Camber and induced drag

  • 07 Sep 2024 16:41
    Reply # 13403728 on 13397914

    hi slieve

    Slieve McGalliard wrote:

    …A very long and thin streamer, attached to the end of a long thin fishing rod could be moved around a junk sail while underway and possibly give some indication of the airflow around the rig at various places…

    unfortunately there is a problem with long telltales: they lie!

    a long telltale may bridge a zone with an unattached chaotic stream without much movement if the end of it sits in a laminar region and stretches it!

    for serious research you either need many short telltales or some smoke out of the end af your fishing rod.

    ueli

  • 06 Sep 2024 15:52
    Reply # 13403396 on 13397914

    Just a thought.

    And here I am being an armchair theorist, a type of animal that’s not always liked.

    A very long and thin streamer, attached to the end of a long thin fishing rod could be moved around a junk sail while underway and possibly give some indication of the airflow around the rig at various places. It would probably be desirable to take very short videos of a few seconds at each point to be able to analyse what was going on. It would have to be a very long fishing rod to get near the mast head and show tip votices.

    Gee, it’s easy to sit in the warmth and get bright ideas.

    Cheers, Slieve.


  • 05 Sep 2024 22:15
    Reply # 13403119 on 13397914
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Paul: "Slieve and Graeme reported (if I remember correctly) that with their SJR setup, there really only is the halyard and the sheet. Simplicity at its best."

    Getting away from the thread topic a bit, but for the record, that is not quite correct.  A feature of the SJR is that the batten parrels are running, not standing. The batten parrel lines are in spanned pairs to the deck, so on a Amiina rig you can manage with two lines which need to be adjusted along with any change to the halyard. If the batten parrel span itself is kept quite short, adjustment is not an urgent matter and just a tweak-till-firm is needed anyway, so not really an "adjustment". Still, we can not claim that only halyard and sheets are needed.

    I believe Steve's Serenity with split rig and D-former rigid batten parrels needs only a halyard and a sheet. (Also, due to the rigid batten parrels, that sail is able to break the yard-angle/mast-balance "rule of thumb" and that enables an unconventional planform). 

    Paul's comment (absence of the usual running lines) relates to planform, of course - not directly to the split.

    "So, when using high mast balance the call for huge rudders might fade away."

    Not quite, in my opinion. I think a single mast junk rig with no headsail might always tend to be a bit hard-mouthed on a reach or run, depending a bit also on the hull shape, but I never had any doubts from the beginning that I would always want as high a balance as possible. I grew up as a kid learning to sail on an over-canvassed cat-rigged little boat that was very hard to handle off the wind, needed all the rudder you could give it, and the prejudice has never left me.

    I always thought these down-wind antics were due to "all the sail area out one side" - but now we are using balanced rigs, Arne's take on it is: "the distance of the centre of area of the sail from the mast". I think it is to do with the distance between the centre of effort of the sail, and the centre of yaw of the hull - both rather elusive and variable critters. In practice, Arne's definition is good enough. So, a balanced lug should be easier on the helm than a conventional cat rig - and the more balance the better, from the helm point of view.

    What little actual experience I have with junk rig is restricted to coastal only, and on a relatively small boat. Some of this discussion, however, amounts to little more than basic geometry.

    (The downside of high mast-balance is that with conventional  planforms, a taller mast is needed for a given area of sail. The helm issue (distance of CoA from mast) can also be addressed to a small extent by going for high aspect ratio of course. But there again there is a law of diminishing returns as this too requires a taller mast if you want the same amount of sail area).

    Obviously sail design is a package - a judicious combination of solutions to many requirements - mast height, sail area, aerodynamic efficiency, ease of handling, simplicity of rigging, performance when reefed, behaviour in a seaway, proneness to "tangle-ups", simplicity of construction ... the deciding factor is not "this thing" or "that thing" - it's harmony.

    And, last but not least, another matter of simple geometry - the placement of mast position in the boat (often dictated by bulkheads, structure, interior accommodation etc). On a single-mast rig, mast placement virtually determines the mast balance of the sail, and all that flows on from there.

    Fortunately we have this range of possibilities which have all proven to be eminently workable.



    Last modified: 06 Sep 2024 06:10 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 05 Sep 2024 21:43
    Reply # 13403104 on 13397914

    Fair play to you, Paul S,  that was really speedy work.  I wish I was half as productive as you.


    I wasn't expecting anyone to bother as it's only curiosity on my part to see what we could see.


    It will be interesting to see what emerges if you can get out on a sail in a nice F3


    Fair play again. 

    No "Procrastinator of the Year" award for you this year :-)



  • 05 Sep 2024 20:56
    Reply # 13403083 on 13397914
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Paul S,
    about reefing in a choppy sea, you wrote:

     In choppy seas, however, it can be quite frightening when YHP and THP are loosened to lower the sail: a lot of banging and clonging around above our heads... If that could be improved by simplification, it would be a good step!

