Thank you, Rob. It is interesting to follow your train of thoughts and seeing the design evolve making different compromises. Weighing the value of each shows the mastery.
To a naive eye it seems sorry to find the beams not flush with the bottom of the cabin. Raising the beams the height of the diameter of the beam would encroach only some of the bunk space and cross the volume under the seat (it is not easy to estimate how much from the pictures alone). Of course, you have a better appreciation of all the other "strings" this design change would be attached to, like raising the attachment on the lw hull.
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:41 AM, LucD <lucjdekeyser@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > You taught me to abhor holes in the hull: as the beam is not pulled all
> > the way through the ww hull, what about gluing a female mold of the beam
> > end in the form of a cup on the external side of the hull instead of
> > creating holes?
> >
> The reason for the hole is to use the hull as support. A cup would require
> a bulkhead. The hole is well above the water line and is well reinforced
> (tow in the infusion, very tricky). If there was a bulkhead already there,
> then the cup would be a better solution. Would also be better to go
> through to the other side, but that would make access to the bunks tricky.
> Parallel beams would have solved that, but keeping the big tramp tight
> would be almost as much load as flying a hull.
>
> Mischa,
> Thanks. I agree.
>
> rob
>
> > .<http://au.groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMmZqdWZ2BF9TAzk3NDkwNDMzBGdycElkAzEwMzA2MzIyBGdycHNwSWQDMTc0MDA2NTc5MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM4MjY0MzY2OQ-->
> >
> >
> >
>