GUNBOAT Dismasting

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by malbert73

If they hadn't lost the rig likely they would have flipped.

Possibly, but I doubt it. I've done static stability calculations for my boat and with similar sail up the SS for my boat is 61 knots. Keeping in mind that SS essentially means a boat on the hard with sails sheeted flat and the wind at 90 degrees apparent. Dynamic stability will be quite different.

I would expect a cat that size, being actively sailed by a large, experienced crew, might well have weathered a 70 knot gust. That said, given my own skill set and a propensity towards cowardice, in those conditions I would have been flying at most a reefed jib (SS 109 knots) or more likely bare poles (SS 111 knots).

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by Seaslug Caravan

The problem with this approach is:
A/ Do you set up for a port or starboard deployment?
Doesn't matter. You set up on either side and, when ready to deploy, heave-to with that side to windward.
B/ chafe on the attached lines after days of ploughing into nasty stuff needs to be managed. ( yes I know one can use cable ties etc but all this has a definite cyclic life)
I've not found this to be an issue whatsoever.
and
C/ Is hanging a parra-anchor of the bows really the best option
The situation will dictate this, but it certainly would have been an excellent option in this case, although I doubt one that was available on this racing boat on it's way to a race

Pre-deploying as 44 describes allows you to set the 'chute safely from the cockpit with very little effort. I would hesitate go forward in a blow to deploy a parachute, especially on a boat like the Gunboat with no foredeck to speak of.

[SailingwithSoul]

Just my opinion, but all the money, technology and logistics don't make a lick of difference when these boats are made of paper-thin materials. Mother nature will just laugh at all the graphs and stress-test spreadsheets.

I'm sure many will disagree with me, I feel that the main reason Rain Maker lost her mast was because she was too light, thin and brittle to take on the open ocean. The other part of the equation is human error. I'm thankful all survived.

For that money, they could have bought themselves something like a Yapluka and still been the bell at the ball.

[Duct Tape]

Incidently, the new Gunboat 78 getting launched this summer is looking for a captain...
The most important requirement according to the crew agent would appear to be the ability to speak Spanish and English fluently! Perhaps the ability to ' keep it up' is more important on a GB...!

[robert sailor]

The Benni Sense was designed for the Med, could it cross an ocean, of course most anything can cross an ocean as long as the weather is benign but that boat was a mono hull with some of the features of a Cat. A boat like that makes perfect sense (no pun intended) in places like the Caribbean, Med or Mexico but like our friends on the GB found out when the **** hits the fan not all boats are created equal.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by mikereed100

Possibly, but I doubt it. I've done static stability calculations for my boat and with similar sail up the SS for my boat is 61 knots. Keeping in mind that SS essentially means a boat on the hard with sails sheeted flat and the wind at 90 degrees apparent. Dynamic stability will be quite different.

I would expect a cat that size, being actively sailed by a large, experienced crew, might well have weathered a 70 knot gust. That said, given my own skill set and a propensity towards cowardice, in those conditions I would have been flying at most a reefed jib (SS 109 knots) or more likely bare poles (SS 111 knots).

A boat on the hard is not the same as a boat at sea as the seas themselves will often heel a boat well over when broadsided by a large wave, it certainly would help in flipping a boat.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

Carbon's primary choice as a composite is its very high specific stiffness. The primary tradeoff
is its poor relative toughness (ability to absorb energy) compared to kevlar and fibreglass.

Carbon is, in general engineering terms, a good choice where high stiffness and light weight is desired. Carbon is generally a poor choice when toughness is desired. (the ability to absorb energy correlates well with survivability)

In motorsports, my background, carbon only components are lifed and are disposed of regularly. It rarely fails gracefully.

As an engineer I'd rarely specify carbon in applications that need durability and graceful failure modes. Often its chosen because it looks sexier than the alternatives.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

That's what I was thinking, but didn't have the engineering degree to back it up.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Polux

That view is a bit unfair. Gunboats have all it takes to live aboard on anchorage and to cruise extensively. I believe the reason you don't see them there often has to do with the money they cost and the lifestyle of owners: They are millionaires and have millionaires wives and kids that prefer to eat at luxurious gourmet restaurants and enjoy a luxurious marina with the associated social life.

