The sleeved rudders are growing on me.  Wait and see how Blind Dates
work and I will  see how they go on the trailer boat.  May also see
how strong the kid's boat kick up rudders could be built.

Agree about the joys of climbing over midriffs vs heads!  I always end
up on the inside and find it easiest to go through the hatch and check
the anchor while having a pee over the side (hate marine toilets).

The Beowulf article was interesting, but there is so much windage and
turbulence on their deck, exacerbated by the angle of heel, I struggle
to believe it makes that much difference.  The fast that they had
North's involved, but there has not been any other developement makes
me wonder too.   It remains on my "to be tried" list, although this
has just sprouted a 16' harry at the top so it won't be for a while.
regards,

Rob

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
> -I didn't realise they took a full 2'. Still, 18' width on a 25' ww
> hull is still pretty good. Always add wings if you really want to push
> things and the weather isn't too nasty.
>
> About the foot locker and sideways: If you leave a slight in the cabin
> between the bunk and the cockpit back and have a step in the bevel,
> the person on the inside clambers over the midriff of the other person
> instead of their head. It would probably be preferred by most couples
> after their initial honeymoon period.
>
> I believe I have felt a surge in power as the slot closes but it may
> be my imagination as there is a different feel to the wind. The skinny
> hull may negate much of the benefit, but from what I have read, the
> most important part is the initial 1/3 of the sail. Clear material
> such as on EL could be used below the boom. I recall there was some
> stuff on this on the Beewoulff site(Excuse spelling)
>
> -- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>>
>> G'day,
>> I thought about the rudders on a sleeve, maybe later when everything
>> else is working. They lose 2' which is a bit much for most marinas, I
>> think.
>>
>> Foot lockers are a good idea, but the limit on this boat was cockpit
>> size, so there is no real gain. Either way, the person on the
>> inside has to do some clambering.
>>
>> Closing off the sail foot may (I am not convinced by the windsurfers
>> as they only seem to do it in a breeze, when balance factors may enter
>> into it) reduce the tip losses, but a una rig boom is rarely on the
>> centreline so with a skinny hull it would not achieve much. It also
>> kills visibility to leeward. It is one of those very simple things to
>> test that i have never got round to. Any real life data would be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>> > If the rudder supports were on a sleeve, the beams could still be
>> > pulled out through the ww hull and have beam mounted rudders. You
>> > would only lose 30cm of squeezing for the marina. I still reckon a
>> > foot locker and sleeping sideways would give much easier access to the
>> > berths. Have you considered a battened sail extension below the boom
>> > to close off the slot. On a wsurfer you really notice the difference
>> > when you close the slot. Apart from that, I reckon it is v. nice and
>> > should go like the powers of
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

G'day,


On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
> When you mentioned that the 40' Harry met most of my criteria, I went back
> and checked it. It is amazing that I had not noticed that my feature creep
> had come up with almost exactly the same set of accomodations, etc.

Great minds think alike! ;-)
>
> I am still looking at 2 main differences from the existing design. One is
> trailerability, in a reasonably easy fashion. I have gone far beyond the 10
> minute setup of the Elementarry, but hopefully I am still in the 2 hour
> range.

If the 2 hulls side by side are withing the trailerable limit, then 2
hours should be possible.  The mast is pretty quick, the sail can stay
on the boom, the beams are very quick and the rudders are in place.
The trampoline is a huge time waster, but if it is in a frame, then it
is pretty quick as well.

> The other is trying to fully exploit all the ideas I have heard for reducing
> the labor requirements in order to reduce the price. I have moved the head
> into the windward hull, for some privacy, but I am still concentrating on
> not finishing the interior of either hull, and building everything up on
> deck on a flat surface, with mostly right angles.
> I have uploaded the latest (final? ha ha) set of drawings. I have added a
> second set to show how it would fit on a trailer and into a container. Both
> set in the "Gardners layouts" folder.
> I am really resting this whole design approach on significant savings from
> the construction techniques over the way that 'Aroha' was built. I am
> curious if you have information or an estimate on the number of hours for
> those build techniques, compared to building the hulls from 2 flat panels,
> and leaving all accomodations on deck. I have also eliminated any compound
> curves from my design, so flat panel construction should be as fast as
> possible. If there are any other ways to save time, i would love to hear
> them.

Music to my ears!   There are some other building tricks, but they are
a bit complicated to get into here.  Cutting and joining straight
walls to flat floors and ceilings  is very simple, with none of the
filleting tabbing and finishing usually required.


> In terms of the trailering, I have managed to fit the boat and detachable
> bows on a trailer, with folding tramp netting, like you suggested, except in
> a total of 4 panels. To make it fit in a container, I need to eliminate the
> trailer and store the tramp netting under the support for the boat. All this
> is a tight fit, so I might be totally wrong, just because I am not
> accounting for the thickness of various panels, but hopefully it could all
> be swizzled to work if we go ahead with real plans.
> In terms of performance, the rig is still unspecified, but these are the
> figures I come up with, as best I can:
>                            ww              lw
> length :                28.5 ft         50 ft
> w/l beam:             2.25 ft           2 ft
> prismatic:             0.77            0.77 (just copied what you said)
> length/beam ratio: 12.6:1          25:1
> displacement:       2766 lbs    3773 lbs
> weight:                1000 lbs       500 lbs  (ww hull only weight is 434
> lbs)
> As I am sure you note, I copied the 40' harry almost exactly, except
> extended it 10', with removeable bows.
> Any thoughts, particularly on the relative construction times of this vs the
> Harry 40 would be appreciated. Certainly yours is much prettier, but I am
> going after the most boat for the least money.

Aroha was owner built under our supervision.  No record of the hours
were kept.  Also, the builder was in no hurry, so even if they were,
they would not be reliable.    I would need to sit down and do a
spread sheet to sort out the materials and hours.   Things like making
pop tops watertight and easily raised/lowered are imponderables, but
the basic boat should be a very quick build.

regards,

Rob
>
> Thanks much!
> - Gardner
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>>
>> G'day,
>>
>> Nothing wrong with a wandering mind, except I have forgotten what we
>> were talking about...........;-)
>>
>> I would definitely make the first project a small one. A dinghy is
>> ideal. Do your infusion test pieces on the glass, then build a
>> melamine table and infuse some 7'6' x 3'6" panels and use these for a
>> dinghy. Or, start with small flat components (hatches, bunk bases,
>> floors) for the boat if you don't need a dinghy.
>>
>> You get more bang for your buck the bigger you go, but there are more
>> bucks (and hours) required.
>>
>> Re having it built elsewhere, have I got a deal for you!
>>
>> During the search for a builder for the charter boat, a kiwi mate of
>> mine moved to Panama (he reckons it is a nicer place to live than NZ)
>> where he is importing boat gear. He and some locals are putting
>> together a proposal for a one stop marine store on the Pacific end of
>> the canal. Starting with a 620 boat marina, sail loft and boat
>> building/repair facility, with a charter fleet to follow. They have
>> just acquired an enormous shed and are very keen to build the charter
>> proa. I have agreed to oversee the construction of the first boat and
>> to make sure their crew know how it is all done. However, it would be
>> better for all concerned if we were to build a smaller version first.
>>
>> If this is of interest to you (or anybody else on the list), please
>> let me know. Labour rates are very low, it is a US dollar economy and
>> the local labour is apparently skilled at glass work and keen to
>> learn. No shortage of ships to bring it home on, or you could sail it
>> to the Caribbean, which is one of the advantages for the charter boat.
>> The price of the first boat will be as low as we can possibly make it.
>>
>> Container size is as you say, although 9'6" high boxes are available
>> so a windward hull of a 40' harry (which suits your requirements
>> pretty well) could be put in on it's side.
>>
>> Re me doing drawings. No need as you are doing an excellent job. I
>> would suggest that you do a side view as well, and when you are happy
>> with it, a front one. Stick with block shapes, we can round the edges
>> later. Draw some block people (use your body for measurements, don't
>> forget the feet) and use them to get a feel for standing, sitting and
>> lying down space. When you decide what you want, we can talk about
>> money. The advice is free, I enjoy working with enthusiasts, if for
>> no other reason that they stimulate my thought processes, resulting in
>> this case in a much better steering system for the trailer sailor
>> which does not involve long tiller extensions and is not affected by
>> lifting the rudders, a major drama with rope driven wheel systems.
>> More on this later when I have done some drawings.
>>
>> You don't need to move to flip the rudders. The water force does it
>> automatically when you shunt. The cockpit will have a pram hood cover
>> (I prefer these to fixed covers as they give more options and are
>> lighter) to keep you dry.
>>
>> Mike, excellent advice.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > You are absolutely right, I have let my mind wander again. That is the
>> > danger, and the beauty, of the idea that you can play with layout ideas
>> > pretty much independent of the hulls, and fit the appropriate hulls to
>> > the
>> > layout later.
>> >
>> > The reason I looking at this larger design, is that the "fat"
>> > Elementarry
>> > looks to be 700-1000 hours of work, which might be too much for my first
>> > project and it sounds like you get more "bang for your buck" (as in
>> > labor
>> > hours) as a proa scales up. With something similar to what I posted
>> > (since
>> > modified), my family could take a week's vacation in Maine, or the
>> > Florida
>> > Keys, or maybe the Bahamas. I could live on it indefinitely (once my
>> > family
>> > got fed up with it <grin>).
>> >
>> > I am trying to get a feel for the time and expense involved in different
>> > size/function proas. I might even be interested in contracting out
>> > (maybe
>> > wherever the charter proa is being built) to have something like this
>> > built
>> > for me. Do you happen to know what the dimension restrictions are for a
>> > shippng container? I think it is a little less than 8' x 40'. Probably
>> > too
>> > small, but might make shipping from China more practical.
>> >
>> > On the matter of you not doing drawings, I am absolutely glad that you
>> > aren't. I feel guilty with the time you are spending answering my
>> > questions.
>> > If at any point you think we should make a more formal arrangement, just
>> > contact me privately.
>> >
>> > On the matter of steering, that seems to be another unresolved issue on
>> > the
>> > larger trailerables. I know you have at least one other person talking
>> > to
>> > you about this type design. Is the idea to just use *really* long tiller
>> > extensions. If cruising for a week or two, I am not crazy about being
>> > out in
>> > the rain steering, and popping over to the lee hull each time I shunt to
>> > flip the rudders around. Is that what is required? I have no ideas for
>> > how
>> > to make a remote steering system that would also collapse to trailer
>> > width.
>> > That sounds like it might just go off the bounds of too much complexity.
>> >
>> > - Gardner
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Rob Denney <harryproa@...>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> G'day,
>> >>
>> >> Can do it, but this is hardly the day sailing trailer sailer, the
>> >> cabin will ned to be high at the ends so you can sit up in the bunks,
>> >> and where do you sit to sail the boat?
>> >> regards,
>> >>
>> >> Rob
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Gardner Pomper
>> >> <gardner@...>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Pursuing the idea of making the ww hull a bit longer, I have uploaded
>> >> > another sketch to the file "trailerable Pomper". I am deliberately
>> >> > trying to
>> >> > leave as much of the interior of the hull unfinished as I can, and
>> >> > (naturally), I need to have standard size bunks. The pop top can have
>> >> > roll
>> >> > down clears for foul weather. The bunks are covered with clear lexan,
>> >> > which
>> >> > can be flipped up to enclose the cockpit when the weather is bad, or
>> >> > you
>> >> > want to use them. You enter the bunks from the flip down walkway, or
>> >> > over
>> >> > the back of the lazarrette.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't know that I added much weight, so hopefully we can preserve
>> >> > the
>> >> > 10:1
>> >> > ratio on the ww hull.
>> >> >
>> >> > - Gardner
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Rob Denney <harryproa@...>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> G'day,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Preliminary numbers
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ww hull 5m/15' long, waterline 450mm/18", draft 220mm/8.5",
>> >> >> displacement 640 lbs, prismatic .77. (Use this to allow for the hull
>> >> >> shape when you multiply the cross sectional area in the middle of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> boat by the length). I would probably go a little longer to cope
>> >> >> with your other requirements.
>> >> >> lw hull, as long as you can build, trail, afford and handle. The
>> >> >> longer it is, the higher the top speed and the drier and more
>> >> >> comfortable the motion.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The single sail works well on boats with light windward hulls, as
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> rudder is aft, which makes it balanced. With 600 kgs on a shortish
>> >> >> ww
>> >> >> hull, the ballestron may be a better bet, although once you know how
>> >> >> to shunt, it won't be a problem. With a lot of people on board, and
>> >> >> not much boom clearance the ballestron needs to be watched while
>> >> >> shunting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There will be trampolines, which will be on side pieces with a hinge
>> >> >> in the middle so it can be folded when the boat telescopes. A
>> >> >> walkway can do the same.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sail is loose footed (attached only to the outboard end of the
>> >> >> boom).
>> >> >> On Elementarry, the boom is attached to the mast. It has a sock
>> >> >> luff,
>> >> >> so this is not a problem. Yours would have slides, so the boom needs
>> >> >> to rotate relative to the mast, but not move vertically. Not a big
>> >> >> deal. Your boom will indeed be too long to attach permanently. It
>> >> >> will be strapped to the bearing on the mast, again, not a big deal.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The hours on the charter boat are for the shell. This one could take
>> >> >> anywhere from 500-1,000+ hours depending on all the usual stuff, but
>> >> >> mostly on the standard of finish required. There are some alignment
>> >> >> details to make it telescope smoothly, which could add some time.
>> >> >> They are all done before the beams are closed up permanently, so are
>> >> >> not difficult, just might take a while.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Materials cost? Same as the other trailer sailor, give or take a
>> >> >> bit.
>> >> >> It is cheaper to import the materials from here. Let me or Raps
>> >> >> know if you want to share the shipping costs.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could be a single bunk, or the galley and stowage. The double is
>> >> >> 6'x5', the single is 5x3. Yours will have the cockpit in this area.
>> >> >> The toilet at one end of the hull and the galley at the other end.
>> >> >> Access will be through deck hatches.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Re infusion. Derek's workshops are fantastic, Henny at
>> >> >> http://www.fram.nl/ has a lot of info and a cd, as does Steve in
>> >> >> Houston, but I don't have his web address. By far the best way to
>> >> >> learn about it is:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Get a vacuum pump from ebay, (old milking pumps, fridge compressors,
>> >> >> air con evacuators all work) and a sheet of window glass about 30"
>> >> >> square. Buy some clear builders plastic, some window sealant, glass,
>> >> >> foam, peel ply and resin, some shade cloth and some 10mm plastic
>> >> >> conduit. Drill the smallest holes you can every 4" in the foam and a
>> >> >> 1/4" hole every 4" in the middle 18" of 2 pieces of 4' lengths of
>> >> >> conduit, cut the cloth and peel ply and lay it on the glass with a
>> >> >> 2"
>> >> >> border all the way round. Put the shade cloth on the glass and wrap
>> >> >> it around the perforated section of the lengths of conduit such that
>> >> >> one piece is on one side of the job, the other is on the opposite
>> >> >> side. Cut a piece of plastic the same size as the glass and seal it
>> >> >> to the glass and around the conduit. Block one end of one piece of
>> >> >> conduit and hook the other end up to the vac pump. Block both ends
>> >> >> of the other piece. Check for leaks (listening) is the best way.
>> >> >> When it is leak free, unseal the ends of the non vacuum conduit and
>> >> >> put them in buckets of resin. Prepare to be amazed. When the
>> >> >> infusion is complete (look under the glass aswell as on top), seal
>> >> >> off
>> >> >> the resin conduit and leave it to cure. You now know more about
>> >> >> infusion than 95% of the world's boatbuilders. Study and weigh the
>> >> >> sample, and let me know what it looks like and what went wrong and I
>> >> >> will start lesson 2.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Elementarry as a tender? Could do, but without seats, it is not very
>> >> >> comfortable. It is also a bit fragile for hauling up beaches and
>> >> >> over
>> >> >> rocks. The Torqueedo would work, but rowing wouldn't. No sweat on
>> >> >> the payload, but it would all be on the trampoline. You would be
>> >> >> better off with a conventional dinghy. Loading El on the cabin top
>> >> >> for blasting around when you get there has more merit, but the
>> >> >> mother
>> >> >> ship really should be bigger for this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Let me know what the next step is, or if I have forgotten to reply
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> anything.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> regards,
>> >> >> Rob
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Gardner Pomper
>> >> >> <gardner@...>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Hi,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ok, I can tell by the responses that it won't be a small boat :( I
>> >> >> > was
>> >> >> > hoping for something smaller than the design that is taking shape.
>> >> >> > Since
>> >> >> > that looks to be not true, let me fall back to that one, and drop
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > weight
>> >> >> > requirements and the 6 passenger (we will only invite people on a
>> >> >> > nice
>> >> >> > day
>> >> >> > for a few hours. They can sit on the trampolines (there can be
>> >> >> > trampolines,
>> >> >> > right?) Then we can design for crew weight of 600lbs, and seating
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > 3-4.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I notice that you are not using the ballestron right. I am
>> >> >> > flouting
>> >> >> > my
>> >> >> > ingorance here, but how can you go upwind with a mast centered for
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > aft
>> >> >> > and no headsail?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I was also thinking of a 3-4' flat panel, hinged at the floor, to
>> >> >> > give
>> >> >> > some
>> >> >> > sort of walkway outside the cockpit. Fold it down once the beam is
>> >> >> > expanded.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Is the sail loose footed? The charter proa talks about the boom
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > mast
>> >> >> > being one piece, but it would seem to make it too wide for
>> >> >> > trailering.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Since you have basics worked out on that trailer sailor, do you
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > an
>> >> >> > estimate of work hours for an "average" finish? I know you have
>> >> >> > mentioned
>> >> >> > 1400 for the charter proa hull (by professionals, I am sure).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There looks to be a single bunk "forward" also. Is that true, or
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > galley? What are the bunk dimensions?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Rob Denney <harryproa@...>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> G'day,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM, gardnerpomper
>> >> >> >> <gardner@...>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Hi,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Some sort of liveaboard harryproa seems like my next cruising
>> >> >> >> > boat. I
>> >> >> >> > am interested in both sampling the experience, and finding out
>> >> >> >> > if
>> >> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> > have the fortitude to build one. I have seen messages about a
>> >> >> >> > trailerable design and I have some questions specific to using
>> >> >> >> > it
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > "try out" the home build/proa idea.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Requirements:
>> >> >> >> > 1) trailerable as other specs (8'6" trailer width,
>> >> >> >> easy
>> >> >> >> ><1000lbs with trailer (negotiable))
>> >> >> >> Difficult, negotiations can start when i have done some drawings.
>> >> >> >> > 2) build method as similar to proposed charter boat as
>> >> >> >> > possible,
>> >> >> >> > since
>> >> >> >> > that is identified as simplest for larger boats
>> >> >> >> > fast and easy on/off the trailer. this would be a daysailer,
>> >> >> >> > driving
>> >> >> >> > 2
>> >> >> >> > hours to the water, set it up, sail for a few hours, break it
>> >> >> >> > down,
>> >> >> >> > trailer it 2 hours home.
>> >> >> >> Easy
>> >> >> >> > 3) I am heavy (300lbs), so the crew weight (3 of us) would be
>> >> >> >> > about
>> >> >> >> > 550lbs. We would like to be able to invite another 2 adults and
>> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> > child and still sail it well, so total crew weight could be 900
>> >> >> >> > lbs.
>> >> >> >> Difficult, I will see what the minimum size is to do this. How
>> >> >> >> much
>> >> >> >> extra for food and safety gear?
>> >> >> >> > 4) Enclosed head
>> >> >> >> easy
>> >> >> >> > 5) sail without getting wet
>> >> >> >> easy
>> >> >> >> > 6) camping propane stove
>> >> >> >> > 7) comfy seats and table to eat at
>> >> >> >> Can this be outside, under a removable bimini with roll down
>> >> >> >> sides?
>> >> >> >> Otherwise, it is a bit ticky for 6 people.
>> >> >> >> > 8) standing headroom (fold down bimini ok)
>> >> >> >> easy
>> >> >> >> > 9) rain protected
>> >> >> >> easy
>> >> >> >> > 10) will never be INTENTIONALLY sailed in > 20 kts
>> >> >> >> Yeah, right!
>> >> >> >> > 11) ballestron rig
>> >> >> >> easy
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I won't be racing, but I will want performance comparable to
>> >> >> >> > what
>> >> >> >> > we
>> >> >> >> > have heard from Rare Bird and the charter proa design (i.e.
>> >> >> >> > windspeed
>> >> >> >> > up to 15 knots). I *don't* want to fly a hull!! (I'm timid)
>> >> >> >> Timid is good, but it will be a sizableboat to do this with 6
>> >> >> >> people
>> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> board.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Questions:
>> >> >> >> > 1) What would plan cost be?
>> >> >> >> TBA when i see what is involved. Probably $Aus3,000, as it is
>> >> >> >> going
>> >> >> >> to be a one off. You get 10% off any future plans sold to the
>> >> >> >> design until the next one is sailing. After that it is as per the
>> >> >> >> Goodwill Fee on http://www.harryproa.com/plans.htm Part of the
>> >> >> >> plans
>> >> >> >> price wil be deducted from the big boat fee.
>> >> >> >> 2) would plans include info on resin infusion and building a
>> >> >> >> table,
>> >> >> >> > etc, etc? Or at least point me to such info?
>> >> >> >> yes. As much information as you need on anything in the plans.
>> >> >> >> > 2) Estimated build time (novice.. experienced with
>> >> >> >> > epoxy/fiberglass,
>> >> >> >> > even some with carbon mat as reinforement, but never built a
>> >> >> >> > boat).
>> >> >> >> > If
>> >> >> >> > you prefer, you can supply "average estimated build" and I will
>> >> >> >> > put
>> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> > my own "idiot factor" multiplier
>> >> >> >> TBA, but mostly it will depend on the level of finish inside and
>> >> >> >> outside that you require.
>> >> >> >> > 3) Would it be close to the "trailer sailer" layout jpg I see
>> >> >> >> > posted
>> >> >> >> > in the forums?
>> >> >> >> Not if you want a cockpit for 6, which will replace the bunks
>> >> >> >> >What are hull lengths?
>> >> >> >> Long! What is the longest you can build, trailer and handle on
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> ramp?
>> >> >> >> > 4) When could I start? I have a building available this
>> >> >> >> > summer/fall,
>> >> >> >> > but it is not heated
>> >> >> >> Tomorrow, building the table. You won't get all the plans
>> >> >> >> immediately, but i will keep ahead of your progress. Pay for half
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> plans up front, the rest before the last drawings arrive.
>> >> >> >> > 5) material cost? availablity?
>> >> >> >> Not a huge amount, probably less than the resale value of the
>> >> >> >> boat.
>> >> >> >> Can get it from your local supplier, apart from the carbon for
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> mast, boom, rudders and beams which I will supply from Texas.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > BTW, I live in Pennsylvania (US).
>> >> >> >> No problem ;-)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >> >> > - Gardner
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> My pleasure,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Rob
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>

