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