Recommended Posts

Rob Denney post # 094 quote-------- "Jzerro is an impressive boat, sailed by an exceptional sailor, but also lacks rm (not a problem in the light air they shadowed the fleet in). " ---------unquote

 

the "light air" RM Jzerro , Pacific Bee [ex Cimba] & Kauri are all capable off ; :rolleyes: jzerro_lat38.jpg

 

I Don't see any RM problem ,(or people running around), only sheer speed , iam not talking from an armchair........ just a matter of setting up your platform properly, cheers Sven

Hi Sven, will you give us the privilege of some updates on the progress of your hot looking 50' proa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either Proa layout can perform well if properly designed and setup for the conditions.

 

The Jzerro design allows for water ballast to provide lots of RM. However, when using water ballast, it does add weight to the overall package.

 

I am not sure how much water ballast TP&W could handle in rough water without causing problems. This is a function of overall main hull length & displacement vs. actual boat weight.

 

The Harry concept does have potential to get the same or better RM without water weight.

 

For either concept, other details (rig, structural adequacy, rudders/daggers/foils probably) are more likely to hold back ultimate performance more than the basic layout.

 

There are examples of performance sailing where a large portion of the "ongoing active development" gets shared on the web. Performance Proa development does not seem to have as much detailed real info on the web. I would love to see more documentation (videos, GPS tracks, side by side cat vs. proa descriptions, polars, etc) of people getting the most they can out of their Proas. Without good on the water evidence, this type of boat will probably not be considered worth the effort by most people. I consider this a shame as there is plenty of potential worth development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P Flados

Sensible post. Thanks.

Sitting to lee pumping or carrying ballast to windward on a lightweight boat does not make sense to me, and I expect the TP&W guys will agree.

Providing an opportunity for people to race a proa without paying arms and legs for it is why I designed and am building Bucket List.

On both types the details are pretty well sorted out. The difference is that one is lighter, cheaper, faster, safer, able to be shipped 4 boats to a container, assembled in a couple of hours and can be chartered for $500 per day and raced, inshore or offshore as hard as you like, knowing I will pay for anything that breaks, apart from collision damage.

 

Azurspeed,
Looking at the waves, the jib and the raised daggerboard, Jzerro is broad reaching, so rm is not an issue. According to one of the guys on board, they later sailed upwind with 2 x 225 lb guys perched on the ww hull and near full ballast tanks (another 500 odd lbs, 430 kgs total), and were still overpowered enough in 22-25 knots true breeze under jib and main to bury the pod and had to rapidly round up and ease sheets.
Is your "running around" comment about shunting? Dropping the jib, unhanking it, taking it to the other end, hanking it back on, hoisting it and sheeting it on would be a slow, arduous and dangerous task on this boat in these conditions.

Look forward to the progress report on your 50'ter.


r.finn,
Pretty sure I answered all your posts except the personal stuff, which I ignore. Anything boat related I missed, let me know and i will answer it.
Do i think SA readers are stupid? No. The opposite. Consequently they will see your refusal to answer simple yes/no questions for the cop out it is. Why bother posting if you aren't prepared to talk about boats?

Sorry about the link. Not sure what the problem is. Go to www.harryproa.com click on Designs, then on Elementarry (bottom right), or just google Elementarry harryproa. No videos, but there are some stills of a couple of them sailing.
Doug Haines was the owner, builder and part designer of Sidecar, the Elementarry cruiser who sailed solo up and down the WA coast. He wrote a fair bit over the years and posted some pics (Photo section) in the harryproa chat group as Doha. https://au.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/harryproa/conversations/messages There is an interesting discussion going on at the moment about the pedal drives in the R2AK. The guy who designed them is the sailing master on a 60' harry.

 

Groucho Marx is not a harryproa "insider". He is an author and long time journalist of high standing in New Zealand. His book, The Light Brigade, is a great read. Particularly chapter 45 starting on p. 154. http://www.coolmobility.com.au/Yacht/LightBrigade.pdfhttp://www.coolmobility.com.au/Yacht/LightBrigade.pdf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rob Denney post # 094 quote-------- "Jzerro is an impressive boat, sailed by an exceptional sailor, but also lacks rm (not a problem in the light air they shadowed the fleet in). " ---------unquote

the "light air" RM Jzerro , Pacific Bee [ex Cimba] & Kauri are all capable off ; :rolleyes: jzerro_lat38.jpg

I Don't see any RM problem ,(or people running around), only sheer speed , iam not talking from an armchair........ just a matter of setting up your platform properly, cheers Sven

Hi Sven, will you give us the privilege of some updates on the progress of your hot looking 50' proa?

Sure no problem , if asked on the dedicated proaforum site, i don't want to mess up the bucket list specifics..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob , I realy find your bucket list interesting , Although I might somewhat missed the reasoning behind the sailing setup, or more precisely the Rm curve. at least it approaches the pacific proa concept a bit more .

 

Did you concept the ama to fly or is the ama planned to constantly sail in displacement mode.?

 

It would be nice if you could supply some Rm figures , so I could understand the setup.

 

I might have missed that part, but when are you going to launch it and put it into a race ?

Your animated presentation is nicely carried out, I must say.

 

Is there a place on the www to see the building progress ?

 

Thanks , cheers Sven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasoning is to provide a simple, light, near idiot proof, low cost boat for people to charter and race anywhere in the world.

It is as far from/as close to the Pacific proa as the rest of the harryproas. Crew and accommodation in the windward hull, unstayed rig, out of hull rudders, no daggerboards, etc

It doesn't have an ama as it is not a Polynesian craft and I try not to confuse people with jargon. It has a windward hull. If it proves faster when racing, it will be flown. When not racing, it can fly or stay in the water. Experience has shown that it makes very little difference whether it is flying or not (as shown by helm balance and speed change), as long as the hull is not overloaded when it is floating.

RM is variable. The crew, plus everything except the rig and the rudders is in or near the windward hull, except in light air, when it is on or near the leeward one. About 3,500 kgm to 750 kgm depending on a number of variables. This should allow it to fly a hull (exciting, even if there is not much speed difference) from less than 10 knots of breeze, yet, with the bendy mast, not be overpowered until 25 knots. We will see. If it ends up with a kite rig the rm will be reduced to below the lower number. Lost control of the big kite yesterday, elementarry was very airborne for 20m or so before it touched down. Exciting stuff.

Launching will be when it is ready. Racing when it is debugged.

Build photos, progress reports and excuses for the delays are on www.harryproa.com >Building Blogs>Bucket List. Discussion on the Yahoo harryproa chat group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna be involved in this as I'm on my way to the Queen Charlotte islands (no internet) and also because any forum Rob is on is toxic and made-up logic and facts.

Just for the record though, the R2AK leg to Victoria was a steady 18 to 22 knots of wind and Jzerro had about 25 gallons of ballast, full upwind sail, and was rock-solid stable. We were pointing as high as possible and were out-pointing and out-footing everyone, which was easy to see sailing through the fleet from the rear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I didn't realize that this was a fairly civil thread so far and I forgot that it was a thread about Bucket List. This begs the question though, if it's a thread about Bucket List, why is my boat involved in the conversation? Whenever my boat is used as an example by Rob, it is not only painted in a negative light, but most of what Rob says about my boat is not true, so I get a bit defensive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your lashing out defensively reveals your insecurity, r finn. Actually I'm amazed you are so uninformed about (harry)proa recent history in Australia. Perhaps you live a sheltered life of self delusion? If you're so confident your accommodation in the cantilevered area to-leeward hull (tip truck because of reduced righting moment) is superior, why did your team in real life retire so prematurely, physically exhausted in the R2AK? Look at all the differing craft that continued on. In the photograph of Jzerro broad reaching in fresh conditions with crew sitting in armchairs, I'd like to see another image of the crew if the proa had to harden up onto a beat. And talk of righting moments on that point of sail (broad reach) is just silly.

 

Gary, Your defense of Rob Denny is a good example of Rob's power with words. Rob doesn't have a single design that has been proven to do what he says they will do, yet you not only defend him, but you wrote a very biased (and obviously Rob influenced) chapter in your book "light Brigade". If the real facts were considered, your piece is not something to be proud of. Is that the only part of the book that's so biased? if so, why? More importantly, why do you defend Rob Denny?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the OP I appreciate everyone's effort to keep this thread as civil as possible. The original topic was the Bucket List. The original issue was the self righting mechanism. The R2AK understandably crossed this thread but I would propose to leave out the issues that have already been debated at length in previous threads on various forums and have remained without resolution, despite. The participation of the Bieker proa in the R2AK merits the attention and discussion in its own thread. Thank you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russ, you can interpret my attitude/bias however you like but at base, the Harryproa/Bucket List concept, accommodation/weight to windward/long main hull to leeward) is superior in gaining top performance to accommodation to leeward in long main hull and forced to carry heavy water ballast in windward float, simple as that.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasoning is to provide a simple, light, near idiot proof, low cost boat for people to charter and race anywhere in the world.

It is as far from/as close to the Pacific proa as the rest of the harryproas. Crew and accommodation in the windward hull, unstayed rig, out of hull rudders, no daggerboards, etc

It doesn't have an ama as it is not a Polynesian craft and I try not to confuse people with jargon. It has a windward hull. If it proves faster when racing, it will be flown. When not racing, it can fly or stay in the water. Experience has shown that it makes very little difference whether it is flying or not (as shown by helm balance and speed change), as long as the hull is not overloaded when it is floating.