G'day,

The beams run on rollers, but wedge into solid supports once they are
in position.  A sharp pull should get them started, then they are
easily slid out.  Telescoped, they are 3.5m /12' long and weigh 27 kgs
each, so will be a heavy lift for one, but not impossible.

I pulled harrigami at 700 kgs/1,540 lbs on a big and heavy two axle
trailer with my 1.6 litre 4 cylinder car.  Not particularly fast, and
very thirsty, but no big deal apart from going round tight corners.
Length is only a drama going round corners when the tail swings out or
it cuts the corner.  The former is reduced by having the wheels a long
way back (articulated trucks), the latter by having them a long way
forward (buses).  I find it easier to see the corners I am cutting,
rather than someone out the back that I am side swiping.

Regards,

Rob

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:51 AM, captian_rapscallion
<captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
>
>
> I really have no frame of reference when it comes to estimating how
> easy or difficult it would be to set up of tear down the proa. Rob,
> would taking the beams off after the boat is on the trailer have to be
> a 2 person job?
>
> I have pulled e scows with my car in the past with out a problem, I
> may be way off base here but pulling that boat wasn't too difficult.
>
> I don't know if the extra 10 feet would have a huge impact - it didn't
> seem to matter that much when I took my turn driving when towing an A
> scow.... not with my car, but I think I got the rough idea what I was
> up against.
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>>
>> G'day,
>>
>> Correct about the rudders. Not ideal, and could be corrected by
>> mounting them on a sleeve on the beam, as per Robert's suggestion.
>> trade off is telescoping width, or overall width. Mast head is
>> 16.2m/53' off the water. Low for a 12m race multi, cloud scraping for
>> a sub one ton boat.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
>> > I had a couple questions. Were you going for engineless, or are
> you planning
>> > on mounting an outboard somewhere?
>> >
>> > Also, it looks like you can't retract the rudders and still steer,
> so I was
>> > wondering what the draft is.
>> >
>> > Just for curiosity, what is the masthead height above the water?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > - Gardner
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Raps callion
>> > <captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I love the trailerable design. It exceeds my expectations in
> almost every
>> >> respect.
>> >> The part I love the most is the building cost and the bruce number.
>> >>
>> >> I would love to see another design with 6' headroom, trailerable,
> a bruce
>> >> number
>> >> this high, and at this price.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message ----
>> >> From: Mike Crawford <jmichael@...>
>> >> To: harryproa@...
>> >> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:56:53 PM
>> >> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Trailer proa
>> >>
>> >> Rob,
>> >>
>> >> The trailerable proa looks wonderful. I was skeptical at
> first, but now
>> >> that you've upgraded the renderings, I can see that the boat
> really does
>> >> have some character of its own.
>> >>
>> >> That's also a great mast stepping solution. Some tri's require a
>> >> trailer to step/unstep, and that's not very useful if you're
> moored or at a
>> >> dock. Others have a-frames or gin poles, which help, but which
> also create
>> >> some serious stresses on the mast base. They are also more
> suited for a
>> >> rotating mast that fits onto a ball than for an unstayed rig that
> needs to
>> >> be lowered several feet into a hull. This is probably the
> simplest and most
>> >> stress-free solution I've seen.
>> >>
>> >> The number of trailerable boats with this level of performance and
>> >> accommodations can be counted on one hand, with a few fingers to
> spare.
>> >>
>> >> Nice job.
>> >>
>> >> - Mike
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Rob Denney wrote:
>> >>
>> >> G'day,
>> >>
>> >> Trailer proa renderings are in the Files section under Maxi
> Trailer sailor
>> >>
>> >> 'The ultimate trailer sailor/racer cruiser' is the requirement for
>> >> this boat. As fast as possible, with standing headroom, minimal
>> >> galley, double bunk and a toilet. Trailering is mostly for the 5
>> >> mile trip from home to ramp, but occasionally further afield.
>> >>
>> >> Windward hull is 7m.24', leeward hull 12m/40'
>> >>
>> >> The boat is 6m/20' wide in sailing trim, but telescopes to 3.7/12'4"
>> >> wide for marinas and 2m/6'8" wide on the trailer. This is easily done
>> >> with composite beams. The mast and boom travel in cradles on the lw
>> >> hull deck, the beams under the cockpit. The trampoline is in two
>> >> pieces split fore and aft. Each piece has a 25mm dia carbon or alloy
>> >> tube sitting in hooks on the hull and the beams. In the middle is a
>> >> thicker tube for each piece. When telescoping for marina use, the
>> >> lee hull tramp is lifted out of it's hooks and as the hulls slide
>> >> together it slides over the windward tramp, so you can still walk
>> >> across to the other hull. For light air races, it can also be sailed
>> >> like this. For trailering, the tramps and the telescoped beams are
>> >> quickly and easily removed and stored under the the cockpit.
>> >>
>> >> The mast is telescoped to 9.2m for stepping/unstepping . A 5m long
>> >> pole, with a 4;1 blocjk and tackle on one end is inserted into a hole
>> >> in the deck next to the mast. The heel sits in a cup next to the mast
>> >> step. The blocks are tied around the mast at it's centre of gravity
>> >> approx 3.7m from the base and it is lifted up until the heel is above
>> >> the deck, then guided into the top bearing and lowered into place.
>> >> Unstepping is the opposite. Very quick and very safe.
>> >>
>> >> The reefing drawing shows sail areas incl mast of of 47 sqm/505 sq',
>> >> 35 sqm/376 sq' and 22 sq m/236 sq m. Storm sail is 2 sq m/22.5 sq' of
>> >> mast. Lots of sail up high for the light stuff, no drag or weight up
>> >> high for the heavy.
>> >>
>> >> Weight in sailing trim is 420 kgs and the payload 330 kgs/726 lbs.
>> >> Overload could be as much again without it affecting anything but the
>> >> speed.
>> >>
>> >> Construction method for the hulls is partially glassed panels joined
>> >> and compounded, with flat panels for the rest.
>> >>
>> >> Bruce number empty is 2.34. With normal payload, 1.9. Hull flying
>> >> wind speed 10 knots, lower with the crew sitting to leeward.
>> >>
>> >> Inside the ww hull is a double bunk at one end and the galley and
>> >> toilet at the other. The galley space is large, but not all of it is
>> >> accessible. It will probably end up being accessed through a deck
>> >> hatch and used for storing fenders, etc.
>> >>
>> >> The cockpit is sheltered with a folding pram hood which will
> ensure dry
>> >> sailing.
>> >>
>> >> The rudders could not be mounted on the telescoping beams, so are in
>> >> daggercases in the hull. Rather than use long tiller extensions,
>> >> there is a short athwartships tiller (magenta in the renderings) with
>> >> an extension (green) attached to the tiller and a car on a track on
>> >> the deck. The car is pulled fore and aft by lines running to
>> >> whipstaffs (vertical tillers, red) on the leeward end of the
> cockpits.
>> >> The lines are cleated on the whipstaffs so can be released and easily
>> >> replaced and retightened when the rudders are lifted and lowered.
>> >> This is a far easier system than wheel steering where the lines must
>> >> be released off the quadrants to raise the rudders.
>> >>
>> >> Comments, suggestions, criticisms welcome.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

G'day,

Drawings and description of a harry for learner builders and sailors
is in the files under harry for beginners.

Gardner, I appreciate that this is not what you were expecting, but
once I had the rig and rudders sorted, it became the boat for my
daughter and her mates for next summer and anyone else who wants to
experience proas or simple building without forking out to much money

  It will scale up to whatever size windsurfer rig (let me know mast
length and sail area) you care to put on it, and for the same price i
am happy to sell you, or any other of our more substantial members
the plans for an extended version.  I am not particularly confident
about the rudders with a maxi rig and big crew so you may end up with
fixed rudders.  Having said which, it should be just a problem of
wrapping more tow round it so  I am very tempted to build one for
Elementarry and see how it works.
As usual, comments and questions welcomed.

regards,

Rob

Any time between 10 and 2.

