Hi Mike,
That's probably my error. I was using figures from
http://www.mulihull
As I mentioned in the post I intended to be off-group, I don't think
I'll be bothering with sail shape, center of effort, boom length, and
so forth. Once I'm confident I can get a boat with the specs I'd like,
I'll ask people more expert than myself to come up with the exact
dimensions. I just don't know enough about sail design to do it
myself.
Not that I'd discourage anyone from doing their own calculations.
There are just so many hours in the day, and I'd rather spend some
extra money on expertise so I can use my time to generate revenue, work
on our ongoing house design, and spend time sailing/loafing/
---
Back to the sail area, it's also possible that one wouldn't want an
SA/D over 60, nor would one need to be able to compete with cheekee
monkee. Perhaps an "extreme" SA/D of just 50 would be fine. CM has
an SA/D of 44 with just the jib and main (assuming a 100% jib, which is
probably not the case).
The Harry will be a friendly cruise-able boat, with two semi-private
double bunks, that could be sailed by a non-sailor with very little
training. I've got friends who won't go out with me in heavier weather
because they don't feel they can safely get us back to the dock in such
a high-performance boat if I somehow become incapacitated.
So, if you're singlehanding or family-cruising with non-experts, the
ability to be sailed by a novice (and thus, also, the ease of
singlehanding)
Cheekee monkee could never hope to compete in these areas. If it can
beat the Harry (even though the Harry will have a longer waterline) on
some points of sail, that's fine.
Fun, safety, and lazy sailing potential come first, along with the
ability to move better than most boats in most wind ranges. Having
the option to take on a pure speed machine like a highly-customized
F-31 it truly not necessary, and would just be icing on the cake. For
me, that is.
---
Of course, none of this means that it wouldn't be fun to build some
hounds onto the mast for a self-furling headsail.
All my arguments for a simple easyrig-only solution aside, I'd
probably do this just to see what happens.
Imagine the 755 sf Harry with an extra 300 sf of non-overlapping
headsail. That's an SA/D of almost 90. Whoa. It would be neat to try
that out, at least once, in a four knot wind just to see what happens.
You could test the system with a single used sail to start just to
see how easy or hard it really is, even with a shorter mast. It will
still probably be more than fast enough, and you could always spend a
few thousand dollars on a taller mast later on if you need to get more
extreme.
That's probably a very solid strategy. Everything else is just
talk. I can't say what Rob would suggest, but in matters of religious
design arguments, he often takes the very wise position of "Sounds
great. Why don't you give it a shot and let us know how it works."
- Mike
Gardner Pomper wrote:
>
> Note that the visionarry rig is 860 sf, and the rig on my
theoretical
> Harry is 755 sf, so it's a bit smaller.
>
Did the Rob change the Visionarry rig after the website stopped being
updated, because it is listed at 774 sq ft on
www.harryproa.
your numbers.
Btw, I am not against just using a taller mast. Regardless of how big
I make the sail plan, I am going to have to have a mast that comes
apart into 2 sections to fit in a container. a 39' mast, with the boom
9' up will never give me enough sail area.
What are the boom dimensions you are using to get that sq ft of sail?
I am just exploring alternatives. Maybe it is time for Rob to hop in
and just remind me that I am an idiot and I can switch to some other
silly idea <grin>
- 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