For a Harry schooner, the masts can be outside the cockpit area when collapsed.
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Dennis Cox <dec720@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Mike,
>
> I'm not sure I see your showstopper yet. I've been very careful not to make a
> design decision that precludes a HarryProa, Atlantic, sloop or schooner. To
> tuck the lee hull under the windward on the trailer does limit the size and thus
> the mast bury. However for the schooner rig, the bury doesn't need to be that
> tall... because it'll transmit the moment directly into the cross beam. If you
> can make an ~8" diameter tube mast take that moment, making a joint within a
> 2.5'x3.5' cross section isn't going to be a problem. A sloop is a little more
> difficult, unless you put a center beam across... in which case its moot also.
>
>
> The design I've posted is my number 6. I'm currently on number 7. I think my
> version 1 was Atlantic sloop with the mast in the center of a rotating clamshell
> top. Getting a saloon, master birth and master bath in a 16' diameter was
> problematic. The mast would drive up through the center of the domed room.
> There's lot of issues... that's why I went to version 2. But here it is if you
> want to see a belly flop.
>
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/album/1001384692/pic/1512791390/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc
>
>
> For me, to make mine a HarryProa. I have a big trouble rigging.
> (1) dolly the center section of the lee hull off the trailer.
> (2) have to use a mini crane (engine hoist based hopefully) to lift over the
> bridge deck.
> (3) Slide the beams in, fasten.
> (4) dolly the lee hull to attach to beams.
> (5) Problem - Raising the masts... they're now twenty feet away from the mini
> crane mounted on the trailer. Haven't figure a solution for that yet.
>
> With yours... it should be easier. Since you already have steps 1-4 inherently
> on done, you just need to raise the mast with the mini crane. It doesn't really
> matter if its HarryProa or Atlantic style... the crane should reach to the lee
> hull almost as easily as the windward.
>
> Scissor beams - I don't want to argue or be negative either, but I could suggest
> many reasons. I tried working it into a design.
>
>
> Something like this... who knows... this might be number 7, 8...
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/photos/album/1001384692/pic/188812332/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc
>
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mike Crawford <jmichael@...>
> To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
> Sent: Tue, July 27, 2010 2:05:51 PM
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: 60' Trailerable Proa
>
>
> << I am certainly not implying any superiority of the Atlantic design>>
>
> Hey, no worries even if you are. They are both impressive ways to have one's
> cake and eat it too.
>
> Please note that none of this is an argument for Rob's Harryproa design. I'm
> just a fan of being as safe, simple, inexpensive, and fast as possible, and most
> of Rob's design elements work for what I'd like to do.
>
> At this point, arguing atlantic-vs- harryrpoa is almost like splitting hairs.
> But that's what forums are for!
>
> Perhaps your ideas will infect my brain, and I'll end up pining for an
> atlantic rig. Actually, most atlantic proas don't appeal to me, so it's not the
> rig that would sway my building plans. I'm sold on the leeward rig.
>
> What would cause me to consider an atlantic rig is the fact that you've solved
> one issue that is close to being a showstopper for me: how to have a trailerable
> multihull with an enclosed saloon, where my wife and daughter can stay warm
> while I'm out enjoying a nice fall or spring sail.
>
> Rig now the family debate is between an Etap 32 monohull (the next boat *must*
> be unsinkable) and a Harryproa. On July days when it's 80 degrees, my wife and
> I are both for the proa. But as soon as the temperature dips down to 70, which
> means it will be cooler on the water, My wife is set on the boat with a heated
> saloon.
>
>
> Since I'm not willing to spend $350k on a Dragonfly, and wouldn't want to deal
> with a stayed rig even if I did have the extra cash, that puts us at an
> impasse. There's no real argument going on, but we're also not making any
> decisions either.
>
> ---
>
> My current ideal boat would be your design with a leeward rig, even if that
> means going to a 10' or 12' trailering width. I'd trail the boat so little,
> mostly just once in the spring and once in the fall, that I wouldn't mind
> getting the wide load permit.
>
>
> I would probably go with scissors beams like cat2fold, which would keep the
> boat together and vertical while expanding or contracting on the water. Rafe
> Francke quoted me $2,500 for a license to his patent to build a boat, and that's
> something I'd be willing to pay in this case. With the scissors beams and a
> wider collapsed width, the leeward hull can stay upright and "structural" . In
> this case, putting the rig into the leeward hull versus the windward hull
> probably wouldn't make much difference in terms of setting it up or breaking it
> down. It would also be nice to be able to collapse the boat on the water to fit
> into a slip, if needed.