regards,

Rob

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote:
> Hi rob,
>
>
>
> see you tomorrow.
>
> like to start next boat.
>
>
>
> Doug
>
> --- On Thu, 29/5/08, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> From: Rob Denney <harryproa@...>
> Subject: Re: [harryproa] Build trailerable as a test?
> To: harryproa@...
> Date: Thursday, 29 May, 2008, 2:31 PM
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@networknow. org>
> wrote:
>> Rob, great reply, as usual. Now the onslaught of questions.
>>
>> Prismatic coefficient (I have been embarrased to ask, but since you
>> mention
>> it), I must be using it wrong.
>>
>> 15' * 1.5' * (8.5/12)' = 15.93 cubic feet * 0.77 = 12.27 cubic feet * 62.4
>> lbs/cubic foot = 765 lbs displacement. Where did I go wrong?
>
> 15' is the length, 2' is the beam, the radius is 1'. Therefore the
> section area is (pi x (r^2))/2 as it is a semicircle. 3.14 x 1 x 1 x
> .5 = 1.57 sq' X 15 = 23.55 cu ' x 62.4 = 1,470 lbs. See Robert's
> post for prismatic definition.
>>
>> What is your guideline on relative sizes of the hulls. This looks like you
>> are building the shortest ww hull that can handle the weight, then you put
>> on a lw hull that is as long as possible. Extrapolating from your numbers,
>> I
>> guess you want at least 10:1 length to beam for ww and a draft of 1/2 beam
>> (so the underwater cross section is roughly semi-circular? ). lw
>> skinnie-ness
>> (wrong word?) is based on full-up whole vessel weight, with a ratio of
>> 20:1
>> or better??? Is there a rule of thumb relating the lengths of the ww and
>> lw
>> hull? In Visionarry and the charter, it seems to be ww length + 10 feet.
>> In
>> this it is 15' ww and 40' lw.
>
> No rule of thumb. Windward hull is parasitic, I like it as small as
> possible. Leeward hull is speed, I like it as long , low and narrow
> as possible. However, the customer is always right on this aspect, so
> whatever you want, as long as you are aware that anything other than
> this will sail slower, be more expensive and slower to build. So
> far, any combination up to both the same length has worked.
>>
>> My biggest concern with the trailering is stepping the mast; particularly
>> by
>> myself. I had a 25' trailerable tri, which I never used because it took
>> 4-8
>> hours to set up or tear down. But raising the mast was the easiest part,
>> using the hinge at the mast step and all the rigging to hoist it up. I
>> picture myself standing on top of the trailer trying to pick up a 175lb
>> mast
>> that is 40' long and wave it around until I can stick it in a hole. I am
>> sure that is not what you have in mind, since you mentioned some sort of a
>> pole, but I am not understanding how it can be done. I was thinking maybe
>> a
>> hinged sleeve at the mast hole opening that I slid the mast into, with a
>> lip
>> on the other side of the hole? Then stand on top of the trailering vehicle
>> with a long stick to push the mast upright? Sounds difficult.
>
> The centre of gravity of an unstayed mast is about 30% of it's height.
> You need an alloy tube (or a piece of 4 x 4 timber) this long, plus
> the bury in the boat, plus a foot or so. The pole has a block and
> tackle on the top and the bottom is inserted into a hole in the hull
> next to the mast, and seats in a step on the hull bottom. The block
> and tackle is attached at the cog of the mast and hoisted up, while
> you hold onto the heel of the mast. When it is vertical you lower it
> into the hull. Takes a minute or so once it is hooked u. Removal is
> the other way round, which also makes it easier to lay it in it's
> cradle on the deck. The pole can be much shorter, as long as you can
> hold onto the bottom and keep it vertical.
>>
>> I had a question about the telescoping. You mentioned that the boat could
>> trailer at 8'6", fit in a slip at 12' and sail at 20', all with a single
>> telescoping beam. I would think that for an 8'6" width, the theoretical
>> max
>> beam would be 2*8'6" = 17', which would leave no overlap for strength. How
>> are you doing that?
>
> When the boat is telescoped and on the trailer, the beams stick out
> through the ww hull side. Simply remove them before pulling the
> trailer up the ramp. If marina use was not anticipated, you could do
> this without the telescoping. It is easy to do with composite beams,
> much less easy with alloy ones.
>>
>> On the layout for my version, you say "Yours will have the cockpit in this
>> area." I don't know which area you mean. From "front" to "back" is the
>> layout: galley, bunk, cockpit, bunk, toilet? Deck hatches between galley
>> and
>> bunk and between head and bunk? Refering to questions in the first
>> paragraph, if the lw hull has to be 40', is there any real downside to
>> making the ww hull 20' or even 25? If the hulls are to be made from 2 flat
>> panels each, it would seem to be a minimal increase in cost and labor and
>> would make things easier to fit.
>
> Absolutely. hence my question about how big you want to go. I
> have not drawn your layout as I am too busy with paying customers at
> the moment. ;-)
>>
>> I really appreciate the resin infusion tips. I am unfamiliar with some of
>> your terms. What do you mean by "shade cloth"? Something you would make an
>> awning out of? Sunbrella, or similar (dense weave, heavy, almost like
>> canvas)? Is "window sealant" like caulk?
>
> Shade cloth is a densely woven, pretty cheap material to keep th esun
> off playgrounds etc in Aus. It is woven from quite stiff plastic
> strands. Let me know an address, I wil post you some. The
> requirement is that even under vacuum, resin will travel along it.
> Test whatever you have and see how it works. Household carpet works,
> but sucks up a lot of resin. Hessian (scak material) might, but not
> for big jobs. window sealant is a soft, sticky compound that comes
> on rolls. the strips are 3/8" wide by maybe a quarter" thick. Test
> it by sticking plastic to table. The plastic should tear before the
> tapwe lets go. For long jobs, plastic packaging tape works well also.
>>
>> when you say "cut the cloth and peel ply", do you mean the fiberglass
>> cloth?
>> or the shade cloth? The order of stacking is glass, peel ply, foam, glass,
>> peel ply?
>
> No. The order is glass sheet, wax, fibreglass, perforated foam,
> fibreglass, peel ply, shade cloth, vac bag.
>>
>> The plastic conduit (with holes drilled) is layed on top of the glass? or
>> on
>> top of the stack of foam/fiberglass? If on top of the glass, how does the
>> layer of fiberglass on top of the foam ever get infused?
>
> Put one conduit along the top, the other along the opposite edge.
>>
>> I'll start gathering materials this weekend. I have some West System epoxy
>> resin already. I guess I can experiment with that, but it is high
>> viscosity.
>
> Use it for some hand laid panels to see how vacuuming and your set up
> works. It does not work for infusion, unless you have very slow
> hardener and heat everything up.
>>
>> As always, your help is appreciated.
>
> No sweat. I had an email from Derek about some other stuff, told him
> you had not got your dinghy plans.
>
> regards,.
>
> Rob
>>
>> - Gardner
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Rob Denney <harryproa@gmail. com> wrote:
>>>
>>> G'day,
>>>
>>> Preliminary numbers
>>>
>>> ww hull 5m/15' long, waterline 450mm/18", draft 220mm/8.5",
>>> displacement 640 lbs, prismatic .77. (Use this to allow for the hull
>>> shape when you multiply the cross sectional area in the middle of the
>>> boat by the length). I would probably go a little longer to cope
>>> with your other requirements.
>>> lw hull, as long as you can build, trail, afford and handle. The
>>> longer it is, the higher the top speed and the drier and more
>>> comfortable the motion.
>>>
>>> The single sail works well on boats with light windward hulls, as the
>>> rudder is aft, which makes it balanced. With 600 kgs on a shortish ww
>>> hull, the ballestron may be a better bet, although once you know how
>>> to shunt, it won't be a problem. With a lot of people on board, and
>>> not much boom clearance the ballestron needs to be watched while
>>> shunting.
>>>
>>> There will be trampolines, which will be on side pieces with a hinge
>>> in the middle so it can be folded when the boat telescopes. A
>>> walkway can do the same.
>>>
>>> Sail is loose footed (attached only to the outboard end of the boom).
>>> On Elementarry, the boom is attached to the mast. It has a sock luff,
>>> so this is not a problem. Yours would have slides, so the boom needs
>>> to rotate relative to the mast, but not move vertically. Not a big
>>> deal. Your boom will indeed be too long to attach permanently. It
>>> will be strapped to the bearing on the mast, again, not a big deal.
>>>
>>> The hours on the charter boat are for the shell. This one could take
>>> anywhere from 500-1,000+ hours depending on all the usual stuff, but
>>> mostly on the standard of finish required. There are some alignment
>>> details to make it telescope smoothly, which could add some time.
>>> They are all done before the beams are closed up permanently, so are
>>> not difficult, just might take a while.
>>>
>>> Materials cost? Same as the other trailer sailor, give or take a bit.
>>> It is cheaper to import the materials from here. Let me or Raps
>>> know if you want to share the shipping costs.
>>>
>>> Could be a single bunk, or the galley and stowage. The double is
>>> 6'x5', the single is 5x3. Yours will have the cockpit in this area.
>>> The toilet at one end of the hull and the galley at the other end.
>>> Access will be through deck hatches.
>>>
>>> Re infusion. Derek's workshops are fantastic, Henny at
>>> http://www.fram. nl/ has a lot of info and a cd, as does Steve in
>>> Houston, but I don't have his web address. By far the best way to
>>> learn about it is:
>>>
>>> Get a vacuum pump from ebay, (old milking pumps, fridge compressors,
>>> air con evacuators all work) and a sheet of window glass about 30"
>>> square. Buy some clear builders plastic, some window sealant, glass,
>>> foam, peel ply and resin, some shade cloth and some 10mm plastic
>>> conduit. Drill the smallest holes you can every 4" in the foam and a
>>> 1/4" hole every 4" in the middle 18" of 2 pieces of 4' lengths of
>>> conduit, cut the cloth and peel ply and lay it on the glass with a 2"
>>> border all the way round. Put the shade cloth on the glass and wrap
>>> it around the perforated section of the lengths of conduit such that
>>> one piece is on one side of the job, the other is on the opposite
>>> side. Cut a piece of plastic the same size as the glass and seal it
>>> to the glass and around the conduit. Block one end of one piece of
>>> conduit and hook the other end up to the vac pump. Block both ends
>>> of the other piece. Check for leaks (listening) is the best way.
>>> When it is leak free, unseal the ends of the non vacuum conduit and
>>> put them in buckets of resin. Prepare to be amazed. When the
>>> infusion is complete (look under the glass aswell as on top), seal off
>>> the resin conduit and leave it to cure. You now know more about
>>> infusion than 95% of the world's boatbuilders. Study and weigh the
>>> sample, and let me know what it looks like and what went wrong and I
>>> will start lesson 2.
>>>
>>> Elementarry as a tender? Could do, but without seats, it is not very
>>> comfortable. It is also a bit fragile for hauling up beaches and over
>>> rocks. The Torqueedo would work, but rowing wouldn't. No sweat on
>>> the payload, but it would all be on the trampoline. You would be
>>> better off with a conventional dinghy. Loading El on the cabin top
>>> for blasting around when you get there has more merit, but the mother
>>> ship really should be bigger for this.
>>>
>>> Let me know what the next step is, or if I have forgotten to reply to
>>> anything.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@networknow.
>>> org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Ok, I can tell by the responses that it won't be a small boat :( I was
>>> > hoping for something smaller than the design that is taking shape.
>>> > Since
>>> > that looks to be not true, let me fall back to that one, and drop the
>>> > weight
>>> > requirements and the 6 passenger (we will only invite people on a nice
>>> > day
>>> > for a few hours. They can sit on the trampolines (there can be
>>> > trampolines,
>>> > right?) Then we can design for crew weight of 600lbs, and seating for
>>> > 3-4.
>>> >
>>> > I notice that you are not using the ballestron right. I am flouting my
>>> > ingorance here, but how can you go upwind with a mast centered for and
>>> > aft
>>> > and no headsail?
>>> >
>>> > I was also thinking of a 3-4' flat panel, hinged at the floor, to give
>>> > some
>>> > sort of walkway outside the cockpit. Fold it down once the beam is
>>> > expanded.
>>> >
>>> > Is the sail loose footed? The charter proa talks about the boom and
>>> > mast
>>> > being one piece, but it would seem to make it too wide for trailering.
>>> >
>>> > Since you have basics worked out on that trailer sailor, do you have an
>>> > estimate of work hours for an "average" finish? I know you have
>>> > mentioned
>>> > 1400 for the charter proa hull (by professionals, I am sure).
>>> >
>>> > There looks to be a single bunk "forward" also. Is that true, or is
>>> > that
>>> > the
>>> > galley? What are the bunk dimensions?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Rob Denney <harryproa@gmail. com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> G'day,
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM, gardnerpomper
>>> >> <gardner@networknow. org>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Some sort of liveaboard harryproa seems like my next cruising boat.
>>> >> > I
>>> >> > am interested in both sampling the experience, and finding out if I
>>> >> > have the fortitude to build one. I have seen messages about a
>>> >> > trailerable design and I have some questions specific to using it to
>>> >> > "try out" the home build/proa idea.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Requirements:
>>> >> > 1) trailerable as other specs (8'6" trailer width,
>>> >> easy
>>> >> ><1000lbs with trailer (negotiable) )
>>> >> Difficult, negotiations can start when i have done some drawings.
>>> >> > 2) build method as similar to proposed charter boat as possible,
>>> >> > since
>>> >> > that is identified as simplest for larger boats
>>> >> > fast and easy on/off the trailer. this would be a daysailer, driving
>>> >> > 2
>>> >> > hours to the water, set it up, sail for a few hours, break it down,
>>> >> > trailer it 2 hours home.
>>> >> Easy
>>> >> > 3) I am heavy (300lbs), so the crew weight (3 of us) would be about
>>> >> > 550lbs. We would like to be able to invite another 2 adults and a
>>> >> > child and still sail it well, so total crew weight could be 900 lbs.
>>> >> Difficult, I will see what the minimum size is to do this. How much
>>> >> extra for food and safety gear?
>>> >> > 4) Enclosed head
>>> >> easy
>>> >> > 5) sail without getting wet
>>> >> easy
>>> >> > 6) camping propane stove
>>> >> > 7) comfy seats and table to eat at
>>> >> Can this be outside, under a removable bimini with roll down sides?
>>> >> Otherwise, it is a bit ticky for 6 people.
>>> >> > 8) standing headroom (fold down bimini ok)
>>> >> easy
>>> >> > 9) rain protected
>>> >> easy
>>> >> > 10) will never be INTENTIONALLY sailed in > 20 kts
>>> >> Yeah, right!
>>> >> > 11) ballestron rig
>>> >> easy
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I won't be racing, but I will want performance comparable to what we
>>> >> > have heard from Rare Bird and the charter proa design (i.e.
>>> >> > windspeed
>>> >> > up to 15 knots). I *don't* want to fly a hull!! (I'm timid)
>>> >> Timid is good, but it will be a sizableboat to do this with 6 people
>>> >> on
>>> >> board.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Questions:
>>> >> > 1) What would plan cost be?
>>> >> TBA when i see what is involved. Probably $Aus3,000, as it is going
>>> >> to be a one off. You get 10% off any future plans sold to the
>>> >> design until the next one is sailing. After that it is as per the
>>> >> Goodwill Fee on http://www.harrypro a.com/plans. htm Part of the plans
>>> >> price wil be deducted from the big boat fee.
>>> >> 2) would plans include info on resin infusion and building a table,
>>> >> > etc, etc? Or at least point me to such info?
>>> >> yes. As much information as you need on anything in the plans.
>>> >> > 2) Estimated build time (novice.. experienced with epoxy/fiberglass,
>>> >> > even some with carbon mat as reinforement, but never built a boat).
>>> >> > If
>>> >> > you prefer, you can supply "average estimated build" and I will put
>>> >> > in
>>> >> > my own "idiot factor" multiplier
>>> >> TBA, but mostly it will depend on the level of finish inside and
>>> >> outside that you require.
>>> >> > 3) Would it be close to the "trailer sailer" layout jpg I see posted
>>> >> > in the forums?
>>> >> Not if you want a cockpit for 6, which will replace the bunks
>>> >> >What are hull lengths?
>>> >> Long! What is the longest you can build, trailer and handle on the
>>> >> ramp?
>>> >> > 4) When could I start? I have a building available this summer/fall,
>>> >> > but it is not heated
>>> >> Tomorrow, building the table. You won't get all the plans
>>> >> immediately, but i will keep ahead of your progress. Pay for half the
>>> >> plans up front, the rest before the last drawings arrive.
>>> >> > 5) material cost? availablity?
>>> >> Not a huge amount, probably less than the resale value of the boat.
>>> >> Can get it from your local supplier, apart from the carbon for the
>>> >> mast, boom, rudders and beams which I will supply from Texas.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > BTW, I live in Pennsylvania (US).
>>> >> No problem ;-)
>>> >>
>>> >> > Thanks,
>>> >> > - Gardner
>>> >>
>>> >> My pleasure,
>>> >>
>>> >> Rob
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>
> ________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Email.
>

It seems that the crab claw moves faster in video
showing balestron and crab claw side by side. Not big
difference but that's how it looks on the video.

I agree totally that proa rig needs new thinking. All
traditional solutions have their problems. Combination
of some features may bring the best solution.

I agree that staysail only rig has a lot of merit in
proa. Off the self products, easy to use furling
sails, good power are all very good properties.
Structurally the mast to windward rig will produce
large forces on the boat. Heavy compression and
bending forces will be the result, which will require
stronger structure. Is it worth it? I don't know.
Experiments will tell.

Arto


--- tsstproa <bitme1234@...> wrote:

> In the video
>
>
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mt-QZzlY0lM&feature=related
>
>  The easy rig and claw on harry style model was same
> day testing.
> Test in roughly the same wind conditions. Notice at
> the end of video
> a little larger sail on a deep vee hull form proa ,
> speed, wake and
> the freeness in which it truly flies through water
> and wind.
>
> I think in seeking super high pointing ability at
> wind speed or
> better from a more traditional western rig ex. sloop
> type or similar
> you're going to need a large high buoyant LWH. At a
> size equivalent
> as large as or larger than a traditional Pacific
> Proa main hull. The
> only way I see getting around this is with a none
> traditional rig in
> both senses. Not pacific tradition or western
> tradition. Not saying
> this is a solution but just my attempt at the
> problem.
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=k0XVpEq5Y1I
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=_PaWgwc4HwI
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=s-AzmNEj0EE
>
>
> In the clips above the approach may seem complicated
> and not proven
> to heavy etc.... all the above and more from
> skeptics. But an easier
> solution that some maybe able to wrapped the head
> around is the mast
> aft concept and having stay sails. But instead of
> mast aft, have
> mast to weather on a proa configuration set at
> determined distance
> with stay sails at each bow on roller furling. You
> don't get the
> flexibility of the Aframe rig but close enough and
> with proven
> equipment all ready on the market. Except possible
> sail design for
> stay sails on this type of craft.
>
> Todd
> --- In harryproa@..., Arto
> Hakkarainen <ahakkara@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Todd,
> >
> >>
> > But on to the subject.
> >
> > I fully agree with your ideas on placing rig CoE
> > forward to make sail balance better. The reports
> on
> > lot of pressure on aft rudder have made me think
> of
> > alternative rigs to easyrig. The crab claw and
> gibbons
> > seem to work well in smaller proas being effective
> > rigs and placing sails forward to bow, but scaling
> > them up to harry or visionarry size seems quite
> > problematic.
> >
> > All my sailing experience tells me that boat
> should be
> > well balanced. Easyrig seems very easy to handle
> but
> > the rig/rudders combination doesn't seem balanced
> to
> > me. Reports on the heavy pressure on aft rudder
> > indicate that this is the case. Having better
> balance
> > should also help to improve performance by
> reducing
> > the forces needed to counter the forces caused by
> > unbalance between sails and foils. In greater
> speeds
> > this could be quite a big factor.
> >
> > What worries me regarding the crab claw and
> gibbons is
> > lack of knowledge and experience on those. That is
> why
> > I was so interested in your experiments. And
> handling
> > of those rigs with crew of one or two persons may
> be
> > too much.
> >
> > But I guess it takes considerable amount of
> testing
> > and trial & error to get it right. I'm glad there
> are
> > others gathering experience and information too.
> >
> > Arto
> >
> > --- tsstproa <bitme1234@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Okay
> > > ****
> > >
> > > To judge performance at that scale would be way
> over
> > > my head at
> > > such a small scale. I use models for simply
> testing
> > > the effects of
> > > balance from sail COE positioned in diferent
> > > locations on different
> > > hull type proa configurations. To which will
> give
> > > best forward drive
> > > with least amount of effort and best helm
> balance.
> > >
> > > Rig types for specific proa configurations.
> > > I see in model test on harry type configuration
> > > (Meaning low draft
> > > hulls with weight to windward using deep
> boards)a
> > > better more narrow
> > > windward performance range from The easy rig
> > > compared to the crab
> > > claw rigged on the same harry type model. But I
> > > think thats only due
> > > to the easy rigs placement of the rigs COE being
> > > back further and
> > > relying on the single replaced longer rear board
> to
> > > counter sail
> > > force. Same harry type model with claw balances
> with
> > > both boards
> > > down or with just the rear down. Crab claw rig
> had
> > > such netrual helm
> > > I had to set steering boards to make proa go up
> wind
> > > which it did
> > > well but needing input to do it with both boards
> > > down. Single board
> > > down cause just enough weather helm to get model
> up
> > > wind. But didnot
> > > seem as efficient as easy rig or as  well as
> > > traditional hull proa
> > > configuration with crab claw rig.
> > >
> > > Notice in this video with harry type hull
> > > cinfiguration it is with
> > > the old shorter boards. The 85 sq'' orange claw
> sail
> > > balanced why
> > > better than the the 50 ish sq'' sail on the easy
> > > rig. with the easy
> > > rig you can see the extra bit of weight about
> 1/4 oz
> > > of sand on the
> > > rear of lwh to keep model from round up and back
> > > winding.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mt-QZzlY0lM&feature=related
> > >
> > > So I guess the question would be how are you
> will to
> > > gain your
> > > performance.
> > >
> > > I personally think adapting modern technology to
> > > mimic tradtional
> > > methods in rigs felxablity. Is one way in
> advancing
> > > proa technology.
> > > look at clip below for an example.
> > >
> > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=_PaWgwc4HwI
> > >
> > > In the clip above: Thats a 45% larger sail area
> than
> > > the old 50ish
> > > sq'' easy rig sail on old shorter leeward hull
> with
> > > the old short
> > > baord sailing pretty balanced. Hope this gives
> you
> > > some idea.
> > >
> > > Look in photo's under Square Harry. for lwh
>
=== message truncated ===

