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, or gravel in the trunks, etc.
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
And we might even incorporate a propulsion
system into our center nacelle, particularly if we are utilizing a relatively small power plant, principally for auxiliary purposes, as opposed to a more heavy duty application such as motorsailing. 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" .
This saves the cost and weight of the second engine, transmission
, shafting, prop, etc, and opens up the rears of the hulls for a nice master bath, or whatever.
A couple of quick notes in reference to the early Prouts that were some of the earliest users of a significant central nacelle. These vessels carried a full bridgedeck all way to the bow which really made them susceptible to wave interference
. In contrast to their very small little V shape nacelle in their bow area, they would have faired much better with a nacelle bow shape as found on the TriCat ferry
And the rear shape of their nacelle was far too beamy & voluminous in shape so as to accommodate their outdrive unit. This largeness of the nacelle at the rear forced even more compression
upon the water
flowing down between the hulls, and thus peaked the water
into the bridgedeck bottom, SLAM. Their nacelles were after the right idea, they were just incorrectly designed.
Finally, it is not impossible to think of retro-fitting a wave nacelle concept
to an older boat design. Such a project
might even be accomplished in stages, a flat plate nacelle first, and then adding the fairing at some later date. And this 'staged' project
might be reasonable in cost.