So give us the latest on the folding Harry for easy of tailoring without
demounting??

Thanks Bob G.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Denney [mailto:proa@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:24 PM
To: harryproa@...
Subject: Re: [harryproa] Towability of extended harry


G'day,

This is what I did on Harrigami.  The limiting factor is not so much the
width of the bunks, as the height of the lw hull which sits under the
overhang.  Here the rules are not a problem, as long as the number plate
and
trailer lights are within a metre of the rear of the load.  Going round
corners with a 12m/40' load is sometimes a challenge, but otherwise it
is
all pretty easy.

Regards,

rob




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

G'day,

This is what I did on Harrigami.  The limiting factor is not so much the
width of the bunks, as the height of the lw hull which sits under the
overhang.  Here the rules are not a problem, as long as the number plate and
trailer lights are within a metre of the rear of the load.  Going round
corners with a 12m/40' load is sometimes a challenge, but otherwise it is
all pretty easy.

Regards,

rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert" <cateran1949@...>
To: <harryproa@...>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 8:45 AM
Subject: [harryproa] Towability of extended harry


> Would it be possible to truncate the lw side of the ww hulls with a
> flat side to exactly 2.5m for towing. This would still provide almost
> the same sleeping width. Are there other issues such as length and
> overhang that limit towing size.
>
>
> Robert
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Would it be possible to truncate the lw side of the ww hulls with a
flat side to exactly 2.5m for towing. This would still provide almost
the same sleeping width. Are there other issues such as length and
overhang that limit towing size.


Robert

A different approach would be to have the sail symmetric between tack
and head and transfer the sail by way of a large diameter open pully
at the mast head. Head on one tack becomes the tack at the other end.
Still some problems with the clew, but the whole lot could go through
the pully and you could pull the last bit of the sheet through after
the rest had gone through. This is the technology of hauling and
stacking purse-sein nets. With the right guides I am fairly confident
that this could work. Whether better than other options, I don't
know. It would require specially cut sails, but not radically
different and only one against the twin roller-furling screecher. I
think it could be about the same speed as the twin screechers but as
I imagine it would need someone at the lw hull. The twin screecher
could be done from the cockpit.  I really like the kite option but
may not point quite high enough for racing and may require too many
people for cruising. Also, at very low winds it doesn't work. It
would be nice to have one for strong winds.
Robert


   -- In harryproa@..., Tony Richardson
<atrichardson@b...> wrote:
> I'm not sure how big the gap needs to be with the unirig
> It would be a good experiment to try it
> Some racing I have done on mono's indicates to me that sometimes
the flow from the main actually feeds onto the spinnaker (we induced
this on purpose at certain points of downwind sailing)
> I suspect with the screacher on the sidestays that the screacher
would feed the front of the main?
> Is this advantageous I dont know?
> It goes back to square rigger principals of just put the sail area
up and let it pull you along
> Ideally you would like the flow of air to travel around the back of
the main.
> Yes a flat symmetric would work up until you reach windspeed at
which point it will collapse
> Or worse, slow you down
> Poled out sails are a cruisers answer to downwind sailing and may
be very relevant here because of the cruising bent that harry lends
itself to.
> But again this is only for below windspeed and that is where it
will have the advantage
> rgs
> Tony
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Robert
>   To: harryproa@...
>   Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:15 AM
>   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
>
>
>   -Thanks Tony
>
>   Further questions. How big a gap do they need from the mast, and
>   would they need to be poled out?
>   Is it possible to have a flat symmetric that can work both ways
with
>   enough luff tension?
>   Robert
>
>
>
>   -- In harryproa@..., Tony Richardson
>   <atrichardson@b...> wrote:
>   > The point of having the screacher is that it is flat (ish)
unlike
>   a spinnaker
>   > If you need a hint on how they would look take a peek at the
>   current flock of Kites on beach cats
>   > My experience on my KHSD 16 tri is that you reach wind speed
very
>   quickly.
>   > Take a look at it on Kurt Hughes' web site and you will see
mine in
>   partial collapse as the boat caught up to wind speed.
>   > If you need to keep the same point of sail the screacher needs
to
>   be trimmed fairly tight and quickly.
>   > The other benefit of a screacher is that it furls very well and
fast
>   (so long as you are going downwind)
>   > Its faster than retrieving a spinnaker even faster than a
spinnaker
>   with a shute in my experience.
>   > rgs
>   > tony
>   >
>   >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   From: Robert
>   >   To: harryproa@...
>   >   Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 10:49 AM
>   >   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
>   >
>   >
>   >   I agree that a symmetric spinnaker would probably not be
>   particularly
>   >   useful especially considering the crossection area of an
aerorig
>   for
>   >   straight downwind Therefore  it comes down to a large
assymetric.
>   I
>   >   thought of using the stays but they are angled the wrong way
I
>   >   suspect would depress the boat and interfere with the air
>   movement of
>   >   the main rig. Fritz uses the stays to stick a small jib on
partly
>   to
>   >   increase righting moment when needed
>   >   I haven't had experience of screechers omn rollerfurling but
I
>   have
>   >   qualms about rolling that much sail quickly. I suppose it
would
>   >   depend on how much shape there is in the sail and its weight
as
>   to
>   >   how cleanly it would roll. There should be clear air as the
>   screecher
>   >   would be set outside the line of the main rig and I assume
the
>   sheet
>   >   would be set far enough back to avoid hooking. I'd still be
>   tempted
>   >   to put the clew on the end of a pole.
>   >   In harryproa@..., Tony Richardson
>   <atrichardson@b...>
>   >   wrote:
>   >   > My suggestion has always been for roller furling screachers
for
>   use
>   >   off wind.
>   >   > If these boats are as as slippery as has been demonstrated
so
>   far
>   >   then a symmetrical spinnaker will collapse with regularity.
The
>   boat
>   >   will reach wind speed or above easily and that will collapse
most
>   >   kites.
>   >   > You could mount them off both bows or make use of the side
>   stays
>   >   and put them there in which case you may only need one.
>   >   > The latter being the most interesting due to its windward
>   position
>   >   to the main.
>   >   > I would be interested to hear comments on that one.
>   >   > Rgs Tony:-)
>   >   >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   >   From: Rob Denney
>   >   >   To: harryproa@...
>   >   >   Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:53 PM
>   >   >   Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >   G'day,
>   >   >
>   >   >   Kites getting better all the time.  see www.kiteship, but
>   still
>   >   expensive.
>   >   >   Symetric kite has potential, and plenty of old ones
around to
>   >   experiment
>   >   >   with.  Be blanketed by the rig a bit, and light air
gybing
>   would
>   >   be tricky.
>   >   >
>   >   >   Ta.
>   >   >
>   >   >   regards,
>   >   >
>   >   >   rob
>   >   >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   >   From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
>   >   >   To: <harryproa@...>
>   >   >   Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:20 PM
>   >   >   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >   > ---
>   >   >   > OK Rob,
>   >   >   >  you asked for it
>   >   >   > Symmetrical masthead spinnaker.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > Simplest system. Sheets to either end of the lw hull,
>   giving
>   >   them
>   >   >   > enough slack and rely on enough breeze to lift it away
from
>   the
>   >   rest
>   >   >   > of the rig  during the gybe. You can even go the whole
hog
>   and
>   >   fly a
>   >   >   > kite. Does a kite point high enough for tacking down
wind?
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > Two equal length poles set on pins on lw side of lw
hull
>   just
>   >   forward
>   >   >   > and back of the mast. One attached to the tack and the
>   other
>   >   the clew
>   >   >   > on one tack and the tack becomes the clew on the other.
>   Vanging
>   >   them
>   >   >   > would not be a problem. The poles could be brought
round
>   far
>   >   enough
>   >   >   > for easy attachment of the sheets.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > For an asymmetric it is a bit more difficult, but
>   unfortunately
>   >   >   > asymmetry seems to be needed for pointing ability.
>   >   >   > Two different length poles would be pivoted on the same
pin
>   on
>   >   the lw
>   >   >   > side of the lw hull, or set rotating about the mast. A
>   longer
>   >   pole
>   >   >   > would be used for the tack. On a gybe the longer pole
would
>   go
>   >   under
>   >   >   > the shorter, taking the tack outside the clew, until
set up
>   at
>   >   the
>   >   >   > other bow. The shorter pole would only move minimally.
It
>   may be
>   >   >   > worth putting a sock over the spinnaker at the position
of
>   >   crossover.
>   >   >   > The difficulty is trying to vang the clew. Possibly a
>   >   compression
>   >   >   > member.
>   >   >   > The advantage of these systems is that the extra sails
are
>   well
>   >   clear
>   >   >   > of the rest of the rig making for clearer air. I think
that
>   is
>   >   better
>   >   >   > than having an extendable boom and treating the stays
as
>   >   running back
>   >   >   > stays.
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney"
<proa@t...>
>   wrote:
>   >   >   > > G'day,
>   >   >   > >
>   >   >   > > > I didn't think of releasing the stays. Too much of
a
>   mind
>   >   set on
>   >   >   > rigs
>   >   >   > > > that would fall down if you did that.
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   > > > A crash gybe would be much less likely than on a
stayed
>   >   marconi
>   >   >   > rig
>   >   >   > > > as the rig would be set at right angles to the boat
when
>   >   >   > travelling
>   >   >   > > > down wind. The other sheet could act as a preventer
if
>   the
>   >   wind
>   >   >   > came
>   >   >   > > > forward of the beam on the wrong side, but it would
>   take a
>   >   large
>   >   >   > > > windshift and/or a sudden acceleration such as down
a
>   wave
>   >   to
>   >   >   > bring
>   >   >   > > > the wind that far round.
>   >   >   > >
>   >   >   > > Or an inattentive helmsman!
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   > > > In racing mode, I am assuming that there would be
>   tacking
>   >   down
>   >   >   > wind.
>   >   >   > > > I am still getting my head around the protocol but
I
>   can
>   >   imagine
>   >   >   > an
>   >   >   > > > assymetric with two spinnaker poles of different
>   lengths
>   >   rotating
>   >   >   > > > about the base of the mast. Either that or start
from a
>   >   larger
>   >   >   > main
>   >   >   > > > and be unbalanced while working, remove the stays
and
>   add a
>   >   genoa
>   >   >   > to
>   >   >   > > > an extended boom.
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   > >
>   >   >   > > There are a few options for extras when racing.  I
will
>   be
>   >   trying a
>   >   >   > few of
>   >   >   > > them this summer, all going well.  Any suggestions
from
>   list
>   >   >   > members, much
>   >   >   > > appreciated.
>   >   >   > >
>   >   >   > > Regards,
>   >   >   > >
>   >   >   > > Rob
>   >   >   > > > Robert
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney"
>   >   <proa@t...>
>   >   >   > wrote:
>   >   >   > > > > G'day,
>   >   >   > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > What would happen?  The boom would swing round
and
>   hit the
>   >   >   > stays,
>   >   >   > > > the mast
>   >   >   > > > > would bend alarmingly (but not break), the boom
>   (allowed
>   >   by the
>   >   >   > > > slack stay)
>   >   >   > > > > would travel round to pretty near athwartships to
the
>   >   hulls and
>   >   >   > the
>   >   >   > > > rudders
>   >   >   > > > > would autorotate very quickly as soon as you
started
>   >   moving in
>   >   >   > the
>   >   >   > > > other
>   >   >   > > > > direction.  The ww hull would depress a little,
how
>   much
>   >   would
>   >   >   > > > depend on
>   >   >   > > > > stay slackness.  Hopefully you would then be able
to
>   luff
>   >   up
>   >   >   > (not
>   >   >   > > > too far,
>   >   >   > > > > as the ambient breeze would be the next one you
see),
>   >   change
>   >   >   > your
>   >   >   > > > underwear
>   >   >   > > > > and put another reef in.
>   >   >   > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > What can be done about it?  I would consider
>   >   disconnecting  the
>   >   >   > > > stays , hand
>   >   >   > > > > hold the sheet,  and accept more mast bend for
the
>   >   duration than
>   >   >   > > > you would
>   >   >   > > > > normally get.  If you are then hit, the mast will
be
>   free
>   >   to
>   >   >   > rotate
>   >   >   > > > and all
>   >   >   > > > > that will happen is the sails will get a bit of a
>   >   flogging.
>   >   >   > Maybe
>   >   >   > > > include
>   >   >   > > > > a snap shackle in the system if this is going to
be a
>   >   regular
>   >   >   > > > occurence.
>   >   >   > > > > Semi stayed masts do not need stay tension so
>   >   rigging/unrigging
>   >   >   > the
>   >   >   > > > stays is
>   >   >   > > > > not a huge deal.  Could also attach the stays to
an
>   open
>   >   sided
>   >   >   > hook
>   >   >   > > > which
>   >   >   > > > > would release the stay in the event of large side
>   >   loadings.
>   >   >   > TYhis
>   >   >   > > > would
>   >   >   > > > > also be helpful in the event of a crash jibe,
>   although
>   >   there is
>   >   >   > > > generally
>   >   >   > > > > not much "crash" as the jib is opposing the main.
>   >   >   > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > regards,
>   >   >   > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > Rob
>   >   >   > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   >   >   > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
>   >   >   > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
>   >   >   > > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:21 PM
>   >   >   > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Stays on Aero rigs.
>   >   >   > > > >
>   >   >   > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > A slight query as to what happens when for
instance
>   if
>   >   working
>   >   >   > > > with
>   >   >   > > > > > the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near
some
>   steep
>   >   >   > cliffs and
>   >   >   > > > > > suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from
the
>   >   starboard
>   >   >   > > > quarter.
>   >   >   > > > > >  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the
stays
>   and
>   >   drive
>   >   >   > the
>   >   >   > > > boat
>   >   >   > > > > > hard onto the port bow. I understand that the
>   >   flexibility of
>   >   >   > the
>   >   >   > > > mast
>   >   >   > > > > > would take much of the drive out of the sails
and
>   the
>   >   stays
>   >   >   > would
>   >   >   > > > be
>   >   >   > > > > > slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally
the
>   boat
>   >   would
>   >   >   > fare a
>   >   >   > > > > > lot better than many other configurations of
boats,
>   but
>   >   this
>   >   >   > is a
>   >   >   > > > > > slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows
of a
>   cat
>   >   >   > > > underwater in
>   >   >   > > > > > exactly these circumstances and there was
nothing I
>   >   could do
>   >   >   > but
>   >   >   > > > wait
>   >   >   > > > > > till the bullet dissipated.
>   >   >   > > > > > How would a Harry act in such circumstances and
>   what
>   >   would be
>   >   >   > the
>   >   >   > > > > > best course of action other than be wary around
>   steep
>   >   cliffs?
>   >   >   > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
>   >   >   > <cateran1949@y...>
>   >   >   > > > > > wrote:
>   >   >   > > > > > > ---
>   >   >   > > > > > > Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of
answer.
>   This
>   >   >   > strengthens
>   >   >   > > > my
>   >   >   > > > > > > confidence in the engineering.
>   >   >   > > > > > > Robert
>   >   >   > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney"
>   >   <proa@t...>
>   >   >   > wrote:
>   >   >   > > > > > > > G'day,
>   >   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not
>   perfect.
>   >   The
>   >   >   > stays
>   >   >   > > > do
>   >   >   > > > > > not
>   >   >   > > > > > > anchor
>   >   >   > > > > > > > the mast in position so it is free to bend
in
>   >   peculiar
>   >   >   > ways,
>   >   >   > > > > > mostly
>   >   >   > > > > > > forwards
>   >   >   > > > > > > > and to windward.  The stays give little or
no
>   >   support
>   >   >   > fore and
>   >   >   > > > > > aft,
>   >   >   > > > > > > so the
>   >   >   > > > > > > > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling,
>   which is
>   >   a
>   >   >   > fairly
>   >   >   > > > > > large
>   >   >   > > > > > > load
>   >   >   > > > > > > > situation.  The stays impart a substantial
down
>   >   force to
>   >   >   > the
>   >   >   > > > > > mast,
>   >   >   > > > > > > meaning
>   >   >   > > > > > > > the step has to be well beefed up.  They
also
>   >   prevent
>   >   >   > full 360
>   >   >   > > > > > > degree
>   >   >   > > > > > > > rotation of the rig.  The stays
theoretically
>   allow
>   >   for
>   >   >   > > > lighter
>   >   >   > > > > > > mast, beams
>   >   >   > > > > > > > and leeward hull.  From a safety
perspective
>   the
>   >   beams and
>   >   >   > > > > > leeward
>   >   >   > > > > > > hull get
>   >   >   > > > > > > > designed to not break if the stays do, so
>   little is
>   >   gained
>   >   >   > > > here.
>   >   >   > > > > > A
>   >   >   > > > > > > big
>   >   >   > > > > > > > advantage of the stays is not so much the
>   strength
>   >   they
>   >   >   > add,
>   >   >   > > > but
>   >   >   > > > > > the
>   >   >   > > > > > > > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off
to
>   >   leeward
>   >   >   > > > > > prematurely,
>   >   >   > > > > > > meaning a
>   >   >   > > > > > > > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be
used.
>   >   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is
>   worthwhile,
>   >   but
>   >   >   > keeping
>   >   >   > > > > > the
>   >   >   > > > > > > stays
>   >   >   > > > > > > > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as
well
>   as
>   >   added
>   >   >   > > > safety/.
>   >   >   > > > > > > For a
>   >   >   > > > > > > > racer, I would just use the stays.
>   >   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > Regards,
>   >   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > Rob
>   >   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   >   >   > > > > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
>   >   >   > > > > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
>   >   >   > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
>   >   >   > > > > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
>   >   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > > As stated in  your background on why a
weight
>   to
>   >   >   > windward
>   >   >   > > > proa,
>   >   >   > > > > > > part
>   >   >   > > > > > > > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce
the
>   >   load on
>   >   >   > the
>   >   >   > > > cross
>   >   >   > > > > > > beams.
>   >   >   > > > > > > > >  With stays from near the top of the mast
to
>   the
>   >   ends
>   >   >   > of the
>   >   >   > > > > > > > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are
nearly
>   all
>   >   >   > > > compression
>   >   >   > > > > > > forces
>   >   >   > > > > > > > > with some sheer forces and bending
moments at
>   the
>   >   place
>   >   >   > > > where
>   >   >   > > > > > the
>   >   >   > > > > > > > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without
those
>   stays
>   >   there
>   >   >   > is a
>   >   >   > > > > > large
>   >   >   > > > > > > > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
>   >   >   > > > > > > > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and
weight
>   of
>   >   those
>   >   >   > stays
>   >   >   > > > > > worth
>   >   >   > > > > > > the
>   >   >   > > > > > > > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
>   >   >   > > > > > > > > Robert
>   >   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email
>   to:
>   >   >   > > > > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >   >   > > > > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
>   >   >   > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >   >   > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >   >   > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >   >   > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > >
>   >   >   > > > > >
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   >   >   > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >   >   > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   > > >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   >   >   > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >   >   http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   >   >   harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
>   >   Service.
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>   >
>   >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   >   harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>   Service.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

