Re: benefits of converting our AS29 to a trimaran
The Luna is now our boat. Dave's a real out-of-the-box thinker and
brilliant in many ways.
brilliant in many ways.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
>
> When this first popped up I kept my mouth shut, even though I winced. I
> noticed that nobody has suggested asking Bolger's opinion. I would
> expect a horrified response. The AS 29 is not a trimaran and to make it
> into one would be straying very far afield from the designers goals.
>
> I believe you said you are in Sitka? You might ask Dave Zeiger his
> opinion as his Luna is based on the AS 29.
>
> HJ
>
> goadarama wrote:
> > The 15 degree heeling is accurate for this sharpie and most
> > trimarans..... indeed.... a heeling sweet spot. The pounding might be
> > reduced by a cutwater of sorts but it might not be needed. I figure
> > the unshrouded masts (chinese lugsails) might be now shrouded out to
> > the floats much as the naval architect Thomas Colvin did on his junk
> > rigs (and most chinese junks actually do). Thanks for the feedback. I
> > agree the increased stability would be nice plus a bit more sink
> > proofing. My aim is not perpetual world cruising but a limited, down
> > wind relocation to warmer climes that Alaska. Best wishes from
> > latitude 57. Still a potentially rough ride occasionally down the pac
> > coast. BoB G.
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Bob,
> >>
> >> the mono sharpie AS-29 reportedly heels easily to about 15degrees
> >> then firms up. Trimarans heel. Tris don't heel near as much as monos
> >> generally do though, but the AS-29 15+degrees heel angle is about in
> >> the middle of their spectrum. That puts an AS-29 trimaran conversion
> >> in the mono AS sweet spot. It's catamarans that only heel about
> >> 5degrees...
> >>
> >> Yes, conventional tris are extremely weight sensitive - just like
> >> high performance racing dinghies really. However, this isn't about
> >> world beating speed performance, or even low end multi speed; that's
> >> just not possible. Rather this is about achieving consistently good
> >> mono speeds, and possibly the 80% to 90% of other additional
> >> multihull benefits remaining.
> >>
> >> A bigger mono could be built/purchased to increase living space,
> >> stability, motion comfort and so on, but at much more cost all round
> >> than adding suitable amas to a suitable existing mono hull. That AS-
> >> 29 is optimised for sailing at a slight heel, and has performance
> >> already classed as that of cruiser/racer suggests, sans ballast etc,
> >> it may be worth a closer look.
> >>
> >>
> >> Graeme
> >>
> >> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks"
> >> <loosemoosefilmworks@> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I hate to rain on the parade but the AS 29 would be possibly the
> >>>
> >> worst
> >>
> >>> choice of Bolger's many designs to morph into a Multihull.
> >>>
> >>> What makes a sharpie work with its big flat bottom is that since
> >>> monohulls heel the chine is the area of first water/boat interface.
> >>> Everyone assumed that Loose Moose 2 pounded ( it did not) because of
> >>> its flat bottom but that little bit of heel made all the difference.
> >>> Adding a couple of AMAs to the mix and calling it a trimaran would
> >>> have created a tooth jarring ride.
> >>>
> >>> I've delivered a lot of boats over the years aincluding several
> >>>
> >> large
> >>
> >>> charter cats from South Africa to the Caribean and one thing I have
> >>> learned about multihulls is that if they do not have a bridgedeck
> >>> clearance of at least three feet the ride becomes seriously
> >>> uncomfortable. The idea of sailing five hundred miles with a AS
> >>>
> >> bottom
> >>
> >>> pounding is just not a fun thought.
> >>>
> >>> Take a look at a couple of designers who do excellent
> >>>
> >> Trimarans..Kurt
> >>
> >>> Hughes and Dick Newick and the fine entries to the water..as they
> >>>
> >> say
> >>
> >>> a picture is worth a thousand words.
> >>>
> >>> The other problem with trimarans is that to work they are not good
> >>>
> >> on
> >>
> >>> load carrying and to have a trimaran with the load carrying ability
> >>> and interior space of an AS29 you would be looking at a 40 -50 foot
> >>> tri. For Loose Moose 3 we considered several multihulls and to get
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> load carrying and interior space of the old Loose Moose 2 we were
> >>> considering fifty and sixty foot cats and they are much better at
> >>> loading than trimarans...Just for the record the new LooseMose is
> >>> going to be a 38 foot sharpie.
