couple of decades of newspaper entries.

The banning of sandbaggers was more about banning people who made a living from the water than it was about banning the boats. Pure sandbagger racing came in two eras, first being the 70s in New York bay many out of Staten Island. With the industrialization of the waterfronts both in NYC and in Philadelphia the blue collar boatmen lost access. In New York yacht racing moved to Long Island sound along with the well heeled New Yorkers.

I assumed that what was written by WP Stephens was true, that the ban related to loss of life. However, I was well aware that it had a lot to do with the
Corinthian movement. Maybe the loss of life was just invented.

I do recall Stephens referring to a sandbagger crew who said they were 'agriculturalists,' though he intimated that they probable made their living from oyster beds rather than flower beds.