I haven't done much (started a new job), but just a reminder to keep November
7th free. Currently the plan is to meet on the beach (probably Arkles Bay but
Manly if a strong southerly is blowing), rig up  and look at each others boats,
then go for a sail. Meet up at the house afterwards for a BBQ.

Any ideas, suggestions I'm open.

Haven't been able to contact Bain, but from what Rob says that isn't too
surprising.

Cheers
David

-SO it can sneak through the back streets to go on the hard at my place at Eden
and it makes it easier to get it up the ramp without being sworn at-- In
harryproa@..., Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote:
>
> What is the collapsing for?
>
> --- On Mon, 31/8/09, cateran1949 <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
> From: cateran1949 <cateran1949@...>
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Beams and rudders
> To: harryproa@...
> Date: Monday, 31 August, 2009, 7:36 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>                   15mlw,10mww, same hull widths as a Harry and similar overall
beam to allow collapsing to 4.2m beam--- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, Doug
Haines <doha720@ > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > say what?
>
> > what is that then a bigger harry?
>
> > what dimensions have you changed?
>
> >
>
> > Is this for loading gear/people?
>
> >
>
> > Doug
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- On Sat, 29/8/09, cateran1949 <cateran1949@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: cateran1949 <cateran1949@ ...>
>
> > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Beams and rudders
>
> > To: harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au
>
> > Date: Saturday, 29 August, 2009, 10:15 PM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >                   -I was interpolating between the extended Harry and a Vis.
It seems to come at the logarithmic mean of the two.
>
> >
>
> >  The Admiral is supportive which makes it possible
>
> >
>
> > regards,
>
> >
>
> >  Robert
>
> >
>
> >  -- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@ ..> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Heavier load than I anticipated, but all doable.  Plans underway, see pm.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > regards,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > rob
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:08 PM, cateran1949< cateran1949@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > -5.5m between centrelines but having 700mm bury in the ww hull when
>
> >
>
> > > > extended, and 3m bury in ww hull when collapsed.
>
> >
>
> > > > I was thinking of slightly less bury and having slightly greater beam
but
>
> >
>
> > > > figured this bury is reasonably easy and a good compromise.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 1200mm bury in lw hull. The hull at waterline 800mm with a 45 degree
>
> >
>
> > > > chamfered support to the crossbeam. By putting a membrane at the level
of
>
> >
>
> > > > the base of the support, it makes the stressed area of the lw hull a
1400mm
>
> >
>
> > > > wide square-section tube. Pity it needs holes in it for access
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 2 tonne loaded displacement in ww hull. I am looking at 800kg of stores,
>
> >
>
> > > > 200kg of people, outboard motor and ground tackle, and cooking and
ablutions
>
> >
>
> > > > infrastructure, nav gear, batteries solar panel and about 50-100kg of
marine
>
> >
>
> > > > research gear. Some of this is partially loaded onto the lw hull as it
is
>
> >
>
> > > > closer to the center-line. I will set a plimsole line on the ww hull and
be
>
> >
>
> > > > careful not to overload and put overflow in the lw hull, looking at a
>
> >
>
> > > > maximum displacement for the boat of 3.5tonne. I am hoping for an
unladen
>
> >
>
> > > > sailing weight of 1.4 tonne but would be happy with under 2 tonnes
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Fore aft crossbeam distance 300mm shorter than the 9m Harry on the
website.
>
> >
>
> > > > This to allow easier support for the retracting crossbeams.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Profile. If an elliptical leading face profile is significantly better
and
>
> >
>
> > > > not much more effort than a radius cornered box section, then an
elliptical
>
> >
>
> > > > leading face. Otherwise, whatever radius cornered box section is
easiest. As
>
> >
>
> > > > I am planning to have the rudders attached to the ww flare on the lee
hull
>
> >
>
> > > > there is no real restriction on the profile. I am quite open about the
most
>
> >
>
> > > > suitable materials, eg any combinations of carbon, sawn timber, plywood,
>
> >
>
> > > > basalt, glass, foam polyprop honeycomb, extruded polystyrene. The
>
> >
>
> > > > compromises are price weight, ease of building and tolerance to
stuff-ups.
>
> >
>
> > > > It is a cruising boat. With a decent lead time for surface delivery of
>
> >
>
> > > > basalt, I would order enough for the skins for the rest of the boat and
the
>
> >
>
> > > > cross fibers for the masts, especially the high stress areas of the lw
hull.
>
> >
>
> > > > It would save in the order of a 100kg by my calculations for a
difference of
>
> >
>
> > > > about an extra $500 (Less resin used due to lighter fabric but more
>
> >
>
> > > > expensive fabric) and have better impact resistance and stiffness
according
>
> >
>
> > > > to what the manufacturers say ;<).
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > -- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > > >> G'day,
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > > >> This is what I prefer these days. It ensures you get the latest
>
> >
>
> > > >> thinking with the build technique.
>
> >
>
> > > >> I need to know the proposed beam between hull centrelines, the loaded
>
> >
>
> > > >> weight of the windward hull and the section shape of the beams.
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > > >> regards,
>
> >
>
> > > >> Rob
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:09 AM, cateran1949< cateran1949@ > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >> >
>
> >
>
> > > >> >
>
> >
>
> > > >> > Hi Rob,
>
> >
>
> > > >> > I was wondering if installments on the plans can be done with the
first
>
> >
>
> > > >> > installment the rudders and beams, say $1000 for first installment,
>
> >
>
> > > >> > Robert
>
> >
>
> > > >> >
>
> >
>
> > > >> >
>
> >
>
> > > >> >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

