I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but wouldn't bungy
cord be a bit cheaper and easier?

Best regards
Herb


--- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@...> wrote:
>
> WILLDO Thruster to move off the offending shoal, then reinstall shear
> pins or whatever.
>
> Silly other options for retract would be air cylinder with rupture
> disk on the exhaust port.  Using a compressible medium you can get
> some movement before collapse.  Single acting cylinder type with
> spring extend.  Loss of air thru seals would be a minor concern as
> spring keeps it in down postion and ambient air balances both sides
> of piston.
>
> Smaller boats or non-deep pockets will need other solutions.
>
> JT
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "Gardner Pomper" <gardner@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > When I did some sample rudder drawings (in the Files section, under
> > "Gardner's Layouts"), it got me thinking about how you handle
> steering on a
> > kick up rudder and I can't figure it out.
> >
> > Do Rare Bird and Blind Date have kick up rudders? How is the
> steering
> > handled? It always seems to me that the steering cables would keep
> the
> > rudder from kicking up.
> >
> > Anyway, any explanation welcome. Explanations with pictures are
> likely to be
> > uderstood better. Explanations with pictures drawn with crayons are
> about
> > the right level of complexity for me <grin>.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Gardner Pomper
> > York, PA
> >
>

Price depends very much on the first and last miles. A client quoted their shipping prices to me last week and said shipping from China to Europe cost a lot less than towing the last 400 km (250 miles) with truck. So the most expensive part may well be the first and last miles, not the shipping.   Arto

Hi,

I am trying very hard to not have to disassemble the boat for shipping. With the 4.5' overlap on the cockpit and lw hull, the two hulls can be locked together even with the crossbeams removed, so getting it in/out of the container is mostly a exercise in sliding it in/out.

In terms of hull flare, the lw hull really doesn't need to be 3' wide, other than to hold the bunks. I thought construction would be simple if the hull just sloped out from a 2' waterline beam to a 3' beam at the bunk height, but keeping the lw hull narrower and just having a shelf stick out for the cabin areas is another option. How do I evaluate the better method?

I like Rob's idea of the rollers for getting it in/out of the container. I really only anticipate using the container for shipping the boat overseas, and I probably don't need a trailer there. That really helps the height issue; I might even be able to use a standard container, instead of a high-cube if I don't try to put the trailer in it.

I'm glad someone looked at the rudders also. The main issue with them that I have not figured out is how to actually control the steering with them. Should I just put a short tiller extension on top of the rudder shaft and then have LONG fiberglass extension rods? They would have to be about 11' long. I am concerned with them getting entangled with the main sheets, and also what damage the rigid rods might cause if the rudder breaks free due to a collision.

I am also happy with the idea of mounting the dinghy right across the midbeam. I never could find a way to have a large enough dinghy when mounted across the beam. I would like something on the order of 10-12' for the load carrying ability (minimum of 600 lbs, including the engine). I have a special idea for a rigid catamaran dinghy with detachable bows that would fit into the container with the boat, that i hope to get drawn up soon.

Do you know anything about the use of shipping containers? If I park this at a marina or my house, how do I get it on/off a truck? Can it just be propped up to the right height or does there need to be a crane whereever I need to load/unload it? If I go with Rob's idea of just buying my own container, it is expensive to store? How about transporting it to/from the water? These are all industrial type questions that I have had a very hard time getting answered as an individual.

- Gardner

WILLDO Thruster to move off the offending shoal, then reinstall shear
pins or whatever.

Silly other options for retract would be air cylinder with rupture
disk on the exhaust port.  Using a compressible medium you can get
some movement before collapse.  Single acting cylinder type with
spring extend.  Loss of air thru seals would be a minor concern as
spring keeps it in down postion and ambient air balances both sides
of piston.

Smaller boats or non-deep pockets will need other solutions.

JT

--- In harryproa@..., "Gardner Pomper" <gardner@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> When I did some sample rudder drawings (in the Files section, under
> "Gardner's Layouts"), it got me thinking about how you handle
steering on a
> kick up rudder and I can't figure it out.
>
> Do Rare Bird and Blind Date have kick up rudders? How is the
steering
> handled? It always seems to me that the steering cables would keep
the
> rudder from kicking up.
>
> Anyway, any explanation welcome. Explanations with pictures are
likely to be
> uderstood better. Explanations with pictures drawn with crayons are
about
> the right level of complexity for me <grin>.
>
> Thanks,
> - Gardner Pomper
> York, PA
>

-I was going for a flare rather than a simple slope as I was wanting
to keep the hull as narrow as possible for as high as possible and the
flare would hopefully kick water down rather than present as a fatter
hull. A simple shelf can cause stress concentrationsso I was
considdering either a bevel or a reasonably large radius to connect them.
. I feel that making the centre of the ww hull lower would make the
stresses more difficult to transfer. I spent a fair amount of time
trying to minimise the hatch sizes to enable the stressses to be
transferred from one crossbeam to another through the lw hull.
Probably a certain amount of flexibility might even be good but we
don't want hatch covers popping off or the hatches ripping apart.
Going for a schooner rig imparts different torques on the lw hull
compared with a single masted rig.
  I have drawn some ideas for the tillers in robert's rudder musings. I
don't think ther should be too much problem in keeping the sheets
clearand some sort of lanyard to keep everything uner some sort of
control shouls a rudder trip should remove much of the difficulties.
  I have no idea about the containers. I wouldn't dismiss the idea of
simply turning the boat on its sideto get it in

