My thoughts for the bug include:

1. Level and fair the beams.  That means you would raise the lw hull between masts to give deeper mast bury as well.  Although mast bury into the hull is really irrelevant in the way you are showing moment carried between mast and beam. 

2.  With raised mid section on the lw hull consider sloping and peaking deck to the stems.  I expect it would be possible to reduce the reserve buoyancy in the ends without risking pitchpole.

3.  It would be desirable to have safe access to the ww hull. Also the engineering in the extending ww hull struts would likely take up a lot of cabin space.  Maybe something similar to what the tris do with their ama folding arms.

4. You have not shown a helm.  

5.  I take it that the connection between the beams and mast stub as drawn is stylistic rather than realistic.  The beams cantilever from the mast connection so would need to be much larger at that point than drawn.  In fact there is no advantage in the beam through the mast stub from an engineering perspective.  It would be better to resolve the moments through bulkheads in the hull. The beam would have a clevis in the side of the hull near deck level.  That clevis would be very large or it could be smaller if there was a second clevis for a brace coming from lower down toward the waterline.  This image shows the folding beam on a tri with its brace:

These pivot in the vertical plane of course but the brace dramatically reduces the stresses in the beam.

6.  I take the rudder mounts as place holders.  There is considerable detail in getting rudders strong enough.  

 

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use