Subject: Re: [harryproa] german sol ww hull
From: "Rob Denney harryproa@gmail.com [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au>
Date: 10/7/2015, 10:44 PM
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Reply-to:
harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au

 

All of these are/were for a reason, so given the same constraints, they would all be used again, apart from the round bottom which has been replaced with the flat as it is easier to build, lighter and has less windage as the hull can be lower.
eg
The beam angle gives more or less tramp space for cruising or racing
Berth ends are pretty much a function of the shape of the rest of the hull
The short overhang is to provide bench space, stiffen the hull and keep it narrow.
Cockpit seat direction is a matter of choice and the rest of the layout.

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 5:49 AM, lucjdekeyser@telenet.be [harryproa] <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au> wrote:
 

Rob, given the evolution in your designs what would be the most important changes to the german sol ww hull? Flat bottom? beams orthogonal to the hulls? straight ends to the berths? Would you keep the short overhang to ww? cockpit seats parallel to the hull like the norwegian 20m? 


__._,_.___
Posted by: Rob Denney <harryproa@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a new topic • Messages in this topic (2)

.

__,_._,___