That's definitely too much sail area.

  But I like it.  <g>

  As much as I love the schooner rig, for too many reasons to mention again, I'm now looking at a nearly standard Harry with perhaps a few extra feet on the lw hull, as well as a taller easyrig.  That would let me get to a Bruce number of around 2.0 with the boat, two crew, an outboard, fuel, some water, and batteries. 

  Cost and singlehanding are reasons to go with the easyrig. 

  A schooner with rigid booms (no vang required) should be pretty simple to singlehand on a tacking boat.  However, until I'm actually able to sail a Harry, my guess is that the long lw hull without rocker is going to make tacking a bit of a challenge.  The very qualities which make it a great hull for a proa (nice leeway prevention, good tracking, longer waterline, less hobbyhorsing) make it less than ideal for tacking.

  It would be possible to build the boat with much more rocker, but that will add significantly to the cost because you won't be able to create the hull out of a simple U bend that has little or no compound curvature.

  So, if I'm going to assume that I'll be shunting most of the time, the easyrig is going to be much more convenient.  With a 1900 pound boat (2600 with two crew and motor), you could have an easyrig that fits under the ICW bridges and still have a Bruce number around 2.0.

  As for that being too much sail area, well, it is. 

  Until you're out in three knots of wind looking to climb upwind towards your goal.  At that point a kite isn't going to help, but a tall mast with a good rig will be your best friend.  Especially on such a light, long-waterline multihull with fine hulls that can make some good apparent wind.  I can't always choose my sailing days, so it's important to me to maximize low wind performance.

  The obvious caveat that always bears repeating: just be prepared to sail with one or two reefs in on "normal" ten-knot sailing days. 

       - Mike
 


Gardner Pomper wrote:

Well, with a full roach, I could get > 300 sq ft out of the main, so I
could reduce the jib and get the same sail area, which is probably too
much anyway.

I did leave out one consideration, which is to stay with the easyrig,
but with a custom sail for an 8' foot. I could then leave the lw hull
as it is, and go with a 2 part mast, for a 55' luff and an 8' foot
with an 80% roach for 350 sq ft of main and maybe a 150 sq ft jib.

This is still a 2 part mast and custom sails, so I still don't know
how that would compare in price and ease of trailer with the other
options.

I have requested quotes from sailmakers, but I don't know if I can get
anything reasonable without more specifics on the sails.

- Gardner

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:23 PM, jrwells2007 <jrwells2007@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> I could then go with a 50' luff and 12' foot to get 300 sq ft out of
>> the main, and a 50' luff and 9' foot for 225 sq ft from the jib, and
>
> Not sure about these assumptions. A ratio of main/jib of 300/225 might be
> out of balance with too large a jib.
> Also this appears to have a masthead rig whereas most Easyrigs seem to be
> about 3/4 rigs.
>
>