--- In harryproa@..., Arto Hakkarainen <ahakkara@...>
wrote:
>

>
> I fully agree with your ideas on placing rig CoE
> forward to make sail balance better. The reports on
> lot of pressure on aft rudder have made me think of
> alternative rigs to easyrig. The crab claw and gibbons
> seem to work well in smaller proas being effective
> rigs and placing sails forward to bow, but scaling
> them up to harry or visionarry size seems quite
> problematic.
>
> All my sailing experience tells me that boat should be
> well balanced. Easyrig seems very easy to handle but
> the rig/rudders combination doesn't seem balanced to
> me. Reports on the heavy pressure on aft rudder
> indicate that this is the case. Having better balance
> should also help to improve performance by reducing
> the forces needed to counter the forces caused by
> unbalance between sails and foils. In greater speeds
> this could be quite a big factor.

If you regard the rear foil as the main leeway prevention, I do not
see how it thus becomes unbalanced. The load on a centre board is
large and if you lift it up , the boat becomes unbalanced. If you
have plenty of depth for the foil, then there is no problem. You may
have to adjust the position of the pivot to lighten the load, but
that does not mean the boat is unbalanced. If it was truly
unbalanced it would not be able to go upwind and downwind and sail
at windspeed. What we are asking for is that the boat can sail
without undrwater appendages. This is a big ask of any boat. .
  If you wish to steer with a lighter rudder, you can fix the rear
one and play with the forward one. I was only thinking of a
situation where the boat could be sailed in skinny water using drive
from the forward sail to allow minimum foils in the water. In deeper
water, I have no problems with the system.
  Robert
  RObert









>
> What worries me regarding the crab claw and gibbons is
> lack of knowledge and experience on those. That is why
> I was so interested in your experiments. And handling
> of those rigs with crew of one or two persons may be
> too much.
>
> But I guess it takes considerable amount of testing
> and trial & error to get it right. I'm glad there are
> others gathering experience and information too.
>
> Arto
>
> --- tsstproa <bitme1234@...> wrote:
>
> > Okay
> > ****
> >
> > To judge performance at that scale would be way over
> > my head at
> > such a small scale. I use models for simply testing
> > the effects of
> > balance from sail COE positioned in diferent
> > locations on different
> > hull type proa configurations. To which will give
> > best forward drive
> > with least amount of effort and best helm balance.
> >
> > Rig types for specific proa configurations.
> > I see in model test on harry type configuration
> > (Meaning low draft
> > hulls with weight to windward using deep boards)a
> > better more narrow
> > windward performance range from The easy rig
> > compared to the crab
> > claw rigged on the same harry type model. But I
> > think thats only due
> > to the easy rigs placement of the rigs COE being
> > back further and
> > relying on the single replaced longer rear board to
> > counter sail
> > force. Same harry type model with claw balances with
> > both boards
> > down or with just the rear down. Crab claw rig had
> > such netrual helm
> > I had to set steering boards to make proa go up wind
> > which it did
> > well but needing input to do it with both boards
> > down. Single board
> > down cause just enough weather helm to get model up
> > wind. But didnot
> > seem as efficient as easy rig or as  well as
> > traditional hull proa
> > configuration with crab claw rig.
> >
> > Notice in this video with harry type hull
> > cinfiguration it is with
> > the old shorter boards. The 85 sq'' orange claw sail
> > balanced why
> > better than the the 50 ish sq'' sail on the easy
> > rig. with the easy
> > rig you can see the extra bit of weight about 1/4 oz
> > of sand on the
> > rear of lwh to keep model from round up and back
> > winding.
> >
> >
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mt-QZzlY0lM&feature=related
> >
> > So I guess the question would be how are you will to
> > gain your
> > performance.
> >
> > I personally think adapting modern technology to
> > mimic tradtional
> > methods in rigs felxablity. Is one way in advancing
> > proa technology.
> > look at clip below for an example.
> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=_PaWgwc4HwI
> >
> > In the clip above: Thats a 45% larger sail area than
> > the old 50ish
> > sq'' easy rig sail on old shorter leeward hull with
> > the old short
> > baord sailing pretty balanced. Hope this gives you
> > some idea.
> >
> > Look in photo's under Square Harry. for lwh
> > comparison old vs new
> > and board comparison depth and size old vs new.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > It wasn't the wording but how you presented and
> > edited that seemed
> > offensive!
> >
> > In harryproa@..., Arto Hakkarainen
> > <ahakkara@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Todd,
> > >
> > > I did not mean to be rude or offensive. I am sorry
> > if
> > > you interpreted it that way. It is probably due to
> > me
> > > not being native English speaker.
> > >
> > > I understood everything you said in your mail
> > before
> > > this message. Reason I asked is that since the
> > > conditions may have varied more than was visible
> > in
> > > the videos I wanted to know if some rig performed
> > > considerably better than others speedwise or in
> > other
> > > way. I did notice that crab claw moved the model
> > very
> > > fast but was it because of change in condition or
> > > superior performance was the actual thing I wanted
> > to
> > > know.
> > >
> > > Also if crab claw would perform as well as Marchaj
> > and
> > > many after him indicate it would also solve many
> > other
> > > problems in proa. That is why I am very curious to
> > see
> > > and hear all test results.
> > >
> > > And again I am sorry if I insulted you in any way.
> > > That was never my intention.
> > >
> > > Arto
> > >
> > > --- tsstproa <bitme1234@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you cant see the difference then I doubt I
> > could
> > > > explain it in a
> > > > way you would under stand.
> > > >
> > > > my opening statment said in the thread in
> > regards to
> > > > sail/ sails.
> > > > Knowing that Doug said he thought his boards
> > needed
> > > > to be further
> > > > out towards bows for better control , for a less
> > > > heavely loaded
> > > > helm. I gave a possible solution instead of
> > rudder
> > > > design.
> > > >
> > > > But if you wanna come right out and call me a
> > tardo
> > > > or retard go
> > > > ahead. I just realized that some get there
> > groups by
> > > > email instead
> > > > of going to the web and picking out what they
> > want
> > > > to read. Sorry if
> > > > I have violated your email with my TaRdO SeNsE.
> > > >
> > > >  Both Aframe and classic Crabclaw place Ceo of
> > sail
> > > > in a more foward
> > > > position off setting weight and drag to windward
> > > > with buoyancy shift
> > > > forand aft on a proa for best forward drive with
> > as
> > > > little under
> > > > water surfaces required for a specific under
> > water
> > > > hull shape to
> > > > achieve a balanced helm. Both rigs are flexiable
> > > > (meaning not afixed
> > > > to hull in anyone perminent location) allowing
> > for
> > > > each Type of
> > > > sails Ceo to be moved to a single location for
> > best
> > > > balance on all
> > > > point of sail.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > --- In harryproa@..., Arto
> > > > Hakkarainen <ahakkara@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In the threat regarding rudder design we saw
> > some
> > > > > tests by Todd with different rig
> > configurations:
> > > > > *****
> > > > > Here are my two solution in getting sail area
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > correct
> > > > > location for both tacks for both bows. One
> > evolved
> > > > > from the other.
> > > > > One balances traditional the other modern.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PaWgwc4HwI
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo6QCBjb4rk
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt-QZzlY0lM&feature=related
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> >
> === message truncated ===
>

I really have no frame of reference when it comes to estimating how
easy or difficult it would be to set up of tear down the proa. Rob,
would taking the beams off after the boat is on the trailer have to be
a 2 person job?

I have pulled e scows with my car in the past with out a problem, I
may be way off base here but pulling that boat wasn't too difficult.

I don't know if the extra 10 feet would have a huge impact - it didn't
seem to matter that much when I took my turn driving when towing an A
scow.... not with my car, but I think I got the rough idea what I was
up against.

















--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> G'day,
>
> Correct about the rudders.  Not ideal, and could be corrected by
> mounting them on a sleeve on the beam, as per Robert's suggestion.
> trade off is telescoping width, or overall width.  Mast head is
> 16.2m/53' off the water.  Low for a 12m race multi, cloud scraping for
> a sub one ton boat.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
> > I had a couple questions. Were you going for engineless, or are
you planning
> > on mounting an outboard somewhere?
> >
> > Also, it looks like you can't retract the rudders and still steer,
so I was
> > wondering what the draft is.
> >
> > Just for curiosity, what is the masthead height above the water?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Gardner
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Raps callion
> > <captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> I love the trailerable design. It exceeds my expectations in
almost every
> >> respect.
> >> The part I love the most is the building cost and the bruce number.
> >>
> >> I would love to see another design with 6' headroom, trailerable,
a bruce
> >> number
> >> this high, and at this price.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Mike Crawford <jmichael@...>
> >> To: harryproa@...
> >> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:56:53 PM
> >> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Trailer proa
> >>
> >> Rob,
> >>
> >>   The trailerable proa looks wonderful.  I was skeptical at
first, but now
> >> that you've upgraded the renderings, I can see that the boat
really does
> >> have some character of its own.
> >>
> >>   That's also a great mast stepping solution.  Some tri's require a
> >> trailer to step/unstep, and that's not very useful if you're
moored or at a
> >> dock.  Others have a-frames or gin poles, which help, but which
also create
> >> some serious stresses on the mast base.  They are also more
suited for a
> >> rotating mast that fits onto a ball than for an unstayed rig that
needs to
> >> be lowered several feet into a hull.  This is probably the
simplest and most
> >> stress-free solution I've seen.
> >>
> >>   The number of trailerable boats with this level of performance and
> >> accommodations can be counted on one hand, with a few fingers to
spare.
> >>
> >>   Nice job.
> >>
> >>        - Mike
> >>
> >>
> >> Rob Denney wrote:
> >>
> >> G'day,
> >>
> >> Trailer proa renderings are in the Files section under Maxi
Trailer sailor
> >>
> >> 'The ultimate trailer sailor/racer cruiser' is the requirement for
> >> this boat. As fast as possible, with standing headroom, minimal
> >> galley, double bunk and a toilet. Trailering is mostly for the 5
> >> mile trip from home to ramp, but occasionally further afield.
> >>
> >> Windward hull is 7m.24', leeward hull 12m/40'
> >>
> >> The boat is 6m/20' wide in sailing trim, but telescopes to 3.7/12'4"
> >> wide for marinas and 2m/6'8" wide on the trailer. This is easily done
> >> with composite beams. The mast and boom travel in cradles on the lw
> >> hull deck, the beams under the cockpit. The trampoline is in two
> >> pieces split fore and aft. Each piece has a 25mm dia carbon or alloy
> >> tube sitting in hooks on the hull and the beams. In the middle is a
> >> thicker tube for each piece. When telescoping for marina use, the
> >> lee hull tramp is lifted out of it's hooks and as the hulls slide
> >> together it slides over the windward tramp, so you can still walk
> >> across to the other hull. For light air races, it can also be sailed
> >> like this. For trailering, the tramps and the telescoped beams are
> >> quickly and easily removed and stored under the the cockpit.
> >>
> >> The mast is telescoped to 9.2m for stepping/unstepping . A 5m long
> >> pole, with a 4;1 blocjk and tackle on one end is inserted into a hole
> >> in the deck next to the mast. The heel sits in a cup next to the mast
> >> step. The blocks are tied around the mast at it's centre of gravity
> >> approx 3.7m from the base and it is lifted up until the heel is above
> >> the deck, then guided into the top bearing and lowered into place.
> >> Unstepping is the opposite. Very quick and very safe.
> >>
> >> The reefing drawing shows sail areas incl mast of of 47 sqm/505 sq',
> >> 35 sqm/376 sq' and 22 sq m/236 sq m. Storm sail is 2 sq m/22.5 sq' of
> >> mast. Lots of sail up high for the light stuff, no drag or weight up
> >> high for the heavy.
> >>
> >> Weight in sailing trim is 420 kgs and the payload 330 kgs/726 lbs.
> >> Overload could be as much again without it affecting anything but the
> >> speed.
> >>
> >> Construction method for the hulls is partially glassed panels joined
> >> and compounded, with flat panels for the rest.
> >>
> >> Bruce number empty is 2.34. With normal payload, 1.9. Hull flying
> >> wind speed 10 knots, lower with the crew sitting to leeward.
> >>
> >> Inside the ww hull is a double bunk at one end and the galley and
> >> toilet at the other. The galley space is large, but not all of it is
> >> accessible. It will probably end up being accessed through a deck
> >> hatch and used for storing fenders, etc.
> >>
> >> The cockpit is sheltered with a folding pram hood which will
ensure dry
> >> sailing.
> >>
> >> The rudders could not be mounted on the telescoping beams, so are in
> >> daggercases in the hull. Rather than use long tiller extensions,
> >> there is a short athwartships tiller (magenta in the renderings) with
> >> an extension (green) attached to the tiller and a car on a track on
> >> the deck. The car is pulled fore and aft by lines running to
> >> whipstaffs (vertical tillers, red) on the leeward end of the
cockpits.
> >> The lines are cleated on the whipstaffs so can be released and easily
> >> replaced and retightened when the rudders are lifted and lowered.
> >> This is a far easier system than wheel steering where the lines must
> >> be released off the quadrants to raise the rudders.
> >>
> >> Comments, suggestions, criticisms welcome.
> >>
> >
> >
>

In the video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mt-QZzlY0lM&feature=related

  The easy rig and claw on harry style model was same day testing.
Test in roughly the same wind conditions. Notice at the end of video
a little larger sail on a deep vee hull form proa , speed, wake and
the freeness in which it truly flies through water and wind.

I think in seeking super high pointing ability at wind speed or
better from a more traditional western rig ex. sloop type or similar
you're going to need a large high buoyant LWH. At a size equivalent
as large as or larger than a traditional Pacific Proa main hull. The
only way I see getting around this is with a none traditional rig in
both senses. Not pacific tradition or western tradition. Not saying
this is a solution but just my attempt at the problem.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=k0XVpEq5Y1I
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_PaWgwc4HwI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=s-AzmNEj0EE


In the clips above the approach may seem complicated and not proven
to heavy etc.... all the above and more from skeptics. But an easier
solution that some maybe able to wrapped the head around is the mast
aft concept and having stay sails. But instead of mast aft, have
mast to weather on a proa configuration set at determined distance
with stay sails at each bow on roller furling. You don't get the
flexibility of the Aframe rig but close enough and with proven
equipment all ready on the market. Except possible sail design for
stay sails on this type of craft.

