Short by means to have a place to put it. For us city folk that means in an extended driveway usually an add on to the home designed for motor home or R/V parking "if your city allows it" or by the side of the house 40'l x 8 1/2w is hard to come bye. 30-32x 8 1/2 feet is easier for most considering how houses are positioned on the lots in a mid class city neighborhood.
Distributing the load more evenly over the two shorter hulls to keep hulls narrower to maintain performance.
I posted a diagram in the photo's nonharry folder of a coastal cruiser with accommodation I drew a couple years back. A little more tweaking might be a compromise for a 32' narrow hulled ProaCat. A compromise between Atlantic and a Pacific. I call it CatProa or PraoCat depending on which day of the week it is. lol
Todd
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote:
>
> What was the "performance hit"?You can go up in sail if you have gone out in lw hull length.Hence your speed gets better. Your ww hull doesn't need so much length?Hmmmn. Maybe it does need a certain amount of length.'It certainly needs to not get too fat anyway. Doug
>
> --- On Wed, 11/5/11, Mike Crawford <mcrawf@...> wrote:
>
> From: Mike Crawford <mcrawf@...>
> Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Gougeon 32' foot 8 1/2 feet beam trailer to water ready
> To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
> Date: Wednesday, 11 May, 2011, 3:57
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <<We need to be far longer in proportion to the accomodations
> I think. Or is it just that we can afford to go longer without much
> extra weight and expense?>>
>
>
>
> Both! Of course, I'm guessing the question was semi-rhetorical.
>
>
>
> The cost is low enough to where it's silly to try to save money
> with shorter hulls -- the performance hit wouldn't generate any
> real savings.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure one /can/ accurately explain the whole proa length
> thing. I try to explain the 40 footer as a really fast 30-footer,
> the same way an Outremer 45 has the accommodation space of some
> 35-foot cruising catamarssn. Since people seem to somewhat
> readily accept that the Outremer is a fast boat that has added
> length for performance, they seem to start to understand the
> proa.
>
>
>
> However, that doesn't help people get over their discomfort with
> the unexpected proa form factor. And I'm not sure there's much
> that can be said in that department to convince a naysayer of the
> proa's value.
>
>
>
> Gardner was trying to find a succinct and convincing explanation
> for a while. Any luck with that, Gardner?
>
>
>
> - Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug Haines wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That video has some nice hull flying in it.
> Not a huge cabin. But of a camper class cruiser
> maybe.
>
> Well it is the long hulls that I loved about
> sidecar (lw hull at least).
> It sticks way out and is so thin and slices
> through not hobby-horsing.
> No wake turbulence and so on.
> There are a few people doing there large
> cruising cat with 40' accomodations but extending
> out their cat hulls to about 60'. Longer but
> skinnier.
> I don't think the leeward hull length of a proa
> should be compared exactly to a catamaran length
> though. We need to be far longer in proportion to
> the accomodations I think.
> Or is it just that we can afford to go longer
> without much extra weight and expense?
>
> Doug
> Western Australia.
>