> >>>
> >>> Bob
> >>>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
When this first popped up I kept my mouth shut, even though I winced. I
noticed that nobody has suggested asking Bolger's opinion. I would
expect a horrified response. The AS 29 is not a trimaran and to make it
into one would be straying very far afield from the designers goals.
I believe you said you are in Sitka? You might ask Dave Zeiger his
opinion as his Luna is based on the AS 29.
HJ
goadarama wrote:
noticed that nobody has suggested asking Bolger's opinion. I would
expect a horrified response. The AS 29 is not a trimaran and to make it
into one would be straying very far afield from the designers goals.
I believe you said you are in Sitka? You might ask Dave Zeiger his
opinion as his Luna is based on the AS 29.
HJ
goadarama wrote:
> The 15 degree heeling is accurate for this sharpie and most
> trimarans..... indeed.... a heeling sweet spot. The pounding might be
> reduced by a cutwater of sorts but it might not be needed. I figure
> the unshrouded masts (chinese lugsails) might be now shrouded out to
> the floats much as the naval architect Thomas Colvin did on his junk
> rigs (and most chinese junks actually do). Thanks for the feedback. I
> agree the increased stability would be nice plus a bit more sink
> proofing. My aim is not perpetual world cruising but a limited, down
> wind relocation to warmer climes that Alaska. Best wishes from
> latitude 57. Still a potentially rough ride occasionally down the pac
> coast. BoB G.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> the mono sharpie AS-29 reportedly heels easily to about 15degrees
>> then firms up. Trimarans heel. Tris don't heel near as much as monos
>> generally do though, but the AS-29 15+degrees heel angle is about in
>> the middle of their spectrum. That puts an AS-29 trimaran conversion
>> in the mono AS sweet spot. It's catamarans that only heel about
>> 5degrees...
>>
>> Yes, conventional tris are extremely weight sensitive - just like
>> high performance racing dinghies really. However, this isn't about
>> world beating speed performance, or even low end multi speed; that's
>> just not possible. Rather this is about achieving consistently good
>> mono speeds, and possibly the 80% to 90% of other additional
>> multihull benefits remaining.
>>
>> A bigger mono could be built/purchased to increase living space,
>> stability, motion comfort and so on, but at much more cost all round
>> than adding suitable amas to a suitable existing mono hull. That AS-
>> 29 is optimised for sailing at a slight heel, and has performance
>> already classed as that of cruiser/racer suggests, sans ballast etc,
>> it may be worth a closer look.
>>
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks"
>> <loosemoosefilmworks@> wrote:
>>
>>> I hate to rain on the parade but the AS 29 would be possibly the
>>>
>> worst
>>
>>> choice of Bolger's many designs to morph into a Multihull.
>>>
>>> What makes a sharpie work with its big flat bottom is that since
>>> monohulls heel the chine is the area of first water/boat interface.
>>> Everyone assumed that Loose Moose 2 pounded ( it did not) because of
>>> its flat bottom but that little bit of heel made all the difference.
>>> Adding a couple of AMAs to the mix and calling it a trimaran would
>>> have created a tooth jarring ride.
>>>
>>> I've delivered a lot of boats over the years aincluding several
>>>
>> large
>>
>>> charter cats from South Africa to the Caribean and one thing I have
>>> learned about multihulls is that if they do not have a bridgedeck
>>> clearance of at least three feet the ride becomes seriously
>>> uncomfortable. The idea of sailing five hundred miles with a AS
>>>
>> bottom
>>
>>> pounding is just not a fun thought.
>>>
>>> Take a look at a couple of designers who do excellent
>>>
>> Trimarans..Kurt
>>
>>> Hughes and Dick Newick and the fine entries to the water..as they
>>>
>> say
>>
>>> a picture is worth a thousand words.
