The promenade makes it easier to walk on the ww hull (pretty rare occurence). It is a little harder to build, bit not much. The aerodynamics are not altered much, may even be improved from straight ahead. If the floor in the ww hull continued all the way to the ww side, so would the roof.
Thank you for the update. Why does the roof not begin at the very side of the ww hull - is a side "promenade" necessary? I would think that a double border would increase windage, building complexity and weight for less volume. This contrasts with the Seabbatical design.
The beam appears to be rather thin. What parameters hold the sizings of the beam in balance? Isn't a thicker hollow beam stronger for its weight while not necessarily catching more windage if shaped right?
Wouldn't the shape of the free protruding part of the roof have a disproportionate influence on windage if not shaped aerodynamically? I would think the shape of the free sides could easily prevent useless vortices (cfr truck roofs)
I realize I do not have the intuition to separate the concerns into important or negligible ones.
Thank you in advance.
Luc
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, "proaharry" <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> Latest update on the web page now, including costs so far and the new look cabin, although this is still in a state of flux.
>
> We have decided to build a couple more panels for the new cabin top before dismantling the table and starting assembly of the ww hull which should now happen next week.
>
> Comments and questions welcome.
>
> rob
>