With a Harry-type proa, would it be practical to run the kite control lines from
the two ends of the beams, i.e. the ww side of the lw hull and lw side of the ww
hull? Shunting would be interesting to say the least, but the outleader is
supposed to be a downwind only design anyway.

Enjoy

Jim Baltaxe
ITS Desktop Support
Victoria University of Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
(04) 463 5018 or 029 200 6982


Klein bottle for rent.  Inquire within.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?" --
Albert Einstein


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dave@... [mailto:dave@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2003 2:04
> To: harryproa@...
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Kites, was Extras while sailing
>
>
> >Question. When shunting,  How do you keep the lines from iterfering
> >when going under the boom?
>
> Good question. I've yet to fly an OutLeader from a proa. Think I'd
> either take the boom high, the lines low, or fly the kite from beyond
> the boom end, one line out to either end of the boat (likeliest). It
> makes a kite artificially stable when you spread its base of
> attachment. No, not to the ends of the hull, just far enough to clear
> the boom. When on a long tack, you can move them back in for helm
> balance.
>
> Kites and proas:  Better to eliminate the boom altogether, sheet the
> kite from the leeward rail. Not with an OutLeader, though.
>
> Dave Culp
> KiteShip
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

>Question. When shunting,  How do you keep the lines from iterfering
>when going under the boom?

Good question. I've yet to fly an OutLeader from a proa. Think I'd
either take the boom high, the lines low, or fly the kite from beyond
the boom end, one line out to either end of the boat (likeliest). It
makes a kite artificially stable when you spread its base of
attachment. No, not to the ends of the hull, just far enough to clear
the boom. When on a long tack, you can move them back in for helm
balance.

Kites and proas:  Better to eliminate the boom altogether, sheet the
kite from the leeward rail. Not with an OutLeader, though.

Dave Culp
KiteShip

I'm not sure how big the gap needs to be with the unirig
It would be a good experiment to try it
Some racing I have done on mono's indicates to me that sometimes the flow from
the main actually feeds onto the spinnaker (we induced this on purpose at
certain points of downwind sailing)
I suspect with the screacher on the sidestays that the screacher would feed the
front of the main?
Is this advantageous I dont know?
It goes back to square rigger principals of just put the sail area up and let it
pull you along
Ideally you would like the flow of air to travel around the back of the main.
Yes a flat symmetric would work up until you reach windspeed at which point it
will collapse
Or worse, slow you down
Poled out sails are a cruisers answer to downwind sailing and may be very
relevant here because of the cruising bent that harry lends itself to.
But again this is only for below windspeed and that is where it will have the
advantage
rgs
Tony

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Robert
   To: harryproa@...
   Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:15 AM
   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing


   -Thanks Tony

   Further questions. How big a gap do they need from the mast, and
   would they need to be poled out?
   Is it possible to have a flat symmetric that can work both ways with
   enough luff tension?
   Robert



   -- In harryproa@..., Tony Richardson
   <atrichardson@b...> wrote:
   > The point of having the screacher is that it is flat (ish)  unlike
   a spinnaker
   > If you need a hint on how they would look take a peek at the
   current flock of Kites on beach cats
   > My experience on my KHSD 16 tri is that you reach wind speed very
   quickly.
   > Take a look at it on Kurt Hughes' web site and you will see mine in
   partial collapse as the boat caught up to wind speed.
   > If you need to keep the same point of sail the screacher needs to
   be trimmed fairly tight and quickly.
   > The other benefit of a screacher is that it furls very well and fast
   (so long as you are going downwind)
   > Its faster than retrieving a spinnaker even faster than a spinnaker
   with a shute in my experience.
   > rgs
   > tony
   >
   >   ----- Original Message -----
   >   From: Robert
   >   To: harryproa@...
   >   Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 10:49 AM
   >   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
   >
   >
   >   I agree that a symmetric spinnaker would probably not be
   particularly
   >   useful especially considering the crossection area of an aerorig
   for
   >   straight downwind Therefore  it comes down to a large assymetric.
   I
   >   thought of using the stays but they are angled the wrong way I
   >   suspect would depress the boat and interfere with the air
   movement of
   >   the main rig. Fritz uses the stays to stick a small jib on partly
   to
   >   increase righting moment when needed
   >   I haven't had experience of screechers omn rollerfurling but I
   have
   >   qualms about rolling that much sail quickly. I suppose it would
   >   depend on how much shape there is in the sail and its weight as
   to
   >   how cleanly it would roll. There should be clear air as the
   screecher
   >   would be set outside the line of the main rig and I assume the
   sheet
   >   would be set far enough back to avoid hooking. I'd still be
   tempted
   >   to put the clew on the end of a pole.
   >   In harryproa@..., Tony Richardson
   <atrichardson@b...>
   >   wrote:
   >   > My suggestion has always been for roller furling screachers for
   use
   >   off wind.
   >   > If these boats are as as slippery as has been demonstrated so
   far
   >   then a symmetrical spinnaker will collapse with regularity. The
   boat
   >   will reach wind speed or above easily and that will collapse most
   >   kites.
   >   > You could mount them off both bows or make use of the side
   stays
   >   and put them there in which case you may only need one.
   >   > The latter being the most interesting due to its windward
   position
   >   to the main.
   >   > I would be interested to hear comments on that one.
   >   > Rgs Tony:-)
   >   >   ----- Original Message -----
   >   >   From: Rob Denney
   >   >   To: harryproa@...
   >   >   Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:53 PM
   >   >   Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >   G'day,
   >   >
   >   >   Kites getting better all the time.  see www.kiteship, but
   still
   >   expensive.
   >   >   Symetric kite has potential, and plenty of old ones around to
   >   experiment
   >   >   with.  Be blanketed by the rig a bit, and light air gybing
   would
   >   be tricky.
   >   >
   >   >   Ta.
   >   >
   >   >   regards,
   >   >
   >   >   rob
   >   >   ----- Original Message -----
   >   >   From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
   >   >   To: <harryproa@...>
   >   >   Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:20 PM
   >   >   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >   > ---
   >   >   > OK Rob,
   >   >   >  you asked for it
   >   >   > Symmetrical masthead spinnaker.
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >   > Simplest system. Sheets to either end of the lw hull,
   giving
   >   them
   >   >   > enough slack and rely on enough breeze to lift it away from
   the
   >   rest
   >   >   > of the rig  during the gybe. You can even go the whole hog
   and
   >   fly a
   >   >   > kite. Does a kite point high enough for tacking down wind?
   >   >   >
   >   >   > Two equal length poles set on pins on lw side of lw hull
   just
   >   forward
   >   >   > and back of the mast. One attached to the tack and the
   other
   >   the clew
   >   >   > on one tack and the tack becomes the clew on the other.
   Vanging
   >   them
   >   >   > would not be a problem. The poles could be brought round
   far
   >   enough
   >   >   > for easy attachment of the sheets.
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >   > For an asymmetric it is a bit more difficult, but
   unfortunately
   >   >   > asymmetry seems to be needed for pointing ability.
   >   >   > Two different length poles would be pivoted on the same pin
   on
   >   the lw
   >   >   > side of the lw hull, or set rotating about the mast. A
   longer
   >   pole
   >   >   > would be used for the tack. On a gybe the longer pole would
   go
   >   under
   >   >   > the shorter, taking the tack outside the clew, until set up
   at
   >   the
   >   >   > other bow. The shorter pole would only move minimally. It
   may be
   >   >   > worth putting a sock over the spinnaker at the position of
   >   crossover.
   >   >   > The difficulty is trying to vang the clew. Possibly a
   >   compression
   >   >   > member.
   >   >   > The advantage of these systems is that the extra sails are
   well
   >   clear
   >   >   > of the rest of the rig making for clearer air. I think that
   is
   >   better
   >   >   > than having an extendable boom and treating the stays as
   >   running back
   >   >   > stays.
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >   > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...>
   wrote:
   >   >   > > G'day,
   >   >   > >
   >   >   > > > I didn't think of releasing the stays. Too much of a
   mind
   >   set on
   >   >   > rigs
   >   >   > > > that would fall down if you did that.
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   > > > A crash gybe would be much less likely than on a stayed
   >   marconi
   >   >   > rig
   >   >   > > > as the rig would be set at right angles to the boat when
   >   >   > travelling
   >   >   > > > down wind. The other sheet could act as a preventer if
   the
   >   wind
   >   >   > came
   >   >   > > > forward of the beam on the wrong side, but it would
   take a
   >   large
   >   >   > > > windshift and/or a sudden acceleration such as down a
   wave
   >   to
   >   >   > bring
   >   >   > > > the wind that far round.
   >   >   > >
   >   >   > > Or an inattentive helmsman!
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   > > > In racing mode, I am assuming that there would be
   tacking
   >   down
   >   >   > wind.
   >   >   > > > I am still getting my head around the protocol but I
   can
   >   imagine
   >   >   > an
   >   >   > > > assymetric with two spinnaker poles of different
   lengths
   >   rotating
   >   >   > > > about the base of the mast. Either that or start from a
   >   larger
   >   >   > main
   >   >   > > > and be unbalanced while working, remove the stays and
   add a
   >   genoa
   >   >   > to
   >   >   > > > an extended boom.
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   > >
   >   >   > > There are a few options for extras when racing.  I will
   be
   >   trying a
   >   >   > few of
   >   >   > > them this summer, all going well.  Any suggestions from
   list
   >   >   > members, much
   >   >   > > appreciated.
   >   >   > >
   >   >   > > Regards,
   >   >   > >
   >   >   > > Rob
   >   >   > > > Robert
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney"
   >   <proa@t...>
   >   >   > wrote:
   >   >   > > > > G'day,
   >   >   > > > >
   >   >   > > > > What would happen?  The boom would swing round and
   hit the
   >   >   > stays,
   >   >   > > > the mast
   >   >   > > > > would bend alarmingly (but not break), the boom
   (allowed
   >   by the
   >   >   > > > slack stay)
   >   >   > > > > would travel round to pretty near athwartships to the
   >   hulls and
   >   >   > the
   >   >   > > > rudders
   >   >   > > > > would autorotate very quickly as soon as you started
   >   moving in
   >   >   > the
   >   >   > > > other
   >   >   > > > > direction.  The ww hull would depress a little, how
   much
   >   would
   >   >   > > > depend on
   >   >   > > > > stay slackness.  Hopefully you would then be able to
   luff
   >   up
   >   >   > (not
   >   >   > > > too far,
   >   >   > > > > as the ambient breeze would be the next one you see),
   >   change
   >   >   > your
   >   >   > > > underwear
   >   >   > > > > and put another reef in.
   >   >   > > > >
   >   >   > > > > What can be done about it?  I would consider
   >   disconnecting  the
   >   >   > > > stays , hand
   >   >   > > > > hold the sheet,  and accept more mast bend for the
   >   duration than
   >   >   > > > you would
   >   >   > > > > normally get.  If you are then hit, the mast will be
   free
   >   to
   >   >   > rotate
   >   >   > > > and all
   >   >   > > > > that will happen is the sails will get a bit of a
   >   flogging.
   >   >   > Maybe
   >   >   > > > include
   >   >   > > > > a snap shackle in the system if this is going to be a
   >   regular
   >   >   > > > occurence.
   >   >   > > > > Semi stayed masts do not need stay tension so
   >   rigging/unrigging
   >   >   > the
   >   >   > > > stays is
   >   >   > > > > not a huge deal.  Could also attach the stays to an
   open
   >   sided
   >   >   > hook
   >   >   > > > which
   >   >   > > > > would release the stay in the event of large side
   >   loadings.
   >   >   > TYhis
   >   >   > > > would
   >   >   > > > > also be helpful in the event of a crash jibe,
   although
   >   there is
   >   >   > > > generally
   >   >   > > > > not much "crash" as the jib is opposing the main.
   >   >   > > > >
   >   >   > > > > regards,
   >   >   > > > >
   >   >   > > > > Rob
   >   >   > > > >
   >   >   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
   >   >   > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
   >   >   > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
   >   >   > > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:21 PM
   >   >   > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Stays on Aero rigs.
   >   >   > > > >
   >   >   > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > A slight query as to what happens when for instance
   if
   >   working
   >   >   > > > with
   >   >   > > > > > the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near some
   steep
   >   >   > cliffs and
   >   >   > > > > > suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from the
   >   starboard
   >   >   > > > quarter.
   >   >   > > > > >  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the stays
   and
   >   drive
   >   >   > the
   >   >   > > > boat
   >   >   > > > > > hard onto the port bow. I understand that the
   >   flexibility of
   >   >   > the
   >   >   > > > mast
   >   >   > > > > > would take much of the drive out of the sails and
   the
   >   stays
   >   >   > would
   >   >   > > > be
   >   >   > > > > > slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally the
   boat
   >   would
   >   >   > fare a
   >   >   > > > > > lot better than many other configurations of boats,
   but
   >   this
   >   >   > is a
   >   >   > > > > > slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows of a
   cat
   >   >   > > > underwater in
   >   >   > > > > > exactly these circumstances and there was nothing I
   >   could do
   >   >   > but
   >   >   > > > wait
   >   >   > > > > > till the bullet dissipated.
   >   >   > > > > > How would a Harry act in such circumstances and
   what
   >   would be
   >   >   > the
   >   >   > > > > > best course of action other than be wary around
   steep
   >   cliffs?
   >   >   > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
   >   >   > <cateran1949@y...>
   >   >   > > > > > wrote:
   >   >   > > > > > > ---
   >   >   > > > > > > Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer.
   This
   >   >   > strengthens
   >   >   > > > my
   >   >   > > > > > > confidence in the engineering.
   >   >   > > > > > > Robert
   >   >   > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney"
   >   <proa@t...>
   >   >   > wrote:
   >   >   > > > > > > > G'day,
   >   >   > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not
   perfect.
   >   The
   >   >   > stays
   >   >   > > > do
   >   >   > > > > > not
   >   >   > > > > > > anchor
   >   >   > > > > > > > the mast in position so it is free to bend in
   >   peculiar
   >   >   > ways,
   >   >   > > > > > mostly
   >   >   > > > > > > forwards
   >   >   > > > > > > > and to windward.  The stays give little or no
   >   support
   >   >   > fore and
   >   >   > > > > > aft,
   >   >   > > > > > > so the
   >   >   > > > > > > > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling,
   which is
   >   a
   >   >   > fairly
   >   >   > > > > > large
   >   >   > > > > > > load
   >   >   > > > > > > > situation.  The stays impart a substantial down
   >   force to
   >   >   > the
   >   >   > > > > > mast,
   >   >   > > > > > > meaning
   >   >   > > > > > > > the step has to be well beefed up.  They also
   >   prevent
   >   >   > full 360
   >   >   > > > > > > degree
   >   >   > > > > > > > rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically
   allow
   >   for
   >   >   > > > lighter
   >   >   > > > > > > mast, beams
   >   >   > > > > > > > and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective
   the
   >   beams and
   >   >   > > > > > leeward
   >   >   > > > > > > hull get
   >   >   > > > > > > > designed to not break if the stays do, so
   little is
   >   gained
   >   >   > > > here.
   >   >   > > > > > A
   >   >   > > > > > > big
   >   >   > > > > > > > advantage of the stays is not so much the
   strength
   >   they
   >   >   > add,
   >   >   > > > but
   >   >   > > > > > the
   >   >   > > > > > > > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to
   >   leeward
   >   >   > > > > > prematurely,
   >   >   > > > > > > meaning a
   >   >   > > > > > > > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
   >   >   > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is
   worthwhile,
   >   but
   >   >   > keeping
   >   >   > > > > > the
   >   >   > > > > > > stays
   >   >   > > > > > > > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well
   as
   >   added
   >   >   > > > safety/.
   >   >   > > > > > > For a
   >   >   > > > > > > > racer, I would just use the stays.
   >   >   > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > Regards,
   >   >   > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > Rob
   >   >   > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
   >   >   > > > > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
   >   >   > > > > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
   >   >   > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
   >   >   > > > > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
   >   >   > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > > As stated in  your background on why a weight
   to
   >   >   > windward
   >   >   > > > proa,
   >   >   > > > > > > part
   >   >   > > > > > > > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the
   >   load on
   >   >   > the
   >   >   > > > cross
   >   >   > > > > > > beams.
   >   >   > > > > > > > >  With stays from near the top of the mast to
   the
   >   ends
   >   >   > of the
   >   >   > > > > > > > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly
   all
   >   >   > > > compression
   >   >   > > > > > > forces
   >   >   > > > > > > > > with some sheer forces and bending moments at
   the
   >   place
   >   >   > > > where
   >   >   > > > > > the
   >   >   > > > > > > > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those
   stays
   >   there
   >   >   > is a
   >   >   > > > > > large
   >   >   > > > > > > > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
   >   >   > > > > > > > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight
   of
   >   those
   >   >   > stays
   >   >   > > > > > worth
   >   >   > > > > > > the
   >   >   > > > > > > > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
   >   >   > > > > > > > > Robert
   >   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
   to:
   >   >   > > > > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   >   >   > > > > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   >   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   >   > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >   >   > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   >   >   > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   >   >   > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > >
   >   >   > > > > >
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   >   > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   >   >   > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   > > >
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >   > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   >   > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   >   >   http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >   >
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   >   harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
   >   Service.
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >
   >   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >
   >
   >
   >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
   Service.
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   harryproa-unsubscribe@...



