Interesting Sailboats

[Hartley18]

Originally Posted by tdw

Now those are about the size of hull windows that could satisfy me....

Don't like the galley though...

..not to mention ZERO hand-holds and sharp corners...

I dunno.. what is WITH designers these days?? They expect people to move around a sailing boat under sail without anything to hang on to?

FWIW there's a nice write-up of the new Hanse in the latest Cruising Helmsman magazine.

[PCP]

Originally Posted by Hartley18

..not to mention ZERO hand-holds and sharp corners...

I dunno.. what is WITH designers these days?? They expect people to move around a sailing boat under sail without anything to hang on to?

FWIW there's a nice write-up of the new Hanse in the latest Cruising Helmsman magazine.

Hartley, where are those hull windows Andrews is talking about? Where is the boat with sharp corners?

Can you post a little more about that write-up on the Hanse? They are releasing two new models. What is the one that you are talking about?

Tell us what they say about the boat .

Regards

Paulo

[PCP]

Originally Posted by sailingdog

Paulo—

First, the catamaran does not have AMAS...the AMAS are the smaller outrigger hulls on a TRIMARAN or PROA. A Catamaran has two HULLS.
.

Sorry about my bad Englhish. In all other languages that I speack there are not a different name for the hulls of a multihull (tri or cat), so I have assumed that the amas where the hulls of a multihull. Thanks for the correction.

Originally Posted by sailingdog

When you're in a cruising size catamaran, you really should never be flying a hull. IF you are flying a hull in a cruising sized catamaran, regardless of LOA, you're being an idiot and deserve what you get.

Not all trimarans are designed to fly an ama. Many cruising designs, including my Telstar 28, are designed to sail with all three hulls in the water normally. In fact, depending on what the design is, flying an ama may be a warning sign of the boat being overpowered.

I believe you have misunderstood me. I have said:

"There is a significant difference between a stability curve of a tri and the one of a cat.
Basically when a small cat (less than 50ft) starts to lift its amas, there is very little stability left and you can capsize really fast. In a tri it is normal to sail with an ama out of the water and when the central body starts to lift you have much more time to let go the sails."

And I believe that this is correct. It is out of the scope of this thread but if you want to discuss the differences in a stability curve between a cat and a tri you can open a thread about it and I will post some stability curves.

What I mean is that when a cruising cat lifts a hull, you are in trouble. I am not talking about doing it purposely, but sometimes it happens (as in the recent Australian accident). When it starts to happen you have little time to correrct the situation.

About the trimarans, when I have said that it is normal to sail with an hull out of the water, I mean that in the generality of the trimarans, that is not a dangerous situation (unlike the cruising cats) because you still have plenty of reserve stability.

Even huge and heavy trimarsns can sail safely with an ama out of the water. Here you have some pictures, including one from a Telestar:



But I was referring mostly to fast cruising trimarans (why sailors would want a boat that has less interior space than a monohull and is more expensive if it is not faster?) and for those it is normal to raise a ama even without much wind, some with weak wind.

Here you have photos of most of the cruising trimarans on the market, at least the ones I know :



Regards

Paulol

[sailingdog]

Paulo— All of the last set of photos are TRIMARANS, not Catamarans.

Yes, it is true that a catamaran that has a hull flying is on the border of capsizing, since it often takes very little additional wind to flip one that is already flying a hull. However, as I said, any sailor that has gotten into the position where they are flying a hull on a cruising catamaran, is doing something really, really wrong.

While flying an ama isn't as dangerous as flying a hull on a catamaran, it is usually a warning sign that the boat is overpowered. A majority of the photos of trimarans you have are of primarily two brands—quorning dragonflies and farrier-based Corsairs. I'm not surprised that these are flying an ama, as they are designed to do so... and even at rest, some of these designs will generally have one of the amas out of the water a tiny bit.

I'd point out that the photo of the Telstar 28 is one that Tony took for a magazine article about the boat and the boat in question is a tall-rig version that is completely unloaded—I have seen the entire photo set from the photo shoot in question. It doesn't have almost any of the tools, supplies or equipment that would normally be aboard a Telstar equipped for cruising—and is probably significantly lighter. I'd also point out that the ama is still touching the water, it's high, but still touching. If it were loaded as a normal cruising boat would be, it would have all three hulls firmly in the water.

[PCP]

Originally Posted by sailingdog

Paulo— All of the last set of photos are TRIMARANS, not Catamarans.

Ok! You have got me . I am going to edit it.

Originally Posted by sailingdog

... A majority of the photos of trimarans you have are of primarily two brands—quorning dragonflies and farrier-based Corsairs. I'm not surprised that these are flying an ama, as they are designed to do so... and even at rest, some of these designs will generally have one of the amas out of the water a tiny bit.
...

There several other brands on the photos, like the Trimax, the Seaon, or the Challenge and it could have been more if I could have found photos or remember the names. There are several interesting fast cruising trimarans on the European market even if the production is very limited. All of them are designed to be fast and to fly one hull.

Sailingdog, I have seen your informed comments about a Corsair 24 on other thread. I would like to have your colaboration on this thread. I am interested in the Corsair 37. Do you know the boat? Have been inside one or sailed one?
Can you post about it?

The boat is not expensive, if we compare it to a Dragonfly 35, but I have heard a lot of negative comments about it and its realiability.

Regards

Paulo

[sailingdog]

Paulo—

IIRC, the Corsair 37 is just a slightly longer version of what used to be the Corsair 36. IIRC, the Corsair 36, which was introduced in 2003 and the following Corsair 37 were NOT designed by Ian Farrier. While they may use the Farrier designed folding system, and based on designs by Ian Farrier, they are not Farrier designs. I haven't sailed on the 37, as it is a fairly recent design and I haven't seen one in person either.