RM is variable. The crew, plus everything except the rig and the rudders is in or near the windward hull, except in light air, when it is on or near the leeward one. About 3,500 kgm to 750 kgm depending on a number of variables. This should allow it to fly a hull (exciting, even if there is not much speed difference) from less than 10 knots of breeze, yet, with the bendy mast, not be overpowered until 25 knots. We will see. If it ends up with a kite rig the rm will be reduced to below the lower number. Lost control of the big kite yesterday, elementarry was very airborne for 20m or so before it touched down. Exciting stuff.

Launching will be when it is ready. Racing when it is debugged.

Build photos, progress reports and excuses for the delays are on www.harryproa.com >Building Blogs>Bucket List. Discussion on the Yahoo harryproa chat group.

I checked out a few of the kite vids, interesting stuff, bit hard to follow just what's going on as the tramp & view area is small, very dynamic & damp but like trying to follow AFL on close up. Would be great to see a vid taken from a chase boat although I understand the extra resources needed on the day.

The flight must have been adrenalin inducing.... May be you need some ballast too;)

Anther interesting thing was the hydrovane water-plano item, good to see experiments.

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the irony !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I checked out a few of the kite vids, interesting stuff, bit hard to follow just what's going on as the tramp & view area is small, very dynamic & damp but like trying to follow AFL on close up. Would be great to see a vid taken from a chase boat although I understand the extra resources needed on the day.

The flight must have been adrenalin inducing.... May be you need some ballast too;)

Anther interesting thing was the hydrovane water-plano item, good to see experiments.

J

School holidays just started, so a camera boat operator is available, although judging by past efforts, it won't help much. Gotta get a drone! Stable kite boating is pretty ordinary (albeit a bit rare in the early part of the development process). Foiling under kite is a weird feeling until you realise that you can't fly any higher. All the kite loads are on the long hull, so the little one flies as high as it can, but no further. Once we get the line lengths adjustable under load, we will both be on the little hull and foiling. The vertical part of the kite lift will then lift the long hull, so overall drag will be minimal.

The camera man is steering by moving the attachment point of the kite fore and aft. Remarkably easy and controllable, although not as quick as a rudder. We now carry a sweep oar for rapid course changes. Although things tend to happen pretty quickly, so by the time it is deployed, the kite is often in the water.

Just got back from testing double length (50m) lines. Much easier to control, nothing broke for the first time (no shockloads) and we hit windspeed with a 16 sq m kite. This is the laid flat area, about 60% of which propels the boat. El with it's original rig had 22 sq m of sail, the same as a Tornado. We are waiting for a 25 sq m kite. The guy who owns it is currently kite buggying across Mongolia, back in a couple of weeks.

The hydrovane was a lot of fun. It had some weird responses, like carrying on when the boat shunts and leaping out of the water. I was going to change the section shape to something that wan't so blunt, but figured that the main reason it worked at all was because of the high drag, so the experiment ended.

 

Any specific questions, let me know.

 

Luc,

you started the trhread, so you can (try to ;-)) make the rules. But as far as I am concerned, discussing proas and other interesting boat related things is a good way to fill in time while there is nothing much happening on Bucket List. As long as it is done in a civil fashion.

 

Russ,

Jzerro was introduced on this thread by r.finn (14th June), the photo was posted by Azurspeed (17th June), both long time defenders of the Brown proa. I responded to their comments. Now, you have introduced Jzerro's performance on the R2AK first leg, so I will respond to that, beyond my original "impressive boat, sailed by an exceptional sailor".

 

First, I was wrong about the wind. I thought I read that it was light, but obviously not. Sorry. I tried to edit my post, but couldn't.

 

The first boat to finish was Golden Oldies (Crowther 38 cat). To quote Richard Woods (crew), "We were not at all ready for the race. I had not sailed the boat before grabbing the tiller as we left for the start, even the owner had only sailed it once." Richard is good, but i have done a lot of miles on a sistership (XL2) and there is no way you could just step on board an unprepared version and be anywhere near fast. So equalling them may not be indicative of good performance.

2nd to finish was the ARC22 which is a fast cat, but maybe not when laden down with all the gear for a 750 mile race and only their second sail in this configuration. They "made a bit of a strategic error and had to tack back up to reach the harbor, allowing the 38' Crowther to sneak in before us"

3rd was Elsie Piddock, the eventual winner; a 26' tri, also loaded with all the gear and 3 crew who had only had 2 days practice on the boat, so also may not be much of a benchmark for a 38'ter sailing 2 up, even if one was ill.

 

More relevant than this are the comments posted on proa file by one of the guys in Azurspeed's photo: sailed upwind with 2 x 225 lb guys perched on the ww hull and near full ballast tanks (another 500 odd lbs, 430 kgs total), and were still overpowered enough in 22-25 knots true breeze under jib and main to bury the pod and had to rapidly round up and ease sheets.

There are also photos of Jzerro under full sail flying a hull with someone standing on the flying ww hull in much less than 20 knots.

vs

the R2AK leg to Victoria was a steady 18 to 22 knots of wind and Jzerro had about 25 gallons (100 kgs) of ballast, full upwind sail (full main and genoa?), and was rock-solid stable.

Any explanation of the extra 330 kgs on the ww hull not being enough to keep it on it's feet in 3 more knots of breeze?

 

If Groucho needed more proof to support what he wrote in his book, your post would provide it. Instead of complaining, set the record straight. Do you stand by what you said, or not? And if not, what have you changed in the boats to make them safe and suitable for offshore?

 

They are all "civil threads" until you and/or your fan club get involved and turn them into spiteful rants against anyone who prefers a harry set up to a Brown one. It has been like this for 15 years now, although it ground to a halt a year or so ago. Then you discovered forums and got it going again.

 

I'm not sure how "impressive boat, sailed by an exceptional sailor" is negative, but i will remove it if it offends you. Everything else i write about your boats is quotes from you or other people. Shooting the messenger is not the answer. Nor is flinging mud ("doesn't have a single design that has been proven to do what he says they will do") in the hope that some sticks.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell,

 

Thanks for believable facts on the recent performance. Water ballast plus crew RM has plenty of speed potential. I do not think any boat similar to yours has been seriously designed and optimized for distance racing. I would consider more beam to get more RM from a single exposed crew + water ballast. This combined with serious reefing provisions could limit structural loads. It would need crew discipline (to understand the limits on how much total RM generating weight is allowed). There is no reason at all that your approach should not be hard to beat going up against comparable cats & tris.

 

Rob,

 

Thanks for not poking too hard. Until we start seeing good performing Harrys out there in comparable settings, I really like having Jzerro or another proa show up "traditional boats". All such examples are good press for all proa fans.

 

Everyone else,

 

Less bickering & more civil discussion is also good for all proa fans. Most know what I will call the "key talking points" for both sides. The less these are repeated and/or emphasized, the less opportunity for backlash. Why cant we just brag on innovation and/or good on the water performance without jabs.

 

I am a real proa fan. I made one attempt, and then gave up on the proa and did a small tri test platform build. I need to decide on my next "small test platform" sailboat. As I would like to figure out a cheap Joe average buildable single handed foiling boat, I am leaning toward a sliding beam tri, However, I also keep circling back given that I know a proa would be better if I could make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A foiling proa hmmm bi directional lifting foils ?

 

I think it should be called Phillip Proa. Although if it's Bi maybe it should be Phillipa ! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until we start seeing good performing Harrys out there in comparable settings, I really like ...

It is not because there have not been occasions to have comparable settings that HP's have not performed well. Enough have been built and sailed. The BL is simple enough to understand that one does not go out on a limb claiming that it will sail very well. The proof of the pudding is in the eating but when I see a picture of a ball I know it will roll down the hill. With other more contorted designs it may not be that straightforward to predict performance. The BL is designed for bare basic charter racing sophisticated only in its lack of esoterics and complication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ No jab at BL at all. A well sorted BL should be very impressive. The focus of that sentence was more of a brag on the Russell side.

 

^^ There are lots of potential choices for foil arrangement. I really do not think that any "just two foils" solution would work well for proa full foiling. Three total with 2 in the water sounds faster. Four total foils with three in the water would probably be the least effort way to assure reasonable function on the first try. The problem (for now) is cost. Just consider the amount of expensive technology (design, prototype testing & construction) that has been required for any of the better foiling cats we have seen. Choosing a foiling concept that could transfer from a tri to a proa and then starting with the tri is probably not a bad choice. However, this just seems like a long path to get to the desired destination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I would like to figure out a cheap Joe average buildable single handed foiling boat, I am leaning toward a sliding beam tri, However, I also keep circling back given that I know a proa would be better if I could make it work.

Based on the foils we are using for the kite boat, the cheapest, Joe Average buildable foiler will be a proa with an inclined ogive foil under each beam, close to the lee hull.

Needs a strut from beam to foil (can make this adjustable if you want to lift them while afloat and/or play with angles) and an attachment that will shear in a collision, but these are easy enough. Certainly much easier than with T or L foils.

Put on enough sail area to fly the windward hull9won't take much as the rm is much lower when foiling), or add another foil there.

Ogives as they are cheap (mine are 2m long, 310mm wide and cost a couple of hundred bucks each, weigh just under 10 kgs), easy to build (vac pump and flat surface, no moulds or shaping, apart from the bottom, which is bog, machine sanded to round) and work in both directions.