-- In harryproa@..., "Gardner Pomper" <gardner@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am trying very hard to not have to disassemble the boat for
shipping. With
> the 4.5' overlap on the cockpit and lw hull, the two hulls can be locked
> together even with the crossbeams removed, so getting it in/out of the
> container is mostly a exercise in sliding it in/out.
>
> In terms of hull flare, the lw hull really doesn't need to be 3'
wide, other
> than to hold the bunks. I thought construction would be simple if
the hull
> just sloped out from a 2' waterline beam to a 3' beam at the bunk
height,
> but keeping the lw hull narrower and just having a shelf stick out
for the
> cabin areas is another option. How do I evaluate the better method?
>
> I like Rob's idea of the rollers for getting it in/out of the
container. I
> really only anticipate using the container for shipping the boat
overseas,
> and I probably don't need a trailer there. That really helps the height
> issue; I might even be able to use a standard container, instead of a
> high-cube if I don't try to put the trailer in it.
>
> I'm glad someone looked at the rudders also. The main issue with
them that I
> have not figured out is how to actually control the steering with them.
> Should I just put a short tiller extension on top of the rudder
shaft and
> then have LONG fiberglass extension rods? They would have to be
about 11'
> long. I am concerned with them getting entangled with the main
sheets, and
> also what damage the rigid rods might cause if the rudder breaks
free due to
> a collision.
>
> I am also happy with the idea of mounting the dinghy right across the
> midbeam. I never could find a way to have a large enough dinghy when
mounted
> across the beam. I would like something on the order of 10-12' for
the load
> carrying ability (minimum of 600 lbs, including the engine). I have a
> special idea for a rigid catamaran dinghy with detachable bows that
would
> fit into the container with the boat, that i hope to get drawn up soon.
>
> Do you know anything about the use of shipping containers? If I park
this at
> a marina or my house, how do I get it on/off a truck? Can it just be
propped
> up to the right height or does there need to be a crane whereever I
need to
> load/unload it? If I go with Rob's idea of just buying my own
container, it
> is expensive to store? How about transporting it to/from the water?
These
> are all industrial type questions that I have had a very hard time
getting
> answered as an individual.
>
> - Gardner
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Robert <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
> >   -Sorry for the previous non post.
> > Nice rendition and some nice ideas. I like the rudder systems. I
> > think it may be possible to go one stage further by having a
> > disposable pit on the lw side of the upper pin and a the ww side of
> > the lower. This would allow excessive side loads an escape rather than
> > the rudder shafts. Though it is always difficult to produce a fuse
> > that breaks when you want it to but not when you don't.
> >
> > I have been playing around with designs to get the boat easily within
> > towing widths rather than container widths. I would not go lower in
> > height with the lw hull but consider as Rob suggests, turning the lw
> > hull on its side and tucking it under the wing deck. This would allow
> > about 5' in height. The other suggestion, that of turning the boat on
> > its side, is doable. I worked out a system of rollers to make this
> > easy and gentle. My idea for ww accommodation is to have the double
> > berths sideways with kick out foot lockers to get the width. I also
> > had the cockpit area hinged to go back into the ww hull
> > This way you can get the hull width down to less than 7'and still
> > have a cabin, a bunk and a wider cockpit. I prefer to have my bunks
> > sideways for sailing at 20 knots, in case of a sudden stop. I also
> > flared out the lw hull to just accommodate a couple of cosy doubles.
> > This is probably unnecessary and makes it much harder to get within
> > the width and height restrictions.
> > Robert
> >
> > -- In harryproa@... <harryproa%40yahoogroups.com.au>,
> > "Gardner Pomper" <gardner@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems as soon as I finish one layout idea and post it, another
> > pops up.
> > > If I assume that my mast will be 39' or less, how much height in the
> > lw hull
> > > is required to support them? It occurs to me that I could make the
> > lw hull
> > > smaller and lower and the ww hull deck wider and slide right over
> > the top of
> > > the lw hull if I could get away with about 3' of support for the
> > masts. Is
> > > that enough?
> > > - Gardner
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Rob Denney <harryproa@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a few features I would be particularly interested in
> > getting
> > > > feedback on. Fitting a
> > > > > boat like this into a container while sitting on its trailer is
> > a tight
> > > > squeeze. Since the
> > > > > preferred building technique is bending large flat panels, one
> > issue is
> > > > the tolerances of
> > > > > dimensions for the final boats. Assuming that a professional
> > builder (I
> > > > am thinking the
> > > > > chinese yard Rob is currently dealing with), if the design calls
> > for a
> > > > boat that collapses to
> > > > > 7'6", how likely is it that it will end up at 7'7" or even 7'8"?
> > An inch
> > > > or two may make all
> > > > > the difference in terms of getting it through the container
door.
> > > >
> > > > The build technique can certainly handle that level of
precision. I
> > > > am assured that the qc in China is excellent. If the width is
part of
> > > > the spec, then if they don't achieve it, they will have to start
> > > > again. However, achieving it is pretty simple as the flat
panels are
> > > > placed in frames, which can be very accurate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another question deals with maneuvering the trailer. Is it
> > reasonable to
> > > > think that one (not
> > > > > me, some other one) could back a 39' boat, 7'6" wide into a
39'6"
> > > > container, 7'8" wide? Is
> > > > > that really enough margin?
> > > >
> > > > Not really, but it could be done. I would put pieces of foam
down the
> > > > sides and let it rub against them. Need to think about trailer
design
> > > > as well. If it will need a crane to assemble it and/or put it
in/out
> > > > of the water, you may be better off using rollers to get it in and
> > > > out. An inch each side will be plenty if this is done. I would
also
> > > > buy your own container rather than use a different one each time.
> > > > Allows you to customise it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The aspect ratio of the sails is another question. With the
> > schooner rig,
> > > > I am hoping to
> > > > > keep the masts at 39'. The boom will be about 9' from the
> > bottom, so I
> > > > could have a 30'
> > > > > luff, and a 10' foot. With a full roach, I am thinking I might
> > get 225 sq
> > > > ft per sail, or 450
> > > > > sq ft overall. Is this adequate? Is the rig too squat to
work well?
> > > >
> > > > Depends what the boat weighs, but top of my head I would say
you are
> > > > probably ok. Harry has 450 sq' and seems to get along ok. I
usually
> > > > work on 80% plus for the roach, so that is 240 sq' per sail.
> > > > >
> > > > > I gather from other discussions that the chinese version of
> > Rapscallion
> > > > is estimate to run
> > > > > about $30K. I am hoping to bring this in just a little over;
> > maybe $40K.
> > > > Any opinions on
> > > > > my rationality?
> > > >
> > > > Another data point: The 15m hulls, decks, beams and cabin,
joined and
> > > > painted quote is $47,000. Fitout, rig and steering to be added.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

