MAC 36

A forum for discussing topics relating to older MacGregor/Venture sailboats.
steve-nacra58-MAC36
Just Enlisted
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:57 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 36
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. U.S.A.

Re: MAC 36

Post by steve-nacra58-MAC36 »

SA -Genoa: 1074ft
My Genoa is 41' X 42' X 24' I think this comes out to 476.31 square feet.
Defl Main Jib Genoa
30º 679# 550# 2465#
45º 993# 803# 3603#
60º 1306# 1057# 4741#
75º 1594# 1290# 5784#
90º 1842# 1490# 6684#
105º 2077# 1681# 7538#
120º 2260# 1829# 8201#
135º 2417# 1955# 8770#
150º 2521# 2040# 9150#
160º 2574# 2082# 9339#
180º 2613# 2114# 2281#
On the main sheet loads, would the attachment to the rear beam load be 1306

Front and rear beam are 6.625 X .125 thick Main beam 6.5625 X .250 all standing rigging except bridles are 7/32. Bridle wires 1/4.

For transporting the boat on the trailer I replace the beams with 6" DWV PVC pipe.
J1234
Deckhand
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:54 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 36

Re: MAC 36

Post by J1234 »

steve-nacra58-MAC36 wrote:
SA -Genoa: 1074ft
My Genoa is 41' X 42' X 24' I think this comes out to 476.31 square feet.
Defl Main Jib Genoa
30º 679# 550# 2465#
45º 993# 803# 3603#
60º 1306# 1057# 4741#
75º 1594# 1290# 5784#
90º 1842# 1490# 6684#
105º 2077# 1681# 7538#
120º 2260# 1829# 8201#
135º 2417# 1955# 8770#
150º 2521# 2040# 9150#
160º 2574# 2082# 9339#
180º 2613# 2114# 2281#
On the main sheet loads, would the attachment to the rear beam load be 1306
Front and rear beam are 6.625 X .125 thick Main beam 6.5625 X .250 all standing rigging except bridles are 7/32. Bridle wires 1/4.
For transporting the boat on the trailer I replace the beams with 6" DWV PVC pipe.
Good morning to all,
Steve, you are the man. You are of course correct. I received sail quotes yesterday for a full suit and it turns out that the Genoa is calculated to 430ft^2, close enough, and the spinnaker can be from 990ft^2 to 1100ft^2, therefore, I will have to recalculate for the Genoa and the above results can remain for a spinnaker of 1074ft^2. I will provide the results at a later post once I calculate them.

I'm not sure if the main sheet loads statement is a question or an observation, so, I'll provide the equation for calculating main sheet loads and if you have any trouble, let me know and I'll calculate the loads for your specific vessel.

M = (E^2 x P^2 x V^2 x 0.00431) / (Sqrt(P^2 + E^2) x (E-D))
Where,
E= Foot length of main in feet
P= Luff length of main in feet
V= Apparent wind speed in knots
D= Distance from aft end of boom to mainsheet attachment point in feet
SA= Sail Area

The Clew Load = (SA x V^2) x 0.01. This would be negative if the sheet attaches aft of the clew.

If the question has to do with the 1306# load at 60 degree deflection for the main and whether it is the load on the mainsheet, then no, there are additional components to the loads for the mainsheet because of their additional blocks and because of their multiple geometry. On a specific note, you hit the nail on the head because mainsheet loads calculations are NOT normally as easily accepted for offshore use and the genoa calculations are more representative and more readily accepted.

Holy mackerel. Unbelievable. The shrouds and beams calculated to exactly as you have, then the voice in my head kept telling me to incrase the safety factor by another 50% and pow, my call out is exactly 50% of your diameters and wall thicknesses, or, the next highest size. Believe it or not, I am way, way overbuilt based on my calculations. All my calculations are based on a hull beam centerline to centerline distance of 18', when that is the distance overall and the centerline/centerline distance is only 14' Also, I am calculating loads to 32 knots for category B offshore vessels instead of the wind velocity used for class C inshore vessels which is 25 knots. If you don't think it makes a difference, believe me it is a huge difference. The difference is 1.71# per square foot!! I don't mind beung overbuilt a bit because she has a huge sail area for her weight and small wetted area. I cannot even begin to emphasize the relief that you have brought from disclosing this information. Thanks again. Now, I feel like I can breathe a little better.

I am going to finish what I started based on my original assumptions, although I am going to streamline everything in the end to more closely ressemble the actual MAC 36 information instead of the "beefed" up information that I am calculating as if designing for a category B vessel. I'll put a nice PDF together for the community to have available. Maybe us Mac 36 members will get one of those ----> :macm: for us too. 8)

How thick are the walls on the pvc pipe? Do they seem strong enough?
steve-nacra58-MAC36
Just Enlisted
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:57 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 36
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. U.S.A.