>>>
>>> The other problem with trimarans is that to work they are not good
>>>
>> on
>>
>>> load carrying and to have a trimaran with the load carrying ability
>>> and interior space of an AS29 you would be looking at a 40 -50 foot
>>> tri. For Loose Moose 3 we considered several multihulls and to get
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> load carrying and interior space of the old Loose Moose 2 we were
>>> considering fifty and sixty foot cats and they are much better at
>>> loading than trimarans...Just for the record the new LooseMose is
>>> going to be a 38 foot sharpie.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
The 15 degree heeling is accurate for this sharpie and most
trimarans..... indeed.... a heeling sweet spot. The pounding might be
reduced by a cutwater of sorts but it might not be needed. I figure
the unshrouded masts (chinese lugsails) might be now shrouded out to
the floats much as the naval architect Thomas Colvin did on his junk
rigs (and most chinese junks actually do). Thanks for the feedback. I
agree the increased stability would be nice plus a bit more sink
proofing. My aim is not perpetual world cruising but a limited, down
wind relocation to warmer climes that Alaska. Best wishes from
latitude 57. Still a potentially rough ride occasionally down the pac
coast. BoB G.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
trimarans..... indeed.... a heeling sweet spot. The pounding might be
reduced by a cutwater of sorts but it might not be needed. I figure
the unshrouded masts (chinese lugsails) might be now shrouded out to
the floats much as the naval architect Thomas Colvin did on his junk
rigs (and most chinese junks actually do). Thanks for the feedback. I
agree the increased stability would be nice plus a bit more sink
proofing. My aim is not perpetual world cruising but a limited, down
wind relocation to warmer climes that Alaska. Best wishes from
latitude 57. Still a potentially rough ride occasionally down the pac
coast. BoB G.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> the mono sharpie AS-29 reportedly heels easily to about 15degrees
> then firms up. Trimarans heel. Tris don't heel near as much as monos
> generally do though, but the AS-29 15+degrees heel angle is about in
> the middle of their spectrum. That puts an AS-29 trimaran conversion
> in the mono AS sweet spot. It's catamarans that only heel about
> 5degrees...
>
> Yes, conventional tris are extremely weight sensitive - just like
> high performance racing dinghies really. However, this isn't about
> world beating speed performance, or even low end multi speed; that's
> just not possible. Rather this is about achieving consistently good
> mono speeds, and possibly the 80% to 90% of other additional
> multihull benefits remaining.
>
> A bigger mono could be built/purchased to increase living space,
> stability, motion comfort and so on, but at much more cost all round
> than adding suitable amas to a suitable existing mono hull. That AS-
> 29 is optimised for sailing at a slight heel, and has performance
> already classed as that of cruiser/racer suggests, sans ballast etc,
> it may be worth a closer look.
>
>
> Graeme
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks"
> <loosemoosefilmworks@> wrote:
> >
> > I hate to rain on the parade but the AS 29 would be possibly the
> worst
> > choice of Bolger's many designs to morph into a Multihull.
> >
> > What makes a sharpie work with its big flat bottom is that since
> > monohulls heel the chine is the area of first water/boat interface.
> > Everyone assumed that Loose Moose 2 pounded ( it did not) because of
> > its flat bottom but that little bit of heel made all the difference.
> > Adding a couple of AMAs to the mix and calling it a trimaran would
> > have created a tooth jarring ride.
> >
> > I've delivered a lot of boats over the years aincluding several
> large
> > charter cats from South Africa to the Caribean and one thing I have
> > learned about multihulls is that if they do not have a bridgedeck
> > clearance of at least three feet the ride becomes seriously
> > uncomfortable. The idea of sailing five hundred miles with a AS
> bottom
> > pounding is just not a fun thought.
> >
> > Take a look at a couple of designers who do excellent
> Trimarans..Kurt
> > Hughes and Dick Newick and the fine entries to the water..as they
> say
> > a picture is worth a thousand words.
> >
> > The other problem with trimarans is that to work they are not good
> on
> > load carrying and to have a trimaran with the load carrying ability
> > and interior space of an AS29 you would be looking at a 40 -50 foot
> > tri. For Loose Moose 3 we considered several multihulls and to get
> the
> > load carrying and interior space of the old Loose Moose 2 we were
> > considering fifty and sixty foot cats and they are much better at
> > loading than trimarans...Just for the record the new LooseMose is
> > going to be a 38 foot sharpie.
> >
> > Bob
> >http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
> >
>
Bob,
the mono sharpie AS-29 reportedly heels easily to about 15degrees
then firms up. Trimarans heel. Tris don't heel near as much as monos
generally do though, but the AS-29 15+degrees heel angle is about in
the middle of their spectrum. That puts an AS-29 trimaran conversion
in the mono AS sweet spot. It's catamarans that only heel about
5degrees...
Yes, conventional tris are extremely weight sensitive - just like
high performance racing dinghies really. However, this isn't about
world beating speed performance, or even low end multi speed; that's
just not possible. Rather this is about achieving consistently good
mono speeds, and possibly the 80% to 90% of other additional
multihull benefits remaining.
