Hi Mike,
very close to my design parameters.
Max length before some regulations start to hit hard ie <15m
max beam 4.2m telescoped in, 6.5m fully out,700mm bury of beam in ww hull, 1200mm in lw hull
Small saloon below
Compost head and shower in lw hull for at anchor or quiet waters, v small compost head in bridge deck alowing easy cleaning and access when sailing in messy conditions
Bruce number about 1.6 fully laden. at least 2 when light ship.
Able to be dismantled and put on trailer <3.5m width
minimal winches and simple rig
L:B ratio > 16 for both hulls.

Slow progress but progress. temporarily abandoned the building of house down the coast allowing accumulation of boat materials and practice on pressure moulding.

--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote:
>
> <<By imposing the restriction that it must fit in a standard shipping
> container (not high top, or 48' or whatever), I am constrained to
> prioritize the minimum of what I can go for>>
>
> Very nice. Without a hard limit, it's a very slippery slope. And
> then soon you end up with a 60' schooner capable of holding 12 people.
> But nowhere to moor it, store it, and no budget to build it.
>
> I'm working towards a similar box rule, but with a different box:
>
> - The largest boat that can fit under an ICW bridge with a Bruce
> number of 2.0.
>
> - The largest boat that can collapse down to 12' for transportation
> over roadways without an escort.
>
> - The least windage possible given the previous two constraints -- no
> bridgedeck cabin or hard bimini, and perhaps without standing room in
> the head.
>
> - The smallest boat that can fit a saloon table inside the ww hull.
>
> - A boat which can be collapsed on the water and still steered. That
> probably means putting the wheel(s) in the cockpit and the rudders on
> the lw hull. Which is another reason for wanting a table inside.
>
> - A rig I can singlehand without using winches on each shunt. I may
> sacrifice the ability to shunt without putting down a cold beverage, or
> without switching to the opposite bench. But that's as far as I'll go.
> I want something an idiot can sail if I become incapacitated.
>
>
> The main reason for the table inside is that while my wife loves to
> join me for a sail, she tends to get cold below 70 degrees when it's
> windy. That limit seriously shortens the season where we can sail
> together here in Maine. Thus, it would be great to have an interior
> space where she and our 11-month-old daughter (2 1/2 years by the time
> we build a proa?) can be warm and safe.
>
> Judging from the interior of Blind Date (
> http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/10306322/sn/1252178567/name/n_a ), it would
> not be too difficult to fit a modest table next to one of the bunks. It
> would cut down on privacy for that bunk, and obviously shorten the
> galley, which would have to end before the table, but it could be done
> by flaring the ww hull.
>
> The added weight would be minimal, and since it wouldn't add to our
> ability to carry more guests or store more gear, it shouldn't affect the
> wetted surface area that much.
>
> But I haven't tried to draw it yet. We're working on house designs,
> and while my wife has already agreed to the purchase of four boats since
> we started our house plans, it's time for me to stop asking. The proa
> can follow the house once we have the resources to do it.
>
> - Mike
>
> //
>
>
> Gardner Pomper wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Commenting on the container idea:
> >
> > From what I see, it costs about $6000 to ship a container between
> > pretty much any two ports. I figure there will probably be at least
> > $1000 expenses in assembling/disassembling the boat and getting it
> > into a container, plus another $1000 for who knows what. So, I think
> > that shipping the boat will cost about $8000. That doesn't really make
> > sense for getting it to europe, because I can hire a captain to
> > deliver it for less than that. But, if I want to get it to Australia
> > or New Zealand, then it does make sense.
> >
> > I have no particular plans for any specific shipments, but I find the
> > concept of a container useful in a couple of ways. First, it opens the
> > possibility of my getting the boat built overseas (for example, by the
> > people involved in building Rob's boat right now) and getting the bare
> > hull shipped to me to outfit and equip at a reasonable price.
> >
> > Second, it limits the size of the boat I can design. I have found that
> > my designs tend to get bigger and bigger as I add in all the things
> > that I (and particularly my wife) would like to have in a boat. This
> > easily translates to twice the cost, twice the time, and therefore 1/4
> > the probability that it will ever happen. By imposing the restriction
> > that it must fit in a standard shipping container (not high top, or
> > 48' or whatever), I am constrained to prioritize the minimum of what I
> > can go for
> >
> > That minimum, at the moment, is for me to singlehand the boat, but for
> > my daughter and possibly a friend, to come visit. So, this means 2
> > bunks. Then I want a bridgedeck with a table to eat at, that can be
> > enclosed against the weather, and space to walk around in and a galley
> > up (since I am very prone to seasickness if I spend any time belowdecks).
> >
> > The end result of all this a 40' proa, with a 23'-24' beam that (wild
> > estimate) will weigh about 2000 lbs, and have a normal payload of
> > about another 2000 lbs.
> >
> > If I figure Rare Birds SA/D ratio as sqrt(774)/pow(10000,0.33) = 1.33
> > fully loaded and want to match/exceed that, I come up with a required
> > sail area of 350 sq ft. Harry comes out about 1.43 fully loaded. If I
> > want mine to be 1.5, then my sail area would need to be 560 sq ft.
> >
> > With a 39' mast (34' luff) and a 7.5' boom, with an 80% roach, each
> > sail comes in at about 200 sq ft. If I can add a 4'x25' jib to each
> > mast as an easyrig, I can add another 100 sq ft, bringing it up to 500
> > sq ft, which is at least in the right ballpark.
> >
> > I need to work the numbers better, especially the weights. When I try
> > to work with just the panel weights, I get only about 1500 lbs, which
> > is lighter than harry, which makes no sense since it is a much bigger
> > ww hull area and a big hardtop. So, I will keep working on it.
> >
> > - Gardner
> >
> >
> >
>