The Fourth International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts, Lorient, France

THE FOILING OPTIMIST

A. Andersson, A. Barreng, E. Bohnsack, L. Larsson, L. Lundin, R. Sahlberg and E. Werner,
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, [email protected]
C. Finnsgrd and A. Persson, Chalmers University of Technology and SSPA Sweden AB, Sweden,
[email protected]
M. Brown and J. McVeagh, SSPA Sweden AB, Sweden

A relatively new phenomenon within the sailing world is the use of hydrofoils to boost sailing
performance. This technique is applied to a wide range of boats, from dinghies to ocean racers. An
interesting question is whether one of the slowest racing boats in the world, the Optimist dinghy, can
foil, and if so, at what minimum wind speed. The present paper presents a comprehensive design
campaign to answer the two questions. The campaign includes a newly developed Velocity Prediction
Program (VPP) for foiling/non-foiling conditions, a wind tunnel test of sail aerodynamics, a towing tank
test of hull hydrodynamics and a large number of numerical predictions of foil characteristics. An
optimum foil configuration is developed and towing tank tested with satisfactory results. The final proof
of the concept is a successful on the water test with stable foiling at a speed of 12 knots.

1 INTRODUCTION The sail is square and supported by a sprit. There are two
options for the building material: wood or GRP.
The hottest trend in sailing at the moment is foiling. Since
the appearance of the foiling catamarans in the 34 th By the start of the present project in early 2016 a very light
Americas Cup in 2013 the interest has boosted and foils hull, built for demonstration purposes in an earlier project
are now used on a large number of boats, ranging from at Chalmers, was available. The material was carbon fibre,
dinghies like the Laser to large racing yachts like the doped with 0.5 kg of graphene. Its weight was only 9 kg.
Vendee Globe IMOCA 60s. The most sophisticated However, the structural strength was far too low for the
foiling class is probably the Moth [1], which has used foils extreme loading case when the hull is foiling. Therefore,
since around 2000. The relatively recent interest in foiling a parallel project was initiated, where the structure of the
yachts is in fact a bit surprising, since the technique has hull, centreboard, rudder and the two wings were designed
been known for about a century [2], and has been used for based of input from the present project. The structural
high-speed ferries [3] for a long time. Nevertheless, the design is reported in [5] and will not be further discussed
relative ease by which the technique has been applied to in this paper. Including all appendages, the new weight
contemporary yachts and dinghies may have come as a was 27 kg.
surprise. The purpose of the present project is to take the
ultimate step and apply the technique to one of the slowest, To enable a ride height of 0.4 m with sufficient
but most popular boats in the world: the Optimist dinghy. submergence of the foils the draft was increased to 0.97 m
The question is: can it foil; and if so, at what minimum by increasing the centreboard span. There was also an
wind speed? extension of the rudder to give sufficient submergence
under foiling conditions. A picture of the Optimist with
2 THE OPTIMIST foils is seen in Figure 1.

The Optimist is the largest racing class in the world. It is

raced in 120 countries. Most top level sailors have started
their career in the Optimist. However, it is also the slowest
dinghy in the Portsmouth Yardstick, a handicapping
system handled by the Royal Yachting Association in the
UK.

Table 1 lists the main dimensions of the dinghy, according

to the International Optimist Dinghy Association [4].
Figure 1: Optimist with foils and wand
Table 1. Optimist data
LO LW Beam Draft Draft Weight Sail 3 VELOCITY PREDICTION
A L hull total hull area
[m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [kg] [m2] To predict the speed of the dinghy a velocity prediction
2.36 2.18 1.12 0.13 0.84 35 3.3 program (VPP) was developed. Input data to this program

INNOV'SAIL 2017
19
 The Fourth International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts, Lorient, France

