search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
From the author’s own back catalogue… Left: HS Denison – Grumman built this for the US Maritime Administration to study the potential of large hydrofoil craft. My contribution was working on the down angle diagonal foil on the 19ft manned model of the boat. The foil was roughed out with machine cuts, my job as ‘nipper’ was to file it smooth in the large seaplane hangar. This runabout (left) is a test vehicle for fully submerged foils that were then being considered for a much larger naval craft. And (above) an experimental boron F-14 stabiliser. This project was my introduction (seduction, actually) to advanced composites. It had a titanium frame and boron skin, the 3-inch strip layers of which can be seen in the picture. Look closely around the edge of where the boron stops; this is the titanium ‘picture frame’ to which the boron was bonded. This frame was then fastened to the stabiliser frame. My job was to design the boron-titanium connection. Depending on thickness the connecting frame had between three and eight steps. Figuring out how to smoothly transition from one step to another took a fair bit of thinking


with a two-spreader plus jumper diamond shroud rigging system. Before the Duralumin mast was stepped


both wooden masts were tested. The bare weight of the heavy mast was 100lb under its 5,000lb design weight; the bare wood mast weight was 150lb over its 4,600lb target, so a 400lb difference ended up only 150lb. But Duralumin fittings on the light mast weighed 300lb less than the Monel and bronze fittings of the heavy mast so there was a total saving of 450lb on the lighter wooden mast. When the Duralumin mast was delivered


and stepped in early June its substantially smaller diameter was a big difference in looks and windage. But, as might be expected, it was a bit squirrelly, ultimately requiring a change to a much larger second spreader. The diamond configuration was also eliminated. Another innovation was a lower spreader


that could be folded upward on the leeward side to provide space for overlapping jibs. Before tacking, to prevent loss of the mast, the leeward-side spreader was pulled straight by lines tended by a crewmember specifically assigned to the job. As could have been predicted, there were


some close shaves, making things exciting. Once, in an unplanned-for tack, the spreader man was not at his post. In another incident on approaching the Fort Adams shore while tacking out of New- port, the tending line jammed. In both cases last-second action saved the day. But


30 SEAHORSE


the excitement was a bit much for Vander- bilt and he had abandoned the system by mid-summer. (In a bit of interesting America’s Cup


trivia, Alan Payne designed folding upper spreaders on Gretel II in 1970 for the same reasons of genoa leech clearance. They were slightly less risky as shroud tension ‘automatically’ pulled them straight during a tack.)


Trulok fittings Another Burgess innovation that year was the invention of the ‘Trulok’ or swaged connection for wire cable. Burgess knew that 19-strand cables were


stronger and stiffer but could not be spliced onto fittings as conventional cable could. Working with the American Cable Com- pany he created what we know today as swaged fittings. His were soft steel sleeves that were pressed onto the stay, work- hardening in the process. The sleeves were then threaded to attach to eye or turn- buckle bodies. The new Truloks developed 100 per cent of the cable strength where splices could only achieve 85 per cent of a cable’s strength. The ability to use 19- strand cables produced a 33 per cent saving in standing rigging weight. The combination of the Duralumin mast


and the 19-strand cables left Enterprise’s weight aloft far lower than her competi- tors’, a significant factor – perhaps the most significant – in her victories in the Defence trials and Cup Match.


Park Avenue boom As mentioned, by 1930 the aerodynamics of sails was an ever-higher priority. Because of his aviation background and his intimate knowledge of the work of fluid gurus Prandtl, Munk and Von Karman, Starling Burgess knew that optimising sail shape was key to keeping a performance edge. He had never liked the fact that a track-


mounted mainsail foot* created a large, flat area in the lower part of the sail, rendering it relatively ineffective drive-wise. To maintain the sail’s aerodynamic shape right down to the boom he designed a flat- topped triangular-shaped boom with mul- tiple flush-mounted cross tracks at 45cm spacing enabling the foot of the sail to ‘tack’ from side to side, maintaining the aerodynamic shape over its entire height. The cross tracks had removable pegs


that limited athwartships movement of the slides and had three settings, each set defined by green, yellow and red lines, similar to, as Vanderbilt described, the New York subway map. According to Burgess, they even named


each set Seventh Ave, Times Square Shuttle and Lexington Ave. In another reference to Manhattan, the fact that two men can walk along the boom side by side inspired the name Park Avenue Boom, a name that has survived to this day. Burgess also recognised early on that the boom’s more exaggerated endplate offered a worthwhile aerodynamic advantage over a conventional boom. Typical of many


America’s Cup w


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88