Re: MAC 36

Post by steve-nacra58-MAC36 »

The PVC wall thickness is .300 Remember when changing tubes, one at a time or the hulls will end up lying on their side!! Follow the directions in the book.
J1234
Deckhand
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:54 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 36

Re: MAC 36

Post by J1234 »

steve-nacra58-MAC36 wrote:Do I get paid for all this home work.
This trailer If you lined the sterns up with the rear of the trailer had way to much tongue weight. We had to slide the boat about 10 feet back. This made about 55 feet of total length.
Image
She pulls great, but 70mph was to much for the 10inch trailer tires. We had two blow outs on the way to Florida. Slowing down to 60 got us there and back with no more blowouts. The trailer and the boat empty, the weight on the trailer wheels is 5500lbs. Since this photo I have added a third axle to the trailer. I also am going to 15" wheels.
ENOUGH for NOW
Hello Steve,

I've been meaning to get to this post but was a little distracted. I wanted to discuss some points with you so I can get some of this clear in my own head since I also will be in the market for a trailer. I'm hopeful that maybe I can be helpful in your own though process and I don't want you think me to be forward about my comments and observations because you have an excellent trailer. It is my intent to repay you back for al your homework with some advise. 8)

I mentioned I had my own little sketch to share, but I don't know how to attach documents so I'll explain by using your trailer. Think of a trailer that telescopes traversely and has attached plates on rollers that can be extended longitudinally to retrieve the vessel instead of extending the hitch bar as it is on yours. So now, plates have been pushed out by electric/manual jack screws to deploy the beam, and then the plates are either rolled down (aft) to deploy or rolled up (foreward) to retrieve her at the ramp. Obviously, the plates must be inclined, so the entire bed, will have to tilt in pitch which can be acomplished with a small hydraulic or electric pump and cylinder much like the dump trucks or flatbed tow trucks do it. Do you see what I'm saying so far?

Now, it is my belief that I can take that whole package down to a compact length of 33' maximum. Forget 55'. I know it sounds crazy, but let me explain. What is the restricting factor for the trailer? Weight and length. Width is set unles special permits are required. If you load up the hitch, your going to bend the A frame, bounce like crazy and find yourself clinching the wheel whiteknucled if you have to execute an emergency breakout because the front axle on the tow vehicle is going to fly. While on the road, a 300# load on the hitch is not 300# when you hit a bump. It's a lot more. So how do we mitigate these loads? Pushing the boat back into a cantilever position is okay, but go too far and you'll crack her. also, you move only a small weight behind the pivot point (rear axle) because it is so far aft, so very little reduction manifests at the hitch. Yet another axle will mitigate some weight, but placed way back there, it is a very small reduction to the hitch. If you reduce weight at the hitch by 2% but add the axle weight of 98%, the purpose is defeated. The axle is designed to bear vertical loads first, and then some horizontal and torque percentages. Then you have to think about the distance from the pivot point (rear axle) and the hitch and how weight is affected by that distance. The longitudinal Inertia is high and the mass so far aft of the hitch that the pivot works like a pendelum creating significant sway loads. How do we mitigate that inertia? Reduce the distance by creating another load bearing point between the rear axle and the rear axle of the tow vehicle. Solution? Enter the tow dolly.

http://www.usa-trailer.com/shop/index.p ... ypage-7417.

No endorement is intened. They also have one made by TUFF TOW, but it's overkill. Yet another is Tow Buddy, but I have some reservations about design.

Follow me. You get one of the tow dolly rated to tow a 4000# car, which means that the load on the axle can only be about 2000#, but they are rated higher. Don't be cheap and forget electric brakes and a break away kit. It's cheap peace of mind. You take it into a metal shop and you tell the welder to chop off all unwanted weight and components, beef up all the right angles to sustain 1.5x the weight of the trailer and the boat upon it and to modify it with an arch traversely so he can weld a hitch ball on top of it. A nice box frame with truss framing will be superior for the weight. This ball will receive the trailer and up to 2000# of weight from the rest of the trailer. The hitch has to be rated for all the weight aft, including the weight of the dolly, so a bigger one may be required. If you want to go crazy, have him weld a fifth wheel and king pin at hitch height. You can then adjust the weight on the tow vehicle to carry a couple of hundred pounds and thereby reducing the cantilever of the boat to about 2-3 feet and the length of the trailer to about 30 - 33 feet. All the additional weight is bye, bye.

