Look Ma, No Rocker

Triroo, thanks for posting photos of Wired. The beam structure certainly is different. Hitch really thought outside the box. Do you know what he was trying to accomplish with that design?

Masalai, comparing the superstructure of X-IT vs CNO is quite a contrast in aerodynamic sleekness. Have you concluded that an aerodynamic bridgedeck is very overrated, or is it just that since you don't plan to sail CNO upwind in very windy conditions the advantages of vertical windows outweigh their wind resistance?

 

Wired was built for the around Australia race in 1988. Unfortunately it was not fully tested in time to qualify. The aim with the pyramid structure is to be able to have as wide a beam as possible without the weight. So as you can see there are no cross beams going from hull to hull. So the pyramid is held down by the mast stays & the hulls are held together by 2 large cables running from one bow to the other stern in a large X. A very stiff boat on which I have lucky enough to sail. Robin Chamberlin sailed his cat down to the Antarctic with the same sort of structure but with 2 aluminium cross beams. Paul

 

X-IT. Hulls were built to be more like wave piercing hulls, so as not to have the large amounts of buoyancy that Wired had which could make the ride a bit jerky in the wrong sea way. So long narrow hulls with NO rocker. When sailing on X-IT at slow speed, 3 to 8 knots the ride seems to be very uneven & bouncy, but as the speed goes up the ride is so smooth & you cannot believe that you are going (in my case) 16 knots in such comfort in confused seas. The bridgedeck is all built on the X beam so very strong. If you were ever to put both hulls under water then you have a very large amount of buoyancy to help out & that was built into the plan. Paul

 

Hi Triroo,
Thanks for the images, Any further info on the "river-boat"?

Hi ImaginaryNumber,
The profile is lower than the Lagoon 41 series (without the raised steering position), and since I intend to cruise, and most cruising is "with the flow" so to speak, I opted for comfort and the bridgedeck has enough "room for 2 swinging the cat fights" or, space to swing a hammock (more than 13 feet clear). I mainly sought to avoid having a "solar oven" as the bridgedeck saloon, and in that the boat works nicely for the tropics. The air-flow, (which surprised me a bit), seems to deflect from the tramps and forward, over the front brow. - - I had inserted vents under the brow, but receive very little flow... Most breeze comes through the hatches over the toilet and washing machine (forward, p & s), which I only open at anchor sometimes...

 

Interested in this concept.....
It means easier build/design. (cheaper and quicker).
Wharram used it in pahi and tama moana - good passage makers but crap tackers?
Hull form - deep v.... foils/daggers and rudder size?
Always thought pahi's didn't have big enough rudders....
X-it has fwd daggers as do pahi's but pahi's can leave them out - owners say makes no difference?
Pahi's work better in larger sizes - 42' being best - why would this make a difference?
For a pod cat type - it makes good sense?
X-it is a huge boat tho' - for something more minimalist it might be viable?
What was the original idea behind the post?