Todd
--- In harryproa@..., Arto Hakkarainen <ahakkara@...>
wrote:
>
> Todd,
>
>>
> But on to the subject.
>
> I fully agree with your ideas on placing rig CoE
> forward to make sail balance better. The reports on
> lot of pressure on aft rudder have made me think of
> alternative rigs to easyrig. The crab claw and gibbons
> seem to work well in smaller proas being effective
> rigs and placing sails forward to bow, but scaling
> them up to harry or visionarry size seems quite
> problematic.
>
> All my sailing experience tells me that boat should be
> well balanced. Easyrig seems very easy to handle but
> the rig/rudders combination doesn't seem balanced to
> me. Reports on the heavy pressure on aft rudder
> indicate that this is the case. Having better balance
> should also help to improve performance by reducing
> the forces needed to counter the forces caused by
> unbalance between sails and foils. In greater speeds
> this could be quite a big factor.
>
> What worries me regarding the crab claw and gibbons is
> lack of knowledge and experience on those. That is why
> I was so interested in your experiments. And handling
> of those rigs with crew of one or two persons may be
> too much.
>
> But I guess it takes considerable amount of testing
> and trial & error to get it right. I'm glad there are
> others gathering experience and information too.
>
> Arto
>
> --- tsstproa <bitme1234@...> wrote:
>
> > Okay
> > ****
> >
> > To judge performance at that scale would be way over
> > my head at
> > such a small scale. I use models for simply testing
> > the effects of
> > balance from sail COE positioned in diferent
> > locations on different
> > hull type proa configurations. To which will give
> > best forward drive
> > with least amount of effort and best helm balance.
> >
> > Rig types for specific proa configurations.
> > I see in model test on harry type configuration
> > (Meaning low draft
> > hulls with weight to windward using deep boards)a
> > better more narrow
> > windward performance range from The easy rig
> > compared to the crab
> > claw rigged on the same harry type model. But I
> > think thats only due
> > to the easy rigs placement of the rigs COE being
> > back further and
> > relying on the single replaced longer rear board to
> > counter sail
> > force. Same harry type model with claw balances with
> > both boards
> > down or with just the rear down. Crab claw rig had
> > such netrual helm
> > I had to set steering boards to make proa go up wind
> > which it did
> > well but needing input to do it with both boards
> > down. Single board
> > down cause just enough weather helm to get model up
> > wind. But didnot
> > seem as efficient as easy rig or as  well as
> > traditional hull proa
> > configuration with crab claw rig.
> >
> > Notice in this video with harry type hull
> > cinfiguration it is with
> > the old shorter boards. The 85 sq'' orange claw sail
> > balanced why
> > better than the the 50 ish sq'' sail on the easy
> > rig. with the easy
> > rig you can see the extra bit of weight about 1/4 oz
> > of sand on the
> > rear of lwh to keep model from round up and back
> > winding.
> >
> >
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mt-QZzlY0lM&feature=related
> >
> > So I guess the question would be how are you will to
> > gain your
> > performance.
> >
> > I personally think adapting modern technology to
> > mimic tradtional
> > methods in rigs felxablity. Is one way in advancing
> > proa technology.
> > look at clip below for an example.
> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=_PaWgwc4HwI
> >
> > In the clip above: Thats a 45% larger sail area than
> > the old 50ish
> > sq'' easy rig sail on old shorter leeward hull with
> > the old short
> > baord sailing pretty balanced. Hope this gives you
> > some idea.
> >
> > Look in photo's under Square Harry. for lwh
> > comparison old vs new
> > and board comparison depth and size old vs new.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > It wasn't the wording but how you presented and
> > edited that seemed
> > offensive!
> >
> > In harryproa@..., Arto Hakkarainen
> > <ahakkara@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Todd,
> > >
> > > I did not mean to be rude or offensive. I am sorry
> > if
> > > you interpreted it that way. It is probably due to
> > me
> > > not being native English speaker.
> > >
> > > I understood everything you said in your mail
> > before
> > > this message. Reason I asked is that since the
> > > conditions may have varied more than was visible
> > in
> > > the videos I wanted to know if some rig performed
> > > considerably better than others speedwise or in
> > other
> > > way. I did notice that crab claw moved the model
> > very
> > > fast but was it because of change in condition or
> > > superior performance was the actual thing I wanted
> > to
> > > know.
> > >
> > > Also if crab claw would perform as well as Marchaj
> > and
> > > many after him indicate it would also solve many
> > other
> > > problems in proa. That is why I am very curious to
> > see
> > > and hear all test results.
> > >
> > > And again I am sorry if I insulted you in any way.
> > > That was never my intention.
> > >
> > > Arto
> > >
> > > --- tsstproa <bitme1234@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you cant see the difference then I doubt I
> > could
> > > > explain it in a
> > > > way you would under stand.
> > > >
> > > > my opening statment said in the thread in
> > regards to
> > > > sail/ sails.
> > > > Knowing that Doug said he thought his boards
> > needed
> > > > to be further
> > > > out towards bows for better control , for a less
> > > > heavely loaded
> > > > helm. I gave a possible solution instead of
> > rudder
> > > > design.
> > > >
> > > > But if you wanna come right out and call me a
> > tardo
> > > > or retard go
> > > > ahead. I just realized that some get there
> > groups by
> > > > email instead
> > > > of going to the web and picking out what they
> > want
> > > > to read. Sorry if
> > > > I have violated your email with my TaRdO SeNsE.
> > > >
> > > >  Both Aframe and classic Crabclaw place Ceo of
> > sail
> > > > in a more foward
> > > > position off setting weight and drag to windward
> > > > with buoyancy shift
> > > > forand aft on a proa for best forward drive with
> > as
> > > > little under
> > > > water surfaces required for a specific under
> > water
> > > > hull shape to
> > > > achieve a balanced helm. Both rigs are flexiable
> > > > (meaning not afixed
> > > > to hull in anyone perminent location) allowing
> > for
> > > > each Type of
> > > > sails Ceo to be moved to a single location for
> > best
> > > > balance on all
> > > > point of sail.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > --- In harryproa@..., Arto
> > > > Hakkarainen <ahakkara@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In the threat regarding rudder design we saw
> > some
> > > > > tests by Todd with different rig
> > configurations:
> > > > > *****
> > > > > Here are my two solution in getting sail area
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > correct
> > > > > location for both tacks for both bows. One
> > evolved
> > > > > from the other.
> > > > > One balances traditional the other modern.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PaWgwc4HwI
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo6QCBjb4rk
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt-QZzlY0lM&feature=related
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> >
> === message truncated ===
>

Sinse my reply is posted in along with your response.

Is it faster speeds or better handling? Why any speed records
haven't been broken by a two, three, or even four masted sail boat
with inline sails.

Better handling why then are none of the circuit racing multi hulls
or other circuit racing sailboats using two masts?

I think it's the illusion of speed and better handling from both
sails in light winds. What is the total sail area of your two sails?
What have you compared your boat to and in what wind strengths did
you seem to sail fast in?

Combine your two into one sail or break it up to where sails sit on
different planes, decrease by 25-30 % put in a flexible rig
configuration. Reduce boats over all weight by 20- 30 % and then
compare. But hey Going fast in high winds (not survival mode
sailing) is different from doing wind speed in 8knots

I'm a firm believer in that for a given boat length its the hull's
ability to carry sail area as efficiently as possible along with off
setting heel forces equally with out upsetting hull balance fore and
aft without increasing drag and amounts of weight that creates speed
in any wind condition, not just two unstayed masts with two sails.

Todd



--- In harryproa@..., Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
> &nbsp;
> I'd like to reply to mike:
> losing one mast is not something you plan for.
> Neither is losing both rudders.
> I can't handle both sails (4 sets of sheet ropes), plus rudders
(mine need to go up and down in a shunt) very well. The question is
is the extra handling hassle worth it if you might gat better speed ?
> &nbsp;
> Doug
>
> --- On Sat, 31/5/08, tsstproa bitme1234@... wrote:
>
> From: tsstproa bitme1234@...
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Current rudder design?
> To: harryproa@...
> Date: Saturday, 31 May, 2008, 12:31 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sure,
>
> And two sticks carring two sails is more drag, vs one.
>
> More sail area won't due you any good if its in the wrong place.
> Or needing to use deep boards to compensate for extra sail area in
> wrong place to stay in control adding even more drag. Its a proa
no.
>
> Going off shore most carry spare of everything that they can.
>
> Steer By sails alone on a proa that needs deep daggerboards (prove
> it) explain that.
>
> Weather cocking on a proa balanced right easily does that with a
> single sail.
>
> Each to his own i'd agree.
>
> But Doug said he thought his boards needed to be further out
> towards bows for better control.
>
> So I simply gave a alternative, a glimps of what I thought worked
> well. Why would some take offense to that. I share my ideas
knowing
> nothings set in stone I know this. Its nice to get different
> perspectives on different problems and solutions.
>
> Todd
>
> --- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, Mike Crawford
jmichael@ .&gt;
> wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; Two sets of everything is more complex. There's a lot to be
> said for
> &gt; a single una rig that doesn't have to be messed with.
> &gt;
> &gt; With that said, a schooner rig will:
> &gt;
> &gt; - allow more sail area for the same righting moment
> &gt;
> &gt; - provide a backup in case one mast/sail fails
> &gt;
> &gt; - use shorter/lighter masts that are more easily stepped, and
> also
> &gt; transported/ shipped
> &gt;
> &gt; - allow you to steer and sail the boat, even if both rudders
are
> gone.
> &gt;
> &gt; - provide a great weathercocking setup using a reefed aft
sail
> in a
> &gt; big storm (assuming you're not using drogues yet).
> &gt;
> &gt; It's all a matter of what you want to do with the boat, how
far
> out
> &gt; you want to go, and how long you'll be there. One person's
hassle
> is
> &gt; another person's peace of mind.
> &gt;
> &gt; - Mike
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; tsstproa wrote:
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; Its just finding the correct geomtry to allow specific
sail being
> &gt; &gt; used to feather through Aframe if back winded.
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; I see where you would think having two sails would make
it
> easier to
> &gt; &gt; set for any condition in deep water.
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; But what could be easier than one line to reef sail and
another
> to
> &gt; &gt; shift entire sail from fore to aft. Instead of worring
about two
> &gt; &gt; sets of everything.
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; Todd
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; --- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au
> &gt; &gt; &lt;mailto:harryproa% 40yahoogroups.
com.au&gt;, "Robert" &lt;cateran1949@ &gt;
> &gt; &gt; wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; If the sails were as easy to shunt and good in
being caught
> aback,
> &gt; &gt; I
> &gt; &gt; &gt; would be with you all the way. I intend to set up a
system
> similar
> &gt; &gt; to
> &gt; &gt; &gt; your A frame on my 5m outrigger proa using a
windsurfer rig.
> It is
> &gt; &gt; &gt; designed for paddling out to snorkeling and fishing
spots, and
> it
> &gt; &gt; &gt; would be nice to sail home when the wind gets up.
> &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; When you are in deeper water with a schooner rig,
you power
> up. You
> &gt; &gt; &gt; are not feathering all the time
> &gt; &gt; &gt; Robert--- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au
> &gt; &gt; &lt;mailto:harryproa% 40yahoogroups.
com.au&gt;, "tsstproa" &lt;bitme1234@&gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; wrote:
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; I don't know less depth less likely to hit
somthing. Sounds
> good
> &gt; &gt; for
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; cruising or racing. Also smaller boards
possibly working
> under
> &gt; &gt; less
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; strain on structure.
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Also one sail less gear along with shorter
board depths =
> less
> &gt; &gt; drag
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; What a waste to have one sail feathering in
the wake of
> another.
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Better balance faster foward speeds with least
amount of
> forces
> &gt; &gt; all
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; around.
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Todd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>

G'day,

I have though about this on and off for years.  Always seemed too
complicated.  However, I've just been for a long walk along the beach
(best non floating spot for thinking) and  reckon it could actually be
quite easy. Should have a sketch or three tomorrow.

Mostly makes sense.   Rudders are a bit tricky, too hard to insert in
the lee hull while afloat but could be done fairly simply on the
beams.    Not going to be very fast with 300 pounds on board ;-), but
would let you enjoy the building and see how a proa works.

regards,

Rob

Thanks Mike.

rob

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Mike Crawford <jmichael@...> wrote:
>
>   If you search on "Rockport" in the harryproa group's web site, and then do
> another search on "Rockland", you'll see a number of posts written on the
> proa in Maine.  The boat was actually in Rockland, not Rocport, but I typed
> in the wrong town name in the later posts.
>
>   The last phone number listed was 207-594-2891.  I intend to call or visit
> this summer, but I haven't yet because my work is keeping me much busier
> than planned.
>
>   Since his web site has been down for a year or two, I have a feeling that
> he's not doing much with the boat, and it's possible that you might be able
> to get it for a low price.  However, since his boat won't really work for
> trailering or overnighting because of its wide cockpit and walk-through
> transom, a low price might not be a good deal.
>
>   You can get an idea of what the boat looks like by searching for
> "proasail.com" in the wayback machine at http://www.archive.org .
>
>        - Mike
>
>
> Rob Denney wrote:
>
> G'day,
>
> There is one in Maine. It is the first one we built and was a costing
> disaster, resulting in me nearly going broke and the owner not talking
> to us. He is the harbour master at Rockport (maybe Rockland?) in
> Maine, name George (can't remember his surname, it is on the other
> computer which is not working at the moment). feel free to call him
> and if you succeeed, I would love to hear how it goes. Others on this
> list have visited him, but I don't know how they got on.
>
> Otherwise, you have to visit Holland or Aus.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 12:16 AM, gardnerpomper <gardner@...>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Over the past couple months, I have gone from being curious about the proa
>> concept to
>> seriously considering building one, or having one built, neither of which
>> I
>> am wild about
>> having never sailed a proa. Is there anyone on the group, in the US, that
>> owns one and would
>> be willing to take me for a sail?
>>
>> I would prefer something larger than an Elementarry, because it sounds
>> like
>> I am too fat for it
>> work properly (300 lbs), but it would give me a sample. I prefer the US
>> because I don't see
>> that I can get away for the time required to go to Australia or the
>> Netherlands (or the
>> expense).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Gardner
>>
>>
>
>

Todd,

Once again: no offense was intended. I guess I overdid
the editing, which the moderators always seem to
demand. I'm sorry if it offended you. That was not my
intention.

But on to the subject.

I fully agree with your ideas on placing rig CoE
forward to make sail balance better. The reports on
lot of pressure on aft rudder have made me think of
alternative rigs to easyrig. The crab claw and gibbons
seem to work well in smaller proas being effective
rigs and placing sails forward to bow, but scaling
them up to harry or visionarry size seems quite
problematic.

All my sailing experience tells me that boat should be
well balanced. Easyrig seems very easy to handle but
the rig/rudders combination doesn't seem balanced to
me. Reports on the heavy pressure on aft rudder
indicate that this is the case. Having better balance
should also help to improve performance by reducing
the forces needed to counter the forces caused by
unbalance between sails and foils. In greater speeds
this could be quite a big factor.

What worries me regarding the crab claw and gibbons is
lack of knowledge and experience on those. That is why
I was so interested in your experiments. And handling
of those rigs with crew of one or two persons may be
too much.

But I guess it takes considerable amount of testing
and trial & error to get it right. I'm glad there are
others gathering experience and information too.

Arto

--- tsstproa <bitme1234@...> wrote:

> Okay
> ****
>
> To judge performance at that scale would be way over
> my head at
> such a small scale. I use models for simply testing
> the effects of
> balance from sail COE positioned in diferent
> locations on different
> hull type proa configurations. To which will give
> best forward drive
> with least amount of effort and best helm balance.
>
> Rig types for specific proa configurations.
> I see in model test on harry type configuration
> (Meaning low draft
> hulls with weight to windward using deep boards)a
> better more narrow
> windward performance range from The easy rig
> compared to the crab
> claw rigged on the same harry type model. But I
> think thats only due
> to the easy rigs placement of the rigs COE being
> back further and
> relying on the single replaced longer rear board to
> counter sail
> force. Same harry type model with claw balances with
> both boards
> down or with just the rear down. Crab claw rig had
> such netrual helm
> I had to set steering boards to make proa go up wind
> which it did
> well but needing input to do it with both boards
> down. Single board
> down cause just enough weather helm to get model up
> wind. But didnot
> seem as efficient as easy rig or as  well as
> traditional hull proa
> configuration with crab claw rig.
>
> Notice in this video with harry type hull
> cinfiguration it is with
> the old shorter boards. The 85 sq'' orange claw sail
> balanced why
> better than the the 50 ish sq'' sail on the easy
> rig. with the easy
> rig you can see the extra bit of weight about 1/4 oz
> of sand on the
> rear of lwh to keep model from round up and back
> winding.
>
>
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mt-QZzlY0lM&feature=related
>
> So I guess the question would be how are you will to
> gain your
> performance.
>
> I personally think adapting modern technology to
> mimic tradtional
> methods in rigs felxablity. Is one way in advancing
> proa technology.
> look at clip below for an example.
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=_PaWgwc4HwI
>
> In the clip above: Thats a 45% larger sail area than
> the old 50ish
> sq'' easy rig sail on old shorter leeward hull with
> the old short
> baord sailing pretty balanced. Hope this gives you
> some idea.
>
> Look in photo's under Square Harry. for lwh
> comparison old vs new
> and board comparison depth and size old vs new.
>
> Todd
>
> It wasn't the wording but how you presented and
> edited that seemed
> offensive!
>
> In harryproa@..., Arto Hakkarainen
> <ahakkara@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Todd,
> >
> > I did not mean to be rude or offensive. I am sorry
> if
> > you interpreted it that way. It is probably due to
> me
> > not being native English speaker.
> >
> > I understood everything you said in your mail
> before
> > this message. Reason I asked is that since the
> > conditions may have varied more than was visible
> in
> > the videos I wanted to know if some rig performed
> > considerably better than others speedwise or in
> other
> > way. I did notice that crab claw moved the model
> very
> > fast but was it because of change in condition or
> > superior performance was the actual thing I wanted
> to
> > know.
> >
> > Also if crab claw would perform as well as Marchaj
> and
> > many after him indicate it would also solve many
> other
> > problems in proa. That is why I am very curious to
> see
> > and hear all test results.
> >
> > And again I am sorry if I insulted you in any way.
> > That was never my intention.
> >
> > Arto
> >
> > --- tsstproa <bitme1234@...> wrote:
> >
> > > If you cant see the difference then I doubt I
> could
> > > explain it in a
> > > way you would under stand.
> > >
> > > my opening statment said in the thread in
> regards to
> > > sail/ sails.
> > > Knowing that Doug said he thought his boards
> needed
> > > to be further
> > > out towards bows for better control , for a less
> > > heavely loaded
> > > helm. I gave a possible solution instead of
> rudder
> > > design.
> > >
> > > But if you wanna come right out and call me a
> tardo
> > > or retard go
> > > ahead. I just realized that some get there
> groups by
> > > email instead
> > > of going to the web and picking out what they
> want
> > > to read. Sorry if
> > > I have violated your email with my TaRdO SeNsE.
> > >
> > >  Both Aframe and classic Crabclaw place Ceo of
> sail
> > > in a more foward
> > > position off setting weight and drag to windward
> > > with buoyancy shift
> > > forand aft on a proa for best forward drive with
> as
> > > little under
> > > water surfaces required for a specific under
> water
> > > hull shape to
> > > achieve a balanced helm. Both rigs are flexiable
> > > (meaning not afixed
> > > to hull in anyone perminent location) allowing
> for
> > > each Type of
> > > sails Ceo to be moved to a single location for
> best
> > > balance on all
> > > point of sail.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > --- In harryproa@..., Arto
> > > Hakkarainen <ahakkara@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In the threat regarding rudder design we saw
> some
> > > > tests by Todd with different rig
> configurations:
> > > > *****
> > > > Here are my two solution in getting sail area
> to
> > > the
> > > > correct
> > > > location for both tacks for both bows. One
> evolved
> > > > from the other.
> > > > One balances traditional the other modern.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PaWgwc4HwI
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo6QCBjb4rk
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt-QZzlY0lM&feature=related
> > > >
> > > > Todd
>
=== message truncated ===

G'day,

There is one in Maine. It is the first one we built and was a costing
disaster, resulting in me nearly going broke and the owner not talking
to us. He is the harbour master at Rockport (maybe Rockland?) in
Maine, name George (can't remember his surname, it is on the other
computer which is not working at the moment). feel free to call him
and if you succeeed, I would love to hear how it goes. Others on this
list have visited him, but I don't know how they got on.

