Thanks for the reply Mike. May I continue with the conversation:
I am not sure just how great is the capsize problem for a cruiser. Multihull cruiser capsizes are extremely rare - when a cruiser goes over it is usually because the crew are pushing it too far, i.e. racing. Agreed that rig to windward adds a hazard but on top of a very small risk I think.
Reduced sheeting options is a good point. This would be helped using a windward pod for the crew but does not give as many options as rig to leeward.
Increased windage as you heel I agree - adds to the problem at just the wrong moment! Again this might be a small risk with a weighty cruiser.
A bulkier hull at the mast position would add weight, yes. How much can the support for the mast be taken by the beam itself in a schooner rig in which the masts are aligned with the beams?
Accommodation loss - maybe single berths where the masts are in a schooner rig - or the heads maybe. So even a schooner rig would compromise accommodation.
Fore and aft loads - good point. How much torsion is there on the beams in a cruiser due to the water drag forces on the windward hull in a rig to leeward? Probably less than the reverse but still not inconsiderable?
A benefit of rig to windward would be the balancing of the luffing component of the rig being off-set by the bearing off component due to the drag of the leeward hull? This aspect would be an attraction as it helps to solve a number of problems.
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Mike Crawford <mcrawf@...> wrote:
>
>
> I'd say there are several disadvantages.
>
> - As you point out, masts can't help prevent a capsize. Once you're
> over, you're over. With the rig(s) in the lw hull, you might have the
> chance to pop back up if things get pushed too far.
>
> - The shorter ww hull provides fewer options for sheeting angles.
> With rigs in the lw hull, you can sheet out further to the bows and/or
> back to the ww hull.
>
> - As you fly a hull, the sails raise higher into the air, getting more
> wind high up, and adding their area to the area of the tramps/deck
> that's catching wind. With rigs in the lw hull, the sails lower as the
> boat flies a hull, and the tramps/deck blanket the rigs.
>
> - The ww hull has to be a lot stronger to handle the structural loads,
> adding weight to the boat.
>
> - The ww hull would also lose some accommodation due to the masts.//
>
> - The fore/aft rig loads and fore/aft hull loads would be on different
> hulls, requiring the beams to carry a lot of torsion/wracking loads,
> requiring stronger beams and attachment points, adding weight to the
> boat. With rigs in the lw hull, the wind and water loads all line up on
> the same axis.
>
> Mike