Inclined because they self regulate their height so no adjustment or wands required, plus the more you heel, the more rm they provide. Won't be as fast (or as difficult to manage) as a dedicated one way foiler with controllable foils, but you will fly, upwind and down and at quite low speeds, with high top speeds. The kite boat foil lifts about 150 kgs at about 10 knots. Repair the dings, give it a decent paint job and a polish and it would probably fly at 6 knots.

You will still need a rudder, but 2 (quite small as they don't have to resist leeway) beam mounted rudders in cases and lift the front one each shunt is easy enough.

Thinking about it, you would probably get a faster boat is you put the foils on the beams at the little hull end and sailed it as an Atlantic. Depending on pitch stability, might even work with 2 short hulls.

 

Could do the same with a tri or cat, but need 4 foils, the boat will be heavier, so the foils have to work harder and it will probably be impossible to tack.

 

RR,

Been a long day making the foil kick-up-able and rerigging the kite for solo sailing the laser, so maybe I am a bit slower than usual. Why Phillip?

 

Luc,

Great analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phillip the Foiler, just sounds good, why Harry ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any progress on the bucket boat?

Not on the boat.

 

Etamax (the builder) has got some interesting jobs, (high modulus wing mast for a very hot racing cat, helicopter borne fire fighting buckets and some confidential stuff) so BL is still on the back burner. Not too big a problem as the kite project has been moving along to the point that I am pretty sure that the first sail on BL will be under kite.

Solo launching and retrieving, variable length lines and most of the safety issues are sorted, we are almost ready for our first extended trip. We now have a 30 sqm kite, which will be a challenge to handle on the 7.5m test boat (more because of the bridles than the size, although the size problems are not trivial) and some shmick new kite designs which look like solving the remaining problems.

If the extended trip (70 miles Gold Coast to Brisbane and back via the inside route, which is a winding channel through a mudflat) is successful, I will go to Adelaide and finish the lee hull, then bring it up and fit it out for the kite. ie, short beams, inclined foil under the long hull, no mast and small (or no) rudders. Then think about some serious offshore trips and racing.

If not, i will start saving for the sails etc.

 

Red,

I was delivering a Turissimo cat from Sydney to Gladstone, my wife joined us for a day, and as usual on a boat, was feeling seasick/drowsy. I said I thought I could build a boat which would solve the problem, she said yes, as long as you call it harry. No idea why, either then or now. I got home, built a 40'ter in pieces in the garage and assembled it on a mud flat in front of a mate's house.

I originally called them weight to weather pacific proas, but the traditionalists gave me a hard time, so I called the type harryproas.

Daft name for marketing, but there have been some amusing derivatives: Solitarry (single hander), Visionarry (taking blind people sailing), harrigami (folding), etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So another underfunded, back of the boatyard tease then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speng, I think the issue is critical mass - there is none :(

 

Rob, you bought in help to get the aesthetics right (and rightly so) but I think what you need is focus, so get a personal trainer with a big stick, identify your best commercial option, I would say Bucket List and get it happening. I know you have to earn a living but fucking about with kites while Bucket List stagnates is not a good look.

I think you have an enormous amount of goodwill in the sailing world waiting for the breakthrough, if it doesn't happen soon it will just evaporate making the job of establishing the viability of Harrys 10X harder.

Now good luck and get on with it.

RR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So another underfunded, back of the boatyard tease then?

At the moment, but the underfunded backyarders with vision are the people I design for, so this is not a bad thing.

 

That Bucket List is a fast, cheap, easily built and assembled boat is a no brainer to most knowledgeable people. The novel part of the exercise was to make it charterable for racing, which we did. However, almost nobody appears to be interested in doing this.

I can spend time and money stirring up enough interest to make it happem, or I can spend it on things that are more interesting to me, such as foiling kite boats.

If you want to help turn it into a well funded, front of the boatyard working business, please forward your business plan.

 

Red,

Your observations caused me to re read the thread and you are right about the goodwill (apart from the usual suspects). The mast and full length beams are still on order, and the boat will get them and be sailing eventually, just not sure when.

There is no rush from a marketing point of view, there is still nothing else remotely similar, or offering comparative performance at such low cost.

Your advice is excellent, but unfortunately, your conclusion is wrong. The money is not in Bucket List unless 4 of them are built and a business set up to organise them to travel to regattas around the world for charter. There is not a lot of money in unusual boats, but what there is, is in cruisers.

I am not really in it to make money. More interested in making building and sailing easier and cheaper, which kites certainly have the potential for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im ok with being wrong, I thought I was wrong once before but I was mistaken. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, ' almost nobody appears to be interested in doing this? ' I thought there was a lot of interest in your concept when you first posted it but I'm pretty sure nobody will commit to chartering until they see the finished product up and sailing. Please get the standard boat finished asap and then do your experimenting with the kites, many of us are eager to see bucket list sailing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, ' almost nobody appears to be interested in doing this? ' I thought there was a lot of interest in your concept when you first posted it but I'm pretty sure nobody will commit to chartering until they see the finished product up and sailing. Please get the standard boat finished asap and then do your experimenting with the kites, many of us are eager to see bucket list sailing!

It looks like a great concept, heaps of fun, great value, but until it exists and has proven performance it is no different from every other bit of vapourware on the net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is Rob, if Bucket List proves out as advertised, it carries through to the whole portfolio, the build concept/costing base is the same. The cruisers may then sell themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would certainly not be very interested if there was no boat especially since it's so unusual. A proa hasn't done a high profile race in yonks. I'd want to see one built and officially run in a race (i.e. pass OSR safety checks etc), get a rating blah blah blah. I do understand that there probably isn't too much *real* interest for a middling size distance racing proa but you're not likely to stimulate serious interest w/o a boat, great marketing or excellent contacts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense - people will be more interested when there's a real boat. Nice to see the encouragement, though I can also understand why Rob would be excited about the kites too. (though really all the interesting problems seem about to be solved - see the great YA novel "Ship Breaker").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

The windward hull is built and painted. Weighs 80 kgs on my bathroom scales. It's a bit rough as I am not allowed to make dust, but from 3m/10' or so it looks fine. The 2 halves of the lee hull are out of the mould, have the bulkheads fitted and weigh 80 kgs each. Maybe another 20 for mast and boom sleeves, foam bows, the centreline join, paint and antifoul. The beams are scheduled to weigh 25 kgs each and as they are filament wound, this will be accurate. Ditto the mast at 60kgs. I have just picked up the rudder moulds ($Aus400) and will build them next week. Based on the laminate and previous jobs, they will weigh about 15 kgs each. The rudder mountings on the beams have been through a few iterations, but are now simple and should weigh about 10 kgs each. Windsurfer masts for tiller extensions add another 10. Tramp, sail, battens, boom, winch, running rigging another 60. So, ~500 kgs.
Figured out how to make spade rudders lift, so have reverted to these. They will turn through 360 degrees and kick up in either direction.
The mast is now fixed instead of rotating (saves the cost of the bearings, the time to align them and means a slightly lighter mast) and the sail is tied to the mast rather than a track and slides. This works well on my model, will be interesting to see how it works full size. The weight saving is large, and it is all up the mast so worth a possible small drop in performance. It also allows the halyard lock to be failsafe without relying on strings to release it, which is a bonus.
I built a wishbone boom (17 kgs), but then figured out a way for a conventional boom to work, which saves about 12 kgs, so will give this a try.
Kite progress has continued. We can reliably launch kites from the boat and have got a more robust solution than the standard leading edge inflatable kites that will also fly in lighter breezes. Kite gear won't be fitted to the boat until the sailing version is working and racing, for the reasons suggested earlier in this thread.
Bucket List now has a cockpit. Adds ~15 kgs, but it is in the right place and will make it more comfortable, so worth a try. It can be easily removed if required and it can be stored in the hull, so we can still get 4 boats in a container. See http://harryproa.com/?page_id=1173 for a picture.

Been a busy year for Etamax but they have finally got far enough ahead to put someone onto the mast and beams, which should be ready in a couple of weeks. Then I will go down and put the lee hull together, put it on a truck and bring it up to the Gold Coast. All going well, it will be sailing soon after.
Be nice to find someone with a 40' truck doing an empty or partly empty run from Adelaide to the Gold Coast. Anyone with any suggestions, please let me know. harryproa@gmail.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be very interesting to see how this goes. It sure looks like a windward proa though. I thought you didn't like those...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Windward proa with crew/accommodation to windward.

But traditional windward/flying proa has accommodation in leeward hull.

So there is a difference ... but only for the pedantic and trouble makers like me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russ, you can interpret my attitude/bias however you like but at base, the Harryproa/Bucket List concept, accommodation/weight to windward/long main hull to leeward) is superior in gaining top performance to accommodation to leeward in long main hull and forced to carry heavy water ballast in windward float, simple as that.

 

While your theory is obvious to everyone, there is no evidence at all to support this assertion. Just the opposite, in fact. Which makes you just another knucklehead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be very interesting to see how this goes. It sure looks like a windward proa though. I thought you didn't like those...

