rob,
re. the cost of downwind extras: i would think adding a spinnaker to a unarig would be a vastly cheaper way of adding downwind sail area then adding a second mast or even lengthening a single one. aerodynamically better too. and lighter. and used with a sock or a furler i don't see the douse as being more of a hassle.
re. wyliecats:
"They are untouchable upwind especially in a breeze... WylieCat's are not down wind rockets". http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe/2002/catty.htm
"they haven't done well in the big downwind ocean races. If you add a spinnaker to a Wyliecat 30, you get totally hammered on your rating". http://forum.woodenboat.com/archive/index.php/t-154551.html
"The <wyliecat> 48 can beat a Santa Cruz 50 upwind in 25 knots... downwind in light air you'd feel the lack of a chute." http://www.wyliecat.com/about/about_wylie48.html
i believe at least two wyliecat 30 owners have added poles and symmetric spins to their rigs, and at least one was dismasted because of the holes drilled in the mast to secure the pole's collar. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wyliecats/message/452
it is also interesting to note that the wyliecat 44, which came out after the 30, has a spinnaker listed as a factory option. http://www.wyliecat.com/models/wylie_44.html
since we're on the topic of wyliecats, could you please help me understand the tradeoffs between a wishbone boom, as they have and as you've drawn for solitarry, and a boom with a rigid gooseneck as exists on all your other boats. the former is only under compression, the latter is bending as well. the former's weight is more aloft, but is it lighter? better control of sail shape with one or the other? more windage with the former when lying ahull i guess.
i ask because i wonder about the possibility of using a wyliecat rig, not just the design but the actual real thing, on a harryproa. the wyliecat 30 has a sail area of 590 sq ft and the wyliecat 39 has 910 sq ft. your 12m harry is listed as 452 sq ft and the visionarrys are listed as 774 sq ft. close enough?
but does a free standing mast need to bend differently on a multihull than it does on a monohull? does the greater initial stability of a proa warrant a more flexible mast so it handles gusts better? if the two could be identical, then it might be better to have them manufactured here, by the same manufacturer, using the same mandrel, than making them two-piece shippable:
http://www.composite-eng.com/composite-engineering-spars/spar-photos-videos-and-links
ben
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
> All that aside, downwind extras are a good idea if you want to go faster
> and don't mind the added hassle and cost. Tacking the headsail to the beam
> is the same aerodynamically as the ballestron jib when the rig is eased, so
> no problem. Go for it.
>
> I am a keen follower of the Wylie cats, although it is very hard to get any
> credible information on them. Where did you get the "they are pigs
> downwind" information from, please?
>