All you need is double axles in the rear, yes, put brakes and break away on at least one. If you do it right, you can get away with 1 rear axle, but get the two for redundancy. Assuming an equally distributed weight overall of 4000#/36', we can say that at 3 feet, there would be a cantilever load of 111# x 3' equalling 333#, which is about 8% of the total weight, which is definitely safe. Based on number of tires, 15 inchers will be more than enough.

Whats the best part? The tow vehicle no longer has to experience the weight or the tow loads. It now only has to be able to "move" the weight instead of carrying it since the weight is on the rear axles and dolly. 8) Well, it needs to pull it uphill, but that only becomes a problem for underated vehicles or grades greater than 9%, but not for getting to the local ramp, unless you cross a mountain range. Also, with 10 tires, with a minimum of 6 tires with brakes, the ride will be no contest. No bouncing, no torque on turns and even controlled stops without messing your pants or putting the baby on the trailer in any danger. No super wide 40' turns.

What do you think? :)
steve-nacra58-MAC36
Just Enlisted
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:57 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 36
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. U.S.A.

Re: MAC 36

Post by steve-nacra58-MAC36 »

The trailer in the photo is how it was when I bought the boat. We used it to pull the boat from Austin Tx. to Tuscaloosa Al. Since I want to be able to trailer sail this boat just like my small beach cat I have totally changed this trailer.
The tongue was shortened by about 10' The bunks were removed and 3- 3" X 5" X 8foot square tube crossbars were installed on the trailer. They where placed so that when the boat is on the trailer the bulkheads in the boat will rest on them. There are 6- 3" X 5" X 5foot extensions that slid into each end of the 8foot crossbeams. This gives an expanded width of 18 feet. 6 cradles were built with rollers for the boat to set on. 3 for each hull. These cradles are made to slide on the crossbeams. The cradles are held in position by 5/8 hitch pins. When the boat is ready to launch we back down the ramp and float her off.

In this photo the brown parts are the removable 3 X 5 beams.
Image
Image
The original trailer axles are rated at 2000# with serge brakes for the front and 3500# for the rear. The boat empty " No sails, no gas, no food, no tools" and trailer weighed 5500#. I bought another 3500# axle and equalizer bars and installed under the trailer. The whole axle assembly will slide for and aft so you can get the tongue weight correct.
Image

In Alabama It is illegal to tow a trailer by is self. The definition of a trailer is no tongue weight, a semi trailer is legal as it has tongue weight.
steve-nacra58-MAC36
Just Enlisted
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:57 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 36
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. U.S.A.

Re: MAC 36

Post by steve-nacra58-MAC36 »

Image
Image
Image


You can go here and see these photos larger.http://www.thebeachcats.com/index.php?m ... emId=74611
J1234
Deckhand
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:54 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 36

Re: MAC 36

Post by J1234 »

Top of the morning to all,

Steve, I got it. I'm glad to hear you chopped off some length. I love the simplicity of that trailer. I sent out a couple of rfq's for the trailer and I'm waiting to see what kind of design and cost they're going to back with. Putting lots of info together. Got back the quotes on a full set of nets/tramps/webbing as well, and a second quote on the sails.

Some more later.
steve-nacra58-MAC36
Just Enlisted
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:57 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 36
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. U.S.A.

Re: MAC 36

Post by steve-nacra58-MAC36 »

J1234,
Do you plan on trailer sailing, at different ramps or just a trailer to get her home. If you put your boat together in the water, you can add two cross beams. These would be 18' long and just set across the trailer frame. This would allow you to keep her on the hard, in the marina,cutting dock fees.
J1234
Deckhand
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:54 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 36

Re: MAC 36

Post by J1234 »

steve-nacra58-MAC36 wrote:J1234,
Do you plan on trailer sailing, at different ramps or just a trailer to get her home. If you put your boat together in the water, you can add two cross beams. These would be 18' long and just set across the trailer frame. This would allow you to keep her on the hard, in the marina,cutting dock fees.
Steve,

Therein lies my dilemna.
She is on the East coast of Florida right now, and I can keep her on the water there. I can go down whenever I want and sail her, summer or winter. I can trailer her to Cape Coral where I have a good friend that can store her up for me since I'll be buying a house out there in the very near future retirement, at which point, she can be dry sailed since they have ramps available. The third solution is to bring her up North, where she can receive full attention from me, but it will be hard as hull to sail her in the winter, although not impossible with the right clothing.

Dock fees up here will more than likely be 1.5x loa instead of the usual cost per foot of loa, and, that will mean having to put her on an outside finger because of her beam. Of course a serious argument will be made against it and the beautiful thing is that I can always ask to be stored wet "inside" because I can fold her up anyway. I'm not certain how it is down South, but up here, if you store wet through the winter, it is cheaper than dry storing on the hard. There is no way that I will allow anyone to charge extra for storing on my trailer on the hard especially if I have her folded and tucked aay. Sometimes they ask that you pay for both spaces. Regarding her bottom, to me it doesn't really matter because you can get two seasons before having to haul her to do the bottom because of the colder waters.