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dave,
  Thanks for the ad.
Question. When shunting,  How do you keep the lines from iterfering
when going under the boom?



--- In harryproa@..., "Dave Culp" <dave@k...> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On the subject of free-flying kites and HarryProas (This is a
commercial post. If
> commercials offend you, please delete);
>
> Robert, yes, kites can sail close enough to wind for tacking,
either downwind or up.
> Efficient wing-style kites (ram-air, composite/framed, some
kitesurf kites) are
> capable of flying as close to wind as most soft sails (ie: not as
close as wing masts/
> wing sails, but as close as your boat!). Thus they are quite
appropriate for outright
> rig replacement. I mean leave the mast home and sail just with
kites.
>
> As to adding downwind-only kites to regularly-rigged boats; I
believe ours is the only
> kite offered specifically as a spinnaker replacement kite
(www.kiteship.com). Our kites
> *will* sail close enough to wind for tacking downwind in very fast
boats. In tests we
> have repeatedly sailed as close as 38-40 degrees to apparent wind
(yes, apparently
> upwind). This equates to a very flat asymetrical or a full-ish
screacher. No, not as
> close-winded as a full-on screacher, but we can bring most race
boats comfortably
> onto a square reach, and can sail at 1.5 times windspeed on some
courses. OutLeader
> is a spinnaker replacement kite, please don't ask me if it will go
upwind. Many
> companies (including KiteShip) offer upwind-capable kites.
OutLeader is not one of
> them.  ;-)
>
> Why? OutLeaders are 100% soft kites, no battens, no inflation
chambers, no ram air.
> No bridles, no flares, etc, etc. They have only 3 lines, lead to
the corners of the kite.
> They are legally "spinnakers" per international racing rules, but
moreover, they can be
> launched, flown and recovered much like ordinary spinnakers. We
know of no other
> kites which can be self-launched and recovered from the subject
boat in deep water,
> unassisted. We've built OutLEaders in sizes from 10 meters to 280
meters, and are
> working with a commercial shipping company to build at 1000 sq
meters or more. We
> aren't currently offering them in sizes below 25 sq meters, but we
may, someday
> (used kitesurf kites are very, very cheap...)
>
> Why kites? You can sail in higher, stonger, smoother winds than
with any sail. The
> kite is attached at deck level, not up the mast, so gives
little/zero overturning
> moment. Thus you can carry very large kites on very small boats.
Compared to
> spinnakers, kites offer no overturrning moment, also no pitching
moment (so no bow
> burying, no broaching, no spinout). Since kites' attachment point
can be easiliy
> adjusted--even under great load--it is possible to balance the helm
under any sailing
> condition. This can be important at very high speed/sail loadings
since it is quite
> possible to carry sufficient power, with kites, to overpower any
rudder. In addition,
> kites have the ability to "power gybe". That is, they are fully
powered up during the
> gybe (if you like; you can also depower them). This is important to
racing boats, since
> they can pull ahead during gybes, but it is especially exciting on
proas, since your
> shunt can be very powerful and very fast, if you like. (I have some
history with proas.
> See:  www.dcss.org/speedsl )
>
> What about light wind? See our FAQ, at:
http://www.kiteship.com/id9.html  for fuller
> answers to this and many other questions.
>
> Price? Rob points out that kites are "still" expensive. Cost is a
relative thing. Upwind-
> capable kites cost on the order of double that of typical upwind
sails of similar sizes.
> On the other hand, expensive things like masts, booms, outrigger
hulls and ballast
> keels become unnecessary, so are kites really more expensive?
>
> As to OutLeader spinnaker replacement kites, one of our design
specifications was to
> invent something which was fundamentally no more difficult to
manufacture than
> spinnakers. We nearly managed it; the kites must be of a bit higher
quality and
> carefully designed for weight optimization--after all they are
flying devices, not
> carried by any mast. Currently our kites are priced a bit above
premium spinnakers
> (and quite a bit above cheapest mass-produced asian spins), but
this is already
> changing. If you're content to wait until they are mass-market
commodities, you can
> get them cheap, too. In the meantime, I'd point out that OutLeader
kites need no spin
> poles, no reacing struts, no lazy sheets, no lazy guys. No pole
uphaul, downhaul or
> tweakers. Oh, and since one kite can fly from reaching to DDW
running cources, you'll
> save on the entire cost of buying a symetrical spin.
>
> At the same time, they are more powerful, faster and safer than
spins, so perhaps
> they're worth a bit more? (I did not mention the $200k, US, we
spent develping the
> things, but the mortgage does weigh on my mind occasionally  ;-)
>
> We will not sell small kites to known sailmakers, for reasons which
must be obvious,
> but we are interested in talking with them about licenses and
distribution. OutLeader
> is copyright and patent pending. If you are interested in building
your own OutLeader
> and have experience in building full size spinnakers, talk to us.
>
> Sorry to sound so much like an advert. I'm happy to answer specific
questions about
> this kite or others, in the context of Harryproas or any boat.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave Culp

-Thanks Tony

  Further questions. How big a gap do they need from the mast, and
would they need to be poled out?
  Is it possible to have a flat symmetric that can work both ways with
enough luff tension?
Robert



