Wing v. Fin on the Ericson 28
- Thread starter DEdson
- Start date
Morgan Stinemetz
Moderator
Fin vs. Wing
Fin by all means!
Fin by all means!
sailingdeacon
Member III
Before I saw the following I agreed with you. The 1987 Ericson brochure says this on page 24: "The wing keel offers sailors with shoal draft needs, performance that is at least equal to to the deep delta fin. The wings offer substantial lift upward and on some models increased stability. The wings are angled down slightly at the leadng edge to produce windward lift when the boat heals. Compared with many ofher wing keels, Ericson's wing design has a relative long root chord which aids in dirrectional stability. Because of the complex structure of the wing keel there is an additional charge"
Has anyone seen any actual phrf data on the Ericson wing? I am looking at a E32 wing keel boat. As hard as a good version of this boat is to find, I hesitate to ignore because of a wing.
Has anyone seen any actual phrf data on the Ericson wing? I am looking at a E32 wing keel boat. As hard as a good version of this boat is to find, I hesitate to ignore because of a wing.
Efficiency vs Convenience
The basic physics of keel area, lateral plane, and mass would favor the fin or the fin n bulb shape.
Having said that, the difference in overall performance may be too small to matter for some owners.
Good idea to research PHRF databases. Try to find as many different stats from as many different PHRF regions as you can, as some regions will list very small numbers of models of boat that will make statistical comparisons very inaccurate.
Many years ago I got to race, for a while, side by side with a Schock Santana 23 wing keel sloop. Having a fin keel sloop I could out point him, and it always took him a while to feather the boat back up to his best weather angle after a tack in light air. He told me later that the lack of latteral plane would force him to sag off to leeward and work up some speed to allow the foil shape of the fin to start to really work and once he got some speed up it was not too bad. Given that he had options to sail in shallower waters, it was (like everything else in life) a tradeoff.
There is an ODay 322 in our club with a wing keel. I believe that it's an even less-efficent keel shape with a flat "wing" on the bottom. He sez it sails OK, but is very difficult to get ungrounded.
Your sailing area and priorities have a lot to do with any decision.
:nerd:
Regards,
Loren
ps: if we ever win a small lottery, we would change our 6' draft to 5.5' or a bit less, with a Mars Metal bulb and keel depth reduction. Yeah, it would be $pendy, but it would take some worry out of gunk holing in our river delta region and open up some anchorages.
pps: the guy that wrote that verbiage about the performance of that keel option in the old brochure was "stretching" the truth a bit. Advertising has been known to do that, on occasion. Yup, that's just my opinion, and worth about .02 on a good day.
The basic physics of keel area, lateral plane, and mass would favor the fin or the fin n bulb shape.
Having said that, the difference in overall performance may be too small to matter for some owners.
Good idea to research PHRF databases. Try to find as many different stats from as many different PHRF regions as you can, as some regions will list very small numbers of models of boat that will make statistical comparisons very inaccurate.
Many years ago I got to race, for a while, side by side with a Schock Santana 23 wing keel sloop. Having a fin keel sloop I could out point him, and it always took him a while to feather the boat back up to his best weather angle after a tack in light air. He told me later that the lack of latteral plane would force him to sag off to leeward and work up some speed to allow the foil shape of the fin to start to really work and once he got some speed up it was not too bad. Given that he had options to sail in shallower waters, it was (like everything else in life) a tradeoff.
There is an ODay 322 in our club with a wing keel. I believe that it's an even less-efficent keel shape with a flat "wing" on the bottom. He sez it sails OK, but is very difficult to get ungrounded.
Your sailing area and priorities have a lot to do with any decision.
:nerd:
Regards,
Loren
ps: if we ever win a small lottery, we would change our 6' draft to 5.5' or a bit less, with a Mars Metal bulb and keel depth reduction. Yeah, it would be $pendy, but it would take some worry out of gunk holing in our river delta region and open up some anchorages.
pps: the guy that wrote that verbiage about the performance of that keel option in the old brochure was "stretching" the truth a bit. Advertising has been known to do that, on occasion. Yup, that's just my opinion, and worth about .02 on a good day.
Last edited:
sailingdeacon
Member III
Thanks so much for your comment... not to be argumentative, I still wonder if the folks who designed the E keel and wrote the glowing comment about the E keel being even better than the deep - knew what they were talking about. A key question here is whether the Ericson people knew something we don’t know.
