4 ms·

Here's old footage of the foilborne Canadian Navy hydrofoil HMCS Bras D'Or from the 1970s, with some rough sea action right at the start of the video. Doesn't l

by acyou 3y ago

Here's old footage of the foilborne Canadian Navy hydrofoil HMCS Bras D'Or from the 1970s, with some rough sea action right at the start of the video. Doesn't look like a smooth ride, and must be a huge stress on the hydrofoil structure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVYSUWEi-WQ&ab_channel=imaxguy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVYSUWEi-WQ&ab_channel=imaxg... I think that as a general rule, longer vessels tend to be more seaworthy, they don't get swallowed by waves.

eschneider 3y ago
Absolutely not true. Long vessels have different problems with waves, like having the bow AND stern lifted by waves at the same time, so you have a whole different set of failure modes.
- acyou 3y ago
  Interesting, but I think many ocean-going vessels tend to be fairly long for good reason, with the bigger, longer ones also being faster and more capable in rough seas. Offshore commercial fishing boats are an example of shorter ocean-going boats. I think they would normally prefer to avoid storm seas if possible. They have to head up and turn into the waves, they can't take them sideways. One example of when people thought that a big, long boat would be more seaworthy, was the Titanic, which sank in 1912 after hitting an iceberg. But it wasn't the waves that did it. I think big, long and strong boats are pretty great in rough seas. If I was crossing the Atlantic, I think I'd rather be in a bigger boat, provided that it doesn't break up or develop any leaks.
  - stcredzero 3y ago
    I think I'd rather be in a bigger boat, provided that it doesn't break up This is a very high structural demand. Torpedoes work best, when they can effectively "lift" the keel, breaking the back of the ship. (Not exactly, but kind of, IIRC.) Very high sea swells apparently do the same thing! When there's far less buoyancy supporting one end of the ship than the other, the entire ship has to act as a cantilever. At the size of large ships, the square-cube law dominates, and the ship is far more fragile at that scale than a model boat would be. Even steel structures at that scale are flex-y.

by acyou 3y ago

eschneider 3y ago

Absolutely not true. Long vessels have different problems with waves, like having the bow AND stern lifted by waves at the same time, so you have a whole different set of failure modes.

acyou 3y ago
Interesting, but I think many ocean-going vessels tend to be fairly long for good reason, with the bigger, longer ones also being faster and more capable in rough seas. Offshore commercial fishing boats are an example of shorter ocean-going boats. I think they would normally prefer to avoid storm seas if possible. They have to head up and turn into the waves, they can't take them sideways. One example of when people thought that a big, long boat would be more seaworthy, was the Titanic, which sank in 1912 after hitting an iceberg. But it wasn't the waves that did it. I think big, long and strong boats are pretty great in rough seas. If I was crossing the Atlantic, I think I'd rather be in a bigger boat, provided that it doesn't break up or develop any leaks.
- stcredzero 3y ago
  I think I'd rather be in a bigger boat, provided that it doesn't break up This is a very high structural demand. Torpedoes work best, when they can effectively "lift" the keel, breaking the back of the ship. (Not exactly, but kind of, IIRC.) Very high sea swells apparently do the same thing! When there's far less buoyancy supporting one end of the ship than the other, the entire ship has to act as a cantilever. At the size of large ships, the square-cube law dominates, and the ship is far more fragile at that scale than a model boat would be. Even steel structures at that scale are flex-y.