Figure 2: Flowchart of the VPP

was obtained from wind tunnel tests of an Optimist sail at the sailor determines the distribution of the lift between
1:4 scale (see Section 4), towing tank tests of a full scale the main foil and the rudder foil.
hull (see Section 5) and numerical calculations of wing
profiles (see Section 6). Figure 2 shows the program flowchart. Since a major
program task is to optimise the dimensions of the foils on
In the VPP five Degrees of Freedom (DOFs) are the centreboard and rudder, the outermost loop contains a
considered. Equilibrium is assumed in all DOFs but the systematic variation of the foil dimensions, as described
yaw moment. The rudder angle is not computed, and is set below. In the following two loops the true wind speed
to zero throughout the computations. This approximation and direction are varied systematically, like in most
was considered acceptable, as the primary objective of the VPPs. After guessing the boat speed the apparent wind
project was to see if the dinghy could foil, and the effect speed and direction are computed and the sail forces
of a non-zero rudder angle would be very small in this obtained from the wind tunnel data (Section 4).
respect.
The guessed boat speed is also used for computing the
The hull is assumed upright in all conditions and the total lift from the two foils. If the lift is smaller than the
heeling moment from the sails is assumed balanced by a gravity force, the displacement is reduced to account for
suitable athwartships position of the sailor. However, the lift, and the hull resistance read from the towing tank
there is a check in the program of the heeling moment, data (Section 5). Leeway is neglected in the hull
which must not exceed the largest available righting resistance.
moment from a 65 kg sailor. The longitudinal position of

INNOV'SAIL 2017
20
 The Fourth International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts, Lorient, France

The total hydrodynamic resistance is obtained by adding

all resistance components of the centreboard and rudder,
including foils (see Section 6). Since the foils effectively
prevent the overflow from the pressure to the suction
sides on the centreboard and rudder the flow may be
considered two-dimensional with zero induced resistance
due to leeway. However, the profile drag depends on the
leeway, so this is determined from the force balance at
right angles to the direction of motion.

The longitudinal force balance is checked next, and the

speed adjusted accordingly for a new loop.

If the lift computed in the uppermost box to the right is

larger than the gravity force the flap angle is reduced,
and this loop continues until the lift is equal to the Figure 3: The sail in the wind tunnel.
gravity force within a certain limit.
4.3 BLOCKAGE
4 SAIL AERODYNAMICS The blockage in the tunnel was 8% of the test section at
the optimal sail angle, rendering a correction factor of
4.1 WIND TUNNEL 2% [6], which was neglected.

The wind tunnel at Chalmers University of Technology 4.4 RESULTS

is a closed circuit type with a test section of 1.25m x A polar plot of the measured data is presented in Figure 4.
1.8m x 3m. The maximum wind speed is 60 m/s. Four sets of measurements are reported. There are two sets
for exactly the same condition, to check repeatability.
4.2 TEST PROCEDURE These are the blue and red lines. Although they are quite
close, there is some difference, which may be attributed
Considering the size of the tunnel cross section a sail mainly to the trimming of the sail. Both tests were
model at scale was deemed suitable. The sail was conducted with the sprit to windward. In an attempt to
made of laminate cloth by very experienced sail makers check the influence of the sprit a test was also done with
(North Sails) using their scaled down templates, and was the sprit to leeward. This is represented by the purple line,
free of wrinkles. Mast and boom were made of stainless which is almost indistinguishable from the blue one. A test
steel to sustain the high stresses at scale diameter. was also done at 10 m/s (yellow line) with slightly higher
Forces and moments were measured in 6 DOF by a lift coefficients, most likely caused by the smaller tension
balance below the tunnel floor. The mast and main sheet in all corners of the sail and the resulting slightly larger
were attached to the balance and penetrated the floor, see camber.
Figure 3.

When taking measurements, the sail was set at a certain

angle and the wind speed gradually increased to 15m/s. At
higher speeds the mast bent considerably and it was
difficult to trim the sail. Since the forces are reported in
the form of coefficients, the speed limit, which
corresponds to 3.75 m/s at full scale, should have a
negligible effect, even at higher wind speeds, where there
is a very small Reynolds number influence. The sail trim
was adjusted by experienced sailors from under the floor
of the wind tunnel at each measuring point. Wind angles,
measured between the longitudinal direction of the tunnel
and the boom, varied from 20 to 100 in steps of 2.5 up
to 40 and 10 thereafter.

Figure 4: Calculated CL and CD from different

measurement series

INNOV'SAIL 2017
21
 The Fourth International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts, Lorient, France

The sail polar used in the VPP was obtained as the average
of the two measurements at 15 m/s with the sprit to
windward. The numerical values are given in Table 2.