I can always have her moored, but then work on her is a difficult at best.

Talk later,
J1234
Deckhand
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:54 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 36

Re: MAC 36

Post by J1234 »

Hello to one and all,

Wow, what a day. Everything felt so surreal. It's really weird. Here is some more information for those hungry for knowledge. I did some work for anchoring out in deep water while suffering a blow. Heavy wind and high seas offer difficult mathematical dynamics because every wave, their height and frequency, combined with differing wind velocity from all points will produce different loads. Those combined will result in incredible wave and wind velocities and kinetic energy on every vector whether it is breaking or impacting. In layman terms, respect the sea because it takes whatever it wants whenever it wants. To try to fight is a stupid attempt in futility. Having impressed the phenomenal danger, let's measure and quantify it so we can figure out a way to reduce its impact, no pun intended.

The following assumptions are made for calculations. For those that get "headaches", just go right to the result which is the purpose of the thread anyway. :wink:

Wave height 40.00ft
Wave length is 300.00ft
Wave velocity is 39.00ft/sec
Wave horizontal velocity (breaking) is 45.6ft/sec

The following results are used to design the different sea anchors for the Mac 36, or for a similar vessel for that matter.

Wind velocity is 65.18 knots
Buoyancy force is 2159.38lb
Air drag is 251.57lb
Drogue force is 2410.94lb
Drogue velocity is 39.00ft/sec
Horizontal kinetic energy is 102000ft/lb
Vertical kinetic energy is 172750 ft/lb
Wave kinetic energy (breaking) is 479969 ft/lb
Impact velocity is 50.12 knots

Before proceeding, I would like to emphasize some of these results. First of all, these waves are common occurrence during the El NiNo cycle and in December and January, they get massive even in weak blows. I don't say this to worry anyone, but if a vessel is offshore rated, or if a skipper takes one out that isn't, there is a possibility that it might encounter such storms albeit less than 3% of the time with today's weather prediction programs. Some old timers have never been in a storm except while watching it on TV from a warm couch and those guys are genius because they utilize everything from a stretched blonde hair in a tube to sophisticated real time satellite weather faxes and if anything is amiss, they WAIT to go tomorrow.

Learned and experienced seamanship is a must if light craft is to parry waves and avoid 50 knot impacts or waves that have almost half a million pounds of kinetic energy from breaking over the bows. To put this in perspective, a 250# boxer (Mac 36) would have to knock out a 39999# challenger (Wave) to defeat the energy from such an onslaught, and it has to do it consistently until wind and seas abate. No contest, see statement regarding futility above.

So how is it defeated? You yield and allow the energy to flow "around and under" you instead of fighting it. Remember that the killer waves are only the breaking waves and all other waves mean little because they have longer periods than the vessel is long so the vessel just goes up the trough and down the crest. The sea anchor and drogue are our friends. The series drogue is our airbag.

Sea Anchor Components:
Primary float is rated for 177lb of buoyancy
Trip line float is rated 54lb of buoyancy
Recovery float is rated for 89 lb of buoyancy
Chain bridle is 95 ft long
Nylon rode is850 ft long
Trip line is102 ft long
Chute diameter is 18 ft

Cone Drogue Components:
Drogue cross section area is 1.36 Ft^2
Drogue diameter is 3 ft
Anchor 5.32lb

Stability Curve:
I could calculate and produce a stability chart for her, but the bottom line is that her maximum righting moment will manifest when the windward hull gets unstuck (7 degrees) and it plummets from that point until her point of no return which is the angle of vanishing stability, 70 degrees, at which point, she will fall on her ear unless an act of God or a total and complete reversal of the magnetic poles generate an immediate opposite wind force and sets her back on rails.

So don’t fly a hull and maintain caution when climbing a crest on the quarter or a gust could flip her into the trough. It has already been demonstrated that no design can survive beam-on impacts by breaking waves that are 55% of LOA. Therefore, the skipper should be aware of all waves that are at least 50% of LOA (18 feet for the Mac 36) within his vicinity and or on a beam-on vector so that evasion and egress can be planned ahead of time.

We are almost finished. Next time we will deal with provisioning perishables and hydration to estimate fresh water tankage and storage. This is important because the design is very sensitive to weight.

Enjoy the read,
:)
steve-nacra58-MAC36
Just Enlisted
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:57 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 36
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. U.S.A.

