You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

1

Sunday, April 18th 2004, 10:37pm

Here she is!!!!

it's that 25000 ton design I mentioned as the most likely follow-on to HEL.
I was thinking of 2 of these little beasties!

What do you think?

Tyr 6, Denmark Pocket Battleship laid down 1925

Displacement:
23,473 t light; 25,000 t standard; 26,964 t normal; 28,427 t full load
Loading submergence 1,143 tons/feet

Dimensions:
650.00 ft x 93.50 ft x 29.00 ft (normal load)
198.12 m x 28.50 m x 8.84 m

Armament:
14 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (6 Main turrets, 2 superfiring turrets)
6 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (2 2nd turrets x 3 guns)
16 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
16 - 0.79" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 11,857 lbs / 5,378 kg
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 14.00" / 356 mm, upper belt 6.00" / 152 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 80 % of normal area
Main turrets 1.50" / 38 mm, 2nd turrets 14.00" / 356 mm
AA gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm, Light gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm
Armour deck 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower 14.00" / 356 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 93,695 shp / 69,896 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 13,000nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
1,052 - 1,367

Cost:
£8.157 million / $32.628 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,482 tons, 5.5 %
Armour: 8,414 tons, 31.2 %
Belts: 3,040 tons, 11.3 %, Armament: 2,143 tons, 7.9 %, Armour Deck: 2,959 tons, 11.0 %
Conning Tower: 272 tons, 1.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,042 tons, 11.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,435 tons, 38.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,491 tons, 12.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.4 %

Metacentric height 4.5

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 29,364 lbs / 13,320 Kg = 271.9 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 5.7
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 70 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.64
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.535
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.63
'Natural speed' for length: 25.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim: 70
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 79.9 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 119.3 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 102 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.96
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 182 lbs / square foot or 891 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.42
(for 18.13 ft / 5.52 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -0.34 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

2

Monday, April 19th 2004, 11:45am

very nice design. I'd lose 2 secondary guns and add that to misc weight to accomodate flag facilities and stuff.

But she is a good "driving school" BB for DK and enough of a threat to inconvenience most ships currently running around in wesworld.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

3

Monday, April 19th 2004, 2:13pm

You asked for input...

As I said on ICQ I´ll reply to your request today. So here´s my input for you.

First of all switching guns still confuses things for me and I´m still not happy with it. However, this matter I won´t discuss again.

Her size offers a chance to compare her with a historical design - the french DUNKERQUE. The latter is about 2000ts heavier and you design pre-dates her but nevertheless both units play in the same leaque, I think.

DUNKERQUE is faster (31,5kn) and has two more barrels (8x 33cm) but your TYR 6 design offers a heavier punch per shell. One could argue DUNKERQUEs all-forward armament to be a disadvantage but there´s no way to tell if TYR also features all-forward armament or not because you switched the guns and the hook for "grouped together" cannot be set. Just another problem with switching guns but as I said above....

What does matter is the lack of a torpedo bulkhead on your design. I know that you get much more outta SS by dropping it but that´s just another bug where SS differs from reality. Nobody would build a 25kts BB without a TDS. So here DUNKERQUE has a huge advantage because she offers a deep TDS - relatively to her size/beam.

(The lack of the armored bulkhead and the weight necessary for it - and a longer belt etc. - also explains why you can put such a heavy battery and armor on such a small displacement. It is thus hardly possible to truly judge your design in regard of historical ships.)

Your design offers a decent secondary battery even though I wonder what kind of layout you propose with 14 guns in 6 turret - two of which are superfiring. Compared to DUNKERQUE your choice of a single-purpose 15cm battery seems to be wise using hindsight because the french ships secondaries proofed useless in their intended role as DP-guns. Against whatever target you use your secondaries a 15cm shell surely offers a much larger punch than a 13cm shell.

Her speed of 28kn should be enough under most circumstances and doesn´t cost too much weight and space. On the other hand such a vessel would be born into a world of 30+kn capital units that are much larger and even more powerful. Those it can´t outgun nor outrun and thus it would be doomed. So while impressive in peacetime and maybe in local conflicts against third rate powers that field only old or no BBs at all its value against one of the larger seapowers has to be questioned.

