further foamy footy trials

This hull shape is a second draft of ‘Banshee’, a footy with more rearward centres than ‘Kittiwake’. She will probably not see soft water in awhile* but is answering a few construction questions for me. I will post a few photos here for your interest.

Weight is pleasing so far, as you see her on the scales 56g (1.95oz).


*Unless rumours of an outdoor heated pool built by a guy in the area with a Victoria prove to be true!

Looks good, I see that you are running your main sheet thru the middle now. Does that mean you are abandoning the bridle set up?

Not abandoning it Bob, the bridle is a perfectly good system used on much more complex models than a Footy. But my quest with this design is to have a very clean deck and the bridge is a part of that. I can see that it will make a snag free internal installation a little more difficult so I shall see how that works out.

Another solution is a fixed bridle using brass wire but the thread and loop type as per the Kittiwake will always be lighter and does exactly what it is meant to do.


looks good graham, how does this hull compare width-wise to kittywake? [it looks a littl narrower in the pics?] and is it just me or is there more shear? this looks like it is a little more of a racing boat?

Hello Barrett…
the deck is actually flat, so no sheer in terms of curve. However the bow is deeper and the transom shallower than the Kittiwake. You are right that this is intended to be a minimum weight racer, moving towards one extreme (rearward centres) as compared to my benchmark hull on Kittiwake. Could be a dismal failure but could be quick too!

I am using a straight entry as far back as possible to improve on KW’s already good chop performance. The balance will give a submersed stem bottom and slightly submersed transom at rest. Max beam is greater than Kittiwake at the upper hull sides, almost the same at the chine. Dispacement is 17 to 17.5oz (481g to 495g) on the waterline.

Not to forget that Kittiwake is proving to be rather quick in mixed company. The development of the Kittiwake hull, named ‘Siren’ has been sailing awhile and is definitely faster than KW.

Should be a fun spring!


Photo is just for fun… shows the Banshee hull being displacement checked in the erm… test tank :stuck_out_tongue: I’m a practical kind of chap…

Graham, I hope that one of those dispenses bitter, the other mild!


:zbeer: You got it matey! Funnily enough I have a hard time here in the US of America convincing even my close beer buddy Jim that there were (possibly are) houses in the north of England which had beer plumbed in where they are on the same terrace as the corner pub.

Possibly my current choice would be Newcastle Brown in one and New Glarus Fat Squirrel in the other! Beer is good for the hair you know…

Anyway… I think the chine hull is far from dead and definitely worth persuing further. Remember the ‘sharpies’ were banned from working boat racing for good reason :sly:


Graham, though conceptually similar, I have a far more advanced float tank in our laundry room…deep enough to accomodate both hull and fin!

Bill H

Gee seems we think alike. My new Footy build I designed, is also deeper at the bow and shallower at the stern.

Might just be the ticket!

while having more draft forward might reduce hobbyhorsing in chop, it is also going to provide more resistance and therefore a slower tack, a place where the footy admittedly is pretty lousy… just a thought!

Being new to sailing, haven’t thought of that, thanx for the info. We’ll see what happens… I already have another version drawn up with less draft forward for the build after.
If it doesn’t sail good, at least it will look good…LOL

Happy Holidays

With the greatest of respect to Barrett, it’s not quite that simple. A very shallow bow that 'bounces’over the surface is easily thrown sideways to leeward by a chop with attendant loss of windward performance. This is in my view more of a problem on a model than on a full size boat where such bows are common practice. Reason: lack of feedback to the helmsman in the model.

I do agree with Barrett that a very deep ‘tanker’ type bow as exemplified by some Carter and Chance IOR designs might well have serious tacking problems at Footy size. However, many early Footys have been designed with rather dinghy like hulls with stem knuckles more or less on the waterline. There is no reason why the knuckle should not be more deeply immersed. As ever, the question is ‘how much’?

good point angus! hmm, that may lead to a redesign of the new boat!

As regards tacking Barrett… be careful not to believe everything you read :slight_smile: The Kittiwakes tack in the blink of an eye in all but very overpowering winds.

My number one purpose for extra depth at the bow is that the ‘Siren’ experiment has shown that more bow to play with on the run is no bad thing.


i agree with that too… no my comment was just that, a comment. and definetly i think there are some benifits to having more draft forward. [like cutting down on nose diving, etc.] i just, like always advocate a happy medium…:smiley:

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to sound absolute at all: in yacht design Archimedes principe is pretty well established, everything else is up for grabs.