Re: MAC 36

Post by steve-nacra58-MAC36 »

J1234,
You asked about tramp selection on my boat. They were already on the boat when I bought it. If you look at the large off shore racing cats and trimarans they mostly seem to use a large open mesh net. This would help keep the wind from catching under the tramp and blowing the boat over, would not be very comfortable on bare feet. On my beach cat and the rear and center tramp on the Mac 36 are polypropylene mesh made by Sunrise Yacht Products. They have 16% openness. This lets water drain through the tramp but is not hard on the feet and lines don't fall through. The front tramp is a vinyl coated polyester, you can walk on it and it wont hold any water.

My 29hp motor was able to move the boat at 11.5mph by GPS at WOT. What speed would you expect with two 50hp. engines?
J1234
Deckhand
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:54 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 36

Re: MAC 36

Post by J1234 »

steve-nacra58-MAC36 wrote:J1234,
You asked about tramp selection on my boat. They were already on the boat when I bought it. If you look at the large off shore racing cats and trimarans they mostly seem to use a large open mesh net. This would help keep the wind from catching under the tramp and blowing the boat over, would not be very comfortable on bare feet. On my beach cat and the rear and center tramp on the Mac 36 are polypropylene mesh made by Sunrise Yacht Products. They have 16% openness. This lets water drain through the tramp but is not hard on the feet and lines don't fall through. The front tramp is a vinyl coated polyester, you can walk on it and it wont hold any water.

My 29hp motor was able to move the boat at 11.5mph by GPS at WOT. What speed would you expect with two 50hp. engines?
Hello Steve,

Yup, they have all kinds of ways to call out the tramps. I received a very detailed quote for the bow, intermediary and main tramps and nets in mesh/web configurations ranging from 1" to 3". They even included polypropylene, polyester, Dyneema etc, and even priced out the attachment hardware. Very professional job on paper which can only translate to a very professional job on the loft. I can't attach it because I can't figure out how to put pdf or word documents, but if you want to look at it, or anyone else, let me know and I'll e-mail it out to you. They are competitive, but definitely not cheap, and that Dyneema, is double the most expensive material quoted!!.

:D LOL. Twin 50's? Holy mackerel. I would expect that you may dig a hole far faster than you can move and sink her by the transom...well, she is unsinkable, so it would be one hull of a whirlpool. Here is how it works. Weight and LWL are the primary factors which calculated drag from wetted area. In the case of the cat, beam is also a factor because the converging bow waves must pass behing the stern before they both collide. Obviously, the Mac 36 tends to defy the physics associated with the "hump" because the hull is so slender and slippery, but even those have a limit where it is just too dangerous to the structure, or the fuel consumption would be astronomical. Everything, I mean everything, has a "max q" and anything beyond that point is impossible.

So for fun, lets extrapolate assuming that 100hp is acceptable and I don't believe that it is, at WOT. Let's assume a speed to length ratio SLR of 2.1 light, (3000# displacement), and further, lets assume a normal required HP of 5.364 Hp per 2205# of displacement to move this vessel at 1.34 x Lwl^0.5. We can't change the weight, and we will exclude the motor weight along with the pitch created by their distance from the CB, so we have to work with the LWL to extrapolate the results for a 100HP vessel. As is, we require 7.14HP for a LWL of 32.25 feet, so, we calculate:

100 Hp is equivalent to 32.25' / 7.14HP x 100HP = LWL of 451ft
SLR 2.1 = 451^0.5 x 2.1 = 44.6 Knots
SLR 1.34 = 451^0.5 x 1.34 = 28.45 Knots, this is not WOT, but close enough.

This is of course an over simplification because there are many variables we have excluded such as friction, wave drag etc. The biggest factor would be the angle that is made by the bow wave as it increases moving aft with greater speeds and they collide between the hulls, then slapping the hulls before they clear the tunnel. To give an idea of how much greater the drag becomes with the increase in speed for the LWL, for the same distance, you would require 13.9 times more petrol. Diesel is a little less, but not by much. Unless you're married to Mobil, I would say pass it up. :wink:

I had to edit because I failed to point out that you will get you there 3 times faster if the hulls survive the onslaught, but it will cost you 14 times more, sooo...it doesn't add up.

I hope this talks you out of it.
steve-nacra58-MAC36
Just Enlisted
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:57 pm
Sailboat: MacGregor 36
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. U.S.A.