    Although I generally sail on flatter waters than you do, I too have experienced this a couple of times this summer: As I reefed and with a slack sheet , YHP and THP, the yard was flying about quite a bit, as the boat rolled with waves beam on. What I fear in those cases is that the tip of the yard shall fall forward of the topping lift. Luckily I have my secret weapon, the FUP. By taking in the slack on that FUP-line as the sail is gradually lowered, the yard is restricted from fanning forward. I have not had a yard/topping lift tangle (yet).

    Two shots in the dark:

    • ·         Would a long ‘batten parrel’ fitted to the yard help to tame it?
    • ·         How about fitting a SJR-type downhaul only to batten no. 3? The foggy idea is that if one can tame that batten, the rest of the sail will behave as well...

    Anyway, good luck!

    Arne


  • 05 Sep 2024 19:45
    Reply # 13403051 on 13397914

    This afternoon I took the chance of this amazingly hot Swedish summer day and tufted.

    I did as David D. suggested, and tufted right on the batten pockets, on both sides of the sail. In addition, I added some yarn to the top edge. Have a look at these positions, all percentages are in relation to chord (batten length).

    It looks like this in real:

    When finished, I took the chance of the day, laying at a finger berth with an F6 right on the bow. I loosened the bow line a bit, to give Ilvy some angle to the wind, set the upper three panels and sheeted hard in. Like this, I kind of simulated a port tack situation. Unfortunately, I was not able to simulate a starboard tack situation.

    I took some fotos and long videos of the telltales. Played a bit with sheeting until I got it right and all leech telltales flying. This footage I still need to analyse and evaluate, in the next days. I hope to be able to condense it into an easily readable result sketch.

    Hopefully, when sailing during the next days I might be able to record more footage, and on both tacks.

     

    One drawback of my experimental setup: the wind was probably quite disturbed by the boat (a beautiful “Grinde”) right in front of Ilvy, as well as by the small harbour buildings some 50-100 m away. For sake of completion, the following fotos describe what I mean:


    Cheers,

    Paul

  • 05 Sep 2024 19:29
    Reply # 13403044 on 13397914

    HK parrels, what is the problem with them? They may flatten the leeside of the sail on port tack, but the mast does that anyway.

    - Arne

    Arne, I see no "problem" with the HK parrels. It would just be more KISS-like if lines are omitted because not needed.

    As for the THP, I fail to see the reason for removing it. I too would have wanted them away, if I had to adjust them during ordinary sailing, but I don’t.

    - Arne

    Same here, we do not "trim" the THP, or touch it while steady sailing. It is, however, one more line to handle when reefing. If the THP could be omitted, reefing would be even faster thus safer. On Ilvy we reef quite often, as it is so simple compared to BM. In choppy seas, however, it can be quite frightening when YHP and THP are loosened to lower the sail: a lot of banging and clonging around above our heads... If that could be improved by simplification, it would be a good step! Slieve and Graeme reported (if I remember correctly) that with their SJR setup, there really only is the halyard and the sheet. Simplicity at its best.

    You mention rudders. There will of course be less need for a big rudder when the CE of a sloop JR is moved closer to the mast. The rudder on the Maxi 77 is anyway good.

    - Arne

    I think I understand: You are refering to running and reaching, aren't you? A high mast balance surely shifts the CE towards the boat and thus reduce weather helm. Example from Ilvy: when running, we really feel a huge difference on the helm when shifting the yard from about 20% to 28% (by YHP, when reefed). It is a lot easier to steer, though I tend to push it hard.

    However, the same applies to a BM rig, and they also get away with smalish rudders - though way less sail area to the wind when running, compared to JR.

    So, when using high mast balance the call for huge rudders might fade away.

  • 05 Sep 2024 15:42
    Reply # 13402893 on 13397914
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    David T, I surely agree with you about the bigger challenges of sailing to windward, offshore, against a head sea.

    In 1983 we sailed Malena from Stavanger to Skagen, Denmark. Outbound, it was all downwind. Malena proved to be very fast and safe on this leg, without ever starting to roll or broach. The trip back home was another story, with sailing every inch fully close-hauled. The voluminous bow section, which I praised downwind, now frequently stopped us dead, and the smallish fin keel took its time to grip the water again.
    This also happened inshore in the steep, short fjord chop, with any rig I later put on her.

    Ingeborg on the other hand is not so spectacular downwind. Better not push her too hard, or she may start rolling (luffing up a few degrees helps). However, Ingeborg shines to windward against head seas. It takes more to stop her, and even if that happens, she is much quicker at getting started again, without making so much leeway.


    A good and tolerant rig surely is important, but going to windward, steered by a blind helmsman (..a  windvane...), I would above all look for a boat with a keel like that on Ingeborg.

    PAUL S.
    HK parrels, what is the problem with them? They may flatten the leeside of the sail on port tack, but the mast does that anyway.

    As for the THP, I fail to see the reason for removing it. I too would have wanted them away, if I had to adjust them during ordinary sailing, but I don’t.

    You mention rudders. There will of course be less need for a big rudder when the CE of a sloop JR is moved closer to the mast. The rudder on the Maxi 77 is anyway good.