Way to go Arto and Arttu!

Cheers,

Col

PS Rare Bird rudder rebuilds are under way - same arrangement but strengthened
by at least 100%.


--- In harryproa@..., Arto Hakkarainen <ahakkara@...> wrote:
>
> I went sailing on Ono with Arttu last Friday. Boat was fine. Unfortunately
very light winds kept speeds low. Few data bits for people wanting to know about
performance: First motoring in no wind in the morning at 5,5 knots with one 9,9
hp Yamaha at cruising speed, top speed 8 knots with two 9,9 yamahas. Then
sailing in light winds (weather observations in the area showed 6 knots winds in
the afternoon): boat speed 4,5 knots dead downwind, 5-6 knots when changed
course a bit from dead downwind and 7,5-8 knots when reaching, all speeds are
SOG according to GPS. Handling the boat was even easier than I had thought.
>  
> Accommodations were bigger and better in reality than what is seen in the
pictures. Some details still need some work and thinking but no major issues.
>  
> Funny thing: about half of the boats we met had cameras in hand :)
>  
> Arto
>  
>

15mlw,10mww, same hull widths as a Harry and similar overall beam to allow
collapsing to 4.2m beam--- In harryproa@..., Doug Haines
<doha720@...> wrote:
>
> say what?
> what is that then a bigger harry?
> what dimensions have you changed?
>
> Is this for loading gear/people?
>
> Doug
>
>
> --- On Sat, 29/8/09, cateran1949 <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
> From: cateran1949 <cateran1949@...>
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Beams and rudders
> To: harryproa@...
> Date: Saturday, 29 August, 2009, 10:15 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>                   -I was interpolating between the extended Harry and a Vis.
It seems to come at the logarithmic mean of the two.
>
>  The Admiral is supportive which makes it possible
>
> regards,
>
>  Robert
>
>  -- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@ ..> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Heavier load than I anticipated, but all doable.  Plans underway, see pm.
>
> >
>
> > regards,
>
> >
>
> > rob
>
> >
>
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:08 PM, cateran1949< cateran1949@ ...> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > -5.5m between centrelines but having 700mm bury in the ww hull when
>
> > > extended, and 3m bury in ww hull when collapsed.
>
> > > I was thinking of slightly less bury and having slightly greater beam but
>
> > > figured this bury is reasonably easy and a good compromise.
>
> > >
>
> > > 1200mm bury in lw hull. The hull at waterline 800mm with a 45 degree
>
> > > chamfered support to the crossbeam. By putting a membrane at the level of
>
> > > the base of the support, it makes the stressed area of the lw hull a
1400mm
>
> > > wide square-section tube. Pity it needs holes in it for access
>
> > >
>
> > > 2 tonne loaded displacement in ww hull. I am looking at 800kg of stores,
>
> > > 200kg of people, outboard motor and ground tackle, and cooking and
ablutions
>
> > > infrastructure, nav gear, batteries solar panel and about 50-100kg of
marine
>
> > > research gear. Some of this is partially loaded onto the lw hull as it is
>
> > > closer to the center-line. I will set a plimsole line on the ww hull and
be
>
> > > careful not to overload and put overflow in the lw hull, looking at a
>
> > > maximum displacement for the boat of 3.5tonne. I am hoping for an unladen
>
> > > sailing weight of 1.4 tonne but would be happy with under 2 tonnes
>
> > >
>
> > > Fore aft crossbeam distance 300mm shorter than the 9m Harry on the
website.
>
> > > This to allow easier support for the retracting crossbeams.
>
> > >
>
> > > Profile. If an elliptical leading face profile is significantly better and
>
> > > not much more effort than a radius cornered box section, then an
elliptical
>
> > > leading face. Otherwise, whatever radius cornered box section is easiest.
As
>
> > > I am planning to have the rudders attached to the ww flare on the lee hull
>
> > > there is no real restriction on the profile. I am quite open about the
most
>
> > > suitable materials, eg any combinations of carbon, sawn timber, plywood,
>
> > > basalt, glass, foam polyprop honeycomb, extruded polystyrene. The
>
> > > compromises are price weight, ease of building and tolerance to stuff-ups.
>
> > > It is a cruising boat. With a decent lead time for surface delivery of
>
> > > basalt, I would order enough for the skins for the rest of the boat and
the
>
> > > cross fibers for the masts, especially the high stress areas of the lw
hull.
>
> > > It would save in the order of a 100kg by my calculations for a difference
of
>
> > > about an extra $500 (Less resin used due to lighter fabric but more
>
> > > expensive fabric) and have better impact resistance and stiffness
according
>
> > > to what the manufacturers say ;<).
>
> > >
>
> > > -- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@> wrote:
>
> > >>
>
> > >> G'day,
>
> > >>
>
> > >> This is what I prefer these days. It ensures you get the latest
>
> > >> thinking with the build technique.
>
> > >> I need to know the proposed beam between hull centrelines, the loaded
>
> > >> weight of the windward hull and the section shape of the beams.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> regards,
>
> > >> Rob
>
> > >>
>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:09 AM, cateran1949< cateran1949@ > wrote:
>
> > >> >
>
> > >> >
>
> > >> > Hi Rob,
>
> > >> > I was wondering if installments on the plans can be done with the first
>
> > >> > installment the rudders and beams, say $1000 for first installment,
>
> > >> > Robert
>
> > >> >
>
> > >> >
>
> > >> >
>
> > >>
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

