Mike Crawford  wrote:

|  Many apologies for the delay.  November through March is normally my busy season with software development, and this year I inherited two additional projects.  Email, group chats, and anything of the sort has taken a back seat.  Now that things have eased up, I have time to ponder fast-and-light multihulls.

de nada.

But a warning before said silence might be nice. maybe. I was worried I might have said something.

>    So, after five months of time to ponder, I've flip-flopped several times before coming back to my original position.
>
>   My personal goal: 
>
>     - A permanent retractable motor sled underneath the ww hull, with the motor itself being aft of the cockpit when retracted
>     - A simple winch, crank, or even set of blocks and a cleat, to raise/lower it
>     - The motor is accessible for basic maintenance from the cockpit
>     - Tramps between the cockpit and the lw hull
>
>   Reasoning:
>
>     - This is the lightest, fastest, cheapest way to go
>     - I'll daysail 95% of the time without a dinghy on board
>     - I'd like to be able to expand/collapse on the water without changing motor controls or moving the tender
>     - There's more under-cockpit clearance this way than if we try to cram the tender underneath
>     - And drive a single unit onto a bunk/multihull type trailer at any launch ramp

I wanna have a go at this, with the understanding we are beating up an idea, not a person.

I object to a motor in the cabin.
1 It is a danger for fires and explosion, assuming gas motor
2 I think most regulators  (not strictly relevant to us), for good reasons (see above) do not want enclosed engine compartments.
3 Objectionable fumes for humans in the cabin. Some more than others.
4 Prime cabin real estate regulated to low value engine space

>     - This is the lightest, fastest, cheapest way to go

While an enclosed, well sealed and externally well vented engine hole seems easy, it adds complexity and small cost.
Add the blocks and tackle and experimenting, and I am not sure its much cheaper or lighter than a tender.
A simple sled should be easy though

>     - I'll daysail 95% of the time without a dinghy on board

I suggest the ex40 tender is very different to a 'dinghy on board'. It's integrated and invisible, stupid easy to deploy and retrieve, and, like a dingy, adds a backup in case the boat is, somehow, disabled. That gives me a comfort.

>     - I'd like to be able to expand/collapse on the water without changing motor controls or moving the tender

I think Rob addressed this.
Rob, 01Nov "a single line would winch the boat in and out, with the tender locked in place.  It could then be lifted lowered as required.  Or, the boat could be telescoped with the stern down, even while motoring."

>     - There's more under-cockpit clearance this way than if we try to cram the tender underneath

I don't understand. the tender would only be underneath while trailering, or deploying, right?

Rob, you had said "The above assumes internal (ww inside lw) telescoping which will mean some changes to the deck layout."
Did you mean lw inside ww? so the tender, between the lw beams would slide under the ww hull?
Or would the ww inside the lw mean teh boat would need to attach to the bottom of the lw beams?

If we did the 'side by side' beam layout, and then canted them at an angle, such that, when deployed (opened), the boat attached beams could 'lift' the tender for wave clearance at sail, if needed, and still fit nice under the ww hull. Of course the retracted boat might sit at a funny cant.

More details to work out.

With a simple loosing of a line to deploy the tender motor, and clear line of sight to it, clear space to work on it, and it well vented and away from the cabin/guests, it seems perfect to me.

But, if a under ww hull sled were to be long enough to raise the engine outside the beams, you could have all the safety of outside venting, no lost space in the cabin and simple open and close.

And I thought you wanted a 60'?