A bigger mono could be built/purchased to increase living space,
stability, motion comfort and so on, but at much more cost all round
than adding suitable amas to a suitable existing mono hull. That AS-
29 is optimised for sailing at a slight heel, and has performance
already classed as that of cruiser/racer suggests, sans ballast etc,
it may be worth a closer look.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks"
<loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
the mono sharpie AS-29 reportedly heels easily to about 15degrees
then firms up. Trimarans heel. Tris don't heel near as much as monos
generally do though, but the AS-29 15+degrees heel angle is about in
the middle of their spectrum. That puts an AS-29 trimaran conversion
in the mono AS sweet spot. It's catamarans that only heel about
5degrees...
Yes, conventional tris are extremely weight sensitive - just like
high performance racing dinghies really. However, this isn't about
world beating speed performance, or even low end multi speed; that's
just not possible. Rather this is about achieving consistently good
mono speeds, and possibly the 80% to 90% of other additional
multihull benefits remaining.
A bigger mono could be built/purchased to increase living space,
stability, motion comfort and so on, but at much more cost all round
than adding suitable amas to a suitable existing mono hull. That AS-
29 is optimised for sailing at a slight heel, and has performance
already classed as that of cruiser/racer suggests, sans ballast etc,
it may be worth a closer look.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks"
<loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
>worst
> I hate to rain on the parade but the AS 29 would be possibly the
> choice of Bolger's many designs to morph into a Multihull.large
>
> What makes a sharpie work with its big flat bottom is that since
> monohulls heel the chine is the area of first water/boat interface.
> Everyone assumed that Loose Moose 2 pounded ( it did not) because of
> its flat bottom but that little bit of heel made all the difference.
> Adding a couple of AMAs to the mix and calling it a trimaran would
> have created a tooth jarring ride.
>
> I've delivered a lot of boats over the years aincluding several
> charter cats from South Africa to the Caribean and one thing I havebottom
> learned about multihulls is that if they do not have a bridgedeck
> clearance of at least three feet the ride becomes seriously
> uncomfortable. The idea of sailing five hundred miles with a AS
> pounding is just not a fun thought.Trimarans..Kurt
>
> Take a look at a couple of designers who do excellent
> Hughes and Dick Newick and the fine entries to the water..as theysay
> a picture is worth a thousand words.on
>
> The other problem with trimarans is that to work they are not good
> load carrying and to have a trimaran with the load carrying abilitythe
> and interior space of an AS29 you would be looking at a 40 -50 foot
> tri. For Loose Moose 3 we considered several multihulls and to get
> load carrying and interior space of the old Loose Moose 2 we were
> considering fifty and sixty foot cats and they are much better at
> loading than trimarans...Just for the record the new LooseMose is
> going to be a 38 foot sharpie.
>
> Bob
>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
>
I hate to rain on the parade but the AS 29 would be possibly the worst
choice of Bolger's many designs to morph into a Multihull.
What makes a sharpie work with its big flat bottom is that since
monohulls heel the chine is the area of first water/boat interface.
Everyone assumed that Loose Moose 2 pounded ( it did not) because of
its flat bottom but that little bit of heel made all the difference.
Adding a couple of AMAs to the mix and calling it a trimaran would
have created a tooth jarring ride.
I've delivered a lot of boats over the years aincluding several large
charter cats from South Africa to the Caribean and one thing I have
learned about multihulls is that if they do not have a bridgedeck
clearance of at least three feet the ride becomes seriously
uncomfortable. The idea of sailing five hundred miles with a AS bottom
pounding is just not a fun thought.
Take a look at a couple of designers who do excellent Trimarans..Kurt
Hughes and Dick Newick and the fine entries to the water..as they say
a picture is worth a thousand words.
The other problem with trimarans is that to work they are not good on
load carrying and to have a trimaran with the load carrying ability
and interior space of an AS29 you would be looking at a 40 -50 foot
tri. For Loose Moose 3 we considered several multihulls and to get the
load carrying and interior space of the old Loose Moose 2 we were
considering fifty and sixty foot cats and they are much better at
loading than trimarans...Just for the record the new LooseMose is
going to be a 38 foot sharpie.
Bob
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
choice of Bolger's many designs to morph into a Multihull.
What makes a sharpie work with its big flat bottom is that since
monohulls heel the chine is the area of first water/boat interface.