Table 2: CL and CD values used in the VPP

Wind angle [] CL CD
20 1.23 0.230
22.5 1.36 0.279
25 1.43 0.330
27.5 1.49 0.402
30 1.55 0.546
32.5 1.53 0.546
35 1.43 0.594
37.5 1.37 0.646
40 1.23 0.663
50 1.07 0.829 Figure 5: Resistance versus speed with displacement as a
70 0.72 1.201 parameter
90 0.25 1.400
100 0.03 1.434 Table 3: Resistance versus speed with displacement as a
parameter
Speeds [kn]
5 HULL HYDRODYNAMICS 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Weight Hull resistance [N]
5.1 TOWING TANK [kg]
To determine the resistance of the hull, tests were 90 8.9 15.2 27.7 53.6 90.3 117.0
performed with the full scale dinghy in a towing tank at 70 8.4 14.2 25.5 48.7 73.6 93.9
SSPA. The tank is 260 meters long and 10 meters wide, 50 8.0 13.7 24.1 41.3 58.4 73.0
with a depth of 5 meters and a max towing speed of 11
30 7.4 12.9 21.4 32.7 43.4 52.3
m/s.

5.2 TEST PROCEDURE

The tests were carried out with the hull free in heave and
pitch but locked in surge, sway, roll and yaw. In order to
cover the range from ordinary sailing conditions to an
eventual take-off, both speed and displacement were
varied. The initial displacement was estimated to 90kg,
including the weight of the fully equipped and reinforced
Optimist with appendages, sailor, rig and sails. Lower
displacements are of interest when the foils lift the hull
gradually out of the water.
Figure 6: Towing test of the Optimist. Photo: Anders
There was also a test to determine the best trim of the hull. Mikaelsson
Trim angles (at zero speed) from 2 bow down to 2 bow
up were tested for the full displacement hull at 3, 3.5 and 6 FOILS
4 knots. At all speeds zero trim was found to give the
smallest resistance. Therefore the hull was ballasted to 6.1 FOIL CONFIGURATION
zero trim for all displacements. As the tow force was Several foil configurations were considered. The options
applied at the level of the waterline, no trimming moment were T-, V-, C-, J- and L- foils, and the final decision was
from the sails was included; it was assumed that this the T-foil.
moment would be balanced by a suitable position of the
sailor. The T-foil is the first hand choice of most foiling dinghies
of today. This configuration has few surface penetrating
5.4 RESULTS parts and has a simple solution for height control, using
The test results are presented in Figure 5 and Table 3. As only a simple lever-system (a wand) that senses the
expected, there is a huge influence of the displacement at distance between the hull and the water. Also, by using T-
higher speeds, where the wave resistance is dominant. A foils, the changes made to the Optimist hull and its general
picture of the test is shown in Figure 6. appearance would be kept minimal. The chosen concept
becomes more aesthetically pleasing, since the foils are
less visible with the Optimist hull on the water. The

INNOV'SAIL 2017
22
 The Fourth International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts, Lorient, France

disadvantages of the lever-system and having to construct the lowest possible speed (and wind velocity). Therefore,
a centre foil with a moving flap were seen as relatively the best section shape for the centre foil is one that
minor. A large advantage of having a horizontal foil is that generates the highest lift to drag ratio. A high lift is
the forces acting on it are easy to compute, making the important because the centre foil is designed to generate
dimensioning of the foil easier than for the V, C, J and L the major part of the lift needed to elevate the dinghy.
foils. The T-foil is also easier to manufacture. Also, a low drag is important for the slow Optimist to
reach the take-off speed.
6.2 SECTION SHAPE
There exists a vast amount of different section shapes In Figure 8 an XFOIL comparison of the lift-drag ratios of
developed for water applications. Examining the the three sections is presented as a function of Reynolds
literature, three section shapes suitable for the foils were number. Wortmann is clearly superior to the others and
chosen for further investigation: NACA63-412, EPPLER was therefore chosen for the centre foil.
817 and Wortmann FX60-100. For the centreboard and
rudder the symmetric NACA0009 was chosen, based on 6.3 PLANFORM
recommendations in [7].
6.3.1 3D effects
The subsonic airfoil analysis tool XFOIL was used to The 2D lift coefficient of the sections discussed above was
compute data for the selected section shapes [8]. Two- converted to 3D by the lifting line formula [7]
dimensional lift- and drag coefficients were computed for
different Reynolds numbers and effective angles of attack. 2
XFOIL was used in two ways. First, data was produced in 3 =
2
1+
order to select the most suitable section shape. Second,
XFOIL was used to produce a database for the VPP in
order to simulate lift and drag for the foils chosen. where AR= cm/s is the aspect ratio. cm is the mean chord
and s is the span.
6.2.1 Rudder Foil Section
The primary task of the rudder foil is not to produce The induced resistance coefficient, CDi, was computed
maximum lift. Instead the rudder foil is crucial for the using the same theory
longitudinal stability of the dinghy when foiling. The 2
rudder foil is therefore designed to give a certain lift at =

