On Vis 15m the draft on leeward hull is 10-15cm ? Thats static with sailing load on boat?

Todd

--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> What Mike said, plus the following: Attaching the beams to the schooner
> masts is a good idea, but it does not reduce the hull scantlings between the
> beams. The max load is one mast capsizing the boat. It makes little or no
> difference to the hull scantlings whether this is one mast between the beams
> or one at each beam.
>
> If we took Elementarry (7.5m/25' long, weight with one crew, 220 kgs/485
> lbs) as an example, the lee hull would be about 200mms x 200 mms/8"x8" to
> have 100% buoyancy. On Vis (15m, 3,000 kgs) it would be about 0.5m x
> 0.5m/20" x 20". These would be very light, but not very stiff, would need
> stayed masts and the wetted surface increase when they submerged would slow
> them down. They would have very little reserve buoyancy in the event of a
> nose dive.
>
> I could be wrong. Build a small one and see how it goes.
>
> rob
>

> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:24 AM, bjarthur123 <bjarthur123@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > perhaps it doesn't make sense on a harry or the two tris you mentioned,
> > where there are foils in the lee hull. but on the weta you would lose
> > control if the main hull flew because that's where the only rudder is.
> >
> > it is a big safety feature in my mind then that the <100% floats on the
> > weta make it impossible to fly the main hull. it makes it MORE forgiving,
> > not less. check out this video:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKuDEs_9sB8
> >
> > the alternative on a boat with leeward foils is that you fly the main hull
> > and risk capsizing to the side. which is more likely, that, or more drag
> > from submerging a <100% float causing a pitchpole forward? i'm not sure.
> > just thinking out loud here.
> >
> > drag from the beams can be minimized. imagine a schooner harryproa whose
> > two beams attach directly to faired stub masts. load paths wouldn't go
> > through the hull, and with a smaller volume to boot, would be lighter too,
> > no?
> >
> > ben
> >
> >
> > --- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Paul Wilson <opusnz@> wrote:
> > > So what is the alternative? Less volume and it will go deeper in the
> > > water until the beam hits the water causing more drag or it capsizes.
> > > If the leeward hull submerges easily you won't be able to drive the boat
> > > as hard and it will be unforgiving and possibly dangerous.
> >
> >
> >
>