Otherwise, you have to visit Holland or Aus.

regards,

Rob

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 12:16 AM, gardnerpomper <gardner@networknow.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Over the past couple months, I have gone from being curious about the proa
> concept to
> seriously considering building one, or having one built, neither of which I
> am wild about
> having never sailed a proa. Is there anyone on the group, in the US, that
> owns one and would
> be willing to take me for a sail?
>
> I would prefer something larger than an Elementarry, because it sounds like
> I am too fat for it
> work properly (300 lbs), but it would give me a sample. I prefer the US
> because I don't see
> that I can get away for the time required to go to Australia or the
> Netherlands (or the
> expense).
>
> Thanks,
> - Gardner
>
>

-


Here is some stuff on it.

http://www.setsail.com/c_central/techtalk/endplating.html


-- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
> -I didn't realise they took a full 2'. Still, 18' width on a 25' ww
> hull is still pretty good. Always add wings if you really want to push
> things and the weather isn't too nasty.
>
> About the foot locker and sideways: If you leave a slight in the cabin
> between the bunk and the cockpit back and have a step in the bevel,
> the person on the inside clambers over the midriff of the other person
> instead of their head. It would probably be preferred by most couples
> after their initial honeymoon period.
>
> I believe I  have felt a surge in power as the slot closes but it may
> be my imagination as there is a different feel to the wind. The skinny
> hull may negate much of the benefit, but from what I have read, the
> most important part is the initial 1/3 of the sail. Clear material
> such as on EL could be used below the boom. I recall there was some
> stuff on this on the Beewoulff  site(Excuse spelling)
>
>
>
>
> -- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@> wrote:
> >
> > G'day,
> > I thought about the rudders on a sleeve, maybe later when everything
> > else is working.  They lose 2' which is a bit much for most marinas, I
> > think.
> >
> > Foot lockers are a good idea, but the limit on this boat was cockpit
> > size, so there is no real gain.    Either way, the person on the
> > inside has to do some clambering.
> >
> > Closing off the sail foot may (I am not convinced by the windsurfers
> > as they only seem to do it in a breeze, when balance factors may enter
> > into it) reduce the tip losses, but a una rig boom is rarely on the
> > centreline so with a skinny hull it would not achieve much.  It also
> > kills visibility to leeward.  It is one of those very simple things to
> > test that i have never got round to.  Any real life data would be
> > appreciated.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Robert <cateran1949@> wrote:
> > > If the rudder supports were on a sleeve, the beams could still be
> > > pulled out through the ww hull and have beam mounted rudders. You
> > > would only lose 30cm of squeezing for the marina. I still reckon a
> > > foot locker and sleeping sideways would give much easier access
to the
> > > berths. Have you considered a battened sail extension below the boom
> > > to close off the slot. On a wsurfer you really notice the difference
> > > when you close the slot. Apart from that, I reckon it is v. nice and
> > > should go like the powers of
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

-I didn't realise they took a full 2'. Still, 18' width on a 25' ww
hull is still pretty good. Always add wings if you really want to push
things and the weather isn't too nasty.

About the foot locker and sideways: If you leave a slight in the cabin
between the bunk and the cockpit back and have a step in the bevel,
the person on the inside clambers over the midriff of the other person
instead of their head. It would probably be preferred by most couples
after their initial honeymoon period.

I believe I  have felt a surge in power as the slot closes but it may
be my imagination as there is a different feel to the wind. The skinny
hull may negate much of the benefit, but from what I have read, the
most important part is the initial 1/3 of the sail. Clear material
such as on EL could be used below the boom. I recall there was some
stuff on this on the Beewoulff  site(Excuse spelling)




-- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> G'day,
> I thought about the rudders on a sleeve, maybe later when everything
> else is working.  They lose 2' which is a bit much for most marinas, I
> think.
>
> Foot lockers are a good idea, but the limit on this boat was cockpit
> size, so there is no real gain.    Either way, the person on the
> inside has to do some clambering.
>
> Closing off the sail foot may (I am not convinced by the windsurfers
> as they only seem to do it in a breeze, when balance factors may enter
> into it) reduce the tip losses, but a una rig boom is rarely on the
> centreline so with a skinny hull it would not achieve much.  It also
> kills visibility to leeward.  It is one of those very simple things to
> test that i have never got round to.  Any real life data would be
> appreciated.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
> > If the rudder supports were on a sleeve, the beams could still be
> > pulled out through the ww hull and have beam mounted rudders. You
> > would only lose 30cm of squeezing for the marina. I still reckon a
> > foot locker and sleeping sideways would give much easier access to the
> > berths. Have you considered a battened sail extension below the boom
> > to close off the slot. On a wsurfer you really notice the difference
> > when you close the slot. Apart from that, I reckon it is v. nice and
> > should go like the powers of
> >
> >
> >
>

G'day,

There is one in Maine.  It is the first one we built and was a costing
disaster, resulting in me nearly going broke and the owner not talking
to us.  He is the harbour master at Rockport (maybe Rockland?) in
Maine, name George (can't remember his surname, it is on the other
computer which is not working at the moment).  feel free to call him
and if you succeeed, I would love to hear how it goes.  Others on this
list have visited him, but I don't know how they got on.

Otherwise, you have to visit Holland or Aus.

regards,

Rob

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 12:16 AM, gardnerpomper <gardner@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Over the past couple months, I have gone from being curious about the proa
> concept to
> seriously considering building one, or having one built, neither of which I
> am wild about
> having never sailed a proa. Is there anyone on the group, in the US, that
> owns one and would
> be willing to take me for a sail?
>
> I would prefer something larger than an Elementarry, because it sounds like
> I am too fat for it
> work properly (300 lbs), but it would give me a sample. I prefer the US
> because I don't see
> that I can get away for the time required to go to Australia or the
> Netherlands (or the
> expense).
>
> Thanks,
> - Gardner
>
>

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
>
> Am I asking too much? A boat that will sail at windspeed up to 15 knots, is
> trailerable at 25' long, can sleep a family of 3, with a full galley, fits
> in a container, can be assembled quickly by 1 person and costs less than
> $50K? Nah!
>
> I am still concerned about the mast. I gather the telescoping mask has not
> yet been built/tested. How do I calculate the mast heights for a single
> balestoron rig versus a schooner rig?
>
> Thanks,
> - Gardner

G'day,

Could probably get close.  We fitted harrigami in on a trailer, but
there was no spare room.  Hinged ends are pretty easy to engineer.  As
Robert says, no one has ever asked for them.

Telescoping mast is still unbuilt, but the reasons why it has not been
done before have  been resolved, so it should be doable. To compare
rigs, compare the height of centre of effort.

By the way, many thanks to everyone who has been contributing to these
threads.  Lots of good ideas, lots of good sense, and no animosity.
Much appreciated.

