Is anyone still working on a dyna rig?


--- In harryproa@..., Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> So which harry are you going with?
>
> This boat started out as a copy of sidecar, adjusted a displacement to
> handle a fat guy. I figured I could build that. It kinda grew as it
> turned out bigger and heavier than I expected, up to the point where
> it is again in the "Contrarry" class of boat.
>
> I wanted it to remain trailerable, but I am going to have to start
> specifically looking at what that is costing me, because price is
> probably the primary motivator (well, that and ease of construction).
> I currently have these complications because of my trailerability
> requirement:
>
> 1) beam limited to 16' (maybe ok)
> 2) telescoping beams, which means I have a total of 6 beam sections
> 3) mast height limitations, since I need to be able to unstep it by
> hand (by myself) and fit in on the trailer
> 4) boom length limitations, due to reasons 1 & 3, as I posted in the
> first message of the thread
>
> I really need a way of seeing what this trailerability is costing me.
> I will very rarely trailer it. Collapsing it to fit into a slip would
> be nice, but would still require the complex beams. If I could figure
> out how to calculate the beam and rig costs, for trailerable and not,
> I could make a rational decision. It would be nice to at least be able
> to replace the beams later if I decide to do it. Start with fixed
> beams, with the option to convert later if I really need it.
>
> With the materials for the hulls only costing $10K, I don't want to
> spend another $10K (or more) on teh beams and rig.
>
> I have been thinking about rocker, and will have to ask Rob when he
> gets back. The way I am planning on building, I only have the U shaped
> hull for the middle 50% of the boat. The fore and aft 25%, I was just
> planning on using solid polystyrene foam for the keel section (about
> 6-8"), which would be hand shaped, so it would be easy to make that
> with some rocker.
>
> Hopefully I can get enough sorted out to start building this summer.
>
> - Gardner
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote:
> >
> >   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@...>
> > 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>