 

No reason to think it will be any more interesting than all the other predictions and claims he has made over the last seventeen years, NONE of which panned out. Endless bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I was being serious. I am looking forward to seeing how it goes. It does seem to me to be to a windward proa, regardless of where the crew sits. My experience on the Newick proa called PROa back in the mid 70's cured me of ever wanting to sit on the outrigger hull, but I think the development of Bucket list will be interesting to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS Russell, you and your sycophants continually accuse Rob of poisoning threads and yet here you are doing your best to piss all over this one.

 

My interest in proa design is simply this, on a mono everyone sits on the windward rail, on beach cats you hike from the windward hull, a trimaran always has it's accomodation to windward, on the smaller traditional pacific proas that are more or less off the beach boats crew weight is a massive percentage of rm and so works like a beach cat. Yet on your scaled up western cruising version one can see clearly the failings, weight to leeward makes little sense.

The Harryproas are accommodation to weather which is actually more traditional to western yachting practices, add to this your boats incredibly slow shunting due to the old school rig and the caught aback issues with the stays and its clear why the Harry's have potential.

 

In all the poisonous threads where you and Rob and others have attacked each other what I see is Rob trying to question the old and bring in new ideas whereas you guys just stonewall and refuse to discuss your boats shortcomings.

Personally I think there is room for both depending on the boats SOR and potential for all sorts of hybrids. I don't see many new developments in your camp lately but over at Harry there is stayless masts, balestron rigs, Tom Speer's ogive profile bi-directional boards, folding platforms etc. Sure a lot of it is hypothetical, so what ?

You are obviously a skilled designer, builder and sailor but your "if it's not mine shit on it" attitude is pathetic.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While your theory is obvious to everyone, there is no evidence at all to support this assertion. Just the opposite, in fact. Which makes you just another knucklehead.

Proa Sailor, calm the f..k down. no-one is brandishing secateurs at your private parts - although your uncontrolled and panicky reaction makes it appear so. Russ is open minded about the Harryproa 40 ... maybe you could take on a dose of that balanced viewpoint too?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Rob,

the new Harrys with the 60 and 40F look great, hats off to Steinar Alvestad.

cant wait to see what they are capable of.

if it all turns out the way you think it would be a great choice for pragmatic sailors.

 

do you want to share price indication for your boats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Rob,

the new Harrys with the 60 and 40F look great, hats off to Steinar Alvestad.

cant wait to see what they are capable of.

if it all turns out the way you think it would be a great choice for pragmatic sailors.

 

do you want to share price indication for your boats?

 

Glad you like the boats. You aren't kidding about Steinar. Not just a great eye for style, but also a perfectionist, which makes for easy to follow plans. Plus he knows more about computers and web pages than most. He is currently printing a 3D model of the 40F (looks very cool and helps with layout decisions) and making more construction movies to explain Intelligent Infusion http://harryproa.com/?page_id=1327. His own boat http://harryproa.com/?p=726 will be a weapon. He should be assembling it next year, sailing soon after, which is impressive for a 20m/66' solo build by a first time builder on a little island north of the Arctic Circle.

It is impossible to give accurate pricing as there are so many variables. The following is as good as I can do at the moment.

The first C60 http://harryproa.com/?page_id=1177 is being built by Ballotta in Peru. They have decided there is a market for them, so have built hull moulds. This added a lot to the time, but should make future boats cheaper. The owner is in no rush, and the builders have a big schedule, so are building when time permits. Composite materials cost about $60,000. 90% of it (ie, all of it except the moulds) is built using Intelligent Infusion. Based on the 4,000 hours it took us to build and finish the 50' strip planked Visionarry and the hulls and tests we have built developing Intelligent Infusion, I am pretty confident the C60 could be built in about half this and the required skill level, mess and exposure to toxic materials will be much lower. By "build", I mean all the composite components (except the rig) made, installed and painted. Ballotta are also building the rig and the tender. They will provide a fixed price for future boats when the first one is finished.

The 40F http://harryproa.com/?page_id=1568 is a bit more complicated (folding beams, tricky furniture, lifting roof, indent in the lee hull), so harder to cost the labour, but it should be less than the big boat. The composite materials were costed here at $Aus27,000/$US20,000. The builder of the first one is in the US. He will probably post prices and progress reports on the harryproa chat group https://au.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/harryproa/info?yguid=312404726 and eventually on a build blog. He is also a first time builder, and is building the tender first, which will provide enough practice to make him an expert. He also intends to build his rig.

.....................................

Paul and Rob,

Thanks for the contacts. Looks like freight from Adelaide is sorted at a reasonable price.

.....................................

redreuben,

Could not have put it better myself. Thanks.

....................................

Gazza,

Still thinking of rewriting the proa chapter to show how fair and reasonable they are?

PS makes all the brown nosing a waste of effort ;-)

...................................

Visited Sanctuary Cove show today to catch up on the gossip and talk to cloth manufacturers and sail makers for Bucket List. The Contender cloth guys got the idea pretty quickly and have some cloth which is ideal, albeit a little heavier than we would use if we were confident there would be no recuts. Some of the sail makers were a little harder to convince.

Apparently, the cream of the Aus inshore fleet for the last few years and a couple of top kiwi boats are for sale for $Aus100k or less, and no one is interested. With the $AUS at $US0.72, this is a bargain for any go fast US sailors. Not sure if this is a good omen for Bucket List or not.

Looks like the AC series on the Gold Coast is a goer in a couple of years. Sailing off the SYC marina, which gives "stadium sailing" a whole new meaning.

The Gold Coast multi fleet is starting to look interesting. An Extreme 40, couple of F22R's, one of which is turbo'ed, couple of hotted up Raiders, extended Esssential 8 tri with C foils, the pink Grainger cat which used to be in WA (Rapid Ride?) and Bucket List. Fun times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is possible to sail as an Atlantic proa, but it is neither fast, nor particularly safe.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=177716&page=3#entry5600606

 

 

Harryproas perform the same on port and starboard, the only difference is how they change (shunting instead of gybing or tacking and no need to swap the water ballast).

A 3 ton pod of water hanging 17m off the windward hull of your cat would be a slow pain to tack or gybe and a disaster if this happened accidentally. A 1m diameter pod would be >4m long and weigh ~50 kgs. You will not reliably support this with a simple deck spreader and a couple of strings. Nor will you easily unship it, carry across the boat and reset it in conditions which justify it's use.

The beam weight is a small part of the total weight on a proa and all of it is contributing to rm. If the boat was going to regularly exceed 30 knots, it would pay to put flaps on it (a single beam is all that is required) for +/- aero lift. Much better than lugging around 3.5 tonnes of hull, water and rigging 17m off the side of the boat.

Suggest you build a model and try it on a pond to see the complexities you are facing.

You are correct about the uselessness of rigging attaching the beam to the mast.

Sorry for the thread drift.

When wind changes direction unexpectedly causing it to tack or gybe, a harryproa (not atlantic one) lose performance is what I wrote, and in the first quote above taken from this thread, that's what you also wrote.

"A 3 ton pod of water hanging 17m off the windward hull of your cat would be a slow pain to tack or gybe and a disaster if this happened accidentally."

That's possibly so in case it is sailed normally, without expecting unintentional tack or gybes. But when expecting those, having both ballast tanks filled partially or fully does prevent any disasters just fine. Unstayed wings can handle any wind direction changes just by letting them rotate to feather them, that is only partially so for stayed ones, but for fast boat with apparent plenty forward it should be almost as simple. Slow pain to tack or gybe is propably an understatement, therefore only offshore usage, not round the buoys.

"You will not reliably support this with a simple deck spreader and a couple of strings."

Yes, more than a couple is needed to account for all 6 degrees of freedom.

One string coming from the mast split into 4 for example 4 meters above the tank, connected to 2 fore and 2 aft of the center of gravity, and 2 port and 2 starboard side of the same tank. The deckspreader connected to the tank 4 meters lower from the split point, and such a way it is not capable of receiving any other loads than compression and in theory tension. (ball connection on both ends of the spreader preventing any torque or bending loads).

Those take care of rolling, pitching and heave motions for the tank. (but might need some damping + spring for the string connections, needs testing before any implementation other than flat water usage)

Support the outer end of the spreader with 2 strings to the cat side, forwards and aft at 45 degrees angle. => takes care of rotation about vertical axis (yawing?) and surging motion as long as the spreader is stiff and strong enough to handle the compression as required.

The lateral linear motion is taken care of by the spreader alone.

That's all 6 degrees of freedom covered, if you think not please inform which one is not.

" Nor will you easily unship it, carry across the boat and reset it in conditions which justify it's use. "

Please explain what that means. I'm not a native english speaker.

That idea (not even concept yet or a design!) of mine does involve 2 pieces of 17 m long spreaders and 2 tanks at their outer ends. There is no crossing the boat involved. If tank + spreader + strings total weight is < 250 kg there is no need not to use 2 of them for a 10 000 + kg boat with > 140 tonne*metre RM.

Filling the tanks can be done by pumps, but it's simpler to just open some valve at bottom for water and top for air passage, and give some slack for the string from the mast. A scoop shape below could help too. Less than a minute at most to fill 3000 litres with any speed. Then tighter the sting again. Unfilling by opening the valves while tank is in the air. Both ones are allways in use, empty or filled and in varying positions by string adjustment.

What size harryproa is needed for 160 tonne metres of RM to match IdecSport ?

