Talador,

  It's going to be hard to find a design that's easier to build, easier to assemble/mount/demount, or requires less material and expense, than the harryproa.  So that's a good start, at least in in the opinion of someone who likes the HP design.

  It is tough to get past seeing problems, or, um, things that can be optimized, isn't it?  It sounds like that was your prior job, and if you're going to spend $100k building a dream cruiser, it's definitely your job now.

  But I have to say, it's tough to improve upon the basic harryrpoa design.  The more I look at it, the fewer ways I find to make it better.


RIG, MASTS, RUDDERS

  I'm a fan of the beam mounted kickup rudders, schooner rig, and round masts (ideally non-rotating, but that depends upon the rig choice).

  Briefly:

    - A schooner rig would yield a simpler and less-expensive structure by putting all the sailing loads in a single hull, would allow you to do your sail handling, shunting, and fine-tuning with the weather at your back, and would be able to use the sails to steer, shunt, and get out of irons if you ever lose one or both rudders. 

    - Then you'd be able to open up the windward hull for more accommodations, even if you're already planning on on that Airstream mounted on the beams.  Some would also argue that the lead sail will help with airflow over the aft sail.

    - Round poles will have more windage and be slightly less efficient than wing masts, but they'll be a lot safer in a gale or hurricane if there's trouble with the bearings.  They'll even sail less while on the hook, which is a problem for some multi's with big wing masts. 

    - The kickup rudders need little explanation, particularly if you're going to be in shallow draft waters.  Not every coral head is on a chart, and there's a lot to be said about being able to safely beach a boat, even if a rudder-retraction mechanism jams (or is forgotten).

    - I'd probably go with tillers and long extensions as shown on the woodenboat competition design Rob did.  I much prefer tillers over wheels, and going with tiller extensions eliminates the cost and complexity of a steering system.


  For an exhaustive explanation for the rig, masts, and kickup rudders, see post 1023 in the forum:

    https://au.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/harryproa/conversations/messages/10213


MOTOR

  I'm currently confused about the motor.  I like outboards for their simplicity and removability, but I also don't want to trust them out in the weather if there's a big storm.

  If I had to build a boat today, I'd probably mount an outboard on a sled.

  But I also like the idea of an enclosed retractable outboard like the Presto 30:

    http://www.sailmagazine.com/sailboat-reviews/presto-30
    http://www.rodgermartindesign.com/portfolio/presto-30/

  I was on one in a harbor a few years ago, and I have to say that the retracting mechanism is pretty slick.

  I'd also consider a propulsion-rated retractable thruster driven by batteries and a genset.

  Both would be well-protected, yet easy to work on if needed, would represent little or no drag when retracted, and would be highly unlikely to pop out of the water in waves.

---

  Is there a specific reason for the biplane rig that would outweigh the schooner's benefits? 

  I really liked Schionning's Radical Bay when I first saw it, but scrapped the idea because the proa would be faster and less expensive, would have the possibility of popping back up from a capsize if not too heavily loaded, and would have real double bunks.

  Would your living pod be removable?  It would be neat to have the option of turning your cruiser into a massive racer/daysailer, though you'd probably need a yard crane at that size.

        - Mike

 

Mike - "I look forward to seeing the design you eventually settle upon."

Well then help me out please. I am a better critic than a designer, and it shows. I look at everything out there and just see problems : (

Here are the goals.

!. The living accommodations have to be large enough and spacious enough for full time cruising for the next 10 to 15 years.  Primarily to keep my wife happy.  That means a full kitchen, storage, etc. and a bed she can make easily.

2. Shallow water capability. Our preferred anchorages and some passages are quite shallow.  There is a spot just south of Duncan town in the Bahamas where there is a hurricane hole with beautiful beaches, island, etc. etc. that we love to sit at, great snorkeling, fishing, beach walking etc.  Sneaking in there and anchoring during hurricane season is the goal.

3. Speed.  I believe speed can cover a multitude of sins. like getting me through an inlet, in the daylight, with the tide and wind to my advantage.  Vs wallowing around waiting for the night to pass and the weather to change.

4. I would like to build all the boat's fiberglass components in my basement.  It is 44' long, 2500 square feet, I built an airplane there, and then assemble the boat on the coast.

The basic idea is a 20 m Harry Bi-plane, basically a catamaran design with a rotating wing mast in each hull.  Think Team Phillips, minus the disaster.

In between each hull I would build the fiberglass equivalent of an airstream trailer for living accommodations. Rounded corners and edges go a long way to reduce drag and yet give spacious interior accommodations.

I personally like the idea of putting four retractable rudders in the hulls each one hydraulically steerable and mounting two small outboards on the sterns.

But in light of the 'discussion' with Rick I am rethinking the inboard mounted rudders.  The HP rudder system is draggyer (sp) and wetter, but at the speeds I am aiming for has some very nice advantages.  There is no point in going for flat out speed if I never intend to go flat out or have the power to do so.  Then the HP rudders look very nice especially for my second most requirement, shallow draft. Is there a better way to do them, especially for the waves hitting the controlling structure?

And then the motors, I need the motors for anchoring and going in and out of inlets against the current and waves, etc. I am well aware of the problems with stern mounted motors and would prefer inboards, but then again they conflict with the shallow draft requirement.

And then the more subtle problems, should the entire structure be stiff and rigid?  It adds weight and cost which becomes a downward design spiral. Or should the living pod basically be separate and not contribute to the structural stiffness?  That is the way Team Phillips went.

Oh and for number 5. Cost is important, not the most important item but lower costs makes it all more achievable. Luckily this is where Rob's approach works very well, making it all light and stiff can be cost effective.  Which help achieve the top 4 goals.

Talador