Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: OFF LIST
From: Arto Hakkarainen
Date: 5/13/2008, 4:33 AM
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Reply-to:
harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au

--- Robert <cateran1949@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> 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-
>
This reflects also my thinking. Simple facts of life:
wife likes marina conveniences, marinas are full, with
wife onboard I have more chances to go sailing -> must
be able to find marina berth, which is easier with
less beam. Way to reduce beam for marinas would be
very welcome feature.

Arto

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Y!7 Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo!7 Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___