-Sorry for the previous non post.
  Nice rendition and some nice ideas. I like the rudder systems. I
think it may be possible to go one stage further by having a
disposable pit on the lw side of the upper pin and a the ww side of
the lower. This would allow excessive side loads an escape rather than
the rudder shafts. Though it is always difficult to produce a fuse
that breaks when you want it to but not when you don't.

I have been playing around with designs to get the boat easily within
towing widths rather than container widths. I would not go lower in
height with the lw hull but consider as Rob suggests, turning the lw
hull on its side and tucking it under the wing deck. This would allow
about 5' in height. The other suggestion, that of turning the boat on
its side, is doable. I worked out a system of rollers to make this
easy and gentle. My idea for ww accommodation is to have the double
berths sideways with kick out foot lockers to get the width. I also
had the cockpit area hinged to go back into the ww hull
  This way you can get the hull width down to less than 7'and still
have a cabin, a bunk and a wider cockpit. I prefer to have my bunks
sideways for sailing at 20 knots, in case of a sudden stop. I also
flared out the lw hull to just accommodate a couple of cosy doubles.
This is probably unnecessary and makes it much harder to get within
the width and height restrictions.
Robert
   -- In harryproa@..., "Gardner Pomper" <gardner@...>
wrote:
>
> It seems as soon as I finish one layout idea and post it, another
pops up.
> If I assume that my mast will be 39' or less, how much height in the
lw hull
> is required to support them? It occurs to me that I could make the
lw hull
> smaller and lower and the ww hull deck wider and slide right over
the top of
> the lw hull if I could get away with about 3' of support for the
masts. Is
> that enough?
> - Gardner
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> >   .
> > >
> > > There are a few features I would be particularly interested in
getting
> > feedback on. Fitting a
> > > boat like this into a container while sitting on its trailer is
a tight
> > squeeze. Since the
> > > preferred building technique is bending large flat panels, one
issue is
> > the tolerances of
> > > dimensions for the final boats. Assuming that a professional
builder (I
> > am thinking the
> > > chinese yard Rob is currently dealing with), if the design calls
for a
> > boat that collapses to
> > > 7'6", how likely is it that it will end up at 7'7" or even 7'8"?
An inch
> > or two may make all
> > > the difference in terms of getting it through the container door.
> >
> > The build technique can certainly handle that level of precision. I
> > am assured that the qc in China is excellent. If the width is part of
> > the spec, then if they don't achieve it, they will have to start
> > again. However, achieving it is pretty simple as the flat panels are
> > placed in frames, which can be very accurate.
> > >
> > > Another question deals with maneuvering the trailer. Is it
reasonable to
> > think that one (not
> > > me, some other one) could back a 39' boat, 7'6" wide into a 39'6"
> > container, 7'8" wide? Is
> > > that really enough margin?
> >
> > Not really, but it could be done. I would put pieces of foam down the
> > sides and let it rub against them. Need to think about trailer design
> > as well. If it will need a crane to assemble it and/or put it in/out
> > of the water, you may be better off using rollers to get it in and
> > out. An inch each side will be plenty if this is done. I would also
> > buy your own container rather than use a different one each time.
> > Allows you to customise it.
> > >
> > > The aspect ratio of the sails is another question. With the
schooner rig,
> > I am hoping to
> > > keep the masts at 39'. The boom will be about 9' from the
bottom, so I
> > could have a 30'
> > > luff, and a 10' foot. With a full roach, I am thinking I might
get 225 sq
> > ft per sail, or 450
> > > sq ft overall. Is this adequate? Is the rig too squat to work well?
> >
> > Depends what the boat weighs, but top of my head I would say you are
> > probably ok. Harry has 450 sq' and seems to get along ok. I usually
> > work on 80% plus for the roach, so that is 240 sq' per sail.
> > >
> > > I gather from other discussions that the chinese version of