Re: MAC 36

Post by steve-nacra58-MAC36 »

Thanks J1234,

Here is my thinking on this 100hp.
The one 29hp motor if center mounted would be sufficient. Mounted on the starboard hull makes slow speed maneuvering very hard, forward is hard left and reverse is hard left. Once you build some speed you can steer OK. Motoring upwind with the wind at about 10knts. on the starboard bow, boards down, full right rudder would not keep her straight at half throttle. Had to use almost WOT to stay in the channel. Since I want to be able to trailer sail a center mounted motor is not acceptable. To much assembly time . The outboard mounted on the stern does not work very well in waves over about 3 feet. If you lower it all the way down the motor cowling will go under causing the motor to quit from no air. Raising the motor causes the prop to come out of the water.

I also want to be able to be able to motor in water about 16" deep."beaching" I am thinking about making retractable rudders. They would slide up in fixed trunks just like the dagger boards. I will only be able to raise the rudders with them straight ahead.
So outboards are out, sail drives would not work ether.

Enter the nemesis of all sail boaters, THE JET SKI.
Two used running skis with reverse about $2500.00.This is just as cheep as two used 15hp outboards. I have not had much luck finding long shaft remote controlled outboards. The bottom of the ski around the water intake would be cut out complete with all the motor and accessory mounting brackets. This would be glassed in just under the hatch. The jet would be piped to exit on the stern on the inboard side of the rudders.

While I have not seen the exact specs, I think that a 50hp jet drive would not weigh more than a 15hp outboard and mounting bracket. This would also move the weight from hanging off the end of the stern to close to the CG of the boat. The jet drive motors mounted inside would be able to keep running till you turn the boat over. There will be some drag caused by the intake grates when sailing.
J1234
Deckhand
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:54 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 36

Re: MAC 36

Post by J1234 »

steve-nacra58-MAC36 wrote:Thanks J1234,

Here is my thinking on this 100hp.
The one 29hp motor if center mounted would be sufficient. Mounted on the starboard hull makes slow speed maneuvering very hard, forward is hard left and reverse is hard left. Once you build some speed you can steer OK. Motoring upwind with the wind at about 10knts. on the starboard bow, boards down, full right rudder would not keep her straight at half throttle. Had to use almost WOT to stay in the channel. Since I want to be able to trailer sail a center mounted motor is not acceptable. To much assembly time . The outboard mounted on the stern does not work very well in waves over about 3 feet. If you lower it all the way down the motor cowling will go under causing the motor to quit from no air. Raising the motor causes the prop to come out of the water.

I also want to be able to be able to motor in water about 16" deep."beaching" I am thinking about making retractable rudders. They would slide up in fixed trunks just like the dagger boards. I will only be able to raise the rudders with them straight ahead.
So outboards are out, sail drives would not work ether.

Enter the nemesis of all sail boaters, THE JET SKI.
Two used running skis with reverse about $2500.00.This is just as cheep as two used 15hp outboards. I have not had much luck finding long shaft remote controlled outboards. The bottom of the ski around the water intake would be cut out complete with all the motor and accessory mounting brackets. This would be glassed in just under the hatch. The jet would be piped to exit on the stern on the inboard side of the rudders.

While I have not seen the exact specs, I think that a 50hp jet drive would not weigh more than a 15hp outboard and mounting bracket. This would also move the weight from hanging off the end of the stern to close to the CG of the boat. The jet drive motors mounted inside would be able to keep running till you turn the boat over. There will be some drag caused by the intake grates when sailing.

Good morning Steven,
AHHHH, J, je, jet SKIIIIII. :x

No need to thank me. It's my pleasure.
If I didn’t know any better, I would say that it can’t be done and that you definitely should not try to do so, but that would be an act in futility. However, unless you have done it before, you should research it and belabor the issue, almost to death. Here is my take.

I believe that you will find better solutions, if you look for them, and you probably won’t have to look too hard either. From your post, it sounds to me like your frustration is with the “maneuverability” setbacks that you experience with the power plant, opposed to needing a completely different power plant solution to the problem.

The single motor will always provide difficulties in the opposite side and for the opposite direction because of the long arm to the center of flotation for the opposite hull. Unless overpowered, forget it. Putting the motor centerline, would as you say work, but then the arm is just as long, it just isn’t offset on traverse, so the negative effect is exaggerated at the bows and reduced at the stern.

The solution is the dual motors, which can be argued is a consideration anyway, because you want to provide double jet drives. You can get dual 10HP motors, (reduce weight), install them in the hull in outboard wells (you can install them anywhere, even forward of the center of buoyancy for “front wheel drive”). Plates can be welded so when they are down, the hull is closed up and when they are up, the hull is also closed up and streamlined. The motor will not stall because she won’t be flooded and some inboard vents will provide enough air to keep the plugs from fouling. A small flat dorado box would add a little class and give her more air than needed. Weld the plate with dual function in mind, and you can beach her and she can rest on the plates on the outboards and on her rudders for a very stable 4 point platform.

