So did I, yet the windsurfers still sail the angles dead down wind. Dave is
on this list, and may have some input. This is high on my list of things to
define, once I get to go sailing. This weekend was a fiasco on the F 24.
Rain and wind, during which I was too timid, then nothing. Got it flying
with the outboard in reverse, and it looked great, but as soon as it got
powered up, the boat started moving forward and it collapsed. Bit (lot)
more skill, we may have been able to wave it back and forth enough to get it
high enough and get the boat up onto a reach. May be trying it again this
weekend, on Ted Lamont's proa, otherwise the foillowing one on an 8m mono
and the F 24 again. Couple of weeks after that, we should be able to get
serious with it on Elementarry.

Regards,

Rob----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert" <cateran1949@...>
To: <harryproa@...>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 5:15 PM
Subject: [harryproa] Re: Beams to windward hull


> I thought the main point of tacking down wind was to increase the
> swept area. With a kite shouldn't you be able to increase the swept
> area without taking the boat the long way round.
> Robert
>
>
>
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@i...> wrote:
> > G'day,
> >
> > I intend to fly mine from the lee hull, with the tack lines through
> blocks
> > on the hull ends, and the sheet line to a block in the centre of
> the lee
> > hull. Shunting "should" just require lengthening/shortening the
> tack lines
> > and will be very quick. I do not expect to go dead down wind very
> much with
> > 40 sq m of kite. The apparent should always be well forward, so
> fouling the
> > sails "should" not occur.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rob
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > To: <harryproa@...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:38 PM
> > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Beams to windward hull
> >
> >
> > > I've been racking my brains as to how to shunt with a kite without
> > > tangling the lines in the mast. I've been thinking it might be
> > > possible to lift the kite into near vertical from the the back of
> the
> > > cockpit or even from the extreme ww edge to get over the rig and
> then
> > > transfer the lines from there to the crossbeams. Kite's make a
> lot of
> > > sense, in theory, for the power,lift and lack of capsizing moment.
> > > Dave Culp's video shows they can work. They should be excellent
> for
> > > long hauls where there is ample time for getting them aloft and
> > > retrieving them, though I am not convinced for when there is a
> lot of
> > > shunting going on. As I am more interested in cruising I feel they
> > > may be suitable. On a long downhill run you could drop the main
> rig
> > > and gybe.
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In harryproa@..., "Tony Richardson"
> > > <atrichardson@b...> wrote:
> > > > I think Rob wants to use a Kite and just put the rest in the
> I'll
> > > think about that when I have a bit of time basket.
> > > > I talked with him once about it and the conversation revolved
> > > around how spinnakers could be sheeted correctly.He has a pretty
> > > convincing argument as to the benefits of a kite and I don't
> disagree
> > > with his thoughts. I would love to be there to see the first one
> > > work. As with many things I hear about I'm not convinced until I
> see
> > > it. It would be a very powerful addition and would take a bit of
> > > learning.
> > > > Rgs
> > > > Tony
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Robert
> > > > To: harryproa@...
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 10:06 AM
> > > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Beams to windward hull
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Tony Richardson"
> > > > <atrichardson@b...> wrote:
> > > > > >Have you given much thought about light air extras.
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the roller furling screacher on each end idea but
> Rob
> > > is
> > > > not a fan of this.
> > > > > Mast loads are a problem>
> > > >
> > > > Even with Jack-stays, or are compression loads a problem?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Tony Richardson"
> > > > > <atrichardson@b...> wrote:
> > > > > > I tend to favor the ballestron rig for reasons I have
> > > pointed
> > > > out
> > > > > previously
> > > > > > one less mast to build
> > > > > > simplicity
> > > > > > ease of handling
> > > > > > etc
> > > > > > The only disadvantage I see is getting off the boat at
> dock
> > > > > (getting around the rig) but this is being addressed with
> the
> > > > > liftable boom version
> > > > > > Maybe just building steps and handles on so that you
> walk
> > > over
> > > > the
> > > > > boom is easier(climbing on is no different to getting onto
> > > any
> > > > bigger
> > > > > yacht really)
> > > > > > Tying off Med style (rear end in) may be difficult for
> > > getting
> > > > on
> > > > > and off the boat as well.
> > > > > > None of this would be a concern for me though.
> > > > > > Rgs
> > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Robert
> > > > > > To: harryproa@...
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:48 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Beams to windward hull
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tony,
> > > > > > The extended bunk version is also my choice. Add to
> the
> > > > > list 'able to
> > > > > > be transported relatively easily'. I plan to leave
> mine
> > > on
> > > > the
> > > > > hard
> > > > > > on my block down the coast if not using it for a
> while. I
> > > am
> > > > not
> > > > > sure
> > > > > > of the bare weight + rig or the width but I imagine it
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the 700-800kg range and 6.5-7m width. I am imagining
> two
> > > 20-
> > > > 25 sq
> > > > > m
> > > > > > sails schooner rigged or a 40-45 sq m ballestrom. The
> > > numbers
> > > > > come
> > > > > > out pretty well- similar to visionarry. Bruce ~2,
> sail to
> > > > wetted
> > > > > > surface area ~4.2 and sail carrying ratio better than
> > > > Visionarry
> > > > > at
> > > > > > ~55% and this becomes even better with the schooner
> rig .
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Tony Richardson"
> > > > > > <atrichardson@b...> wrote:
> > > > > > > Gidday Doug
> > > > > > > We were talking about sections of beams
> > > > > > > Just a question but isn't a triangle section beam
> the
> > > > lightest
> > > > > > possible construction design type?
> > > > > > > I like Hartley designs. He was way ahead of his time
> > > and
> > > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > still plenty of examples of his designs cruising the
> > > world.
> > > > > > > If you consider these boats light then you should