-- In harryproa@..., Tony Richardson
<atrichardson@b...> wrote:
> The point of having the screacher is that it is flat (ish)  unlike
a spinnaker
> If you need a hint on how they would look take a peek at the
current flock of Kites on beach cats
> My experience on my KHSD 16 tri is that you reach wind speed very
quickly.
> Take a look at it on Kurt Hughes' web site and you will see mine in
partial collapse as the boat caught up to wind speed.
> If you need to keep the same point of sail the screacher needs to
be trimmed fairly tight and quickly.
> The other benefit of a screacher is that it furls very well and fast
(so long as you are going downwind)
> Its faster than retrieving a spinnaker even faster than a spinnaker
with a shute in my experience.
> rgs
> tony
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Robert
>   To: harryproa@...
>   Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 10:49 AM
>   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
>
>
>   I agree that a symmetric spinnaker would probably not be
particularly
>   useful especially considering the crossection area of an aerorig
for
>   straight downwind Therefore  it comes down to a large assymetric.
I
>   thought of using the stays but they are angled the wrong way I
>   suspect would depress the boat and interfere with the air
movement of
>   the main rig. Fritz uses the stays to stick a small jib on partly
to
>   increase righting moment when needed
>   I haven't had experience of screechers omn rollerfurling but I
have
>   qualms about rolling that much sail quickly. I suppose it would
>   depend on how much shape there is in the sail and its weight as
to
>   how cleanly it would roll. There should be clear air as the
screecher
>   would be set outside the line of the main rig and I assume the
sheet
>   would be set far enough back to avoid hooking. I'd still be
tempted
>   to put the clew on the end of a pole.
>   In harryproa@..., Tony Richardson
<atrichardson@b...>
>   wrote:
>   > My suggestion has always been for roller furling screachers for
use
>   off wind.
>   > If these boats are as as slippery as has been demonstrated so
far
>   then a symmetrical spinnaker will collapse with regularity. The
boat
>   will reach wind speed or above easily and that will collapse most
>   kites.
>   > You could mount them off both bows or make use of the side
stays
>   and put them there in which case you may only need one.
>   > The latter being the most interesting due to its windward
position
>   to the main.
>   > I would be interested to hear comments on that one.
>   > Rgs Tony:-)
>   >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   From: Rob Denney
>   >   To: harryproa@...
>   >   Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:53 PM
>   >   Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
>   >
>   >
>   >   G'day,
>   >
>   >   Kites getting better all the time.  see www.kiteship, but
still
>   expensive.
>   >   Symetric kite has potential, and plenty of old ones around to
>   experiment
>   >   with.  Be blanketed by the rig a bit, and light air gybing
would
>   be tricky.
>   >
>   >   Ta.
>   >
>   >   regards,
>   >
>   >   rob
>   >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
>   >   To: <harryproa@...>
>   >   Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:20 PM
>   >   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
>   >
>   >
>   >   > ---
>   >   > OK Rob,
>   >   >  you asked for it
>   >   > Symmetrical masthead spinnaker.
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   > Simplest system. Sheets to either end of the lw hull,
giving
>   them
>   >   > enough slack and rely on enough breeze to lift it away from
the
>   rest
>   >   > of the rig  during the gybe. You can even go the whole hog
and
>   fly a
>   >   > kite. Does a kite point high enough for tacking down wind?
>   >   >
>   >   > Two equal length poles set on pins on lw side of lw hull
just
>   forward
>   >   > and back of the mast. One attached to the tack and the
other
>   the clew
>   >   > on one tack and the tack becomes the clew on the other.
Vanging
>   them
>   >   > would not be a problem. The poles could be brought round
far
>   enough
>   >   > for easy attachment of the sheets.
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   > For an asymmetric it is a bit more difficult, but
unfortunately
>   >   > asymmetry seems to be needed for pointing ability.
>   >   > Two different length poles would be pivoted on the same pin
on
>   the lw
>   >   > side of the lw hull, or set rotating about the mast. A
longer
>   pole
>   >   > would be used for the tack. On a gybe the longer pole would
go
>   under
>   >   > the shorter, taking the tack outside the clew, until set up
at
>   the
>   >   > other bow. The shorter pole would only move minimally. It
may be
>   >   > worth putting a sock over the spinnaker at the position of
>   crossover.
>   >   > The difficulty is trying to vang the clew. Possibly a
>   compression
>   >   > member.
>   >   > The advantage of these systems is that the extra sails are
well
>   clear
>   >   > of the rest of the rig making for clearer air. I think that
is
>   better
>   >   > than having an extendable boom and treating the stays as
>   running back
>   >   > stays.
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...>
wrote:
>   >   > > G'day,
>   >   > >
>   >   > > > I didn't think of releasing the stays. Too much of a
mind
>   set on
>   >   > rigs
>   >   > > > that would fall down if you did that.
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > > A crash gybe would be much less likely than on a stayed
>   marconi
>   >   > rig
>   >   > > > as the rig would be set at right angles to the boat when
>   >   > travelling
>   >   > > > down wind. The other sheet could act as a preventer if
the
>   wind
>   >   > came
>   >   > > > forward of the beam on the wrong side, but it would
take a
>   large
>   >   > > > windshift and/or a sudden acceleration such as down a
wave
>   to
>   >   > bring
>   >   > > > the wind that far round.
>   >   > >
>   >   > > Or an inattentive helmsman!
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > > In racing mode, I am assuming that there would be
tacking
>   down
>   >   > wind.
>   >   > > > I am still getting my head around the protocol but I
can
>   imagine
>   >   > an
>   >   > > > assymetric with two spinnaker poles of different
lengths
>   rotating
>   >   > > > about the base of the mast. Either that or start from a
>   larger
>   >   > main
>   >   > > > and be unbalanced while working, remove the stays and
add a
>   genoa
>   >   > to
>   >   > > > an extended boom.
>   >   > > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > > There are a few options for extras when racing.  I will
be
>   trying a
>   >   > few of
>   >   > > them this summer, all going well.  Any suggestions from
list
>   >   > members, much
>   >   > > appreciated.
>   >   > >
>   >   > > Regards,
>   >   > >
>   >   > > Rob
>   >   > > > Robert
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney"
>   <proa@t...>
>   >   > wrote:
>   >   > > > > G'day,
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > > What would happen?  The boom would swing round and
hit the
>   >   > stays,
>   >   > > > the mast
>   >   > > > > would bend alarmingly (but not break), the boom
(allowed
>   by the
>   >   > > > slack stay)
>   >   > > > > would travel round to pretty near athwartships to the
>   hulls and
>   >   > the
>   >   > > > rudders
>   >   > > > > would autorotate very quickly as soon as you started
>   moving in
>   >   > the
>   >   > > > other
>   >   > > > > direction.  The ww hull would depress a little, how
much
>   would
>   >   > > > depend on
>   >   > > > > stay slackness.  Hopefully you would then be able to
luff
>   up
>   >   > (not
>   >   > > > too far,
>   >   > > > > as the ambient breeze would be the next one you see),
>   change
>   >   > your
>   >   > > > underwear
>   >   > > > > and put another reef in.
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > > What can be done about it?  I would consider
>   disconnecting  the
>   >   > > > stays , hand
>   >   > > > > hold the sheet,  and accept more mast bend for the
>   duration than
>   >   > > > you would
>   >   > > > > normally get.  If you are then hit, the mast will be
free
>   to
>   >   > rotate
>   >   > > > and all
>   >   > > > > that will happen is the sails will get a bit of a
>   flogging.
>   >   > Maybe
>   >   > > > include
>   >   > > > > a snap shackle in the system if this is going to be a
>   regular
>   >   > > > occurence.
>   >   > > > > Semi stayed masts do not need stay tension so
>   rigging/unrigging
>   >   > the
>   >   > > > stays is
>   >   > > > > not a huge deal.  Could also attach the stays to an
open
>   sided
>   >   > hook
>   >   > > > which
>   >   > > > > would release the stay in the event of large side
>   loadings.
>   >   > TYhis
>   >   > > > would
>   >   > > > > also be helpful in the event of a crash jibe,
although
>   there is
>   >   > > > generally
>   >   > > > > not much "crash" as the jib is opposing the main.
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > > regards,
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > > Rob
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   >   > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
>   >   > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
>   >   > > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:21 PM
>   >   > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Stays on Aero rigs.
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > >
>   >   > > > > > A slight query as to what happens when for instance
if
>   working
>   >   > > > with
>   >   > > > > > the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near some
steep
>   >   > cliffs and
>   >   > > > > > suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from the
>   starboard
>   >   > > > quarter.
>   >   > > > > >  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the stays
and
>   drive
>   >   > the
>   >   > > > boat
>   >   > > > > > hard onto the port bow. I understand that the
>   flexibility of
>   >   > the
>   >   > > > mast
>   >   > > > > > would take much of the drive out of the sails and
the
>   stays
>   >   > would
>   >   > > > be
>   >   > > > > > slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally the
boat
>   would
>   >   > fare a
>   >   > > > > > lot better than many other configurations of boats,
but
>   this
>   >   > is a
>   >   > > > > > slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows of a
cat
>   >   > > > underwater in
>   >   > > > > > exactly these circumstances and there was nothing I
>   could do
>   >   > but
>   >   > > > wait
>   >   > > > > > till the bullet dissipated.
>   >   > > > > > How would a Harry act in such circumstances and
what
>   would be
>   >   > the
>   >   > > > > > best course of action other than be wary around
steep
>   cliffs?
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
>   >   > <cateran1949@y...>
>   >   > > > > > wrote:
>   >   > > > > > > ---
>   >   > > > > > > Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer.
This
>   >   > strengthens
>   >   > > > my
>   >   > > > > > > confidence in the engineering.
>   >   > > > > > > Robert
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney"
>   <proa@t...>
>   >   > wrote:
>   >   > > > > > > > G'day,
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not
perfect.
>   The
>   >   > stays
>   >   > > > do
>   >   > > > > > not
>   >   > > > > > > anchor
>   >   > > > > > > > the mast in position so it is free to bend in
>   peculiar
>   >   > ways,
>   >   > > > > > mostly
>   >   > > > > > > forwards
>   >   > > > > > > > and to windward.  The stays give little or no
>   support
>   >   > fore and
>   >   > > > > > aft,
>   >   > > > > > > so the
>   >   > > > > > > > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling,
which is
>   a
>   >   > fairly
>   >   > > > > > large
>   >   > > > > > > load
>   >   > > > > > > > situation.  The stays impart a substantial down
>   force to
>   >   > the
>   >   > > > > > mast,
>   >   > > > > > > meaning
>   >   > > > > > > > the step has to be well beefed up.  They also
>   prevent
>   >   > full 360
>   >   > > > > > > degree
>   >   > > > > > > > rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically
allow
>   for
>   >   > > > lighter
>   >   > > > > > > mast, beams
>   >   > > > > > > > and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective
the
>   beams and
>   >   > > > > > leeward
>   >   > > > > > > hull get
>   >   > > > > > > > designed to not break if the stays do, so
little is
>   gained
>   >   > > > here.
>   >   > > > > > A
>   >   > > > > > > big
>   >   > > > > > > > advantage of the stays is not so much the
strength
>   they
>   >   > add,
>   >   > > > but
>   >   > > > > > the
>   >   > > > > > > > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to
>   leeward
>   >   > > > > > prematurely,
>   >   > > > > > > meaning a
>   >   > > > > > > > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is
worthwhile,
>   but
>   >   > keeping
>   >   > > > > > the
>   >   > > > > > > stays
>   >   > > > > > > > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well
as
>   added
>   >   > > > safety/.
>   >   > > > > > > For a
>   >   > > > > > > > racer, I would just use the stays.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > Regards,
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > Rob
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   >   > > > > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
>   >   > > > > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
>   >   > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
>   >   > > > > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > > As stated in  your background on why a weight
to
>   >   > windward
>   >   > > > proa,
>   >   > > > > > > part
>   >   > > > > > > > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the
>   load on
>   >   > the
>   >   > > > cross
>   >   > > > > > > beams.
>   >   > > > > > > > >  With stays from near the top of the mast to
the
>   ends
>   >   > of the
>   >   > > > > > > > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly
all
>   >   > > > compression
>   >   > > > > > > forces
>   >   > > > > > > > > with some sheer forces and bending moments at
the
>   place
>   >   > > > where
>   >   > > > > > the
>   >   > > > > > > > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those
stays
>   there
>   >   > is a
>   >   > > > > > large
>   >   > > > > > > > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
>   >   > > > > > > > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight
of
>   those
>   >   > stays
>   >   > > > > > worth
>   >   > > > > > > the
>   >   > > > > > > > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
>   >   > > > > > > > > Robert
>   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
>   >   > > > > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >   > > > > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > > > >
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   >   > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >   > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > > > >
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   >   > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >   > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > >
>   >   > > >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   >   > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   >   http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   >   harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>   Service.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello all,

On the subject of free-flying kites and HarryProas (This is a commercial post.
If
commercials offend you, please delete);

Robert, yes, kites can sail close enough to wind for tacking, either downwind or
up.
Efficient wing-style kites (ram-air, composite/framed, some kitesurf kites) are
capable of flying as close to wind as most soft sails (ie: not as close as wing
masts/
wing sails, but as close as your boat!). Thus they are quite appropriate for
outright
rig replacement. I mean leave the mast home and sail just with kites.

As to adding downwind-only kites to regularly-rigged boats; I believe ours is
the only
kite offered specifically as a spinnaker replacement kite (www.kiteship.com).
Our kites
*will* sail close enough to wind for tacking downwind in very fast boats. In
tests we
have repeatedly sailed as close as 38-40 degrees to apparent wind (yes,
apparently
upwind). This equates to a very flat asymetrical or a full-ish screacher. No,
not as
close-winded as a full-on screacher, but we can bring most race boats
comfortably
onto a square reach, and can sail at 1.5 times windspeed on some courses.
OutLeader
is a spinnaker replacement kite, please don't ask me if it will go upwind. Many
companies (including KiteShip) offer upwind-capable kites. OutLeader is not one
of
them.  ;-)

Why? OutLeaders are 100% soft kites, no battens, no inflation chambers, no ram
air.
No bridles, no flares, etc, etc. They have only 3 lines, lead to the corners of
the kite.
They are legally "spinnakers" per international racing rules, but moreover, they
can be
launched, flown and recovered much like ordinary spinnakers. We know of no other
kites which can be self-launched and recovered from the subject boat in deep
water,
unassisted. We've built OutLEaders in sizes from 10 meters to 280 meters, and
are
working with a commercial shipping company to build at 1000 sq meters or more.
We
aren't currently offering them in sizes below 25 sq meters, but we may, someday
(used kitesurf kites are very, very cheap...)

Why kites? You can sail in higher, stonger, smoother winds than with any sail.
The
kite is attached at deck level, not up the mast, so gives little/zero
overturning
moment. Thus you can carry very large kites on very small boats. Compared to
spinnakers, kites offer no overturrning moment, also no pitching moment (so no
bow
burying, no broaching, no spinout). Since kites' attachment point can be easiliy
adjusted--even under great load--it is possible to balance the helm under any
sailing
condition. This can be important at very high speed/sail loadings since it is
quite
possible to carry sufficient power, with kites, to overpower any rudder. In
addition,
kites have the ability to "power gybe". That is, they are fully powered up
during the
gybe (if you like; you can also depower them). This is important to racing
boats, since
they can pull ahead during gybes, but it is especially exciting on proas, since
your
shunt can be very powerful and very fast, if you like. (I have some history with
proas.
See:  www.dcss.org/speedsl )

What about light wind? See our FAQ, at:  http://www.kiteship.com/id9.html  for
fuller
answers to this and many other questions.

Price? Rob points out that kites are "still" expensive. Cost is a relative
thing. Upwind-
capable kites cost on the order of double that of typical upwind sails of
similar sizes.
On the other hand, expensive things like masts, booms, outrigger hulls and
ballast
keels become unnecessary, so are kites really more expensive?

As to OutLeader spinnaker replacement kites, one of our design specifications
was to
invent something which was fundamentally no more difficult to manufacture than
spinnakers. We nearly managed it; the kites must be of a bit higher quality and
carefully designed for weight optimization--after all they are flying devices,
not
carried by any mast. Currently our kites are priced a bit above premium
spinnakers
(and quite a bit above cheapest mass-produced asian spins), but this is already
changing. If you're content to wait until they are mass-market commodities, you
can
get them cheap, too. In the meantime, I'd point out that OutLeader kites need no
spin
poles, no reacing struts, no lazy sheets, no lazy guys. No pole uphaul, downhaul
or
tweakers. Oh, and since one kite can fly from reaching to DDW running cources,
you'll
save on the entire cost of buying a symetrical spin.

At the same time, they are more powerful, faster and safer than spins, so
perhaps
they're worth a bit more? (I did not mention the $200k, US, we spent develping
the
things, but the mortgage does weigh on my mind occasionally  ;-)

We will not sell small kites to known sailmakers, for reasons which must be
obvious,
but we are interested in talking with them about licenses and distribution.
OutLeader
is copyright and patent pending. If you are interested in building your own
OutLeader
and have experience in building full size spinnakers, talk to us.

Sorry to sound so much like an advert. I'm happy to answer specific questions
about
this kite or others, in the context of Harryproas or any boat.

Thanks,

Dave Culp

The point of having the screacher is that it is flat (ish)  unlike a spinnaker
If you need a hint on how they would look take a peek at the current flock of
Kites on beach cats
My experience on my KHSD 16 tri is that you reach wind speed very quickly.
Take a look at it on Kurt Hughes' web site and you will see mine in partial
collapse as the boat caught up to wind speed.
If you need to keep the same point of sail the screacher needs to be trimmed
fairly tight and quickly.
The other benefit of a screacher is that it furls very well and fast(so long as
you are going downwind)
Its faster than retrieving a spinnaker even faster than a spinnaker with a shute
in my experience.
rgs
tony

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Robert
   To: harryproa@...
   Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 10:49 AM
   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing


   I agree that a symmetric spinnaker would probably not be particularly
   useful especially considering the crossection area of an aerorig for
   straight downwind Therefore  it comes down to a large assymetric. I
   thought of using the stays but they are angled the wrong way I
   suspect would depress the boat and interfere with the air movement of
   the main rig. Fritz uses the stays to stick a small jib on partly to
   increase righting moment when needed
   I haven't had experience of screechers omn rollerfurling but I have
   qualms about rolling that much sail quickly. I suppose it would
   depend on how much shape there is in the sail and its weight as to
   how cleanly it would roll. There should be clear air as the screecher
   would be set outside the line of the main rig and I assume the sheet
   would be set far enough back to avoid hooking. I'd still be tempted
   to put the clew on the end of a pole.
   In harryproa@..., Tony Richardson <atrichardson@b...>
   wrote:
   > My suggestion has always been for roller furling screachers for use
   off wind.
   > If these boats are as as slippery as has been demonstrated so far
   then a symmetrical spinnaker will collapse with regularity. The boat
   will reach wind speed or above easily and that will collapse most
   kites.
   > You could mount them off both bows or make use of the side stays
   and put them there in which case you may only need one.
   > The latter being the most interesting due to its windward position
   to the main.
   > I would be interested to hear comments on that one.
   > Rgs Tony:-)
   >   ----- Original Message -----
   >   From: Rob Denney
   >   To: harryproa@...
   >   Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:53 PM
   >   Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
   >
   >
   >   G'day,
   >
   >   Kites getting better all the time.  see www.kiteship, but still
   expensive.
   >   Symetric kite has potential, and plenty of old ones around to
   experiment
   >   with.  Be blanketed by the rig a bit, and light air gybing would
   be tricky.
   >
   >   Ta.
   >
   >   regards,
   >
   >   rob
   >   ----- Original Message -----
   >   From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
   >   To: <harryproa@...>
   >   Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:20 PM
   >   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
   >
   >
   >   > ---
   >   > OK Rob,
   >   >  you asked for it
   >   > Symmetrical masthead spinnaker.
   >   >
   >   >
   >   > Simplest system. Sheets to either end of the lw hull, giving
   them
   >   > enough slack and rely on enough breeze to lift it away from the
   rest
   >   > of the rig  during the gybe. You can even go the whole hog and
   fly a
   >   > kite. Does a kite point high enough for tacking down wind?
   >   >
   >   > Two equal length poles set on pins on lw side of lw hull just
   forward
   >   > and back of the mast. One attached to the tack and the other
   the clew
   >   > on one tack and the tack becomes the clew on the other. Vanging
   them
   >   > would not be a problem. The poles could be brought round far
   enough
   >   > for easy attachment of the sheets.
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >
   >   > For an asymmetric it is a bit more difficult, but unfortunately
   >   > asymmetry seems to be needed for pointing ability.
   >   > Two different length poles would be pivoted on the same pin on
   the lw
   >   > side of the lw hull, or set rotating about the mast. A longer
   pole
   >   > would be used for the tack. On a gybe the longer pole would go
   under
   >   > the shorter, taking the tack outside the clew, until set up at
   the
   >   > other bow. The shorter pole would only move minimally. It may be
   >   > worth putting a sock over the spinnaker at the position of
   crossover.
   >   > The difficulty is trying to vang the clew. Possibly a
   compression
   >   > member.
   >   > The advantage of these systems is that the extra sails are well
   clear
   >   > of the rest of the rig making for clearer air. I think that is
   better
   >   > than having an extendable boom and treating the stays as
   running back
   >   > stays.
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >
   >   > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
   >   > > G'day,
   >   > >
   >   > > > I didn't think of releasing the stays. Too much of a mind
   set on
   >   > rigs
   >   > > > that would fall down if you did that.
   >   > > >
   >   > > > A crash gybe would be much less likely than on a stayed
   marconi
   >   > rig
   >   > > > as the rig would be set at right angles to the boat when
   >   > travelling
   >   > > > down wind. The other sheet could act as a preventer if the
   wind
   >   > came
   >   > > > forward of the beam on the wrong side, but it would take a
   large
   >   > > > windshift and/or a sudden acceleration such as down a wave
   to
   >   > bring
   >   > > > the wind that far round.
   >   > >
   >   > > Or an inattentive helmsman!
   >   > > >
   >   > > > In racing mode, I am assuming that there would be tacking
   down
   >   > wind.
   >   > > > I am still getting my head around the protocol but I can
   imagine
   >   > an
   >   > > > assymetric with two spinnaker poles of different lengths
   rotating
   >   > > > about the base of the mast. Either that or start from a
   larger
   >   > main
   >   > > > and be unbalanced while working, remove the stays and add a
   genoa
   >   > to
   >   > > > an extended boom.
   >   > > >
   >   > >
   >   > > There are a few options for extras when racing.  I will be
   trying a
   >   > few of
   >   > > them this summer, all going well.  Any suggestions from list
   >   > members, much
   >   > > appreciated.
   >   > >
   >   > > Regards,
   >   > >
   >   > > Rob
   >   > > > Robert
   >   > > >
   >   > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney"
   <proa@t...>
   >   > wrote:
   >   > > > > G'day,
   >   > > > >
   >   > > > > What would happen?  The boom would swing round and hit the
   >   > stays,
   >   > > > the mast
   >   > > > > would bend alarmingly (but not break), the boom (allowed
   by the
   >   > > > slack stay)
   >   > > > > would travel round to pretty near athwartships to the
   hulls and
   >   > the
   >   > > > rudders
   >   > > > > would autorotate very quickly as soon as you started
   moving in
   >   > the
   >   > > > other
   >   > > > > direction.  The ww hull would depress a little, how much
   would
   >   > > > depend on
   >   > > > > stay slackness.  Hopefully you would then be able to luff
   up
   >   > (not
   >   > > > too far,
   >   > > > > as the ambient breeze would be the next one you see),
   change
   >   > your
   >   > > > underwear
   >   > > > > and put another reef in.
   >   > > > >
   >   > > > > What can be done about it?  I would consider
   disconnecting  the
   >   > > > stays , hand
   >   > > > > hold the sheet,  and accept more mast bend for the
   duration than
   >   > > > you would
   >   > > > > normally get.  If you are then hit, the mast will be free
   to
   >   > rotate
   >   > > > and all
   >   > > > > that will happen is the sails will get a bit of a
   flogging.
   >   > Maybe
   >   > > > include
   >   > > > > a snap shackle in the system if this is going to be a
   regular
   >   > > > occurence.
   >   > > > > Semi stayed masts do not need stay tension so
   rigging/unrigging
   >   > the
   >   > > > stays is
   >   > > > > not a huge deal.  Could also attach the stays to an open
   sided
   >   > hook
   >   > > > which
   >   > > > > would release the stay in the event of large side
   loadings.
   >   > TYhis
   >   > > > would
   >   > > > > also be helpful in the event of a crash jibe, although
   there is
   >   > > > generally
   >   > > > > not much "crash" as the jib is opposing the main.
   >   > > > >
   >   > > > > regards,
   >   > > > >
   >   > > > > Rob
   >   > > > >
   >   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
   >   > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
   >   > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
   >   > > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:21 PM
   >   > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Stays on Aero rigs.
   >   > > > >
   >   > > > >
   >   > > > > > A slight query as to what happens when for instance if
   working
   >   > > > with
   >   > > > > > the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near some steep
   >   > cliffs and
   >   > > > > > suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from the
   starboard
   >   > > > quarter.
   >   > > > > >  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the stays and
   drive
   >   > the
   >   > > > boat
   >   > > > > > hard onto the port bow. I understand that the
   flexibility of
   >   > the
   >   > > > mast
   >   > > > > > would take much of the drive out of the sails and the
   stays
   >   > would
   >   > > > be
   >   > > > > > slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally the boat
   would
   >   > fare a
   >   > > > > > lot better than many other configurations of boats, but
   this
   >   > is a
   >   > > > > > slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows of a cat
   >   > > > underwater in
   >   > > > > > exactly these circumstances and there was nothing I
   could do
   >   > but
   >   > > > wait
   >   > > > > > till the bullet dissipated.
   >   > > > > > How would a Harry act in such circumstances and what
   would be
   >   > the
   >   > > > > > best course of action other than be wary around steep
   cliffs?
   >   > > > > >
   >   > > > > >
   >   > > > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
   >   > <cateran1949@y...>
   >   > > > > > wrote:
   >   > > > > > > ---
   >   > > > > > > Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer. This
   >   > strengthens
   >   > > > my
   >   > > > > > > confidence in the engineering.
   >   > > > > > > Robert
   >   > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney"
   <proa@t...>
   >   > wrote:
   >   > > > > > > > G'day,
   >   > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.
   The
   >   > stays
   >   > > > do
   >   > > > > > not
   >   > > > > > > anchor
   >   > > > > > > > the mast in position so it is free to bend in
   peculiar
   >   > ways,
   >   > > > > > mostly
   >   > > > > > > forwards
   >   > > > > > > > and to windward.  The stays give little or no
   support
   >   > fore and
   >   > > > > > aft,
   >   > > > > > > so the
   >   > > > > > > > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is
   a
   >   > fairly
   >   > > > > > large
   >   > > > > > > load
   >   > > > > > > > situation.  The stays impart a substantial down
   force to
   >   > the
   >   > > > > > mast,
   >   > > > > > > meaning
   >   > > > > > > > the step has to be well beefed up.  They also
   prevent
   >   > full 360
   >   > > > > > > degree
   >   > > > > > > > rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow
   for
   >   > > > lighter
   >   > > > > > > mast, beams
   >   > > > > > > > and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the
   beams and
   >   > > > > > leeward
   >   > > > > > > hull get
   >   > > > > > > > designed to not break if the stays do, so little is
   gained
   >   > > > here.
   >   > > > > > A
   >   > > > > > > big
   >   > > > > > > > advantage of the stays is not so much the strength
   they
   >   > add,
   >   > > > but
   >   > > > > > the
   >   > > > > > > > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to
   leeward
   >   > > > > > prematurely,
   >   > > > > > > meaning a
   >   > > > > > > > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
   >   > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile,
   but
   >   > keeping
   >   > > > > > the
   >   > > > > > > stays
   >   > > > > > > > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as
   added
   >   > > > safety/.
   >   > > > > > > For a
   >   > > > > > > > racer, I would just use the stays.
   >   > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > Regards,
   >   > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > Rob
   >   > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
   >   > > > > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
   >   > > > > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
   >   > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
   >   > > > > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
   >   > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > > As stated in  your background on why a weight to
   >   > windward
   >   > > > proa,
   >   > > > > > > part
   >   > > > > > > > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the
   load on
   >   > the
   >   > > > cross
   >   > > > > > > beams.
   >   > > > > > > > >  With stays from near the top of the mast to the
   ends
   >   > of the
   >   > > > > > > > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all
   >   > > > compression
   >   > > > > > > forces
   >   > > > > > > > > with some sheer forces and bending moments at the
   place
   >   > > > where
   >   > > > > > the
   >   > > > > > > > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays
   there
   >   > is a
   >   > > > > > large
   >   > > > > > > > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
   >   > > > > > > > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of
   those
   >   > stays
   >   > > > > > worth
   >   > > > > > > the
   >   > > > > > > > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
   >   > > > > > > > > Robert
   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   > > > > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   >   > > > > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > > > > >
   >   > > > > >
   >   > > > > >
   >   > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >   > > > > >
   >   > > > > >
   >   > > > > >
   >   > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   >   > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   >   > > > > >
   >   > > > > >
   >   > > > > >
   >   > > >
   >   > > >
   >   > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >   > > >
   >   > > >
   >   > > >
   >   > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   >   > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   >   > > >
   >   > > >
   >   > > >
   >   >
   >   >
   >   > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >
   >   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   >   http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   >   >
   >   >
   >   >
   >
   >
   >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >
   >
   >
   >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
   Service.
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   harryproa-unsubscribe@...



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree that a symmetric spinnaker would probably not be particularly
useful especially considering the crossection area of an aerorig for
straight downwind Therefore  it comes down to a large assymetric. I
thought of using the stays but they are angled the wrong way I
suspect would depress the boat and interfere with the air movement of
the main rig. Fritz uses the stays to stick a small jib on partly to
increase righting moment when needed
I haven't had experience of screechers omn rollerfurling but I have
qualms about rolling that much sail quickly. I suppose it would
depend on how much shape there is in the sail and its weight as to
how cleanly it would roll. There should be clear air as the screecher
would be set outside the line of the main rig and I assume the sheet
would be set far enough back to avoid hooking. I'd still be tempted
to put the clew on the end of a pole.
In harryproa@..., Tony Richardson <atrichardson@b...>
wrote:
> My suggestion has always been for roller furling screachers for use
off wind.
> If these boats are as as slippery as has been demonstrated so far
then a symmetrical spinnaker will collapse with regularity. The boat
will reach wind speed or above easily and that will collapse most
kites.
> You could mount them off both bows or make use of the side stays
and put them there in which case you may only need one.
> The latter being the most interesting due to its windward position
to the main.
> I would be interested to hear comments on that one.
> Rgs Tony:-)
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Rob Denney
>   To: harryproa@...
>   Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:53 PM
>   Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
>
>
>   G'day,
>
>   Kites getting better all the time.  see www.kiteship, but still
expensive.
>   Symetric kite has potential, and plenty of old ones around to
experiment
>   with.  Be blanketed by the rig a bit, and light air gybing would
be tricky.
>
>   Ta.
>
>   regards,
>
>   rob
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
>   To: <harryproa@...>
>   Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:20 PM
>   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing
>
>
>   > ---
>   > OK Rob,
>   >  you asked for it
>   > Symmetrical masthead spinnaker.
>   >
>   >
>   > Simplest system. Sheets to either end of the lw hull, giving
them
>   > enough slack and rely on enough breeze to lift it away from the
rest
>   > of the rig  during the gybe. You can even go the whole hog and
fly a
>   > kite. Does a kite point high enough for tacking down wind?
>   >
>   > Two equal length poles set on pins on lw side of lw hull just
forward
>   > and back of the mast. One attached to the tack and the other
the clew
>   > on one tack and the tack becomes the clew on the other. Vanging
them
>   > would not be a problem. The poles could be brought round far
enough
>   > for easy attachment of the sheets.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > For an asymmetric it is a bit more difficult, but unfortunately
>   > asymmetry seems to be needed for pointing ability.
>   > Two different length poles would be pivoted on the same pin on
the lw
>   > side of the lw hull, or set rotating about the mast. A longer
pole
>   > would be used for the tack. On a gybe the longer pole would go
under
>   > the shorter, taking the tack outside the clew, until set up at
the
>   > other bow. The shorter pole would only move minimally. It may be
>   > worth putting a sock over the spinnaker at the position of
crossover.
>   > The difficulty is trying to vang the clew. Possibly a
compression
>   > member.
>   > The advantage of these systems is that the extra sails are well
clear
>   > of the rest of the rig making for clearer air. I think that is
better
>   > than having an extendable boom and treating the stays as
running back
>   > stays.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
>   > > G'day,
>   > >
>   > > > I didn't think of releasing the stays. Too much of a mind
set on
>   > rigs
>   > > > that would fall down if you did that.
>   > > >
>   > > > A crash gybe would be much less likely than on a stayed
marconi
>   > rig
>   > > > as the rig would be set at right angles to the boat when
>   > travelling
>   > > > down wind. The other sheet could act as a preventer if the
wind
>   > came
>   > > > forward of the beam on the wrong side, but it would take a
large
>   > > > windshift and/or a sudden acceleration such as down a wave
to
>   > bring
>   > > > the wind that far round.
>   > >
>   > > Or an inattentive helmsman!
>   > > >
>   > > > In racing mode, I am assuming that there would be tacking
down
>   > wind.
>   > > > I am still getting my head around the protocol but I can
imagine
>   > an
>   > > > assymetric with two spinnaker poles of different lengths
rotating
>   > > > about the base of the mast. Either that or start from a
larger
>   > main
>   > > > and be unbalanced while working, remove the stays and add a
genoa
>   > to
>   > > > an extended boom.
>   > > >
>   > >
>   > > There are a few options for extras when racing.  I will be
trying a
>   > few of
>   > > them this summer, all going well.  Any suggestions from list
>   > members, much
>   > > appreciated.
>   > >
>   > > Regards,
>   > >
>   > > Rob
>   > > > Robert
>   > > >
>   > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney"
<proa@t...>
>   > wrote:
>   > > > > G'day,
>   > > > >
>   > > > > What would happen?  The boom would swing round and hit the
>   > stays,
>   > > > the mast
>   > > > > would bend alarmingly (but not break), the boom (allowed
by the
>   > > > slack stay)
>   > > > > would travel round to pretty near athwartships to the
hulls and
>   > the
>   > > > rudders
>   > > > > would autorotate very quickly as soon as you started
moving in
>   > the
>   > > > other
>   > > > > direction.  The ww hull would depress a little, how much
would
>   > > > depend on
>   > > > > stay slackness.  Hopefully you would then be able to luff
up
>   > (not
>   > > > too far,
>   > > > > as the ambient breeze would be the next one you see),
change
>   > your
>   > > > underwear
>   > > > > and put another reef in.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > What can be done about it?  I would consider
disconnecting  the
>   > > > stays , hand
>   > > > > hold the sheet,  and accept more mast bend for the
duration than
>   > > > you would
>   > > > > normally get.  If you are then hit, the mast will be free
to
>   > rotate
>   > > > and all
>   > > > > that will happen is the sails will get a bit of a
flogging.
>   > Maybe
>   > > > include
>   > > > > a snap shackle in the system if this is going to be a
regular
>   > > > occurence.
>   > > > > Semi stayed masts do not need stay tension so
rigging/unrigging
>   > the
>   > > > stays is
>   > > > > not a huge deal.  Could also attach the stays to an open
sided
>   > hook
>   > > > which
>   > > > > would release the stay in the event of large side
loadings.
>   > TYhis
>   > > > would
>   > > > > also be helpful in the event of a crash jibe, although
there is
>   > > > generally
>   > > > > not much "crash" as the jib is opposing the main.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > regards,
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Rob
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
>   > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
>   > > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:21 PM
>   > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Stays on Aero rigs.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > > A slight query as to what happens when for instance if
working
>   > > > with
>   > > > > > the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near some steep
>   > cliffs and
>   > > > > > suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from the
starboard
>   > > > quarter.
>   > > > > >  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the stays and
drive
>   > the
>   > > > boat
>   > > > > > hard onto the port bow. I understand that the
flexibility of
>   > the
>   > > > mast
>   > > > > > would take much of the drive out of the sails and the
stays
>   > would
>   > > > be
>   > > > > > slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally the boat
would
>   > fare a
>   > > > > > lot better than many other configurations of boats, but
this
>   > is a
>   > > > > > slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows of a cat
>   > > > underwater in
>   > > > > > exactly these circumstances and there was nothing I
could do
>   > but
>   > > > wait
>   > > > > > till the bullet dissipated.
>   > > > > > How would a Harry act in such circumstances and what
would be
>   > the
>   > > > > > best course of action other than be wary around steep
cliffs?
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
>   > <cateran1949@y...>
>   > > > > > wrote:
>   > > > > > > ---
>   > > > > > > Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer. This
>   > strengthens
>   > > > my
>   > > > > > > confidence in the engineering.
>   > > > > > > Robert
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney"
<proa@t...>
>   > wrote:
>   > > > > > > > G'day,
>   > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.
The
>   > stays
>   > > > do
>   > > > > > not
>   > > > > > > anchor
>   > > > > > > > the mast in position so it is free to bend in
peculiar
>   > ways,
>   > > > > > mostly
>   > > > > > > forwards
>   > > > > > > > and to windward.  The stays give little or no
support
>   > fore and
>   > > > > > aft,
>   > > > > > > so the
>   > > > > > > > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is
a
>   > fairly
>   > > > > > large
>   > > > > > > load
>   > > > > > > > situation.  The stays impart a substantial down
force to
>   > the
>   > > > > > mast,
>   > > > > > > meaning
>   > > > > > > > the step has to be well beefed up.  They also
prevent
>   > full 360
>   > > > > > > degree
>   > > > > > > > rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow
for
>   > > > lighter
>   > > > > > > mast, beams
>   > > > > > > > and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the
beams and
>   > > > > > leeward
>   > > > > > > hull get
>   > > > > > > > designed to not break if the stays do, so little is
gained
>   > > > here.
>   > > > > > A
>   > > > > > > big
>   > > > > > > > advantage of the stays is not so much the strength
they
>   > add,
>   > > > but
>   > > > > > the
>   > > > > > > > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to
leeward
>   > > > > > prematurely,
>   > > > > > > meaning a
>   > > > > > > > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
>   > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile,
but
>   > keeping
>   > > > > > the
>   > > > > > > stays
>   > > > > > > > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as
added
>   > > > safety/.
>   > > > > > > For a
>   > > > > > > > racer, I would just use the stays.
>   > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > Regards,
>   > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > Rob
>   > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
>   > > > > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
>   > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
>   > > > > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
>   > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > > As stated in  your background on why a weight to
>   > windward
>   > > > proa,
>   > > > > > > part
>   > > > > > > > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the
load on
>   > the
>   > > > cross
>   > > > > > > beams.
>   > > > > > > > >  With stays from near the top of the mast to the
ends
>   > of the
>   > > > > > > > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all
>   > > > compression
>   > > > > > > forces
>   > > > > > > > > with some sheer forces and bending moments at the
place
>   > > > where
>   > > > > > the
>   > > > > > > > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays
there
>   > is a
>   > > > > > large
>   > > > > > > > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
>   > > > > > > > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of
those
>   > stays
>   > > > > > worth
>   > > > > > > the
>   > > > > > > > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
>   > > > > > > > > Robert
>   > > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   > > > > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   > > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   > > > > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   > > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   >
>   >
>   > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>   http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>   >
>   >
>   >
>
>
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My suggestion has always been for roller furling screachers for use off wind.
If these boats are as as slippery as has been demonstrated so far then a
symmetrical spinnaker will collapse with regularity. The boat will reach wind
speed or above easily and that will collapse most kites.
You could mount them off both bows or make use of the side stays and put them
there in which case you may only need one.
The latter being the most interesting due to its windward position to the main.
I would be interested to hear comments on that one.
Rgs Tony:-)
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Rob Denney
   To: harryproa@...
   Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:53 PM
   Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing


