Doug,
Oh, I get you... not that it was too wide on leeward... it was two narrow on the windward.
I'm wanting to experiment with the articulating hulls Rob's described in the past. The windward hull will be on a bearing attached to the beam so that it takes the waves the way its wants to versus the way the lee hull tells it to. It'll be its own master so to speak. Hoping this will make it faster. As a result, I can't really widen those diagonal beams on the windward side... they have to attach to the center beam before going into the windward hull.
I imagine, that at low wind speeds, I'll be on the tramp closer to the mast trying to get the windward hull flying. At higher wind speeds, I'll move out toward and finally on the windward hull to counter the heeling force. I made the windward hull wide enough to get my butt inside. I was thinking a small cock-pit type arrangement sitting on the floor (with lots of pillows) and poking my eyes up just above the cross beam. With Rick's clues about how bad my beams are and his experience pushing his blunt body via his muscles suggests that getting a square meter of crew out of the wind might (understatement) be beneficial in the VPP and reality.
Dennis
From: Doug Haines <doha720@yahoo.co.uk>
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Sent: Mon, August 23, 2010 8:38:23 AM
Subject: Re: [harryproa] My Little Mule (sketch)
I thought you'd need more to sit and walk on.
The ww hull is where the beams could be seperated more distance apart.
Doug
--- On Mon, 23/8/10, Dennis Cox <dec720@att.net> wrote:
From: Dennis Cox <dec720@att.net>
Subject: Re: [harryproa] My Little Mule (sketch)
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Date: Monday, 23 August, 2010, 20:39
Hi Doug,
I wanted the rudders out pretty far and I wanted the beams to be just outside those to help transmit the rudder loads. With this three beam design there is almost no torsion of the lee hull. Helps since its of relatively week lauan. Since its doesn't have to racking loads and the trigulation resists all the in-plane shear loads it should be a very stiff and strong structure without resorting to exotic materials or lots of fiberglass. But... I didn't factor any thinking for the trampoline. I just assumed the triangle... 8' x 9' wouldn't be an issue. But then I've never made one. Is there one?
Thanks,
Dennis
From: Doug Haines <doha720@yahoo.co.uk>
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Sent: Sun, August 22, 2010 9:29:09 PM
Subject: Re: [harryproa] My Little Mule (sketch)
Hi Dennis,
Nice.
How about the netting/trampoline? Maybe splay those outside beams less.
Doug
--- On Sun, 22/8/10, Dennis Cox <dec720@att.net> wrote:
From: Dennis Cox <dec720@att.net>
Subject: [harryproa] My Little Mule (sketch) [1 Attachment]
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Date: Sunday, 22 August, 2010, 18:43
This is my current thinking... although, I want to re-check my numbers based on Rick's last message about using an aspect ratio of 7 to 8 and see if how much I can reduce the size of the rudders. Since I have no way of doing a non destructive rudder strike, I will be evaluating that some. Its configured to articulate the hulls and I have some ideas to restrict that motion, but they're not in the drawing. Windward hulls been analyzed with Godzilla is about 10% more drag than a semi circle cross section... again... hopefully, can get it planing early and overcome that deficiency. Can always sit on back of windward hull (with the articulation) raise the nose to encourage planing. With the big flat bottom, expect it won't be too difficult. Although it will be a bumpy
ride!
|
|