I was looking at an Atlantic schooner monocoque with a foldout ww cockpit as a possibility for very quick setting up from trailering.
Drive to the setting up area near the ramp and lift the masts into position using the fold out cockpit in its up position as a gantry.
Fit the sails and sheets
Reverse the trailer into the water, fold out the cockpit, lower the rudders haul in the sheets and sail away.
( you still have to park the car and trailer)
I came to this as I have a small Jarcat and thought how much better it would be if it was a proa with its extra lee hull length. Then the problem of how to steer it in comfort comes up, hence the ww foldout cockpit. I worked out about 300kg for a 7.5/5m version 2.5m wide and about 450kg for a 9m/6m version 3m wide. It would be suitable for any of the places a small Jarcat would go with better righting moment and sail area.
This gives accommodation right across the boat. The torque issues are taken up with the monocoque construction and fairly narrow boat and the lee hull loads are only those of a tri hull. The fold out cockpit allows even more righting moment and keeps the same type of sheeting arrangements as the Harry and the sailing bits are easily accessible.
If the trailing and storage constraints aren't there I much prefer the Harry for simplicity and deck space
--- In harryproa@yahoogrou
>
> Robert,
>
> Is this preference simply because the weight of the rig will be in the
> ww hull, and therefore add to righting moment?
>
> You might get some slightly cleaner air, but unless your rig height is
> restricted, I'm not sure that's an argument to go atlantic.
>
> The problem I'd see with the weight argument is that, while there will
> be more weight in the ww hull, there will also now be more weight in the
> structure for the ww hull, beams, and lw hull to handle the increased
> sailing and torsion loads that have to be transferred from one hull to
> the other. You might be able to get the same weight and righting moment
> in a harryproa design (more ballast in the ww hull, less weight in the
> structure because it's now simpler).
>
> I can't see that being enough to give up the other benefits of the
> harry design. Having a ww hull free of the rig and structural loads
> would be important to me if I were trailering a small boat -- there's
> little enough interior space already, and I wouldn't want to give up
> anything to the mast. I'd also much prefer the heeling moment to remain
> the same and/or decrease as the hull starts to rise, as with a pacific
> proa, instead of increase (rig gets higher, structure off the water then
> adds to the heeling moment instead of blanketing the sails).
>
> But perhaps the weight of the rig is not the reason for the atlantic.
> Sheeting wouldn't be functionally different from a harryproa, but you
> would be able to play with the halyards and sails without leaving the ww
> hull. Are there other reasons?
>
> - Mike
> / /
>
> Robert wrote:
> >
> > -Not for myself as I prefer the deck space and comfort of a Harry, but
> > if seriously constrained in time for sailing and had to trail a boat,
> > I would go for a narrow schooner monocoque Atlantic 9mlw/6mww with a
> > fold out cockpit, or if I was serious about racing in protected
> > waters, I would go for a carbon Atlantic 9mlw/6m ww with wings to ww
> >
> > -- In harryproa@yahoogrou
> > <mailto:harryproa%
> > >
> > > robert,
> > >
> > > you prefer the atalantic?!
> > >
> > > doug
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 20/3/09, Robert <cateran1949@
> > >
> > > From: Robert <cateran1949@
> > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: cantarry - racing -
> > > To: harryproa@yahoogrou
> > > Date: Friday, 20 March, 2009, 10:27 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
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