To install this app on your iPhone:
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I imagined being able to do that as well with my 65 catamaran with a single masted ketch rig;Wonder how the authorities would view a saling yacht say 60 feet without a motor, in other words so you really needed skills to enter and leave a port, river, dock ♠
I'm uncertain that he is still with us? Certainly he has not made any recent contributions to the subjects he so adamantly contributed to. Besides his contribution would likely be primarily aerodynamic in nature. I think I've shown that the aerodynamics of the situation conform with his findings and will be just fine. It's the stress loading that will be tricky.Originally Posted by Maren said:...I think general acceptance of something this new tends to go like this: The engineers trust the numbers, the daring try it out, and over time acceptance is gained from experience of those that went first. But the numbers are the lynch pin in my opinion. So I keep coming back to the question, but from three different approaches:
The Godfather – Have you floated this past C.A. Marchaj yet? I think he would lend a great deal of credence to the work.
I don't know exactly where his Norseman fitting was located in his rigging plan. If he had only one single backstay on his rig that was clearly not enough. And I am unsure as to what size rigging wire and fitting were utilized. I have a feeling that his fitting was faulty, and/or his installation of it. The reason I say this is in reading his log I can find nothing really heavy or extreme weather-wise that should have brought the rig down unless it was greatly underdesigned by his own design calculations.Loads - The occasionally voiced concern of those that have read everything they can find on aft-masts is the crystallized thread of a Norseman backstay and the later switch to a conventional sloop rig from by Barefoot who, as pointed out above, didn’t follow what you were saying in the first place.
First let me clear up this point about 'less stress'. I'm sorry if I've given the impression that my rig would be less stressful. Rather in fact it will be more stressful, both within itself, and in transmitting its forces to the hull structure. I only meant to say that because it has a lower CE, it will have less overturning moment on the vessel than the corresponding sail area of the taller sloop rig. So the side shroud loading could be less from a geometric point of view. BUT, on multihull vessels, this shroud loading can be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than on a monohull due to the huge stability factor** of the beamy hull form...yin and yang.By extension, the concern is that the rigging might be sized to take the loads but the hulls couldn’t or would at least need some reinforcement. And yet, this is contrary to your position that the rig would have less stress because of a lower Center of Effort.
I suppose the answer is running a finite element analysis of the whole deal but I am not a Naval Architect. So I’m asking you, the chief proponent – Brian, what are the loads involved and have they been rigorously calculated or has this been done with an applied engineering approach?
Hi Alik,.....Actually I do not belive in aft mast rig so much advertised by Brian - it has never been built and never proved working. Unfortunately some people are mislead by this nice but unproven concept.
I have serious doubts if aft mast rigged boat is capable to tack due to sail area distribution. Also there are serious concerns about windward performance. Anyway soon we will have chance to test it on one of our designed cats.