Her armor - as already stated - is impressive for her size and I´m opposing LA here saying that I would not trade belt for deck armor. It´s 1925 and FC is not yet capable to handle battles at ranges where you would need thicker deck armor.

What I do question is the value of TTs on such a vessel. They are a desaster waiting to happen.

I also question her very low stability. Sure, you don´t get a warning but should that vessel ever receive underwater damage and flooding it soon will be in danger to roll over and be lost....

Finally, against DUNKERQUE your design seems to be superior on paper. Its heavier armor and battery cannot be ignored and thus I´d build your ship in Wesworld - especially as long as there are no combat rules allowing a penality for vessels without TT bulkhead - but DUNKERQUE is more balanced and survives a reality check.

Hope this helps,

HoOmAn

PS: I focused on a comparison with a historical design. Looking at several WesWorld designs of ~25kts things are quite different. Even a KONING-class vessel (laid down 1912) could proof a nut to though to crack. On a similar displacement she offers 10x 35cm, similar belt, heavier upper belt, thicker secondary armor, higher stability and most important a 35mm bulkhead. On the other hand her deck is thinner and she she´s lacking in speed and range (50% coal firing). On 29kts the MAURITIUS-class vessels (laid down 1914) finally are clearly superior in every aspect except speed and deck armor. So it depends on your vessels mission if it can achieve a draw by running away. :o)

4

Monday, April 19th 2004, 3:23pm

IMHO she is a borderline BC and to be quite honest I hadn't noticed the lack of a torpedo bulkhead, oops. OTOH in Wesworld we have defined SS to define our physics and torpedo belts only start making a difference with larger displacements. (which BTW is realistic. less than 4 m per side are totally and utterly useless)

yes, she won't be be able to face down a Portugal, but did you compare broadsides with your ship? and she is a fast BB as opposed to a 22 kn design.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

5

Monday, April 19th 2004, 3:28pm

Broadsides...

According to springsharp the KONINGs have a broadside of 6.832kg or 15.062lbs. That´s a significant difference, I think.

6

Monday, April 19th 2004, 4:25pm

yes it is

as regards torpedo bulkhead:

with a .8 mm bulkhead she can take 3.5 torps, without she can take 5.7. Probably a SS bug, but still, thus are our physics defined ...

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

7

Monday, April 19th 2004, 5:09pm

Question

Surely you are right. SS defines our physics we once said. ;o)

This leaves one question to me:

Are we trying to run this as realistic as possible or is there only interest in powergaming? Why stick to a given bc or l:b ratio then? We all know that a very long and slender hull with a low bc offers superior results...

If it is realism that concerns us one has to install a bulkhead on ship of that designs size, one cannot build vessels with a l:b ratio of 15:1 and BBs with a bc of 0,35 will hardly be realistic.

If it´s not realism, why the fuzz over simming superfiring secondaries by switching main and secondary guns, adding misc weight for diesels etc. to make designs more accurate?

IIRC, you also agreed that there is no need (! - there could be one if appriciated) for a bulkhead on a cruiser sized ship but every BB or BC above cruiser size should have a bulkhead. All your ships fit said rule so why arguing about it now?

Regards,

HoOmAn

PS: I forgot to mention that CGs design with its deep draft of 8,84m will hardly be suitable for use in the Baltic or North Sea, it will get stuck in the mudd immediately.... :o/

8

Monday, April 19th 2004, 5:23pm

Torpedo bulkhead

Well, I'll quote this from my book "Battleships of the Scharnhorst Class" by Gerhard Koop and Klaus-Peter Schmolke (nice book with a lot of pictures on the two ships).

Quoted

As regards armour, its arrangement and distribution, the German Navy preferred its well-tried system. In the case of the Scharnhorst class battleship, the narrow 30m beam forced the architects to design the longitudinal torpedo bulkhead at an incline instead of vertically. This was the only way in which it was possible to build in the necessary safety zone between the bulkhead and outer plating. The Bischmarck class battleships were 6m beamier, affording a much more favourable anti-torpedo structure. Nevertheless the arrangement proved to be the weak point in the overall armour system.


So if you have not enough beam, it will only be a bothersome thing aboard your ship eventhough it is a pretty important piece of armor against torpedoes (My design for the Kamatari BC is almost 2 meters narrower than the Scharnhorst/Gneisenau, and with all the s**t inside, I doubt that the Kamatari has enough space to properly place a TBH that has some effectiveness, even when angled).

As for the 5.7 torpedoes. That is an error in SS when it hits 1.00 stability or below. My guess would be that it would take about 3.2 torpedoes to sink her.

Walter

9

Monday, April 19th 2004, 5:31pm

Here are her true stats. I simmed it as it was simmed, but edited it so that the main guns are listed first and then the secondaries. I did it specially for you HoOmAn.
:-)
As for the layout, I'd guess that it would be 2 secondary turrets on each side and the superfiring ones are on the center line behind the main guns.

Note the torpedoes needed to sink. (was just 0.1 off the target. Not bad I think).

True colors of Tyr, Denmark Pocket Battleship laid down 1925

Displacement:
23,452 t light; 24,979 t standard; 26,941 t normal; 28,402 t full load
Loading submergence 1,142 tons/feet

Dimensions:
650.00 ft x 93.50 ft x 29.00 ft (normal load)
198.12 m x 28.50 m x 8.84 m

Armament:
6 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (2 Main turrets x 3 guns)
14 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (6 2nd turrets, 2 superfiring turrets)
16 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
16 - 0.79" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 11,857 lbs / 5,378 kg
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 14.00" / 356 mm, upper belt 6.00" / 152 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 80 % of normal area
Main turrets 14.00" / 356 mm, 2nd turrets 1.50" / 38 mm
AA gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm, Light gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm
Armour deck 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower 14.00" / 356 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 93,624 shp / 69,844 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 13,000nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
1,051 - 1,366

Cost:
£8.154 million / $32.614 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,482 tons, 5.5 %
Armour: 8,412 tons, 31.2 %
Belts: 3,040 tons, 11.3 %, Armament: 2,143 tons, 8.0 %, Armour Deck: 2,958 tons, 11.0 %
Conning Tower: 272 tons, 1.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,040 tons, 11.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,418 tons, 38.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,488 tons, 12.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.4 %

Metacentric height 5.9

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is adequate

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.15
Shellfire needed to sink: 31,950 lbs / 14,492 Kg = 295.8 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.3
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 50 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.48
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.535
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.63
'Natural speed' for length: 25.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 79.9 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 119.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 102 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.96
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 182 lbs / square foot or 889 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.42
(for 18.13 ft / 5.53 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -0.33 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Walter

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

10

Monday, April 19th 2004, 5:35pm

hehehe

"Shellfire needed to sink: 31,950 lbs / 14,492 Kg = 295.8 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells"

Does this mean one has to pile those 300 shells up on deck to make the ship capsize?

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

11

Monday, April 19th 2004, 5:38pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

As for the 5.7 torpedoes. That is an error in SS when it hits 1.00 stability or below. My guess would be that it would take about 3.2 torpedoes to sink her.

Walter


Indeed. Using this bug I can make my latest BB (which features a bulkhead) survive 8,4 TTs instead of 5,6.... and I still don´t get a warning about its low stability.

12

Monday, April 19th 2004, 6:13pm

Quoted

"Shellfire needed to sink: 31,950 lbs / 14,492 Kg = 295.8 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells"

Does this mean one has to pile those 300 shells up on deck to make the ship capsize?


Whoops!! Forgot to edit that one. ^^;;
... but it requires 18.9 15 inch shells in order to sink it.

As for the bug, I posted it a while ago on the Warships1 board and Ian replied to it (also a while ago) so he is aware of this bug. Hopefully it has been removed for the latest version of Spring Sharp.

Walter

13

Monday, April 19th 2004, 8:08pm

As I stated when I posted my first BB attempt, I was just playing with SS.

Tyr is the vessel i mentioned as being a more likely next step in the evoloution of Danish capital ship design, and I think that the step to 25000 tons is more likely than a jump to 35/40000 tons.

The other ship I posted under "And assuming....." is what Denmark's first true BB would be like if the decision to build 2 Tyr's is taken.

As for the guns, I only did it to get the superfiring option on the secondaries (something that will be needed if this sim runs into the 40's: look at the later US BB's!) because the layout I was thinking of was as follows...
A = 3 X 15"
B = 3 X 6"
X = 3 X 6"
Y = 3 X 15"
with 2 X twin 6" turrets per beam

Think of her as Graf Spee's big sister!!

As for torps, ala Graf Spee, but as before, I am not married to the idea!

14

Tuesday, April 20th 2004, 12:34am

well, I fully agree with Hoo on the torps. Also I wasn't aware of the bug, so yes I actually think a torpedo bulkhead would be a good idea - unless we do admit that we have a ship with a major design flaw, stuff that happenned historically too but that is really unlikely in this case.

15

Tuesday, April 20th 2004, 6:25pm

Now with a Torpedo Bulkhead!!

It cost me a bit of belt and turret armour, but here she is....warts and all!!

With report changes as requested by HoOmAn!!

Tyr 6a, Denmark Pocket Battleship laid down 1925

Displacement:
24,344 t light; 25,867 t standard; 27,875 t normal; 29,370 t full load
Loading submergence 1,160 tons/feet

Dimensions:
650.00 ft x 91.50 ft x 29.00 ft (normal load)
198.12 m x 27.89 m x 8.84 m

Armament:
6 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (2 main turrets x 3 guns)
12 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (6 2nd turrets x 2 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
12 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
16 - 0.79" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 11,587 lbs / 5,256 kg

Armour:
Belt 13.00" / 330 mm, upper belt 6.00" / 152 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 13.00"/330mm, 2nd turrets 1.25" / 32 mm
AA gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm, Light gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm
Armour deck 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower 14.00" / 356 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 96,605 shp / 72,068 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 13,000nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
1,078 - 1,402

Cost:
£8.207 million / $32.829 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,448 tons, 5.2 %
Armour: 9,265 tons, 33.2 %
Belts: 3,533 tons, 12.7 %, Armament: 1,996 tons, 7.2 %, Armour Deck: 3,005 tons, 10.8 %
Conning Tower: 278 tons, 1.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 453 tons, 1.6 %
Machinery: 3,137 tons, 11.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,394 tons, 37.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,531 tons, 12.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.4 %

Metacentric height 4.3

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 24,714 lbs / 11,210 Kg = 228.8 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.4
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 70 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.69
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.566
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.56
'Natural speed' for length: 25.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim: 70
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 99.2 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 136.3 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 102 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.96
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 178 lbs / square foot or 868 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.38
(for 19.00 ft / 5.79 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 0.41 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

16

Wednesday, April 21st 2004, 9:15am

now she is getting a bit BC-esk.

So here my alternative: lose the upper armour, reduce the speed by .5 knots and use submerged TTs (see N&R). I also have moved her to 1924.

Tyr 7, Denmark Pocket Battleship laid down 1924

Displacement:
23,454 t light; 24,963 t standard; 26,944 t normal; 28,421 t full load
Loading submergence 1,142 tons/feet

Dimensions:
650.00 ft x 93.50 ft x 29.00 ft (normal load)
198.12 m x 28.50 m x 8.84 m

Armament:
12 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (6 Main turrets x 2 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
6 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (2 2nd turrets x 3 guns)
16 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
16 - 0.79" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 11,641 lbs / 5,280 kg
4 - 23.6" / 600 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
Belt 13.78" / 350 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 102 % of normal area
Main turrets 1.38" / 35 mm, 2nd turrets 13.78" / 350 mm
AA gun shields 0.79" / 20 mm, Light gun shields 0.79" / 20 mm
Armour deck 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower 13.78" / 350 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 0.79" / 20 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 87,157 shp / 65,019 Kw = 27.50 kts
Range 13,000nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
1,051 - 1,366

Cost:
£7.558 million / $30.230 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,455 tons, 5.4 %
Armour: 8,561 tons, 31.8 %
Belts: 2,936 tons, 10.9 %, Armament: 2,089 tons, 7.8 %, Armour Deck: 2,911 tons, 10.8 %
Conning Tower: 268 tons, 1.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 357 tons, 1.3 %
Machinery: 2,871 tons, 10.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,417 tons, 38.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,490 tons, 13.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.6 %

Metacentric height 6.1

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.17
Shellfire needed to sink: 25,173 lbs / 11,418 Kg = 233.1 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.3
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 51 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.47
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.04

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.535
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.63
'Natural speed' for length: 25.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim: 49
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 101.5 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 133.1 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 103 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.96
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 182 lbs / square foot or 887 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.37
(for 18.37 ft / 5.60 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -0.09 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00