Luc,

  Assuming the engineering and build quality were equal for both boats, I'd say there's a long collection of reasons why the HP is going to be fundamentally more safe than the Gunboat.

  The short list:

     - The unstayed mast lacks dozens of points of failure, particularly with parts that could have microscopic manufacturing flaws and/or weak points due to stress fractures and crevice corrosion.

     - The unstayed mast allows for complete feathering into the wind at any angle, not only to reduce forces, but also to allow sail work and/or take a breather.  No worries about trying to reef a sail that stuck on the shrouds when the wind and seas won't let you luff it.

     - Potential to recover from a knockdown (not a guarantee, but at least there's a potential).

     - Bidirectional ability allows a change of course regardless of seas, wind, or proximity to a lee shore, and ensures the boat is ready to take big seas in either direction with wave-piercing hulls.  This also allows you to just stop and reverse to pick up a man overboard.

     - Rudder design allows rudders to raise, kick up, and be worked upon or removed if damaged.


  For a more exhaustive list of reasons, plus explanations, see posts 10224 and 10232 in the archives:

     https://au.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/harryproa/conversations/messages/10224
     https://au.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/harryproa/conversations/messages/10232

---

  In the end, the safest boat in a statistical sense is going to be the one with fewer features that can contribute to a disaster.

  I fell in love with a Dragonfly 920 two years ago when it came up for sale for $60k in California.  It really was a nice boat, and while the low price was due to having been grounded and repaired, I was contemplating taking the risk.

  Then I took a look at that massive mast with all those diamond stays and came to my senses.  Granted, it's a great boat for a "traditional" multihull, and even has a kick-up centerboard and rudder, but all those points of failure... 

  I also couldn't stop thinking about a time a few years ago when I was on a large ferry that was pinching a trimaran between itself and an approaching island, and there was nothing the smaller boat could do because the sail was pinned to the shrouds and the wind was too high to gybe given the amount of sail he had up.

  All sorts of worries go away with the right design.

         - Mike

Bill, I do not want to speculate on what happened to the Gunboat. I just take that situation and accept it as one that should be within the limits of a cruiser. Yes, all the factors that you mention matter. But what I am assuming is that for the sake of argument the design, engineering and manufacturing was up to par and that both designs would claim that the conditions mentioned in the first message are within the specifications. I can then ponder the architecture of the designs and given the same level of skills and diligence, conclude that the HP is fundamentally more safe (in that situation). Any bad built HP is going to be worse than a well built Gunboat and vice versa, But given equal design & built quality HP is the lesser prone to accidental failure. I am sure there are engineering methods to come up with the numbers. Sadly enough there won't be enough statistical ones to corroborate. Lacking those, overall design insight takes front stage. Do I overlook a fundamental vulnerability, again architecturally speaking?

Please remark that the equivalent HP would be mainsail only.