I can not tell if this a draw out but in its demand I will follow...
With, while the endorphins are freshly flowing. I notice you cross reference from another group in which you seem to realize that the benefits of other craft that you have placed paramount on the finesse of understanding their requirements of such craft being discussed.
Thus, it really only comes down to if the hull forms have been truly optimized for what condition? Expressing conditions is crucial in the fact that all forms have been optimized to there fullest.
In the end the ever changing state, the body of water abound will determine the end result we can only quantify the hulls result to suit our individual needs when hull forms themselves have truly been optimized on a defined craft.
Todd
Just more mind control...
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "John" <jrwells2007@...> wrote:
>
> I am still trying to get my head around the preferred slenderness ratios. This topic has been discussed on the proafile site but I wish to consider only the Harryproa type as the other types of proa probably have other requirements.
> The leeward hull - able to support the full mass of the whole boat plus the downforce from the rig plus a margin. I believe that the outriggers of a trimaran have a similar requirement and currently favour buoyancy of about 300% of the total boat displacement (i.e. Farrier)? Then the length and waterline width of the lw hull uses a slenderness ratio of about 20 using a rounded hull that will achieve this buoyancy.
> The windward hull needs to support the intended loading only and the slenderness ratio becomes a compromise between minimum surface area (short and fat) and minimum wave making resistance (long and slender). Current preference of Rob's seems to be about 12 to 1. However the very competent Farrier tris seem to use about 8 or 9 to 1 to handle the same compromise. Additionally some people seem to lean towards 20 to 1 presumably considering that wave making resistance is more important for the speeds at which a proa will travel. Friction resistance from surface area might be handled with a larger rig at low wind speeds considering the stable platform of a proa.
> Comments? - especially for the ww hull.
>