Length, beam & weight ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But a key issue with proa is also the rudders an daggerboard, having to work both ways or lifted (lifted for rudders clearly)

 

Sure is. Harryproas use oversize rudders (no daggers required) mounted on the side of the long hull or on the beams so there are no holes in the hull below the waterline and the boards can kick up in both directions. The beam mounted rudders rotate through 360 degrees, the hull mounted ones are 2 way sections designed by Tom Speer, which work almost as well as NACA 0012.

 

Sorry for the thread drift. Maybe ask more proa questions at http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=161235&hl=%2Bbucket+%2Blist+%2Bproa#entry4709952 Make the lee hull 3-4 times as long, scale up the rig and beam accordingly and make the little hull just big enough for 3 crew, their gear and a half a ton of water and have a go at the JV. ;-)

 

Make the lee hull 3-4 times as long as what?

as IdecSport? 96...128 metres long?

What's the scaled rig height and beam ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But a key issue with proa is also the rudders an daggerboard, having to work both ways or lifted (lifted for rudders clearly)

 

Sure is. Harryproas use oversize rudders (no daggers required) mounted on the side of the long hull or on the beams so there are no holes in the hull below the waterline and the boards can kick up in both directions. The beam mounted rudders rotate through 360 degrees, the hull mounted ones are 2 way sections designed by Tom Speer, which work almost as well as NACA 0012.

 

Sorry for the thread drift. Maybe ask more proa questions at http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=161235&hl=%2Bbucket+%2Blist+%2Bproa#entry4709952 Make the lee hull 3-4 times as long, scale up the rig and beam accordingly and make the little hull just big enough for 3 crew, their gear and a half a ton of water and have a go at the JV. ;-)

 

Make the lee hull 3-4 times as long as what?

as IdecSport? 96...128 metres long?

What's the scaled rig height and beam ?

 

 

This conversation is carried over from the Transat Jules verne thread where people get stroppy when thread drift occurs. For the fastest boat around the world, NotSoFast advocated a maxi cat with minimum beam and 3 tonnes of water ballast on a strut out the side of the hull, with strings fore and aft and to the mast to support it. I (believe it or not) thought a harryproa would do a better job.

 

Answers to BSF's questions above:

If a harryproa accidentally tacks or gybes, it is a no stress event. The rig weathercocks and the boat drifts downwind, is steered back onto course and gets sailing again. Sheet action is minimal. Compare this to an accidental gybe on a fully powered up cat with 3 tons of pod hanging 17m off the wrong side, the boom against the runners and the headsail sheeted on the wrong side. Sailing with both pods full to avoid problems seems to defeat their purpose. An unstayed wing mast with stays to the pod would not weathercock.

Covering 6 degrees of freedom is pretty easy, although keeping everything tight while scooping up 3 tons of water at 20+ knots will be a challenge. I don't doubt it could be done. My point is that it is easier and less windage to do it with an extended beam and the ballast in the windward hull on a harryproa.

A leeward pod is not only weight in the wrong place it is in danger of hitting the waves, which would increase the loads a lot. It would also be a lot of drag if the boat flew a hull far enough to immerse it. Consequently, I assumed it would need to change sides.

Afaik none of the maxi cats weighed less than 20 tons, plus crew, fuel, food and water, so 10 tonnes for your boat seems ambitious.

 

250 kgs would get you 4-5m of streamlined beam on a JV harryproa.

 

3-4 times as long as Bucket List. ie, 40m lee hull. Other dimensions are wild guesses, loosely based on the cruising harry weights. Maybe 2,5 tonnes for the lee hull, 1.5 for the beam (25m long, 3m wide), 1 for the rig, 0.5 for the rudders/steering and 1.5 for the ww hull (9m long) incl 3 crew etc. 7 tonnes. Bruce number (imperial) to be competitive, say 2.5. So sail area (probably an unstayed wing masted schooner for ease of handling) 360 sq m. 180 per rig, so masts are 28m high x 1m wide, booms 6m long. Righting moment (1.5 +.75) x 25 = 56 ton metres. Maybe add a ton of water ballast to get 81 ton metres, but this ioncreases the boat weight by 15%, so is probably too much. RM is less than Idec but so is the weight, sail area, rig height, windage and effort required to sail it so not really relevant.

 

Bucket List update:

I decided to build the mast and beams myself to play with a build method that needs neither moulds not mandrels. Took 3 of us 10 days to build 3 x 6m mast sections and 2 x 8m beams. The first one was ordinary, the last one pretty good. Decided that I would rather experiment with the rig than build what i already knew would work, so the mast telescopes. It works ok against the side of the house, but there are some challenges, most of which have been met, but some we are still working on. In particular, how to avoid paying $7k for a sail.

 

It is unlikely the telescoping will be used on the charter boats if they happen, but it is more fun to play with.

 

The long hull comes up at the end of the month, assembling it at Maritimo, (about half the price of Boat Works and enthusiastic people), so things are getting closer. Photos, videos, weights and updates at http://harryproa.com/?cat=2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

But a key issue with proa is also the rudders an daggerboard, having to work both ways or lifted (lifted for rudders clearly)

 

Sure is. Harryproas use oversize rudders (no daggers required) mounted on the side of the long hull or on the beams so there are no holes in the hull below the waterline and the boards can kick up in both directions. The beam mounted rudders rotate through 360 degrees, the hull mounted ones are 2 way sections designed by Tom Speer, which work almost as well as NACA 0012.

 

Sorry for the thread drift. Maybe ask more proa questions at http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=161235&hl=%2Bbucket+%2Blist+%2Bproa#entry4709952 Make the lee hull 3-4 times as long, scale up the rig and beam accordingly and make the little hull just big enough for 3 crew, their gear and a half a ton of water and have a go at the JV. ;-)

 

Make the lee hull 3-4 times as long as what?

as IdecSport? 96...128 metres long?

What's the scaled rig height and beam ?

 

 

This conversation is carried over from the Transat Jules verne thread where people get stroppy when thread drift occurs. For the fastest boat around the world, NotSoFast advocated a maxi cat with minimum beam and 3 tonnes of water ballast on a strut out the side of the hull, with strings fore and aft and to the mast to support it. I (believe it or not) thought a harryproa would do a better job.

 

Answers to BSF's questions above:

If a harryproa accidentally tacks or gybes, it is a no stress event. The rig weathercocks and the boat drifts downwind, is steered back onto course and gets sailing again. Sheet action is minimal. Compare this to an accidental gybe on a fully powered up cat with 3 tons of pod hanging 17m off the wrong side, the boom against the runners and the headsail sheeted on the wrong side. Sailing with both pods full to avoid problems seems to defeat their purpose. An unstayed wing mast with stays to the pod would not weathercock.

Covering 6 degrees of freedom is pretty easy, although keeping everything tight while scooping up 3 tons of water at 20+ knots will be a challenge. I don't doubt it could be done. My point is that it is easier and less windage to do it with an extended beam and the ballast in the windward hull on a harryproa.

A leeward pod is not only weight in the wrong place it is in danger of hitting the waves, which would increase the loads a lot. It would also be a lot of drag if the boat flew a hull far enough to immerse it. Consequently, I assumed it would need to change sides.

Afaik none of the maxi cats weighed less than 20 tons, plus crew, fuel, food and water, so 10 tonnes for your boat seems ambitious.

 

250 kgs would get you 4-5m of streamlined beam on a JV harryproa.

 

3-4 times as long as Bucket List. ie, 40m lee hull. Other dimensions are wild guesses, loosely based on the cruising harry weights. Maybe 2,5 tonnes for the lee hull, 1.5 for the beam (25m long, 3m wide), 1 for the rig, 0.5 for the rudders/steering and 1.5 for the ww hull (9m long) incl 3 crew etc. 7 tonnes. Bruce number (imperial) to be competitive, say 2.5. So sail area (probably an unstayed wing masted schooner for ease of handling) 360 sq m. 180 per rig, so masts are 28m high x 1m wide, booms 6m long. Righting moment (1.5 +.75) x 25 = 56 ton metres. Maybe add a ton of water ballast to get 81 ton metres, but this ioncreases the boat weight by 15%, so is probably too much. RM is less than Idec but so is the weight, sail area, rig height, windage and effort required to sail it so not really relevant.

 

Bucket List update:

I decided to build the mast and beams myself to play with a build method that needs neither moulds not mandrels. Took 3 of us 10 days to build 3 x 6m mast sections and 2 x 8m beams. The first one was ordinary, the last one pretty good. Decided that I would rather experiment with the rig than build what i already knew would work, so the mast telescopes. It works ok against the side of the house, but there are some challenges, most of which have been met, but some we are still working on. In particular, how to avoid paying $7k for a sail.

 

It is unlikely the telescoping will be used on the charter boats if they happen, but it is more fun to play with.

 

The long hull comes up at the end of the month, assembling it at Maritimo, (about half the price of Boat Works and enthusiastic people), so things are getting closer. Photos, videos, weights and updates at http://harryproa.com/?cat=2

 

"Compare this to an accidental gybe on a fully powered up cat with 3 tons of pod hanging 17m off the wrong side, the boom against the runners and the headsail sheeted on the wrong side. "

That has nothing to do with what I proposed. A rigid wing like in most C-cats do not have any jib thus can't be sheeted on the wrong side. No boom, but the whole wing can be aganist the shrouds, but only when apparent is aft, not supposed to happen in a truly fast boat unless sailing in a storm, which is intended to be avoided by means of weather forecasting and routing.