You can also solve this issue, with a single motor, set centerline, with little if any inconvenience whatsoever to retrieval or deployment time. It can be done with a hinged mechanism on a track attached to the base of the mast or the compression tube. The result will of course be reduced maneuverability but hundreds of time better than the current set-up.

Having said that here are some pro/cons you may not know about regarding jet drives. The pros are that you don't have a prop so you can run in shallower water at high speed and that depth is usually about foot or so, which is one of the requirements you seek. The cons are that you need about 30% greater HP to maintain similar performance at the expense of efficiency, which you don’t want because your problem is maneuverability and not propulsion. If you are in shallow areas, it can be a plus, but you will always have to be on plane and backing down to slower speeds will be like a vacuum cleaner on the sea bed and it will suck small rocks and sand into the intake vanes. This will destroy impellers and will eventually cause so much damage (in short time) that the unit will lose efficiency and eventually fail. Obviously, impellers = steering, so when they go, so does the steering. Also, it will be a real PITA to have to jump overboard and clear any kind of sea plant every time they shoot up the intake and stop the drives. Sand traps will be helpful, but it is imminent.

Also, if beaching is the issue, most shorelines on the East coast drop off in such a manner that the rudders should be clear of the bottom when the bow hits the beach. However, any kind of surge is going to make that sand work like a cheese grater on the hull, so just anchor in 2 feet of water and walk to shore instead. Unless you’re looking to sand clean the bottom. :idea:

At slow speeds, like in a channel or maneuvering to shove off or dock her at the finger, a water jet is more difficult to maneuver. At idle, the drive is still turning and specialized steering equipment will be required. The drive wins over the outboard for vibration hands down, but because it is so inefficient in power, an outboard will move and maneuver the vessel faster and with more authority for the same HP. Regarding expense, the drive will be much more expensive to maintain no if and or buts about it.

So, let’s look at what is required. You need about 20HP, with prop, for efficient propulsion and with dual motors of 10HP each, you will be able to maneuver with good authority. To get that kind of propulsion and maneuverability in a water jet, you will need about 28HP, which will mean having to find and pair together a small motor and drive. You may get away with a lawn mower engine like a Tecumsah or a very small scooter motor and probably a water pump if you work out the fluid dynamics or you can get a ready unit. You can probably get your hands on a Kawasaki JS300, for 30 HP, but now you need two for a total of 60 HP, twice the HP you need. You can justify the additional power as a reserve, but will you really end up finding a need to use it? Maybe, maybe not.

Weight, oh boy. I think your estimate is way off and you should not expect to get the power to weight ratios that you think you will see. To start, you need 30% more HP just to get within the same propulsion and maneuverability envelope and that brother is going to mean significant weight even if you luck out and pay only 0.19# per cc. Also, you will always have a significant amount of water in every drive adding additional weight.

Long shaft outboards are a dime a dozen. I did a real quick search and came up with this link. I’m sure a deeper search will produce even better results for price. Electric, remote and ultra long shaft…wow. Whoops just what you needed. :wink: I’m a Honda guy myself, but Nissan is without a doubt at the top of the list.

http://www.nissan-outboards.com/nissan- ... stroke.htm

Hope that helps a bit,
J1234
Deckhand
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:54 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 36

Re: MAC 36

Post by J1234 »

Hello to all,

We are almost finished with the theoretical averages and commonalities. We have confirmed many things, other things have gone without corroborationt but that is only until I get down South to bring the baby home. I decided she will be sailed home on her bottom for her make-over. :D :D She will be sea trialed and driven hard for 1100nm! We're going to know if something is going to break!!

Today we calculated for storage, both fluid and solid, for consumable and perishable stores that must be provisioned. Check the offshore category definition for class A vessel and it will make a very important point, "must be self sufficient without expectation of any help for extended periods of time." What does that mean? Not much really. A circumnavigation can be coastal cruised without ever having to be more than 140nm from land, (I consider that distance offshore), if I had to sail to Caroline Island, so those provision requirements would be small, but who wants to spend the next 30 years circumnavigating by putting 217,000+ miles of coastline under the keel? That's almost the distance to our moon.

So, what measure do we use to provision? Do we stack, pack and wrap until our stores hang out of the hatches and hope that we have enough while we sleep on the rails? Yeah right. There are many assumptions that need to be made in order to calculate the right average.

For the Mac 36, I have decided that 2 on board for extended voyages is plenty, one male, one female, both of equal age 48, and the male weighing 250# and the female 160#. Their activity level is active to moderately active for a significant portion of the day. These assumptions are based on 3500 calories being equal to 1 pound of fat. However, not all calories are stored as fat, so I used only half.