Give it time and when their price comes to affordable levels I am quite sure you will see them on anchorages as you see already some less expensive big fast catamarans, like Outremer, for instance.

Well, Pollux, it may be unfair, but it is my view, and your view can be whatever you want it to be.

They may "have all it takes to live aboard on anchorage and to cruise extensively", but somehow Rainmaker didn't survive her first "cruise". She failed, plain and simple, to be a successful cruiser.

That to me negates your view, but that's just my view.

Jim

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

I guess, I am just old fashioned or whatever, but the sight of these wide open transoms give me the heeby jeebies. All I can visualize is a wave crashing into them and flooding the vessel.

^^^^ Me, too, mate.

Ann

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Well, Pollux, it may be unfair, but it is my view, and your view can be whatever you want it to be.

They may "have all it takes to live aboard on anchorage and to cruise extensively", but somehow Rainmaker didn't survive her first "cruise". She failed, plain and simple, to be a successful cruiser.

That to me negates your view, but that's just my view.

Jim

Well that was short and to the point, can't say I disagree with you Jim.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Well, Pollux, it may be unfair, but it is my view, and your view can be whatever you want it to be.



They may "have all it takes to live aboard on anchorage and to cruise extensively", but somehow Rainmaker didn't survive her first "cruise". She failed, plain and simple, to be a successful cruiser.



That to me negates your view, but that's just my view.



Jim

When you say "she" are you referring to the entire boat? Seems as if the mast fell down, does that even make the mast at fault? Amazing how people can take the failing of what could be one small part and proclaim the entire boat to be at fault.

[pbr]

I personally don't think it has enough bridgedeck clearance to be a good offshore design, I was surprised to see it under 30"

[clockwork orange]

Originally Posted by pbr

I personally don't think it has enough bridgedeck clearance to be a good offshore design, I was surprised to see it under 30"

Wow, that stern on view is most unimpressive, the steps are deeply awash and very low bridgedeck clearance, where did you get the 30" figure from?

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by SailingwithSoul

Just my opinion, but all the money, technology and logistics don't make a lick of difference when these boats are made of paper-thin materials. Mother nature will just laugh at all the graphs and stress-test spreadsheets.

I'm sure many will disagree with me, I feel that the main reason Rain Maker lost her mast was because she was too light, thin and brittle to take on the open ocean. The other part of the equation is human error. I'm thankful all survived.

For that money, they could have bought themselves something like a Yapluka and still been the bell at the ball.

I guess you mean something like a Lagoon of Fp, those GB are made of CF , even the mast by a reputable mast maker , Hatteras in Winter wind against current mate, mast snaps off and they pull the trigger soon, after all is a rich guy with enough financial resources to replace RainMaker for another one ,, keep going with this deadhorse beating but the only one to blame is the owner and skipper , just saying...

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Well, Pollux, it may be unfair, but it is my view, and your view can be whatever you want it to be.

They may "have all it takes to live aboard on anchorage and to cruise extensively", but somehow Rainmaker didn't survive her first "cruise". She failed, plain and simple, to be a successful cruiser.

That to me negates your view, but that's just my view.

Jim

I'm more inclined to blame whoever made the decisions to sail through there at that time, plus the bad luck of a squall with a 70 kt gust. I don't have any experience, so I'll leave it to others to tell me if that crew had too much sail up for those conditions in that area for that time of the year. It seems to me they pushed their luck a little and it didn't hold out.

Considering how the boat is outfitted and laid out, if it had survived this trip do you feel it could be a cruiser? Or is it too exposed from the stern? I saw your wife's (and captain58sailing) posts saying she didn't like the exposed
transom and I'd have to agree even from my level of knowledge, which is zilch.

Very cool looking boat, but not my cup of tea even if I could afford it.