What I'm saying is if you look at Ono nothing particular with this boat just that it has the most photo's of parts being discussed on land and sitting in water. Perfect visual, What I'm saying is . Why not raise the preset ride height of leeward hull to match the same height as windward hull making level keels. Give leeward hull the same fuller shape rocker etc... as windward hull minus the cabin. Or add anothet cabin for more space use entire boat but being care full not to over load. Back to leeward hull new shape wouldn't this small adjustment free up leeward hull when pressed due to what has been discussed so far? I no piercing hulls should be allowed to run through water sure but with sail heeling induced canting of hull at what point can the rage can it be expanded taking this into consideration. Your windward hull looks to ride really well compared to leeward hull. Over all I think there are two force to balance static load and active load. Proa squared seemed really well balanced so did square harry/slam tacker. Both hulls were in balance with static and active loads. Proa skeeUed shows active loads. And I would say its on the side of being under balanced to leeward. Deffinately under balanced if I move weight of mast and sail and steering boards to leeward hull. See where I'm going? Enough Bouyancy preset to prevent under balance. Just my opinion
no money! no boatbuilding! I know what I want but(yes but)I know what my family would Like ;)
Todd
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> Todd,
> There are structural and wetted surface reasons for not reducing the
> waterline beam, wider decks encourage pitchpoling if they are submerged and
> the lee hull only draws 6", so making it shallower would not achieve much.
> Rare Bird has been to 18 knots, no reason to believe there is not plenty
> more left in the tank, particularly as BD is 2/3rds the weight.
>
> Look forward to seeing you design (and build) something quicker.
>
> rob
>