Daily caloric requirements (BMR)
Male: 3422
Female: 2239
Total: 5660

Water consumption, equally complicated is based on the body fluids being the driving component because dehydration is related to body fluids. If one really needed to, one could survive on sea-water enemas or drink small quantities of salt water per day.

Daily Fluid Requirement:
Male: 0.61 Gal/day
Female: 0.33 Gal/day
Cooking: 0.33 Gal/day
Total: 1.27 Gal/day

Once minimum daily requirements have been calculated, the final components, time, speed and distance must be incorporated. For the Mac 36, the speed to length ratio is 1.9 which translates to 11 knots. The average speed calculated is shy of the 11 knots, but none expects to travel at such a V/L ratio consistently out on the ocean for reasons ranging from slowing down at night for better motion to sleep, to being becalmed or in light wind conditions, so, we can reduce her speed down to an average of 7.8 knots and then we'll consider ourselves becalmed for 8 hours per day as a safety factor, so we will average 7.8 knots for 16 hours a day.

Knowing speed and time, all that is left, is to establish distance. Assuming a temporary act of madness, a skipper would set a course to the one place on earth that is the furthest point from anywhere on land. The pacific Pole of Inaccessibility. The name alone leaves me cold to the core. It is a point in the ocean that is 1451 nm from the nearest land. Doubling the distance for a return trip will be the distance used as the distance to travel without being able to provision for stores. The following results are calculated:

Days to travel a return trip: 23
Total Calories Required: 144,554
Stores Weight: 82.6#
Refrigerator Size: 21 Gallon/2.6 Cubic Feet
Total H2O Required: 29.5 Gallons
Fluid Weight: 246#
Water Tank Size: 2-15 Gal Tanks

Due to the weight penalty from carrying full water tanks, it would be an excellent idea to have a small water maker installed as part of the inventory. Empty tanks would substitute as flotation when not required and their dual purpose can be light ballast to increase stability during a blow offshore.

Electrical:Electrical is standard code and you may or may not use all of these.
Battery Cable: Safety Main Switch/ Red - 4 gauge
Mast Ground: White - 8 gauge
DC Supply to Switch Panel: Red - 10 gauge
Water Pumps: Red - 12 gauge
Cabin Lights: Blue - 16 gauge
Running Lights (Bow): White - 16 gauge
Running Lights (Stern)/Compass: White - 16 gauge
Steaming Lights: Green - 16 gauge
Anchor Light: Red - 16 gauge
Bilge Pump: Brown - 16 gauge
Bilge Float Switch: Tan 16 gauge
Sump Pump/Shower: Yellow - 16 gauge

All leads except for the float and the mast ground are paired with a black ground of equal gauge and connected to a common ground at the panel. The panel is then grounded to the plate, engine or rudder posts with 10 gauge black wire.

A nice, thick, 4 gauge length of wire can be attached directly to the compression beam beneath the mast so that it can be thrown overboard when running before a thunderstorm to create a straight path to ground (water) for the mast. When not needed, just retrieve it and store it to remove any drag. The same could be done outboard for the shrouds and stays just in case a stepped leader goes astray before connecting to the lightning rod. Anyone been in a lightning storm out at sea?

Ship to shore AC is standard code as well:
10/3 for the power cable
14/3 for outlets, lights etc.
12/3 for any lighting on the mast or at the bows.

All receptacles to be GFI
All wire should be stranded (not solid) and tinned with continuous uninterrupted runs with voltage drops no greater than 3% and all ends are terminated with crimp connectors. Forget fuses and upgrade the panel to circuit breakers. Cigarette sockets are discouraged.

Everything metallic on board should be grounded to each other and then to the most direct path to ground. Everything! Do not confuse electrical “grounding” with electrical “bonding” which is done to prevent electrolytic corrosion.

I had intentions to calculate loads for electronics, wind and solar generators, batteries inverters, etc, however, the required draw would be as different as there are skippers so those will be left to the skippers. Once I decide on my own set-up, I will calculate it and share it with the community. If it's any consolation regarding navigation, all you need is a sunrise and sunset because you will always hit land if you sail North or South or East and West when South of 60N and North of 60S so don't worry about getting lost.

Correction:
Block loads for a 430ft^2 Genoa
Running Rigging Block Loads
Deflection Genoa
30º 987#
45º 1443#
60º 1898#
75º 2316#
90º 2676#
105º 3018#
120º 3284#
135º 3511#
150º 3663#
160º 3739#
180º 3796#

Has it dawned on anyone yet that this effort will lead to a more in-depth study to establish what may be required to make her a category A offshore vessel as defined by certification agencies? :wink: 8)

Enjoy the reading, the time has come to move on and prepare,
Post Reply