It depends on just how much stuff or people you need to carry around with you.
You say you want to liveaboard, does that mean always and sell the farm or house and burn the bridges or would you still go back home and leave the boat wherever it was for a few months. There would be a big difference between the two.
Assuming still having a land base to return to would mean you could keep things much lighter on board.
And what sort of hobby or activities would you be getting up to other that travel/tourist things.
I would want a fair few books etc.
On Friday, 1 March 2019 11:23:33 AM AWST, StoneTool owly@ttc-cmc.net [harryproa] <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au> wrote:
The drag of a narrow hull clearly
is less than that of a wider hull, so achieving the displacement
needed to support the mast depression with a long narrow hull
clearly is more efficient. I guess that is enough to explain the
length....... it allows or a highly efficient length to beam
ratio. There are two things to consider however. One is the
performance, the other the human factor. How much usable
internal space there is for a multitude of purposes. The long
slender hull provides very little usable space for people, and the
human space is all concentrated in the windward hull. To get the
space for a more or less permanent live aboard voyaging boat
requires a much larger boat than would be called for with two
equal hulls. I don't consider two equal hulls and a full width
integrated bridge deck cabin "de-optimized" in any respect other
than performance..... it's a matter of mission. If the mission
is speed the design decisions are different than if the mission is
space, payload, comfort, and privacy. I consider Rob's
designs elegant and unique, and I think I've said before, I tend
to think of him alongside Buckminster Fuller, a man I have
admired since my pre-teen years for his unique and innovative
approach to nearly everything.
H.W.
On 2/28/19 11:06 AM,
realink@iprimus.com.au [harryproa] wrote:
> What is the rationale behind having two unequal length hulls on an HP.
So two hulls, the one to leeward takes all the pressure, to windward the weight.Leeward is long and narrow enhancing the speed length ratio, the pressure on the rig pushes the hull for drive but also rotates around the hull to leeward. Meanwhile the windward on rotation of the leeward is lifted somewhat out of the water to reduce drag.
Alternatives: If you had equal length hulls it would be largely be wasted on the partially lifted leeward hull, and the extra length would add to weight consuming stores weight. On the other hand if you reduce the leeward hull length it was crush its speed length advantage.
At the end of the day a proa is an optimised catamaran, that has the disadvantage of always having to have the wind on one side if speed/performance and reduced drag is the major consideration.
So my question is, why would you want to de-opt imise back to a catamaran?
__._,_.___
Posted by: Doug Haines <doha720@yahoo.co.uk>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a new topic | • | Messages in this topic (18) |
SPONSORED LINKS
.