Can't see the problem of extreme load as the overhang from ww hull is
so little. Significantly less racking than equivalent cat.
About amount of flare: I would consider how much small tris like a
kendrick have as a maximum. My idea is to have a eonough flare so that
an 80cm wide hull at wterline can have enough room downstairs for a
small saloon, ie about 1.4-1.5 m over all, giving about 330-35cm flare
each side. I would have them just high enough for a comfortable
backside to fit, and this would mean that chop would meet them. I t
may be that this could help in resistance, as they my get a bit of
lift off the chop if the flare is close to horizontal. decent bunks
could be set above on the inward side, and still be less than 3m for
wide towing. I'd like to flare slightly the inside of the lw hull to
about1.2- 1.3m for a 'cosy' double. this would also increase the bury
fo rthe crossbeams I'd also like to consider allowing the crossbeams
to slide into the cabin, allowing the hulls to sit together, reducing
overall width to less than 4.5m, more acceptable for marinas,
hard-stand, narrow waterways and short term road transport.
Robert-
-- In harryproa@yahoogrou
>
> Do you see a cuase for an extreme load point on beams due to the
> varied length hulls in certain wavelength patterens. Long hull
> causing WW hull to pentrate when instead due to wave length and
> buoyancy of windward hull wanting to rise with the wave or the
> reverse?
>
> Better to have step high an completly clear of certain wave
> condition for given craft or having step lower gradually tapering or
> widening . Is where i'm at on deciding.
>
> Posted a picture in photo's section nonharry information. Model with
> old leeward hull in water with 3 different wave lengths can't
> simulate boat pitch but you can get what my concerns are. Don't no
> how valid my concerns really are.
>
> Todd
>
>
> --- In harryproa@yahoogrou
> wrote:
> >
> > Todd,
> >
> > Yes that is a concern although none have experience on what any of
> these boats will do in
> > a problem seaway. The overhang does curve upward toward the bows
> so that is some
> > help, and terminates near the forward bulkhead. In addition it's
> elevation matches the
> > beam clearance so has some decent height. Plus I will add a
> modest flare or radius to the
> > underside just to avoid a nasty slap or thud in rough seas.
> >
> > Don't think we have any idea which way the boat face if left to
> float on it's own. Will still
> > use a chute or drogue depending on conditions off the bow/stern
> when it's really bad.
> >
> > Rob thinks it may have some benefits in normal conditions in
> reducing spray over the WW
> > hull. Think the radius should minimize the heavy slap. Have a
> suggestion on how much
> > flare/radius ?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > JT
> >
> > --- In harryproa@yahoogrou
> > >
> > > Yes that is the one nice work. Do you see any concerns with the
> step
> > > out there being effected by waves and possibly effecting boats
> > > motion in the right/wrong kind of seaway?
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > --- In harryproa@yahoogrou
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you mean the extended Harryproa, no not built yet.
> Extended
> > > > slightly more to 46 ft and 25ft beam, in order to satisfy
> desires
> > > > by "partner" (elsewise known as the boss)to change to galley
> up.
> > > Rob's
> > > > engineering support firm, Netamax is contracted by me to
> finish
> > > the
> > > > plans, then start building right away.
> > > >
> > > > But can't build too fast,.... covered hunderds of miles along
> the
> > > > Carolina coast to find a marina. Severe shortage of slips
> wide
> > > enough
> > > > for cats. Only (1) available and cost as much or more than
> the
> > > boat.
> > > > Have to wait for new marina to be built for affordable
> dockage.
> > > All
> > > > the harbor/dockmasters agree on the problem, demand is just
> > > starting to
> > > > grow. Coastal politics are also playing havoc with marina
> > > expansions so
> > > > expect in the near future to remain an issue for the US
> coastal
> > > areas.
> > > >
> > > > I have alternative layouts if interested. With slips so tight
> > > > preferred not to push over 50 feet, difficult enought to find
> > > slips
> > > > with enough beam. Doesn't seem to be a problem for transients
> as
> > > end
> > > > dock space is usually available but many without services on
> the
> > > end
> > > > of "T" docks. So overnights are OK, just be self sufficient.
> > > >
> > > > Formal plans set won't be ready for another 6 mo or so.
> > > >
> > > > JT
> > > >
> > > > --- In harryproa@yahoogrou
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I just rejoined your news group and seen a step hull
> rendering
> > > > > recently posted in files section. Was it ever built? The
> step
> > > looks a
> > > > > little high but I guess with that shallow angle to hull it
> would
> > > have
> > > > > to be high. Nice rendering though. I like the step idea to
> > > windward.
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
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