Rapscallion
> > is estimate to run
> > > about $30K. I am hoping to bring this in just a little over;
maybe $40K.
> > Any opinions on
> > > my rationality?
> >
> > Another data point: The 15m hulls, decks, beams and cabin, joined and
> > painted quote is $47,000. Fitout, rig and steering to be added.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In harryproa@..., "Gardner Pomper" <gardner@...> wrote:
>
> It seems as soon as I finish one layout idea and post it, another
pops up.
> If I assume that my mast will be 39' or less, how much height in the
lw hull
> is required to support them? It occurs to me that I could make the
lw hull
> smaller and lower and the ww hull deck wider and slide right over
the top of
> the lw hull if I could get away with about 3' of support for the
masts. Is
> that enough?
> - Gardner
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> >   .
> > >
> > > There are a few features I would be particularly interested in
getting
> > feedback on. Fitting a
> > > boat like this into a container while sitting on its trailer is
a tight
> > squeeze. Since the
> > > preferred building technique is bending large flat panels, one
issue is
> > the tolerances of
> > > dimensions for the final boats. Assuming that a professional
builder (I
> > am thinking the
> > > chinese yard Rob is currently dealing with), if the design calls
for a
> > boat that collapses to
> > > 7'6", how likely is it that it will end up at 7'7" or even 7'8"?
An inch
> > or two may make all
> > > the difference in terms of getting it through the container door.
> >
> > The build technique can certainly handle that level of precision. I
> > am assured that the qc in China is excellent. If the width is part of
> > the spec, then if they don't achieve it, they will have to start
> > again. However, achieving it is pretty simple as the flat panels are
> > placed in frames, which can be very accurate.
> > >
> > > Another question deals with maneuvering the trailer. Is it
reasonable to
> > think that one (not
> > > me, some other one) could back a 39' boat, 7'6" wide into a 39'6"
> > container, 7'8" wide? Is
> > > that really enough margin?
> >
> > Not really, but it could be done. I would put pieces of foam down the
> > sides and let it rub against them. Need to think about trailer design
> > as well. If it will need a crane to assemble it and/or put it in/out
> > of the water, you may be better off using rollers to get it in and
> > out. An inch each side will be plenty if this is done. I would also
> > buy your own container rather than use a different one each time.
> > Allows you to customise it.
> > >
> > > The aspect ratio of the sails is another question. With the
schooner rig,
> > I am hoping to
> > > keep the masts at 39'. The boom will be about 9' from the
bottom, so I
> > could have a 30'
> > > luff, and a 10' foot. With a full roach, I am thinking I might
get 225 sq
> > ft per sail, or 450
> > > sq ft overall. Is this adequate? Is the rig too squat to work well?
> >
> > Depends what the boat weighs, but top of my head I would say you are
> > probably ok. Harry has 450 sq' and seems to get along ok. I usually
> > work on 80% plus for the roach, so that is 240 sq' per sail.
> > >
> > > I gather from other discussions that the chinese version of
Rapscallion
> > is estimate to run
> > > about $30K. I am hoping to bring this in just a little over;
maybe $40K.
> > Any opinions on
> > > my rationality?
> >
> > Another data point: The 15m hulls, decks, beams and cabin, joined and
> > painted quote is $47,000. Fitout, rig and steering to be added.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> >
>

It seems as soon as I finish one layout idea and post it, another pops up. If I assume that my mast will be 39' or less, how much height in the lw hull is required to support them? It occurs to me that I could make the lw hull smaller and lower and the ww hull deck wider and slide right over the top of the lw hull if I could get away with about 3' of support for the masts. Is that enough?

- Gardner

On

G'day,

The smallest bury we have done is 750mm on 11m length, which is 6.8%,
so 3' on 39 (7.7%) is possible, but make sure you actually do have 3'
by the time the skin thickness and hull shape are allowed for.   I
would make the mast exactly the length of the container.

You also have beam clearance to consider.    Tipping the lee hull on
it's side and tucking it under the bridge deck may be another option,
as may be tilting the ww hull.

regards,

rob

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
> It seems as soon as I finish one layout idea and post it, another pops up.
> If I assume that my mast will be 39' or less, how much height in the lw hull
> is required to support them? It occurs to me that I could make the lw hull
> smaller and lower and the ww hull deck wider and slide right over the top of
> the lw hull if I could get away with about 3' of support for the masts. Is
> that enough?
>
> - Gardner
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>>
>> .
>> >
>> > There are a few features I would be particularly interested in getting
>> > feedback on. Fitting a
>> > boat like this into a container while sitting on its trailer is a tight
>> > squeeze. Since the
>> > preferred building technique is bending large flat panels, one issue is
>> > the tolerances of
>> > dimensions for the final boats. Assuming that a professional builder (I
>> > am thinking the
>> > chinese yard Rob is currently dealing with), if the design calls for a
>> > boat that collapses to
>> > 7'6", how likely is it that it will end up at 7'7" or even 7'8"? An inch
>> > or two may make all
>> > the difference in terms of getting it through the container door.
>>
>> The build technique can certainly handle that level of precision. I
>> am assured that the qc in China is excellent. If the width is part of
>> the spec, then if they don't achieve it, they will have to start
>> again. However, achieving it is pretty simple as the flat panels are
>> placed in frames, which can be very accurate.
>> >
>> > Another question deals with maneuvering the trailer. Is it reasonable to
>> > think that one (not
>> > me, some other one) could back a 39' boat, 7'6" wide into a 39'6"
>> > container, 7'8" wide? Is
>> > that really enough margin?
>>
>> Not really, but it could be done. I would put pieces of foam down the
>> sides and let it rub against them. Need to think about trailer design
>> as well. If it will need a crane to assemble it and/or put it in/out
>> of the water, you may be better off using rollers to get it in and
>> out. An inch each side will be plenty if this is done. I would also
>> buy your own container rather than use a different one each time.
>> Allows you to customise it.
>> >
>> > The aspect ratio of the sails is another question. With the schooner
>> > rig, I am hoping to
>> > keep the masts at 39'. The boom will be about 9' from the bottom, so I
>> > could have a 30'
>> > luff, and a 10' foot. With a full roach, I am thinking I might get 225
>> > sq ft per sail, or 450
>> > sq ft overall. Is this adequate? Is the rig too squat to work well?
>>
>> Depends what the boat weighs, but top of my head I would say you are
>> probably ok. Harry has 450 sq' and seems to get along ok. I usually
>> work on 80% plus for the roach, so that is 240 sq' per sail.
>> >
>> > I gather from other discussions that the chinese version of Rapscallion
>> > is estimate to run
>> > about $30K. I am hoping to bring this in just a little over; maybe $40K.
>> > Any opinions on
>> > my rationality?
>>
>> Another data point: The 15m hulls, decks, beams and cabin, joined and
>> painted quote is $47,000. Fitout, rig and steering to be added.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rob
>
>

.
>
> There are a few features I would be particularly interested in getting
feedback on. Fitting a
> boat like this into a container while sitting on its trailer is a tight
squeeze. Since the
> preferred building technique is bending large flat panels, one issue is the
tolerances of
> dimensions for the final boats. Assuming that a professional builder (I am
thinking the
> chinese yard Rob is currently dealing with), if the design calls for a boat
that collapses to
> 7'6", how likely is it that it will end up at 7'7" or even 7'8"? An inch or
two may make all
> the difference in terms of getting it through the container door.

The build technique can certainly handle that level of precision.  I
am assured that the qc in China is excellent.  If the width is part of
the spec, then if they don't achieve it, they will have to start
again.  However, achieving it is pretty simple as the flat panels are
placed in frames, which can be very accurate.
>
> Another question deals with maneuvering the trailer. Is it reasonable to think
that one (not
> me, some other one) could back a 39' boat, 7'6" wide into a 39'6" container,
7'8" wide? Is
> that really enough margin?

Not really, but it could be done.  I would put pieces of foam down the
sides and let it rub against them. Need to think about trailer design
as well.  If it will need a crane to assemble it and/or put it in/out
of the water, you may be better off using rollers to get it in and
out.  An inch each side will be plenty if this is done.  I would also
buy your own container rather than use a different one each time.
Allows you to customise it.
>
> The aspect ratio of the sails is another question. With the schooner rig, I am
hoping to
> keep the masts at 39'. The boom will be about 9' from the bottom, so I could
have a 30'
> luff, and a 10' foot. With a full roach, I am thinking I might get 225 sq ft
per sail, or 450
> sq ft overall. Is this adequate? Is the rig too squat to work well?

Depends what the boat weighs, but top of my head I would say you are
probably ok.  Harry has 450 sq' and seems to get along ok.  I usually
work on 80% plus for the roach, so that is 240 sq' per sail.
>
> I gather from other discussions that the chinese version of Rapscallion is
estimate to run
> about $30K. I am hoping to bring this in just a little over; maybe $40K. Any
opinions on
> my rationality?

Another data point: The 15m hulls, decks, beams and cabin, joined and
painted quote is $47,000.  Fitout, rig and steering to be added.

Regards,

Rob

Hi,

I just cleared out the "Gardner's Layouts" directory of the Files section of
this group and
replaced the contents with the latest drawings I have for a layout that I would
like to get
some feedback on.

From speaking to the Admiral, it seems unlikely that I will get permission to
sell the house
and take off for a life of cruising. I have therefore scaled back my preferred
liveaboard
design to something that can fit in a standard (hicube) shipping container, yet
still provide
cruising amenities for a family of 3-4 for a few weeks.

There are a few features I would be particularly interested in getting feedback
on. Fitting a
boat like this into a container while sitting on its trailer is a tight squeeze.
Since the
preferred building technique is bending large flat panels, one issue is the
tolerances of
dimensions for the final boats. Assuming that a professional builder (I am
thinking the
chinese yard Rob is currently dealing with), if the design calls for a boat that
collapses to
7'6", how likely is it that it will end up at 7'7" or even 7'8"? An inch or two
may make all
the difference in terms of getting it through the container door.

Another question deals with maneuvering the trailer. Is it reasonable to think
that one (not
me, some other one) could back a 39' boat, 7'6" wide into a 39'6" container,
7'8" wide? Is
that really enough margin?

The aspect ratio of the sails is another question. With the schooner rig, I am
hoping to
keep the masts at 39'. The boom will be about 9' from the bottom, so I could
have a 30'
luff, and a 10' foot. With a full roach, I am thinking I might get 225 sq ft per
sail, or 450
sq ft overall. Is this adequate? Is the rig too squat to work well?

I gather from other discussions that the chinese version of Rapscallion is
estimate to run
about $30K. I am hoping to bring this in just a little over; maybe $40K. Any
opinions on
my rationality?

Thanks for any feedback!!

- Gardner Pomper
York, PA

NIce to see an accommodation to ww proa sail quickly

Hello Gardner and gang.

I have started making full size panels today for replacement float
hulls for my TT 720.  First one is under vacuum now and will be
removed tomorrow morning.  I will be making three more over the next
two or three weeks.  If anyone in area is interested in seeing the
setup and infusion process and helping out let me know so you can
arrange a time to visit.

I will tentatively plan on making one panel next Saturday Dec
6.,possibly one on Wed Dec.10,Saturday or Sunday Dec.13 or 14, and
if not finished, one on Saturday Dec 20.

Please give me a call or E mail me directly
(Chesapeake410@... )to discuss details and get direction.

George Kuck
Chestertown,MD

phone 410-810-2529

Generally I would hope that on grounding the rudders would pivot to
allow them to kick up but obviously not always. I do recall a Hobie
that busted a rudder going sideways and slightly backwards through the
surf.  In case of lateral loads in grounding situations, I am not sure
where the best place is for breaking as something has to give. It is
nice to see that the bearings and supports stood up to the impact. I
think I would prefer the rudder shaft outside the bearing and having a
spare shaft to drop in rather than a bent shaft between the bearings
jamming the whole system. A tapered system would avoid the bending in
between the bearings, but would be a very difficult job to straighten
it afterwards. I recall the nightmare of trying to remove a bent
rudder shaft from a trawler that wasn't designed to take reverse
grounding full bore in reverse and a slight swell.
What would be the weight of a spare carbon shaft?
  --- In harryproa@..., "jjtctaylor" <jtaylor412@...> wrote:
>
> I am having my engineer do the FEA on the rudder shaft, pivots and
> such.  Rob has more confidence than I do on carbon rudders/ shafts.
> Rob plans to profile the shaft so that it gets wider toward the
> beam/bearings to spread the load, cause it isn't the carbon failing
> but epoxy resins which have a more limited tolerance for compression
> situations.  Also that helps the bearings set as they can't take
> execssive loads without deformation.  Thus need more bearings/
> rollers to help. Cannot use plastic bearings as side loads will more
> drastically change the force required to overcome friction at higher
> load situations.  Better to stay with roller bearing types.  THose
> too can't handle really high loads without making flat spots, unless
> they have enough roller content.
>
> Will have a complete analysis hopefully soon, so the forum can
> discuss options further.  I will be using aluminum 6082 shafting
> profiled from 1 inch dia at tip to 4 inches at the lower bearing.
> That is enough for a reasonable safety factor but no guarantee the
> shaft won't bend.  I make all these assumptions with the fact my
> rudder will only be 1 meter deep and 0.5 meter chord.  Shoaling in my
> normal sailing region of Pamlico Sound dictates a shallow draft for
> most areas.  Rare Bird rudders are 1.5 meters deep, with the same
> chord.
>
> All understood the rudders are an engineering challenge.  Cruising
> forum has a recent posting regarding multihull rudders caught in a
> grounding situation.  Lateral loads are bad news !
>
> JT
>
> --- In harryproa@..., Doug Haines <doha720@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi ya,
> >
> > I'm not really weighing into any arguement here, but I managed to
> break the carbon shafted blade back when still on first versions of
> rudders.
> > It was a very windy day 30/40 on the river and taking a short cut
> through a sand sspit. The kick up would have been OK but I turned
> fairly hard because of looking for the channel when the rudder hit
> the sand. The desin was raked a little forward and it just stiuck
> hard and the strong wind just pushed the boat against it side on and
> snapped up at the bearing.
> > Still was more of an accident than normal loads, but the rudders
> are going to be prone to this in and unpotected position.
> > See it as somewhere than just needs a lot mpre thought than the
> rest of the simple design of the Hp's.
> >
> > Doug
> >
>