relatively high velocities. At low velocities, before the
dinghy is foiling, the rudder foil is not expected to give a 6.3.2 Rudder Foil Planform
large contribution to the total lift of the dinghy. Therefore, When deciding on the planform of the rudder foil the
a low drag coefficient was considered to be the decisive objective was to give the sailor the possibility to control
factor when choosing the section shape of the rudder foil. the pitch of the dinghy by moving his or her centre of
gravity longitudinally. Altering the pitch affects the angle
Figure 7 shows a comparison between the drag of attack of the rudder foil and consequently the lift
coefficients, computed using XFOIL, for the three section generated. Different sailing conditions and velocities were
shapes at three different angles of attack. The figure analysed and corresponding moment equilibriums
indicates that NACA63-412 and Wortmann FX60-100, indicated a desired lift from the rudder foil of around 25%
generate the lowest drag coefficients of the three. NACA of the total lift when foiling. This was achieved with a span
has slightly higher drag than Wortmann, but was chosen of 0.45 m and a mean chord of 0.10 m. To obtain as closely
since it has been tried and tested in the Moth class. as possible an elliptic lift distribution, a taper ratio of 0.43
was selected [7].
The angle of attack of the rudder foil is set to 1 in the
VPP. However, the effect of downwash from the upstream 6.3.3 Centre Foil Planform
centre foil affects the flow direction downstream and Different planforms of the centre foil were analysed with
should be considered. The downwash effect, especially a maximum wingspan constraint set by the hull beam. A
from a foil with flap, is a complex phenomenon, limitation of 1.10 m was set throughout the optimization
inadequately described in literature. Thus, the effect is using the VPP.
disregarded in the VPP. In reality the downwash effect
may be considered by experimentally adjusting the rudder To determine the optimum angle of attack of the centre
foil angle of attack so that an effective angle of attack of foil the influence of the flap angle on the lift to drag ratio
1 is obtained. The rudder hinge is designed to enable such was studied for varying angles of attack. The result is seen
an adjustment to be done rather easily. in Figure 9. The data shown are computed using XFOIL
for the Wortmann FX60-100 section shape with a 30%
6.2.2 Centre Foil Section flap.
The objective of the present work is not only to investigate
whether the Optimist can foil, but also, in case this turns
out to be possible, to design the foil system for take-off at

INNOV'SAIL 2017
23
The Fourth International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts, Lorient, France

Figure 7: Drag coefficient of evaluated foil shapes as a function of Reynolds number.

Figure 8: Lift-drag ratio of evaluated foil shapes as a function of Reynolds number

INNOV'SAIL 2017
24
 The Fourth International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts, Lorient, France

Figure 9 : Centre foil lift- and drag coefficients versus angle of attack and flap angle.

From the figure it can be seen that the Wortmann FX60- Both the rudder and centreboard was given a wingspan of
100 has the highest ratio of lift to drag for an angle of 0.80 m measured from the bottom of the hull to the top of
attack between 5 to 10 for negative flap angles. For the respective foil. A wingspan of 0.80 m was selected to
positive flap angles the highest ratio is found somewhere give the dinghy a foiling height of approximately 0.40 m
between 0 and 5. When the dinghy is still in non-foiling above the surface. This ride height will give a sufficient
mode the flap angle will be in the higher positive range in operating range for the wand and it will allow for smaller
order to generate maximum lift. waves to pass below the hull.