Having said that I of course would take my chances with a fin... but 5' is the max I'll go for in my area. Another question is whether the shoal draft version is better or worse than the keel version. According to Ericson at the time the brochure was written the wing was better than either. see image of comment and drawings
Having said that I of course would take my chances with a fin... but 5' is the max I'll go for in my area. Another question is whether the shoal draft version is better or worse than the keel version. According to Ericson at the time the brochure was written the wing was better than either. see image of comment and drawings
Morgan Stinemetz
Moderator
Wing vs Straight Keel
Don't you fellow Vikings think that boat manufacturers snapped up the winged keel idea without thinking things through very well? While it may have made sense on a 12-Metre, it doesn't make much sense for a general purpose boat whatsoever. I watched BoatUS try to get a grounded Catalina off a sand bottom here in Florida, and before the whole awful two-hour exercise was over the BoatUS tow boat had screwed up the Catalina's rudder and was towing it to a local boat yard to be hauled out and have the rudder fixed. Part of the problem was the huge lack of competence of the tow boat operator. Part of it was the damn winged keel. And part of it was the lack of experience of the sailboat's operator. He anchored where he should not have.
Don't you fellow Vikings think that boat manufacturers snapped up the winged keel idea without thinking things through very well? While it may have made sense on a 12-Metre, it doesn't make much sense for a general purpose boat whatsoever. I watched BoatUS try to get a grounded Catalina off a sand bottom here in Florida, and before the whole awful two-hour exercise was over the BoatUS tow boat had screwed up the Catalina's rudder and was towing it to a local boat yard to be hauled out and have the rudder fixed. Part of the problem was the huge lack of competence of the tow boat operator. Part of it was the damn winged keel. And part of it was the lack of experience of the sailboat's operator. He anchored where he should not have.
sailingdeacon
Member III
Morgan your point is well taken... but my question is specifically which sails better - not is a wing keel a good choice otherwise? Once one is willing to risk the groundings, the question is whether one also is paying a price in sailing ability. Ericson charged extra for that wing keel - so unless there is data otherwise, how can it be denigrated for performance?
Also we have to realize that Catalina continues to sell tons of wing keels... and continues in business
To add to the controversy, my old Ericson (1987) 34's rudder was the same depth as the shoal keel. I hit hard sand once, then bounced the rudder and bent it trying to turn hard port. So much for good design of keels/rudders.
Morgan Stinemetz
Moderator
Wing vs Straight Keel
Your post made me laugh out loud. My experience has been on a E-27 with a 3'11" draft. Straight forward. Nothing fancy. However, with that keel, a good crew, not-new sails but still good ones, the last race I did on that boat, several years ago, we finished 6:24 ahead of the next finisher in our class. That's with a 1973 keel. Ericson built good boats. Bruce King designed good boats. I sailed that boat to Cuba and back and it was a lot stronger than its crew of two. With winged keels I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't have the chops to be able to measure performance. The Catalina that got towed (previous post) had a rudder as deep at the winged keel, too.
One day I'll tell you the story of a guy who accidentally set off a .357 magnum inside his Ericson, and it didn't penetrate the hull. I understand he has trouble with his bowels because his sphincter muscle never unpuckered.
Your post made me laugh out loud. My experience has been on a E-27 with a 3'11" draft. Straight forward. Nothing fancy. However, with that keel, a good crew, not-new sails but still good ones, the last race I did on that boat, several years ago, we finished 6:24 ahead of the next finisher in our class. That's with a 1973 keel. Ericson built good boats. Bruce King designed good boats. I sailed that boat to Cuba and back and it was a lot stronger than its crew of two. With winged keels I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't have the chops to be able to measure performance. The Catalina that got towed (previous post) had a rudder as deep at the winged keel, too.
One day I'll tell you the story of a guy who accidentally set off a .357 magnum inside his Ericson, and it didn't penetrate the hull. I understand he has trouble with his bowels because his sphincter muscle never unpuckered.
Wing vs straight
The marketing hype for the wing is just that. You should be under no illusions that the wing keel will perform as well the fin. It absolutely will not. The boat will be much stickier in light air (higher drag), and slower all around. The wing keel is a reasonable solution to minimize performance loss with a shallower keel for shoal waters, but you must go into this with your eyes open as far as performance goes.
The far better option is the bulb modification (I can't recall the name-Buhler? anyone?), but this places a bulb at the base of the keel to get more weight lower while retaining the better shape of the original keel.
Sorry I can't drone on more right now (I am on a plane), but please believe us on this. I worked at Ericson and for other boat builders, and while it does not make me an expert, I know enough about these things to say this with confidence.
I am not saying the wing is a deal breaker, and if you can't go deeper than 5' you have to make some compromises-just be aware it is not the same thing performance-wise.
Cheers,
S
The marketing hype for the wing is just that. You should be under no illusions that the wing keel will perform as well the fin. It absolutely will not. The boat will be much stickier in light air (higher drag), and slower all around. The wing keel is a reasonable solution to minimize performance loss with a shallower keel for shoal waters, but you must go into this with your eyes open as far as performance goes.