> read
> > > the
> > > > > specs
> > > > > > for a Harry
> > > > > > > Interesting point about Hartley is he designed a
> proa
> > > (as
> > > > well
> > > > > as
> > > > > > just about every other form of water transport)
> > > > > > > My choice would be a Harry(extended bunk version) It
> > > has
> > > > the
> > > > > three
> > > > > > requirements I would like.
> > > > > > > Sitting headroom in the bunks
> > > > > > > Standing headroom in the hull
> > > > > > > Long and light
> > > > > > > Rgs
> > > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: Doug Haines
> > > > > > > To: harryproa@...
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 6:33 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Beams to windward
> hull
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To Tony,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've forgotten which reply I was making to you,
> but I
> > > > > remember
> > > > > > talking about anything hollow meaning a box as
> opposed to
> > > > > something
> > > > > > solid. I really started this thread because as well as
> > > > getting IN
> > > > > to
> > > > > > my own design problems and solutions, I think I read
> > > > correctly a
> > > > > > couple in the group suggesting solid timber beams. I
> even
> > > > tried
> > > > > this
> > > > > > a while back while stuffing around with surf cat hulls
> > > either
> > > > > side of
> > > > > > my Hartley 16 - what a slow but stable boat.
> > > > > > > I now have just finished my first decent BEAM and
> it
> > > > includes
> > > > > the
> > > > > > correctly applied 'rules' of Engineering, except for
> > > using
> > > > carbon
> > > > > > etc. would be better.
> > > > > > > Actually the Hartley 28' trimaran working on now,
> is
> > > a
> > > > 60's
> > > > > > design and is ply(6mm) on frame (kiri), so is not too
> > > heavy.
> > > > The
> > > > > next
> > > > > > project will be nothing except a Harry Proa for sure.
> Are
> > > you
> > > > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > same way of thinking?
> > > > > > > I still have not received any response on the
> driving
> > > > hull
> > > > > effect
> > > > > > on beam loads idea?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From Doug
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tony Richardson <atrichardson@b...> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi DOug
> > > > > > > The reason is I didn't want seastays
> > > > > > > They cause lots of drag when underwater, add
> > > weight,
> > > > cost
> > > > > of
> > > > > > fittings etc, take more time to initially fit up,
> > > increase
> > > > > assembly
> > > > > > time from trailer to sailing, etc etc
> > > > > > > The beams are on a tri
> > > > > > > Aluminum equivalent was around 30kg each(wall
> > > thickness
> > > > is
> > > > > > massive).
> > > > > > > To me a box is a three dimensional cardboard
> thing
> > > that
> > > > > > televisions come in and a beam shines from a
> lighthouse
> > > and
> > > > helps
> > > > > > keep us away from danger
> > > > > > > Its not that I am unfamiliar with the terms
> used to
> > > > > describe
> > > > > > beams just the applied term box conjures thoughts of
> flat
> > > > sided
> > > > > > square or rectangular cross section beams.
> > > > > > > Similarly I beam conjures thoughts of a cross
> > > section
> > > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > shape of an I
> > > > > > > Thanks for the clarification
> > > > > > > What sort of boat are you building?
> > > > > > > Rgs
> > > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: doha720
> > > > > > > To: harryproa@...
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 6:21 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Beams to windward
> hull
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > G'day Tony,
> > > > > > > I'm no certified engineer either, but what I
> said
> > > is
> > > > > right. I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > you are saying that you made a hollow round
> > > section
> > > > beam -
> > > > >
> > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > proa? - which is still a box section. The term
> > > box
> > > > > > distinguishes from
> > > > > > > solid beams or I shaped beams. I mean it must
> be
> > > > hollow
> > > > > such
> > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > rectangle, square or circular.
> > > > > > > I never really thought about round ones,
> except
> > > they
> > > > come
> > > > > > ready made
> > > > > > > in aluminium. How come you went for that way
> of
> > > doing
> > > > > things?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From DOug
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- In harryproa@..., "Tony
> > > Richardson"
> > > > > > > <atrichardson@b...> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > You wrote
> > > > > > > > - You have to make a box section,
> nothing
> > > else
> > > > is
> > > > > > remotely
> > > > > > > > comparable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I dissagree
> > > > > > > > I'm no engineer but I do have a tri with
> > > round
> > > > beams
> > > > > > > > Rob and I built them in a female mould
> mostly
> > > of
> > > > uni's
> > > > > > > > It flies two hulls and has no
> seastays/wires
> > > etc
> > > > > > > > They have a degree of flex in them though
> > > > > > > > The beams weigh 5kg each bare.
> > > > > > > > The boat is only 16ft but it is 15ft wide
> > > > > > > > Rgs
> > > > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ----
> > > > ----
> > > > > ----
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new
> ways
> > > to
> > > > > express
> > > > > > yourself
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ----
> > > > ----
> > > > > ----
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > > > > > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> email
> > > to:
> > > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > > Yahoo!
> > > > > Terms of
> > > > > > Service.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ----
> > > > ----
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > > > > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo!
> > > > Terms of
> > > > > Service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ----
> > > > ----------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > > > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/
> > > > >
> > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > > > >
> > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > > Terms of
> > > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ----------
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > > http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/harryproa/
> > > >
> > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > > >
> > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>