Subject: Re: [harryproa] EX40
From: "=?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJu?= bjornmail@gmail.com [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au>
Date: 10/25/2019, 10:37 AM
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Reply-to:
harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au

 

I assume he was trying to mock me for a stupid question. But my questions was serious. I have read that the ideal is in the area of 14:1. That may have been the ideal given different constraints than what was used for the design of this boat though.

For me the answer (speed) is not as given as for you guys. Because I have been playing with simulations of hulls. And from what I could learn, these light hulls have a pretty negligible wave resistance. So the width is not as important as in heavier boats. The wetted surface is the important parameter. But on a second look, it looks like the hull is already stretching the beam a bit away from the ideal. So I think this explains it. If it is made wider, it will have higher wetted surface. When the dimension are close to the ideal beam, large changes in beam results in only small changes in surface area. But if the beam is already stretched, an increase might results in a noticeable increase in area / decrease in speed. So it's a matter of how far from ideal it is now, if it can be stretched without a penalty.

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 3:52 PM '.' eruttan@yahoo.com [harryproa] <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au> wrote:
 



| 20:1 sounds cool.

I did a spit take Doug. Hilarious.

| I love it.Nice layout of the cockpit (and cabin).
| I have two points to discuss:What's the advantage of having such a slender lee hull?

Fast to sail.
But it is interesting to ask, if the lee hull was 10:1, how much slower would it be?

__._,_.___

Posted by: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJu?= <bjornmail@gmail.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a new topic Messages in this topic (14)

.

__,_._,___