The far better option is the bulb modification (I can't recall the name-Buhler? anyone?), but this places a bulb at the base of the keel to get more weight lower while retaining the better shape of the original keel.
Sorry I can't drone on more right now (I am on a plane), but please believe us on this. I worked at Ericson and for other boat builders, and while it does not make me an expert, I know enough about these things to say this with confidence.
I am not saying the wing is a deal breaker, and if you can't go deeper than 5' you have to make some compromises-just be aware it is not the same thing performance-wise.
Cheers,
S
sailingdeacon
Member III
Seems pretty authentic, coming from you. Case closed. Thanks. There is a wing 32 for sale and I doubt I will be interested. I have no problem with a shoal draft and had a e34 shoal and raced it. But it seems to risky to go with the wing.
My '28 has the bulb modification. A previous owner had it done. I don't have much to compare it to, but my boat sails great. I have the original paperwork for the modification if anyone is really interested I can dig it up and post it. I didn't realize that it was at all common.
Apropos of Whatever
Ferris: "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
Words to live by...
Ferris: "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
Words to live by...
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would appreciate seeing those records.
IF we do not move up to an E-38 ( or, sideways into a trawler...) our present boat is probably tour "last boat." Making it more useful would justify some (??) keel depth reduction expenditure.
Thanks,
Loren
Last edited:
Sven
Seglare
Properly designed winglets actually reduce drag while slightly increasing lift. The reduced drag is the principal reason why you see winglets on commercial aircraft. However, aircraft tend to fly at near-optimum speed and angle of attack at most times whereas boats are designed for the best compromise given wildly varied wind angles, sea state, wind speed and payload mass.
Note that commercial aircraft do not chop down the length of the wing before adding the winglet, they add the winglet at the end of the existing wing. Also note that commercial aircraft wings only (I stand corrected, not only) have winglets pointing up, not up and down. There are some (mainly) military planes with winglets that look more like the t-shape of winged keels but I suspect that is because military aviation isn't restricted to head-up flight and that those winglets were designed to make up for stubbier wings to allow closer packing in hangars etc. rather than to reduce drag (the winglets add to the effective aspect ratio of the wings).
The Americas Cup introduction of winglets was almost certainly for rule beating, not because it was the best design given full design freedom.
In short, there is one h#ll of a lot of computational fluid dynamics needed to come up with the optimum winglet design for a sailboat unless you are headed that way to reduce draft. For reduced draft they may work in your favor but only if designed right and the "right" design will be a compromise.
So yes, as a matter of fact it is Rocket Science
-Sven
Note that commercial aircraft do not chop down the length of the wing before adding the winglet, they add the winglet at the end of the existing wing. Also note that commercial aircraft wings only (I stand corrected, not only) have winglets pointing up, not up and down. There are some (mainly) military planes with winglets that look more like the t-shape of winged keels but I suspect that is because military aviation isn't restricted to head-up flight and that those winglets were designed to make up for stubbier wings to allow closer packing in hangars etc. rather than to reduce drag (the winglets add to the effective aspect ratio of the wings).
The Americas Cup introduction of winglets was almost certainly for rule beating, not because it was the best design given full design freedom.
In short, there is one h#ll of a lot of computational fluid dynamics needed to come up with the optimum winglet design for a sailboat unless you are headed that way to reduce draft. For reduced draft they may work in your favor but only if designed right and the "right" design will be a compromise.
So yes, as a matter of fact it is Rocket Science
-Sven
Last edited:
Sven
Seglare
So yes, as a matter of fact it is Rocket Science
If you want to confirm that and get a headache you might want to take a look at this paper
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_u...AGBfm2x8U4r-Wkxx9LpkB6sDycoZq1F-w&oi=scholarr
It's a 26 page pdf.
-Sven
Winged 32-200
I certainly did not mean to say wing keel boats are terrible, and I am sure the 32-200 WK is a very nice performing boat. My main point is that compared with the standard deep fin, or even the shoal keel with the Mars mod, it will be relatively off the pace. It will be slower and not point as well, with the most noticeable differences in the low and high ends of the wind spectrum-light air being the worst relative performance.
Still a great boat with any keel-just not as snappy with the wing.
And yes, tough to "unstick"...:0
I certainly did not mean to say wing keel boats are terrible, and I am sure the 32-200 WK is a very nice performing boat. My main point is that compared with the standard deep fin, or even the shoal keel with the Mars mod, it will be relatively off the pace. It will be slower and not point as well, with the most noticeable differences in the low and high ends of the wind spectrum-light air being the worst relative performance.
Still a great boat with any keel-just not as snappy with the wing.
And yes, tough to "unstick"...:0