Everyone assumed that Loose Moose 2 pounded ( it did not) because of
its flat bottom but that little bit of heel made all the difference.
Adding a couple of AMAs to the mix and calling it a trimaran would
have created a tooth jarring ride.
I've delivered a lot of boats over the years aincluding several large
charter cats from South Africa to the Caribean and one thing I have
learned about multihulls is that if they do not have a bridgedeck
clearance of at least three feet the ride becomes seriously
uncomfortable. The idea of sailing five hundred miles with a AS bottom
pounding is just not a fun thought.
Take a look at a couple of designers who do excellent Trimarans..Kurt
Hughes and Dick Newick and the fine entries to the water..as they say
a picture is worth a thousand words.
The other problem with trimarans is that to work they are not good on
load carrying and to have a trimaran with the load carrying ability
and interior space of an AS29 you would be looking at a 40 -50 foot
tri. For Loose Moose 3 we considered several multihulls and to get the
load carrying and interior space of the old Loose Moose 2 we were
considering fifty and sixty foot cats and they are much better at
loading than trimarans...Just for the record the new LooseMose is
going to be a 38 foot sharpie.
Bob
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
Not in the same league, but take a look at pics 6 & 7 here
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/photos/album/1326651490/pic/list
Briefly, some useful speed gained from the increased ability to stand
up to sail, but not much as the centre hull speed is still limiting.
It is more relaxed to sail than the mono, and that with a big load,
just watch out for the original mono mast and reef earlier than the
mono. It is a much nicer platform to cruise and stay on due to the
extra stability. Some side-decks might be handy for more living
space. Crew can step dryfooted to the shore-side ama, and thence to
the shore.
Cheers
Graeme
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/photos/album/1326651490/pic/list
Briefly, some useful speed gained from the increased ability to stand
up to sail, but not much as the centre hull speed is still limiting.
It is more relaxed to sail than the mono, and that with a big load,
just watch out for the original mono mast and reef earlier than the
mono. It is a much nicer platform to cruise and stay on due to the
extra stability. Some side-decks might be handy for more living
space. Crew can step dryfooted to the shore-side ama, and thence to
the shore.
Cheers
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "goadarama" <goadarama@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the great feedback about our possible conversion. The
basic
> premise was a off-the-wind modification with a good outboard
> otherwise. The current junk schooner rig is very inefficient to
> windward anyway. I,m spending periods aboard gazing, measuring, and
> what-iffing. Again, much thanks for the feedback. BoB G.
Thanks for the great feedback about our possible conversion. The basic
premise was a off-the-wind modification with a good outboard
otherwise. The current junk schooner rig is very inefficient to
windward anyway. I,m spending periods aboard gazing, measuring, and
what-iffing. Again, much thanks for the feedback. BoB G.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
premise was a off-the-wind modification with a good outboard
otherwise. The current junk schooner rig is very inefficient to
windward anyway. I,m spending periods aboard gazing, measuring, and
what-iffing. Again, much thanks for the feedback. BoB G.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>
> A month or three ago this topic came up over at multihull_boatbuilder
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/multihull_boatbuilder/May I suggest you
> ask the very knowledgeable people over there? I can't say how the
> square boat thing may play out there.
>
> Regarding the conversion: as I recall the consensus was that it may
> work quite well - talking of acceptable cruising multis here, not world
> beaters. Boats considered were a few production plastics of about the
> cruiser/racer class. Moreover there are actual examples that continue
> to please their owners. Not sure how AS29 would suit, even though the
> numbers suggest it may.
>
> Graeme
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "goadarama" <goadarama@> wrote:
> >
> > We're considering a trimaran conversion of our ASharpie. We're
> > contemplating a relocation from Alaska to Panama, downwind most of the
> > way, and wonder if it would increase stability and good ride as well
> > as virtually sinkproof the boat. With a potential cutwater on the bow
> > added. Our current rig is schooner chinese lugsail. It would go to
> > windward not worth a darn but has a engine. Any opinions would be
> > most appreciated. Thank you. BoB G.
> >
>
A month or three ago this topic came up over at multihull_boatbuilder
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/multihull_boatbuilder/May I suggest you
ask the very knowledgeable people over there? I can't say how the
square boat thing may play out there.
