Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re:: Web page update
From: "Rob Denney harryproa@gmail.com [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au>
Date: 4/21/2016, 9:41 PM
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Reply-to:
harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au

 

Looks good.

Few things:
Bridge deck clearance on the ww hull can be much less than on the lee hull as, except for motoring directly into the waves, the hull is lifted before the wave hits the deck.  200mm is probably pushing it (although probably not a problem "most of the time") and wave slap is annoying, but should not be a structural problem.
Edges should be rounded, for structural and drag purposes. 
The lee hull should be at least a metre high in the middle or the masts and hull get heavy.  The boom on the mast could reduce this, but again, the mast sleeve should be very well supported.  Pretty much anything can be done in this area, but the longer the distance between load points (the bury), the easier. Maybe a step in the lee side of the ww hull to facilitate a higher lee hull?
Lee hull bow height may be too low, depending on overall weight.   Longer is not only safer, but faster and more comfortable.
Big windows are scary, if you are sailing in big seas.  If they are glass, they are heavy.  If plastic, they need to be broken down into smaller areas so they can expand.  Check with the supplier.  Second attempt solves this.
What Rick said about windage.

Rob Riley,
The C40 renderings should be on the web page this weekend.  Look forward to your comments.  Definitely a lot to learn from all the "small house" projects that are cropping up.



On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:35 AM, robriley@rocketmail.com [harryproa] <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au> wrote:
 

even at that, 650mm is better than some older cats, with clearance in the order of 200mm.


__._,_.___

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 (43)

.

__,_._,___