"Sailing with both pods full to avoid problems seems to defeat their purpose"

In most places yes, but if wind is totally unpredictable like I assume it to be in doldrums (with no personal experience), it is something that can be done to keep it from breaking up.

" An unstayed wing mast with stays to the pod would not weathercock"

Unstayed with stays ??? Not what was talking about.

Rigid wing in C-cats do weather cock, but not through 360 degs, but as long as apparent is enough forward it should be fine.

"A leeward pod is not only weight in the wrong place it is in danger of hitting the waves, which would increase the loads a lot. It would also be a lot of drag if the boat flew a hull far enough to immerse it. "

Yes 250 kg in the wrong place in a 10+ ton boat, don't consider that to be a major problem. Hitting waves yes, can be kept higher up if wanted to easily to prevent it. It wouldn't increase loads any more than to the low level of a small beach cat windward hull. Only way to make it immersed when empty is to capsize the whole boat on it. There is no string to make it go under when tensioned, as all of them either lift it up or are horizontal and none of the strings can be put on compression for obvious reasons. Again, the deck spreader is never on bending loads due to both ends having ball on cup connection not capable of transmitting bending loads. Thus can't push the small hull under. In addition, the fore/aft position of the deck spreader is adjustable +- 90 degs, therefore can be kept directly aft on the lee side and would be for most cases at speed.

"Afaik none of the maxi cats weighed less than 20 tons, plus crew, fuel, food and water, so 10 tonnes for your boat seems ambitious. "

Compare with the tris and you should see the reasoning it can be much lighter than them with same RM. The beams of those tris are heavy items, and with both 45% shorter and with much less load on them from the mast can be built much lighter. Rigid wing with no foresails can also be built much lighter than conventional masts due to less compression at least in big size. C-cats are evidence it works well in smaller size as well, but not sure if they are also massively lighter. No mainsheet load, no forestay load to keep them tight help a lot for less loads. Pretty much just the weight of all the boat equals mast compression in a wing. I think my suggested weight is very conservative compared to the newer tris for RTW route, like yet to be built Banque Populaire ??? (IX if I remember correctly) with all up 15 tonnes with soft sails, higher mast, longer hulls, more sails, and more beam than IdecSport.

Those maxicats were heavy due to all traditional mast compression loads put on a single unstayed wide beam, no such thing on my suggestion.

 

"RM is less than Idec but so is the weight, sail area, rig height, windage and effort required to sail it so not really relevant. "

But not on the same proportion less. ~84 % rig height and over 87% sailarea upwind with less than 34% RM. That's massively more oriented for lighter winds than IdecSport.

Only reasonable for rtw route with fully 360 degs weathercocking rig which you do have.

 

I would like to see what your HarryProa suggestion would look like if scaled up or ballasted to have same RM as IdecSport, 160 tonne metres, and same size rig height 33,5m from the water, and sail area 411 m^2 upwind. Or at least close enough to be comparable.

 

 

Edit:

All descriptions on this or previous messages (6 degrees of freedom etc) assumes boat frame of reference, not inertial one. That also means term "horizontal" (*) heels with the boat, which might be misuse of terms. I hope that doesn't make it less understandable. * = in context with how no string pulls downwards, means then pulls below "horizontal" as defined above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weighed the finished hulls, beams, stub mast and one rudder on a load cell. 380 kgs/836 lbs, plus the other rudder, rig and tramp, total is ~500 kgs/half a ton. Maybe 10% of this would be saved if I was not such a crappy boat builder. Draft without rudders down is about 75mm/3". Cost under $AUS20k/$US15k in materials plus 3 grand transport and shed hire.

 

A couple of weeks ago, two of us carried the pieces down a marina walkway and assembled it in the water. Then motored it with a 6 hp into 30 knots of wind against tide which was not a lot of fun without the rudders.

 

Short sail on Sunday. Not much breeze, not much speed, but with a deep reefed main (21 sqm/215 sq') and a loose halyard, it got along ok. Nothing broke apart from a tiller extension universal. It shunted fine, steered well with both or either rudder, sailed level, was hardly affected by crew weight position. The bow lifted at quite low speeds, giving hope for planing.

 

I decided I would rather experiment than become a charter company operator, so the rig is different to the boat in the video. The mast is a 3 piece telescoping section, each piece 6m/20' long. It is tied to a stub mast and can be canted to windward (Sail Rocket fashion, but adjustable) and raked fore and aft. Have not tried either yet. The sail is lashed to the mast to save the cost and weight of track, cars and bearings. Both the lashing and the telescoping work well enough to persevere with them.

 

The charter company idea in the video is still a goer, but needs someone to put up 4 x $50K for the boats and some organisation.

 

The mast and beam tubes are built with an experimental technique which uses neither moulds not mandrels. We built the beams first and made some mistakes, the mast pieces came out pretty well, although making them telescope was challenging. Bend tested the full length mast and it is remarkably stiff. Tested one of the beams and crushed the wall it was sitting on and damaged the tree it was tied to. Still sceptical. The windward end of one beam lifts 100mm/4" before the other one moves.

 

The beam mounted rudders are off a 50'ter so are a bit large, but the beam mounting and kick up work well, although the fuse needs more work.

 

The tube boom did not work, although it might with some changes, so swapped to the wishbone.

 

No winches and only two blocks and tackle (mainsheet and snotter) so the mast lashing, halyard and cunningham were 2:1 with truckies hitches, which was not enough. Got a small single speed winch coming and am playing with alternatives to blocks and tackles (levers and other mechanical advantage devices).

 

The to do list is quite long, but mostly small jobs, might be sailing again by Easter.

 

Progress blog, pics and videos at http://harryproa.com/?cat=2

 

rob

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell, it lives! Will you have it sorted in time to race with or shadow the Brisbane to keppel fleet?

 

Bloody hell indeed! 3 years for a 3 month build is pretty slack, even by my low standards.

 

It lived, but was held together with string and ratchet straps so Steinar could have a sail before he returned to Norway. I have spent the last 2 weeks making it more permanent. Been a lot of fun. Tramp on today, rig and rudders tomorrow, sailing soon after. Anyone on the Gold Coast who wants to come along, or take photos from the tinny, let me know.

 

Barring screw ups, breakages and family stuff, I might get to Bris for the start of the Bris Gladstone at Easter. By the Bris Keppel in August it should be all sorted and race ready. I doubt I will be able to get time off for B-K, Hammo, Airlie, etc, but if I can't, I'm happy to charter it to anyone who wants to have a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bloody hell, it lives! Will you have it sorted in time to race with or shadow the Brisbane to keppel fleet?

Bloody hell indeed! 3 years for a 3 month build is pretty slack, even by my low standards.

 

It lived, but was held together with string and ratchet straps so Steinar could have a sail before he returned to Norway. I have spent the last 2 weeks making it more permanent. Been a lot of fun. Tramp on today, rig and rudders tomorrow, sailing soon after. Anyone on the Gold Coast who wants to come along, or take photos from the tinny, let me know.

 

Barring screw ups, breakages and family stuff, I might get to Bris for the start of the Bris Gladstone at Easter. By the Bris Keppel in August it should be all sorted and race ready. I doubt I will be able to get time off for B-K, Hammo, Airlie, etc, but if I can't, I'm happy to charter it to anyone who wants to have a go.

So,no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Rob. Nice to see you finally launched it. Looking forward to seeing some race results to see if any of your performance claims can be verified. My wager still stands and my Trimaran has not only been launched I have completed over 100 races. (Rob and I started building our boats at the same time and he thought his Proa would be faster than my Trimaran)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. As much as I loved abusing you over how crappy your ideas are I'm kind of sad this thing didn't work out for you.  All the best with future endeavours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 2:46 AM, swangtang said:

A couple different renderings on http://www.catsailingnews.com/2017/10/foiling-proa-by-rob-denney.html#more

Very cool! Keep us updated on progress, would love to see that thing fly. Any plans for a foiling kite proa?

You bet!  It will be tried with a kite before a conventional rig as it is so much simpler/cheaper to set up.   

We are also involved with Kitetik http://harryproa.com/?p=2052#more-2052, a 15m/50' kite powered harryproa which will have foils fitted this summer.  Kitetik is a development of the experiments we did in Elementarry https://vimeo.com/127926604

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the new stuff you're doing but there can't have been much wrong with the original Bucket List. And what do you mean, cold, over there in Sydney or wherever you reside, whadareya?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After half a dozen sails with a 40% mainsail, it got too cold to play......

 

Ha , thats funny.

http://www.australia.com/en/facts/weather/gold-coast-weather.html

Winter (June – August)
Winter on the Gold Coast is generally sunny and dry with average temperatures between 12.5 - 21.5°C (54.5 - 70.7°F).

 

 

So reading between the lines we get... after decades of planning and building and bashing your gums you sailed it a few times, decided it was an ugly uncontrollable  P.O.S. that spent all its time head to wind, Spat the dummy  and lost interest.  Close??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Groucho Marx said:

I like the new stuff you're doing but there can't have been much wrong with the original Bucket List. And what do you mean, cold, over there in Sydney or wherever you reside, whadareya?

.

Nothing wrong with Bucket List apart from the items in my post.   The Volvo Proa ideas are novel so more interesting to spend my time and money on.

Whaddami?  A wimp.  40 years ago, I delivered a 12m cat from UK to Trinidad, leaving the UK in December.  The crew nicknamed me 'Penguin' as I did not wear shoes or boots when sailing.  Now, I don't enjoy working on boats when it is less than 20C so for a couple of months each year, I don't.  