-I was interpolating between the extended Harry and a Vis. It seems to come at
the logarithmic mean of the two.
  The Admiral is supportive which makes it possible
regards,
  Robert
  -- In harryproa@..., Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> Heavier load than I anticipated, but all doable.  Plans underway, see pm.
>
> regards,
>
> rob
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:08 PM, cateran1949<cateran1949@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > -5.5m between centrelines but having 700mm bury in the ww hull when
> > extended, and 3m bury in ww hull when collapsed.
> > I was thinking of slightly less bury and having slightly greater beam but
> > figured this bury is reasonably easy and a good compromise.
> >
> > 1200mm bury in lw hull. The hull at waterline 800mm with a 45 degree
> > chamfered support to the crossbeam. By putting a membrane at the level of
> > the base of the support, it makes the stressed area of the lw hull a 1400mm
> > wide square-section tube. Pity it needs holes in it for access
> >
> > 2 tonne loaded displacement in ww hull. I am looking at 800kg of stores,
> > 200kg of people, outboard motor and ground tackle, and cooking and ablutions
> > infrastructure, nav gear, batteries solar panel and about 50-100kg of marine
> > research gear. Some of this is partially loaded onto the lw hull as it is
> > closer to the center-line. I will set a plimsole line on the ww hull and be
> > careful not to overload and put overflow in the lw hull, looking at a
> > maximum displacement for the boat of 3.5tonne. I am hoping for an unladen
> > sailing weight of 1.4 tonne but would be happy with under 2 tonnes
> >
> > Fore aft crossbeam distance 300mm shorter than the 9m Harry on the website.
> > This to allow easier support for the retracting crossbeams.
> >
> > Profile. If an elliptical leading face profile is significantly better and
> > not much more effort than a radius cornered box section, then an elliptical
> > leading face. Otherwise, whatever radius cornered box section is easiest. As
> > I am planning to have the rudders attached to the ww flare on the lee hull
> > there is no real restriction on the profile. I am quite open about the most
> > suitable materials, eg any combinations of carbon, sawn timber, plywood,
> > basalt, glass, foam polyprop honeycomb, extruded polystyrene. The
> > compromises are price weight, ease of building and tolerance to stuff-ups.
> > It is a cruising boat. With a decent lead time for surface delivery of
> > basalt, I would order enough for the skins for the rest of the boat and the
> > cross fibers for the masts, especially the high stress areas of the lw hull.
> > It would save in the order of a 100kg by my calculations for a difference of
> > about an extra $500 (Less resin used due to lighter fabric but more
> > expensive fabric) and have better impact resistance and stiffness according
> > to what the manufacturers say ;<).
> >
> > -- In harryproa@..., Rob Denney <harryproa@> wrote:
> >>
> >> G'day,
> >>
> >> This is what I prefer these days. It ensures you get the latest
> >> thinking with the build technique.
> >> I need to know the proposed beam between hull centrelines, the loaded
> >> weight of the windward hull and the section shape of the beams.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Rob
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:09 AM, cateran1949<cateran1949@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hi Rob,