   G'day,

   Kites getting better all the time.  see www.kiteship, but still expensive.
   Symetric kite has potential, and plenty of old ones around to experiment
   with.  Be blanketed by the rig a bit, and light air gybing would be tricky.

   Ta.

   regards,

   rob
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: "Robert" <cateran1949@...>
   To: <harryproa@...>
   Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:20 PM
   Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing


   > ---
   > OK Rob,
   >  you asked for it
   > Symmetrical masthead spinnaker.
   >
   >
   > Simplest system. Sheets to either end of the lw hull, giving them
   > enough slack and rely on enough breeze to lift it away from the rest
   > of the rig  during the gybe. You can even go the whole hog and fly a
   > kite. Does a kite point high enough for tacking down wind?
   >
   > Two equal length poles set on pins on lw side of lw hull just forward
   > and back of the mast. One attached to the tack and the other the clew
   > on one tack and the tack becomes the clew on the other. Vanging them
   > would not be a problem. The poles could be brought round far enough
   > for easy attachment of the sheets.
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > For an asymmetric it is a bit more difficult, but unfortunately
   > asymmetry seems to be needed for pointing ability.
   > Two different length poles would be pivoted on the same pin on the lw
   > side of the lw hull, or set rotating about the mast. A longer pole
   > would be used for the tack. On a gybe the longer pole would go under
   > the shorter, taking the tack outside the clew, until set up at the
   > other bow. The shorter pole would only move minimally. It may be
   > worth putting a sock over the spinnaker at the position of crossover.
   > The difficulty is trying to vang the clew. Possibly a compression
   > member.
   > The advantage of these systems is that the extra sails are well clear
   > of the rest of the rig making for clearer air. I think that is better
   > than having an extendable boom and treating the stays as running back
   > stays.
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
   > > G'day,
   > >
   > > > I didn't think of releasing the stays. Too much of a mind set on
   > rigs
   > > > that would fall down if you did that.
   > > >
   > > > A crash gybe would be much less likely than on a stayed marconi
   > rig
   > > > as the rig would be set at right angles to the boat when
   > travelling
   > > > down wind. The other sheet could act as a preventer if the wind
   > came
   > > > forward of the beam on the wrong side, but it would take a large
   > > > windshift and/or a sudden acceleration such as down a wave to
   > bring
   > > > the wind that far round.
   > >
   > > Or an inattentive helmsman!
   > > >
   > > > In racing mode, I am assuming that there would be tacking down
   > wind.
   > > > I am still getting my head around the protocol but I can imagine
   > an
   > > > assymetric with two spinnaker poles of different lengths rotating
   > > > about the base of the mast. Either that or start from a larger
   > main
   > > > and be unbalanced while working, remove the stays and add a genoa
   > to
   > > > an extended boom.
   > > >
   > >
   > > There are a few options for extras when racing.  I will be trying a
   > few of
   > > them this summer, all going well.  Any suggestions from list
   > members, much
   > > appreciated.
   > >
   > > Regards,
   > >
   > > Rob
   > > > Robert
   > > >
   > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...>
   > wrote:
   > > > > G'day,
   > > > >
   > > > > What would happen?  The boom would swing round and hit the
   > stays,
   > > > the mast
   > > > > would bend alarmingly (but not break), the boom (allowed by the
   > > > slack stay)
   > > > > would travel round to pretty near athwartships to the hulls and
   > the
   > > > rudders
   > > > > would autorotate very quickly as soon as you started moving in
   > the
   > > > other
   > > > > direction.  The ww hull would depress a little, how much would
   > > > depend on
   > > > > stay slackness.  Hopefully you would then be able to luff up
   > (not
   > > > too far,
   > > > > as the ambient breeze would be the next one you see), change
   > your
   > > > underwear
   > > > > and put another reef in.
   > > > >
   > > > > What can be done about it?  I would consider disconnecting  the
   > > > stays , hand
   > > > > hold the sheet,  and accept more mast bend for the duration than
   > > > you would
   > > > > normally get.  If you are then hit, the mast will be free to
   > rotate
   > > > and all
   > > > > that will happen is the sails will get a bit of a flogging.
   > Maybe
   > > > include
   > > > > a snap shackle in the system if this is going to be a regular
   > > > occurence.
   > > > > Semi stayed masts do not need stay tension so rigging/unrigging
   > the
   > > > stays is
   > > > > not a huge deal.  Could also attach the stays to an open sided
   > hook
   > > > which
   > > > > would release the stay in the event of large side loadings.
   > TYhis
   > > > would
   > > > > also be helpful in the event of a crash jibe, although there is
   > > > generally
   > > > > not much "crash" as the jib is opposing the main.
   > > > >
   > > > > regards,
   > > > >
   > > > > Rob
   > > > >
   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
   > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
   > > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:21 PM
   > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Stays on Aero rigs.
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > > A slight query as to what happens when for instance if working
   > > > with
   > > > > > the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near some steep
   > cliffs and
   > > > > > suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from the starboard
   > > > quarter.
   > > > > >  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the stays and drive
   > the
   > > > boat
   > > > > > hard onto the port bow. I understand that the flexibility of
   > the
   > > > mast
   > > > > > would take much of the drive out of the sails and the stays
   > would
   > > > be
   > > > > > slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally the boat would
   > fare a
   > > > > > lot better than many other configurations of boats, but this
   > is a
   > > > > > slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows of a cat
   > > > underwater in
   > > > > > exactly these circumstances and there was nothing I could do
   > but
   > > > wait
   > > > > > till the bullet dissipated.
   > > > > > How would a Harry act in such circumstances and what would be
   > the
   > > > > > best course of action other than be wary around steep cliffs?
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
   > <cateran1949@y...>
   > > > > > wrote:
   > > > > > > ---
   > > > > > > Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer. This
   > strengthens
   > > > my
   > > > > > > confidence in the engineering.
   > > > > > > Robert
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...>
   > wrote:
   > > > > > > > G'day,
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.  The
   > stays
   > > > do
   > > > > > not
   > > > > > > anchor
   > > > > > > > the mast in position so it is free to bend in peculiar
   > ways,
   > > > > > mostly
   > > > > > > forwards
   > > > > > > > and to windward.  The stays give little or no support
   > fore and
   > > > > > aft,
   > > > > > > so the
   > > > > > > > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is a
   > fairly
   > > > > > large
   > > > > > > load
   > > > > > > > situation.  The stays impart a substantial down force to
   > the
   > > > > > mast,
   > > > > > > meaning
   > > > > > > > the step has to be well beefed up.  They also prevent
   > full 360
   > > > > > > degree
   > > > > > > > rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow for
   > > > lighter
   > > > > > > mast, beams
   > > > > > > > and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the beams and
   > > > > > leeward
   > > > > > > hull get
   > > > > > > > designed to not break if the stays do, so little is gained
   > > > here.
   > > > > > A
   > > > > > > big
   > > > > > > > advantage of the stays is not so much the strength they
   > add,
   > > > but
   > > > > > the
   > > > > > > > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to leeward
   > > > > > prematurely,
   > > > > > > meaning a
   > > > > > > > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile, but
   > keeping
   > > > > > the
   > > > > > > stays
   > > > > > > > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as added
   > > > safety/.
   > > > > > > For a
   > > > > > > > racer, I would just use the stays.
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > Regards,
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > Rob
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
   > > > > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
   > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
   > > > > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > > As stated in  your background on why a weight to
   > windward
   > > > proa,
   > > > > > > part
   > > > > > > > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the load on
   > the
   > > > cross
   > > > > > > beams.
   > > > > > > > >  With stays from near the top of the mast to the ends
   > of the
   > > > > > > > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all
   > > > compression
   > > > > > > forces
   > > > > > > > > with some sheer forces and bending moments at the place
   > > > where
   > > > > > the
   > > > > > > > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays there
   > is a
   > > > > > large
   > > > > > > > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
   > > > > > > > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of those
   > stays
   > > > > > worth
   > > > > > > the
   > > > > > > > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
   > > > > > > > > Robert
   > > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   > > > > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   > > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   > > > > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   > > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   >
   >
   > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
   >
   >
   >
   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
   http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   >
   >
   >


   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   harryproa-unsubscribe@...



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

G'day,

Kites getting better all the time.  see www.kiteship, but still expensive.
Symetric kite has potential, and plenty of old ones around to experiment
with.  Be blanketed by the rig a bit, and light air gybing would be tricky.

Ta.

regards,

rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert" <cateran1949@...>
To: <harryproa@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:20 PM
Subject: [harryproa] Re: Extras while racing


> ---
> OK Rob,
>  you asked for it
> Symmetrical masthead spinnaker.
>
>
> Simplest system. Sheets to either end of the lw hull, giving them
> enough slack and rely on enough breeze to lift it away from the rest
> of the rig  during the gybe. You can even go the whole hog and fly a
> kite. Does a kite point high enough for tacking down wind?
>
> Two equal length poles set on pins on lw side of lw hull just forward
> and back of the mast. One attached to the tack and the other the clew
> on one tack and the tack becomes the clew on the other. Vanging them
> would not be a problem. The poles could be brought round far enough
> for easy attachment of the sheets.
>
>
>
>
> For an asymmetric it is a bit more difficult, but unfortunately
> asymmetry seems to be needed for pointing ability.
> Two different length poles would be pivoted on the same pin on the lw
> side of the lw hull, or set rotating about the mast. A longer pole
> would be used for the tack. On a gybe the longer pole would go under
> the shorter, taking the tack outside the clew, until set up at the
> other bow. The shorter pole would only move minimally. It may be
> worth putting a sock over the spinnaker at the position of crossover.
> The difficulty is trying to vang the clew. Possibly a compression
> member.
> The advantage of these systems is that the extra sails are well clear
> of the rest of the rig making for clearer air. I think that is better
> than having an extendable boom and treating the stays as running back
> stays.
>
>
>
>
> In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
> > G'day,
> >
> > > I didn't think of releasing the stays. Too much of a mind set on
> rigs
> > > that would fall down if you did that.
> > >
> > > A crash gybe would be much less likely than on a stayed marconi
> rig
> > > as the rig would be set at right angles to the boat when
> travelling
> > > down wind. The other sheet could act as a preventer if the wind
> came
> > > forward of the beam on the wrong side, but it would take a large
> > > windshift and/or a sudden acceleration such as down a wave to
> bring
> > > the wind that far round.
> >
> > Or an inattentive helmsman!
> > >
> > > In racing mode, I am assuming that there would be tacking down
> wind.
> > > I am still getting my head around the protocol but I can imagine
> an
> > > assymetric with two spinnaker poles of different lengths rotating
> > > about the base of the mast. Either that or start from a larger
> main
> > > and be unbalanced while working, remove the stays and add a genoa
> to
> > > an extended boom.
> > >
> >
> > There are a few options for extras when racing.  I will be trying a
> few of
> > them this summer, all going well.  Any suggestions from list
> members, much
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rob
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...>
> wrote:
> > > > G'day,
> > > >
> > > > What would happen?  The boom would swing round and hit the
> stays,
> > > the mast
> > > > would bend alarmingly (but not break), the boom (allowed by the
> > > slack stay)
> > > > would travel round to pretty near athwartships to the hulls and
> the
> > > rudders
> > > > would autorotate very quickly as soon as you started moving in
> the
> > > other
> > > > direction.  The ww hull would depress a little, how much would
> > > depend on
> > > > stay slackness.  Hopefully you would then be able to luff up
> (not
> > > too far,
> > > > as the ambient breeze would be the next one you see), change
> your
> > > underwear
> > > > and put another reef in.
> > > >
> > > > What can be done about it?  I would consider disconnecting  the
> > > stays , hand
> > > > hold the sheet,  and accept more mast bend for the duration than
> > > you would
> > > > normally get.  If you are then hit, the mast will be free to
> rotate
> > > and all
> > > > that will happen is the sails will get a bit of a flogging.
> Maybe
> > > include
> > > > a snap shackle in the system if this is going to be a regular
> > > occurence.
> > > > Semi stayed masts do not need stay tension so rigging/unrigging
> the
> > > stays is
> > > > not a huge deal.  Could also attach the stays to an open sided
> hook
> > > which
> > > > would release the stay in the event of large side loadings.
> TYhis
> > > would
> > > > also be helpful in the event of a crash jibe, although there is
> > > generally
> > > > not much "crash" as the jib is opposing the main.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > > > To: <harryproa@...>
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:21 PM
> > > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Stays on Aero rigs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > A slight query as to what happens when for instance if working
> > > with
> > > > > the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near some steep
> cliffs and
> > > > > suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from the starboard
> > > quarter.
> > > > >  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the stays and drive
> the
> > > boat
> > > > > hard onto the port bow. I understand that the flexibility of
> the
> > > mast
> > > > > would take much of the drive out of the sails and the stays
> would
> > > be
> > > > > slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally the boat would
> fare a
> > > > > lot better than many other configurations of boats, but this
> is a
> > > > > slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows of a cat
> > > underwater in
> > > > > exactly these circumstances and there was nothing I could do
> but
> > > wait
> > > > > till the bullet dissipated.
> > > > > How would a Harry act in such circumstances and what would be
> the
> > > > > best course of action other than be wary around steep cliffs?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
> <cateran1949@y...>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer. This
> strengthens
> > > my
> > > > > > confidence in the engineering.
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > G'day,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.  The
> stays
> > > do
> > > > > not
> > > > > > anchor
> > > > > > > the mast in position so it is free to bend in peculiar
> ways,
> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > forwards
> > > > > > > and to windward.  The stays give little or no support
> fore and
> > > > > aft,
> > > > > > so the
> > > > > > > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is a
> fairly
> > > > > large
> > > > > > load
> > > > > > > situation.  The stays impart a substantial down force to
> the
> > > > > mast,
> > > > > > meaning
> > > > > > > the step has to be well beefed up.  They also prevent
> full 360
> > > > > > degree
> > > > > > > rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow for
> > > lighter
> > > > > > mast, beams
> > > > > > > and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the beams and
> > > > > leeward
> > > > > > hull get
> > > > > > > designed to not break if the stays do, so little is gained
> > > here.
> > > > > A
> > > > > > big
> > > > > > > advantage of the stays is not so much the strength they
> add,
> > > but
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to leeward
> > > > > prematurely,
> > > > > > meaning a
> > > > > > > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile, but
> keeping
> > > > > the
> > > > > > stays
> > > > > > > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as added
> > > safety/.
> > > > > > For a
> > > > > > > racer, I would just use the stays.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > > > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As stated in  your background on why a weight to
> windward
> > > proa,
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the load on
> the
> > > cross
> > > > > > beams.
> > > > > > > >  With stays from near the top of the mast to the ends
> of the
> > > > > > > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all
> > > compression
> > > > > > forces
> > > > > > > > with some sheer forces and bending moments at the place
> > > where
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays there
> is a
> > > > > large
> > > > > > > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
> > > > > > > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of those
> stays
> > > > > worth
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
> > > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

---
OK Rob,
  you asked for it
Symmetrical masthead spinnaker.


