G'day,
Harrigami managed 15 in 15 on a reach in flat water. I don't remember
any other performance numbers.
regards,
Rob
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@networknow.
>
>
> Rob,
>
> I would like to compare to a known quantity. I know you have sailed
> Harrigami, and said that it sails at wind speed up to about 15 kts, so
> could you give me the figures for it? I know it is a bit smaller, but
> not that much.
>
> I am very happy to hear that John is anxious to quote. I thought he
> might not be ready for the bigger boats yet and I would have a hard
> time getting his attention. I have just been holding off until I sort
> out the final hull shapes, so that the panel drawings that I send will
> have the correct areas on them. Hopefully I will have that ready by
> the end of the week and can send it off.
>
> Thanks, as always, for all the help!
>
> - Gardner
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Rob Denney <harryproa@gmail.
>>
>>
>> G'day,
>>
>> Aroha has 600mm/2' beam clearance, beams are 200 high x 300 wide (8" x
>> 12") waterline beams are 750 and 500mm (30" and 20").
>>
>> I have not sailed on Aroha, so can't comment on the accuracy of these
>> numbers, nor how well it works. I would prefer more lee hull beam
>> clearance,and would see if the beams could be smaller. Probably go
>> with a mostly solid bridgedeck to help with this.
>>
>> Only other change would be to make it from panels, if I was paying for
>> it. John in China is busting to give you a quote. Any idea when you
>> will have something for him?
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@networknow.
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> since my design turned out to be practically identical to harry in
>>> length, width and weight, I would like to check against that design.
>>> Can you tell me what the height is above the water for the beams, and
>>> about what the size of the beams is, since I am just using 1 foot
>>> squares for placeholders now?
>>>
>>> Also what is the waterline beam of each hull?
>>>
>>> Would you change any of that is you were redesigning harry now?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> - Gardner
>>>
>>> On Monday, May 4, 2009, Rob Denney <harryproa@gmail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> G'day,
>>>>
>>>> The weight transfer does not happen until the breeze is pretty strong,
>>>> and the speed exceeds the hull speed of a short, fat hull very
>>>> quickly. eg, the 33' windward hull on Rare bird has a hull speed
>>>> (1.34 * the waterline length, in feet) of 7.6 knots, which it gets to
>>>> in under 10 knots of breeze, but the windward hull barely lifts at 20
>>>> knots of wind speed when the boat is capable of 15 knots plus, at
>>>> which speed the drag of the short hull would be immense.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM, jrwells2007 <jrwells2007@
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob, I have read somewhere that cats and tris aim for a minimum of 8:1
>>>>> to
>>>>> prevent stern squatting in the manner of a mono-hull. For the ww hull
>>>>> an
>>>>> 8:1
>>>>> would have lower surface area for a given displacement than an 11:1 so
>>>>> less
>>>>> resistance at low speeds. At higher speeds some of the displacement of
>>>>> the
>>>>> ww hull would be carried by the lw hull and therefore the greater wave
>>>>> making resistance of 8:1 would be less of a factor. Are there other
>>>>> more
>>>>> important considerations such as drag on the steering?
>>>>>
>>>>> Longer and skinnier is still better for speed probably.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The longer and skinnier the better, but as long as it does not drop
>>>>>> below 11:1 l:b, you will be fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
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