G'day,
Excellent thinking. No point in having more beds than guests.
My worries are access to the rig (folding table?) and the probability
of the table getting pretty damp at anything over 15 knots or in lumpy
seas. Maybe move the table to windward a little, even attach it to
the steering pedestal and have the seats extend for the helmsman to
sit on. A lexan wall in the event of a big, breaking, beam sea
although lexan is strong stuff, probably just needs plenty of support
(there are already three bulkheads, may only need something in the
master cabin for stiffness and to allow breaks for thermal movement.
Also how boxy it will look on the shorter hull. Because the ww part
of the bridgedeck does not get slapped by the waves, it can have 24"
clearance. Plus 6' 6" of internal headroom. The windward side of
the hull is 8'6" high, less the window, a high boottop and the name,
so should not look too bad. I really like the idea of clears
everywhere and it is great to have some first hand experience of them.
Cost is a bit length of a piece of string. But top of my head, I
would guess 25% less materials than the charter boat,but similar
labour for the shell. The fit out to the sailing stage of the
Ballotta cats will be maybe 75%, (assuming you are keeping it pretty
basic). Given the Ballotta 39 costs $140,000 after the shell
(275-135), then this stage will cost about $105 (less if it is in
China). So your estimate to sail away stage of $200,000 is pretty
close.
As for sailing, the windward hull has not got any more in it than a
standard Visionarry, so this should not be a problem. I would draw
the hull for a 'to be agreed' load, then anything extra would go in
the lee hull.
JT, looks good.
Robert, The bunk at 20 knots scenario is a bit scary and something to
think about. I guess you could sleep sideways or the other way round
when it gets this fast. Or just stay awake enjoying it!
regards,
Rob
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:35 AM, gardnerpomper <gardner@networknow.
> Hi,
>
> I had posted earlier attempts at making a liveaboard about the same size as
> the current
> visionarry design. I think I have learned alot from all the discussions on
> the charter proa
> design, and would like to submit a new layout for consideration. See the
> "Liveaboard 15m
> PDF" in the files section.
>
> I have scaled back the accomodations to 1 queen and 1 double, with a cockpit
> table that
> can collapse to another queen in an emergency. The idea of this design is to
> use the build
> techniques envisioned for the charter proa to keep costs to a minimum. I am
> hoping by
> removing all accomodations from the lw hull, and scaling 4 heads down to 1
> and having
> just a single walk-around stateroom, at least the fitting out expenses will
> be considerably
> less.
>
> One, possibly distinctive, feature of this design, is that saloon does not
> close off from the
> helm. I am borrowing the concept of fully enclosing the helm in plastics, as
> is done on the
> Maine Cat 30 catamaran. The dotted lines show where the clears pick up to
> join the saloon
> and the helm. This makes the cockpit table the only dining area, which is
> acceptable to
> me.
>
> I have plopped this on top of what I envision to be the hulls for the
> visionarry. Without
> learning how to figure the weights of a design, this was my best guess,
> simply because it
> is the "next" step down from the charter proa design.
>
> There is some concern that it might look too boxy, with a 6'6" standing
> headroom in the
> saloon, but what I anticipate there is that the fiberglass only goes up the
> hull on the
> windward side to counter height, and the 3.5' between counter height and the
> roof is
> totally clear lexan (or as much as possible). The roof will actually be
> supported by the head
> walls and vertical posts where the saloon meets the helm. Again, this is an
> idea copied
> from the Maine Cat 30, which would otherwise look ridiculously boxy on a 30'
> catamaran
> (slightly smaller than this ww hull), but turns out looking nice.
>
> My criteria are pretty much the same as the charter, except that I am
> willing to sacrifice
> accomodations to reduce the cost to a bare minimum and still get good
> performance.
>
> Can anyone comment with a guess as to the practicality of this for a
> cruising couple with
> occasional guests? Obviously the 18m would be better, but a ballpark idea of
> the
> tradeoffs would be really helpful. For example, if we spec the charter proa
> at $US 300K, is
> it possible that this design might come in around $200K? What about
> performance? Would
> the ww hull have to be so fat as to make in sail poorly?
>
> Thanks all,
>
> - Gardner
>
>
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