Seem to recall the bevel worked better than a radius because a) there was no
hydrodynamic disadvantage, b) it provided more add'l interior volume with less
material,
and c) it was a hell of a lot easier to build!

If you bend the flat panels in a developable way you get the best of both worlds
- ease
and economy of flat panels and the aesthetics of the curve.

I keep on hearing about the Kelsall "radius". Is this bagged and formed over a
tube?

Mike

--- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
> -There have been a few multihull designers who reckon that a bevel
> works better than a radius. It may be worth having a 5cm radius at the
> joins to make it easier to use KSS type radius joins,
> Robert
> -- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@> wrote:
> >
> > Todd,
> >
> > Yes that is a concern although none have experience on what any of
> these boats will do in
> > a problem seaway. The overhang does curve upward toward the bows
> so that is some
> > help, and terminates near the forward bulkhead. In addition it's
> elevation matches the
> > beam clearance so has some decent height. Plus I will add a modest
> flare or radius to the
> > underside just to avoid a nasty slap or thud in rough seas.
> >
> > Don't think we have any idea which way the boat face if left to
> float on it's own. Will still
> > use a chute or drogue depending on conditions off the bow/stern when
> it's really bad.
> >
> > Rob thinks it may have some benefits in normal conditions in
> reducing spray over the WW
> > hull. Think the radius should minimize the heavy slap. Have a
> suggestion on how much
> > flare/radius ?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > JT