I am having my engineer do the FEA on the rudder shaft, pivots and
such.  Rob has more confidence than I do on carbon rudders/ shafts.
Rob plans to profile the shaft so that it gets wider toward the
beam/bearings to spread the load, cause it isn't the carbon failing
but epoxy resins which have a more limited tolerance for compression
situations.  Also that helps the bearings set as they can't take
execssive loads without deformation.  Thus need more bearings/
rollers to help. Cannot use plastic bearings as side loads will more
drastically change the force required to overcome friction at higher
load situations.  Better to stay with roller bearing types.  THose
too can't handle really high loads without making flat spots, unless
they have enough roller content.

Will have a complete analysis hopefully soon, so the forum can
discuss options further.  I will be using aluminum 6082 shafting
profiled from 1 inch dia at tip to 4 inches at the lower bearing.
That is enough for a reasonable safety factor but no guarantee the
shaft won't bend.  I make all these assumptions with the fact my
rudder will only be 1 meter deep and 0.5 meter chord.  Shoaling in my
normal sailing region of Pamlico Sound dictates a shallow draft for
most areas.  Rare Bird rudders are 1.5 meters deep, with the same
chord.

All understood the rudders are an engineering challenge.  Cruising
forum has a recent posting regarding multihull rudders caught in a
grounding situation.  Lateral loads are bad news !

JT

--- In harryproa@..., Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote:
>
> Hi ya,
>
> I'm not really weighing into any arguement here, but I managed to
break the carbon shafted blade back when still on first versions of
rudders.
> It was a very windy day 30/40 on the river and taking a short cut
through a sand sspit. The kick up would have been OK but I turned
fairly hard because of looking for the channel when the rudder hit
the sand. The desin was raked a little forward and it just stiuck
hard and the strong wind just pushed the boat against it side on and
snapped up at the bearing.
> Still was more of an accident than normal loads, but the rudders
are going to be prone to this in and unpotected position.
> See it as somewhere than just needs a lot mpre thought than the
rest of the simple design of the Hp's.
>
> Doug
>

I agree with Rob that it should be very easy to beef up everything and
spread loads over larger areas should the need arise.  What about a
rather big trim tab (at only the lower third of the rudder)and use
that for steering and leave the rest of the rudder for lateral
resistance? In that way the rudder would be kind of a tacking
keel/centre board set to the optimum angel for windward performance.
I still have no real understanding of the beam mounted rudders and
especially the configuration of a lifted rudder and it´s exposure to
wave action and resulting loads. As water is much heavier than air I
always liked the fact that you could pull the rudder up and out of
harms way in the cassets used by Blind Date and Strange Bird. How
about these cassets mounted on the beams. If not in use you pull a
rudder up instead of swinging it under the bridge deck or in front of
the bridge deck where is is likely to get slapped by solid water? If
the cassets have a main hinge on the top of the beams they and the
rudder not in use could be rested on top of the bridge deck. Or is
this what is already planned?

Heinrich

G'day,

I was not referring top a similar weight or size mono or it's rudder.
  Picture a monohull (or a multi) with a rudder the same depth below
the lower bearing as a harry.  If that doesn't do it, picture one
twice as deep.   The advantage that harrys have is the rudder shaft
can be beefed up above the waterline as it does not have to fit inside
the blade.

The loads are large, but they can be determined relatively easily, and
the rudders designed and built to resist them.   To overbuild a carbon
shaft is easy, and not expensive.  I doubt any of these will be
broken.  The kick up mechanism and the support for the shaft on the
beams are more complex (same loads, just more complexity in the paths)
  so need more attention to detail.

Or, they can be made simpler.  For example: 1) Building the beams so
the rudder can be mounted through them rather than hanging off the
back with all the funny angles and peeling loads (the weak point of
composites) this entails. The sideways load bearing structure is
reduced to compression/tension along the beam.  It also makes the
beams lighter as there is no carbon required on the vertical faces.
2) Using the beam the rudder is mounted on to resist the fore and aft
loads is very difficult as the beam is relatively small in cross
section.  Better is to tie the rudder to the other beam, or, in the
case of the front rudder, to the bow.  As these loads are always
tension, and this is the direction they kick up in a collision, the
structure can be reduced to a piece of rope with a fuse in it.