Since the aim of the project was to achieve foiling for the The mean chords of the rudder and centreboard were
lowest wind speed, the positive flap angle range was determined to avoid large drift angles. Different mean
chosen as the more critical one of the two. A fixed 4 angle chord lengths for both the rudder and centreboard were
of attack was selected because it is in the optimum range evaluated using the VPP and the lengths adopted were
for positive flap angles and it provides some room for the 0.15 m for the rudder and a 0.30 m for the centreboard.
sailor to alter the dinghys pitch angle without the risk of This yields a maximum drift angle of 5 for a true wind of
acquiring a negative angle of attack of the centre foil. 10 m/s sailing with a true wind direction of 30. Since the
foils prevent leakage across the tip both appendages were
Once the angle of attack for the centre foil had been designed with a rectangular planform.
determined, the optimal planform area was analysed using
the VPP. For the maximum span of 1.10 m the mean chord 6.3.4 Summary of Foil Dimensions
was varied from 0.10 m to 0.40 m with 0.10 m increments. A summary of the different foil dimensions is presented in
The lowest true wind speed resulting in the Optimist Table 4. These dimensions were obtained through
dinghy foiling was computed for each configuration. It extensive use of the VPP, as presented above. For all
turned out that for 0.1 and 0.2 m chord the take-off wind wings, i.e. the foils and the centreboard and rudder, the
speed at the most favourable direction was 6.0 m/s. For the forces were obtained using XFOIL and aerodynamic
0.3 and 0.4 m chords this speed was 6.2 and 6.5 m theory. However, there are some additional resistance
respectively. A mean chord length of 0.2 m was finally components of the wings when used in a hydrofoil
selected and the taper ratio was set to 0.43, like for the configuration. These components, which are described
rudder foil. below, may be considered as corrections and were not
included in the VPP used for the wing optimisation.
6.3.3 Centreboard and Rudder Planforms However, they are included in the validation tests and in
When determining the planform of the rudder and the final polar plot.
centreboard the span was the decisive factor to which the
mean chord had to be adapted. The span is important
because it restricts the foiling height of dinghy.

INNOV'SAIL 2017
25
 The Fourth International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts, Lorient, France

Table 4: Final dimensions of the foils, rudder and

= 0.25
centreboard. 2
Centre foil Centre- Rudder Rudder
board foil Thus
Section Wortmann NACA NACA NACA
shape FX60-100 0009 63-412 0009 = 0.5 2
Wingspan 1.10 0.80 0.45 0.80
[m] 6.6 JUNCTION DRAG
Mean 0.20 0.30 0.10 0.15 When two foils intersect the shear stresses of the two
chord [m] boundary layers will generate vortices in the corners.
Longest 0.28 0.30 0.14 0.15 These vortices contain energy and give rise to a drag
chord [m] component: the junction drag, Dj. According to Hoerner
Shortest 0.12 0.30 0.06 0.15 [2] this can be obtained from a coefficient CDj
chord [m]
Taper ratio 0.43 1 0.43 1
=
Sweep 8 0 0 0 0.5 2 2
angle []
Flap chord Yes, 30% No No No where tm is the mean thickness of the two intersecting foils.
[% of The coefficient may be computed from
mean
chord] 2
= 17 ( ) 0.05

6.4 RUDDER AND CENTERBOARD WAVE AND
SPRAY DRAG This yields
The wave and spray drag, Dws, caused by the surface
piercing elements, i.e. the centreboard and the rudder, may = 0.5 2 2
be obtained from a coefficient CDws, defined as
7 WAND DRAG

=
0.5 2 2 The force applied on the wand by the water is transferred
to the foil flap which adjusts the flap angle such that the
Where is the water density, V is the boat speed and t is hinge moment is balanced by the lifting force on the flap.
the foil thickness. Since the lift is substantial, a substantial force is required
on the wand. The longitudinal component of this force is
Acccording to Hoerner [2] the coefficient is composed of a drag, which was measured separately in the towing tank
two components, one due to waves and one due to spray, with a special device attached to the carriage. It turned out
and the numerical value is: CDws= 0.30 + 0.24= 0.54. The that the drag increased very little between 3 and 7 m/s,
wave and spray drag may thus be estimated from since the wand got less submerged at the higher speed. At
3 m/s the measured force was 15 N and at 7 m/s it was 18
= 0.5 2 2 N. In the VPP a linear interpolation between these values
was used.
6.5 FOIL WAVE DRAG
When a foil is operating close to the free surface it The drag of a fully submerged wand was also measured
generates waves on the surface and hence a wave with the wand direction corresponding to its uppermost
resistance, Dw. Following Beaver [9] a foil wave drag position close to the hull. At 3 m/s the drag was 6 N. This
coefficient, CDw, may be defined as force was scaled with velocity squared to all non-foiling
speeds.

=
0.5 2 Note that the flat triangular surface at the end of the wand
is larger than for the Moth. This turned out to be necessary
where Ap is the planform area. The coefficient may be in the validation tests described below. With the original
obtained from triangle the wand was pushed through the surface due to
the large lifting force on the flap, and the flap angle
became too small. In the final design the triangular surface
= 2 had an area of approximately 60 cm2.
2

Where h is the submergence and c the mean chord length.