Regarding the conversion: as I recall the consensus was that it may
work quite well - talking of acceptable cruising multis here, not world
beaters. Boats considered were a few production plastics of about the
cruiser/racer class. Moreover there are actual examples that continue
to please their owners. Not sure how AS29 would suit, even though the
numbers suggest it may.
Graeme
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/multihull_boatbuilder/May I suggest you
ask the very knowledgeable people over there? I can't say how the
square boat thing may play out there.
Regarding the conversion: as I recall the consensus was that it may
work quite well - talking of acceptable cruising multis here, not world
beaters. Boats considered were a few production plastics of about the
cruiser/racer class. Moreover there are actual examples that continue
to please their owners. Not sure how AS29 would suit, even though the
numbers suggest it may.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "goadarama" <goadarama@...> wrote:
>
> We're considering a trimaran conversion of our ASharpie. We're
> contemplating a relocation from Alaska to Panama, downwind most of the
> way, and wonder if it would increase stability and good ride as well
> as virtually sinkproof the boat. With a potential cutwater on the bow
> added. Our current rig is schooner chinese lugsail. It would go to
> windward not worth a darn but has a engine. Any opinions would be
> most appreciated. Thank you. BoB G.
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Gentry" <alias1719@...> wrote:
Ruth Wharram wrote of their longstanding friendship also. Man, would
I have liked to have been a fly on the wall and heard some of those
conversations! TFJ and Carol's epic hurricane survival at sea aboard
their "Two Rabbits", a small modified Wharram, has passed well into
multi folklore and TFJ is cited more than once in the JW literature.
Graeme
> For some entertaining and factual accounts about the subject,everyone
> should read the late Thomas Firth Jones' book "Multihull Voyaging."Affirmative
> TFJ was a great friend of Phil Bolger, btw, and wrote the best bioof
> him that I've ever come across. One can find it in the back of TFJ'sNotably he and Carol also great friends of SA. And upon TFJ's passing
> book "New Plywood Boats."
Ruth Wharram wrote of their longstanding friendship also. Man, would
I have liked to have been a fly on the wall and heard some of those
conversations! TFJ and Carol's epic hurricane survival at sea aboard
their "Two Rabbits", a small modified Wharram, has passed well into
multi folklore and TFJ is cited more than once in the JW literature.
Graeme
"paulthober" <paulthober@...> wrote:
"Generally monohulls are deemed to be more appropriate for
passage-making, particularly in the smaller sizes - a 29 foot trimaran
is considered small. Small multihulls are considered more likely to
suffer an irreversible catastrophe - a capsized monohull will in all
likelyhood right itself, a multihull, not so much."
Really . . . that is merely an opinion held by some, but definitely not
by others! Here's a statement of opinion that is equally as valid:
"Generally, monohulls are less well suited for passage making, and
monohulls of all sizes are considered to be much more likely to suffer
irreversible catastrophe (i.e. sinking) than multihulls."
The mono v multi debate has been going on for a good century now, and
there are arguments for each side, but the fact is that many, many safe
transoceanic passages have been made in multis. "Small" ones, too.
And a theoretical AS 29 trimaran wouldn't be any smaller than an AS 29
monohull, would it?
-----
For some entertaining and factual accounts about the subject, everyone
should read the late Thomas Firth Jones' book "Multihull Voyaging."
TFJ was a great friend of Phil Bolger, btw, and wrote the best bio of
him that I've ever come across. One can find it in the back of TFJ's
book "New Plywood Boats."
-------
Bob G: As for converting your AS 29 to a trimaran, perhaps you should
consult a naval architect instead of us random web warriors!
I think it's an intriguing idea, but likely fraught with engineering
difficulties.
Good luck, in any case!
Dave Gentry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"Generally monohulls are deemed to be more appropriate for
passage-making, particularly in the smaller sizes - a 29 foot trimaran
is considered small. Small multihulls are considered more likely to
suffer an irreversible catastrophe - a capsized monohull will in all
likelyhood right itself, a multihull, not so much."
Really . . . that is merely an opinion held by some, but definitely not
by others! Here's a statement of opinion that is equally as valid:
"Generally, monohulls are less well suited for passage making, and
monohulls of all sizes are considered to be much more likely to suffer
irreversible catastrophe (i.e. sinking) than multihulls."
The mono v multi debate has been going on for a good century now, and
there are arguments for each side, but the fact is that many, many safe
transoceanic passages have been made in multis. "Small" ones, too.
And a theoretical AS 29 trimaran wouldn't be any smaller than an AS 29
monohull, would it?