regards
Rob
>
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>>
>> -I thought of having the beam rudders on a sleeve. This allows the
>> beams to still pass through the ww hull. .
>> Fold up bows have been thought of but never persued. Not so much that
>> they wouldn't work but so far no one has felt they are really
>> necessary for their situation. A decent hinge on the deck and a few
>> though pins with cam locking devices and it could be done in a matter
>> of minutes.
>> For me, I'd slide the lee hull forward and up to go over the back of
>> the towing vehicle, but if I had to use a small berth on a marina,
>> then the fold ups would be invaluable.
>> Robert
>>
>> -- In harryproa@..., "Gardner Pomper" <gardner@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sometimes I feel like I should change my forum handle to
>> "wacked_out_ideas".
>> > Here is another one:
>> >
>> > I realized that trailering a 40' lee hull would require driving
>> pretty much
>> > like a tractor trailer trucker with a 40' load. I was wondering if it is
>> > practical to make the bows of the lee hull detachable. Since there
>> are no
>> > rigging loads, I thought if the construction was similar to a nesting
>> > dinghy, where there were bulkheads on the lee hull just forward of the
>> > beams, I could shorten trailerable length of my design to 25', and
>> extend
>> > the lee hull length to 45'. From my rough math, a 10' bow section
>> should be
>> > about 65 square feet, and at 1 lb/sq ft, it would be a manageable
>> weight to
>> > slide down into brackets and then throughbolt to the main section.
>> >
>> > I noticed on the "racing" trailerable design, that you put the
>> rudders in
>> > the lee hull. Would it be possible to mount the rudders (possibly on a
>> > removeable bracket) on the beams, while only increasing the width a
>> foot or
>> > so? That section of the crossbeam could not retract into the ww
>> section, but
>> > could still be withdrawn through the lee hull. The reason I am
>> asking, is
>> > that I would like a variable depth for the rudders.
>> >
>> > - Gardner
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > > G'day,
>> > >
>> > > That would do as a WAG. Less labour, unless you want something that
>> > > cannot be done from flat panels. We would obviously fine tune it as
>> > > much as possible as the design progressed.
>> > >
>> > > regards.
>> > >
>> > > Rob
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Gardner Pomper
>> <gardner@...<gardner%40networknow.org>>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > I just updated my drawing with a bit more details and comments
>> about what
>> > > > things are where, so please get that version, or just tell me
>> where you
>> > > want
>> > > > it and I will re-upload it.
>> > > > One thing I neglected to mention in my "containerization" idea,
>> is that
>> > > if I
>> > > > go that route, I would want to be able to re-containerize the
>> boat. Apart
>> > > > from sailing fantasies, I have long wanted to live for a year in
>> many
>> > > > countries around the globe. Part of that was the idea that I
>> might be
>> > > able
>> > > > to ship my boat to Europe for a couple years, then Australia,
>> then NZ,
>> > > etc,
>> > > > etc. The telescoping mast might be reasonable for that, although
>> it would
>> > > > probably behoove me to just get one made if I ever actual decide
>> to do
>> > > that.
>> > > > I was just wondering if 2 short masts (39' each) might give the same
>> > > power
>> > > > as one taller one, then I would be all set from the get-go.
>> Although I do
>> > > > like the idea of the ballestron rig on a single mast as being much
>> > > simpler
>> > > > to work with on a day to day basis.
>> > > > If I wanted to make a WAG as to having my version of the trailer
>> sailor
>> > > > built, do you think I would be far off if I used the other
>> trailer design
>> > > > materials cost and the charter proa labor cost? So, maybe $8k
>> materials
>> > > and
>> > > > $25K labor, plus $3K plans and $4K shipping to PA ? Total $40K for
>> > > > budgetting purposes (shell and mast). Assuming I would fit the
>> > > electronics,
>> > > > appliances, etc when it got here?
>> > > > - Gardner
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Rob Denney
>> <harryproa@...<harryproa%40gmail.com>>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> G'day,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Gardner Pomper
>> <gardner@...<gardner%40networknow.org>
>> > > >
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> > On keeping the first project small, I found a design that
>> looks like
>> > > it
>> > > >> > would be a good dinghy; simple light, good load carrying and
>> made from
>> > > >> > fiberglass and foam:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > >
>>
>>
http://www.johnsboatstuff.com/Boat%20Designs/Life%20Dory%2010,%2012,%2014/wave_d\
ancer_12.htm
>> > > >> > but it isn't a catamaran dinghy, and it looks like the idea
>> is that
>> > > you
>> > > >> > fiberglass the foam, then bend it, then apply more
>> fiberglass. With
>> > > KSS
>> > > >> > and
>> > > >> > also your methods, I get the impression that I can do all the
>> > > >> > fiberglassing
>> > > >> > (except for joining) on the table, and even apply the gelcoat.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Looks ideal. He says it has no compound curves so you should
>> get away
>> > > >> with the same thickness cored panel as his plywood ones.
>> However, he
>> > > >> also recommends carbon and kevlar to save weight, when the same
>> weight
>> > > >> of fibreglass would be just as good for such small panels, so
>> he may
>> > > >> or may not know what he is talking about. I would layup a pieces of
>> > > >> 5mm with 200/6 ounce glass each side and see if it bends enough.
>> > > >> Maybe use 300/10 ounce on the bottom. If it does go for it.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Not all the proa panels are fully glassed. The seats, for
>> example are
>> > > >> glassed one side, then bent to shape and glassed the other. The
>> hulls
>> > > >> are glassed both sides down to the waterline, then left plain until
>> > > >> the shaping is done.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Your friend is moving from NZ to Panama? I have always wanted
>> to move
>> > > to
>> > > >> > NZ
>> > > >> > (love the place). I will definitely look into it. I will need
>> to sort
>> > > >> > out
>> > > >> > the design and figure a ballpark labor/parts estimate to see
>> if it is
>> > > >> > even
>> > > >> > worth asking for a bid. My timeframe for the trailerable was
>> about 2
>> > > >> > years,
>> > > >> > but maybe a deal could help me locate undiscovered funds <grin>
>> > > >> > Does this mean that you have a new quote for the charter proa? I
>> > > >> > remember
>> > > >> > you mentioning the $80K figure from china, and that you
>> expected the
>> > > >> > quote
>> > > >> > from Panama to come in lower, but I haven't seen a posting on
>> what it
>> > > >> > was.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> He has been living in Panama for 12 months. Absolutely loves the
>> > > >> place. We have not done a new quote as there are too many
>> > > >> iompinderables with the work force. That is one of the reasons
>> I want
>> > > >> to start on a smaller project. It costs me less free labour if
>> I get
>> > > >> a small boat wrong than it does on the charter one. China was
>> > > >> $86,000, and he is very keen to get the job. The Peruvians (96,000)
>> > > >> estimated the shell price at 2,000 hours at $21/hour plus
>> $44,000 of
>> > > >> materials. I reckon 1,400 hours at $18 and sourcing the materials
>> > > >> from here, $37,000. $62,000 total.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > In terms of containerization, if the lw hull is kept to 39',
>> I have
>> > > >> > realized
>> > > >> > that I can fit all the components of the design you drew (and my
>> > > >> > modifications) in the other trailerable thread (I just posted my
>> > > drawing
>> > > >> > yesterday) into the container. The question is the mast. I
>> know that a
>> > > >> > single mast would be too tall. What about a schooner rig?
>> > > >> > This leads to my rig questions. You have very kindly provided
>> me with
>> > > >> > useful
>> > > >> > information to get started selecting the hull sizes based on
>> > > >> > displacement.
>> > > >> > Can you help me estimating the rig? I can calculate the lever
>> arm of
>> > > the
>> > > >> > ww
>> > > >> > hull, so if I know a guesstimate on how to calculate the sail
>> size and
>> > > >> > mast
>> > > >> > height, I can play around with different factors until I get
>> something
>> > > >> > that
>> > > >> > isn't stupid, instead of asking all the time.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> You can build longer hulls or masts and join them when you get
>> it out
>> > > >> of the container. This is what I will be doing with solitarrys lee
>> > > >> hull. Or, you can use a telescoping mast, such as the trailer
>> sailor.
>> > > >> Sail area is another length of a piece of string. First thing to do
>> > > >> is decide the Bruce number, which is the sq root of the sail area
>> > > >> divided by the cube root of the weight. For Blind Date fully loaded
>> > > >> this is 8,288 lbs and 774 sq' so the BN is 1.4. This would be a
>> good
>> > > >> place to start. Use the weights of known size boats on the
>> harryproa
>> > > >> web page to give you a starting idea of the weight.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I am about to post the latest trailer sailor drawings. I will
>> > > >> relocate yours so people don't get confused.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> regards,
>> > > >> Rob
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Rob Denney
>> <harryproa@...<harryproa%40gmail.com>>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> G'day,
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Nothing wrong with a wandering mind, except I have forgotten
>> what we
>> > > >> >> were talking about...........;-)
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> I would definitely make the first project a small one. A
>> dinghy is
>> > > >> >> ideal. Do your infusion test pieces on the glass, then build a
>> > > >> >> melamine table and infuse some 7'6' x 3'6" panels and use
>> these for a
>> > > >> >> dinghy. Or, start with small flat components (hatches, bunk
>> bases,
>> > > >> >> floors) for the boat if you don't need a dinghy.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> You get more bang for your buck the bigger you go, but there
>> are more
>> > > >> >> bucks (and hours) required.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Re having it built elsewhere, have I got a deal for you!
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> During the search for a builder for the charter boat, a kiwi
>> mate of
>> > > >> >> mine moved to Panama (he reckons it is a nicer place to live
>> than NZ)
>> > > >> >> where he is importing boat gear. He and some locals are putting
>> > > >> >> together a proposal for a one stop marine store on the
>> Pacific end of
>> > > >> >> the canal. Starting with a 620 boat marina, sail loft and boat
>> > > >> >> building/repair facility, with a charter fleet to follow.
>> They have
>> > > >> >> just acquired an enormous shed and are very keen to build
>> the charter
>> > > >> >> proa. I have agreed to oversee the construction of the first
>> boat and
>> > > >> >> to make sure their crew know how it is all done. However, it
>> would be
>> > > >> >> better for all concerned if we were to build a smaller
>> version first.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> If this is of interest to you (or anybody else on the list),
>> please
>> > > >> >> let me know. Labour rates are very low, it is a US dollar
>> economy and
>> > > >> >> the local labour is apparently skilled at glass work and keen to
>> > > >> >> learn. No shortage of ships to bring it home on, or you
>> could sail it
>> > > >> >> to the Caribbean, which is one of the advantages for the charter
>> > > boat.
>> > > >> >> The price of the first boat will be as low as we can
>> possibly make
>> > > it.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Container size is as you say, although 9'6" high boxes are
>> available
>> > > >> >> so a windward hull of a 40' harry (which suits your requirements
>> > > >> >> pretty well) could be put in on it's side.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Re me doing drawings. No need as you are doing an excellent
>> job. I
>> > > >> >> would suggest that you do a side view as well, and when you
>> are happy
>> > > >> >> with it, a front one. Stick with block shapes, we can round
>> the edges
>> > > >> >> later. Draw some block people (use your body for
>> measurements, don't
>> > > >> >> forget the feet) and use them to get a feel for standing,
>> sitting and
>> > > >> >> lying down space. When you decide what you want, we can talk
>> about
>> > > >> >> money. The advice is free, I enjoy working with enthusiasts,
>> if for
>> > > >> >> no other reason that they stimulate my thought processes,
>> resulting
>> > > in
>> > > >> >> this case in a much better steering system for the trailer
>> sailor
>> > > >> >> which does not involve long tiller extensions and is not
>> affected by
>> > > >> >> lifting the rudders, a major drama with rope driven wheel
>> systems.
>> > > >> >> More on this later when I have done some drawings.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> You don't need to move to flip the rudders. The water force
>> does it
>> > > >> >> automatically when you shunt. The cockpit will have a pram
>> hood cover
>> > > >> >> (I prefer these to fixed covers as they give more options
>> and are
>> > > >> >> lighter) to keep you dry.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Mike, excellent advice.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> regards,
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Rob
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Gardner Pomper
>> > > >> >> <gardner@... <gardner%40networknow.org>>
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > Hi,
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > You are absolutely right, I have let my mind wander again.
>> That is
>> > > >> >> > the
>> > > >> >> > danger, and the beauty, of the idea that you can play with
>> layout
>> > > >> >> > ideas
>> > > >> >> > pretty much independent of the hulls, and fit the
>> appropriate hulls
>> > > >> >> > to
>> > > >> >> > the
>> > > >> >> > layout later.
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > The reason I looking at this larger design, is that the "fat"
>> > > >> >> > Elementarry
>> > > >> >> > looks to be 700-1000 hours of work, which might be too
>> much for my
>> > > >> >> > first
>> > > >> >> > project and it sounds like you get more "bang for your
>> buck" (as in
>> > > >> >> > labor
>> > > >> >> > hours) as a proa scales up. With something similar to what
>> I posted
>> > > >> >> > (since
>> > > >> >> > modified), my family could take a week's vacation in
>> Maine, or the
>> > > >> >> > Florida
>> > > >> >> > Keys, or maybe the Bahamas. I could live on it
>> indefinitely (once
>> > > my
>> > > >> >> > family
>> > > >> >> > got fed up with it <grin>).
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > I am trying to get a feel for the time and expense involved in
>> > > >> >> > different
>> > > >> >> > size/function proas. I might even be interested in
>> contracting out
>> > > >> >> > (maybe
>> > > >> >> > wherever the charter proa is being built) to have
>> something like
>> > > this
>> > > >> >> > built
>> > > >> >> > for me. Do you happen to know what the dimension
>> restrictions are
>> > > for
>> > > >> >> > a
>> > > >> >> > shippng container? I think it is a little less than 8' x 40'.
>> > > >> >> > Probably
>> > > >> >> > too
>> > > >> >> > small, but might make shipping from China more practical.
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > On the matter of you not doing drawings, I am absolutely
>> glad that
>> > > >> >> > you
>> > > >> >> > aren't. I feel guilty with the time you are spending
>> answering my
>> > > >> >> > questions.
>> > > >> >> > If at any point you think we should make a more formal
>> arrangement,
>> > > >> >> > just
>> > > >> >> > contact me privately.
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > On the matter of steering, that seems to be another unresolved
>> > > issue
>> > > >> >> > on
>> > > >> >> > the
>> > > >> >> > larger trailerables. I know you have at least one other person
>> > > >> >> > talking
>> > > >> >> > to
>> > > >> >> > you about this type design. Is the idea to just use
>> *really* long
>> > > >> >> > tiller
>> > > >> >> > extensions. If cruising for a week or two, I am not crazy
>> about
>> > > being
>> > > >> >> > out in
>> > > >> >> > the rain steering, and popping over to the lee hull each
>> time I
>> > > shunt
>> > > >> >> > to
>> > > >> >> > flip the rudders around. Is that what is required? I have
>> no ideas
>> > > >> >> > for
>> > > >> >> > how
>> > > >> >> > to make a remote steering system that would also collapse to
>> > > trailer
>> > > >> >> > width.
>> > > >> >> > That sounds like it might just go off the bounds of too much
>> > > >> >> > complexity.
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > - Gardner
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Rob Denney
>> <harryproa@...<harryproa%40gmail.com>
>> > > >
>> > > >> >> > wrote:
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> G'day,
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> Can do it, but this is hardly the day sailing trailer
>> sailer, the
>> > > >> >> >> cabin will ned to be high at the ends so you can sit up
>> in the
>> > > >> >> >> bunks,
>> > > >> >> >> and where do you sit to sail the boat?
>> > > >> >> >> regards,
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> Rob
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Gardner Pomper
>> > > >> >> >> <gardner@... <gardner%40networknow.org>>
>> > > >> >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> > Pursuing the idea of making the ww hull a bit longer, I
>> have
>> > > >> >> >> > uploaded
>> > > >> >> >> > another sketch to the file "trailerable Pomper". I am
>> > > deliberately
>> > > >> >> >> > trying to
>> > > >> >> >> > leave as much of the interior of the hull unfinished as
>> I can,
>> > > and
>> > > >> >> >> > (naturally), I need to have standard size bunks. The
>> pop top can
>> > > >> >> >> > have
>> > > >> >> >> > roll
>> > > >> >> >> > down clears for foul weather. The bunks are covered
>> with clear
>> > > >> >> >> > lexan,
>> > > >> >> >> > which
>> > > >> >> >> > can be flipped up to enclose the cockpit when the
>> weather is
>> > > bad,
>> > > >> >> >> > or
>> > > >> >> >> > you
>> > > >> >> >> > want to use them. You enter the bunks from the flip down
>> > > walkway,
>> > > >> >> >> > or
>> > > >> >> >> > over
>> > > >> >> >> > the back of the lazarrette.
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> > I don't know that I added much weight, so hopefully we can
>> > > >> >> >> > preserve
>> > > >> >> >> > the
>> > > >> >> >> > 10:1
>> > > >> >> >> > ratio on the ww hull.
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> > - Gardner
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Rob Denney <
>> > > harryproa@... <harryproa%40gmail.com>>
>> > > >> >> >> > wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> G'day,
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> Preliminary numbers
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> ww hull 5m/15' long, waterline 450mm/18", draft
>> 220mm/8.5",
>> > > >> >> >> >> displacement 640 lbs, prismatic .77. (Use this to
>> allow for the
>> > > >> >> >> >> hull
>> > > >> >> >> >> shape when you multiply the cross sectional area in
>> the middle
>> > > of
>> > > >> >> >> >> the
>> > > >> >> >> >> boat by the length). I would probably go a little
>> longer to
>> > > cope
>> > > >> >> >> >> with your other requirements.
>> > > >> >> >> >> lw hull, as long as you can build, trail, afford and
>> handle.
>> > > The
>> > > >> >> >> >> longer it is, the higher the top speed and the drier
>> and more
>> > > >> >> >> >> comfortable the motion.
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> The single sail works well on boats with light
>> windward hulls,
>> > > as
>> > > >> >> >> >> the
>> > > >> >> >> >> rudder is aft, which makes it balanced. With 600 kgs on a
>> > > >> >> >> >> shortish
>> > > >> >> >> >> ww
>> > > >> >> >> >> hull, the ballestron may be a better bet, although
>> once you
>> > > know
>> > > >> >> >> >> how
>> > > >> >> >> >> to shunt, it won't be a problem. With a lot of people
>> on board,
>> > > >> >> >> >> and
>> > > >> >> >> >> not much boom clearance the ballestron needs to be watched
>> > > while
>> > > >> >> >> >> shunting.
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> There will be trampolines, which will be on side
>> pieces with a
>> > > >> >> >> >> hinge
>> > > >> >> >> >> in the middle so it can be folded when the boat
>> telescopes. A
>> > > >> >> >> >> walkway can do the same.
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> Sail is loose footed (attached only to the outboard
>> end of the
>> > > >> >> >> >> boom).
>> > > >> >> >> >> On Elementarry, the boom is attached to the mast. It
>> has a sock
>> > > >> >> >> >> luff,
>> > > >> >> >> >> so this is not a problem. Yours would have slides, so
>> the boom
>> > > >> >> >> >> needs
>> > > >> >> >> >> to rotate relative to the mast, but not move
>> vertically. Not a
>> > > >> >> >> >> big
>> > > >> >> >> >> deal. Your boom will indeed be too long to attach
>> permanently.
>> > > It
>> > > >> >> >> >> will be strapped to the bearing on the mast, again,
>> not a big
>> > > >> >> >> >> deal.
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> The hours on the charter boat are for the shell. This
>> one could
>> > > >> >> >> >> take
>> > > >> >> >> >> anywhere from 500-1,000+ hours depending on all the usual
>> > > stuff,
>> > > >> >> >> >> but
>> > > >> >> >> >> mostly on the standard of finish required. There are some
>> > > >> >> >> >> alignment
>> > > >> >> >> >> details to make it telescope smoothly, which could add
>> some
>> > > time.
>> > > >> >> >> >> They are all done before the beams are closed up
>> permanently,
>> > > so
>> > > >> >> >> >> are
>> > > >> >> >> >> not difficult, just might take a while.
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> Materials cost? Same as the other trailer sailor, give
>> or take
>> > > a
>> > > >> >> >> >> bit.
>> > > >> >> >> >> It is cheaper to import the materials from here. Let
>> me or Raps
>> > > >> >> >> >> know if you want to share the shipping costs.
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> Could be a single bunk, or the galley and stowage. The
>> double
>> > > is
>> > > >> >> >> >> 6'x5', the single is 5x3. Yours will have the cockpit
>> in this
>> > > >> >> >> >> area.
>> > > >> >> >> >> The toilet at one end of the hull and the galley at
>> the other
>> > > >> >> >> >> end.
>> > > >> >> >> >> Access will be through deck hatches.
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> Re infusion. Derek's workshops are fantastic, Henny at
>> > > >> >> >> >> http://www.fram.nl/ has a lot of info and a cd, as
>> does Steve
>> > > in
>> > > >> >> >> >> Houston, but I don't have his web address. By far the
>> best way
>> > > to
>> > > >> >> >> >> learn about it is:
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> Get a vacuum pump from ebay, (old milking pumps, fridge
>> > > >> >> >> >> compressors,
>> > > >> >> >> >> air con evacuators all work) and a sheet of window
>> glass about
>> > > >> >> >> >> 30"
>> > > >> >> >> >> square. Buy some clear builders plastic, some window
>> sealant,
>> > > >> >> >> >> glass,
>> > > >> >> >> >> foam, peel ply and resin, some shade cloth and some 10mm
>> > > plastic
>> > > >> >> >> >> conduit. Drill the smallest holes you can every 4" in
>> the foam
>> > > >> >> >> >> and a
>> > > >> >> >> >> 1/4" hole every 4" in the middle 18" of 2 pieces of 4'
>> lengths
>> > > of
>> > > >> >> >> >> conduit, cut the cloth and peel ply and lay it on the
>> glass
>> > > with
>> > > >> >> >> >> a
>> > > >> >> >> >> 2"
>> > > >> >> >> >> border all the way round. Put the shade cloth on the
>> glass and
>> > > >> >> >> >> wrap
>> > > >> >> >> >> it around the perforated section of the lengths of
>> conduit such
>> > > >> >> >> >> that
>> > > >> >> >> >> one piece is on one side of the job, the other is on the
>> > > opposite
>> > > >> >> >> >> side. Cut a piece of plastic the same size as the
>> glass and
>> > > seal
>> > > >> >> >> >> it
>> > > >> >> >> >> to the glass and around the conduit. Block one end of
>> one piece
>> > > >> >> >> >> of
>> > > >> >> >> >> conduit and hook the other end up to the vac pump.
>> Block both
>> > > >> >> >> >> ends
>> > > >> >> >> >> of the other piece. Check for leaks (listening) is the
>> best
>> > > way.
>> > > >> >> >> >> When it is leak free, unseal the ends of the non
>> vacuum conduit
>> > > >> >> >> >> and
>> > > >> >> >> >> put them in buckets of resin. Prepare to be amazed.
>> When the
>> > > >> >> >> >> infusion is complete (look under the glass aswell as
>> on top),
>> > > >> >> >> >> seal
>> > > >> >> >> >> off
>> > > >> >> >> >> the resin conduit and leave it to cure. You now know
>> more about
>> > > >> >> >> >> infusion than 95% of the world's boatbuilders. Study
>> and weigh
>> > > >> >> >> >> the
>> > > >> >> >> >> sample, and let me know what it looks like and what
>> went wrong
>> > > >> >> >> >> and I
>> > > >> >> >> >> will start lesson 2.
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> Elementarry as a tender? Could do, but without seats,
>> it is not
>> > > >> >> >> >> very
>> > > >> >> >> >> comfortable. It is also a bit fragile for hauling up
>> beaches
>> > > and
>> > > >> >> >> >> over
>> > > >> >> >> >> rocks. The Torqueedo would work, but rowing wouldn't.
>> No sweat
>> > > on
>> > > >> >> >> >> the payload, but it would all be on the trampoline.
>> You would
>> > > be
>> > > >> >> >> >> better off with a conventional dinghy. Loading El on
>> the cabin
>> > > >> >> >> >> top
>> > > >> >> >> >> for blasting around when you get there has more merit,
>> but the
>> > > >> >> >> >> mother
>> > > >> >> >> >> ship really should be bigger for this.
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> Let me know what the next step is, or if I have
>> forgotten to
>> > > >> >> >> >> reply
>> > > >> >> >> >> to
>> > > >> >> >> >> anything.
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> regards,
>> > > >> >> >> >> Rob
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Gardner Pomper
>> > > >> >> >> >> <gardner@... <gardner%40networknow.org>>
>> > > >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> >> > Hi,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> > Ok, I can tell by the responses that it won't be a
>> small boat
>> > > >> >> >> >> > :( I
>> > > >> >> >> >> > was
>> > > >> >> >> >> > hoping for something smaller than the design that is
>> taking
>> > > >> >> >> >> > shape.
>> > > >> >> >> >> > Since
>> > > >> >> >> >> > that looks to be not true, let me fall back to that
>> one, and
>> > > >> >> >> >> > drop
>> > > >> >> >> >> > the
>> > > >> >> >> >> > weight
>> > > >> >> >> >> > requirements and the 6 passenger (we will only
>> invite people
>> > > on
>> > > >> >> >> >> > a
>> > > >> >> >> >> > nice
>> > > >> >> >> >> > day
>> > > >> >> >> >> > for a few hours. They can sit on the trampolines
>> (there can
>> > > be
>> > > >> >> >> >> > trampolines,
>> > > >> >> >> >> > right?) Then we can design for crew weight of
>> 600lbs, and
>> > > >> >> >> >> > seating
>> > > >> >> >> >> > for
>> > > >> >> >> >> > 3-4.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> > I notice that you are not using the ballestron
>> right. I am
>> > > >> >> >> >> > flouting
>> > > >> >> >> >> > my
>> > > >> >> >> >> > ingorance here, but how can you go upwind with a mast
>> > > centered
>> > > >> >> >> >> > for
>> > > >> >> >> >> > and
>> > > >> >> >> >> > aft
>> > > >> >> >> >> > and no headsail?
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> > I was also thinking of a 3-4' flat panel, hinged at the
>> > > floor,
>> > > >> >> >> >> > to
>> > > >> >> >> >> > give
>> > > >> >> >> >> > some
>> > > >> >> >> >> > sort of walkway outside the cockpit. Fold it down
>> once the
>> > > beam
>> > > >> >> >> >> > is
>> > > >> >> >> >> > expanded.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> > Is the sail loose footed? The charter proa talks
>> about the
>> > > boom
>> > > >> >> >> >> > and
>> > > >> >> >> >> > mast
>> > > >> >> >> >> > being one piece, but it would seem to make it too
>> wide for
>> > > >> >> >> >> > trailering.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> > Since you have basics worked out on that trailer
>> sailor, do
>> > > you
>> > > >> >> >> >> > have
>> > > >> >> >> >> > an
>> > > >> >> >> >> > estimate of work hours for an "average" finish? I
>> know you
>> > > have
>> > > >> >> >> >> > mentioned
>> > > >> >> >> >> > 1400 for the charter proa hull (by professionals, I
>> am sure).
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> > There looks to be a single bunk "forward" also. Is
>> that true,
>> > > >> >> >> >> > or
>> > > >> >> >> >> > is
>> > > >> >> >> >> > that
>> > > >> >> >> >> > the
>> > > >> >> >> >> > galley? What are the bunk dimensions?
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Rob Denney
>> > > >> >> >> >> > <harryproa@... <harryproa%40gmail.com>>
>> > > >> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> G'day,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM, gardnerpomper
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> <gardner@... <gardner%40networknow.org>>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > Hi,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > Some sort of liveaboard harryproa seems like my next
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > cruising
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > boat. I
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > am interested in both sampling the experience,
>> and finding
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > out
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > if
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > I
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > have the fortitude to build one. I have seen messages
>> > > about
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > a
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > trailerable design and I have some questions
>> specific to
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > using
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > it
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > to
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > "try out" the home build/proa idea.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > Requirements:
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 1) trailerable as other specs (8'6" trailer width,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> easy
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> ><1000lbs with trailer (negotiable))
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Difficult, negotiations can start when i have done some
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> drawings.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 2) build method as similar to proposed charter
>> boat as
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > possible,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > since
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > that is identified as simplest for larger boats
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > fast and easy on/off the trailer. this would be a
>> > > daysailer,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > driving
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 2
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > hours to the water, set it up, sail for a few
>> hours, break
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > it
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > down,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > trailer it 2 hours home.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Easy
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 3) I am heavy (300lbs), so the crew weight (3 of
>> us) would
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > be
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > about
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 550lbs. We would like to be able to invite another 2
>> > > adults
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > and
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > a
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > child and still sail it well, so total crew
>> weight could
>> > > be
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 900
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > lbs.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Difficult, I will see what the minimum size is to
>> do this.
>> > > How
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> much
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> extra for food and safety gear?
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 4) Enclosed head
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> easy
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 5) sail without getting wet
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> easy
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 6) camping propane stove
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 7) comfy seats and table to eat at
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Can this be outside, under a removable bimini with
>> roll down
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> sides?
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Otherwise, it is a bit ticky for 6 people.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 8) standing headroom (fold down bimini ok)
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> easy
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 9) rain protected
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> easy
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 10) will never be INTENTIONALLY sailed in > 20 kts
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Yeah, right!
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 11) ballestron rig
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> easy
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > I won't be racing, but I will want performance
>> comparable
>> > > to
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > what
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > we
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > have heard from Rare Bird and the charter proa design
>> > > (i.e.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > windspeed
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > up to 15 knots). I *don't* want to fly a hull!! (I'm
>> > > timid)
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Timid is good, but it will be a sizableboat to do
>> this with
>> > > 6
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> people
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> on
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> board.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > Questions:
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 1) What would plan cost be?
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> TBA when i see what is involved. Probably
>> $Aus3,000, as it
>> > > is
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> going
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> to be a one off. You get 10% off any future plans
>> sold to
>> > > the
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> design until the next one is sailing. After that it
>> is as
>> > > per
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> the
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Goodwill Fee on http://www.harryproa.com/plans.htm
>> Part of
>> > > the
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> plans
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> price wil be deducted from the big boat fee.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> 2) would plans include info on resin infusion and
>> building a
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> table,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > etc, etc? Or at least point me to such info?
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> yes. As much information as you need on anything in the
>> > > plans.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 2) Estimated build time (novice.. experienced with
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > epoxy/fiberglass,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > even some with carbon mat as reinforement, but
>> never built
>> > > a
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > boat).
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > If
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > you prefer, you can supply "average estimated
>> build" and I
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > will
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > put
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > in
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > my own "idiot factor" multiplier
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> TBA, but mostly it will depend on the level of
>> finish inside
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> and
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> outside that you require.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 3) Would it be close to the "trailer sailer"
>> layout jpg I
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > see
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > posted
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > in the forums?
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Not if you want a cockpit for 6, which will replace the
>> > > bunks
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >What are hull lengths?
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Long! What is the longest you can build, trailer
>> and handle
>> > > on
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> the
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> ramp?
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 4) When could I start? I have a building
>> available this
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > summer/fall,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > but it is not heated
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Tomorrow, building the table. You won't get all the
>> plans
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> immediately, but i will keep ahead of your
>> progress. Pay for
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> half
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> the
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> plans up front, the rest before the last drawings
>> arrive.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > 5) material cost? availablity?
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Not a huge amount, probably less than the resale
>> value of
>> > > the
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> boat.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Can get it from your local supplier, apart from the
>> carbon
>> > > for
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> the
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> mast, boom, rudders and beams which I will supply from
>> > > Texas.
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > BTW, I live in Pennsylvania (US).
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> No problem ;-)
>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > Thanks,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > - Gardner
>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> My pleasure,
>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Rob
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