Simplest system. Sheets to either end of the lw hull, giving them
enough slack and rely on enough breeze to lift it away from the rest
of the rig  during the gybe. You can even go the whole hog and fly a
kite. Does a kite point high enough for tacking down wind?

Two equal length poles set on pins on lw side of lw hull just forward
and back of the mast. One attached to the tack and the other the clew
on one tack and the tack becomes the clew on the other. Vanging them
would not be a problem. The poles could be brought round far enough
for easy attachment of the sheets.




For an asymmetric it is a bit more difficult, but unfortunately
asymmetry seems to be needed for pointing ability.
Two different length poles would be pivoted on the same pin on the lw
side of the lw hull, or set rotating about the mast. A longer pole
would be used for the tack. On a gybe the longer pole would go under
the shorter, taking the tack outside the clew, until set up at the
other bow. The shorter pole would only move minimally. It may be
worth putting a sock over the spinnaker at the position of crossover.
The difficulty is trying to vang the clew. Possibly a compression
member.
The advantage of these systems is that the extra sails are well clear
of the rest of the rig making for clearer air. I think that is better
than having an extendable boom and treating the stays as running back
stays.




In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
> G'day,
>
> > I didn't think of releasing the stays. Too much of a mind set on
rigs
> > that would fall down if you did that.
> >
> > A crash gybe would be much less likely than on a stayed marconi
rig
> > as the rig would be set at right angles to the boat when
travelling
> > down wind. The other sheet could act as a preventer if the wind
came
> > forward of the beam on the wrong side, but it would take a large
> > windshift and/or a sudden acceleration such as down a wave to
bring
> > the wind that far round.
>
> Or an inattentive helmsman!
> >
> > In racing mode, I am assuming that there would be tacking down
wind.
> > I am still getting my head around the protocol but I can imagine
an
> > assymetric with two spinnaker poles of different lengths rotating
> > about the base of the mast. Either that or start from a larger
main
> > and be unbalanced while working, remove the stays and add a genoa
to
> > an extended boom.
> >
>
> There are a few options for extras when racing.  I will be trying a
few of
> them this summer, all going well.  Any suggestions from list
members, much
> appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
> > Robert
> >
> > --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...>
wrote:
> > > G'day,
> > >
> > > What would happen?  The boom would swing round and hit the
stays,
> > the mast
> > > would bend alarmingly (but not break), the boom (allowed by the
> > slack stay)
> > > would travel round to pretty near athwartships to the hulls and
the
> > rudders
> > > would autorotate very quickly as soon as you started moving in
the
> > other
> > > direction.  The ww hull would depress a little, how much would
> > depend on
> > > stay slackness.  Hopefully you would then be able to luff up
(not
> > too far,
> > > as the ambient breeze would be the next one you see), change
your
> > underwear
> > > and put another reef in.
> > >
> > > What can be done about it?  I would consider disconnecting  the
> > stays , hand
> > > hold the sheet,  and accept more mast bend for the duration than
> > you would
> > > normally get.  If you are then hit, the mast will be free to
rotate
> > and all
> > > that will happen is the sails will get a bit of a flogging.
Maybe
> > include
> > > a snap shackle in the system if this is going to be a regular
> > occurence.
> > > Semi stayed masts do not need stay tension so rigging/unrigging
the
> > stays is
> > > not a huge deal.  Could also attach the stays to an open sided
hook
> > which
> > > would release the stay in the event of large side loadings.
TYhis
> > would
> > > also be helpful in the event of a crash jibe, although there is
> > generally
> > > not much "crash" as the jib is opposing the main.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > > To: <harryproa@...>
> > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:21 PM
> > > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Stays on Aero rigs.
> > >
> > >
> > > > A slight query as to what happens when for instance if working
> > with
> > > > the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near some steep
cliffs and
> > > > suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from the starboard
> > quarter.
> > > >  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the stays and drive
the
> > boat
> > > > hard onto the port bow. I understand that the flexibility of
the
> > mast
> > > > would take much of the drive out of the sails and the stays
would
> > be
> > > > slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally the boat would
fare a
> > > > lot better than many other configurations of boats, but this
is a
> > > > slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows of a cat
> > underwater in
> > > > exactly these circumstances and there was nothing I could do
but
> > wait
> > > > till the bullet dissipated.
> > > > How would a Harry act in such circumstances and what would be
the
> > > > best course of action other than be wary around steep cliffs?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert"
<cateran1949@y...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer. This
strengthens
> > my
> > > > > confidence in the engineering.
> > > > > Robert
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...>
wrote:
> > > > > > G'day,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.  The
stays
> > do
> > > > not
> > > > > anchor
> > > > > > the mast in position so it is free to bend in peculiar
ways,
> > > > mostly
> > > > > forwards
> > > > > > and to windward.  The stays give little or no support
fore and
> > > > aft,
> > > > > so the
> > > > > > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is a
fairly
> > > > large
> > > > > load
> > > > > > situation.  The stays impart a substantial down force to
the
> > > > mast,
> > > > > meaning
> > > > > > the step has to be well beefed up.  They also prevent
full 360
> > > > > degree
> > > > > > rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow for
> > lighter
> > > > > mast, beams
> > > > > > and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the beams and
> > > > leeward
> > > > > hull get
> > > > > > designed to not break if the stays do, so little is gained
> > here.
> > > > A
> > > > > big
> > > > > > advantage of the stays is not so much the strength they
add,
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to leeward
> > > > prematurely,
> > > > > meaning a
> > > > > > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile, but
keeping
> > > > the
> > > > > stays
> > > > > > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as added
> > safety/.
> > > > > For a
> > > > > > racer, I would just use the stays.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As stated in  your background on why a weight to
windward
> > proa,
> > > > > part
> > > > > > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the load on
the
> > cross
> > > > > beams.
> > > > > > >  With stays from near the top of the mast to the ends
of the
> > > > > > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all
> > compression
> > > > > forces
> > > > > > > with some sheer forces and bending moments at the place
> > where
> > > > the
> > > > > > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays there
is a
> > > > large
> > > > > > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
> > > > > > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of those
stays
> > > > worth
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
> > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

Hi Everyone,

Delighted to bring you the October update at the Harryproa website.
http://www.harryproa.com/

1. Pictorial Report 4 & 5 of Building the Visionarry in Australia
http://www.harryproa.com/building_Vis/building_Vis_4.htm
http://www.harryproa.com/building_Vis/building_Vis_5.htm

2. 'Blind Date' is under way again in Holland and looks very likely to be
first Visionarry in the water, we hope all continues to go well for Jan and
Rudolf.
Pictorial Report 7.
http://www.harryproa.com/BlindDate/Jan_7.htm

3. CAD renders of the Australian Visionarry
http://www.harryproa.com/building_Vis/building_Vis_renders.htm


Cheers,

     Michele

_______________________
Michele Balharry
Harryproa Pty. Ltd.
ph: +61 02 6655 2016
fax: +61 02 6655 9994
e-mail: michele@...
web site: www.harryproa.com
=====================

G'day,

> I didn't think of releasing the stays. Too much of a mind set on rigs
> that would fall down if you did that.
>
> A crash gybe would be much less likely than on a stayed marconi rig
> as the rig would be set at right angles to the boat when travelling
> down wind. The other sheet could act as a preventer if the wind came
> forward of the beam on the wrong side, but it would take a large
> windshift and/or a sudden acceleration such as down a wave to bring
> the wind that far round.

Or an inattentive helmsman!
>
> In racing mode, I am assuming that there would be tacking down wind.
> I am still getting my head around the protocol but I can imagine an
> assymetric with two spinnaker poles of different lengths rotating
> about the base of the mast. Either that or start from a larger main
> and be unbalanced while working, remove the stays and add a genoa to
> an extended boom.
>

There are a few options for extras when racing.  I will be trying a few of
them this summer, all going well.  Any suggestions from list members, much
appreciated.

Regards,

Rob
> Robert
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
> > G'day,
> >
> > What would happen?  The boom would swing round and hit the stays,
> the mast
> > would bend alarmingly (but not break), the boom (allowed by the
> slack stay)
> > would travel round to pretty near athwartships to the hulls and the
> rudders
> > would autorotate very quickly as soon as you started moving in the
> other
> > direction.  The ww hull would depress a little, how much would
> depend on
> > stay slackness.  Hopefully you would then be able to luff up (not
> too far,
> > as the ambient breeze would be the next one you see), change your
> underwear
> > and put another reef in.
> >
> > What can be done about it?  I would consider disconnecting  the
> stays , hand
> > hold the sheet,  and accept more mast bend for the duration than
> you would
> > normally get.  If you are then hit, the mast will be free to rotate
> and all
> > that will happen is the sails will get a bit of a flogging.   Maybe
> include
> > a snap shackle in the system if this is going to be a regular
> occurence.
> > Semi stayed masts do not need stay tension so rigging/unrigging the
> stays is
> > not a huge deal.  Could also attach the stays to an open sided hook
> which
> > would release the stay in the event of large side loadings.  TYhis
> would
> > also be helpful in the event of a crash jibe, although there is
> generally
> > not much "crash" as the jib is opposing the main.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > To: <harryproa@...>
> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:21 PM
> > Subject: [harryproa] Re: Stays on Aero rigs.
> >
> >
> > > A slight query as to what happens when for instance if working
> with
> > > the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near some steep cliffs and
> > > suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from the starboard
> quarter.
> > >  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the stays and drive the
> boat
> > > hard onto the port bow. I understand that the flexibility of the
> mast
> > > would take much of the drive out of the sails and the stays would
> be
> > > slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally the boat would fare a
> > > lot better than many other configurations of boats, but this is a
> > > slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows of a cat
> underwater in
> > > exactly these circumstances and there was nothing I could do but
> wait
> > > till the bullet dissipated.
> > > How would a Harry act in such circumstances and what would be the
> > > best course of action other than be wary around steep cliffs?
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > ---
> > > > Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer. This strengthens
> my
> > > > confidence in the engineering.
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
> > > > > G'day,
> > > > >
> > > > > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.  The stays
> do
> > > not
> > > > anchor
> > > > > the mast in position so it is free to bend in peculiar ways,
> > > mostly
> > > > forwards
> > > > > and to windward.  The stays give little or no support fore and
> > > aft,
> > > > so the
> > > > > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is a fairly
> > > large
> > > > load
> > > > > situation.  The stays impart a substantial down force to the
> > > mast,
> > > > meaning
> > > > > the step has to be well beefed up.  They also prevent full 360
> > > > degree
> > > > > rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow for
> lighter
> > > > mast, beams
> > > > > and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the beams and
> > > leeward
> > > > hull get
> > > > > designed to not break if the stays do, so little is gained
> here.
> > > A
> > > > big
> > > > > advantage of the stays is not so much the strength they add,
> but
> > > the
> > > > > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to leeward
> > > prematurely,
> > > > meaning a
> > > > > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
> > > > >
> > > > > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile, but keeping
> > > the
> > > > stays
> > > > > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as added
> safety/.
> > > > For a
> > > > > racer, I would just use the stays.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rob
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > > > > To: <harryproa@...>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
> > > > > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > As stated in  your background on why a weight to windward
> proa,
> > > > part
> > > > > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the load on the
> cross
> > > > beams.
> > > > > >  With stays from near the top of the mast to the ends of the
> > > > > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all
> compression
> > > > forces
> > > > > > with some sheer forces and bending moments at the place
> where
> > > the
> > > > > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays there is a
> > > large
> > > > > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
> > > > > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of those stays
> > > worth
> > > > the
> > > > > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I didn't think of releasing the stays. Too much of a mind set on rigs
that would fall down if you did that.



A crash gybe would be much less likely than on a stayed marconi rig
as the rig would be set at right angles to the boat when travelling
down wind. The other sheet could act as a preventer if the wind came
forward of the beam on the wrong side, but it would take a large
windshift and/or a sudden acceleration such as down a wave to bring
the wind that far round.

In racing mode, I am assuming that there would be tacking down wind.
I am still getting my head around the protocol but I can imagine an
assymetric with two spinnaker poles of different lengths rotating
about the base of the mast. Either that or start from a larger main
and be unbalanced while working, remove the stays and add a genoa to
an extended boom.

