I can trailer it at the 4.2m width but would require permits etc. The 4.2m telescoping is to reduce width in launching, marinas and narrow waterways. For extended towing, it can be separated and towed at 3m wide and 15m long, requiring wide and long load signs but no special permits but there are time restrictions. The ww hull is to be 3m wide and the lw hull 1.2m. This gives about 700mm bury in the w hull when expanded. I played with a few designs for folding but wanted to be able to leave the mast stepped when collapsed. A very rough concept diagram is in the files under Robert's Harry.

--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Dennis Cox <dec720@...> wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> Does that mean you trailer it at the 4.2m width?  That should make it far easier
> to rig.  I'm looking at a half day rig time at best.  That sounds like same
> dimensions (except width) of a Visionarry.  Did you start from Rob's plans?  Are
> you sliding for the extra width or doing some kind of Ferrier jointed
> articulation?  Do you have pictures posted?
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: robert <cateran1949@...>
> To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
> Sent: Tue, July 27, 2010 8:09:21 AM
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: 60' Trailerable Proa
>
>  
> Thanks Dennis,
> I can't give any definitive argument either way. I designed a small schooner
> Atlantic proa and it made sense. I am going for the Harry configuration for my
> 15/10 Harry as the boats work and the stresses seem to have been worked out.
> I have designed mine to be able to sail gently at 4.2m wide and stretch to 6.5m
> wide and be easily trailable with a long load sign and wide load sign.
> regards,
> robert.
> PS I am Robert and Harryproa Rob is Rob.
>
> --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Dennis Cox <dec720@> 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@>
> > To: harryproa@yahoogroups.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
> >
>