• When on the trailer, the first thing, I'd step the masts on the windward hull.  As you suggested, I was thinking of a relatively small "crane" based on the cheap car engine hoists.  Once up, these can be used in conjunction with the boats winches to lift the windward hull up and over and down. 
• I've been watching a lot of Rick Willoughby's comments.  If I keep the leeward hull simple (without) mast and leeway prevention structure, I can make it quite cheap.  The one I'm making now should come in complete for less than $2000 and somewhere around 800 pounds if I don't get sloppy.  The point being, I could very easily make a second one using the squared off sheet hulls that Rick's research suggests may have a superior performance edge.  It may go for less than a $1000.  IOWs, I can play Mr. Potato Man. 
• The lee hull is lighter - for getting off the trailer and moving it around. 

• In a HarryProa or an Atlantic Sloop the mast loads have to be transferred from the mast base to the cross beams by torquing the hull.  In an Atlantic this would make things far more difficult.  It fully justifies Robert's statment about being able to make the unstressed HarryProa windward hull far lighter than the Atlantic.  It would be clearly lighter.  However, in a HarryProa or Atlantic Schooner there is no torque in the hulls.  If the masts are mated to the cross beams all moments from the masts can be directly transferred into cross beams.  My contention is that both hulls could be made lighter in a schooner rig and frankly there would be no advantage of one over the other (that I can imagine yet). 
• The largest moment in the beams of a HarryProa (and thus largest cross section of the beam) is at the base of the leeward hull.  In an Atlantic, the largest moment in the beams is at the base of the windward hull.  It is helped out by a significant structure... the bridge deck.  The beam (in an Atlantic) as it goes into the lee hulls has nearly no moment... just shear.  It can be much smaller and thus offer less resistance to waves and submerging.
• I hear what has been said about leaning the mast out and keep the boat from going past 70 degrees.  I can easily see that in Robert's smaller designs.  I'm having a little trouble with it for a 10,000 lb boat.  Mast tend to come away in roll overs.  It is said any mast that doesn't... is way over built and way too heavy.  In my minds eye, a boat traveling 20+ knots and has flipped at a rate that the helm couldn't save must have significant angular velocity.  When the mast and sail slaps the water, IT will come to a dead stop while the linear and angular inertia of the rest of the boat (27 feet up in the air) is certainly going to continue... result (I believe) is a snapped mast and flipping of the hulls.  Arguably, the HarryProa having a little chance is better than no chance at all with an Atlantic. 
• This may be a cardinal sin, but, I'm debating about putting the rudders on the windward hull also... see http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/album/1001384692/pic/461401281/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc  Structurally, I can tie all the major force producers into one structure.  See more in fluid dynamics section.

• I guess the heeling moment does get larger with an Atlantic when flying, but only as a result of exposing the bottom of the hull in addition to the sail forces, while a HarryProa windward hull shields the sail somewhat.  But in this size of a boat, I don't really thing exposing my bottom is really in the game plan... unless I've unloaded all the soft personnel and am racing.  And even then, I wouldn't be flying... just kissing.
• The main one that drove me toward a Harry Proa is the significant decrease in COE by lowering the base of the masts to the lee hull.  At first this was clear cut.  HOWEVER, strangely enough, if I go to wings or oversize wing masts (still debating that one also) the heeling moment is far less than a sail.  My calculations show I can not get the lard-ass, windward hull up so I can get to the 25+ knots Michlet says the lee hull could do if unburdened.  So in this strange case, its better to put the masts up on the windward hulls to actually encourage heeling.  Yes, I know, I could put larger wings/sails on the leeward hull, but that adds to the trailering issues. 
• If I put the rudders under the mast bases (on the windward hull) all that splashing and spray as seen on the all the videos, is under the bridgedeck and we have a cleaner view from the bridgedeck overlooking the lee hull.
• With the rudders on the windward side, flying the hull reduces leeway prevention and thus lets it slide.

I think that's all, but I'll bring up more, when they hit me.  HELP!  Stop the voices.

Dennis