> >> > I was wondering if installments on the plans can be done with the first
> >> > installment the rudders and beams, say $1000 for first installment,
> >> > Robert
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Heavier load than I anticipated, but all doable.  Plans underway, see pm.

regards,

rob

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:08 PM, cateran1949<cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
>
> -5.5m between centrelines but having 700mm bury in the ww hull when
> extended, and 3m bury in ww hull when collapsed.
> I was thinking of slightly less bury and having slightly greater beam but
> figured this bury is reasonably easy and a good compromise.
>
> 1200mm bury in lw hull. The hull at waterline 800mm with a 45 degree
> chamfered support to the crossbeam. By putting a membrane at the level of
> the base of the support, it makes the stressed area of the lw hull a 1400mm
> wide square-section tube. Pity it needs holes in it for access
>
> 2 tonne loaded displacement in ww hull. I am looking at 800kg of stores,
> 200kg of people, outboard motor and ground tackle, and cooking and ablutions
> infrastructure, nav gear, batteries solar panel and about 50-100kg of marine
> research gear. Some of this is partially loaded onto the lw hull as it is
> closer to the center-line. I will set a plimsole line on the ww hull and be
> careful not to overload and put overflow in the lw hull, looking at a
> maximum displacement for the boat of 3.5tonne. I am hoping for an unladen
> sailing weight of 1.4 tonne but would be happy with under 2 tonnes
>
> Fore aft crossbeam distance 300mm shorter than the 9m Harry on the website.
> This to allow easier support for the retracting crossbeams.
>
> Profile. If an elliptical leading face profile is significantly better and
> not much more effort than a radius cornered box section, then an elliptical
> leading face. Otherwise, whatever radius cornered box section is easiest. As
> I am planning to have the rudders attached to the ww flare on the lee hull
> there is no real restriction on the profile. I am quite open about the most
> suitable materials, eg any combinations of carbon, sawn timber, plywood,
> basalt, glass, foam polyprop honeycomb, extruded polystyrene. The
> compromises are price weight, ease of building and tolerance to stuff-ups.
> It is a cruising boat. With a decent lead time for surface delivery of
> basalt, I would order enough for the skins for the rest of the boat and the
> cross fibers for the masts, especially the high stress areas of the lw hull.
> It would save in the order of a 100kg by my calculations for a difference of
> about an extra $500 (Less resin used due to lighter fabric but more
> expensive fabric) and have better impact resistance and stiffness according
> to what the manufacturers say ;<).
>
> -- In harryproa@..., Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>>
>> G'day,
>>
>> This is what I prefer these days. It ensures you get the latest
>> thinking with the build technique.
>> I need to know the proposed beam between hull centrelines, the loaded
>> weight of the windward hull and the section shape of the beams.
>>
>> regards,
>> Rob
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:09 AM, cateran1949<cateran1949@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Rob,
>> > I was wondering if installments on the plans can be done with the first
>> > installment the rudders and beams, say $1000 for first installment,
>> > Robert
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

-Makes a lot of sense for a sun roof as it is good insulation.
I'm considering this for the lift up part of the roof on the Harry-- In
harryproa@..., "doha720" <doha720@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Newest additions to Sidecar are a polystyrene sun roof, the stiffness is
increased with some tow.
> The old roof was very heavy and bendy.
> It is 40mm sheet with 250g glass, wrapped double around the edges.
>
> Also lately finished an outtboard bracket to take a 2.5hp motor.
> Since this is rarely used except to pass bridges on the river the lugs off the
beam are fixed on but the main bracket piece comes off.
>
> Doug
>

Hi all,

Newest additions to Sidecar are a polystyrene sun roof, the stiffness is
increased with some tow.
The old roof was very heavy and bendy.
It is 40mm sheet with 250g glass, wrapped double around the edges.

Also lately finished an outtboard bracket to take a 2.5hp motor.
Since this is rarely used except to pass bridges on the river the lugs off the
beam are fixed on but the main bracket piece comes off.

Doug

-5.5m between centrelines but having 700mm bury in the ww hull when extended,
and 3m bury in ww hull when collapsed.
I was thinking of slightly less bury and having slightly greater beam but
figured this bury is reasonably easy and a good compromise.

  1200mm bury in lw hull. The hull at waterline 800mm with a 45 degree chamfered
support to the crossbeam. By putting a membrane at the level of the base of the
support, it makes the stressed area of the lw hull a 1400mm wide  square-section
tube. Pity it needs holes in it for access

2 tonne loaded displacement in ww hull. I am looking at 800kg of stores, 200kg
of people, outboard motor and ground tackle, and cooking and ablutions
infrastructure, nav gear, batteries solar panel and about 50-100kg of marine
research gear. Some of this is partially loaded onto the lw hull as it is closer
to the center-line. I will set a plimsole line on the ww hull and be careful not
to overload and put overflow in the lw hull, looking at a maximum displacement
for the boat of 3.5tonne. I am hoping for an unladen sailing weight of 1.4 tonne
but would be happy with under 2 tonnes

Fore aft crossbeam distance 300mm shorter than the 9m Harry on the website. This
to allow easier support for the retracting crossbeams.

Profile. If an elliptical leading face profile is significantly better and not
much more effort than a radius cornered box section, then an elliptical leading
face. Otherwise, whatever radius cornered box section is easiest. As I am
planning to have the rudders attached to the ww flare on the lee hull there is
no real restriction on the profile. I am quite open about the most suitable
materials, eg any combinations of carbon, sawn timber, plywood, basalt, glass,
foam polyprop honeycomb, extruded polystyrene. The compromises are price weight,
ease of building and tolerance to stuff-ups. It is a cruising boat. With a
decent lead time for surface delivery of basalt, I would order enough for the 
skins for the rest of the boat and the cross fibers for the masts, especially
the high stress areas of the lw hull.
It would save in the order of a 100kg by my calculations for a difference of
about an extra $500 (Less resin used due to lighter fabric but more expensive
fabric) and have better impact resistance and stiffness according to what the
manufacturers say ;<).


-- In harryproa@..., Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> G'day,
>
> This is what I prefer these days.  It ensures you get the latest
> thinking with the build technique.
> I need to know the proposed beam between hull centrelines,  the loaded
> weight of the windward hull and the section shape of the beams.
>
> regards,
> Rob
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:09 AM, cateran1949<cateran1949@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> > I was wondering if installments on the plans can be done with the first
> > installment the rudders and beams, say $1000 for first installment,
> > Robert
> >
> >
> >
>

G'day,

This is what I prefer these days.  It ensures you get the latest
thinking with the build technique.
I need to know the proposed beam between hull centrelines,  the loaded
weight of the windward hull and the section shape of the beams.