The recent Corsairs have been plagued with some quality control issues, since they moved production off-shore to Vietnam. Of course, quality control has slowly become more and more of an issue since Ian Farrier and Corsair Marine parted ways back in 2000 or so. IIRC, his decision to leave had a lot to do with them removing him from having complete say over the quality and methods used in production. He also revoked permission for Corsair marine to use his name in their materials and for their boats... which is why the Corsair 28/31 are now C-28/31 rather than the previous F-28/31 etc.

Dragonfly has amazing fit and finish, probably the best of the larger production trimaran manufacturers. The Dragonflies are pretty solid and seaworthy boats in my experience. There have been some pretty well-known failures, but IIRC, most were due to operator error.

As for trimarans designed to fly a hull... these are generally going to be racing designs, not cruising designs. Boats that are designed to fly a hull have significantly lower cargo carrying capacity than ones that generally have all three hulls in the water. It stands to reason that ones that are primarily designed as cruisers, will tend to have three hulls in the water and higher payload capacities.

[PCP]

Originally Posted by sailingdog

Paulo—

IIRC, the Corsair 37 is just a slightly longer version of what used to be the Corsair 36. IIRC, the Corsair 36, which was introduced in 2003 and the following Corsair 37 were NOT designed by Ian Farrier. While they may use the Farrier designed folding system, and based on designs by Ian Farrier, they are not Farrier designs. I haven't sailed on the 37, as it is a fairly recent design and I haven't seen one in person either.

The recent Corsairs have been plagued with some quality control issues, since they moved production off-shore to Vietnam. Of course, quality control has slowly become more and more of an issue since Ian Farrier and Corsair Marine parted ways back in 2000 or so. IIRC, his decision to leave had a lot to do with them removing him from having complete say over the quality and methods used in production. He also revoked permission for Corsair marine to use his name in their materials and for their boats... which is why the Corsair 28/31 are now C-28/31 rather than the previous F-28/31 etc.

Dragonfly has amazing fit and finish, probably the best of the larger production trimaran manufacturers. The Dragonflies are pretty solid and seaworthy boats in my experience. There have been some pretty well-known failures, but IIRC, most were due to operator error.

As for trimarans designed to fly a hull... these are generally going to be racing designs, not cruising designs. Boats that are designed to fly a hull have significantly lower cargo carrying capacity than ones that generally have all three hulls in the water. It stands to reason that ones that are primarily designed as cruisers, will tend to have three hulls in the water and higher payload capacities.

Thanks for the information

I know that the 37 is basically the 36ft. Some years back, before the chrisis, I exchange some e-mails with Ian Farrier about the Corsair 36 and the Farrier 39.

Basically I wanted to know what where the reasons that lead him not to allow to call the Corsair 36 a Farrier design and what where is main concerns about the boat (I was interested in the corsair 36). I was also interested in the Farrier 39 and wanted to know is recommendations about builders and prices of designs.

He was very straightforward. If I remember correctly (I have lost those e-mails) the main divergences regarding the 36 had to do with the linking of the amas to the main hull. Regarding the 39, that is a very nice boat, with sufficient space for my needs, after talking with some builders, it turned out that the boat would end up to be more expensive than my budget and the more experienced recommended builders were also far away (Canada).

The New F-39
http://www.f-boat.com/pdf/F-39AftCabinProfile.pdf
http://www.f-boat.com/pdf/F-39interior.pdf

I have also tried to see if my budget was enough for a Challenge 37 (it is not for a Dragonfly 35 that is the more expensive of them all), but I have given up. They are all too expensive for me. There is a big difference in price between one of those and for instance, a Pogo 10.50, that offers more interior space and only a slightly poorer performance.

Fotos de barco Voiliers Challenge 37-40 de Vela trimarã - Galeria
Naval Force 3 - Accueil

I don't agree with you when you say that :"As for trimarans designed to fly a hull... these are generally going to be racing designs, not cruising designs."

Ian Farrier describes the 36 as "a large, ocean going, cruising multihull" and as "cruising orientated" and the 39 as "The perfect high performance cruiser". As you know a Farrier 36 has already circumnavigated, as well as a smaller Corsair.

Most Dragonflies are used for cruising and there is even a Challenge 37 (or 33?) in Charter service.

I certainly agree with you when you say: "Boats that are designed to fly a hull have significantly lower cargo carrying capacity than ones that generally have all three hulls in the water."

But the main reason a sailor would buy a cruising trimaran is for sailing and cruising faster than in a monohull and for that you need a fast design and a light boat, that will fly a hull.

If you need a bigger cruising payload, well, you just need a bigger trimaram (for me the 39 would be enough). The real problem is the cost

Regards

Paulo

[PCP]

Back on Pag.10, Posts 96 and 99 we talked about the New Farr designed 40ft Bavaria.

Here are the first pictures:





Comments please!!

Regards

Paulo

[myocean]

The Bavaria is probably heavy and slow, isn't it?

Here a major disadvantage my wife found for the Pogo 12.50:
If you are on a long trip with kids you will probably have no sex at all anymore because of missing doors ;-)

Ulf

[myocean]

Originally Posted by PCP

Comments please!!

Regards

Paulo

This looks nice, but as all(?) Bavarias is probably even heavy and slow, isn't it?

Here a major disadvantage my wife found for the Pogo 12.50:
If you are on a long trip with kids you will probably have no sex at all anymore because of the missing doors ;-)

Ulf