Overlay,

Close? No.  Read the lines I write instead of putting what you want to see between them.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You hype the shit out of something and then give up on it without believable explanation, you are going to get some flak.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much. Hell, 5 years ago or whenever it was I was interested. Now, not even a video. Robs the Doug Lord of the proa world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Pretty much. Hell, 5 years ago or whenever it was I was interested. Now, not even a video. Robs the Doug Lord of the proa world.

What an ignorant, stupid, asinine comment! Typical bullshit from a typical uninformed,anonymous idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Doug Lord said:

What an ignorant, stupid, asinine comment! Typical bullshit from a typical uninformed,anonymous idiot.

It never ends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, harryproa said:

   The Volvo Proa

DL, is that you???:lol:

WTF, are you still making stuff up?

http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/presszone/en/3762_Volvo-Ocean-Race-unveils-combined-Monohull-Multihull-future-the-ultimate-test-of-a-professional-sailing-team.html

The Volvo Ocean Race has solved the question of whether its future should be monohull or multihull – by opting for both. The introduction of a foil-assisted 60-foot (18.29 metre) monohull for the ocean legs plus an ultra-fast 32-50 foot (10-15m) flying catamaran for use inshore will elevate the race to the ultimate all-round test in professional sailing.

------------

So you don't think they will notice that your proa is not quite the same as the STRICT ONE DESIGN Volvo "Flying CATAMARAN Class" CATAMARANS?:lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Pretty much. Hell, 5 years ago or whenever it was I was interested. Now, not even a video. Robs the Doug Lord of the proa world.

Light years of difference between Lord of foiling/fooling himself and our Harryproa man. Like bath toys and well, full size sailing examples; there is a difference?

Agreed Rob has maybe tossed the towel in too early regarding Bucket List the first - but the (desperate?) second version looks very radical. Nothing wrong with that?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Groucho Marx said:

Light years of difference between Lord of foiling/fooling himself and our Harryproa man. Like bath toys and well, full size sailing examples; there is a difference?

Agreed Rob has maybe tossed the towel in too early regarding Bucket List the first - but the (desperate?) second version looks very radical. Nothing wrong with that?

Totally wrong. Plenty of foilers out there. Refining the harry proa would have been great. This thing? Fantasy. 

 

But, not my money or time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Different folks, different strokes.   I like to try new stuff.  Once I see it will work, I tend to move on to something else, particularly when that is better/more interesting than the old stuff.   
I can put x dollars and y hours into an experimental boat to prove it works.  I can then spend 10 times as much of each to get it looking good and working perfectly and sell it for what the materials cost if I am lucky.  The overheads and labour, most of which is hard work turning filler into dust and poisoning yourself with exotic paints,  is unpaid.   
Or, I can demonstrate it works, then sell it for a pittance, store it "just in case", give it away or take it to the tip and save myself a truck load of labour.   The flattery that comes with well finished boats and winning races is not worth the time involved if all you want to do is see if something works.     
For me, it is about making new ideas work, especially if I am going to sell plans including them. 
 
I sailed BL enough to know it would fulfill it's design requirements (4 boats in a container, shipped around the world to regattas for low cost charter racing).  However, there was no interest in setting it up as a business so I moved on.   
 
Something I did not include in the original reasons for throwing in the towel/giving up/spitting the dummy/whatever derogatory term you want to use on BL is that I need to hire a shed (expensive round here) and slip and truck the boat back and forth.  BL Foiling can be taken apart on the beach, carried across the road and put in the garage.  Again, time and money.
 
Raz'r,
There was nothing on the Bucket List concept that we had not already tried apart from the righting, which has now been superceded.  The problem was with the business model, not the boat. There are brief, unedifying videos of the first 2 sails at http://harryproa.com/?p=424#more-424
I agree there are "plenty of foilers", but foiling shunting 40'ters that weigh 350 kgs/770 lbs with telescoping rigs are a bit less common, don't you think?  
If you really are "interested in Bucket List" (post 164) and think "refining it" with your (implied) "time and money" "would be great" (169), I am happy to help you do so.    Build one and race it to it's potential and I will refund your plans cost and give you 10% of any future plans sold.  
 
Overlay,
Better.  You are now reading what is written.  Next step is to stop reading the press releases and read the tender document http://tender.volvooceanrace.com, which specifies a multihull, does not mention catamarans at all.  
 
The tender requirement was for a futuristic, fast, challenging, cost effective, easily rigged and transported, rightable, VIP suitable, out of the box, foiling multihull with potential for other classes and a low carbon footprint.  The Volvo Proa solutions are at http://harryproa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/…/volvoproa.pdf.     The cat or tri that meets them better will be an interesting machine.  The announcement is next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read it several times, Cant argue at all, very interesting concept, shared, watching & waiting. Clever thinking Rob. Good luck. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding your diagram of shunting the Volvoproa: it looks to me like dropping off the foils at point 2 would jerk the boat sideways hard, and if it happened at point 3, it would come to a stop rather more sudden than a pitchpole.  Would it make a lot of difference to the engineering and the weight if you made the hulls rotate with the foils?  The boat would still come apart just like it does now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, WetSnail said:

Regarding your diagram of shunting the Volvoproa: it looks to me like dropping off the foils at point 2 would jerk the boat sideways hard, and if it happened at point 3, it would come to a stop rather more sudden than a pitchpole.  Would it make a lot of difference to the engineering and the weight if you made the hulls rotate with the foils?  The boat would still come apart just like it does now.

Agree about the sideways jerk, but the plan is to not come off the foils at speed.  No (theoretical) reason why it should, but there may be some practical ones, which we will discover on BL.     I once built a 12m cat with hulls which yawed independantly and making it work on BL would be a big job.  And  heavy.    Hopefully, it won't be required.

 

Albatross,                                                                                              

Ta.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, harryproa said:

Agree about the sideways jerk, but the plan is to not come off the foils at speed.  No (theoretical) reason why it should, but there may be some practical ones, which we will discover on BL.     I once built a 12m cat with hulls which yawed independantly and making it work on BL would be a big job.  And  heavy.    Hopefully, it won't be required.

What are the empirical data for other boats with wand-controlled flaps on their foils?  The Moths do seem to crash, but I don't know how comparable they are.

Is there a simple way to explain what would make rotating the hulls heavy?  I thought that the same bearings that now rotate only the lee foils could rotate the lee hulls as well without much modification.  The extra bearing I can see would be for the windward hull.  Would that make so much difference, or is there something else that I am missing?

That hull and foil configuration has been tried, and the earliest iteration was described as being limited by the poor shape of its weather hull, not weight.  See Monomaran III at http://www.oocities.org/aerohydro/designtext3.htm  But the load paths differ from your design, and the windward hull didn't fly on a foil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, WetSnail said:

What are the empirical data for other boats with wand-controlled flaps on their foils?  The Moths do seem to crash, but I don't know how comparable they are.

Is there a simple way to explain what would make rotating the hulls heavy?  I thought that the same bearings that now rotate only the lee foils could rotate the lee hulls as well without much modification.  The extra bearing I can see would be for the windward hull.  Would that make so much difference, or is there something else that I am missing?

That hull and foil configuration has been tried, and the earliest iteration was described as being limited by the poor shape of its weather hull, not weight.  See Monomaran III at http://www.oocities.org/aerohydro/designtext3.htm  But the load paths differ from your design, and the windward hull didn't fly on a foil.

Not sure what you mean b y "empirical data".  The moths do crash,  until the sailors know how to control them.  Compared to BL, they have operator controlled rear foils, rely a lot on crew weight movement and have the front foil below the centre of effort of the rig, all of which makes them more twitchy, I think.  And probably faster.

The weight comes from supporting the post around which the hulls (particulalry the windward one with the beam set up and rig arrangement that we currently have) rotate and the steering loads when the boat is not foiling.   If the set up we plan does not work, then steering the hulls has potential.  Thanks.   

Smith's ideas are cool, and have something in common with BL, but are quite different when it comes to foiling shunts, foiling arrangement and rig.  The buoyant hydrofoils are potentially great, but I could not bring myself to build such minimal volume floats.  The original drawings had 3m x 300 x 300 floats.  This has grown to 3.5 x 450 high x 350 wide, and they still look pretty small.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foiling shunts....

I’ve got my popcorn, but figure it’ll be damn stale before I see a foiling shunt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Foiling shunts....

I’ve got my popcorn, but figure it’ll be damn stale before I see a foiling shunt...

What problems do you expect?  The superstructure and rig turn like in a shunt, but the foils' trajectory is the same as for a gybe, and gybing on foils has been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, harryproa said:

Not sure what you mean b y "empirical data".  The moths do crash,  until the sailors know how to control them.  Compared to BL, they have operator controlled rear foils, rely a lot on crew weight movement and have the front foil below the centre of effort of the rig, all of which makes them more twitchy, I think.  And probably faster.

The empirical data I had in mind was the probability of crashing per gybe, perhaps as a function of experience, in the closest existing analogue.  Seeing that you have two wand-controlled foils to lee in a gybe, I guess that would be catamarans with such foils: Vampire ProjectWhite Formula WhisperStunt S9.  Or trimarans, like the Windrider Rave.