For a set of tested moth foils Beaver gives

INNOV'SAIL 2017
26
 The Fourth International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts, Lorient, France

8 WINDAGE 10 BREAKDOWN OF RESISTANCE

At high foiling speeds the windage may be important. To The resistance components for the dinghy at zero leeway
account for this, the approximation by Hazen [10] used in are presented in Figure 11 with the same foil settings as
many VPPs, was adopted. The drag, DA,is computed in the in the polar plot. The reason for presenting the zero
direction of the apparent wind as follows leeway case is to be able to compare with the towing
tests in the next section.
= 0.5 2

where is the air density, the apparent wind velocity

and the frontal area. is a drag coefficient set to
1.13 like in Hazens method. In the present computations
was set equal to the frontal area of the hull (0.34 m2)
plus the area of the sailor (0.1 m2). In practise, the windage
is added to the sail drag in the aerodynamic computations.

9 POLAR PLOT

A polar plot of the Optimist is presented in Figure 10. In

this plot, obtained from the complete VPP, the total
weight is slightly increased to 95 kg, which corresponds
better to the weight of the first athlete to sail the foiling
Optimist. The angles of the centreboard foil is set to 0
degrees and the rudder foil to 2.5 relative to even keel.
This was the setting when the Optimist foiled for the first
time. The polar plot is given for the lowest foiling wind Figure 11: Resistance components
speed, 6.2 m/s, and for 7, 8, 9 and 10 m/s.
The resistance increases rapidly with speed in the non-
It is seen that the boat foils only at one true wind angle foiling regime. This is caused by the increase in wave
for the lowest wind speed, and that the range of foiling resistance, but also, to an even larger extent, by the
angles increases with the wind speed. For the lowest increase in induced resistance of the centre foil. Note that
wind speed, 6.2 m/s, the boat speed is approximately 12 the displacement is reduced due to the lift and this limits
knots, i.e. the boat sails at the same speed as the wind! the wave resistance increase, which normally determines
the maximum speed achievable. This advantage thus
comes at a high cost in induced resistance.

When the hull takes off the resistance is reduced.

Obviously there is no wave resistance from the hull, but
the induced resistance on the centre foil is still very large.
This is due to the fact that it is operating at a very high lift
coefficient, using a large flap angle to generate the
necessary lift at this relatively low speed.

Increasing the speed the induced resistance from the

centre foil becomes relatively constant, which means that
the lift coefficient is reduced. This is accomplished by a
reduction of the flap angle, which ultimately turns
negative, not to give too large a lift. The induced resistance
of the rudder foil, as well as the profile drag of the rudder
and centre board now grow steadily. So does the wave and
Figure 10: Polar plot for the Optimist at different true wind
spray drag from these elements. The only component that
speeds. The jump indicates where the Optimist foils.
is reduced with speed is the wave drag of the two foils,
which is highly dependent of the lift coefficients. The only
Interestingly, this holds for all wind speeds. At the
other resistance component of importance is the wand
strongest wind, 10 m/s, the maximum speed is 20 knots!
drag, which is substantial at all foiling speeds.

INNOV'SAIL 2017
27
 The Fourth International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts, Lorient, France

11 VALIDATION 11.2 ON-THE-WATER TESTING

11.1 TOWING TANK TESTING The final proof of the concept was the on-the-water testing
carried out in early April. A first attempt was
In order to test the design and to check the influence of the unsuccessful, with an experienced sailor, but without
rudder foil angle a new towing test was carried out. This experience from foiling. The setting of the rudder foil was
was with the foil settings and weight as in the polar plot. probably also incorrect. In a second attempt the rudder foil
The resistance, sinkage and trim were measured at speeds was set to 2.5 degrees and a sailor with experience from
varying from 3 knots to about 15 (7.5 m/s to be precise). Waszp sailing took over. He succeeded immediately and
A picture from the tests is shown in Figure 12. had no problems keeping the boat foiling as long as the
wind speed was sufficient. The only data recorded was the
GPS speed. Some measurements were also done
separately of the wind speed, which varied between 6 and
7 m/s. The speed of the boat was about 12 knots on a broad
reach, which corresponds very well with the prediction in
the polar plot. More data will be taken during the spring
and presented at the conference.

A picture of the foiling Optimist is seen in Figure 13. See

www.facebook.com/axelrahmsailing/videos/1905324476
413724/ for a video.