Having the structure hanging off the beam makes it much easier to
overbuild it.  For example, adding more glass or carbon, using thicker
struts, and spreading the loads over a larger area of beam.  As the
actual structure is quite small, this beefing up does not add much
weight or cost.  It does make it messier, but it is very easy to
cover.


regards,
Rob


On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I am not clear on how the loads can be the same as on a monohull in
> that there is an extra 2 to 3 feet of leverage working against the
> harry rudders If they are not supported below the beam. Monohull
> rudders are supported where they enter the hull, below the waterline.
>
> If I am wrong about this I would be really interested in a better
> description of how the rudders work. They are a continuing area of
> concern for me.
>
> Gardner
>
> On 12/1/08, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Proasailor has just been bagging Harryproas on the multihull forum.
>>>> Usual bit about how having the wtw doesn't work and Harryproas haven't
>>>> proved themselves crossing oceans. Nothing specific. It does become a
>>>> bore. Still it gives an excuse to reply and highlight the advantages
>>>> of a Harry
>>>>
>>
>> G'day,
>>
>> Sure does, and you are doing an excellent job, thanks. Proasailor is
>> Joe Oster, who was thrown off the proa group for abusive language.
>> Should be amusing to see what he comes up with on the free for all
>> Sailing Anarchy site if he is pushed hard enough.
>>
>> As for the rudders, the loads are no higher than they are on many
>> monos, and just as easily, (or as difficultly) engineered and built to
>> take those loads.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>

Let me see,  The rudders are resisting lateral forces ala dagger boards, while
at he same
time are handling steering.  So if I need lateral control and steerage to resist
a broach I
have a lot of rudder in the water.  Should the boat slide sideways only the
rudders resist
both.  All at the same time rudders are pivoting a couple of feet above water
and several
feet above center of effort.    Of course that performance proof waits for sea
trials in more
challenging conditions.

There is a lot more rudder below waterline than just needed for steering.  
Either they be
really beefy or bring extras.........  Engineering has been taking a while, as
it's not so easy
and probably final robust design not so cheap.  STill waiting to finish my
design.  FEA
found some issues that need addressed.   Plenty of monos with busted rudders,
think HP
design has more risk and expect we will see some failures early.  No expecting
perfection
on first attempts.

JT

--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Proasailor has just been bagging Harryproas on the multihull forum.
> >> Usual bit about how having the wtw doesn't work and Harryproas haven't
> >> proved themselves crossing oceans. Nothing specific. It does become a
> >> bore. Still it gives an excuse to reply and highlight the advantages
> >> of a Harry
> >>
>
> G'day,
>
> Sure does, and you are doing an excellent job, thanks. Proasailor is
> Joe Oster, who was thrown off the proa group for abusive language.
> Should be amusing to see what he comes up with on the free for all
> Sailing Anarchy site if he is pushed hard enough.
>
> As for the rudders, the loads are no higher than they are on many
> monos, and just as easily, (or as difficultly) engineered and built to
> take those loads.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>

Rob,

I am not clear on how the loads can be the same as on a monohull in
that there is an extra 2 to 3 feet of leverage working against the
harry rudders If they are not supported below the beam. Monohull
rudders are supported where they enter the hull, below the waterline.

If I am wrong about this I would be really interested in a better
description of how the rudders work. They are a continuing area of
concern for me.

Gardner

On 12/1/08, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Proasailor has just been bagging Harryproas on the multihull forum.
>>> Usual bit about how having the wtw doesn't work and Harryproas haven't
>>> proved themselves crossing oceans. Nothing specific. It does become a
>>> bore. Still it gives an excuse to reply and highlight the advantages
>>> of a Harry
>>>
>
> G'day,
>
> Sure does, and you are doing an excellent job, thanks. Proasailor is
> Joe Oster, who was thrown off the proa group for abusive language.
> Should be amusing to see what he comes up with on the free for all
> Sailing Anarchy site if he is pushed hard enough.
>
> As for the rudders, the loads are no higher than they are on many
> monos, and just as easily, (or as difficultly) engineered and built to
> take those loads.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>

>
> --- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>>
>> Proasailor has just been bagging Harryproas on the multihull forum.
>> Usual bit about how having the wtw doesn't work and Harryproas haven't
>> proved themselves crossing oceans. Nothing specific. It does become a
>> bore. Still it gives an excuse to reply and highlight the advantages
>> of a Harry
>>

G'day,

Sure does, and you are doing an excellent job, thanks. Proasailor is
Joe Oster, who was thrown off the proa group for abusive language.
Should be amusing to see what he comes up with on the free for all
Sailing Anarchy site if he is pushed hard enough.

As for the rudders, the loads are no higher than they are on many
monos, and just as easily, (or as difficultly) engineered and built to
take those loads.

Regards,

Rob

I am not going to scoff or pontificate on that forum for the HP merits
but the rudders remain a risk in bad seas.  Torque load using rudders
for leeway and directional control will be a problem for expected high
loads.  Even with the best engineering can see by robustness numbers,
failing more rudders.  Playing the floating raft may not always keep
you off a lee shore.

Then again it will float and go, just don't play so often in bad
weather.

JT

--- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
> Proasailor has just been bagging Harryproas on the multihull forum.
> Usual bit about how having the wtw doesn't work and Harryproas haven't
> proved themselves crossing oceans. Nothing specific. It does become a
> bore. Still it gives an excuse to reply and highlight the advantages
> of a Harry
>