-----
For some entertaining and factual accounts about the subject, everyone
should read the late Thomas Firth Jones' book "Multihull Voyaging."
TFJ was a great friend of Phil Bolger, btw, and wrote the best bio of
him that I've ever come across. One can find it in the back of TFJ's
book "New Plywood Boats."
-------
Bob G: As for converting your AS 29 to a trimaran, perhaps you should
consult a naval architect instead of us random web warriors!
I think it's an intriguing idea, but likely fraught with engineering
difficulties.
Good luck, in any case!
Dave Gentry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Generally monohulls are deemed to be more appropriate for
passage-making, particularly in the smaller sizes - a 29 foot trimaran
is considered small. Small multihulls are considered more likely to
suffer an irreversible catastrophe - a capsized monohull will in all
likelyhood right itself, a multihull, not so much.
I am curious as to your plan; will you go offshore or attempt to hop
from port to port?
paul
passage-making, particularly in the smaller sizes - a 29 foot trimaran
is considered small. Small multihulls are considered more likely to
suffer an irreversible catastrophe - a capsized monohull will in all
likelyhood right itself, a multihull, not so much.
I am curious as to your plan; will you go offshore or attempt to hop
from port to port?
paul
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "goadarama" <goadarama@...> wrote:
>
> We're considering a trimaran conversion of our ASharpie. We're
> contemplating a relocation from Alaska to Panama, downwind most of the
> way, and wonder if it would increase stability and good ride as well
> as virtually sinkproof the boat. With a potential cutwater on the bow
> added. Our current rig is schooner chinese lugsail. It would go to
> windward not worth a darn but has a engine. Any opinions would be
> most appreciated. Thank you. BoB G.
>
Hi Bob,
Jon
> We're considering a trimaran conversion of our ASharpie. We'reHow well does your Chinese lug schooner go to windward as a monohull?
> contemplating a relocation from Alaska to Panama, downwind most of the
> way, and wonder if it would increase stability and good ride as well
> as virtually sinkproof the boat. With a potential cutwater on the bow
> added. Our current rig is schooner chinese lugsail. It would go to
> windward not worth a darn but has a engine. Any opinions would be
> most appreciated. Thank you. BoB G.
Jon
Hi Bob -
You already have a pretty sinkproof boat. Instead of investing time and money into
changing the design around, my suggestion would be to invest the money in a new
powerthrust outboard so that you can motor as needed with peace of mind. Honda makes
a 15HP powerthrust that might be a good balance of cost and power. If the boat is not so
steady when sailing downwind, reefing generally calms it down - even downwind. If you
want more stability when motoring, then put up just a little bit of sail and it will do
wonders. Heeling a sharpie a little makes for a nice ride.
Mike
You already have a pretty sinkproof boat. Instead of investing time and money into
changing the design around, my suggestion would be to invest the money in a new
powerthrust outboard so that you can motor as needed with peace of mind. Honda makes
a 15HP powerthrust that might be a good balance of cost and power. If the boat is not so
steady when sailing downwind, reefing generally calms it down - even downwind. If you
want more stability when motoring, then put up just a little bit of sail and it will do
wonders. Heeling a sharpie a little makes for a nice ride.
Mike
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "goadarama" <goadarama@...> wrote:
>
> We're considering a trimaran conversion of our ASharpie. We're
> contemplating a relocation from Alaska to Panama, downwind most of the
> way, and wonder if it would increase stability and good ride as well
> as virtually sinkproof the boat. With a potential cutwater on the bow
> added. Our current rig is schooner chinese lugsail. It would go to
> windward not worth a darn but has a engine. Any opinions would be
> most appreciated. Thank you. BoB G.
>
We're considering a trimaran conversion of our ASharpie. We're
contemplating a relocation from Alaska to Panama, downwind most of the
way, and wonder if it would increase stability and good ride as well
as virtually sinkproof the boat. With a potential cutwater on the bow
added. Our current rig is schooner chinese lugsail. It would go to
windward not worth a darn but has a engine. Any opinions would be
most appreciated. Thank you. BoB G.
contemplating a relocation from Alaska to Panama, downwind most of the
way, and wonder if it would increase stability and good ride as well
as virtually sinkproof the boat. With a potential cutwater on the bow
added. Our current rig is schooner chinese lugsail. It would go to
windward not worth a darn but has a engine. Any opinions would be
most appreciated. Thank you. BoB G.