perhaps it doesn't make sense on a harry or the two tris you mentioned, where there are foils in the lee hull. but on the weta you would lose control if the main hull flew because that's where the only rudder is.
it is a big safety feature in my mind then that the <100% floats on the weta make it impossible to fly the main hull. it makes it MORE forgiving, not less. check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKuDEs_9sB8
the alternative on a boat with leeward foils is that you fly the main hull and risk capsizing to the side. which is more likely, that, or more drag from submerging a <100% float causing a pitchpole forward? i'm not sure. just thinking out loud here.
drag from the beams can be minimized. imagine a schooner harryproa whose two beams attach directly to faired stub masts. load paths wouldn't go through the hull, and with a smaller volume to boot, would be lighter too, no?
ben
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Paul Wilson <opusnz@...> wrote:
> So what is the alternative? Less volume and it will go deeper in the
> water until the beam hits the water causing more drag or it capsizes.
> If the leeward hull submerges easily you won't be able to drive the boat
> as hard and it will be unforgiving and possibly dangerous.