G'day,

Correct about the rudders.  Not ideal, and could be corrected by
mounting them on a sleeve on the beam, as per Robert's suggestion.
trade off is telescoping width, or overall width.  Mast head is
16.2m/53' off the water.  Low for a 12m race multi, cloud scraping for
a sub one ton boat.

regards,

Rob

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
> I had a couple questions. Were you going for engineless, or are you planning
> on mounting an outboard somewhere?
>
> Also, it looks like you can't retract the rudders and still steer, so I was
> wondering what the draft is.
>
> Just for curiosity, what is the masthead height above the water?
>
> Thanks,
> - Gardner
>
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Raps callion
> <captian_rapscallion@...> wrote:
>>
>> I love the trailerable design. It exceeds my expectations in almost every
>> respect.
>> The part I love the most is the building cost and the bruce number.
>>
>> I would love to see another design with 6' headroom, trailerable, a bruce
>> number
>> this high, and at this price.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Mike Crawford <jmichael@...>
>> To: harryproa@...
>> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:56:53 PM
>> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Trailer proa
>>
>> Rob,
>>
>>   The trailerable proa looks wonderful.  I was skeptical at first, but now
>> that you've upgraded the renderings, I can see that the boat really does
>> have some character of its own.
>>
>>   That's also a great mast stepping solution.  Some tri's require a
>> trailer to step/unstep, and that's not very useful if you're moored or at a
>> dock.  Others have a-frames or gin poles, which help, but which also create
>> some serious stresses on the mast base.  They are also more suited for a
>> rotating mast that fits onto a ball than for an unstayed rig that needs to
>> be lowered several feet into a hull.  This is probably the simplest and most
>> stress-free solution I've seen.
>>
>>   The number of trailerable boats with this level of performance and
>> accommodations can be counted on one hand, with a few fingers to spare.
>>
>>   Nice job.
>>
>>        - Mike
>>
>>
>> Rob Denney wrote:
>>
>> G'day,
>>
>> Trailer proa renderings are in the Files section under Maxi Trailer sailor
>>
>> 'The ultimate trailer sailor/racer cruiser' is the requirement for
>> this boat. As fast as possible, with standing headroom, minimal
>> galley, double bunk and a toilet. Trailering is mostly for the 5
>> mile trip from home to ramp, but occasionally further afield.
>>
>> Windward hull is 7m.24', leeward hull 12m/40'
>>
>> The boat is 6m/20' wide in sailing trim, but telescopes to 3.7/12'4"
>> wide for marinas and 2m/6'8" wide on the trailer. This is easily done
>> with composite beams. The mast and boom travel in cradles on the lw
>> hull deck, the beams under the cockpit. The trampoline is in two
>> pieces split fore and aft. Each piece has a 25mm dia carbon or alloy
>> tube sitting in hooks on the hull and the beams. In the middle is a
>> thicker tube for each piece. When telescoping for marina use, the
>> lee hull tramp is lifted out of it's hooks and as the hulls slide
>> together it slides over the windward tramp, so you can still walk
>> across to the other hull. For light air races, it can also be sailed
>> like this. For trailering, the tramps and the telescoped beams are
>> quickly and easily removed and stored under the the cockpit.
>>
>> The mast is telescoped to 9.2m for stepping/unstepping . A 5m long
>> pole, with a 4;1 blocjk and tackle on one end is inserted into a hole
>> in the deck next to the mast. The heel sits in a cup next to the mast
>> step. The blocks are tied around the mast at it's centre of gravity
>> approx 3.7m from the base and it is lifted up until the heel is above
>> the deck, then guided into the top bearing and lowered into place.
>> Unstepping is the opposite. Very quick and very safe.
>>
>> The reefing drawing shows sail areas incl mast of of 47 sqm/505 sq',
>> 35 sqm/376 sq' and 22 sq m/236 sq m. Storm sail is 2 sq m/22.5 sq' of
>> mast. Lots of sail up high for the light stuff, no drag or weight up
>> high for the heavy.
>>
>> Weight in sailing trim is 420 kgs and the payload 330 kgs/726 lbs.
>> Overload could be as much again without it affecting anything but the
>> speed.
>>
>> Construction method for the hulls is partially glassed panels joined
>> and compounded, with flat panels for the rest.
>>
>> Bruce number empty is 2.34. With normal payload, 1.9. Hull flying
>> wind speed 10 knots, lower with the crew sitting to leeward.
>>
>> Inside the ww hull is a double bunk at one end and the galley and
>> toilet at the other. The galley space is large, but not all of it is
>> accessible. It will probably end up being accessed through a deck
>> hatch and used for storing fenders, etc.
>>
>> The cockpit is sheltered with a folding pram hood which will ensure dry
>> sailing.
>>
>> The rudders could not be mounted on the telescoping beams, so are in
>> daggercases in the hull. Rather than use long tiller extensions,
>> there is a short athwartships tiller (magenta in the renderings) with
>> an extension (green) attached to the tiller and a car on a track on
>> the deck. The car is pulled fore and aft by lines running to
>> whipstaffs (vertical tillers, red) on the leeward end of the cockpits.
>> The lines are cleated on the whipstaffs so can be released and easily
>> replaced and retightened when the rudders are lifted and lowered.
>> This is a far easier system than wheel steering where the lines must
>> be released off the quadrants to raise the rudders.
>>
>> Comments, suggestions, criticisms welcome.
>>
>
>

G'day,

Waiting for some photos from Blind Date.  Will post them as soon as I
have them.   The only other ones are in the photos section.

regards,

Rob

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not trying to get a better design. I am trying to find out more about
> the current one. I have never seen a drawing, and the few photos I have seen
> are too far away and under too much construction for me to tell much. For
> instance, I have never seen a drawing that looked like it had a large
> diameter wheel type thing going around the whole rudder. I would love to see
> more detail on any of the versions of Rob's rudder, but especially the one
> he is thinking about for the charter proa.
>
> - Gardner
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:28 PM, jjtctaylor <jtaylor412@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gardner,
>>
>> That's essentially the plan as it is currently devised. The only
>> difference is there is no
>> pivot pin. Only two pins, one shears or the other, and the rudder pivots
>> on the surviving
>> pin. The pins themselves don't shear, only a retaining plate securing the
>> pins shear. Can
>> have a stack of plates and easy to reinstall.
>>
>> Your design could work too. You only have half the problem solved. What
>> happens to the
>> steering connection when the pin shears ? That's significantly more
>> complication. Rob's
>> design the rudder always falls away from the axis where your pivot pin is
>> located. That is
>> where the connection to steer is made, either rack and pinion for him or
>> spur gear and
>> worm drive for me.
>>
>> In your design the pivot pin would have to move forward to allow the
>> rudder swing to clear
>> the enagagement depth of the mating steering hardware.
>>
>> Doesn't mean it can't be done, just have to be sure your design is better
>> than something
>> else. So far none have offered significant advantages. If you have some
>> ideas on steering
>> connection, please add to your model. Not want to stifle creativity.
>>
>> JT
>>
>> --- In harryproa@..., "gardnerpomper" <gardner@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > There have been alot of rudder discussions here and I have not gotten
>> > them clear in my
>> head.
>> > I just posted to Files, under "Gardners layous" a rudder PDF file. It
>> > seems like this would
>> work
>> > for the lifting, tilt when grounding and 306 degree coverage. It is so
>> > simple, that I am
>> sure
>> > everyone can tell me why it doesn't work. Can someone use this as a
>> > basis to let me
>> know
>> > how the Harryproa rudders (specifically for the charter proa) differ?
>> >
>> > In case my drawing is less that clear, the idea is that there is a short
>> > section of rudder
>> case
>> > (allowing the rudder to lift vertically), enclosed in a nylon bearing
>> > (allowing 360 degree
>> > rotation) that acts like both a bearing and a quadrant. The outside
>> > (non-turning part) of
>> the
>> > bearing has a center rotational pin and 2 sacrificial pins that will
>> > break in the event of a
>> > grounding and allow the rudder to kick up.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > - Gardner
>> >
>>
>
>

G'day,


On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
> -Rob mentioned about a bit of binding under load with the PVC pipe. I
> don't see why you can't go a larger diameter and sleeve with a
> polyethylene (black Poly) pipe or use the graphite resin on the inside
> -- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@...> wrote:

Exactly what i have done.  Takes a bit more mucking about attaching
the large diameter bearing to the boat, but not too big a deal.

regards,
Rob

G'day,
I thought about the rudders on a sleeve, maybe later when everything
else is working.  They lose 2' which is a bit much for most marinas, I
think.

Foot lockers are a good idea, but the limit on this boat was cockpit
size, so there is no real gain.    Either way, the person on the
inside has to do some clambering.

Closing off the sail foot may (I am not convinced by the windsurfers
as they only seem to do it in a breeze, when balance factors may enter
into it) reduce the tip losses, but a una rig boom is rarely on the
centreline so with a skinny hull it would not achieve much.  It also
kills visibility to leeward.  It is one of those very simple things to
test that i have never got round to.  Any real life data would be
appreciated.

regards,

Rob

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
> If the rudder supports were on a sleeve, the beams could still be
> pulled out through the ww hull and have beam mounted rudders. You
> would only lose 30cm of squeezing for the marina. I still reckon a
> foot locker and sleeping sideways would give much easier access to the
> berths. Have you considered a battened sail extension below the boom
> to close off the slot. On a wsurfer you really notice the difference
> when you close the slot. Apart from that, I reckon it is v. nice and
> should go like the powers of
>
>
>

I have been thinking that the harryproa concept is just at the point where it
could start
expanding quickly, but what is holding it back is that people are unfamiliar
with the whole
proa idea, much less the difference between the harryproas and the traditional
Atlantic
and Pacific proas.

I think it would be a great marketing coup if someone could draw a set of
really, really
simple plans that would only take a hundred hours or so to put together a
really, really
simple harryproa. Not a competitor to the Elementarry, just something that
people could
slap together and try out the idea. If the hulls could be made out of one piece
of foam,
glassed on both gunwhales, unglassed at the keelson and bent up. Two alloy tubes
as
crossbeams, flat decktops, and an alloy mast with a sleeve sail. Simplest
rudders to do,
just mounted in the lee hull. No kickup, no lifting, just 360 degree turn. Sell
the plans for
next to nothing ($100, $200) and get a bunch of people out there building one.

This would give potential buyers something quick to try it out, and everyone who
saw one
sailing would come and talk to the owners about the concept.

Make it clear in the plans that this is a "relatively" low performance design,
and if they
want true adrenaline rush speed, they should look at the Elementarry.

My $0.02.

- Gardner