regards,
Rob

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:09 AM, cateran1949<cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Rob,
> I was wondering if installments on the plans can be done with the first
> installment the rudders and beams, say $1000 for first installment,
> Robert
>
>
>

Thanks Doug,
  yeah the prices are a bit high. That much money buys just about enough carbon
for the rudder shafts for a Harry. I will just stick with finishing the one I am
doing now and setting up for the Harry. I really appreciate the effort,
  regards,
  RObert
--- In harryproa@..., Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote:
>
> hey Robert,
>
> some info from ICON freight services.
> not sure if they are using the other harriette dimensions for the calculation
of cost. Seems a bit high priced.
> Suppose you will have plenty on your plate with starting harry.
>
> Doug
> Hi Doug
>
>   
>
> Sorry for the
> delay
>
>   
>
> Costs for the
> hulls as per your dims would be Perth to Canberra
>
>   
>
> AU$570.00 +
> AU$50 Documents & Handling + Fuel 10% AU$57.00
>
>   
>
> Please let me
> know
>
>   
>
> Thanks and
> regards
>
>
> --- On Tue, 25/8/09, cateran1949 <cateran1949@...> wrote:
>
> From: cateran1949 <cateran1949@...>
> Subject: [harryproa] Beams and rudders
> To: harryproa@...
> Date: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009, 10:09 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>                   Hi Rob,
>
> I was wondering if installments on the plans can be done with the first
installment the rudders and beams, say $1000 for first installment,
>
> Robert
>

Hi Doug,

Trip back to Finland was OK, only 10 days. Longest leg was from Visby to
Hanko, 32 hours. Mostly downwind, thats what we are good at.
Unfortunately no sailing after that. My kids have been busy doing this
and that and wife too. We are a family crew. If I had an autopilot I
would have gone sailing alone. Now it is impossible. Also docking is
dangerous alone.

Regards,
Arttu


Hi Arttuu,
>
> Have you gone very good in sailing aound yet?
> Was the trip back to finland OK?
>
> DOug
>
> --- On Tue, 25/8/09, arttuheinonen@...
<arttuheinonen@...> wrote:
>
> From: arttuheinonen@... <arttuheinonen@...>
> Subject: Re: [harryproa] rocker vs straight hull  shape
> To: harryproa@...
> Date: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009, 3:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>                   Hi,
>
>
>
> I also think that no rocker is the best for our purpose. I just had to
>
> think about it once more when I read what Mr Erik Lerouge wrote about
>
> hulls and foils. I respect him very much as a boat designer.
>
> Yes, Ono is our boat. I think ww hull without rocker is probably better
>
> for cruising program because it has more displacement. I f you can ceep
>
> ww hull light, some rocker is probably better. First I wanted to have
>
> more weight on the ww side. Now I am going to move our 100 litre water
>
> tank and all extra stuff inside lw-hull to make ww side a bit lighter
>
> easier planing .
>
>  Also going to build a pair or daggerboards.
>
> I really want to have the autopilot too.
>
> Rudolfs Jefa bearings look nice....
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Arttu
>
>
>
>
>
> > arrttuu,
>
> > you build the ono?
>
> > how is it's rocker?
>
> > seemes better for turning n]maybe.
>
> >
>
> > when going straight line - should be flat bottomed.
>
> > Doug
>
> >
>
> > --- On Mon, 24/8/09, proabuilder <arttuheinonen@ heinoset. net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: proabuilder <arttuheinonen@ heinoset. net>
>
> > Subject: [harryproa] rocker vs straight hull  shape
>
> > To: harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au
>
> > Date: Monday, 24 August, 2009, 10:52 PM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >                   Which shape is better for lw hull?
>
> >
>
> > Many people think a hull is faster without rocker, as on trimaran
>
> hulls. Many racing trimarans have rocker on main hull and straght side
>
> hulls.
>
> >
>
> > But... straight hull does not give much hydrodynamic lift when the
>
> nose is pressed as well designed rocker hull does , or does it??
>
> >
>
> > On a proa to have some hydrodynamic lift on forward of the mast would
>
> be an advantage, or would it? any comments.
>
> >
>
> >  I am not 100% convinced about having main hull without rocker.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Regards,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Arttu
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi,

I also think that no rocker is the best for our purpose. I just had to
think about it once more when I read what Mr Erik Lerouge wrote about
hulls and foils. I respect him very much as a boat designer.
Yes, Ono is our boat. I think ww hull without rocker is probably better
for cruising program because it has more displacement. I f you can ceep
ww hull light, some rocker is probably better. First I wanted to have
more weight on the ww side. Now I am going to move our 100 litre water
tank and all extra stuff inside lw-hull to make ww side a bit lighter
easier planing .
  Also going to build a pair or daggerboards.
I really want to have the autopilot too.
Rudolfs Jefa bearings look nice....

