--
We seem to be covering some old ground here. The advantages of the
shorter ww hull compared to equal length appear to me to be
1.Avoidance of wracking stresses form wave action. These can be quite
considerable. I just had our 5m assymetric outrigger out in ocean
swell and I was concerned about the inadequacy of the crossbeams.

2. at low speeds the skin friction is more important than wave action
and there is reduced wetted area. At speeds where wave action starts
to come into play, the hulls should be rising and waterline width
considerably reduced. For a racing hull I still reckon a foil
underneath is the way to go and further reduce drag and provide
stability hydrodynamically.

3. During a shunt a shorter fatter hull on the inside of the curve
should be easier.

4.As the hull starts to lift . it increases windage. extra length in
the bows will increase drag and possibly contribute to dirtying the
the air for the sails.

I prefer to think of Harrigami as an 8m tri with one of the hulls
removed and the other lengthened to avoid burying the bow and the rig
moved over onto the float to reduce stresses and improve
accommodation. Contrasting accommodation, weight, building time and
cost with an 8m tri and it is good value (though still a bit too long
to get it into the water).
Without extending the leeward float one would have to greatly
increase the bouyancy at the bow. This is difficult to do while
providing fine entry and minimising windage and wetted area unless
you make the bows like on the latest Crowthers or the Marlin
Broadbill work boats, with fatter on the bottom and finer in the
middle
With access to light weight materials I see no point in a pacific
proa once the ww hull is long enough for accommodation. Why add
weight to a boat when people have to be accommodated somewhere. I am
sorely tempted to extend my outrigger and put the rig on it for not
much more weight than the ballasted shorter version.

It is interesting to hear the debate on the optimal shape of the
hulls as it is one of the constraints in making the Harrys
trailerable. If it doesn't make too much difference providing their
is a fine entry at waterline and sufficent bouyancy in the ends then
it makes it easier to get the hulls to pack up closelyand reduce
trailing width















- In harryproa@..., "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
> On the two types of proas. What is the recommended water line beam
> width of the weather hull is it a percentage of the lee hull beam
> water line? Is the over all beam distance shorter on the two types
> compared to pacific proas? What are the governing factors for
> determining over all beam and water line beam of each hull? Do you
> want the two hulls to have as close as possible the same under
water
> plane? If you have more drag on the weather hull what do you do to
> compensate? Larger dagger /center / leeboards? The greater the drag
> the more it wants to turn to weather?
>
> Todd??????