    Arne


    (Full size diagram in Arne's sketches, section 8)

    Last modified: 05 Sep 2024 16:53 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 05 Sep 2024 13:53
    Reply # 13402830 on 13402796
    Slieve wrote:

    Oops!

    David you posted your words while I was checking my bad spelling so I missed them. One thing I meant to say was that I preferred Blondie Hasler's first rig on Jester to his later rigs. I wonder why he changed things.

    Slieve.

    Just as you and I have tried new things, Slieve, to see if they were better or worse, I suspect! Jester was his first rather tentative and somewhat experimental attempt at JR, and I don't think he made it big enough, understandably. It was slow because of that, but obviously would've been quicker with our modern cambered panels. If only they'd given the Jester II replica an updated sail - Blondie would've, just to see whether he'd made any progress in design, if for no other reason. It's interesting that Jester (1960) has a 40˚ yard, Redlapper (1962) has a 10˚yard, and then he settles down on a 60 - 70˚ yard angle for later rigs, and I don't know why. He also goes for the practicalities of equal length battens and yard, and a straight sheeted section of the leech. It's also interesting to me that the final sail shape on Weaverbird, after trying just about every JR variation that I could think of,  isn't a million miles away from the shape of that first Jester sail. A short yard at a similar angle, and a similar AR, mainly.
  • 05 Sep 2024 13:04
    Reply # 13402804 on 13397914

    So, instead of trying to change the luff, maybe you should be re-thinking the theory – that was a “tongue in cheek” remark, but it did make me think of Bunny Smith.

    - Graeme

    Graeme, aerodynamic theory is fully understood and proven - at least for the field we are talking about (supercritical flow, very high Ma-numbers and the like excepted). Though this makes wing design a more boring because less adventourous task, it gives us all the tools we need to design an optimal rig - optimal with respect not only to speed and efficiency, but also handling and safety. I see no need in inventing new aerodynamic theories, even more so that the dominating aerodynamic effects on a junk rig are not at all understood yet. We are still fishing in the dark in this respect, speculating about detached air bubbles on port tack, tip vortexes and induced drag, and so on. As long as we can't determine what's happening, and put numbers to it, i.e. xx% drag comes from induced drag, yy% drag comes from distorted profile, it is all just guessing.

    That's why I really like David D.'s suggestion of more tufting. Though this won't give us numbers, it will give us a qualitative explanation of what's happening. I didn't take your suggestion as an offence, David! Instead, I might just do it this afternoon :-)

    Slieve, I'm with you! It is in fact very interesting to have you as an apparently most experienced aviator onboard this discussion. I envy your flight experience! If my mediocre eyesight wouldn't have cancelled any of my aviation job dreams, I would have probably taken a similar professional choice as you did. Instead, I learned how to design those devices that I would have loved so much to fly myself. As aerodynamics are pretty well understood nowadays, only the exotic issues are being further developed today. For example, in my batchelor thesis I, in cooperation with the DLR, investigated how to increase the laminar boundary layer length on the suction side of a wing using plasma actuators. Though this was highly interesting from a technical point of view, and included me conducting tests in one of the bigger german wind tunnels as well as about 30 in-flight experiments, it was that much high-tec and such an aloofed technique that I would not never consider this as something practical.

    Luckily, there is no such medical restriction in sailing! Theory itself is most boring, it is testing in practice where the fun waits.

    Folks, I can’t help feeling that you are burning calories on small, and woolly improvement factors.

    - Arne

    I agree, Arne, that any further improvement can only be in the single-digit procentage range - which will be hard to feel in practice when sailing. However, I can only speak for myself when saying that my primary interest is understanding what is going on at the junk rig. Be assured that I do not mix up understanding with improving. Only after we understand what's going on, there could be improvements developed which are simple enough to be worth it - else it is just plain try and error and may last an indefinite amount of time to get anywhere. Only after understanding, we might consider the cambered junk rig, or split junk rig, or which other design you like, as perfect as it is - or see possibilities for improvements which cost next to nothing but provide advantages otherwise lost.

    To clearify the numbers of Ilvy: she has 27% mast balance with 9% camber.

    Arne, I agree with all the rest of your points. The high mast balance has proven to be of huge advantage! Especially reefing downwind is amazing. I would not want to miss this point!


    However, one more question: Why is a big rudder so important? Would a well balanced CE position give a similar helm characteristic?


    Cheers,

    Paul


    edit: now the same happened to me, Slieve. You and David T. have been faster typers than me! I definitely see your point in questioning the upper fanned panels. One huge improvement on Ilvy could be to get rid of the HK panels and even more so: the THP. If the sail could hang from its halyard sling point, like the SJR, it would need way less lines. Having one less trimline (THP) and no HK parrels would certainly be one further huge improvement - especially in choppy seas!

    Last modified: 05 Sep 2024 13:13 | Anonymous member
       " ...there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in junk-rigged boats" 
                                                               - the Chinese Water Rat

                                                              Site contents © the Junk Rig Association and/or individual authors

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software