>
> Most people seem to be planning on telescoping beams, saying they'll cost
> less, and that they will be more than stiff enough. I can't imagine them being
> as stiff as the scissors beams (though they will be lighter), while also being
> easy to expand and collapse, but I'm not going to argue with anyone. I'm sure
> they'll both work, and I'd always welcome the chance to be proven wrong by
> Robert's upcoming build.
>
> The 8.5' design limit would probably preclude leaving the leeward hull
> attached, though. You could still use the scissors beams, but you'd have to
> demount the leeward hull to trail the boat.
>
> In any case, it's a beautiful boat. I must confess that the low, skinny
> leeward hull is particularly appealing.
>
> - Mike
>
>
>
> On 7/26/2010 7:17 PM, Dennis Cox wrote:
>
> >Hey Mike, et al.
> >
> >I have the greatest respect for Robert's HarryProa. I am certainly not implying
> >any superiority of the Atlantic design. In fact, most of the reasons are not
> >performance related. Also, its interrelated with the steering leeway resistance
> >issue. I am hoping someone here might take pitty on my fence riding and give me
> >something definitive that tips the scale either way for good... but hear me out,
> >because these are the things that am pushing me toward the Atlantic.
> >
> >Non Performance Reasons
> >These are reasons that have to do with the trailerable aspect or for me
> >personally. They have nothing to do with one design being superior to the
> >other.
> > * 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.
> >Structural
> >IMO and for a schooner rig, one design has no significant advantage over the
> >other.
> > * 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.
> >Fluid Dyanmics
> >Out of my comfort zone, but...
> > * 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
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________
> From: Mike Crawford <jmichael@gwi. net>
> >To: harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au
> >Sent: Mon, July 26, 2010 5:07:09 PM
> >Subject: [harryproa] Re: 60' atlantic proa
> >
> >
> >Dennis,
> >
> > That is extremely cool. Thanks for pointing out the video link. You could
> >probably do this with a purpose-built trailer and a stub mast in a separate
> >socket (1/3 full mast height, used to lift the primary mast at its center of
> >gravity) , no crane required.
> >
> >
> > Now I *really* want to see you build it. I've said many times that i want the
> >largest trailerable boat I can get, and this would certainly qualify. Actually,
> >I'd be willing to put up with a 12' width, but fitting into 8.5' is even more
> >impressive.
> >
> > I had actually brought up atlantic vs. harryrproa in a post right before the
> >one you responded to, but for some reason the post didn't make it. (thus my
> >comment about ignoring my question about how the boat goes on the trailer).
> >
> > I'm partial to the harryproa design for the following reasons: a) more space
> >in the windward hull, b) heeling moment decreases, or remains the same, as you
> >fly a hull, while heeling moment increases with the atlantic design, c)
> >stresses are in line with the hull, while the atlantic has to translate rig
> >stress through the beams to that long leeward hull, and d) the possibility of
> >popping back up after a knockdown.
> >
> > As far as handling the sails, a leeward design might offer more safety in a
> >schooner configuration (from the tramp), while a single mast would probably
> >offer safer sail handling with the atlantic (from the cockpit).
> >
> > But I'm sure you're familiar with all that. Your design has more than enough
> >space to deal with masts in the windward hull, and the taller leeward hull
> >needed for a rig there might get in the way of your trailering setup. As long
> >as you don't sail on the very edge, there shouldn't be any issues.
> >
> > I wouldn't put on a pod for safety as cavalier suggests. If you're sailing an
> >atlantic proa hard enough to fly a hull, in anything other than flat water,
> >there's a good chance you'll be going fast enough to trip over any pod small
> >enough to justify its own weight penalty.
> >
> > What are you planning for steering and leeway resistance?
> >
> > - Mike
> >
> >
> >On 7/26/2010 2:43 PM, Dennis Cox wrote:
> >
> >>Hey Mike,
> >>
> >>Did you see the video... on post #9. It might clear things up. Unless you've
> >>already seen it... :)
> >>
> >>Also, I'm still bouncing between Atlantic and HarryProa placement of the sails
> >>(windward, leeward hulls). I've got pros and cons on both sides and the tally
> >>list is still balanced. Fortunately, the hulls and internal configurations
> >>don't have to be changed either way. So... I've got PLENTY of time to decide.
> >>
> >>
> >>Dennis
>