Figure 12: Picture from the final towing test. Photo:

Anders Mikaelsson

As explained above the downwash from the keel was not

considered in the angle of attack of the rudder foil, when
computing the lift in the VPP. The rationale for this was
that the angle can be easily adjusted to generate a correct
trim in reality. However, this meant that the trim of the
hull in the tests were slightly different from that in the
VPP. This may have had some influence on the profile
drag of the two foils, but not on the induced drag, which
is determined by the lift.

A comparison between measured and computed total

resistance is presented in Figure 13. There is in fact a
surprisingly good correspondence. The predicted take-off
speed is correct and the magnitude of the resistance is well
predicted, except perhaps at the highest speed where there
may be an additional resistance component due to spray
hitting the bottom of the hull. It should be noted that the Figure 13. The foiling Optimist. Photo: Per Thorn
hull ran in a very stable way at all speeds.

12 CONCLUSIONS
The objective of the present work was to investigate if one
of the slowest racing boats in the world the Optimist
dinghy could be made foiling. If so, what is the lowest
possible wind speed for take-off?

The paper has presented a detailed design procedure

including a VPP for non-foiling and foiling conditions, a
wind tunnel test for sail aerodynamics, a towing tank test
for hull hydrodynamics and a large number of numerical
predictions for foil characteristics. As a result, an optimum
foil configuration has been developed, and the
performance tested both in a laboratory for quantitative
results and on the water under real sailing conditions.
Figure 13: Measured and computed resistance

INNOV'SAIL 2017
28
 The Fourth International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts, Lorient, France

The answer to the research questions are: YES, the L. Larsson is Professor of Hydrodynamics at Chalmers
Optimist can foil very well and the minimum take off wind University of Technology, managing the research group
speed is 6.2 m/s. working on sailing dynamics. Larsson has been engaged
as a design consultant in five Americas Cup campaigns.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
C. Finnsgrd is Director of the Centre for Sports and
The authors are indebted to SSPA Sweden AB for Technology at Chalmers University of Technology.
sponsoring the first towing tank campaign, to the Finnsgrd has had a distinguished sailing career, winning
Department of Applied Mechanics at Chalmers for the 2001 Star World Championship.
making their large wind tunnel available for the sail tests
and to Srmans Fund for sponsoring the second round of A. Persson is Ph.D. student at SSPA Sweden AB,
towing tank tests. conducting research on sailing dynamics. Persson
worked with Artemis Racing as an Assistant Naval
REFERENCES Architect in 2015.

1. Boegle, C., Hansen, H. , Hochkirch, H., Speed vs. M. Brown is Project Manager at SSPA Sweden AB,
Stability - Design considerations and velocity prediction responsible for hydrodynamic testing of special projects.
of a hydro-foiled international Moth 4th High Brown managed the model testing for the Swedish
Performance Yacht Design Conference, Auckland, 2012 Americas Cup team Victory Challenge.

2. Hoerner, S., Fluid Dynamic Drag, Hoerner Fluid J. McVeagh is a boat builder specializing in high
Dynamics, Albuquerque, USA, 1957 performance carbon fibre composites. McVeigh has
participated in several Americas Cup and Volvo Ocean
3. Faltinsen, O. M., Hydrodynamics of high speed Race campaigns.
vehicles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
2005

4. International Optimist Dinghy Association,

International Optimist class rules, 2017

5. Blomstrand, E., Johansson, D., Karlsson, N., Oddy, C.,

Olofsson, N., Steen, P., The Flying Chalmers
Optimist, Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers
University of Technology, 2016

6. Barlow J. B., Rae W. H., Pope A., Low-Speed Wind

Tunnel Testing, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1999

7. Larsson L., Eliasson R. E., Orych M., Principles of

Yacht Design 4th Ed., Adlard Coles. London. 2014

8. Drela M., XFOIL,

http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/xfoil/, 2008

9. Beaver, B., Zseleczky, J., Full Scale Measurements on

a Hydrofoil International Moth, Chesapeake Sailing
Yacht Symposium, Annapolis, USA, 2009

10. Hazen, G. S., A model of sail aerodynamics for

diverse rig types, New England Sailing Yacht Symposium,
USA, 1980

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

A. Andersson, A. Barreng, E. Bohnsack, L. Lundin,

R. Sahlberg and E. Werner are students at Chalmers
University of Technology.

INNOV'SAIL 2017
29