Regards,
Arttu





> arrttuu,
> you build the ono?
> how is it's rocker?
> seemes better for turning n]maybe.
>
> when going straight line - should be flat bottomed.
> Doug
>
> --- On Mon, 24/8/09, proabuilder <arttuheinonen@...> wrote:
>
> From: proabuilder <arttuheinonen@...>
> Subject: [harryproa] rocker vs straight hull  shape
> To: harryproa@...
> Date: Monday, 24 August, 2009, 10:52 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>                   Which shape is better for lw hull?
>
> Many people think a hull is faster without rocker, as on trimaran
hulls. Many racing trimarans have rocker on main hull and straght side
hulls.
>
> But... straight hull does not give much hydrodynamic lift when the
nose is pressed as well designed rocker hull does , or does it??
>
> On a proa to have some hydrodynamic lift on forward of the mast would
be an advantage, or would it? any comments.
>
>  I am not 100% convinced about having main hull without rocker.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Arttu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Rudolf.

Hi Rob,
I was wondering if installments on the plans can be done with the first
installment the rudders and beams, say $1000 for first installment,
Robert

-I am very much on the side of no rocker on the lw hull. As soon as there is
sailing load on the boat the bow becomes depressed. I do not see how there can
be significant hydrodynamic lift from the lee bow unless it is made fairly wide
with flare and the boat is prevented from immersing the lee bow by some other
mechanism such as very buoyant ww bows, high weight transfer to the new stern on
every shunt, or foils. Generally the leeward bow gives no lift, hydrostatic ot
hydrodynamic, until it is in the water. Therefore you want it in the water as
soon as possible to avoid building up angular momentum and subsequent
hobbyhorsing. Also getting that hydrostatic lift early helps keep the cog down
and reduces the chance of pitchpoling
It also allows a skinnier hull overall for the same displacement and depth and a
higher prismatic coefficient. I have rabbited on about keeping the bow buoyancy
low in my raves on reverse bows.

I can see some reason for some rocker on the ww hull to reduce the spray, but I
feel this is at the expense of extra resistance, fore/aft stability and ww/lee
stability. The less pitching, heaving and rolling, the better for stability of
drive over the sails. Rare Bird is fairly heavy compared with Blind Date but is
still traveling very nicely for the wind strength. The spray is mainly a
nuisance. I think this is still a matter for argument as there could be some
hydrodynamic lift arrangement that could work quite nicely, possibly with foils.
It could be argued for sailing at higher speeds that the ww hull should be made
up of two small power catamaran hulls, back to back with a dihedral of 160-170
degrees. The hull planes on the forward section.

Personally, for the ww hull, I am going for no rocker as it allows skinnier and
less draught for the same displacement. The boat will be reducing spray by
having a reverse stem with a couple of spray rails to deflect the water back
down and provide some marginal hydrodynamic lift with little increase in drag.
The first spray rail angled at about 8 degrees to the horizontal down to just
above the loaded waterline at mid length, may also pick up some lift off the
chop as well as damping roll and possibly heave.




-- In harryproa@..., "proabuilder" <arttuheinonen@...> wrote:
>
> Which shape is better for lw hull?
> Many people think a hull is faster without rocker, as on trimaran hulls. Many
racing trimarans have rocker on main hull and straght side hulls.
>  But... straight hull does not give  much hydrodynamic lift when the nose is
pressed  as well designed rocker hull does , or does it??
>  On  a proa to have some hydrodynamic lift on forward of the mast  would be an
advantage, or would it? any comments.
>  I am not 100% convinced about having main hull without rocker.
>
> Regards,
>
> Arttu
>