Robert

--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
> G'day,
>
> What would happen?  The boom would swing round and hit the stays,
the mast
> would bend alarmingly (but not break), the boom (allowed by the
slack stay)
> would travel round to pretty near athwartships to the hulls and the
rudders
> would autorotate very quickly as soon as you started moving in the
other
> direction.  The ww hull would depress a little, how much would
depend on
> stay slackness.  Hopefully you would then be able to luff up (not
too far,
> as the ambient breeze would be the next one you see), change your
underwear
> and put another reef in.
>
> What can be done about it?  I would consider disconnecting  the
stays , hand
> hold the sheet,  and accept more mast bend for the duration than
you would
> normally get.  If you are then hit, the mast will be free to rotate
and all
> that will happen is the sails will get a bit of a flogging.   Maybe
include
> a snap shackle in the system if this is going to be a regular
occurence.
> Semi stayed masts do not need stay tension so rigging/unrigging the
stays is
> not a huge deal.  Could also attach the stays to an open sided hook
which
> would release the stay in the event of large side loadings.  TYhis
would
> also be helpful in the event of a crash jibe, although there is
generally
> not much "crash" as the jib is opposing the main.
>
> regards,
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> To: <harryproa@...>
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:21 PM
> Subject: [harryproa] Re: Stays on Aero rigs.
>
>
> > A slight query as to what happens when for instance if working
with
> > the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near some steep cliffs and
> > suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from the starboard
quarter.
> >  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the stays and drive the
boat
> > hard onto the port bow. I understand that the flexibility of the
mast
> > would take much of the drive out of the sails and the stays would
be
> > slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally the boat would fare a
> > lot better than many other configurations of boats, but this is a
> > slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows of a cat
underwater in
> > exactly these circumstances and there was nothing I could do but
wait
> > till the bullet dissipated.
> > How would a Harry act in such circumstances and what would be the
> > best course of action other than be wary around steep cliffs?
> >
> >
> > --- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > ---
> > > Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer. This strengthens
my
> > > confidence in the engineering.
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
> > > > G'day,
> > > >
> > > > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.  The stays
do
> > not
> > > anchor
> > > > the mast in position so it is free to bend in peculiar ways,
> > mostly
> > > forwards
> > > > and to windward.  The stays give little or no support fore and
> > aft,
> > > so the
> > > > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is a fairly
> > large
> > > load
> > > > situation.  The stays impart a substantial down force to the
> > mast,
> > > meaning
> > > > the step has to be well beefed up.  They also prevent full 360
> > > degree
> > > > rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow for
lighter
> > > mast, beams
> > > > and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the beams and
> > leeward
> > > hull get
> > > > designed to not break if the stays do, so little is gained
here.
> > A
> > > big
> > > > advantage of the stays is not so much the strength they add,
but
> > the
> > > > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to leeward
> > prematurely,
> > > meaning a
> > > > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
> > > >
> > > > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile, but keeping
> > the
> > > stays
> > > > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as added
safety/.
> > > For a
> > > > racer, I would just use the stays.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > > > To: <harryproa@...>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
> > > > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > As stated in  your background on why a weight to windward
proa,
> > > part
> > > > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the load on the
cross
> > > beams.
> > > > >  With stays from near the top of the mast to the ends of the
> > > > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all
compression
> > > forces
> > > > > with some sheer forces and bending moments at the place
where
> > the
> > > > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays there is a
> > large
> > > > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
> > > > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of those stays
> > worth
> > > the
> > > > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
> > > > > Robert
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

G'day,

What would happen?  The boom would swing round and hit the stays, the mast
would bend alarmingly (but not break), the boom (allowed by the slack stay)
would travel round to pretty near athwartships to the hulls and the rudders
would autorotate very quickly as soon as you started moving in the other
direction.  The ww hull would depress a little, how much would depend on
stay slackness.  Hopefully you would then be able to luff up (not too far,
as the ambient breeze would be the next one you see), change your underwear
and put another reef in.

What can be done about it?  I would consider disconnecting  the stays , hand
hold the sheet,  and accept more mast bend for the duration than you would
normally get.  If you are then hit, the mast will be free to rotate and all
that will happen is the sails will get a bit of a flogging.   Maybe include
a snap shackle in the system if this is going to be a regular occurence.
Semi stayed masts do not need stay tension so rigging/unrigging the stays is
not a huge deal.  Could also attach the stays to an open sided hook which
would release the stay in the event of large side loadings.  TYhis would
also be helpful in the event of a crash jibe, although there is generally
not much "crash" as the jib is opposing the main.

regards,

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert" <cateran1949@...>
To: <harryproa@...>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:21 PM
Subject: [harryproa] Re: Stays on Aero rigs.


> A slight query as to what happens when for instance if working with
> the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near some steep cliffs and
> suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from the starboard quarter.
>  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the stays and drive the boat
> hard onto the port bow. I understand that the flexibility of the mast
> would take much of the drive out of the sails and the stays would be
> slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally the boat would fare a
> lot better than many other configurations of boats, but this is a
> slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows of a cat underwater in
> exactly these circumstances and there was nothing I could do but wait
> till the bullet dissipated.
> How would a Harry act in such circumstances and what would be the
> best course of action other than be wary around steep cliffs?
>
>
> --- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> wrote:
> > ---
> > Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer. This strengthens my
> > confidence in the engineering.
> > Robert
> >
> >
> >
> > In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
> > > G'day,
> > >
> > > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.  The stays do
> not
> > anchor
> > > the mast in position so it is free to bend in peculiar ways,
> mostly
> > forwards
> > > and to windward.  The stays give little or no support fore and
> aft,
> > so the
> > > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is a fairly
> large
> > load
> > > situation.  The stays impart a substantial down force to the
> mast,
> > meaning
> > > the step has to be well beefed up.  They also prevent full 360
> > degree
> > > rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow for lighter
> > mast, beams
> > > and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the beams and
> leeward
> > hull get
> > > designed to not break if the stays do, so little is gained here.
> A
> > big
> > > advantage of the stays is not so much the strength they add, but
> the
> > > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to leeward
> prematurely,
> > meaning a
> > > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
> > >
> > > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile, but keeping
> the
> > stays
> > > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as added safety/.
> > For a
> > > racer, I would just use the stays.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > > To: <harryproa@...>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
> > > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
> > >
> > >
> > > > As stated in  your background on why a weight to windward proa,
> > part
> > > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the load on the cross
> > beams.
> > > >  With stays from near the top of the mast to the ends of the
> > > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all compression
> > forces
> > > > with some sheer forces and bending moments at the place where
> the
> > > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays there is a
> large
> > > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
> > > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of those stays
> worth
> > the
> > > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

A slight query as to what happens when for instance if working with
the wind on the port bow at 10-25 knots near some steep cliffs and
suddenly you get hit with a 40 knot bullet from the starboard quarter.
  A semistayed rig would swing round onto the stays and drive the boat
hard onto the port bow. I understand that the flexibility of the mast
would take much of the drive out of the sails and the stays would be
slack and allow a fair rotaion, so generally the boat would fare a
lot better than many other configurations of boats, but this is a
slight phobia of mine. I nearly drove the bows of a cat underwater in
exactly these circumstances and there was nothing I could do but wait
till the bullet dissipated.
How would a Harry act in such circumstances and what would be the
best course of action other than be wary around steep cliffs?


--- In harryproa@..., "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
wrote:
> ---
> Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer. This strengthens my
> confidence in the engineering.
> Robert
>
>
>
> In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
> > G'day,
> >
> > Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.  The stays do
not
> anchor
> > the mast in position so it is free to bend in peculiar ways,
mostly
> forwards
> > and to windward.  The stays give little or no support fore and
aft,
> so the
> > defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is a fairly
large
> load
> > situation.  The stays impart a substantial down force to the
mast,
> meaning
> > the step has to be well beefed up.  They also prevent full 360
> degree
> > rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow for lighter
> mast, beams
> > and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the beams and
leeward
> hull get
> > designed to not break if the stays do, so little is gained here.
A
> big
> > advantage of the stays is not so much the strength they add, but
the
> > stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to leeward
prematurely,
> meaning a
> > smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
> >
> > For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile, but keeping
the
> stays
> > makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as added safety/.
> For a
> > racer, I would just use the stays.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> > To: <harryproa@...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
> > Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
> >
> >
> > > As stated in  your background on why a weight to windward proa,
> part
> > > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the load on the cross
> beams.
> > >  With stays from near the top of the mast to the ends of the
> > > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all compression
> forces
> > > with some sheer forces and bending moments at the place where
the
> > > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays there is a
large
> > > bending moment on the crossbeams.
> > >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of those stays
worth
> the
> > > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >

--- In harryproa@..., "Mark Stephens" <stephens@o...>
wrote:
>
>   --- In harryproa@..., "Mark Stephens"
<stephens@o...>
>   wrote:
>   > Where on earth did you dig that figure up from???
>   >
>   > Mark
>
>   Having been in the eco analysis business I can tell you exactly
where
>   most such figures come from...
>
>   Geez you guys are far too serious.
>
>
>
>
>   Not at all, just wanted to know who's getting the money. Rob and
I do this for virtually nothing :>)
>
>   Mark
>
>
>
I hear you, and your at the peak of the pyramid pay and status wise.
Anyway the research budget includes many detailed entries for stuff
other than salaries.

--- In harryproa@..., "Mark Stephens" <stephens@o...>
   wrote:
   > Where on earth did you dig that figure up from???
   >
   > Mark

   Having been in the eco analysis business I can tell you exactly where
   most such figures come from...

   Geez you guys are far too serious.




   Not at all, just wanted to know who's getting the money. Rob and I do this for
virtually nothing :>)

   Mark








   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   harryproa-unsubscribe@...



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

---
Thanks Mark and Rob for the quality of answer. This strengthens my
confidence in the engineering.
Robert



In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
> G'day,
>
> Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.  The stays do not
anchor
> the mast in position so it is free to bend in peculiar ways, mostly
forwards
> and to windward.  The stays give little or no support fore and aft,
so the
> defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is a fairly large
load
> situation.  The stays impart a substantial down force to the mast,
meaning
> the step has to be well beefed up.  They also prevent full 360
degree
> rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow for lighter
mast, beams
> and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the beams and leeward
hull get
> designed to not break if the stays do, so little is gained here. A
big
> advantage of the stays is not so much the strength they add, but the
> stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to leeward prematurely,
meaning a
> smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
>
> For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile, but keeping the
stays
> makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as added safety/.
For a
> racer, I would just use the stays.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert" <cateran1949@y...>
> To: <harryproa@...>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
> Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
>
>
> > As stated in  your background on why a weight to windward proa,
part
> > of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the load on the cross
beams.
> >  With stays from near the top of the mast to the ends of the
> > crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all compression
forces
> > with some sheer forces and bending moments at the place where the
> > crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays there is a large
> > bending moment on the crossbeams.
> >  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of those stays worth
the
> > beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
> > Robert
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > harryproa-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

--- In harryproa@..., "Rob Denney" <proa@t...> wrote:
> G'day,
>
> Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.  The stays do not
anchor
> the mast in position so it is free to bend in peculiar ways, mostly
forwards
> and to windward.  The stays give little or no support fore and aft,
so the
> defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is a fairly large
load
> situation.  The stays impart a substantial down force to the mast,
meaning
> the step has to be well beefed up.  They also prevent full 360
degree
> rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow for lighter
mast, beams
> and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the beams and leeward
hull get
> designed to not break if the stays do, so little is gained here. A
big
> advantage of the stays is not so much the strength they add, but the
> stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to leeward prematurely,
meaning a
> smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.
>
> For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile, but keeping the
stays
> makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as added safety/.
For a
> racer, I would just use the stays.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob


Ok, but you're way off the reservation here.  You are talking about
staying the spar, not staying the beams.

If in fact you could add rig stiffness sufficiant to rid yourselves
of some sail shape problems, for the cost of a wire, not one depended
on to hold everything up, just to stiffen things, why not do it?

--- In harryproa@..., "Mark Stephens" <stephens@o...>
wrote:
> We have looked at designing the beams with stays and found we could
get away with about half the unidirectional laminate used in beams
without stays. As designers who are always looking at ways of
reducing weight this is very tempting. In the end we decided that
cruising a boat that relied on the rig for it's structural integrity
was unacceptable. However we are willing to consider it in the
smaller racing models.

How many stays?


>
>
> Mark
>
>
> *************************
> Mark Stephens
> www.harryproa.com
> stephens@o...
> (int. 61) 02 66552016
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Robert
>   To: harryproa@...
>   Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 5:35 PM
>   Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.
>
>
>   As stated in  your background on why a weight to windward proa,
part
>   of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the load on the cross
beams.
>   With stays from near the top of the mast to the ends of the
>   crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all compression
forces
>   with some sheer forces and bending moments at the place where the
>   crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays there is a
large
>   bending moment on the crossbeams.
>   Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of those stays worth
the
>   beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
>   Robert
>
>
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In harryproa@..., "Mark Stephens" <stephens@o...>
wrote:
> Where on earth did you dig that figure up from???
>
> Mark

Having been in the eco analysis business I can tell you exactly where
most such figures come from...

Geez you guys are far too serious.

>
>   Just like autohelm it will come just when is the question
>   rgs
>   Tony


Well maybe, but if I were in business I would look at three things:

1) autohelm has it's parallel in self stearing rigs, and any
electroreleases has it's parallel in all the fuseable plastic cleats,
and inclinometer gyzmos. The interest in self stearing is far more
robust lot's of books, some companies at the mechanical and
electronic levels.

2) the difficulty of self-stearing was far higher in most respects
than incline stuff, you know getting GPS or Loran on line.  Thought
the execution of something that pushes around a tiller was pretty
easy.  So one wonders why the incline stuff hasn't been done.

3)  On the liability side both are nasty, but at least one isn't
responsible for configuring the nav systems or data, there is a
higher order one can just plug into.  If you pull the plug on my rig
due to your algorythm, welcome to the subsequent litigation.

>
>   Just like autohelm it will come just when is the question
>   rgs
>   Tony


Well maybe, but if I were in business I would look at three things:

1) autohelm has it's parallel in self stearing rigs, and any
electroreleases has it's parallel in all the fuseable plastic cleats,
and inclinometer gyzmos. The interest in self stearing is far more
robust lot's of books, some companies at the mechanical and
electronic levels.

2) the difficulty of self-stearing was far higher in most respects
than incline stuff, you know getting GPS or Loran on line.  Thought
the execution of something that pushes around a tiller was pretty
easy.  So one wonders why the incline stuff hasn't been done.

3)  On the liability side both are nasty, but at least one isn't
responsible for configuring the nav systems or data, there is a
higher order one can just plug into.  If you pull the plug on my rig
due to your algorythm, welcome to the subsequent litigation.

G'day,

Good question.  A semi stayed rig is not perfect.  The stays do not anchor
the mast in position so it is free to bend in peculiar ways, mostly forwards
and to windward.  The stays give little or no support fore and aft, so the
defining capsize load becomes pitchpoling, which is a fairly large load
situation.  The stays impart a substantial down force to the mast, meaning
the step has to be well beefed up.  They also prevent full 360 degree
rotation of the rig.  The stays theoretically allow for lighter mast, beams
and leeward hull.  From a safety perspective the beams and leeward hull get
designed to not break if the stays do, so little is gained here. A big
advantage of the stays is not so much the strength they add, but the
stiffness.  They stop the mast falling off to leeward prematurely, meaning a
smaller diameter (less drag) mast can be used.

For a cruising boat, the beefing up is worthwhile, but keeping the stays
makes for a stiffer, smaller dia mast, as well as added safety/.  For a
racer, I would just use the stays.

Regards,

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert" <cateran1949@...>
To: <harryproa@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:35 PM
Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.


> As stated in  your background on why a weight to windward proa, part
> of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the load on the cross beams.
>  With stays from near the top of the mast to the ends of the
> crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all compression forces
> with some sheer forces and bending moments at the place where the
> crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays there is a large
> bending moment on the crossbeams.
>  Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of those stays worth the
> beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
> Robert
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> harryproa-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

We have looked at designing the beams with stays and found we could get away
with about half the unidirectional laminate used in beams without stays. As
designers who are always looking at ways of reducing weight this is very
tempting. In the end we decided that cruising a boat that relied on the rig for
it's structural integrity was unacceptable. However we are willing to consider
it in the smaller racing models.


Mark


*************************
Mark Stephens
www.harryproa.com
stephens@...
(int. 61) 02 66552016
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Robert
   To: harryproa@...
   Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 5:35 PM
   Subject: [harryproa] Stays on Aero rigs.


   As stated in  your background on why a weight to windward proa, part
   of the value of a Harry proa is to reduce the load on the cross beams.
   With stays from near the top of the mast to the ends of the
   crossbeams, the loads on the beams are nearly all compression forces
   with some sheer forces and bending moments at the place where the
   crossbeams enter the ww hull. Without those stays there is a large
   bending moment on the crossbeams.
   Is the lack of the extra windage and weight of those stays worth the
   beefing up of the crossbeams and supports?
   Robert


   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   harryproa-unsubscribe@...



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]