Central Nacelle on Crusing Catamaran (lots of pluses)

This is an old idea of mine that i think still has lots of merits

I'll come back to a few of your other questions a bit later, but meanwhile I'll post this portion of a previous thread I tried starting with no results. It considers a centerboard mounting that is above the waterline (easy maintanence and repairability without hauling), and a single 'cockpit mounted' engine with steerable outdrive....and the relatively small HP you are considering would be easily compatable with the industrial belts I site.
_____________________________
"One item of your thought processes caught my attention in particular; your desire for a single centerboard, and real shallow draft capabilities. I'll certainly second that motion, that shallow draft idea. One of the greatest attributes of multihulls is their capability to really go exploring ALL the water areas including those tributaries, lagoons, reefs, etc. That's why I had kick-up CB's in each hull of my design.

BUT, what you may not have noticed was my alternative to the CB's in each hull. Look at the attached drawing, (or the very bottom profile drwg that denotes "asymmetrical CB's, nacelle mounted". First, imagine a flat plate, on edge, mounted down the centerline on the underside of the bridge deck. This flat plate will act as a rib to strengthen the fore-to-aft rigidity of the vessel, a somewhat weaker characteristic in a catamaran structure vs. a keeled monohull. If a tow bundle (rope, etc) of carbon fiber (kevlar, PBO, etc) was laid along the bottom edge of this flat plate, the rigidity could be even greater (sort of akin to a bottom truss structure, or a flange of an 'I' beam). Now on either side of this flat plate I propose to mount a centerboard, not a single, symmetrical one, but rather two asymmetrical ones; sort of like a single board split in half. The flat sides of these asymmetric boards would fit up against the flat plate nacelle, and rotate on oversize (possibly 1-foot) diameter bearings. The flat fit & big bearings would together supply a great big surface for the large bending moments to bear against. Only one board at a time would be lowered. In fact the two could be linked together such that the act of lifting one automatically lowers (& powers) the other down. And they both could be rigged to 'kick up' upon hitting any solid object and/or for shallow cruising. The control lines (cables) could be routed right up to the cabin top and back to the cockpit.

There are several advantages to an asymmetrical shaped centerboard. First, it requires less total board area to develop a leeway reducing force....so the board size is reduced. Secondly, since it is asymmetrical, it does not require an angle of attack (does not require the boat itself to be sailed at a skewed angle) to develop the 'board's lift' (leeway reducing force). This actually
may result in the vessel making less leeway. Plus the drag forces associated with the CB lift forces are on the centerline of the vessel, rather than off in one hull that produces turning moments about the center of the vessel.

This centerline mounting may also improve the tacking capabilities of the vessel as it allows the 'clean' hulls to slip a little while pivoting about the central board.

The front of this nacelle/plate could be configured to act as a wave splitter to actually attack, up front, the formation of those peaky waves under the tramp areas that eventually slap at our bridge deck underside. We kind of slice those waves down a bit. A lightweight fairing might also be added to this 'flat plate nacelle' so it appears outwardly much more esthetically pleasing, as well as more curvature to shed those peaky waves.

And how about the maintenance factor, particularly in remote cruising areas. No need to haul-out the vessel to repair kick-up CB problems, or even bottom painting problems. Everything, including the cables, bearings, and boards is all above the load waterline. The initial building cost should be less by eliminating the trunks in two hulls, and the watertight integrity is much
better. The twin boards might have to be made a little bit longer as they operate with a 'free-surface' end, but then they are asymmetric so they can be correspondingly shorter. I would further suggest that surplus helicopter blades are prime candidate sources for both CB blades and rudder blades....high tech, extremely strong carbon fiber fabrications that have a
prescribed limited life span aboard aircraft, but are perfectly happy for our use.

For rudder designs I would give a cassette system such as the Vara rudder a close look in lieu of a kick-up system. Or maybe even Tony Smith's Gemini cat system. Kick-up rudder systems can get pretty complicated, plus they usually don't steer the boat very well at all when they are kicked up in shallow water. (LOTS of weather helm).

If I were looking to use my auxiliary engine in a strictly aux manner, rather than in a motor/sailing demand, I would seriously consider a single engine installation. This engine would be conveniently mounted in an enclosure on the cockpit deck and would belt drive a steerable out-drive leg that would be incorporated into the rear portion of the central nacelle structure. Maybe this rear nacelle might appear as on "Earthling's pod" (attached photo and/or http://www.earthling.co.nz/boating.htm This saves the cost and weight of the second engine, trans, shafting, prop, etc, and opens up the rears of the hulls whatever."

 

from that same subject thread (2005)

MotorSailing Synergy, Alt CB's, Single Engine

Bob Leask said:
Motorsailing offshore is by far the most pleasant way to make passage, most of the time. With the engine barely above idle and a moderate amount of sail set, there is a synergy created by the apparent wind which generates more forward thrust than either one alone, with the bonus that you don't have to set large areas of canvas, which will have to come down in a hurry if the wind increases. The boat rides better, makes a better average speed and the batteries are always full. The beneft of using a much smaller sailplan can only be appreciated by someone who's been caught offguard in a squall with too much sail up. "Adventures" like that might be fun for weekend sailors and short coastal passagemakers, but on a long ocean passage they're something to avoid, even if it means a slower passage.
I was making this same point in my #3 posting above in this thread, "In light airs, running one engine often is all that is needed to bring the apparent wind forward to make the sails work harder, and the combination provides much better results than either motoring or sailing alone…… sailing synergy/harmony, the motor taking over in the lulls and the rig taking over in the puffs"

And take note from that same posting, "Optional nacelle-mounted centerboard precludes any extra hull penetrations, and permits maintenance without hauling-out."

 

couple of older illustrations to suggest the idea,..