Also, I expect the wind drag would be less when aligning the hulls with apparent wind, as Sailrocket II did, and that would get the aft foil either out of the vortices of the forward foil, or the part of the vortex that provides some lift, like when geese fly in a V formation.  Therefore I expect some angle between hull and direction of travel whenever foiling is possible, which means the risk of the sideways jerk on dropping off the foils exists not only when gybing or tacking (if the boat is as fast as you hope, a foiling tack might be possible), but also while sailing a steady course.

Thinking some more, I am willing to go out on a limb and say that coming off the foils in a gybe absolutely will be a problem, for reasons having to do with psychology and incentives.  I expect the greatest risk would be in marginal foiling conditions, or when speed becomes marginal because someone is trying to slow down until speed made good downwind is less than true wind speed.  From what you wrote previously about shunting versus gybing, I understand that a conventional shunt costs a lot of distance compared to a gybe, so racers will be very tempted to go for the foiling gybe rather than the floating gybe.  People don't get to sail in the VOR without a great deal of ambition and some willingness to take risks, so someone will try to gybe on foils when that is risky, and the odds will eventually catch up with someone. 

So I think you should assume that boats will drop off their foils during gybes or tacks, and ask what happens to boat and crew.  I think you should even deliberately test what happens then.  But when you test, consider mounting a seat with a seat belt before your first foiling gybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, WetSnail said:

The empirical data I had in mind was the probability of crashing per gybe, perhaps as a function of experience, in the closest existing analogue.  Seeing that you have two wand-controlled foils to lee in a gybe, I guess that would be catamarans with such foils: Vampire ProjectWhite Formula WhisperStunt S9.  Or trimarans, like the Windrider Rave.

Also, I expect the wind drag would be less when aligning the hulls with apparent wind, as Sailrocket II did, and that would get the aft foil either out of the vortices of the forward foil, or the part of the vortex that provides some lift, like when geese fly in a V formation.  Therefore I expect some angle between hull and direction of travel whenever foiling is possible, which means the risk of the sideways jerk on dropping off the foils exists not only when gybing or tacking (if the boat is as fast as you hope, a foiling tack might be possible), but also while sailing a steady course.

Thinking some more, I am willing to go out on a limb and say that coming off the foils in a gybe absolutely will be a problem, for reasons having to do with psychology and incentives.  I expect the greatest risk would be in marginal foiling conditions, or when speed becomes marginal because someone is trying to slow down until speed made good downwind is less than true wind speed.  From what you wrote previously about shunting versus gybing, I understand that a conventional shunt costs a lot of distance compared to a gybe, so racers will be very tempted to go for the foiling gybe rather than the floating gybe.  People don't get to sail in the VOR without a great deal of ambition and some willingness to take risks, so someone will try to gybe on foils when that is risky, and the odds will eventually catch up with someone. 

So I think you should assume that boats will drop off their foils during gybes or tacks, and ask what happens to boat and crew.  I think you should even deliberately test what happens then.  But when you test, consider mounting a seat with a seat belt before your first foiling gybe.

Not sure any of the cats you mention have 2 wand controlled foils to lee.  And they all have their front foils more or less under the coe.  I have no idea how often they fall off the foils in a gybe.    Nor how much less likely we will be to do so with a front foil well ahead of the coe and wands on both foils, which is why I am building the boat.

Aligning the hulls with the apparent wind would help, but is a long way down the development track.  It would need 2 sets of steering, one for the rudders, one for the hulls.  

On BL the aim is to foil, then work on the shunts.  Initially it will not have a foil under the windward hull.  I am pretty sure I will not have to deliberately screw up a shunt to find out what happens!   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17.10.2017 at 12:00 PM, harryproa said:

Not sure any of the cats you mention have 2 wand controlled foils to lee.  

I was thinking only of the gybe.  The moment the cat goes dead downwind, the foil configuration is similar to that of your proa.

On 17.10.2017 at 12:00 PM, harryproa said:

Aligning the hulls with the apparent wind would help, but is a long way down the development track.  It would need 2 sets of steering, one for the rudders, one for the hulls.  

On the wind, you already have what it takes, namely that you can turn the rudders in parallel.  You need that for a foiling shunt, and in both cases, you have the hulls pointing in a direction other than that of travel.  Point both rudders about 20 degree to lee while flying on the foils, and the hulls will be pointing into the wind.  Also, the two lee foils will then each carry about equal weight.  I don't know whether that is an advantage.

On 17.10.2017 at 12:00 PM, harryproa said:

Initially it will not have a foil under the windward hull.  I am pretty sure I will not have to deliberately screw up a shunt to find out what happens!   

I had assumed you must have a foil under the windward hull, simply on the grounds that I can't imagine how you can control its height through the shunt.  Also, the closer you get to dead downwind, the less you can steer by counterrotating the rudders.  I thought you at least need a little bit of drag from a foil at the aft end of the boat in order to control direction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2015 at 2:28 AM, harryproa said:

The reasoning is to provide a simple, light, near idiot proof, low cost boat for people to charter and race anywhere in the world.

It is as far from/as close to the Pacific proa as the rest of the harryproas. Crew and accommodation in the windward hull, unstayed rig, out of hull rudders, no daggerboards, etc

It doesn't have an ama as it is not a Polynesian craft and I try not to confuse people with jargon. It has a windward hull. If it proves faster when racing, it will be flown. When not racing, it can fly or stay in the water. Experience has shown that it makes very little difference whether it is flying or not (as shown by helm balance and speed change), as long as the hull is not overloaded when it is floating.

RM is variable. The crew, plus everything except the rig and the rudders is in or near the windward hull, except in light air, when it is on or near the leeward one. About 3,500 kgm to 750 kgm depending on a number of variables. This should allow it to fly a hull (exciting, even if there is not much speed difference) from less than 10 knots of breeze, yet, with the bendy mast, not be overpowered until 25 knots. We will see. If it ends up with a kite rig the rm will be reduced to below the lower number. Lost control of the big kite yesterday, elementarry was very airborne for 20m or so before it touched down. Exciting stuff.

Launching will be when it is ready. Racing when it is debugged.

Build photos, progress reports and excuses for the delays are on www.harryproa.com >Building Blogs>Bucket List. Discussion on the Yahoo harryproa chat group.

Funny I was just thinking that it is the perfect application for a kite when I saw the first post.  If bridled to the main hull it would provide lift and horsepower (until it pulled the boat skyward....) . Keep going mate this is really good stuff.  Would be interesting to do a bermuda race, a ChiMac, a Transpac or any other race that can be predominately long tack speed runs.  Brilliant!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2017 at 6:42 AM, WetSnail said:

I was thinking only of the gybe.  The moment the cat goes dead downwind, the foil configuration is similar to that of your proa.

On the wind, you already have what it takes, namely that you can turn the rudders in parallel.  You need that for a foiling shunt, and in both cases, you have the hulls pointing in a direction other than that of travel.  Point both rudders about 20 degree to lee while flying on the foils, and the hulls will be pointing into the wind.  Also, the two lee foils will then each carry about equal weight.  I don't know whether that is an advantage.

I had assumed you must have a foil under the windward hull, simply on the grounds that I can't imagine how you can control its height through the shunt.  Also, the closer you get to dead downwind, the less you can steer by counterrotating the rudders.  I thought you at least need a little bit of drag from a foil at the aft end of the boat in order to control direction.

 

The cat ddw has the entire boat pointing ddw.  The proa has the foils pointing ddw, the rest is at 90 degrees.  

Tacking, the rudders need to move at different rates to minimise the time taken.  

A foil under the ww hull will be required for foiling shunts, but not for foiling sailing.  One thing at a time.

Loose Cannon,

We tried it with the kite on the long hull, foil on the little one and it worked ok.  https://vimeo.com/127926604    But it should work better with the foils and crew on the long hull, kite on the short one, which is what we will try on BL.  Kiting is the future (no masts, keels, standing rigging, minimal deck gear, low stresses on the hull(s)), but there are some little problems to sort out first.  Launching,  retrieving, powering up, close quarters and night kiting to mention a few.  A lot of smart people are working on these, eventually they will be solved, but we are not there yet.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2017 at 2:28 PM, harryproa said:

but there are some little problems to sort out first.  Launching,  retrieving, powering up, close quarters and night kiting to mention a few.

Jeez Rob,

This sounds like more than a few little problems

Tony

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2017 at 9:39 PM, basildog said:

Jeez Rob,

This sounds like more than a few little problems

Tony

Yeah.  At one level, it was sarcastic, but there are a lot of really smart guys working on solutions so I am pretty confident it will not be long.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foiling Bucket List/Volvo Proa has been nominated for a Foiling Week award in the "Best New Project" section, sponsored by Persico Marine, the high end race boats builder in Italy. 

 
Contestants are:
-Harryproa a new foiling proa by Rob Denney
-Laureano Marquinez Nahuel Wilson monohull foiler MW680F
-Pegasius Project by Sébastien Rogues
-@infinityperformanceyachts 56 by Farr Yacht Design 
-Goodall Design viper foiler
-Barracuda Yacht Design @inigo toledo 110ft 75 kts foiling superyacht
 
Progress is being made on the conversion.  The lee hulls and beam are ready for joining, the rudder mounts are in, the foils and rudders are made and the wand/foil/rudder linkage is sorted, but not yet installed, the steering system (combination of quadrant and tiller) is part built.  Nothing is faired and there is still a lot to do, plus testing, breaking and fixing.  And the rig.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites