G'day,
Should not be a problem. The speed loss from wakes coming together is
pretty minimal from such low wake hulls anyway. I doubt there would
be any noticable effect.
regards,
Rob
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:14 AM, George Kuck <chesapeake410@
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Rob ,
> What would you think of reducing beam on 40' Harryproa from 22' 3" to
> 18'-8"(47%) ? Would there be any problem with bow wakes coming together and
> causing added hydrodynamic resistance ?
>
> Happy sailing,
> George Kuck,
> Chestertown, MD
>
>
> Rob Denney <harryproa@gmail.
>
>
> G'day,
>
> Probably not. I have reduced Elementarry from 4m down to 3.5 (53% to
> 47%) and feel it could go less, particularly with the small rig
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Robert <cateran1949@
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Have been wondering if overall beam needs to be quite as wide. Are
> > there other advantage other than righting moment and deck area, such
> > as avoiding wave interference. I wouldn't have though it so important,
> > considering how little wake they leave. The reason I am asking is for
> > ease of getting through locks and marina berthing, If I have to spend
> > a bit of time in Darwin. 20% less beam would mean 10% less wind before
> > reefing, and 40% less weight in the cross beams. It should still do 14
> > in 15, but would have to be a bit more careful after that. My figures
> > give a monocoque Harry 20% narrower than normal as about the same
> > weight, and about 10- 20% extra wind drag. But an extra 30%-50%weight
> > penalty with the extra crap that comes on board
> > Robert
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ____________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
> now.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe